Supporters of which considered the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the state in Ancient Russia. The Norman theory was formulated by German scientists who worked at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the second quarter of the 18th century - G.3. Bayer, G.F. Miller. A supporter of the Norman theory later became A.L. Schlozer. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of the Old Russian state was the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the calling to Russia of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor in 862.
The negative side of the Norman theory lies in the representation of Ancient Russia as a backward country, incapable of independent state creativity, while the Normans act as a force that from the very beginning of Russian history influenced the development of Russia, its economy and culture. In the middle of the 18th century, M.V. Lomonosov, who pointed out its scientific inconsistency and political sense hostile to Russia. In the noble-monarchist historiography of the 18th-19th centuries, the Norman theory acquired the character of the official version of the origin of the Russian state (N.M. Karamzin). CM. Solovyov, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Russia, refused to see this as evidence of the underdevelopment of the Eastern Slavs and to transfer to the 9th century the concepts of national dignity characteristic of the new time. The struggle between "Normanists" and "anti-Normanists" and between Slavophiles and Westernizers became especially aggravated in the 1860s in connection with the celebration of the millennium of Russia in 1862, when a controversy unfolded around many issues of Russian history, which had a pronounced political character. Opponents of the Norman theory, historians D.I. Ilovaisky, S.A. Gedeonov, V.G. Vasilevsky, who criticized its individual specific provisions.
Norman theory in the 20th century
In Soviet historiography in the 1930s and 1940s, the influence of the Norman theory was overcome. The decisive role in this was played by the work of historians and archaeologists B.D. Grekova, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, S.M. Yushkova, V.V. Mavrodin, who established that in the 9th century the East Slavic society reached the degree of decomposition of the communal system, when the internal prerequisites for the emergence of the state were ripe. The presence of Old Russian princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor) and Norman-Varangians in the princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Ancient Russia was formed on an internal socio-economic basis. The Normans-Varangians, who were in Russia, merged with the indigenous population, became glorified. Soviet historiography claimed that the Normans left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Ancient Russia.
In Western historiography of the 20th century, the Norman theory was part of the concept of Russian history, which was followed by some researchers. Supporters of the Norman theory sought to defend their positions on certain issues: the composition of the ruling class in Ancient Russia, the origin of large land ownership in Russia, the trade and trade routes of Ancient Russia, the archaeological monuments of ancient Russian culture, in each of which the Normanists consider the Norman element decisive, defining . Supporters of the Norman theory argued that the Norman colonization of Russia took place, that the Scandinavian colonies served as the basis for establishing a political system, that Ancient Russia was politically dependent on Sweden.
HISTORY
V.V. FOMIN (Lipetsk)
NORMAN THEORY AND ITS SCIENTIFIC FAILURE
It is shown that the Norman theory, which reigns supreme in domestic and foreign historiography, in university and school textbooks, does not find confirmation in historical, archaeological, linguistic and anthropological material and that the homeland of the Varangians and Varangian Russia, who arrived to the Eastern Slavs in 862 and that played an important role in their history is the South Baltic Pomorie, where the sources localize several Russ, in which Slavic and Slavic-speaking peoples lived.
Key words: Norman theory, Normanists, anti-Normanists, South Baltic Russia.
In 1914, the Swedish archaeologist T.Yu. Arne in the monograph "La Suède et l'Orient" ("Sweden and the East"), quite arbitrarily interpreting the archaeological material, put forward the theory of the Norman colonization of Russia, arguing that in the 10th century. everywhere in it (in the later provinces of St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Smolensk, Chernigov, Kyiv) "Swedish colonies flourished." The researcher repeated the same thoughts in 1917 in the collection of his articles “Det stora Svitjod” (“Great Sweden”), naming the largest state of the early Middle Ages - Ancient Russia (then he convinced for several decades that in Gnezdovo near Smolensk, Kyiv and Chernihiv were "Scandinavian colonies"). Arne's theory was extremely actualized by the First World War, and then by the existence of Soviet Russia (USSR), in connection with which it was perceived as a new word in science. As N.N., who was in exile, rightly stated in 1955, Ilyin, she found "great success in Western Europe for reasons
having little to do with the search for truth." The validity of this conclusion was confirmed in 1962 by the English scientist, the largest Scandinavian P. Sawyer, noting that "there is no archaeological evidence that can justify the assumption of the presence there (in Russia. - V.F.) of vast colonies with a dense population" . But they will say so many years after, thanks to Arne, another false direction in the study of Russian antiquities was very firmly entrenched in science, which gave rise to a large number of imaginary evidence of the Normanism of Russia, and those, in turn, “bearing and multiplying”, gave rise to others, etc.
And in the West, of course, there were many active popularizers and at the same time "co-authors" of Arne's theory. He developed it on a special scale in the 1920s - 1960s. Danish Slavist A. Stender-Petersen, whose works, published in different languages, had a huge impact on all experts in the world in the study of Ancient Russia. In his opinion, the tillers from central Sweden, peacefully and gradually penetrating to the east, wedged “into the border areas between the unorganized Finnish tribes and the Slavs advancing from the south”, as a result of which the Swedish tribe Rus settled in the Beloozero-Ladoga-Izborsk triangle. Over time, this Swedish Rus, having entered into a peaceful symbiosis with the Finnish and Slavic tribes and drawn into the Baltic-Volga-Caspian trade, created around the 8th century. around Ladoga, and then under Ilmen, the first Russian state was the Ladoga Swedish principality (Ladoga Khaganate), which no later than the 9th century. turned into a Norman Khaganate.
Later, the Russian-Svei squads "led by local kings" moved to conquer the Dnieper route and captured Kyiv, freeing the local Slavs from the Khazar dependence. Thus, they completed the creation of the "Norman Russian state", in which the entire high-
© Fomin V.V., 2009
The third layer - princes, warriors, the administrative apparatus, as well as merchants - were exclusively Scandinavians. But in a short time they dissolved into the Slavs, which led to the formation of national unity and the creation within the 11th century. "a special mixed Varangian-Russian language". In the Dvina region, Stender-Petersen further narrated, there was another "Scandinavian-Slavic" state with its center in Polotsk, which in 980 was defeated by the "Scandinavian Khagan" Vladimir. The incredible mass presence of the Swedes in Eastern Europe additionally followed from such words of the scientist that the Swedes went to Russia "from time immemorial...", that the "influx" of Scandinavian merchants in the 9th - 11th centuries. to Novgorod “was, apparently, huge”, that in 980 Vladimir Svyatoslavich allegedly departed from Niepia to Novgorod with a hired “huge army”, etc. .
In the 1950s - 1960s. Swedish archaeologist X. Arbman, also replicating and consolidating the theory of the Norman colonization of Russia in Western historiography, argued that the main area of expansion of the military-trading and peasant population of Scandinavia “originally was Ladoga, from where part of the Normans penetrated into the Upper Volga region, and the other part, moving along the Dnieper path, she founded Norman colonies in Smolensk-Gnezdovo, Kyiv and Chernigov. The Scandinavians, settling in Eastern Europe, established dominance over its Slavic population and created Kievan Rus. In general, as noted by I.P. Shaskolsky, in the works of Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian and other Western European scientists of the middle of the 20th century. there was a desire “to show that the main content of the history of Sweden in the 9th - 11th centuries. there were not events in the internal life of the country, but campaigns in Eastern Europe and the founding of the Old Russian state by the Swedes. The theory of Arne - Stender-Petersen - Arbman was present in a veiled form in Soviet science, which in words fought against Normanism, but in reality professed its main thesis about the Scandinavian nature of the Varangians. And its active guides were archaeologists. So, in 1970 L.S. Klein, G.S. Lebedev, V.A. Nazarenko was brought to the attention of historians who studied Russia and, naturally, began to take their figures into account and substantiate
make up their constructions for them, that the Normans - combatants, merchants, artisans - in the 10th century. accounted for "at least 13% of the population" along the Volga and Dnieper trade routes. In Kyiv, this figure increased to 18-20%, and in the Yaroslavl Volga region, the number of Scandinavians, in their opinion, already "was equal, if not exceeded, to the number of Slavs."
Such arguments of the Soviet "anti-Normanists", who after 1991 began to call themselves "objective", "scientific" and "moderate" Normanists, continued, as before, to feed Swedish archaeologists, who are still the main experts in the eyes of their Russian colleagues. assessment of Russian antiquities. In 1985, the Swedish archaeologist I. Jansson suggested, apparently trying to give at least some features of materiality to the talk about the large-scale presence of the Scandinavians in Russia, that in the Viking Age their number could be equal to more than 10% of the population of Sweden (such specification, given that the fact that from 500 to 800 thousand people lived in the latter around 1000 means that over three centuries a total of hundreds of thousands of Scandinavians visited the lands of the Eastern Slavs, who, naturally, should have left mass traces of their stay in Russia) . The size of the "Swedish immigration", according to him, was so great, and there were so many buried women (Scandinavians - V.F.) that only warriors, merchants, etc. could not be immigrants. Ordinary people should have been among them. In 1998, he added that his distant ancestors went to Russia for military service, crafts and even agriculture, moving to the east of Europe in whole groups, and they arrived in large groups on campaigns and military service, which implies their permanent residence , often by families, in cities and sometimes rural areas.
Our archaeologists, not wanting to lag behind either Arne or Jansson, literally echo what they said. So, in 1996-1998. V.V. Murashova, speaking about the "huge amount" of Scandinavian objects "in many geographical places" of Eastern Europe, not only promoted the idea of a large immigration wave from Sweden to Russia, but also argued that there were grounds to talk about the element
cops of colonization by the Normans of the southeastern Ladoga region. In 1999 E.N. Nosov had no doubt that in a number of places the Scandinavians lived "permanently, with families and constituted a rather significant and influential group of society." The mood of archaeologists, who seek to see material evidence of the stay of the Scandinavians "in many geographical points" of Russia, is transmitted, by virtue of their Normanist convictions, to historians. For example, in 1995 - 2000. R.G. Skrynnikov explained, including to applicants for humanitarian universities and high school students, that in the second half of the 9th - early 10th centuries. in Russia, which the scientist calls “East European Normandy”, “dozens of kings established themselves”, founded the short-lived Norman Khaganates, that there were “many Norman detachments”, that in the 10th century. “The Kyiv princes had to act in the conditions of continuously renewed invasions from Scandinavia”, that the defeat of Khazars was carried out “only by very large forces” recruited in Scandinavia, that in the Balkan campaign of Svyatoslav “the Scandinavian army was at least 1.5 - 2 times outnumbered ten thousandth Kyiv squad”, that his son Vladimir, being a prince of Novgorod, “subjugated the Norman Principality of Polotsk on the Western Dvina ...”, etc., etc. .
What the cited opinions of Swedish, Danish and Russian researchers actually represent, which are conveyed to the reader in large numbers, is, firstly, well shown by anthropological material. In 1973 - 1974 the famous anthropologist T. I. Alekseeva, having analyzed the chamber burials in Kyiv, which belonged to representatives of the highest military brigade nobility and on the basis of which Klein, Lebedev and Nazarenko introduced into scientific circulation the pseudo-fact that the Normans in the 10th century. made up a fifth (!) of the inhabitants of the very numerous capital of Russia, compared them with the Germans and stated that “this comparison gave amazing results - none of the Slavic groups differs to the same extent from the German ones as the urban population of Kyiv”, and “an estimate of the total craniological series from Kyiv ... showed a striking difference between the ancient Kyivans and the Germans ". How true for
methyl A.G. Kuzmin regarding such a conclusion of a specialist who is convinced of the Normanism of the chronicle Varangians, the “strikingness” of these results, noted by the author, stems from the expectation to find a significant German element in the social elite of Kyiv society, but it does not appear at all.
Secondly, the actual archaeological material does not at all agree with these statements. So, in Kyiv (which, according to foreign scientists, was founded by the Normans and was a “Viking enclave”, and according to our estimates, every fifth of its inhabitants was a Scandinavian), “with the most careful calculation,” emphasized in 1990 archaeologist P. P. To-lochko, the number of Scandinavian things, and they are not ethno-determining, does not exceed two dozen. And in the deposits of Novgorod, which we and abroad pass off as the “main base” of the Normans in Eastern Europe, even fewer items were found, somewhere around a dozen. And this is when its cultural layers are characterized by an exceptional saturation with ancient objects, and the collection of objects collected at the excavations of Novgorod in 1932-2002 totals more than 150 thousand items (this number does not include mass ceramic material) .
In general, all the Normanist "visions" of ancient Russian history are crossed out by the fact that the Swedes (Normans in general) began to come to the lands of the Eastern Slavs only at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, and therefore they had nothing to do with the Vikings of Rurik, Oleg, Igor, Olga and Svyatoslav. This time is very accurately indicated - through their sagas, which have absorbed their historical memory - the Scandinavians themselves. In the 19th century anti-Normanists N.I. Kostomarov, S.A. Gedeonov and D. I. Ilovaisky pointed out that none of the Russian princes before Vladimir Svyatoslavich is mentioned in the sagas (they know about his grandmother Olga-Allogia only from the recollections of the Russians themselves). Moreover, in none of them, Gedeonov noted, “not only is there no hint of the same tribe of the Swedes with the so-called Varangian Rus, but the Russian princes themselves appear only as strangers, unknown dynasts.” In the sagas, at the same time, the Khazars and
Cumans. Consequently, the Scandinavians began to visit Russia after the Khazars, defeated in the 60s, disappeared from our history. 10th century Svyatoslav, and visited it somewhere around the 980s, i.e. from the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, and until the first arrival of the Polovtsy in Russia, recorded by the chronicler under 1061. This framework is further narrowed by the fact that the sagas after Vladimir is called only Yaroslav the Wise (d. 1054) and none of his successors are known.
The fact that Vladimir is mentioned in the sagas and there is no information about his predecessors shows that the years of his reign are the time when the Normans, by and large, discovered Russia for themselves and began to systematically arrive on its territory. The first Viking who visited Russia, the sagas consider Olaf Tryg-gvason, the future Norwegian king (995 - 1000). Moreover, as A.G. Kuzmin, in the era of Vladimir, the heroes of the sagas “act in the Baltic states, on the coast, primarily in Estonia,” and their actions “do not extend beyond Estonia.” Only under Yaroslav, in connection with his marriage to the daughter of the Swedish king Ingigerda, did the Swedes join the Varangian "team, as a result of which both its composition and the content of the ethnonym are gradually blurred." From that moment, the historian concluded, the Normans also penetrated into Byzantium, where, approximately in 1030, they joined the squad of the Varangians (Varangians). It is important to note that the number of Normans who visited the Russian lands under Vladimir and Yaroslav did not differ in mass, there is no question of permanent residence within them, which is confirmed by the most vague ideas of the Scandinavians about Russia, compared, for example, with the Germans. So, according to the sagas, Novgorod is its capital, while in the "Chronicle" of Titmar of Merseburg (d. 1018), Kyiv appears as it. And Adam Bremensky noted in the 70s - 80s. XI century, that the capital of Russia is "Kyiv, which competes with the reigning city of Constantinople".
Due to the absence of any connection between the Scandinavians and Rus and the Varangians, our chroniclers clearly distinguish them everywhere. So, in the undated part of The Tale of Bygone Years (PVL), a list of the “Afet’s tribe” is given: “Varazians, Svei, Urmans, Goths, Rus, Agnians, Galicians, Magi, Romans
Liane, Germans, Korlyazi, Venditsy, Fryagov and others ... ". Russia with the Varangians of this list is also separated from the Swedes and Scandinavians in general, as, for example, the Germans, Romans, Venetians, etc. are separated from the latter. (ambassadors go “to the Varangian, to Russia; the sister of both is called the Varangian Rus, as if all friends are called Svie, the friends are Urmane, Anglyane, Friends of the Gute, Taco and Si”), but, as M.V. Lomonosov, it is singled out from among other Varangian (as it were now said, Western European) peoples and does not mix with the Swedes, Norwegians, Angles-Dutchs and Goths: “And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia, for that was the name of the Varangians - Rus , as others are called Swedes, others are Normans, Angles, other Goths, these are the same.
And if history does not know any Scandinavian Rus (“genetic Swedish Rus,” summed up S.A. Gedeonov in the 60s and 70s of the 19th century, “is not found, as a folk or tribal, in any of the native Swedish monuments, nor in one of the German-Latin chronicles, so much and so often talking about the Swedes and the Normans"), which already destroys all the constructions of the Normanists, then numerous foreign and domestic sources localize several Russ on the southern and eastern shores of the Baltic Sea: the island of Rügen-Rusiya , the mouth of the Neman, the mouth of the Western Dvina, the western part of present-day Estonia - the province of Rotalia-Rusia and Vik with the islands of Ezel and Dago. Slavic and Slavic-speaking peoples lived in the named Russ, referred to in the sources as rugs, horns, ru-tens, ruyans, wounds, Rus, Rus, from among which the East Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes were invited in 862, according to the PVL, the Varangians and Varangian Rus .
The fact that the language of the Varangians and Varangian Rus was precisely the Slavic language is evident from the fact that, upon their arrival in the northwestern lands of Eastern Europe, they build cities there, which are given purely Slavic names: Novgorod, Beloozero, Izborsk. German authors of the 16th century point to the South Baltic as the homeland of the Varangians and Rus. S. Munster and S. Herberstein. In 1544, the first said that Rurik, invited to reign
to Russia, was from the people of "Vagrov" or "Varangians", whose main city was Lubeck. The second said in 1549 that the homeland of the Varangians could be "the region of the Vandals with the famous city of Wagria" (German sources call the Baltic and Polabian Slavs "Vendals" and "Vandals"), bordering on Lübeck and the Holstein Duchy. And these “vandals,” Herberstein concludes his thought, “not only differed in power, but also had a common language, customs and faith with the Russians, then, in my opinion, it was natural for the Russians to call the sovereigns of the Vagrians, in other words, the Varangians, and not yield power to foreigners who differed from them in faith, customs, and language. The exit of the Varangians and Varangian Rus from the territory of the South Baltic confirms the massive archaeological, numismatic, anthropological and linguistic material, in the light of which the largest connoisseur of Russian antiquities academician
V.L. Yanin concluded in 2007 that "our ancestors" called Rurik from the borders of the South Baltic, "where many of them themselves were from. It can be said that they turned to distant relatives for help.
Literature
1. Ame T.J. La Suede et l'Orient. Etudes archéologiques sur les relations de la Suede et de l'Orient pendant l'age des vikings. / T.J. Arne. Upsala, 1914, pp. 225, 229.
2. Arne T.J. Det stora Svitjod. Essauer om gangna tiders svensk-ruska kulturfobindelser. / T.J. Arne. Stockholm, 1917. S. 37 - 63.
3. Munster S. Cosmographia. / S. Munster. Basel, 1628. T. IV. S. 1420.
4. Stender-Petersen A. Varangica / A. Stender-Petersen. Aarhus, 1953, pp. 245-252, 255-257.
5. Stender-Petersen A. Anthology of Old Russian Literature / A. Stender-Petersen. N.Y., 1954. P. 9,
6. Stender-Petersen A. Das Problem der altesten byzantinisch-russisch-nordischen Beziehungen /
A. Stender-Petersen // X Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiche. Roma 4 - 11 Settembre 1955. Relazioni. Roma, 1955. Vol. III. R. 174 - 188.
7. Stender-Petersen A. Der alteste russische Staat / A. Stender-Petersen // Historische Zeitschrift. bd. 191. H. 1. Munchen, 1960. S. 1, 3 - 4, 10 - 17.
8. Alekseeva T.I. Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs according to anthropology / T.I. Alekseev. M., 1973. S. 267.
9. Alekseeva T.I. Anthropological differentiation of Slavs and Germans in the Middle Ages
kovya and individual issues of the ethnic history of Eastern Europe / T.I. Alekseeva // Rasogenetic processes in ethnic history. M., 1974. S. 80 - 82.
10. Alekseeva T.I. Slavs and Germans in the light of anthropological data / T.I. Alekseeva // VI. 1974. No. 3. S. 66 - 67.
11. Gedeonov S.A. Varangians and Russia: 2 hours / S.A. Gideon; ed. foreword, commentary, biogr. essay by V.V. Fomin. M., 2004. S. 82, 415 (note 149), 440 (note 235), 456 (note 294).
12. Herberstein S. Notes on Muscovy / S. Herberstein. M., 1988. S. 60.
13. Ilovaisky D.I. Research about the beginning of Russia / D.I. Ilovaisky. M., 1876. S. 316 - 317.
14. Ilyina N.N. Expulsion of the Normans. The next task of Russian historical science / N.N. Ilyin. Paris, 1955. S. 75.
15. Results. 2007. No. 38 (588). S. 24.
16. Klein L.S. Norman antiquities of Kievan Rus at the present stage of archaeological study / L.S. Klein, G.S. Lebedev, V.A. Nazarenko // Historical connections of Scandinavia and Russia. L., 1970. S. 234, 238 - 239, 246 - 249.
17. Kuzmin A.G. The Fall of Perun (The Formation of Christianity in Russia) / A.G. Kuzmin. M., 1988. S. 49, 157, 166 - 167, 175.
18. Kuzmin A.G. Who is "indigenous" in the Baltics? / A.G. Kuzmin. M., 1993. S. 5.
19. Kuzmin A.G. History of Russia from ancient times to 1618 / A.G. Kuzmin. M., 2003. Book. 1. S. 90, 92, 161.
20. Kuzmin A.G. Beginning of Russia. Secrets of the birth of the Russian people / A.G. Kuzmin. M., 2003.
pp. 215, 221, 225 - 226, 242, 332.
21. Kuzmin A.G. Initial stages of Old Russian historiography / A.G. Kuzmin / / Historiography of the history of Russia until 1917. M., 2003. T. 1. S. 39.
22. Kuzmin A.G. The appearance of modern Normanism / A.G. Kuzmin // Collection of the Russian Historical Society. T. 8 (156): Antinormism. M., 2003. S. 242, 244, 246, 248.
23. Chronicle according to the Laurentian list. SPb., 1897. S. 4, 18 - 19.
24. Lomonosov M.V. Complete Works / M.V. Lomonosov. M. - L., 1952. T. 6.
S. 33, 80, 204.
25. Murashova V.V. Object world of the era /
V.V. Murashova // The Way from the Varangians to the Greeks and from the Greeks ... M., 1996. P. 33.
26. Murashova V.V. Was Ancient Russia a part of Greater Sweden? / V.V. Murashova // Motherland. 1997. No. 10. S. 9, 11.
27. Nazarenko A.V. German Latin sources of the 9th - 11th centuries (texts, translation, commentary) / A.V. Nazarenko. M., 1993. S. 141 - 142.
28. Nosov E.N. Modern archaeological data on the Varangian problem against the background of
Diction of Russian historiography / E.N. Nosov // Early medieval antiquities of Northern Russia and its neighbors. SPb., 1999. S. 160.
29. Where did the Russian land come from. Century VI - X / comp., foreword, introduction. to doc., comment. A.G. Kuzmin. M., 1986. Book. 2. S. 584 - 586, 654.
30. Public debate on March 19, 1860 about the beginning of Russia between the years. Pogodin and Kostomarov. [B.m.] and [b.g.]. S. 29.
31. Rybina E.A. Not bastard / E.A. Rybina // Motherland. 2002. No. 11 - 12. P. 138.
32. Se Tale of Bygone Years (Laurentian Chronicle) / comp., author. note and decree. A.G. Kuzmin, V.V. Fomin; intro. Art. and trans.
A.G. Kuzmin. Arzamas, 1993, p. 47.
33. Sedova M.V. Scandinavian antiquities from excavations in Novgorod / M.V. Sedov // VIII All-Union Conference on the Study of the History, Economy, Language and Literature of the Scandinavian Countries and Finland: abstracts. report Petrozavodsk, 1979.
Part I. S. 180 - 185.
34. Skrynnikov R.G. Wars of Ancient Russia / R.G. Skrynnikov // Vopr. history (VI). 1995. No. 11 - 12. S. 26 - 27, 33, 35, 37.
35. Skrynnikov R.G. Russian history. IX - XVII centuries / R.G. Skrynnikov. M., 1997. S. 54 -55, 67.
36. Skrynnikov R.G. Russia IX - XVII centuries / R.G. Skrynnikov. SPb., 1999. S. 18, 20 - 45, 49 - 50.
37. Skrynnikov R.G. Cross and crown. Church and state in Russia IX-XVII centuries. / R.G. Skrynnikov. SPb., 2000. S. 10, 15 - 17, 22 -23.
38. Slavs and Rus: problems and ideas. Concepts born of three centuries of controversy, in a textbook presentation / comp. A.G. Kuzmin. M., 1998. S. 428, note. 255.
39. Fomin V.V. Varangians and Varangian Russia: to the results of the discussion on the Varangian issue /
B.V. Fomin. M., 2005. S. 422 - 473.
40. Sawyer P. The Viking Age / P. Sawyer. SPb., 2002. S. 290, 331. Note. 26.
41. Stender-Petersen A. Response to V.V. Pokhlebkin and V.B. Vilinbakhova / A. Stender-Petersen // Kuml. 1960. Aarhus, 1960. S. 147-148, 151-152.
42. Tolochko P.P. Controversial issues of the early history of Kievan Rus / P.P. Tolochko // Slavs and Russia (in foreign historiography). Kyiv, 1990. S. 118.
43. Fomin V.V. The initial history of Russia /
B.V. Fomin. M., 2008. S. 163 - 223.
44. Shaskolsky I.P. Norman theory in modern bourgeois historiography / I.P. Shaskolsky // History of the USSR. 1960. No. 1.
C. 227, 230 - 231.
45. Shaskolsky I.P. Norman theory in modern bourgeois science / I.P. Shaskolsky. M. - L., 1965. S. 168 - 172.
46. Jansson I. Contacts between Russia and Scandinavia in the Viking Age / I. Jansson// Proceedings of the V International Congress of Slavic Archeology. Kyiv, 18 - 25 Sept. 1985 M., 1987. T. III. Issue. 1(b). pp. 124 - 126.
47. Jansson I. Russia and the Varangians / I. Jansson // Vikings and Slavs. Scientists, politicians, diplomats about Russian-Scandinavian relations. SPb., 1998. S. 25 - 27.
Norman theory and its scientific unfoundedness
It is shown that the Norman theory which holds complete control in Russian and foreign historiography, in University and school textbooks, doesn't appear to have confirmation in historical, archeological, linguistical and anthropological materials and that the home land of Varangian and Varagian Rus, who came to Eastern Slavs in 862 and who played an important role in their history, is South Baltic Pomorye, where the sources locate several Ruses where Slavic and Slavic-speaking people lived.
Keywords: norman theory, normanists, antinormanists, South-Baltic Russian.
M.V. NOVIKOV, T.B. PERFILOVA (Yaroslavl)
F. F. ZELINSKY AND THE IDEA OF THE SLAVIC REVIVAL
One of the fundamental ideas in the creative heritage of F. F. Zelinsky is analyzed - the idea of the Slavic Renaissance, as well as its justification and popularization in the context of defending the classical gymnasium education.
Key words: methodology of history, Slavic Renaissance, classical education, ancient culture, Silver Age.
With this article, we continue a series of publications about outstanding Russian historians of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, who made a serious contribution to the development of the theoretical and methodological foundations of historical science and historical education. These examples are quite enough to conclude that a thousand-year-old legend about " calling of the Varangians" by Rurik, Sineus and Truvor "from across the sea", which should have been archived long ago along with the legend of Adam, Eve and the tempting serpent, the Flood, Noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a tool in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology.[…]
Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the remarks of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the “Summary of a textbook on the history of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period, as the period of the birth of feudalism, and about the barbarian state that arises at this time, and applied this theory to specific materials of the history of the Russian state. Thus, already in the theoretical constructions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism there is no and cannot be a place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the "wild" East Slavic tribes.
Historian and archaeologist B. A. Rybakov represented Soviet anti-Normanism for many years. From the 1940s, he identified the Rus and the Slavs, placing the first ancient Slavic state, the predecessor of Kievan Rus, in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper.
In the 1960s, the "Normanists" regained their positions, recognizing the existence of a Slavic proto-state headed by Rus before the arrival of Rurik. I. L. Tikhonov names one of the reasons why many became Normanists in the 1960s:
The subject of the discussion was the localization of the unification of the Rus with a kagan at the head, which received the conditional name Russian Khaganate. Orientalist A.P. Novoseltsev leaned towards the northern location of the Russian Kaganate, while archaeologists (M.I. Artamonov, V.V. Sedov) placed the Kaganate in the south, in the area from the Middle Dnieper to the Don. Without denying the influence of the Normans in the north, they still deduce the ethnonym Rus from Iranian roots.
E. A. Melnikova and V. Ya. Petrukhin created the concept of the emergence of the Old Russian state, revealing the important role of the Scandinavian trading squads in catalysing social stratification and the development of the society of the East Slavic and Finnish peoples. This concept, recognizing the Varangians as Scandinavians, and early Rus as Scandinavians, differs from classical Normanism in its moderation in assessing the role of the Scandinavians and in a comprehensive consideration of the available archaeological, linguistic and written sources. Rurik's calling to reign is seen as a folklore reflection of contractual relations (the old Russian term "row") between the tribal nobility of the Eastern Slavs and Finns on the one hand and the Varangian squad led by the prince on the other hand.
Russia is a riddle wrapped in a riddle placed inside a riddle.
W. Churchill
The Norman theory of state formation in ancient Russia is based on the legend that the Slavic tribes could not govern themselves, so they turned to the Varangian Rurik, who came here to rule and founded the first dynasty on the Russian throne. In this material, we will consider the main ideas of the Norman and anti-Norman theories, and also study the weaknesses of each of the theories.
The essence of the theory
Let us consider a brief summary of the Norman theory, which is presented in most history textbooks today. According to it, even before the formation of the Old Russian state, the Slavic tribes could be divided into two groups:
- Northern - paid tribute to the Varangians
- Southern - paid tribute to the Khazars.
In 859, the Novgorodians expelled the Varangians and all the northern tribes began to be subordinate to the elder Gostomysl. According to some sources, this man was a prince. After the death of Gostomysl, an internecine war began between representatives of the northern tribes, as a result of which it was decided to send messengers to the son of the Varangian king (prince) and the daughter of Gostomysl Umila - Rurik. Here is what the chronicle says about it.
Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it. Yes, go and rule over us.
Chronicle of the call of Rurik
Rurik came to Novgorod Thus began the reign of the Rurik dynasty, which lasted more than 5 centuries.
The origin of the theory
The emergence of the Norman theory dates back to the 18th century, when a number of German professors appeared at the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), who formulated this theory. Bayer, Schlozer and Miller played a key role in creating the theory of the Norman origin of the Russian state. It was they who created the theory of the inferiority of the Slavs as a nation that is not capable of self-government. It was under them that records first appeared in the old chronicles, on the basis of which the Norman theory was built. They were not embarrassed that practically all European countries have theories of the foreign origin of the state. In general, this was the first case in the world when foreign historians wrote the history of the country. Suffice it to say that an active opponent of the Norman theory was Mikhail Lomonosov, whose disputes with German professors often ended in a fight.
Controversial sides of the theory
Norman theory has a huge number of weaknesses that make it possible to doubt the veracity of this theory. Below is a table that presents the main questions to this theory and its main weak points.
| controversial issue | In Norman theory | In anti-Norman theory |
|---|---|---|
| Origin of Rurik | Was Norman, Scandinavian or German | A native of the Southern Baltic, Slav |
| The origin of the word "Rus" | Scandinavian origin | Slavic origin from the river Ros |
| The role of the Varangians in the formation of the state | The Russian state was created by the Varangians | The Slavs already had a control system |
| The role of the Vikings in the development of society | Big role | Insignificant role, since there were few Varangians in the country |
| Reasons for inviting Rurik | The Slavs are not capable of independent government | The suppression of the dynasty as a result of the death of Gostomysl |
| Influence on Slavic culture | Great influence in the development of crafts and agriculture | The Varangians were at the lowest level of development and could not have a positive impact on culture |
| Slavs and Russ | different tribes | The same tribe |
Essence of foreign origin
The very idea of a foreign origin of power is not unique within the Norman theory, since in most European countries there are legends about a foreign origin of power. For example, Widukind of Corvey on the origin of the English state, said that the Britons turned to the Anglo-Saxons and called on them to rule. Here are the words from the chronicle.
The great and spacious land, rich in many blessings, we entrust to your power.
Chronicle of Widukind of Corvey
Pay attention to how the words in the annals of English and Russian are similar to each other. I do not urge you to look for conspiracies, but the similarities in the messages are obvious. And such legends of the foreign origin of power, when the people turn to foreign representatives with a request to come and rule, are characteristic of almost all peoples inhabiting Europe.
Another fact is also noteworthy - the information in the annals, as a result of which a brief essence of the Norman theory was subsequently formed, was originally transmitted orally, and appeared in writing only under Vladimir Monomakh. As you know, Monomakh was married to the English princess Gita. This fact, as well as the actual verbatim coincidence of the text in the annals, allows many modern historians to say that stories about foreign rulers are fiction. But why was it necessary in those days, in particular, to Vladimir Monomakh? There are two reasonable answers to this question:
- Strengthening the authority of the prince and his elevation above all other people in the country.
- Confrontation between Russia and Byzantium. With the arrival of the first Russian ruler from the north, Vladimir Monomakh emphasized that this state had nothing in common with Byzantium.
Consistency of the theory
If we consider the Norman theory not from the point of view of prejudices, but only on the basis of the facts that are in the arsenal of modern history as a science, then this theory cannot be seriously considered. The foreign origin of the state is a beautiful legend, but nothing more. If we consider the classical side of this issue, it turns out that the Slavs had nothing at all, but after Rurik appeared in the country, Kievan Rus appeared and the development of statehood began.
First of all, I want to note the fact that the Slavs, even before the arrival of Rurik, had their own cities, their own culture, traditions and customs. They had their own, albeit not the strongest, army. Slavic traders and merchants were known both in the West and in the East. That is, these were signs of the emergence of statehood, which could only appear on the condition that the peoples inhabiting the territory of the East European Plain developed well even before the arrival of the Varangians.
Confrontation with Byzantium
In my opinion, one of the best proofs that the Norman theory is inferior is the fact of the confrontation between Russia and Byzantium. If you believe the Western theory of the origin of the Russian state, then in 862 Rurik arrived and from that moment the formation of the state and the development of the Slavs as a nation began. That is, at the time of 862, the country should be in such a deplorable state that it is forced to turn to a foreign prince to come to rule. At the same time, already in 907, Prince Oleg, who was then called the Prophet, stormed Tsargrad, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. It was one of the most powerful states of that time. It turns out that in 862 we had neither a state nor the inclinations to found this state, and only 45 years later, Russia defeats Byzantium in the war.
There are two reasonable explanations for what is happening: either there was no war with Byzantium, or the Slavs had a powerful state, the origins of which are still hidden. Taking into account the fact that there are a huge number of facts indicating the reliability of the war between Russia and Byzantium, as a result of which Constantinople was taken by storm in 907, it turns out that the Norman theory is an absolute fiction and a myth. This is exactly how it should be treated, since today there is not a single real fact that can be used in defense of this theory.
Tell me that 45 years is enough time to form a state and create a strong army? Suppose, although in reality this is impossible to do. Back in 866 (only 4 years had passed since Rurik's invitation), Askold and Dir organized a campaign against Constantinople, during which they burned the entire province of this city, and the capital of the Byzantine Empire was saved only because the Russian army was in light boats, and a strong storm began, as a result of which most of the boats were destroyed. That is, Tsargrad survived only because of the unpreparedness of this campaign.
The founders of the theory and the role of Tatishchev
- Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), Russian historian. Considered the founder of the theory.
- Miller Gerard Friedrich (1705-1783), German historian. Moved to Russia in 1725. Known for having collected copies of documents on Russian history (I emphasize - copies).
- Schlozer August Ludwig (1735-1800), German historian. He worked in Russia from 1761 to 1767, and from 1769 he was an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Known for studying The Tale of Bygone Years.
- Bayer Gottlieb Siegfried (1694-171738), German historian, founder of the Norman theory. Since 1725, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
A unique case - the history of one state is written by historians from another state. Our history was written by the Germans and, surprisingly, Rurik has German-Scandinavian roots. But “our Germans” insured themselves and referred to Tatishchev in their works - they say, the Russian historian laid the foundation of the theory, and they have already finalized it.
Tatishchev's problem in this matter is important, since his name is often used to justify the Scandinavian origin of Russia. I will not go into this topic in detail, since this is a story for a whole scientific presentation, I will only say the main things. Firstly, the “history of Tatishchev” was published after the death of the author. Moreover, the original (manuscripts) were lost and later restored by Miller, who became the editor and publisher of the book. That is, when we talk about the history of Tatishchev, we must understand that all the materials were published by Miller. Secondly, all materials are published without historical sources!
It turns out that the book according to which the Germans put forward the Norman theory, although Tatishchev is indicated in it as the author, was published by the Germans themselves and without any reference to historical sources.
Problems of anti-Norman theory
The Norman theory, which we briefly reviewed above, is not indisputable and has a huge number of weaknesses. The positions of the anti-Norman theory are also controversial today, since in an attempt to refute the Scandinavian version of the origin of the Russian state, some historians further confuse an already difficult topic.
The main problems of the anti-Norman theory are as follows:
- Origin of the name "Rus". There are 2 versions of the origin of the word: northern and southern. The anti-Normans completely refute the northern origin of the word, although both versions are controversial.
- Refusal to identify Rurik of Novgorod and Rerik of Jutland, despite the fact that many Western chronological sources find amazing parallels between these characters.
- Building a theory on the numerical minority of the Varangians, as a result of which they could not significantly affect Ancient Russia. There is logic in this statement, but it must be remembered that the Varangians constituted the elite of the troops of ancient Russia. Moreover, often the fate of the country and the people does not depend on the majority, but on a strong and more promising minority.
At the same time, the anti-Norman theory is actively developing in the post-Soviet period. Of course, there are enough problems in this development, but it is important to understand that the Norman and anti-Norman theories are extreme points, embodying diametrically opposed points of view. The truth, as you know, lies somewhere in the middle.
It remains to note that the main representatives of the anti-Norman theory are: M.V. Lomonosov, S.A. Gideon. Criticism of the Norman theory came mainly from Lomonosov, so most modern historians refer to his works.
According to the widespread version, the foundations of the state in Russia were laid by the Varangian squad of Rurik, called by the Slavic tribes to reign. However, the Norman theory has always had many opponents.
Background
It is believed that the Norman theory was formulated in the 18th century by a German scientist at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Gottlieb Bayer. However, a century earlier, it was first voiced by the Swedish historian Peter Petrei. In the future, this theory was followed by many major Russian historians, starting with Nikolai Karamzin.
The Norman theory was most convincingly and fully presented by the Danish linguist and historian Wilhelm Thomsen in his work The Beginning of the Russian State (1891), after which the Scandinavian origins of Russian statehood were considered factually proven.
In the first years of Soviet power, the Norman theory was established on the wave of the growth of the ideas of internationalism, but the war with Nazi Germany turned the vector of the theory of the origin of the Russian state from Normanism to the Slavic concept.
Moderate Norman theory prevails today, to which Soviet historiography returned in the 1960s. It recognizes the limited nature of the influence of the Varangian dynasty on the emergence of the Old Russian state and focuses on the role of the peoples living southeast of the Baltic Sea.
Two ethnonyms
The key terms used by the "Normanists" are "Varangians" and "Rus". They are found in many chronicle sources, including the Tale of Bygone Years:
"And they said to themselves [Chud, Slovene and Krivichi]:" Let's look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right "And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia."
The word "Rus" for supporters of the Norman version is etymologically connected with the Finnish term "ruotsi", which traditionally denoted the Scandinavians. So, the linguist Georgy Khaburgaev writes that the name "Rus" can be formed from "Ruotsi" purely philologically.
Norman philologists do not pass by other similar-sounding Scandinavian words - "Rhodes" (Swedish for "rowers") and "Roslagen" (the name of a Swedish province). In the Slavic vowel, in their opinion, "Rhodes" could well turn into "Rus".
However, there are other opinions. For example, the historian Georgy Vernadsky disputed the Scandinavian etymology of the word "Rus", insisting that it comes from the word "Rukhs" - the name of one of the Sarmatian-Alanian tribes, which is known as "Roksolani". 
"Varangians" (another scan. "Væringjar") "Normanists" also identified with the Scandinavian peoples, emphasizing either the social or the professional status of this word. According to Byzantine sources, the Varangians are, first of all, hired warriors without an exact localization of their place of residence and a specific ethnicity.
Sigismund Herberstein in Notes on Muscovy (1549) was one of the first to draw a parallel between the word "Varangian" and the name of the tribe of the Baltic Slavs - "Vargs", who, in his opinion, had a common language, customs and faith with the Russians. Mikhail Lomonosov argued that the Varangians "consisted of different tribes and languages."
chronicle evidence
One of the main sources that conveyed to us the idea of "calling the Varangians to reign" is The Tale of Bygone Years. But not all researchers are inclined to unconditionally trust the events described in it.
Thus, the historian Dmitry Ilovaisky established that the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians was a later insertion into the Tale.
Moreover, being a collection of various chronicles, The Tale of Bygone Years offers us three different mentions of the Varangians, and two versions of the origin of Russia.
In the "Novgorod Chronicle", which absorbed the previous Tale "Initial Code" of the end of the 11th century, there is no comparison of the Varangians with the Scandinavians. The chronicler points to the participation of Rurik in the foundation of Novgorod, and then explains that "the essence of the people of Novgorod is from the Varangian clan." 
In the “Joachim Chronicle” compiled by Vasily Tatishchev, new information appears, in particular, about the origin of Rurik. In it, the founder of the Russian state turned out to be the son of an unnamed Varangian prince and Umila, the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.
Linguistic evidence
Now it is precisely established that a number of words of the Old Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. These are both terms of trade and maritime vocabulary, as well as words found in everyday life - anchor, banner, whip, pud, yabednik, Varangian, tiun (princely manager). A number of names also passed from Old Norse into Russian - Gleb, Olga, Rogneda, Igor. 
An important argument in defense of the Norman theory is the work of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus "On the management of the empire" (949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in Slavic and "Russian" languages.
Each "Russian" name has a Scandinavian etymology: for example, "Varuforos" ("Big backwater") clearly echoes the Old Norse "Barufors".
Opponents of the Norman theory, although they agree with the presence of Scandinavian words in the Russian language, note their small number.
archaeological evidence
Numerous archaeological excavations carried out in Staraya Ladoga, Gnezdovo, on the Rurik settlement, as well as in other places in the north-east of Russia, indicate traces of the presence of the Scandinavians there.
In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects depicting a falling falcon, which later became the coat of arms of the Rurikids.
Interestingly, a similar image of a falcon was minted on the coins of the Danish king Anlaf Gutfritsson dating back to the middle of the 10th century. 
It is known that in 992 the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in detail the rite of burial of a noble Rus with the burning of a boat and the erection of a mound. Russian archaeologists have discovered graves of this type near Ladoga and in Gnezdovo. It is assumed that this method of burial was adopted from immigrants from Sweden and spread up to the territories of the future Kievan Rus.
However, the historian Artemy Artsikhovsky noted that, despite the Scandinavian items in the funerary monuments of North-Eastern Russia, burials were made not according to the Scandinavian, but according to the local rite.
Alternative view
Following the Norman theory, Vasily Tatishchev and Mikhail Lomonosov formulated another theory - about the Slavic origin of Russian statehood. In particular, Lomonosov believed that the state on the territory of Russia existed long before the calling of the Varangians - in the form of tribal unions of northern and southern Slavs.
Scientists build their hypothesis on another fragment of The Tale of Bygone Years: “after all, they were nicknamed Rus from the Varangians, and before that there were Slavs; although they were called glades, but the speech was Slavic. The Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbeh wrote about this, noting that the Rus are a Slavic people. 
The Slavic theory was developed by 19th-century historians Stepan Gedeonov and Dmitry Ilovaisky.
The first ranked the Russians among the Baltic Slavs - encouragers, and the second emphasized their southern origin, starting from the ethnonym "blond".
Rusov and Slavs were identified by the historian and archaeologist Boris Rybakov, placing the ancient Slavic state in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper. 
A continuation of the criticism of Normanism was the theory of the "Russian Khaganate", put forward by a number of researchers. But if Anatoly Novoseltsev leaned towards the northern location of the kaganate, then Valentin Sedov insisted that the state of the Rus was located between the Dnieper and the Don. The ethnonym "Rus" according to this hypothesis appeared long before Rurik and has Iranian roots.
What does genetics say?
Genetics could answer the question about the ethnicity of the founders of the Old Russian state. Such studies have been carried out, but they have generated a lot of controversy.
In 2007, Newsweek published the results of a study of the genome of living representatives of the Rurik dynasty. It was noted there that the results of DNA analyzes of Shakhovsky, Gagarin and Lobanov-Rostovsky (the Monomashich clan) rather indicate the Scandinavian origin of the dynasty. Boris Malyarchuk, head of the genetics laboratory at the Institute of Biological Problems of the North, notes that such a haplotype is often present in Norway, Sweden and Finland. 
Anatoly Klyosov, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Moscow and Harvard Universities, does not agree with such conclusions, noting that "there are no Swedish haplotypes." He defines belonging to Rurikovich by two haplogroups - R1a and N1c1. The common ancestor of the carriers of these haplogroups, according to Klenov's research, could indeed live in the 9th century, but his Scandinavian origin is being questioned. 
“The Rurikoviches are either carriers of the R1a haplogroup, Slavs, or carriers of the South Baltic, Slavic branch of the N1c1 haplogroup,” the scientist concludes.
Professor of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Elena Melnikova is trying to reconcile two polar opinions, arguing that even before the arrival of Rurik, the Scandinavians were well integrated into the Slavic community. According to the scientist, the analysis of DNA samples from Scandinavian burials, of which there are many in the north of Russia, can clarify the situation.
