I Introduction

facts and speculation

2. Hypotheses and theories of the origin of the name "Rus"

III. Conclusion

IV. Literature

I Introduction

The study of the problem of state formation among the Eastern Slavs for a long time was inseparable from the story "The Tale of Bygone Years", usually referred to as "the legend of the calling of the Varangian princes." It tells about the events of the early 60s. 9th century, when sharp disagreements arose among a number of northern Slavic tribes. It turned out to be possible to resolve this conflict only with the help of an appeal to one of the Varangian princes Rurik, a representative of a tribe known to the chronicler as "Rus", who agreed to "rule and reign" in Novgorod. Following this, two of his boyars Askold and Dir settled in Kyiv, which meant the mastery of the main East Slavic centers by the Varangians. According to the chronicle, this happened in 862. Twenty years later, the Novgorod and Kyiv lands were united by Prince Oleg.

It was this story, discovered by German scientists who worked in Russia in the first half of the 18th century. (G.-F. Miller, G.-Z. Bayer, A.-L. Schlozer) formed the basis of the theory that was called Normanism, and became the starting point of a long and bitter dispute, the echoes of which are heard to this day. Scientists were divided into two camps - Normanists and anti-Normanists on the issue of the formation of the Old Russian state. Some of them with a great deal of confidence related to the chronicler's message (N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, etc.), while others sharply refuted a number of facts cited by The Tale of Bygone Years, such as, for example, ethnicity Rurik or the origin of the name "Rus" from the name of the Scandinavian tribe "Rus". However, today these disputes have noticeably lost their relevance. Today, more and more, the center of the discussion is shifting from secondary problems, which undoubtedly are the questions of Rurik's genealogy or tribal name, to more significant issues - to the real reasons for the emergence of early state formations

II. The problem of the emergence of the state among the Eastern Slavs:

facts and speculation

1. Norman theory and anti-Normanism

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.

According to the Norman theory, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and forming the ruling class of ancient Russian society. For two centuries, Russian-Scandinavian relations of the IX-XI centuries. were the subject of heated debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists. What was the stumbling block? Undoubtedly, an article in the Tale of Bygone Years, dated 6370, which, translated into the generally accepted calendar, is the year 862: “In the summer of 6370. Expelling the Varangians across the sea, and not giving tribute to them, and more often they themselves are free, and there is no truth in them, and stand up kindred, and more often fight for themselves. And they decide in themselves: "Let's look for a prince, who would rule over us and judge by right." And go for Mork to the Varangians, to Russia; The sister of both is called Varyazi Ru, as if all of them are called Svie, the friends of Urman, Angliane, the friends of Gote, so and si. Resha Russia Chud, and Slovenia, and Krivichi all: "our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it, but go to reign and rule over us. the first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and gray-haired old Rurik in Ladoza, and the other, Sineus, on Lake Bela, and the third Izbrsta, Truvor.

This excerpt from an article in the PVL, taken for granted by a number of historians, laid the foundation for the construction of the Norman concept of the origin of the Russian state. The Norman theory is based on the notion that the Varangians, mentioned in The Tale of Bygone Years, are none other than representatives of the Scandinavian tribes, known in Europe under the name of the Normans or Vikings. Another professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, German T. 3. Bayer, who did not know the Russian language, and even more so Old Russian, in 1735, in his treatises in Latin, expressed the opinion that the Old Russian word from the annals - "Varangians" - is the name of the Scandinavians who gave the statehood of Russia.

Another key conclusion is the conclusion, based on the data of the same fragment of the chronicle, that the Slavs were unable to govern themselves. On this basis, it was concluded that the Varangians, that is, the Normans, brought statehood to the Slavic lands.

It was this conclusion that gave rise to such fierce counter-actions. Opponents of the Norman concept recognized the authenticity of the chronicle source story and did not argue about the ethnicity of the Varangians. However, referring to the chronicle story about the campaign of Askold and Dir and the capture of Kyiv by them, it was believed that before the appearance of the Norman Varangians, Kyiv had its own princely Russian dynasty.

In the 19th century, the Norman view was supported by the majority of scholars, including Russians. Perhaps most thoroughly it is expressed in the works of N.M. Karamzin. Under the Varangians N.M. Karamzin understands the Scandinavians. The arguments are the messages of the chronicle, the Scandinavian names of the Varangian princes. N.M. Karamzin identifies the Varangians with Russia and places them in the Kingdom of Sweden, "where one coastal region has long been called Rosskaya, Ros-lagen."

However, the ancient Russian state of Kievan Rus was founded, according to N.M. Karamzin, foreigners, but not by conquest, like many other contemporary states, but by peaceful means, through the calling of princes.

The fight against this "theory" was carried out by V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky and others. The Norman theory was criticized by Russian historians S.A. Geodonov, I.E. Zabelin, A.I. Kostomarov and others.

The essence of the objections is the same as in the 18th century: the fact of calling the Varangians, that is, the Normans, is recognized, while it is argued that the Slavic statehood has its origins not in the north in Novgorod with its Varangians, but in the south, in Kyiv. The Tale of Bygone Years is also used as the main source.

Perhaps the idea of the Slavic origin of the first Kyiv princes should be recognized as an innovation of the 19th century, and in addition, a new idea appears that the process of state formation is a fairly complex phenomenon, and therefore, with the leading role of the Varangians, it could not take place without a corresponding development of social relations of the Slavs themselves.

The turning point came in the 20th century thanks to the works of A.A. Shakhmatov ("Search on the most ancient Russian chronicle connections" (1908) and "The Tale of Bygone Years" (1916)), who showed that the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians is a late insert, combined by the method of artificially combining several North Russian legends subjected to deep processing chroniclers. The researcher saw the predominance of conjectures in it over the motives of local legends about Rurik in Ladoga, Truvor in Izborsk, Sineus on Beloozero and discovered the literary origin of the entry under 862, which was the fruit of the work of Kyiv chroniclers of the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries.

The attitude of A.A. Shakhmatov to the Norman problem has always been difficult. Objectively, his works on the history of chronicle writing played an important role in the criticism of Normanism and undermined one of the foundations of Norman theory. But at the same time, he, like the vast majority of Russian scientists of that time, stood on Normanist positions! He tried, within the framework of his construction, to reconcile the contradictory testimony of the Primary Chronicle and non-Russian sources about the most ancient period in the history of Russia.

In addition to the changes caused by the works of A.A. Shakhmatov in solving the Norman or Varangian issue, one more change in the source base of this issue should be noted.

IN AND. Ravdonikas, on the basis of the excavations of burial mounds in the South-Eastern Ladoga region in the late 1920s, criticized the statements of the famous Swedish scientist Arne about the existence of Norman colonies in this area and established that the burial grounds belonged to the local Baltic-Finnish tribe. A.V. Artsikhovsky criticized the assertion of the Normanists about the existence of Norman colonies in the Suzdal and Smolensk lands, showing that here, too, most of the Scandinavian things were found in funerary monuments in which the burial was made not according to the Scandinavian, but according to the local custom.

Nevertheless, by the beginning of the twenties of the 20th century, despite the change in attitude towards criticism of the main written source of both Normanists and anti-Normanists, it was still believed that "the Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state was firmly included in the inventory of scientific Russian history."

From the mid-30s of the 20th century, Soviet scientists launched an offensive against the "anti-scientific" Norman theory, declaring it politically harmful and unpatriotic. Soviet historical and historical-legal science in terms of exposing the Norman theory is represented by the works of B.D. Grekova, A.S. Likhachev, V.V. Mvrodina, A.N. Nasonova, V.T. Pashuto, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnina, I.P. Sheskolsky, S.V. Yushkov and others. They proved the bias of the Norman theory. The Normans have nothing to do with the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the development of feudal relations. The influence of the Normans on Russia is negligible, if only because the level of their social and cultural development was not higher than in Ancient Russia.

In Soviet historiography, there are three approaches to the news of the annals about the calling of the Varangians. Some researchers consider them basically historically reliable. Others completely deny the possibility of seeing in these news a reflection of real facts, believing that the chronicle story is a legend composed much later than the events described in it in the heat of ideological and political passions that agitated ancient Russian society at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. Still others, finally, catch in the "legend about Rurik" echoes of real incidents, but by no means those that were told by the chronicler. In addition, they also talk about the use of this legend in the ideological and political struggle on the verge of the 11th and 12th centuries. The last point of view seems to be more constructive than the others.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction 2

1. ORIGINS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE ETHNONYM "RUS" 3

2. RUSSIA. WHO IS WHO? 7

Conclusion 12

References 13

Introduction

Modern researchers dealing with the problems of Russia, both as an ethnos and an ethnonym, are trying to solve this problem through one of the signs: either through an ethnonym, or through political processes. However, the analysis of articles related to this topic once again confirms that the problem should be solved in a complex, in the aggregate of all the signs of an ethnonym - through an ethnonym, the problem of the formation of an ethnos - through ethnic processes, and the emergence of a state - through socio-political processes. That is why we will divide this topic into its component parts, not forgetting, at the same time, that we are dealing with the same topic. Let's start with the ethnonym and see how it appeared, how it was transformed into the category of the population, moved to the name of the state, people and the whole country.

1. SOURCES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE ETHNONYM "RUS"

Overview of events that occurred in the I - IX centuries. on the territory of Eastern Europe, allows us to draw some conclusions. It turns out that the glade had nothing to do with the creation of Russia, because by 690, when Russia already existed, which is recorded in the sources, they were not only on the Dnieper, but even within the boundaries of future Russia.

You can more or less accurately name the date of the events described in the legend of the "Slav and Rus" - this is the last quarter of the 7th century. and indicate the place where these events took place - the area between the Dnieper, Inut, Sozh and Desna rivers, where the descendants of the Aestii lived before the arrival of the Ants. Moreover, it is possible to give real names actors legends: Slav is Antes, and Rus is Krivichi. Solving the problem of the ethnogenesis of the peoples living in Eastern Europe allows us to approach the solution of the problem of the origin of the ethnonym "Rus". In order to eliminate the misunderstanding about the identification proposed here, one cannot do without criticism of the versions that interpret the origin of the ethnonym "Rus".

For example, O.M. Trubachev made an attempt to prove that the ethnonym "Rus" comes from the ancient Indian word "ruksa" - light, the synonym of which in Russian is "blond". However, if you follow this version, it turns out that the Rus received their name from one of their distinctive external features - the light color of their hair. Of course, this factor can serve as a reason for obtaining the name of one or another people, but only on condition that the distinctive external feature will contrast with that which the peoples around it have. For example, a population group that has darker skin pigmentation may be named after a given hallmark(black people). The same thing can happen because of hair color (baidi - white, di - Caucasoid people who lived in China before the 5th century BC). If we consider the issue with the Rus, it is not clear how this could happen to them: the Rus were surrounded by neighbors who had the same hair color as the Rus. Given this circumstance, Trubachev's version must be recognized as erroneous.

K. Chivilikhin suggested that the ethnonym "Rus" could come from the word "river", which in the Proto-Slavic language should have sounded like "Rus". As confirmation of his version, he cites such words as “channel” and “mermaid”, and therefore “Rus” are “river dwellers, river people” or “living on the rivers”. There is no need to dwell on this version in detail, it is enough to note that if this version were correct, the ethnonym Rus would be worn by all other Slavic tribes that lived not only in Eastern Europe, but also in Southern and Western Europe.

An attempt to give an explanation of the origin of the ethnonym "Rus" and its meaning sometimes leads to where you do not expect. For example, V. Shcherbakov expressed the idea that a leopard was called by this name. As confirmation, he mentions the lynx, which is found in our forests. Of course, the word "rose" allows us to understand the origin of the name of this beast, but no more. On this occasion, the remark of V.V. Mavrodina: “It is impossible to see the Eastern Slavs, Russians in every people of antiquity, in the name of which the root was deposited - grew up”4.

Now let's turn our eyes to more real versions.

V.A. Brahm made an attempt to link the origin of the ethnonym "Rus" with the Scandinavian term "drot" - squad, which, in his opinion, before getting into the Slavic environment, passed through the Finnish one, where it inevitably and naturally lost the first consonant and the last syllable, which is why it turned out “rotsi” (by analogy with “riksi” from “riksdaler”), and already from “rotsi” among the Slavs, on a legitimate philological basis, it turned out “Rus”5. Everything would be fine, but really, before contact with the Finns, the group that received the name "Rus" did not encounter the Germans? Faced! But in this case, what is the reason that made her additionally borrow a term from the Finnish language? The same term could have been borrowed even earlier from the language of the Germans, and besides, there was also its own? PVL. K. Radyansky writer. 1990. P.48.

But there is another version proposed by the West German philologist G. Shram: in his opinion, “the most reasonable is the connection of the Slavic “Rus” with the Finnish “ruotsi”, which, in turn, is usually erected to the ancient northern source (most often in the meaning of “rowers ”, “participants of a sea voyage on rowboats”). However, the complexity of the reconstruction lies in the fact that such Scandinavian-Finno-Slavic borrowing could occur only in a very ancient linguistic state of the Slavs, before the completion of the “second palatalization, i.e. early VI-VII centuries”.

It is impossible to ignore the opinion of A.I. Popova, who agrees with the opinion of G. Shram, makes a small addition that the Finns and Karelians used the term "ruotsi" equally to both Swedes and Russians and originated this term from "rootsmen" - "oar people" or from " Rootscarls" - "rowing warriors"7.

Statements by V.A. Bram with G. Shram and the addition of A.I. Popov are valuable in that they give exact coordinates for searching - this is the border of the Finns, or rather the area of Southern Poilmenye. Finns with the Swedes (Swedes) came into contact only in the VIII century. and, therefore, the Swedes could be called the term "ruotsi" only by the similarity of the way of navigation on ships, the same as used by the Rus. Thus, the Swedes from the list of peoples under consideration, which can be considered Russians, should be deleted.

Let's draw a line: the term "Rus" - "ruotsi" in the North-Western Territory appeared at the turn of the 6th-7th centuries. The term itself is still of non-German origin. The Finns called this term a group of the population that lived from the 6th-7th centuries. in South Poilmenie.

So what is this population group? Considering that the Slavs (Antes) came to Poilmenye only at the end of the 8th century, there is nothing left but to exclude them from the list of candidates for the role of "ruotsi", calling them such a group of Krivichi - only they in the 7th century. bordered in Poilmenye with Finnish-speaking peoples.

In this case, it remains to give an explanation about the connection between the ethnonyms "Krivichi" and "Rus".

First. The study of the toponyms of the Russian North-West showed that there is not a single case when in the toponyms of Finnish origin, at the beginning of the word, there were two consonants, in this case the letter, “k”, had to fall out.

Second. In some Finnish languages, there is no sound, as well as the letter “h”8. This means that a Finn, in order to reproduce the sound “h”, which he encountered in a foreign word, will have to replace it with some other sound that is close to it or a combination of sounds that somewhat resembles the sound “h”. Such, most likely, will be a combination of the sounds “tsh” or “ts”. If the sound “sh” is also absent in the language of the people, then only the combination “ts” will remain. Thus, in the word "Krivichi" the letter "h", when pronounced fin, will be replaced by a combination of sounds "ts".

Third. In the word under consideration, the combination of sounds "vi" is easily transformed into "uo".

In this case, the chain of changes will look like this: krivichi - kriuochi - kriuotsi - riuotsi - ruotsi. Later, from "ruotsi" it turned out "ruots - ruos - rus".

Thus, "Rus" is the ethnonym "Krivichi" distorted by the Finns, and then by the Krivichi themselves. What else speaks in favor of such a statement? First of all, to the south of Lake Ilmen, many toponyms with the root “rus” have been preserved, in the very area where in the 6th-7th centuries. passed the border between the Finnish-speaking tribes and the Krivichi, as well as the fact that in the Latvian language the Russians are still called "Krivić" - a word that has remained since the very time when the ancestors of Rus and Latvians lived interspersed in the region of the upper reaches of the rivers of the Western Dvina, Dnieper and Desna.

2. RUSSIA. WHO IS WHO?

After it was established that from the 7th century. the name "Rus" was firmly entrenched in the Krivichi, who lived in the South Poilmeni on the border with Finnish-speaking tribes, one could put an end to it. However, the entry contained in the annals: “Rkosha Rus Chyud, Slovene, Krivichi and All”9 does not allow doing this, because it is this statement that makes one doubt that “Rus” is one of the names of the Krivichi. If Russia is the Krivichi, then why are they mentioned twice in the embassy? How to explain the absence of such a tribe as Merya in the embassy? His absence from the embassy suggests that "Rus" is most likely Merya, and by no means Krivichi. However, a more thorough analysis of the assumption under consideration shows that the reason for the appearance of such an opinion is the absence of a comma after the word "Rus". If it were, there would have been simply a list of tribes that went to “call” the prince. Its absence forces us to admit that we are dealing not just with a list of tribes - envoys, but with some generalization in which the collective word is the word "Rus". In this case, the translation of this sentence into modern Russian will look like this: "Rus said people, Slovenes, Krivichi and Vesi." That is, in this case we are not talking about a people or a tribe, but only about some part of it. This is understandable: the entire population of the tribes could not take part in the election of the prince. In addition, this circumstance allows us to conclude that “Rus” was not only among the Krivichi, but also among the Slovenes, Chyudi and Vesi, but which the Merya did not have. Moreover, all this leads to the conclusion that the meaning of the word "Rus" of the 7th century and "Rus" of the middle of the 9th century. were completely different. In the seventh century, it was only the name of the people, and in the IX century, it was already something else. PVL. K. Radyansky writer. 1990. P.46.

The question of how it happened that the name of the people passed to a separate part of the population, we will touch on later, but for now let's see: who was "Rus" in the middle of the 9th century?

Let's remember why the ambassadors went "overseas"? As the chronicle says, look for the prince. But here's what's interesting: was every mortal fit for this role? No, not everyone! What qualities should the person who was to be elected to the princes have to possess? In our opinion, at least the following: to be knowledgeable in military affairs: to have experience in managing people, to have organizational skills: to be quite famous. In order to have support in the country and in society - the consent to be elected to the princes of the majority of the "voters".

It is also not clear why one part of the army, even if it had better weapons compared to the rest of the warriors, but was not an elite, could participate in the election of the prince, while the other could not?

Now let’s look at the annals: “And Oleg’s speech: “sew over the dragging of Russia, and Oloven’s crops,” and be like this: and hang your shields in the gates, showing victory, and go from Constantinople. And aspyasha Russia is overwhelmed, and Slovenia is cropped and torn by the wind: and rkosha Slovenia: “We have our fatties, the essence of Slovenia is not given to the pre-cropian.” - “And Oleg said: “sew dragged sails, Russ, and silk for Slovenes,” and it was like this: they hung their shields on the gates, showing victory, and rode from Constantinople. And Rus lifted the sails dragged, and the Slovenes silk, and the wind tore them apart: and they said to the Slovenes: "We will manage with our linen - silk sails are not put to the Slovenes." As you can see, a clear distinction is made here, which can only be explained by the different social position of Russia on the hierarchical ladder in relation to the rest of the military people, on which Russia stood higher. It turns out that Russia was something like an elite?

So maybe we are talking about the princely squad? Let us turn again to the sources and substitute the word “warriors” instead of the word “Rus”. So, "Russian princes went to the polyudye with their retinue" - everything seems to be in order. However, if such a replacement is made in the text, which deals with the election of the prince, then the conclusions will change: “The warriors said chudi, slovenes, krivichi and vesi” ... Surely there were no warriors from the environment of the same measure? Russian truth. see Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M. Uchpedgiz. 1949. P.116.

Let's take for verification one more place from the text of the chronicle: “And Rus lit up, and armed itself against the Greeks, and fought between them, having been evil, having overcome Greece together. Russia, however, returned to its retinue to the face of the veche.

1. Rusyn, either Grid, or a merchant.

2. Boyars, Grid, ..

As you can see, we have a hierarchical ladder. Let's depict it in a more complete form.

1. Prince, Rusyn (Rus), squad (grid), merchants, commoners.

2. Prince, boyars (boyars), squad, merchants, commoners.

In the constructed hierarchical ladder, Russia stands on the same rung with the boyars. It turns out that "boyars" and "Rus" are one and the same category of the population? The terms are equivalent. Let's make a check by replacing the word "Rus" with the word "boyars", examining the text of the primary sources.

First: "The boyars said chudi, sloven, krivech and vesi."

Second: "Russian princes went to the polyudye with all the boyars."

Third: “And Oleg said: “sew brocade sails to the boyars, and silk to the people.”

Fourth: "The boyars returned to their squad in the evening."

In principle, there are no particular reasons for rejecting such a replacement. At one time, B.D. Grekov expressed the idea that “Rusin - fireman - prince husband” are the names of the same category of the population, while the terminology “varies depending on the place, maybe from time ”, i.e. somewhere the term "prince husband" was common, somewhere - "fireman", somewhere - "zhupan", but in the north the word "Rus" took root. That is, before the unification of the territory, which later became known as Russia, there was no single terminology to refer to this category of the population. Each ethnic group had its own name for it.

The question could be put to an end if it were not for the circumstance that makes it possible to understand where the term "boyar" came from and what is the reason that forced the replacement of the term "Rus" with a new one? Let's try to get an answer based on the course of events.

Until 825, a group of Krivichi, who lived south of Lake Ilmen, was called Rus. From 825 to 837 (838), when the region was united, this name was transferred from the name of the people to the army, when the entire male population stood in it. Warriors began to be called Rus. Since 837, after the completion of the unification of the North-Western Territory, when the military potential of the country increased and men from the conquered tribes had to be accepted into the army (it’s better to have them in your army than in someone else’s), the need for a sufficient number of commanders who would control the rank and file: someone had to put them in battle formation, and in battle change the direction of the formation and speed of movement. But if there is a need for commanders, then they need to be taken somewhere. Whom to put at the head of tens, hundreds, thousands? Maybe appoint one of the newly arrived as such? If you want to have a reliable army and be sure that orders will be carried out as required, then the commanders should be appointed loyal and reliable people who know military affairs thoroughly, and besides, from their own. So Russia was at the head of tens, hundreds, thousands, turning into the command staff of the army (although by 861 some of its commanders could already be from among the conquered tribes). It was they - the commanders - who chose a new leader for themselves - Prince Rurik. Apparently, therefore, in the composition of the envoy tribes, the measure was not named - there were no commanders from this tribe. Yes, and no wonder - it was with the commanders that one should have talked about ending the civil strife.

But time passed, and Russia concentrated more and more new lands in its hands. There is a need to put someone already over more significant military contingents: over thousands. So Russia turns into the highest command staff. It was about her that it was discussed when Oleg demanded to sew brocade sails for Russia. It was about them that they were also discussed when it was said about returning to their squads - in fact, the thousands returned to their squads.

But it's no secret that not all the time had to fight. Peaceful life flowed according to its own laws. It was necessary to manage the annexed lands. A need began to appear for people who could be entrusted with the management of individual volosts, collect tribute for the prince, monitor the observance of order and stop attempts to manifest separatism. Russia had to immerse itself more and more in things that were not originally characteristic of it. With the change in the functions performed by Rus, there is also a need for a new term, which was borrowed from the language of the Turkic-speaking peoples. The term "Rus" in its meaning back in 950 was closer to the word commander. In the future, the word “bolyarin” - boyar, which gradually replaces the old one, enters circulation. But this did not happen because one term is good and the other is bad - it's just that the new term more accurately began to reflect the changes that have taken place.

Conclusion

Having dealt with who Russia is, nevertheless, one more question remained unanswered: how did it happen that this word became the name of the people and the country? There are many similar examples in history, from Rome to the empire of Genghis Khan. There is only one reason - the need to oppose oneself to everyone who was not part of the state that formed.

Now let's look at the meanings of such terms as: Russia, Rusyn, Rusich, Russian. Are they identical to each other? You can immediately answer: no! The difference between them is much greater than is commonly believed.

Who is Russia is already known - this is the highest command staff of the army. Who is a Rusyn? This is one of the representatives of the highest command of the army. Who is this Russian? It is generally accepted that this is every inhabitant of Russia. But is it? It turns out not. To understand why, you have to remember what the ending of the word “-ich” says. And it indicates from what area a person comes from, about his belonging to a particular genus, about his roots. For example: Moscow - Muscovite, Pskov - Pskov, Tver - Tverich, Rusa - Rusich; Ivan - Ivanovich, Ilya - Ilyich. It turns out that a Rusich is a person from Rusa or from under Rusa, from Russia or a descendant of Russia. rus toponym linguistic

What is the origin of the ethnonym "Russian". Historians suggest that the ethnonym comes from the word "blond, light", i.e. they try to find the answer through an adjective, completely forgetting that there is another question that gives the same ending in a word - whose? For example: a prince is a prince, a boyar is a boyar, a nobleman is a noble, Russia is Russian. So, it turns out that we are not some, but someone! Yes, in general, the same thing is written in the annals: "We are from the Ruska family." That is, we are, after all, someone's, and not some!

List of used literature

1. PVL. K. Radyansky writer. 1990. P.46.

2. Russian truth. see Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M. Uchpedgiz. 1949. P.116.

3. PVL. K. Radyansky writer. 1990. P.48.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

The most famous theories of the origin of the ancient Russian state

Norman theory

Scientists Bayer and Miller argued that the Old Russian state was founded by immigrants from Scandinavia, that is, the Normans, in Russia they were also called the Varangians. This theory originated in The Tale of Bygone Years. The main arguments of the Normanists were that all the first rulers of Russia were called Scandinavian names (Oleg, Rurik, Olga, Igor).

Anti-Norman theory

The anti-Norman theory claims that the state of Ancient Russia arose from completely different objective reasons. Most historical sources say that the government of the Eastern Slavs was the first than that of the Varangians. The famous scientist M. Lomonosov is the founder of this theory. The theory says that the period historical development the Slavs were higher than the Normans in terms of level political development. The Varangian principalities, in his opinion, became the second local political form.

Compromise theory

The theory is also called Slavic-Varangian. The first who tried to connect these 2 theories was the Russian historian V. Klyuchevsky. He believed that the "urban region" was the earliest local political form that formed in Russia. A city area is a trading district ruled by a fortified city. After maintaining the independence of the city regions, as well as the unification of the Varangian principalities, another political form was able to emerge, it was called the Principality of Kiev.

Iranian-Slavic theory

According to this theory, there was 2 types of Rus- Rugs (inhabitants of Rügen) and Black Sea Ruses. The Ilmenian Slovenes invited the Russians-encouragers (Rugs). Therefore, the rapprochement of the Russ occurred due to the unification of the East Slavic tribes into one state.

Indo-Iranian theory

The theory says that the ethnonym "ros" has a different origin than "rus", it is more ancient. Some supporters of this opinion note that the people "grew up" were mentioned as early as the sixth century in "Church History".

FIRST NEWS ABOUT RUSSIA

Task 1. Based on the text of the paragraph, make a detailed plan on the topic "Hypotheses of scientists: the origin of the Rus people."

The appearance of the Varangians of the Rus people in Novgorod, power in Novgorod
Death of Rurik. Capture of Kyiv by Oleg. Reign of Igor Rurikovich. Foundation of the dynasty of princes Rurikovich.
Borrowing the word "Rus". At first, the people of the newcomers “from across the sea” were called Rus, then the ruling and trading class, as well as the squad, and finally the state began to be called the word Rus.
The entry of all Slavic tribes into Russia. The systematic work of the first princes to unite the territories of the Slavic tribes under the rule of one prince.

Task 2. Using the textbook and additional sources, find the main versions of the origin of the Varangians. Fill the table.

Normanists	Anti-Normanists	My point of view
Varangians are Scandinavians (Svei). The ancient Russian state was created by the Varangians with the voluntary consent of the Slavs. Varangians - representatives of more developed world. They were more educated and more organized than the Slavs.	The Varangians are a West Slavic tribe from the shores of the Baltic Sea. The Slavic affiliation of the people of Rus (Russians) was proved through their identity to the Prussians. The Old Russian state was formed on an internal socio-economic basis. The Varangians only joined the local process of state formation. The Varangians were at the same stage of social and cultural development as the Eastern Slavs, so they could not bring to Russia either a higher culture or statehood.	I believe that there are no sufficient grounds to unambiguously consider the Rus as Scandinavians, Germans or Slavs. Most likely, this tribe was formed as a result of numerous mixtures, incorporating Scandinavian, Slavic, and Germanic roots. The reason is that in the "Tale of Bygone Years" the people of Russia stand out as independent in the offspring of Japheth. It also says that Russia spoke the same language with the Slavs.

Task 3. Using a textbook and the Internet, find out whether it is possible to resolve the dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists using modern archaeological data. Justify your answer.

I believe that archaeological finds do not give sufficient grounds to assert about the homeland of "newcomers from across the sea." Archaeologists have discovered traces of settlements in the Ladoga region of the Scandinavian type. However, the found jewelry, pottery, five-walled houses and weapons were common not only in Scandinavia, but also among the Slavs on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, which means that the settlements found near Ladoga are not necessarily Scandinavian. They may also be South Baltic. In addition, no evidence of Scandinavian trade beyond the northern territories of Russia was found, which means that it was not the Scandinavians who sailed along the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”.

Task 4. Mark Scandinavia, Rügen Island, Ladoga, Novgorod on the contour map. Write the names of the largest rivers.

The emergence of property inequality, the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of tribal and tribal leaders, the formation of military squads devoted to the leader, the transition from a consanguineous community to a territorial one - all this created the prerequisites for the emergence of state power.

Norman theory- a complex of scientific ideas, according to which, the first foundations of statehood in Russia were laid by the Scandinavians (i.e. "Varangians"), who were called to rule Russia. The Norman theory was put forward in the first half of the 18th century by German historians - Bayer and Miller. Both settled in Russia during the reign of Anna Ioannovna, worked for many years at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. 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, written by the monk Nestor. The Tale of Bygone Years, created in the tenth, early eleventh century, says that the name of our state comes from the name of the Varangian tribe - "Rus", which was called by the Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes (Slovene, Krivichi, Chud and all) to resolve the intertribal conflict in 862: “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. There is no mention of Russia as a state before. Consequently, according to the Norman theory. Until 862, the Slavic tribes that inhabited the territory of the future Russian state lived separately under their own names.

Varyag Rurik, according to the Ipatiev Chronicle, sat down to reign in Ladoga. After the death of the brothers Sineus and Truvor (whose existence is questioned), the prince founded the city of Novgorod, where he himself moved, uniting all the power and lands of Russia in his hands. The chroniclers of ancient Russia, one of whom the monk Nestor, who wrote already in the twelfth century, mentioned: "from that time the Varangians were nicknamed the Russian land." Thus, according to this theory, the first princely family of Russia is of Scandinavian origin.

Archaeological sources most accurately support the theory. The Rus graves found near Ladoga correspond to the method of burial in Sweden and the Aland Islands. In 2008, archaeologists discovered objects from the era of the first Rurikids with the image of a falcon on the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, which presumably 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 the Valkyrie, etc.), which indicates the presence immigrants from Scandinavia Novgorod lands at the time of the birth of Russian statehood.

Anti-Norman theory is based on the concept of the impossibility of introducing statehood from outside, on the idea of the emergence of the state as a stage in the internal development of society. Mikhail Lomonosov was considered the founder of this theory in Russian historiography. Well-known Ukrainian historians of the "old school" - N. Kostomarov, V. Antonovich, M. Grushevsky, D. Bagaliy - adhered to the Slavic theory of the origin of Russia and firmly stood on the positions of anti-Normanism. The hypothesis was formulated by V. N. Tatishchev and M. V. Lomonosov. It comes, firstly, from another fragment of The Tale of Bygone Years:

In Soviet historiography, the Middle Dnieper region was considered the homeland of the Rus, they were identified with glades. This assessment had an official status. From modern concepts, the theory of V.V. Sedov about the “Russian Khaganate” is known, which, on the basis of archaeological material, places Russia in the interfluve of the Dnieper and Don (Volyntsevo archaeological culture) and defines it as a Slavic tribe.

In addition, there are different points of view on the origin of the Varangians themselves. Scientists, starting with Lomonosov, offer their origin from the West Slavic lands. There are also intermediate versions of localization - in Finland, Prussia, another part of the Baltic

M. V. Lomonosov identified Russia ( Rossy) with the Prussians, classifying the latter as Slavs. In this, Mikhail Vasilyevich relied primarily on his personal opinion about the similarity " their (Prussian) language with Slavonic”, and also referred to Pretoria and Helmold, who revered“ Prussian and Lithuanian for a branch of Slavonic»[.

Using the "District message of Patriarch Photius", he refuted the Norman theory. In this work, "vagrs" are mentioned. Lomonosov equates them with the Vikings. In the religious beliefs of the Roxolans there is the worship of Perun. Hence, their identification with the Slavic population. In addition, many peoples living along the Baltic coast were called "Varangians". Conclusion: there were Varangians-Rus and Varangians-Scandinavians. The Russian language lacks elements of the Scandinavian languages. Therefore, there is no reason to say that the Varangians mentioned in The Tale of Bygone Years are Scandinavians. The place of the beginning of the ethnic history of Russians, in his opinion, is the interfluve of the Vistula and the Oder.

The most prominent anti-Normanist of the 19th century was D. I. Ilovaisky. D. I. Ilovaisky was a supporter of the southern origin of Russia. He defended the original Slavdom of the Bulgarians, the great role of the Slavs in the Great Migration of Peoples and the important role of the Slavs in the union of the Huns.

In the vastness of Europe in the second half of the first and the beginning of the second millennium, numerous sources localize, in addition to Kievan Rus, Carpathian, Azov (Tmutarakan), Caspian, Danube (Rugiland-Rus), in general, more than a dozen different Rus. But especially a lot of them appears on the southern and eastern shores of the Baltic Sea. And it is with the Baltic Russ, within which the Slavs and the peoples assimilated by them, that the very fact of the calling of Varangian Rus is connected.

centrist theory

Modern historians (Yurganov, Katsva) are trying to overcome extremes

both of these theories. The Old Russian state arose as a result of the internal development of society, social and economic changes; the need to regulate relations between people living in the same territory, as well as to protect their land from external enemies, led to the formation of the Old Russian state. They came to the following conclusions:

The Normans themselves did not have statehood at that time - the process of state formation began before the arrival of Rurik; the very fact of his invitation to reign suggests that this form of power was already known to the Slavs;

The question of whether Rurik is a real historical figure is not connected with the problem of state formation; no matter how he came to power (there is a version that he captured Novgorod by force), he took possession of it in the form in which it existed among the Ilmen Slovenes;

Oleg, having united the Novgorod and Kyiv lands and established control over the two most important sections of the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", brought the economic base under the emerging state.

Iranian-Slavic theory

According to this theory, there are two types of Rus - Russ-encouragement or Rugs, residents of Rügen (Baltic Slavs), and Black Sea Rus, descendants of Slavic and Iranian tribes. The Ilmenian Slovenes invited the Russians-encouraging. With the unification of the East Slavic tribes into a single state - Russia, there is a convergence of two types of Rus.

Also, the form “ros” has an identity with Iranian languages(from the word rohs). From the time of the Scythian domination in the Northern Black Sea region, the Iranian-speaking peoples had influence on the Netran tribes. Among these non-Iranian tribes were also Slavic tribes (Antes) that lived between the Dnieper and Dontsov regions in the early Middle Ages, and who had relations with the Iranian tribes.

Celtic-Slavic theory

According to Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine V.G. Sklyarenko, the Novgorodians turned for help to the Varangians-Slavs (Baltic Slavs), who were called Rutens, or Russ.

The name Rutens (Rus) comes from one of the Celtic tribes, since the Ruthenian Celts took part in the ethnic formation of the Slavs of Rügen Island. In addition to them, there were still the Azov-Black Sea Ruses - the descendants of the Antes and the Ruthenian Celts, known even before the Novgorodians invited the Varangians-Slavs.

Both the Azov-Black Sea Rus and the Varangian-Rus are of Slavic-Celtic origin, only the former are of East Slavic-Celtic, and the latter are of West Slavic-Celtic origin. And the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks were descendants of the Azov-Black Sea Rus.

Indo-Iranian theory

The Indo-Iranian hypothesis insists that the ethnonym "Ros" has a different origin than "Rus", being much more ancient. Proponents of this opinion, also originating from M.V. Lomonosov, note that the people “grew up” were first mentioned back in the 6th century in “Church History” by Zakhary Rhetor, where they are placed next to the peoples of “dog people” and Amazons, which many authors interpret as the Northern Black Sea region. From this point of view, he is erected to the Iranian-speaking (Sarmatian) tribes of the Roxalans, or Rosomones, mentioned by ancient authors.

A variant of this theory was developed by G.V. Vernadsky, who placed the original territory of the Rus in the Kuban Delta and believed that they learned their name from the Roxalans (“bright Alans”), who, in his opinion, were part of the Antes. At the same time, he considered the Rus to be ethnic Scandinavians.

In the 60s. In the 20th century, the Ukrainian archaeologist D.T. Berezovets proposed to identify the Alanian population of the Don region, known from the monuments of the Saltov-Mayak culture, with the Rus.

Origin of Russia. Multiple versions

However, the ancient Russian state of Kievan Rus was founded, according to N.M. Karamzin, foreigners, but not by conquest, like many other contemporary states, but by peaceful means, through the calling of princes.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

The origin of the ancient Russian state briefly

The most famous theories of the origin of the ancient Russian state

Norman theory

Anti-Norman theory

Compromise theory

Iranian-Slavic theory

Indo-Iranian theory

centrist theory

Iranian-Slavic theory

Celtic-Slavic theory

Indo-Iranian theory