Home Potato From the prehistory of ancient Russian city-states. Socio-political role of cities in Russia in the second half of the 9th-10th centuries. Based on additional literature, write a story about the emergence of one of the ancient Russian cities. The text should be on the page

Potato

From the prehistory of ancient Russian city-states. Socio-political role of cities in Russia in the second half of the 9th-10th centuries. Based on additional literature, write a story about the emergence of one of the ancient Russian cities. The text should be on the page

Plan:

1 Origin
2 Household
3 Population
4 Early medieval cities of Russian princes
5 Most famous cities pre-Mongol era
- 5.1 Kyiv and Pereyaslav lands
- 5.2 Novgorod land
- 5.3 Volyn land
- 5.4 Galician land
- 5.5 Chernihiv land
- 5.6 Smolensk land
- 5.7 Polotsk land
- 5.8 Rostov-Suzdal land
- 5.9 Ryazan land

Introduction

Map of ancient Russian cities in the State Historical Museum

Old Russian cities- permanent settlements of the Eastern Slavs, formed as trade and craft centers, cult centers, defensive fortresses, or princely residences. Another type of urban settlements were graveyards - points for collecting tribute, polyudya, through which the grand ducal power secured the subject tribal territories.

Nowadays, instead of “Old Russian”, the term medieval cities of Russia or cities of medieval Russia has been adopted, and the origins of domestic urban planning on the lands of Russia are from the ancient cities of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov (if Arkaim and similar settlements of the proto-urban level are ignored).

1. Origin

The history of any settlements on the planet begins from the moment the first people appeared in a given place, and, if necessary, the depths of the past of all living nature and geological history are also taken into account. On the territory and in the vicinity of many medieval cities that survived until the 21st century (Moscow, Kyiv, Vladimir, etc.), various traces of the Paleolithic and subsequent eras have been identified. Since the Neolithic, relatively stable settlements have existed in the districts of future cities, consisting of several or dozens of dwellings (the proto-cities of the Trypillia culture on the lands of the future Russia included hundreds of dwellings). During the Eneolithic period, settlements become more and more fortified, fenced off or located on elevated places near water bodies. At the beginning of the Iron Age (long before our era) there were hundreds of various settlements of various archaeological cultures on the territory of the future Russia (at least twenty "Dyakovo" ones only on the territory of present-day Moscow). Their unambiguous ethnic links are impossible, but there are opinions that they belong to the ancestors of the local Finno-Ugric tribes (Merya, Muroma) and the Baltic tribe Golyad. The emergence of real ancient cities on the lands that later became part of medieval Russia is well known: Olbia, Tiras, Sevastopol, Tanais, Phanagoria, Korchev, etc. Gelon.

The oldest actually Russian cities of the early Middle Ages were also far from always founded by the Slavs. Rostov appeared as the center of the Finno-Ugric Merya tribe, Beloozero - the entire tribe, Murom - the Muroma tribe, Staraya Ladoga was founded by immigrants from Scandinavia. The cities of Galich, Suzdal, Vladimir, Yaroslavl were also founded by the Meryans and Slavs on the lands of the Merya tribe. The ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs had not yet ended by the time of the formation of Kievan Rus, and in addition to the Slavs, the Old Russian ethnos included the Balts and numerous Finno-Ugric peoples, the merging of which into a single people was one of the results of political unification. However, the very political association was prepared by the appearance in Eastern Europe of cities and proto-states, of which they were the political centers.

The immediate predecessors of the Russian cities of the early Middle Ages were fortified sanctuaries and shelters such as a citadel or a kremlin, which were erected by residents of a number of neighboring villages scattered among the surrounding fields and meadows. This type of settlement is typical for archaeological cultures that preceded Kievan Rus, for example, Tushemlinskaya (IV-VII centuries), common on the territory of the Smolensk Dnieper region. The Tushemla culture was apparently created by the Balts, and its villages perished in a fire in the 7th-8th centuries, possibly during the offensive of the Krivichi. The presence of powerful fortifications is also characteristic of the settlements of the Yukhnov and Moshchin cultures. A similar transformation of the type of settlements “from unprotected settlements located in low places to settlements in high, naturally protected places” takes place in the 8th-9th centuries. and among the Slavs (Romny-Borschev culture, late Luka-Raikovets culture).

In the 9th-10th centuries, along with the cities of refuge, small inhabited fortresses appeared, near which no earlier than the end of the 10th century. urban settlements appear - settlements of artisans and merchants. A number of cities were the main settlements of one or another "tribe", the so-called tribal centers, in fact - the centers of "their principalities", which was emphasized by the annals. Lack of written sources for the 7th-8th centuries. and chronicle evidence for the IX-X centuries. do not allow to establish at least an approximate number of cities of Russia of that era. So, according to the mentions in the annals, a little more than two dozen cities can be identified, but their list is certainly not complete.

It is difficult to establish the dates of the foundation of the early cities of Russia, and the first mention in the annals is usually given. However, it should be borne in mind that at the time of the annalistic mention, the city was an established settlement, and a more accurate date of its foundation is determined by indirect data, for example, based on archaeological cultural layers excavated on the site of the city. In some cases, archaeological data contradict chronicles. For example, for Novgorod, Smolensk, which are mentioned in the chronicles under the 9th century, archaeologists have not yet discovered cultural layers older than the 10th century, or the method of archaeological dating of early cities has not been sufficiently developed. Priority in dating is still given to written chronicle sources, but everything is done to discredit a very early dates in these sources (especially - antique, the level of Ptolemy).

From the 11th century begins a rapid growth in the number of urban population and the number of ancient Russian cities around the existing city centers. It is noteworthy that the emergence and growth of cities in the XI-XIII centuries. also occurs to the west - in the territories of modern Czech Republic, Poland and Germany. There are many theories about the reasons for the massive emergence of cities. One of the theories belongs to the Russian historian Klyuchevsky and connects the emergence of ancient Russian cities with the development of trade along the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." This theory has its opponents, who point to the emergence and growth of cities not only along this trade route.

2. Household

The close connection between urban and rural life is characteristic of early cities from ancient times, which was also preserved on the lands of medieval Russia, which partly inherited the traditions of Great Scythia.

Archaeological excavations in Russian cities of the 9th-12th centuries. confirm the constant connection of townspeople with agriculture. Vegetable gardens and orchards were an indispensable part of the economy of the townspeople. Animal husbandry was of great importance in the economy - archaeologists discovered in the cities the bones of many domestic animals, including horses, cows, pigs, sheep, etc.

Handicraft production was well developed in the cities. In his capital research, based on a deep study of material monuments, Boris Rybakov identifies up to 64 craft specialties and groups them into 11 groups. Tikhomirov, however, prefers a slightly different classification and questions the existence or sufficient prevalence of some of them.

The following is a list of specialties that are the least controversial and are recognized by most professionals.

blacksmiths, including nailsmiths, locksmiths, boilermakers, silversmiths, coppersmiths;
gunsmiths, although the existence of this specialty is sometimes questioned, but the term can be used here to generalize the various artisans associated with the manufacture of weapons;
jewelers, goldsmiths, silversmiths, enamellers;
"woodworkers", which included architecture, architecture and carpentry proper;
"gardeners" - builders of city fortifications - gorodnikov;
"ships" - builders of ships and boats;
masons-builders, with whom bonded labor and servitude were associated;
"builders", "stone-builders" - architects associated with stone construction;
bridgemen
weavers, tailors (Shevtsy);
tanners;
potters and glass-workers;
icons;
book scribes

Sometimes artisans were engaged in the production of one specific item, designed for constant demand. Such were saddlers, archers, tulniki, shieldmen. We can assume the existence of butchers and bakers, as, for example, in cities Western Europe, but written sources do not confirm this.

The mandatory affiliation of cities - as in antiquity of the Northern Black Sea region - was the city market. However, retail trade in our sense of the word in the market was poorly developed.

3. Population

The total population of Novgorod at the beginning of the 11th century was approximately 10-15 thousand, at the beginning of the 13th century - 20-30 thousand people.

In the XII-XIII centuries, Kyiv was undoubtedly larger than Novgorod. One can presumably think that the population in Kyiv during its heyday was considered to be in the tens of thousands; for the Middle Ages it was a giant city.

Russian boyars

Chernigov, both Vladimirs (Volynsky and Zalessky), Galich, Polotsk, Smolensk also stand out among the big cities. To a certain extent, Rostov, Suzdal, Ryazan, Vitebsk, and Pereyaslavl Russian adjoined them in size.

The population of other cities rarely exceeded 1,000 people, as evidenced by the small areas occupied by their kremlins, or citadels.

Craftsmen (both free and serfs), fishermen and day laborers made up the main population of medieval cities. A significant role in the composition of the population was played by princes, warriors and boyars, connected both with the city and with land holdings. Quite early, merchants emerged as a special social group, they constituted the most revered group under direct princely protection.

Since the time of baptism, one can speak of such a stratum of the population as the clergy, in whose ranks the black (monasteries and monasticism), which played an important role in political and cultural events, and the white (parish), which served as a conductor of church and political ideas, sharply differed.

4. Early medieval cities of Russian princes

According to the annals, it is possible to establish the existence in the IX-X centuries. more than two dozen Russian cities.

Kyiv	according to the chronicle refers to ancient times
Novgorod	859, according to other chronicles it was founded in ancient times
Izborsk	862
Polotsk	862
Rostov	862
Murom	862
Ladoga	862, according to dendrochronology, before 753
Beloozero	862, according to the chronicle refers to ancient times
Smolensk	863, mentioned among the oldest Russian cities
Lyubech	881
Pereyaslavl (Pereyaslavl Russian, Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky)	911
Pskov	903
Chernihiv	907
crossed	922
Vyshgorod	946
Iskorosten	946
Vitebsk	974
Vruchiy (Ovruch)	977
Tours	980
Relatives	980
Przemysl	981
Worm	981
Vladimir-Volynsky	988
Vasilkov (Vasilev)	988
Vladimir-Zalessky	990
Belgorod (Belgorod-Dnestrovsky)	991
Suzdal	999
Tmutarakan	990s

5. The most famous cities of the pre-Mongol era

Below is a short list, broken down by lands, indicating the date of the first mention, or the date of foundation.

5.1. Kyiv and Pereyaslav lands

Kyiv	from ancient temp.	the tribal center of the glades, the proto-urban settlements in the district of Kyiv from the time of the Tripoli culture 5 - 3 thousand BC. e.
Vyshgorod	946	suburb of Kyiv, served as a refuge for Kiev princes
Vruchiy (Ovruch)	977	after the desolation of Iskorosten in the second half of the 10th century. became the center of the Drevlyans
Tours	980	through Turov there was an ancient trade road from Kyiv to the shores of the Baltic Sea
Vasilev	988	defensive fortress, now Vasilkov
Belgorod	991	had the value of an advanced fortified princely castle on the outskirts of Kiev
Trepol* (Trypillia)	1093	stronghold, assembly point for troops fighting the Polovtsians. Traces of Trypillian culture in the region.
Torchesk*	1093	the center of the Torks, Berendichs, Pechenegs and other tribes of Porosye (the basin of the Ros River)
Yuriev*	1095	Gurgev, Gurichev, founded by Yaroslav the Wise (baptized Yuri), exact location unknown
Kanev*	1149	a supporting fortress, from where the princes made trips to the steppe and where they waited for the Polovtsy
Pereyaslavl (Russian)	911	now Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky, the center of Pereyaslav land, experienced a period of prosperity in the 11th century. and rapid decline

* - the marked cities never grew beyond the fortified castles, although they are often mentioned in chronicles. For the Kiev land was characterized by the existence of cities, the prosperity of which did not last long, and which were replaced by new cities that arose in the neighborhood.

5.2. Novgorod land

Novgorod (Veliky Novgorod)	up to 852, 854, 859 - most inaccurate, 862	according to Christian records of the epic - from Slovensk 2395 BC. e., settlements are known nearby from Neolithic times, including Settlement (Rurik's Settlement)
Izborsk	862
Ladoga (Staraya Ladoga)	862	according to dendrochronology, before 753
Pleskov (Pskov)	903 with an abundance of earlier archaeological sites in the area, including the "Pskov long mounds"
Torzhok	1139
Hill	1144 - the assignment of the date to the city is considered erroneous, since the annals mention the Hill in Novgorod
Luki (Velikiye Luki)	1166
Rusa ( Staraya Russa)	according to Christian records of the epic - from Rusa 2395 BC. e., according to birch bark letters until 1080, 1167

5.3. Volyn land

5.4. Galician land

5.5. Chernihiv land

Starodub - is one of the top ten most ancient cities of Russia (Starodub-Seversky has been mentioned in the annals since 1080, however, archaeological research in 1982 showed: - that a settlement existed on this site much earlier; approximately from the end of the 8th century) cities also includes distant Tmutarakan on the Taman Peninsula.

5.6. Smolensk land

5.7. Polotsk land

5.8. Rostov-Suzdal land

Rostov	862
Beloozero	862	Now Belozersk
Vladimir	990
Uglich	937 (1149)
Suzdal	999
Yaroslavl	1010
Volok-Lamsky	1135
Moscow	1147
Pereslavl-Zalessky	1152
Kostroma	1152
Yuryev-Polsky	1152
Bogolyubovo	1158
Tver	1135 (1209)
Dmitrov	1180
Vologda	1147 (975)
Ustyug	1207 (1147)	Now Veliky Ustyug
Nizhny Novgorod	1221

The word fortress in Russia was synonymous with the word city, and the expression "build a city" meant to build a fortress. That is why we will consider urban construction in Russia as part of our topic. First of all, consider how cities arose in the Russian lands. The problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities has always been in the focus of attention of historians who studied Kievan Rus, which is not surprising, because the question of the role of the city as a whole in the development of society in any era is generally one of the central problems. social sciences. What do modern researchers call the ancient Russian city? Here are some typical definitions:

“A city is a settlement in which the industrial and commercial population is concentrated, to some extent divorced from agriculture.”

There are also many other definitions. What is the reason for this diversity? Why until now scientists can not come to a consensus? The reason is that the early Russian city is still poorly understood.

As a result, the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities has not lost its relevance to this day. It was put in historiography a very long time ago, but the most interesting and substantiated theory on this subject in pre-revolutionary historiography was formulated by V. O. Klyuchevsky. Soviet historians N. A. Rozhkov and M. N. Pokrovsky, who laid the foundation for the study of Ancient Russia in Soviet historiography, generally adhered to the concept of V. O. Klyuchevsky, believing that the main political and economic function of ancient Russian cities was trade. Then this problem began to attract more and more attention of Soviet scientists. Often their opinions differed from the concept proposed by V. O. Klyuchevsky. Although K. Marx and F. Engels in their views were close to the theory of V. O. Klyuchevsky, they exaggerated the importance of the economic factor in all spheres of public life. Historians of the school of B. D. Grekov paid Special attention handicraft production and its significance in the development of ancient Russian cities. The discussion on the problem was continued by such scientists as S. V. Yushkov, who put forward his theory, strongly criticizing Klyuchevsky's concept. The historian M.N. Tikhomirov, who devoted a separate monograph to this topic, actively dealt with the issue of the ancient Russian city. Gradually, the ideas formulated by S. V. Yushkov, B. D. Grekov and M. N. Tikhomirov were significantly developed and supplemented by a number of scientists. The works of A. V. Kuza on ancient Russian cities are very interesting. The scientist himself was engaged in excavations of ancient Russian cities for many years. Later, the works of B. A. Rybakov, P. P. Tolochko and I. Ya. Froyanov appeared. Historian V. V. Sedov tried to harmonize the views of scientists in his concept. And finally, the historian V.P. Darkevich comes forward with harsh criticism of all existing theories and offers his own. Thus, we see that discussions on the problem under consideration do not fade away and have not yet found a compromise.

Naturally, the ideas of one or another author about the origin of ancient Russian cities directly depend on his general idea about ancient Russian reality. Hence such terminological diversity: proto-cities, tribal and feudal cities, city-states, etc. At the same time, each author stubbornly tries to fit all existing material to his given scheme. But all the material has not yet fit into any scheme, and as new material accumulates, all old concepts have found themselves in a state of crisis. And so far, none of the problems of ancient Russian urban life has found a convincing solution.

That is why we set the goal of this chapter: to identify the main concepts of the origin of ancient Russian cities, to consider their strengths and weaknesses. In this regard, we have set the following tasks:

study historiography on the problem of the origin of ancient Russian cities

Consider each concept separately, identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Socio-economic concept

Historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, draws the following picture of the emergence of ancient Russian cities: “A rather cursory glance at the geographical location of these cities to see that they were created by the success of Russia's foreign trade. Most of them stretched out in a long chain along the main river route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", along the line of the Dnieper - Volkhov; only a few - Pereyaslavl on Trubezh, Chernigov on the Desna, Rostov in the region of the Upper Volga - moved east from this, how to say, operational basis of Russian trade as its eastern outposts, indicating its flank direction to the Azov and Caspian Seas. The general meaning of this theory is connected with Klyuchevsky's idea of trade as the driving force behind the emergence of early Russian cities. According to Klyuchevsky after the Avar invasion in the VI-VIII centuries. in the course of settling in Eastern Europe, the Slavs enter a period of disintegration of tribal ties being replaced by territorial ones. A “new cohesion of society” is being formed, driven by economic interest, the driving force behind which was trade with the countries of the East. Trade pulled single yards into special trading centers - churchyards, which then evolved into large trading cities with areas drawn to them. These cities appeared already in the 8th century. and become centers of foreign trade, and in the IX century. surrounded by fortifications, they concentrate the military-commercial elite of ancient Russian society.

According to F. Engels, the division of craft and agriculture contributed to the transition from barbarism to civilization, from pre-class society to class society ("the second major division of labor"). Hence the appearance of fortified cities in the era of military democracy: "The grave of the tribal system gapes in their ditches, and their towers already rest against civilization."

Historian B. D. Grekov relies heavily on Marxist theory, he criticizes Klyuchevsky’s theory, but also comes to the conclusion that cities arose along rivers and waterways. “Various trade relations of these cities were of great importance in the history of their economic and political growth. It is no coincidence that these cities very early, before the arrival of the Varangians, became centers that united individual Slavic tribes, ”he writes.

The historian S. V. Yushkov paid much attention to the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities. Yushkov saw the main reason for the emergence of cities in the division of industry, trade and Agriculture.

The number of cities begins to increase rapidly during the period of the end of the 9th-10th centuries. At this time, major changes took place in the life of Ancient Russia. The Old Russian state is being created and strengthened. Fundamental changes occurred both in the economic and social spheres. The craft is separated from agriculture, which becomes the main occupation of the inhabitants. Feudalism is established. First of all, cities appear where handicrafts and agriculture successfully develop, which results in the emergence of an urban district and a city as its center. Let's look at the map of the location of cities in Russia in the 9th-10th centuries: it is obvious that the largest concentration of cities is observed around Kyiv. Moreover, many of these cities are not only not connected with the Dnieper by water, but also with other waterways too. These are such cities as Belgorod, Iskorosten, Vruchiy and others. What is the reason for this accumulation? Here it is necessary to take into account the agricultural character of the area. Here are many ancient Russian villages known to us from written sources, such as Olzhichi and Berestovo. Another similar cluster of cities can be found in the area of the upper reaches of the Bug. One of the largest cities in this region - Cherven is located away from large waterways. A third similar cluster is found between the Klyazma and the upper reaches of the Volga. One of the oldest cities in this region - Suzdal and Rostov are also located at some distance from the Volga and Oka rivers. Although a major waterway from the Baltic Sea to the Caspian Sea passed along the Volga. Thus, we see that the location of cities along major trade routes in this case cannot be the cause of their occurrence.

Rostov is located on the shore of Lake Nero. But this city is located quite far from the Volga, although it is connected with it by a network of small rivers. Thus, we can conclude that it was not the river trade routes that played the most important role in the emergence and development of Rostov. A much more important factor was its location in the "Opole". This was the name of the areas in the North-Eastern part of Russia. Their soil was very fertile and allowed them to successfully engage in agriculture and horticulture. In addition, Lake Nero was known for its richness in fish. The city of Suzdal is even less connected to the river network. Only the Nerl River flows nearby, which is a tributary of the Klyazma, and possibly could have been of commercial importance in ancient times. But Suzdal, like Rostov, was located in the center of the opolye. This allowed him to advance from among other cities in the area. In the same way, such cities as Uglich, Pereslavl-Zalessky and Yuryev Polskoy appeared and developed.

The problem of the prehistory of ancient Russian cities was also studied by the historian M.N. Tikhomirov, who believed that fertile lands were the reason for the emergence of cities. All conditions were created here for the separation of agriculture from crafts, as a result of which cities appeared - trade and craft centers.

Thus, two main reasons for the emergence and development of ancient Russian cities can be distinguished. This is a geographical location on important trade routes, as well as a location in fertile lands.

However, many scientists dispute this concept and give quite strong arguments against it. They argue that domestic trade was in its infancy at that time, and subsistence farming dominated. And, consequently, the emergence of cities cannot be explained by the importance of water trade routes. In addition, they deny the separation of craft from agriculture. Speaking about the fact that during excavations, even in major cities at the same time they find both hoes, sickles and scythes, as well as fishing tackle and shears for shearing sheep, which indicates the mixed nature of the occupations of the inhabitants of these cities.

In conclusion, it should be said that the socio-economic concept highlights trade and the separation of crafts from agriculture as the main driving forces emergence of cities in ancient Russia. Like other concepts, it has supporters and opponents and is not without weaknesses. Since it is one of the earliest concepts, it has some discrepancies with modern archaeological data.

The concept of urban development from tribal centers

S. V. Yushkov resolutely rejects the concept of V. O. Klyuchevsky and a number of other pre-revolutionary historians about the "urban volost, which arose in prehistoric times and was controlled by a commercial and industrial democracy." According to the scientist, “the main territorial unit that was part of the Kiev state was originally a tribal principality, and then, when tribal relations were decomposed, a large feudal seigneury that arose on the ruins of these tribal principalities. Each of these feudal lords had its own center - the city, but this city, although it turned into a commercial and industrial center, was still primarily the center of feudal rule, where the main political force was feudal lords of various types, and not a commercial and industrial democracy. ".

This point of view was also reflected in the works of the historian A. V. Kuza: trade and craft settlements did not play a role in the formation of cities in the early period. “The feudal lords stood at the origins of the emergence of cities,” but “they could not complete this process without merchants and artisans.” That is why "simultaneously with the feudal lords or soon after them, artisans and merchants appear in the emerging cities."

Supporters of this concept argued that cities in Russia arose from tribal or intertribal centers. According to B. A. Rybakov, cities appear as political centers in the era of the tribal system. The history of each city begins “not only from that elusive moment when it finally acquired all the features and signs of a feudal city, but, if possible, from the time when a given topographic point stood out from the environment of neighboring settlements, became in some respect above them and acquired some special, inherent functions. He also writes that cities cannot arise instantly, and their formation is a long historical process: “Cities that are born are not fabulous chambers that arise overnight, being erected by an unknown magical force.” He points out that "go historical development tribal system leads to the multiplication of tribal centers and to the complication of their functions.

The theory of the development of cities from tribal and intertribal centers reached its greatest development in the works of P. P. Tolochko and I. Ya. Froyanov. According to P.P. Tolochko, the oldest Russian city was "basically agrarian, the birth and development of which was entirely due to the agricultural district." The most ancient cities are formed on the basis of the previous "tribal cities". The appearance of the latter, however, no longer refers entirely to the primitive communal era, but to the “transitional stage” of the 8th-9th centuries. At the same time, the formation of statehood takes place. These ancient cities “were not, for the most part, centers of crafts and trade; their economic development was based on the agricultural production of the district. The leading functions of the early cities were political, administrative and military, as well as religious. The main organizing force in the initial period is political power. Only later did the cities become centers of feudal rule, and from them began the feudal development of the district. Gradually craft and trade also concentrated in the cities.

According to I. Ya. Froyanov, the emergence of cities must be associated with a late stage in the development of the tribal system. The early cities, in his opinion, are tribal centers. “The organization of society (at a late stage of the tribal system) becomes so complex that its further life without coordinating centers turns out to be impossible”, in “an environment saturated with social ties, cities crystallize, which are clusters of these ties.” Over time, intertribal ties and associations appear, which were quite large and needed organizing centers. They became cities. Their main functions were military-political, administrative and religious in nature. Later, cities are transformed into the centers of city-states. All the most important social institutions were located there, such as power in the person of the prince, the people's council, tribute flocked to the cities, they were also a sacred center. I. Ya. Froyanov believes that many scientists artificially divide ancient Russian cities into several types. He also denies that in Russia there were proto-cities or other predecessors of cities.

Scientists opposed to this concept cite a lot of archaeological data that diverge from the main provisions of the theory. “The capitals of many major principalities,” writes B. A. Rybakov, “were at one time the centers of tribal unions: Kyiv near the Polyany, Smolensk near the Krivichi, Polotsk near the Polochan, Veliky Novgorod among the Slovenes, Novgorod Seversky among the Severyans.” But even the layers of the 9th century, not to mention the earlier ones, were not found in these centers. This theory is based on the fact that early Slavic settlements were found on the site of many cities with traces of the existence of stone-cutting, jewelry and blacksmithing in them, but its followers do not take into account the fact that many similar settlements were found outside the cities that subsequently emerged.

Thus, the concept of the development of cities from tribal centers is based on the continuity of ancient Russian cities with earlier proto-urban formations. This concept is largely borrowed from foreign historians, and, like the previous one, has discrepancies with archaeological data.

The concept of several ways of forming cities

A completely different theory was proposed by V. V. Sedov, although it should be noted that the views of the scientist are continuously developing and improving. He considers the presence of several ways of forming cities in Ancient Russia to be unconditionally proved by archeology. Cities are formed in four main ways:

· Education from tribal or intertribal centers;

· Formation of fortified camps and churchyards, as well as the centers of volosts;

· Formation of frontier fortifications;

· One-time construction of cities.

It is interesting that V. V. Sedov tried to look at the origin of ancient Russian cities in the context of the pan-European process of the formation of the city as a certain social phenomenon that occurs at a certain stage in the development of society. The scientist showed that the process of city formation outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire is a process common to vast regions of Europe, subject to uniform historical patterns. In the VIII-VIII centuries. To the east and north of the zone of the Romano-Germanic synthesis and the borders of Byzantium on the lands of the Germans, Slavs and Balts in the regions of the concentration of the rural population, “non-agricultural” settlements appeared, in which professional artisans and merchants concentrated. Some of these settlements arose directly due to the development of "wide trade relations". These settlements are proto-cities. They also become centers of crystallization of the military retinue and merchant classes.

The next period of the genesis of ancient Russian cities according to V.V. Sedov is the 9th-10th centuries. - the emergence of the actual early feudal cities. Far from all proto-cities developed into "real" urban centers, but only those that, along with handicraft and trade functions, had military, political, administrative and religious functions.

It must be said that in many ways the concept of V.V. Sedov is an attempt to reconcile the old ideas coming from B.D. Grekov and M.N. Tikhomirov with new materials, primarily archaeological (including those obtained by V.V. . Sedov). The concept of V. V. Sedov is to a certain extent a combination of old and new approaches, it combines both their strengths and weaknesses.

The phenomenon of "transfer of cities"

Speaking about the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities, one cannot help but pay attention to the phenomenon of “transfer of cities”, which is observed almost throughout ancient Russia. This phenomenon was first seriously studied by A. A. Spitsyn, and then by such scientists as I. I. Lyapushkin, L. V. Alekseev, V. A. Bulkin and others. Most clearly, the "transfer of the city" can be traced on the example of Gnezdov - Smolensk. Gnezdovo is a settlement with an area of about 16 hectares. It includes a fortified settlement at the mouth of the river. Lead (about 1 ha in area) and a settlement. The settlement arose at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries. This place is marked by traces of buildings dug into the ground, as well as accumulations of molded pottery. By the middle of the X century. Gnezdovo grows along the banks of the Svin and the Dnieper, joining with mounds that encircle it in a semicircle. The most intense period of the existence of this settlement falls on the second half of the 10th century. At this time, new fortifications were erected in its central part.

Similar processes took place in other Russian lands during the formation of the early feudal state. This can be evidenced by both the high degree of separation of agriculture and crafts, as well as noticeable social differentiation, as well as the ever-increasing role of the squad and international relations. But at the beginning of the 11th century, the progressive development in Gnezdovo was replaced by a sharp decline. The cessation of active trade and craft activities leads to the fact that the settlement acquires an ordinary rural character. At the same time, Smolensk, which is located 13 km. from the settlement begins to develop rapidly. TO XII century it is transformed into a major center of crafts and trade, the capital of the principality. External relations and city functions are developing in the city. Thus, one can see how the tribal center, where the local nobility dominated, is being replaced by a new center focused on external links, tribute collection, service of the squad, etc. Gnezdovo is not the only example of such a "transfer of the city". Such new princely centers instead of the old tribal ones arose mainly on international trade routes, which attracted warriors, artisans and merchants there. Similar examples are the Sarsk settlement near Rostov, Shestovitsky near Chernigov, Timirevsky near Yaroslavl.

Thus, we can say that the "transfer of the city" takes place in cases where the new emerging class of feudal lords is not able to completely break the tribal nobility. New feudal centers, originally closely associated with the old centers. However, their independence gradually increases, and the old centers disappear or lose their significance.

But not all scientists agree with this interpretation of the phenomenon of "transfer of the city". Some associate him with the Scandinavians and give them a leading role in the functioning of centers such as Gnezdov or Shestovits. In Gnezdovo, a group of large burial mounds is distinguished in the center of the necropolis, which are an aristocratic cemetery. Here, according to the Scandinavian rite, military leaders are buried. This is confirmed by the inventory accompanying the burial: amulets, jewelry, weapons. Similar Scandinavian elements were found in other burials at the "proto-cities". It is archaeologically confirmed that by the 11th century the Varangians who settled in Russia were assimilated by the Slavs. It was at this time that the squad camps, in which the soldiers and trade and fiscal centers were located, were transformed into qualitatively new formations, cities of a new type. This was facilitated by the adoption of Christianity and the transition to a more orderly domestic policy.

The phenomenon of "transfer of the city" is the most archaeologically confirmed, but no less debatable concept, since disputes arise around the interpretation of the available archaeological data. Its supporters claim the emergence of a city near a previously existing but decayed fortified settlement.

The concept of dynamic city formation

The historian V.P. Darkevich criticizes all the above concepts of the development of ancient Russian cities and denies the existence of the phenomenon of city transfer. Instead, he offers his own theory, in which he connects the process of urbanization and the formation of the Old Russian state. He believes that in connection with the emergence of ancient Russian statehood, the organization of society becomes noticeably more complicated and the emergence of coordinating centers becomes a necessity. These functions were performed by the first cities. "The main centers were Novgorod and Kyiv, located, as in an ellipse, in two "foci" of the region involved in the "trade traffic";" The path from the Varangians to the Greeks "is the axis of not only the political map, but also political life Kievan Rus. Its unity is strong as long as both ends of the path are in the same hands.

V.P. Darkevich believes that the formation of the state in Russia and the emergence of cities was not a long evolutionary process, but was a dynamic phenomenon. Citing archaeological data, he argues that cities are in no way connected with numerous suburban formations. Cities as a historical and cultural phenomenon with new properties arise together with the emergence of the state, are its integral part and symbolize the transition to another, qualitatively new stage in the development of society. It was only towards the end of the 10th century that conditions were created for the emergence of a new type of settlements that were able to perform new functions - military, cultural and administrative. Not economic factors, but the search for new forms of cooperation and solidarity forced people to unite and create cities. The 10th century was a transitional period.

An important role in the construction of cities, according to Darkevich, was played by the princes, they led the designers and "city builders". Cities served not only as an important center of government, but also as a refuge in case of military danger. That is why the construction of powerful fortifications was seen as a great thing. This reason was one of the first that moved the builders. Cities were built collectively.

V. P. Darkevich singles out the emergence of ancient Russian cities as a new stage in the development of society of that time and considers this process not evolutionary, but dynamic, flashy. Thus, he rejects all previously proposed concepts. His theory today has few supporters, but is based on a sufficient amount of evidence and, like other concepts, has its drawbacks, and we could not lose sight of it in the study of the problem of the origin of ancient Russian cities.

Thus, in the course of the chapter, we reviewed the studies of leading scientists in the field of the issue of the origin of ancient Russian cities and identified five main concepts:

A socio-economic concept that highlights trade and the separation of craft from agriculture as the main driving forces for the emergence of cities in Ancient Russia. Like other concepts, it has supporters and opponents and is not without weaknesses. Since it is one of the earliest concepts, it has some discrepancies with modern archaeological data.

The concept of the development of cities from tribal centers, which is based on the continuity of ancient Russian cities with earlier proto-urban formations. This concept is largely borrowed from foreign historians, and, like the previous one, has discrepancies with archaeological data.

The concept of several urban development paths, which combines several proposed concepts and is rather a compromise theory, but it is also not without weaknesses and has its opponents.

The phenomenon of "transfer of the city", which is the most archaeologically confirmed, but no less debatable concept, since disputes arise around the interpretation of the available archaeological data. Its supporters claim the emergence of a city near a previously existing but decayed fortified settlement.

The concept of the dynamic formation of cities, which was proposed by the historian Darkevich, who singles out the emergence of ancient Russian cities as a new stage in the development of the society of that time and considers this process not evolutionary, but dynamic, flashy. Thus, he rejects all previously proposed concepts. His theory today has few supporters, but is based on a sufficient amount of evidence and, like other concepts, has its drawbacks, and we could not lose sight of it in the study of the problem of the origin of ancient Russian cities.

These are the most common in national historiography points of view on this issue. Of course, there are other opinions, but they, one way or another, fit into the scheme we have proposed.

Consideration of these concepts will help us continue our research in the field of ancient Russian cities and more specifically in the field of kremlins in ancient Russian cities, since it was the kremlin that was the center and, one might say, the heart of the ancient Russian city. We saw that the question of the emergence of cities in Ancient Russia is very ambiguous, which gives us reason to believe that they further development also went in different ways. We will try to identify these common features and differences in the course of our work.

Such Ancient Russia seemed to many foreigners who had ever visited its vast expanses, visited its populous and rich cities.

A primitive idea of ancient Russian cities was formulated by N. Khodakovsky in the first half of the 19th century. In his view, “A city or a city is just a fence, a crown, a circle, a line, an embrace” ( Historical system of Khodakovsky: Publication of M. N. Pogodin. In the book: - Russian historical collection. Book. 3. M., 1838, p. 76.). In this definition we are talking only about the external typological features of the city, and even then incomplete. Nothing is said about the socio-economic, political, cultural characteristics of urban centers.

The problem of the emergence and development of ancient Russian cities is one of the most important topics as a pre-revolutionary ( In the works of V. N. Tatishchev, M. V. Lomonosov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, N. I. Kostomarov, D. Ya. Samokvasov, V. I. Sergeevich, I. E. Zabelin, A. E. Presnyakov and many others considered various aspects of the problem of the formation of cities in Russia.), and Soviet historical science. The ways and forms of the formation of ancient Russian urban centers are complex and diverse. In recent decades, Soviet scientists have achieved significant success in the study of the cultural layers of such cities as Novgorod, Staraya Russa, Kyiv, Pskov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Ladoga and many others. The discoveries and finds of Soviet archaeologists clarified previously unknown or incomprehensible pages of the history of the city in Russia, made it possible to proceed to a comprehensive analysis of the monuments and the historical understanding of the data obtained. The results of historical and archaeological research of ancient Russian cities allow us to assert that they were feudal centers ( Bulkin V. A., Gadlo A. V., Dubov I. V., Lebedev G. S. Archeology. - In the book. Soviet source study of Kievan Rus. L., 1979, p. 99-101.). The conclusion of Acad. B. A. Rybakov that the cities were the focus of "two cultures of feudalism" - the dominant culture of palaces and estates, led to a large extent by the church, and democratic culture, the most progressive wing of which is represented by urban townspeople "( Rybakov B. A. About two cultures of Russian feudalism. - In the book: Lenin's ideas in the study of the history of primitive society, slavery and feudalism. M., 1970, p. 33.). Such general conclusions are based on long-term searches and in-depth studies of the socio-economic nature of the phenomenon of city formation in Russia, the structure, typology of cities, and their main features. These works do not stop to this day, and the field of activity for researchers here is boundless.

Until now, the fundamental work of Acad. M. N. Tikhomirov "Old Russian cities", in which written reports about cities in Russia were summarized, as well as archaeological materials available at that time. M.N. Tikhomirov noted that urban centers arise primarily in peasant agricultural areas, where the district is able to feed the population concentrated in separate places ( Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities. M., 1956, p. 36-37.). M. N. Tikhomirov actively spoke out against the trade theory, when the emergence of the city was explained by the participation of one or another point in trade and, moreover, mainly in transit. According to him, cities are permanent settlements where craft and trade are concentrated ( Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities. - Learned. app. Moscow un-ta, 1946, no. 99, p. 8-9.). Such centers rely on stable domestic markets for their products and the agricultural district.

Thus, M.N. Tikhomirov believed that economic factors were dominant in the process of city formation in Russia, and the socio-political nature of this phenomenon was clearly insufficiently studied by him, although in general plan he pointed out that the development of feudalism played an important role in this process.

However, despite this, the works of M. N. Tikhomirov were a significant milestone in the study of the history of the Russian city. Unfortunately, the researcher relied mainly on data from written sources, skeptically assessing the possibilities of archaeological materials. In part, he was right, because then all the extensive archaeological work in the cities was just unfolding, and the available data had not yet been prepared for use by historians. General definition ancient Russian city was also given in the works of Acad. B. D. Grekova. He believed that "the city is a settlement in which the industrial and commercial population is concentrated, to some extent divorced from agriculture" ( Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M., 1949, p. 94.). In other words, for B. D. Grekov, the decisive factor in the process of the emergence of cities in Russia was the separation of handicrafts into an independent industry and the development of trade. Earlier, B. D. Grekov pointed out that “the main Slavic cities arose along large waterways” ( Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M.; L., 1944, p. 250.). This conclusion is in conflict with the conclusions of M. N. Tikhomirov, and, in our opinion, it is more just.

The geographical factor cannot be discounted either, when the bulk of the largest early city centers arise on the most important waterways, which also have commercial significance. Using the example of a number of ancient Russian cities, including Rostov, M.N. Tikhomirov tried to show that trade was of purely secondary importance for the emergence and development of this center. There are many contradictions in MN Tikhomirov's reasoning on this matter. On the one hand, he points to the fact that Rostov, located on the shore of Lake. Nero, through r. Kotorosl is connected with the Volga and an extensive river network - with Suzdal, Pereyaslavl, Vladimir ( Barsov N.P. Essays on Russian historical geography. Warsaw, 1885, p. 31; Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities, p. 59.). On the other hand, M.N. Tikhomirov notes that Rostov arose far from the main route of the region - the Volga, and in this regard, trade was of secondary importance for Rostov. Modern research, the latest excavation materials allow us to assert that r. Kotorosl, and lake. The Nero and other rivers in this microdistrict, where Rostov is located, are part of the Great Volga route “from the Varangians to the Arabs”, along which both transit and domestic trade were carried out. Therefore, in the life of the inhabitants of the Sarsky settlement - the predecessor of Rostov, and in its own trade played an important role, apparently equal to handicraft production.

In determining the main functions of cities in general and in Russia in particular, one should rely on the thesis of K. Marx and F. Engels, according to which the emergence of a city is the result of the separation of “industrial and commercial labor from agricultural labor ...” ( Marx K., Engels F. Soch., v. 3, p. twenty.).

The process of the emergence of ancient Russian cities was characterized by Acad. B. A. Rybakov, noting that “the cities that are being born are not fabulous chambers that arise in one night, being erected by an unknown magical force.” He correctly points out that “the course of the historical development of the tribal system leads to the multiplication of such centers and to the complication of their functions” ( Rybakov B. A. City of Kiya. - Questions of History, 1980, No. 5, p. 34.). These centers are the basis of future early feudal cities.

Despite the variety of forms of early ancient Russian cities, modern historical science still identifies the main ways of their development and the main forms. Such terms as “tribal cities”, “proto-urban centers”, “fortified cities” and a number of others have found their place in the literature ( Froyanov I. Ya., Dubov IV The main stages of the social development of the ancient Russian city (IX-XII centuries). - In the book: Ancient cities: Materials for the All-Union Conference "Culture Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the era of the early Middle Ages. L., 1977, p. 69-71.). Their meaning is not always completely clear, it also happens that different authors put different content into them.

The results and tasks of the archaeological study of ancient Russian cities were devoted to special plenums of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences, held in 1941 to 1950 ( The materials of these plenums are published in Short messages Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (see: KSIIMK, 1945, issue XI; KSIIMK, 1951, issue XLl; see also; Voronin N. N. On the results of the archaeological study of ancient Russian cities. - Historian-Marxist, book 6 , 1941, pp. 149-152.).

At the plenum in 1950, archaeologists S. A. Tarakanova, M. Yu. The first believed that the immediate predecessors of the ancient Russian urban centers were the Slavic "tribal cities" ( Tarakanova S.A. 1) On the origin and time of the emergence of Pskov. - KSIIMK, 1951, no. XXXV, p. 18-29; 2) To the question of the origin of the city in the Pskov land. - KSSIMK, 1951, no. XLI.). This point of view has both supporters and critics. In fact, tribal centers, apparently, were the basis for the emergence and development of cities. But they still cannot be called in the full sense "cities" due to the fact that the appearance of such is already characteristic of a class society or transitional stages to it, and not for a period when tribal relations dominated.

According to the “castle theory” of M. Yu. Braichevsky M. Yu. To the origin of ancient Russian cities. - KSIIMK, 1951, no. XLI, p. 12.). Of course, in the conditions of constant feudal wars, the development of new lands, and especially during periods of feudal fragmentation, many cities in Russia arose in this way. N. N. Voronin rightly noted that “the initial core of many cities is a princely fortress, or a feudal lord’s castle ... Such are ... and the“ new cities ”of Suzdalytsy: Pereyaslavl, Yuryev, Dmitrov, really founded by“ princely power ”” ( Voronin N. N. On the results and tasks of the archaeological study of the ancient Russian city. - KSIIMK, 1951, no. XLI, p. 11-12.).

However, the city-fortress is only one of many, and not the main ones, types of early Old Russian urban centers, although, apparently, most of them are characterized by powerful wood-earthen, and then stone fortifications. But it is one thing when a new point arises artificially and initially has a mainly military significance, and it is quite another if one or another "settlement" or "town" becomes the natural center of a large district - an economic, political, cultural center.

At the same time, a third concept of the formation of cities in Russia was also proposed, implying the multiplicity of paths of this process and, accordingly, a large number of types of early ancient Russian cities.

N. N. Voronin believed that ancient Russian cities could have arisen on the basis of trade and craft settlements or as a result of the merger of several rural settlements, formed around feudal castles or princely fortresses. This concept of N. N. Voronin was further developed by E. I. Goryunova, ( Goryunova E. I. On the history of cities Northeast Russia. - KSIIMK, 1955, no. 59, p. 11-18.) M. G. Rabinovich ( Rabinovich M. G. From the history of urban settlements of the Eastern Slavs. - In the book: History, culture, folklore and ethnography of the Slavic peoples. M., 1968, p. 130-148.), V. T. Pashuto ( Pashuto V. T. On some ways of studying the ancient Russian city. - In the book: Cities of feudal Russia. M., 1966, p. 93-98.) and many other historians and archaeologists. According to the fair remark of A. V. Kuza, “by the end of the 60s ... a theory of the diversity of specific options for the emergence of cities in Russia was formed” ( Kuza A.V. On the origin of ancient Russian cities (history of study) .- KSIA AN USSR, 1982, no. 171, p. eleven.).

Much attention was paid to the study of the socio-political nature of the phenomenon of urban formation in Russia in his fundamental work “Russian Land” by A. N. Nasonov, who believed that the ancient Russian cities were primarily centers of feudal power ( Nasonov A.N. Russian land and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state. M, 1951, p. 22.). Since then, these problems have been regularly discussed at symposiums and conferences held both in the system of the USSR Academy of Sciences and other historical and archaeological centers. A significant contribution to the study of ancient Russian cities was the article cited above by N. N. Voronin ( Voronin N. N. To the results and tasks... p. 5-29.). In it, the author summarized the materials accumulated by that time and formulated the immediate tasks, many of which are still relevant today. It is noteworthy that N. N. Voronin not only studied new finds, but also, practically for the first time in Russian historiography, based on the richest archaeological material, tried to give a typological analysis of the ancient Russian early city centers. In those same years, E. I. Goryunova rightly noted that Soviet archaeologists were only approaching this topic ( Goryunova E. I. On the history of cities ... p. eleven.). She compiled the first summary of monuments and summed up the results of the study of the cities of North-Eastern Russia, considering the problems of the emergence of Murom, Rostov the Great, Yaroslavl, Suzdal. The following generalization of materials on the history of the ancient Russian city, including the cities of the northeast, was carried out in joint work N. N. Voronin and P. A. Rappoport ( Voronin N. N., Rappoport P. A. Archaeological study of the ancient Russian city. - KSIA AS USSR. M., 1963, no. 96, p. 3-17.). The authors made some conclusions of a general order concerning the chronology and origin of such cities of the Zalessky land as Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir, Beloozero.

Works on the typology and methods of research of ancient Russian cities continue ( Yatsunsky VK Some questions of the method of studying the history of the feudal city in Russia. - In the book: Cities of feudal Russia. M, 1966, p. 83-89; Pashuto V. T. On some ways of studying the ancient Russian city. - Ibid., p. 93-98; Rappoport P. A. 1) On the typology of ancient Russian settlements. - KSIA AN USSR, 1967, no. 110, p. 3-9; 2) Military architecture of the Western Russian lands of the X-XIV centuries. - MIA. L., 1967, No. 140, p. 186; Dovzhenok V. N. Social typology of old Russian settlements. - Archeology, 1975, No. 2.) and will undoubtedly lead to a situation where we can clearly define the historical face of each center at a certain stage of its development. In this regard, the works of L. V. Alekseev, which examine the history of the Polotsk and Smolensk lands, should be especially noted. This author believes that “if the economic reasons for the emergence of cities were the same, then the specific ways of their appearance could be different ...” ( Alekseev L.V. Polotsk land: Essays on the history of northern Belarus in the 9th-13th centuries. M., 1966, p. 132.). He also names the necessary conditions for the emergence of an ancient Russian city. This, in his opinion, is “a trade and transit route that provides the artisan with an uninterrupted sale of goods, and the presence of a fortified point that guarantees his safety. The last could be a castle of a feudal lord, and a monastery, and even a tribal center with a sanctuary, if one is fortified" ( There.).

In his next monograph, L.V. Alekseev, using the example of Smolensk cities, identifies three stages of their development ( Alekseev L. V. Smolensk land in the IX-XIII centuries: Essays on the history of Smolensk and Eastern Belarus. M., 1980, p. 186-193.).

At the first stage (IX - beginning of XI centuries), cities arose on the basis of tribal centers, and "open trade and craft settlements" appeared, where a multi-ethnic population was concentrated. In characterizing the latter, L. V. Alekseev relies on the work of Leningrad archaeologists ( Bulkin V. A., Dubov I. V., Lebedev G. S. Archaeological monuments of Ancient Russia in the 9th-11th centuries. L., 1978, p. 138 and ate.).

The second stage, according to L. V. Alekseev, covers the second half of the 11th - the first half of the 12th century. This time is characterized by the emergence of purely feudal cities and the gradual extinction of the centers that arose under the conditions of tribal relations ( Alekseev L. V. Smolensk land ... p. 190.).

And finally, in the 40-50s of the XII century. the third stage begins, when “many new cities appear in Smolensk land, which is explained by the internal economic reasons of the country, the ripening inside the former centers of independent productive forces and, above all, undoubtedly, crafts, which made the townspeople a special economic force” ( Ibid, p. 190-192.). This stage ends during the period of the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

It should be noted that the periodization of L. V. Alekseev, the dynamics of the development of cities outlined by him, their features and signs at various stages of development are characteristic not only for the Smolensk land, but also for Ancient Russia as a whole.

Northeastern cities in their development also go through all these periods, this will be shown in the following chapters of this book.

Of considerable interest are the works of V. V. Mavrodin and I. Ya. Froyanov, devoted to the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities and their early history ( Mavrodin V. V., Froyanov I. Ya. F. Engels on the main stages in the development of the tribal system and the question of the emergence of cities in Russia. - Vestn. Leningrad. un-ta, 1970, No. 20, p. 7-15; Mavrodin V. V. 1) The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality. M., 1971, p. 51; 2) The origin of the Russian people. L., 1978, p. 122; Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history. L., 1980 p. 216-243.). In the works of these researchers, the following concept was formulated: cities arise on the basis of tribal centers and as a result of the decomposition of the tribal system, and later, in the 11th century, they become feudalized. In the monograph by I. Ya. Froyanov, a whole section is devoted to this issue, which provides a detailed historiography on the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities. The author came to the conclusion that “the cities of Russia in the 10th century. were independent social unions ... "( Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus: Essays on socio-political history, p. 227.). I. Ya. Froyanov is a supporter of the tribal basis of the most ancient Russian cities. By the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, when, in his opinion, the disintegration of tribal relations in Russia was completed, peculiar "urban volosts" were formed with the main city, suburbs and rural districts. During the XII century. there is a process of formation of ancient Russian city-states. For North-Eastern Russia, notes I. Ya. Froyanov, “in the second half of the XII century. Monarchist tendencies emerged, breaking through the veche democracy...” ( Ibid, p. 243.). The development of city-states was stopped by the Tatar-Mongol invasion. These are the main provisions of the concept of I. Ya. Froyanov in connection with the problem of the city in Russia, they generally reflect his system of views on Ancient Russia, its socio-economic and political structure.

Thus, in the studies of I. Ya. Froyanov, the point of view widely represented in the historical literature, according to which cities in Russia are considered as feudal centers, is disputed ( Yushkov SV Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus. M.; L., 1939, p. 131 - 132; Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M., 1953, p. 104; Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities, p. 64.). We believe that the formation of ancient Russian gorodoz should be associated with the process of disintegration of tribal relations and the formation of the early feudal structure of society. F. Engels considered the existence of cities - the centers of "a tribe or unions of tribes" to be quite natural ( Marx K., Engels F. Soch., v. 21, p. 163.).

It is important to note that during the emergence of ancient Russian cities, the phenomenon of Sinoikism, characteristic of many regions of the world, was traced. Here it was expressed in the fact that most of the large cities of Russia - Kyiv, Novgorod, Chernigov, Suzdal and a number of others - arose on the basis of the merger of several settlements that apparently had a tribal character. It is necessary to trace the mechanism of the folding of the city, and to determine its social status.

The socio-economic assessment of the actual phenomenon of the emergence of the city remains a controversial issue. The traditional point of view is the position, supported by most modern historians, according to which cities are one of the main signs of the emergence of feudalism ( Rabinovich M. G. From the history of urban settlements, p. 132-133.). However, the above opinion is known that cities in Russia arise as a result of the collapse of tribal relations ( Mavrodin VV, Froyanov I. Ya. F. Engels on the main stages... p. 13.). It seems that both points of view do not exclude each other and the ancient Russian cities are one of the concrete manifestations of the period of the decomposition of the tribal system and the formation of feudalism. They arise during the transition period. Hence the variety of their types. In this regard, the hypothesis of V. L. Yanin and M. Kh. Aleshkovsky that ancient Russian cities arise “from the administrative veche centers of rural districts-pogosts, places of concentration of tribute and its collectors is very interesting and fruitful ( Yanin VL, Aleshkovsky M. Kh. The origin of Novgorod: On the formulation of the problem. - History of the USSR, 1971, No. 2, p. 61.).

Similar views are expressed by P. N. Tretyakov and B. A. Rybakov ( Tretyakov P.N. At the origins of ancient Russian nationality. - MIA. L., 1970, No. 179; Rybakov B. A. Smerdy. - History of the USSR, 1972, No. 1.). The first one pays special attention to the consideration of such trade and craft centers as Kleshchin, Sarskoe gorodishche, Timerevo, Mikhailovskoye, Petrovsky as the immediate predecessors of the early feudal cities of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Yaroslavl, and Rostov the Great. The general problems of ancient Russian cities are also considered in the works of G.V. Shtykhov G. V. 1) Ancient Polotsk IX-XIII centuries. Minsk, 1975; 2) Cities of the Polotsk land of the IX-XIII centuries. Minsk, 1978.). G. V. Shtykhov believes that cities appear on the basis of tribal centers during the period of transition from the tribal system to feudalism.

In his opinion, “an ancient Russian city is a complex and diverse social organism, which was the center of crafts and trade, a fortress, administrative center district or principality, cultural and religious center "( Shtykhov G. V. Ancient Polotsk... p. 6.). This definition is comprehensive, but it is of a purely general nature and does not allow us to determine specifically the type of cities, their features. According to the conclusion of G.V. Shtykhov, “the emergence of cities is one of the signs of the formation of statehood” ( There.). Here he goes in line with the traditional views of historians. In his other book, he changes his conclusions, focuses on the transitional nature of the era of the formation of cities in Russia ( Shtykhov G.V. Cities of the Polotsk land... p. 17-18.).

The problems of city formation and the typology of ancient Russian cities are specially studied by V.V. Karlov, who published two extensive articles on this topic ( Karlov VV 1) On the factors of economic and political development of the Russian city in the Middle Ages: To the formulation of the question. - In the book: Russian city: Historical and methodological collection. M., 1976, p. 32-69; 2) To the question of the concept of the early feudal city and its types in Russian historiography. - In the book: Russian city: Problems of city formation. M., 1980, no. 3, p. 66-83.). In his first work, this author identifies the main types of "pre-urban" settlements. These, in his opinion, are the "castles" of feudal lords and princely fortresses; handicraft and trading settlements, rows, fairs, graveyards; tribal (rather, intertribal) centers" ( Karlov V.V. About factors... p. 37.). Further, he considers the main facts of urban formation in Russia, highlights the main functions of ancient Russian cities. VV Karlov defines two main lines of development of urban centers in Russia. In his view, they are expressed, on the one hand, in the struggle of the trade and craft strata for the former city liberties, and on the other hand, in the constant desire of the feudal nobility to completely subjugate cities and make them centers of feudalization of lands in general.

In our opinion, this contradiction was revealed correctly and it seems that it was the driving force behind the development of ancient Russian cities.

V. V. Karlov fully agrees and develops the conclusions on this issue formulated by L. V. Cherepnin ( Cherepnin L. V. On the nature and form of the ancient Russian state of the X - early XIII centuries. - Historical notes, book. 89. M., 1972, p. 392.). These provisions are developed on the example of the cities of North-Eastern Russia of the XII century. Here there was a clash between the Rostov and Suzdal boyars, on the one hand, and the urban layers of Vladimir. There is a contradiction between the feudal boyar elite and the trade and craft urban people, based on veche orders, which, in turn, are rooted in the period of tribal relations. Thus, in the XII century. in North-Eastern Russia, the struggle continued between the supporters of the new feudal order and the tribal principle, expressed in contradictions between the "old" and "young" cities.

As a result, V. V. Karlov comes to the conclusion that “the city is not a specific product feudal system. From the very moment of its inception, it has many components that go beyond feudalism and are not genetically related to feudalism" ( Karlov V.V. About factors... p. 54.).

In other words, many features and signs of ancient Russian early feudal cities should be sought in tribal centers. As a result of intensive feudalization, they were gradually suppressed or blended into the structure of feudal cities, but they had already ceased to be fundamental and leading. However, this process was not direct and transient.

The second work of V. V. Karlov is devoted to the development of the concept of the fool of feudal Russia and its types. An extensive historiography of the issue is given here. The author identifies several stages in the development of the city in Russia and shows its most characteristic types for each of them. In his opinion, “the most ancient cities arose precisely as centers of large compatriotic unions, on the territory of which the political power of local princes spread from the centers” ( Karlov VV To the question of the concept... p. 76.). Thus, they were the strongholds of feudalization, places of tribute collection, centers of worship. At the next stage, in the 11th - the first third of the 13th centuries, a whole network of cities appeared and this, according to the conclusion of V.V. Ibid, p. 77-78.).

This characteristic, in our opinion, is seriously inferior in its development to the periodization proposed by L. V. Alekseev, which we have considered above. On the whole, the works of V. V. Karlov make a serious contribution to the study of city formation processes in Russia, summarize the results of previous studies, contain many fruitful conclusions, and outline prospects for further research on this topic.

IN Lately urban issues were also of interest to A. V. Kuza, who published a number of articles that examined both the history of the Old Russian cities proper and their immediate predecessors - settlements explored by archaeologists ( Kuza A. V. 1) Russian early medieval cities. - In the book: Abstracts of the reports of the Soviet delegation at the III International Congress of Slavic Archeology. M., 1975, p. 62-65; 2) On the origin of ancient Russian cities (history of study). - KSIA AN USSR, 1982, no. 171, p. 9-15; 3) Socio-historical typology of ancient Russian cities of the X-XIII centuries. - In the book: Russian city (research and materials). M, 1983, no. 6, p. 4-36.).

In the first of these works, A. V. Cuza compares the annalistic references to cities with archeological data, shows the dynamism of the process of their identification. In the next article, which has the subtitle "history of study", this author is not limited to historiography, but also draws his own conclusions on the problem of the origin of ancient Russian cities. In particular, he claims that "the most ancient cities of Russia were formed primarily on the basis of tribal and intertribal centers" ( Kuza A. V. On the origin ... p. 13.). Further, he considers various types of early-native or pre-urban formations. These, in his opinion, are open trade and craft settlements (proto-cities), tribal centers, watchtowers. In conclusion, he notes that “the era of developed feudalism is indeed characterized by a plurality of forms of urban organization and various ways of city formation, which is also confirmed by archaeological research” ( Ibid, p. 15.).

These conclusions of A.V. Kuza are in accordance with modern ideas about the early Old Russian city ( Bulkin V. A., Gadlo A. V., Dubov I. V., Lebedev G. S. Archeology ... p. 99-101.).

The socio-historical typology of not only annalistic cities, but archaeologically identified and studied settlements became the subject of research by A. V. Kuza in his recently published article. The result of this work was the conclusion, according to which “the second half of the X century. was a time of active urban formation in Russia "( Kuza A.V. Socio-historical typology... p. 34.). In addition, A. V. Cuza identified a number of urban features and functions in a number of fortified settlements of the second half of the 10th century. Thus, the list of urban centers of Ancient Russia, for one reason or another, did not develop into early feudal cities and did not get into the pages of chronicles, is significantly expanding.

In general, the research of A. V. Kuza is characterized by a deep knowledge and full use of the historiographic heritage, a thorough analysis of both written and archaeological sources, showing the development of the ancient Russian city in dynamics, and not as a static phenomenon. The works of A. V. Kuza lay a solid foundation, taking into account the latest achievements of domestic historical science, for further study of such a complex phenomenon as the process of city formation in Russia.

In the early 80s, D.A. Avdusin and his students also addressed the problems of the ancient Russian city ( Petr u hin V. Ya., Pushkina T. A. To the prehistory of the ancient Russian city. - History of the USSR, 1979, No. 4. p. 100-112; Avdusin D. A. The origin of ancient Russian cities (according to archaeological data). - Questions of History, 1980, No. 12, p. 24-42.). These works will be considered by us below in connection with the problem of the "transfer" of cities in Russia.

Speaking about the historical study of the ancient Russian city, and in particular the centers of the Rostov land, one cannot fail to note the great contribution made to the solution of the outlined range of problems by such historians and archaeologists as A. M. Sakharov, A. L. Khoroshkevich, V. L. Yanin, M. V. Sedov and a number of others ( Sakharov A. M. Cities of North-Eastern Russia of the XIV-XV centuries. M., 1959; Khoroshkevich A.L. The main results of the study of cities in the 11th - first half of the 17th centuries. - In the book: Cities of feudal Russia. M., 1966; Yanin V. L., Kolchin B. A. Results and prospects of Novgorod archeology. - In the book: Archaeological study of Novgorod. M., 1978, p. 5-56; Sedova M. V. 1) Old Russian cities of the lower reaches of the Klyazma River: Abstract of the thesis. cand. dis. M., 1972; 2) Yaropolch-Zalessky. M, 1978; Sedova M.V., Belenkaya D.A. Roundabout city of Suzdal. - In the book: Old Russian cities. M., 1981, p. 95-115.).

The successes of our historical and archaeological science in the study of ancient Russian cities are also reflected in the following facts. At one time, M.N. Tikhomirov noted that, according to chronicle sources for the pre-Mongolian period, there were about three hundred cities in Russia ( Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities ... p. 32-43.). A. V. Cuza, based on the latest archaeological research, brought their number to four hundred and fourteen ( Kuza A. V. Russian early medieval cities ... p. 64.). He also noted that “four hundred “annalistic” cities are opposed (? - I.D.) by almost 1,500 archaeologically known and recorded ancient Russian fortified settlements of the 9th-13th centuries.” ( Kuza A.V. Socio-historical typology... p. five.). According to the calculations of A. V. Kuza, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality has 36 cities, which is quite comparable with the number of urban centers in Pereyaslav (35), Galician (34) or Smolensk (31) principalities. These calculations are made for the end of the XII century. 26 urban centers have been excavated or surveyed here. To this number of cities, one should add a very significant number of settlements and large settlements, information about which is given in archaeological works devoted to North-Eastern Russia of the pre-Mongolian period ( Uspenskaya A. V., Fekhner M. V. Pointer and map "Settlements and burial mounds of North-Western and North-Eastern Russia of the X-XIII centuries." - In the book: Essays on the history of the Russian village X-XIII centuries. - Proceedings of the GIM, 1956, no. 32, p. 139-150; Goryunova E. I. Ethnic history ... p. 253-264.). The text of a trade agreement concluded with Volga Bulgaria by Prince Vladimir in 1006, which has come down to us in the retelling of V. N. Tatishchev, speaks of a fairly extensive network of cities in North-Eastern Russia, their trade and craft significance.

It reads: “The Bulgarians (Volsky) sent Ambassadors with many gifts, so that Vladimir would allow them to trade in the cities along the Volga and Oka without fear, which Vladimir willingly deigned to do, and gave them seals in all cities, so that they would trade everywhere and everything. , and Russian merchants with seals from the governors went to the Bulgarians with bargaining without fear, and the Bulgarians sold all their goods in the cities of the merchant, and buy what is needed from them, but do not go around the villages, do not sell tiun, virnik, fire and stink, and do not buy from them" ( Tatishchev V.N. Russian History. Book. P. M., 1773, p. 88-89.).

Thus, the agreement fixes the fact that in the cities of North-Eastern Russia already at the beginning of the 11th century. there is a merchant layer, which is under the control of the feudal administration. Only members of this stratum are allowed to practice foreign trade. On the other hand, foreign merchants are strictly forbidden to establish their own independent relations and carry out trade transactions with residents of rural areas of the Volga-Oka interfluve, while bypassing urban centers. Based on this, we can conclude that this trans-European trade and ties with other regions were concentrated in cities, in a sense, cities grew on these ties. And already local internal trade was carried out from cities.

The given data speak about enough in large numbers suburban formations and cities proper on the territory of North-Eastern Russia, and about the urgent need for their special and generalizing study.

One of the main problems of the urban theme of Ancient Russia is the question of how cities were formed and on what basis. Above, we have already given a detailed historiography of this issue, and now we will try to evaluate these problems using the example of the Volga-Oka interfluve. The process of the emergence of cities must be considered in dynamics, taking into account the complexities and contradictions of the socio-economic and political development of ancient Russian society.

All the complexity and diversity of the ways of development of Russian cities can be traced on the example of the Volga-Oka interfluve, where almost all the main types of suburban and early urban formations are represented.

In North-Eastern Russia, as we have already noted, the early feudal cities were preceded by tribal and proto-urban centers. All of them ceased to exist at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century. and gave way to the early feudal urban centers in the historical arena.

Of course, the emergence of ancient Russian early feudal cities followed complex and different paths, although this process was subject to general historical patterns. The urban centers of North-Eastern Russia cannot be studied in isolation from the general Russian problems of city formation. They developed according to general laws, here you can see all the same phenomena as in other regions of Ancient Russia. They are especially close in their chronology, typology, appearance and character to the urban centers of the Novgorod land. This is primarily due to the fact that at the first stage in the IX-XI centuries. Zalessky land was populated from the regions of the north-west, and people from the Novgorod region were the first Russian settlers here. Undoubtedly, the development of the cities of the northeast has also manifested its own characteristics, and has its own unique features.

Here, in North-Eastern Russia, one of the ways in which the ancient Russian city appeared was fully manifested - the so-called "transfer" of cities. We have devoted a special work to this topic ( Dubov I. V. On the problem of "transfer" of cities in Ancient Russia. - In the book: Genesis and development of feudalism in Russia: Problems of historiography. L., 1983, p. 70-82.), but here it is still necessary to dwell on the main aspects of this problem.

The phenomenon of "transfer" of cities in Ancient Russia has long been studied by domestic historical science. This problem is considered in the works of V. V. Mavrodin, who, using the data of written and archaeological sources, reveals the causes and nature of such a historical phenomenon as the "transfer" of the city ( Mavrodin VV 1) The formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1945, p. 114-115; 2) The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian people. M., 1971, p. 51.). V. V. Mavrodin cites as examples the facts connected with the emergence of Smolensk, Novgorod, Rostov the Great, Belozersk, Yaroslavl.

V.V. Mavrodin noted that “the city was transferred if the ethnic composition of the population changed, or when the ancient tribal nobility was defeated, or when the transfer was dictated by the needs of trade and military enterprises of the prince” ( Mavrodin VV The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality... p. 51.).

In other words, in his opinion, the main reasons for such transfers were the impossibility of building a sufficiently reliable fortification in the old place; the profitability and convenience of the location, primarily for economic reasons, and, finally, the emergence of new cities as opposed to the old tribal centers, which was one of the manifestations of the feudalization process.

In the archaeological literature, for the first time, the hypothesis of "transfer of cities" was developed by A. A. Spitsyn using a specific example. He did this on the basis of studying materials from archaeological excavations of the well-known Gnezdovsky burial ground, located near Smolensk. According to A. A. Spitsyn, Gnezdovo was ancient Smolensk, and it was moved to a new modern place in the 11th century ( Spitsyn A. A. Gnezdovsky mounds in the excavations of S. I. Sergeev.- IAK. SPb., 1905, no. 15, p. 7-8.).

So, since the time of A. A. Spitsyn, the problem of Gnezdov - Smolensk has been in the center of attention of scientists. Now the fund of information about the Gnezdovsky complex has been significantly replenished, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Now these are not only burial ground materials and meager data on settlements, but also the results of new excavations of settlements, numismatic finds.

The hypothesis of A. A. Spitsyn that Gnezdovo was the original Smolensk of the Russian chronicles and that the "transfer" of the city occurred already in the 11th century. disputes in his numerous works D. A. Avdusin. He interpreted the Gnezdovsky burial ground as a cemetery of ancient Smolensk, and the city itself, in his opinion, “arose where it stands now” ( Avdusin D. A. To the question of the origin of Smolensk and its initial topography. - In the book: Smolensk to the 1100th anniversary of the first mention of the city in the annals. Smolensk, 1967, p. 79.). Later, D. A. Avdusin began to believe that Gnezdovo and Smolensk existed in parallel: the first was an economic center, and the second was a political one. The impossibility of "transferring" Smolensk, according to D. A. Avdusin, is also due to the significant distance between it and Gnezdovo - about 12 km ( Avdusin D. A. The origin of ancient Russian cities ... p. 38-39.).

The hypothesis that the Gnezdovsky burial ground is the necropolis of Smolensk could have the right to exist only until the moment when an intensive field study of the Gnezdovsky settlement began under the leadership of I. I. Lyapushkin ( Lyapushkin II 1) New in the study of Gnezdov. - AO 1967. M., 1968, p. 43-44; 2) Research of the Gnezdovsky settlement. - AO 1968. M, 1969, p. 66-67.). It immediately became clear that this was the center to which the well-known burial complex belonged. Based on the results of the excavations of the Gnezdovo settlement, I. I. Lyapushkin came to a reasonable conclusion, according to which the hypothesis of A. A. Spitsyn that Gnezdovo was the oldest Smolensk has every reason to claim to be true. This assumption, I. I. Lyapushkin believed, can be removed only if layers are found in the city itself earlier than the 11th century, i.e., synchronous with the burials of the Gnezdovsky burial ground and belonging to the 9th-10th centuries ( Lyapushkin I. I. Gnezdovo and Smolensk. - In the book: Problems of the history of feudal Russia. L., 1971, p. 37.).

In the future, as the Gnezdovo complex was studied, the assumptions of A. A. Spitsyn received more and more justifications ( Bulki n V. A. Gnezdovsky burial ground and barrow antiquities of the Smolensk Dnieper region: Abstract of the thesis. cand. dis. L., 1973, p. 20-21; Bulki and V.A., Lebedev G.S. Gnezdovo and Birka: On the problem of the formation of the city. - In the book: Culture of medieval Russia. L., 1974, p. 14-15. - In this article, the authors completely reject the hypothesis that Gnezdovo is a cemetery in Smolensk, but they also talk about the need for additional evidence to confirm the point of view of A. A. Spitsyn.). Now it is hardly possible to doubt that Gnezdovo was the original Smolensk and gave way to the city on the modern site. Later, cultural layers in Smolensk are known, starting from the 11th century ( Alekseev L.V. About ancient Smolensk. - SA, 1977, No. 1, p. 84-91.). The problem of the relationship between Gnezdov and Smolensk, as well as the possibility of “transferring” the city here, is considered in most detail in the monograph by L.V. Alekseev, dedicated to the early history of Smolensk land ( Alekseev L. V. Smolensk land in the IX-XIII centuries. M., 1980, p. 135 - 154.).

The latest research convincingly shows that Gnezdovo was the original Smolensk. It was a large trade and craft center on the Dnieper route, which also played the role of the main city Slavic tribe Smolensk Krivichi. L.V. Alekseev calls it "Gnezdovsky" Smolensk ( Ibid, p. 136; Alekseev L.V. Smolensk land in the 9th-13th centuries: Essays on the history of Smolensk and Eastern Belarus: Abstract of the thesis. doc. dis. M., 1982, p. 22-24.). V. Ya. Petrukhin and T. A. Pushkina believe that centers like Gnezdov focused primarily on foreign trade relations, servicing products and imported items for the squad leaders ( Petrukhin V. Ya., Pushkina T. A. To the prehistory of the Old Russian city... p. 110.). We believe that with such an artificial isolation from the local environment, they could hardly exist for a long time. Without rejecting the functions mentioned above, one should nevertheless agree with the conclusion that they played an important leading role in tribal structures as well.

According to V. Ya. Petrukhin and T. A. Pushkina, Gnezdovo was the stronghold of the Kievan princely power in the land of the Smolensk Krivichi, whose original tribal center was, in fact, the city of Smolensk. Such retinue graveyards as Gnezdovo, "Rurik's Settlement", Sarskoye Settlement, Shestovitsky Settlement, Timerevo, according to these researchers, played an important role in the creation of the early feudal Old Russian state. An explanation for their disappearance in the 11th century has also been proposed. - this was due to the "consolidation of lands around the old tribal centers and the collapse of the "Rurik empire"" ( Ibid, p. 109.).

In our opinion, the general explanation of the question of the relationship between Gnezdov and Smolensk can be as follows. In the XI century. early feudal Smolensk arises on the elevated banks of the Dnieper. It is created on Cathedral Hill and becomes a fortified early feudal princely stronghold. This city appears as a counterweight to the Gnezdovsky tribal trade and craft complex. Gradually, there is an outflow of residents from Gnezdovo, and Smolensk expands and grows stronger. This “transfer” took place not but by the volitional effort of any person or social group, but was an objective consequence of the process of destruction of old tribal ties and the formation of an early feudal society.

A. A. Spitsyn was supported by V. I. Ravdonikas, who not only shared his point of view in relation to Gnezdovo-vu-Smolensk, but also gave other similar examples: Belozersk, Staraya Ryazan, Novgorod, Rostov ( Ravdonikas V. I. On the emergence of feudalism in the forest zone of Eastern Europe in the light of archaeological data. - Izvestiya GAIMK. L., 1934, no. 103, p. 118-119.).

V. I. Ravdonikas reports on the emergence of Belozersk with particularly important data. He also makes a general conclusion: “There is some general pattern in this process of growth of ancient Russian cities. The movement of a city to a new place at a certain moment of its development is observed everywhere" ( Ibid, p. 119.).

A similar picture can be observed by studying the history of the emergence of the ancient Beloozero. Local legend reports that the city of Beloozero was originally located on the northern shore of the lake. Bely and only later was moved to the source of the Sheksna River. Starting from the X century. the city of Beloozero is located at the mouth of the river. Sheksna on its right bank.

Based on the works of N. P. Barsov, A. A. Shakhmatov, P. A. Sukhov, L. A. Golubeva, one can reconstruct the ancient history of Beloozero and see that its formation and development fits into the process » cities in Ancient Russia ( Barsov N.P. Essays on Russian historical geography. Warsaw, 1888, p. 204; Shakhmatov A. A. The legend of the calling of the Varangians. SPb., 1904, p. 53; Sukhov P. A. Slavic settlement of the IX-X centuries in the southern Belozerye. - MIA, 1941, No. 6, p. 89; Golubeva L. A. All and the Slavs on the White Lake. X-XIII centuries M., 1973, p. 57-198.). Settlement near the The ancient settlement, discovered by P. A. Sukhov and explored by an expedition led by L. A. Golubeva, was the most important trade and craft center in the early town, apparently preceding Beloozero, located at the source of the Sheksna. Perhaps this was the chronicle Beloozero of the 9th century, from where it was transferred to a more convenient place to the shore of the lake. White.

The problem of the transfer of cities is considered by G.V. Shtykhov on the example of those on the territory of Belarus ( Shtykhoz G.V. Cities of the Polotsk land... p. 19-20.). He believes that the cities of Polotsk, Borisov, Minsk, Usvyaty arose as a result of this process. G.V. Shtykhov notes that “the displacement of cities is associated with the abandonment of the settlement by people, as a result of which life in it froze, and the emergence of a new point in another place, to which the functions of the old city were transferred” ( Ibid, p. twenty.). GV Shtykhov distinguishes between complete and partial transfer of the city.

As we have already noted, in addition to Gnezdov in Ancient Russia, there are still examples of the “transfer” of cities - this happens everywhere and is especially typical for the northeast. We record this phenomenon in Beloozero, Yaroslavl replaces Timerev, Rostov replaces the Sarsk settlement, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky replaces Kleshchin. Of course, in each specific case, certain features appear, but in general, such “transfers” are due to general patterns development ( Bulkin V.A., Dubov I.V. Timerevo and Gnezdovo. - In the book: From the history of feudal Russia. L., 1978, p. twenty.). The old tribal centers and proto-cities of the transitional era are losing their former significance, they are not able to compete with the early feudal princely fortresses and cities, which were founded mainly at the beginning of the 11th century ( Bulkin V. A., Dubov I. V., Lebedev G. S. Archaeological monuments of Ancient Russia of the IX-XI centuries. L., 1978, p. 136.). In all known cases"transfers" of cities, except for the situation with Kleshchin-Pereyaslavl, mentioned in the annals, one can rely only on information obtained as a result of archaeological research, which, of course, significantly limits the possibilities of historical reconstruction of the phenomenon in question.

Gaps in the sources, the complexity of their interpretation, dating, and made it possible to cast doubt on the whole idea and the fact of the "transfer" of cities in Ancient Russia. Such doubts were recently raised by D. A. Avdusin ( Avdusin D. A. The origin of ancient Russian cities ... p. 24-42.). In his view, the “transfer” of ancient Russian cities was supposed to mean the construction of new dwellings, workshops, outbuildings, fortifications, clearing and development of new arable land and land, building roads, feudal subjugation of the entire district. D. A. Avdusin categorically denies the possibility of “transferring” cities in Ancient Russia, explaining this by purely economic reasons. He recognizes only the fact of the "transfer" of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, and then only because it is recorded in written sources. D. A. Avdusin, apparently, is right when he claims that the “transfer” of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky took place at a later time than the cities of Russia, and therefore cannot be the main argument in favor of this phenomenon as a whole.

In the works of the students of D. A. Avdusin, the possibility of “transferring” cities in Ancient Russia is also generally rejected, and instead the hypothesis of the existence of the so-called “nar” cities in the early Middle Ages is proposed ( Leontiev A.E. Sarskoye settlement in the history of the Rostov land (VIII-XI centuries): Abstract of the thesis. cand. dis. M., 1975, p. 22; Petrukhin V. Ya., Pushkina T. A. To prehistory... p. 100-112.). But the proof of the simultaneous functioning of cities and settlements parallel to them (camps of Scandinavian warriors ( Rybakov B. A. Kievan Rus. - In the book: History of the USSR since ancient times, vol. 1. M., 1965, p. 489.) or churchyard points) is still clearly insufficient. It is doubtful that the graveyards - "strongholds of the grand duke's power" ( Petrukhin V. Ya., Pushkina T. A. To prehistory... p. 109.) - cities that develop from tribal centers come. This conclusion must be countered by the conclusion that cities replace both proto-urban and tribal centers and grow on an entirely new basis. Although, of course, it is impossible to absolutize this path of development.

The term "transfer of the city" in our understanding is rather arbitrary and behind it are hidden complex economic and social phenomena. It is no coincidence that they mainly occur at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, when the process of feudalization of Russia enters a new, more active phase and the fight against tribal formations is nearing completion. One of its manifestations was the "transfer of cities". At the end of X - beginning of XI century. both categories of early city formations (proto-cities and tribal centers) begin to lose their significance and are gradually being forced out of the historical arena by genuine cities - centers of administrative and spiritual power, crafts and trade, concentrating the agricultural district. The types of these cities, the ways of their emergence are also different.

It is necessary to dwell on one more point connected with the phenomenon of the "transfer" of the city. The fact is that the distances from the old centers to the new ones are in some cases the same.

According to Arabic sources, the daily passage up the water was 25 km ( Rybakov B. A. Russian lands according to the Idrisi map of 1154. - KSIIMK, 1952, no. XIII, p. 40.). Such early city centers as Gnezdovo, Sarskoye gorodishche, Timerevo are located approximately at the same distance (10-15 km) from the early feudal cities that replaced them - Smolensk, Rostov Veliky, Yaroslavl, and the Ancient Beloozero (settlement near the village of Gorodishche) is located from his successor at the mouth of the river. Sheksna at a distance within a day's march.

Apparently, it is no coincidence that new cities appear at such a close distance from the old tribal, trade and craft centers that have maintained strong ties with the district that have developed over the centuries. For a certain time they remained tribal markets serving entire regions.

In the era of the early Middle Ages, the main routes were the water surfaces of large rivers and lakes. During daylight hours, one could get from the new city to a well-known and familiar trading place, sell or purchase the necessary goods, and return to one's hearth after dark. A distance of 10-15 km was a one-way trip. At the same time, the residents of the old center could always easily come to the central city and on the same day, without much effort and risk, fearing to be caught in the dark and bad weather on the way, return back. This means that at the first stages of its history, the early feudal city could not exist without links with tribal centers, which still played an important role in historical development.

The "transfer" of cities in Ancient Russia, although a common phenomenon, is not obligatory for all its regions and centers. The "transfer" of cities takes place in cases where a new emerging class of feudal lords is not able to completely break the tribal nobility, desperately clinging to its power based on tribal foundations and orders. This class does not yet have the opportunity to completely subjugate all spheres of life and activity of the old, formed centers.

The communal principle played a leading role in the tribal and trade and craft proto-cities. And it certainly could not but enter into a confrontation with the new early feudal orders. The feudal class was formed not only on the basis of the tribal elite, it included merchants, artisans, and squad groups. Its social base was wider than the narrow circle of leaders and elders of the tribes of the period of the tribal system. Such a contradiction could not but cause a corresponding confrontation and a sharp struggle for economic and political power.

And then, not far from them, as a rule, for more convenient places, directly at the main crossroads of waterways, new early feudal cities arise, as if in opposition to the old centers of the tribes - markets, where all local crafts and trade, both domestic and distant, were concentrated.

The “transfer” of cities cannot be presented as a one-time fleeting act. The replacement of old centers by new ones occurs completely over a period of approximately 25 years, i.e., during the period of the change of one generation by another.

The new early feudal cities at first maintain close ties with the old centers and even some dependence. However, their independence gradually increases, and the former centers either completely disappear from the historical arena, or lose their significance so much that their fate cannot be traced either from written sources or from archaeological data.

In the following chapters, we will consider all these processes on concrete examples the emergence and development of four cities of North-Eastern Russia and the early city centers that preceded them.

Old Russian craft town

The history of any settlements on the planet begins from the moment the first people appeared in a given place, and, if necessary, the depths of the past of all living nature and geological history are also taken into account. During the Eneolithic period, settlements become more and more fortified, fenced off or located on elevated places near water bodies. At the beginning of the Iron Age (long before our era) there were hundreds of various settlements of various archaeological cultures on the territory of the future Russia. The emergence of real ancient cities on the lands that later became part of medieval Russia is well known: Olbia, Tiras, Sevastopol, Tanais, Phanagoria, Korchev, etc. Gelon.

In the IX-X centuries, along with the cities of refuge, small inhabited fortresses appeared, near which not earlier than the end of the 10th century. urban settlements appear - settlements of artisans and merchants. A number of cities were the main settlements of one or another "tribe", the so-called tribal centers, in fact - the centers of "their principalities", which was emphasized by the annals. Lack of written sources for the 7th-8th centuries. and chronicle evidence for the IX-X centuries. do not allow to establish at least an approximate number of cities of Russia of that era. So, according to the mentions in the annals, a little more than two dozen cities can be identified, but their list is certainly not complete.

From the 11th century begins a rapid growth in the number of urban population and the number of ancient Russian cities around the existing city centers. There are many theories about the reasons for the massive emergence of cities. One of the theories belongs to the Russian historian Klyuchevsky and connects the emergence of ancient Russian cities with the development of trade along the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." This theory has its opponents, who point to the emergence and growth of cities not only along this trade route.

Based on the synthesis of written sources, illustrative and archaeological materials, Popov distinguishes five groups of buildings that were part of the complex of residences of Russian princes. The first group includes buildings of a representative nature, intended for princely ceremonies, receptions and feasts. The stone or wooden tower was the architectural dominant of the princely court and was a tower-like building with a gilded hipped roof. The remains of monumental tower buildings were found in Chernigov, Polotsk, Grodno and Bogolyubov; wooden - in Novgorod, Staraya Ryazan, Vshchizh and Lyubech. The princely grid was a large (possibly two-story) building with a huge throne room, big amount windows. Probably, all Kiev palaces, buildings in Przemysl, Zvenigorod, Kholm are made of stone; traces of wooden grid boxes were found in Novgorod, Lyubech and Belgorod. The canopy was a spacious light unheated room raised on poles. All of these types of buildings were distinguished by a rich interior and were decorated with luxurious utensils. The second group of buildings - the actual living quarters of the prince's residence - "mansions", which constituted a whole complex of buildings. The structure of the choir could include heated huts, cold upper rooms - "tumblers", small bedrooms - "shackles", polyfunctional "cages", baths - "firers", luxurious "beds", prisons - "cuts". The third group of buildings of the princely court included outbuildings (various pantries, cellars, granaries). The fourth group of buildings was of a military-defensive nature and most likely represented tower-type buildings. The fifth group of buildings of the princely residence were palace churches. "[#9]"

The cult centers were: White Gods - a settlement on the way from Moscow to Zalessky Land, Polkosten - the cult center of glades on the Sula River in the northern part of the Black Sea steppe, Pereyaslavl Zalessky, Vitichev - between Borichev-Kiev and Rodnya on the banks of the Dnieper, Vitbesk (Vitebsk), Pleskov (from the XIII century - Pskov) - the cult center of the northern Krivichi, Peryn near Novgorod, Ladoga - possibly the cult center of the Ilmen Slovenes at the mouth of the Volkhov River, Yaroslavl on the San - the cult center of the god Yarila among the Duleb tribe from the 7th to the 10th centuries,

Brief historiography of the issue. The problem of the emergence of the first Russian cities is still controversial. V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that they arose as a result of the success of the eastern trade of the Slavs, as points of storage and departure of Russian export. In Soviet times, M.N. Tikhomirov opposed this. In his opinion, trade did not bring cities to life, it only created the conditions for singling out the largest and richest from them. Real strength, which called Russian cities to life, he considered the development of agriculture and crafts in the field of economics and feudalism - in the field of social relations. The specific paths of the emergence of cities seemed to Soviet historians to be quite diverse. According to N. N. Voronin, cities in Russia were built on the basis of trade and craft settlements, feudal castles or princely fortresses. E. I. Goryunova, M. G. Rabinovich, V. T. Pashuto, A. V. Kuza, V. V. Sedov and others agreed with him, to one degree or another. M. Yu. Braichevskii singles out one of the listed possibilities. Most of the cities, from his point of view, arose around the early feudal fortresses-castles. V. L. Yanin and M. Kh. Aleshkovsky believe that the ancient Russian city developed not from princely castles or trade and craft settlements, but from administrative veche centers of rural districts-graveyards, places of concentration of tribute and its collectors. V. V. Mavrodin, I. Ya. Froyanov and A. Yu. Dvornichenko believe that the cities in Russia at the end of the 9th - 10th centuries. built on a tribal basis. They arose as a result of the formation tribal unions, as vital bodies coordinating and directing the activities of the unions.

Kyiv. According to archaeological data on the appearance of manor buildings, bridges, drainage systems, etc., in relation to the 10th century, we can talk about the existence of only five real cities. At the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century, Kyiv and Ladoga arose, in the first half of the century - Novgorod, and at the end of the century - Polotsk and Chernigov.

Author of "The Tale of Bygone Years" calls the first Russian city Kyiv, and considers the founder of the Russian land Oleg. This follows from the words that he puts into the mouth of the prophetic prince: And Oleg, the prince, sat down in Kyiv and Oleg said:This will be the mother of Russian cities ". And he had- continues the chronicler, - Varangians, and Slovenes, and others who were nicknamedRussia » . By "others" he meant other participants in the campaign (Chud, I measure, Krivichi) and polyan. Turns out that " Russian land" arose as a result of the merger of heterogeneous clans with the arrival of Oleg and his troops in Kyiv. The meaning of the phenomenon is clear. It has been well known since ancient times and is usually called the Greek word "sinoikism". The expression "mother of Russian cities", like the Greek "metropolis" (from meter - mother and polis - city) - means the founding city. The words of the Prophetic Oleg “Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities” is a kind of prophecy that predicts Kiev the laurels of the founder of all Russian cities (or older cities).

Such information also penetrated into the chronicle that does not fit into the concept of the Kiev scribe. Based on the Greek chronicles, he tells that the Russian land became known during the reign of the Roman Emperor Michael. According to the chronicle, in 866 (according to Greek sources in 860), the Rus attacked Constantinople. These Russ are connected by the chronicler with the Kiev princes Askold and Dir. If this was indeed the case, it turns out that the Russian land arose at least a quarter of a century before the arrival of Oleg.

The story about Oleg's campaign against Kyiv is contradictory, and as it turns out, it is full of legendary details that never really happened. The chronicler claims that Oleg took Smolensk and Lyubech along the way and planted his husbands there. However, these cities did not exist at that time. According to the chronicle, Oleg went to Kyiv with a large army - "we will drink a lot of howls." But, having come to the mountains of Kiev, for some reason he began to hide him in the boats and pretend to be a merchant. Firstly, if this multi-tribal army was really large, it was not so easy to hide it. Secondly, if it was really significant, why didn’t Oleg openly take Kyiv - by siege or attack, as he allegedly did with Lyubech and Smolensk, the news of the capture of which would have reached the Kiev princes before the largest army? Most likely, Oleg's campaign was in fact a robber raid of a small detachment, consisting of representatives of Slovenes, Krivichi, Varangians, Mary, etc. But not a state enterprise. In this case, it makes sense to pretend to be merchants, especially since to a certain extent this actually happened. The raids of the Rus on the Slavs, which are described by Eastern authors, were directly related to the trade interests of the latter.

According to archaeological excavations, Kyiv arose on the site of a nest of Slavic settlements located in the 7th - 9th centuries on the Starokievskaya mountain and its slopes, the Kiselevka, Detinka, Shchekovitsa and Podol mountains. The settlements were interspersed with empty spaces, arable land and burial grounds. The ancient settlement was located in the north-west of the Starokievskaya mountain. According to B. A. Rybakov, it dates from the end of the 5th - beginning. 6th century At the end of the 9th century, Kyiv Podil developed rapidly, yard buildings and street planning appeared here.

In 969 - 971, during the reign of the famous warrior prince Svyatoslav Igorevich, Kyiv almost lost its status as the "middle" of the Russian land. Not only the prince and his family could leave him, but also the best part local nobility. The Kiev boyars were ready to change their place of residence to a more attractive one, having agreed, together with the prince, to settle in another city - Pereyaslavets on the Danube. Both Svyatoslav and his squad were only waiting for the death of the sick mother of the prince. The reason why such an outcome did not take place was the failure of the Russians in the fight against the Roman Empire. The reason why such an outcome could have taken place was that the Kyiv squad had not yet completely settled on the ground and the old squad ideals of loyalty and brotherhood meant more to it than their own villages in the district of Kyiv.

Under Vladimir, not only religion was changed, but the final step was taken towards the settlement of the Russian squad. The development of Kyiv, its strengthening and growth begins at this time. This can be seen from the construction undertaken by the prince. First, a pagan sanctuary "outside the courtyard" of the Terem was built, then the Church of the Tithes and the fortifications of the "city of Vladimir".

A real leap in the development of Kyiv took place in the era of Yaroslav the Wise after a period of temporary decline caused by the shock of the introduction of Christianity and the struggle of the sons of Vladimir for the Kievan inheritance. Then the boundaries of the city are noticeably expanding. The plan becomes sustainable. The center is being finalized - the "city of Vladimir" and the "city of Yaroslav" with the Golden Gate and the grandiose St. Sophia Cathedral. The fortifications of Kyiv increase in area by 7 times.

Ladoga. Judging by archaeological data, Ladoga arose at the same time as Kyiv. This is the only possible place where the legendary Rurik could come, and from where he could move on a campaign against Kyiv. Prophetic Oleg. The calling of Rurik to Ladoga, and not Novgorod, is mentioned in the Ipatiev and Radzivilov chronicles.

Archaeological excavations have shown that Ladoga as a settlement appears in the middle of the VIII century, but at that time, along with the Slavs, the Balts, Finns and Scandinavians lived here. Archaeologists have discovered both Slavic square log cabins with a stove in the corner, and large Scandinavian-style houses. The Slavs began to dominate here in the 10th century. The first fortress in Ladoga was built at the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries. Gradually, Ladoga becomes a Slavic city. The first streets appear, stretching along the banks of the Volkhov, and courtyard and estate buildings, typical of ancient Russian cities.

When Rurik came to Ladoga, it was an international trading post, with a more or less permanent agricultural and trade and craft population. Oleg left her together with his gang even when Ladoga did not represent a single organism. And only with his direct participation, it acquires urban features. Most likely, it was Oleg who built a stone fortress here, dated by archaeologists to the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries, which became the first step towards Slavic predominance. Oleg and his people took the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" under their control - this is the goal of strengthening the northernmost point of this trading system. In the X century, the Kyiv community persistently sought to master the East Slavic lands, rebuilding fortresses in the most important places, from the point of view of Kyiv. The most ancient Russian cities (Kiev fortresses) ensured the dominance of Kyiv among the Slavic tribes.

Novgorod. Information about the construction of Novgorod is contradictory. Initially, according to chronicles, the Novgorod fortress was built by the Slovenes who came to these places, then Rurik set up his fortifications here. Finally, in 1044 Novgorod was once again laid by Vladimir, son of Yaroslav the Wise. Slovenian Novgorod is a ancestral village or tribal center, the location of which is unknown. Rurik's Novgorod is associated by many with the "Rurik settlement", located 2 km from ancient Russian Novgorod. Excavations have shown that a settlement existed here already in the middle of the 9th century. Along with the Slavs, who built wooden log cabins here (the walls are 4-6 meters long) and left behind molded dishes and socketed arrowheads, characteristic of the Western Slavs, a certain number of Scandinavians lived here. The Scandinavian trace is represented by torcs with pendants in the form of Thor's hammers, equal-armed and shell-shaped brooches, playing checkers, pendants with runic spells, etc. Only the last message pertains to the now-famous Novgorod citadel. It has been confirmed by archaeological excavations. Novgorod of Vladimir Yaroslavich is the oldest citadel, which occupied the northwestern part of the modern citadel and included St. Sophia Cathedral and the episcopal court. V. L. Yanin and M. Kh. Aleshkovsky believe that a pagan temple used to be on the site of the St. Sophia Cathedral, i.e. this part of the detinets was the center of the boyar farms surrounding it in pre-Christian times. There was also an older citadel. The first fortress of detinets could have been erected on this site during the reign of Oleg or Igor.

Initially, Novgorodians were part of the Kiev city community. The unity of Kyiv and Novgorod of the 10th century is evidenced by the reports of the chronicle about the tributes established by Oleg, and then Olga, quitrents, traps and banners of the Kiev princes in the Novgorod land. The connection with the "mother" was mainly political. Posadniks were sent from Kyiv. If it was a prince, for example, Svyatoslav, Vladimir, Yaroslav, this flattered the Novgorodians and made them more independent. The personality of the prince gave the city completeness - both political and spiritual: the pagans believed in a mystical connection between the ruler and the good of society.

Polotsk. For the first time, Polotsk is mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years under the year 862 among the cities subject to Rurik. It is also on the list of Russian cities to which the Greek tribute taken by Oleg in 907 was intended. Under the year 980, the chronicle speaks of the first prince of Polotsk, Rogvolod, who allegedly came "from beyond the sea."

Systematic archaeological study of the city began in Soviet times. A. N. Lyavdansky, M. K. Karger, P. A. Rappoport, L. V. Alekseev and others excavated here. According to archaeological data, the original settlement in Polotsk arose in the 9th century on the right bank of the river. Cloths. The oldest Slavic strata date back to the 10th century. Detinets at the mouth of the Polota River was built in the second half of the 10th century. It became the center of the future city. Polotsk acquires city features in the late 10th - early 11th centuries, when courtyard and manor buildings spread and pavements were built. Polotsk was founded to control the trade route "from the Varangians to the Arabs" (as I. V. Dubov puts it), which passed from the Baltic Sea along the Western Dvina, through the Volga portage to the Caspian Sea.

Chernigov. The city was first mentioned in the annals under the year 907, among the Russian cities - recipients of Greek tribute. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus speaks of Chernigov as one of the “Russian fortresses”, from where Slavic one-trees come to Constantinople. The first event associated with the city dates back to 1024. Then Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, not accepted in Kyiv, " gray hair on the table Chernihiv».

The city has long attracted the attention of researchers. Mass excavations of the Chernihiv mounds were carried out in the 70s of the XIX century by D. Ya. Samokvasov. Detinets was studied by B. A. Rybakov. Architectural monuments were studied by N. V. Kholostenko and P. D. Baranovsky. In our time, excavations in Chernigov are led by V.P. Kovalenko. P. V. Golubovsky, D. I. Bagalei, M. N. Tikhomirov, A. N. Nasonov, V. V. Mavrodin, A. K. Zaitsev, M. Yu. Cuza and others.

Archaeological excavations have shown that on the territory of Chernihiv in the VIII-IX centuries there were several settlements of the Romny culture, traditionally associated with the tribes of the northerners. At the end of the 9th century, they cease to exist as a result of a military defeat. Their place is occupied by monuments of the Old Russian type. The first fortifications in the area of the Chernigov citadel, apparently, were built at the beginning of the 10th century (there is no exact data on this). It is believed that in the 80s and 90s of the 10th century the citadel was rebuilt by Prince Vladimir. Chernihiv acquires urban character at the beginning of the 11th century, like Polotsk. The city probably followed the movement along the Desna and held the exit to the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", connecting it through the Ugra and Oka with the Volga route.

Forced Synoykism. Among the first Kiev fortresses are Vyshgorod and Pskov. IN Vyshgorod there are no undisturbed deposits of the 10th century, there are only isolated finds. IN Pskov the first fortifications date back to the beginning or middle of the 10th century, but the settlement becomes a city only in the 11th century.

At the end of the 10th century, Vladimir Svyatoslavich built a number of fortresses near Kyiv to protect it from Pecheneg raids. Among them were Belgorod And Pereyaslavl. Archaeological excavations have confirmed the information of the chronicle. Belgorod was built on the site of a Slavic settlement (8.5 hectares in area), located on a cape formed by a ravine and the bank of the river. Irpin. According to excavations, at the end of the 10th century, fortifications of the citadel (12.5 hectares) and the first roundabout city were built here. The ramparts of the city had internal log structures and powerful mud-brick masonry. Ancient fortifications Pereyaslavl also belong to the end of the 10th century.

Chronicle reports about the construction of Belgorod and information under the year 988 make it possible to find out exactly how Kyiv created its colonies. According to the chronicle, Vladimir " chop”, i.e. collected,scored people in Belgorod from other cities. He did the same when settling other, nameless cities, the construction of which is reported in the article of 988. Therefore, Vladimir united into one whole representatives of various tribes and clans, i.e. artificially did what had previously happened by itself in Kyiv. Before us is the real forced synokism, similar to those arranged by the Seleucids in their kingdom more than a thousand years before.

Information from the chronicles about other ancient Russian cities has not been confirmed as a result of archaeological excavations. First fortifications Smolensk dated by archaeologists at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. The settlement of Podil dates back to the middle of the 11th century. As you know, the ancient Russian Smolensk was preceded by Gnezdovo of the 10th - 11th centuries - an open trade and craft settlement with a multinational population. However, Gnezdovo cannot be recognized as the original Smolensk. In fact, it was a settlement closely associated with the interests of international trade and distant predatory campaigns. It was primarily trading place, trading post and direct relationship to the future Smolensk did not have. Beloozero(up. under 862) in the X century - the village of Vesi. Old Russian city it becomes only in the XII century. fortifications Izborsk were built at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries, although the settlement has been known here since the 8th century. Rostov According to archaeological data, it appears no earlier than the 11th century. It is preceded by the Sarsk settlement of the 9th - 10th centuries, but, like Gnezdovo in relation to Smolensk, it cannot be recognized as the original Rostov. The oldest layers Turov belong to the turn of the 10th-11th centuries, and the fortifications of the city were built no earlier than the 11th century. fortifications Lyubech were also built in the 11th century.