In many educational and popular science materials, the idea is widespread that Kyiv became the capital in 882, after the city was captured by Prince Oleg. This statement, as a rule, is based on a story from the Tale of Bygone Years, which, under the year 882, says: “And Oleg the prince in Kyiv, and Oleg said: behold the mother of the Russian city.” At first glance, everything is obvious, but the latest research by specialists in the history of Ancient Russia shows that the formation of ideas about Kyiv as the capital was a much more complex and lengthy process.

Examples of using

In 882, Rurik's successor, Prince Oleg the Prophetic of Novgorod, captured Kyiv, which from that time became the capital of Russia.. (Wikipedia, Capitals of Russia)

In 882, Kyiv became the capital of Russia and since then received the honorary title of "mother of Russian cities". (Material on the site "Because. Ru")

V.M. Vasnetsov. Baptism of Russia. 1885-1896.

Reality

A rather detailed analysis of how ideas about Kyiv as a capital were formed was given in his article “Was there a capital in Ancient Russia” by A.V. Nazarenko.

The term "capital" itself, the researcher writes, is not fixed in the Old Russian language. Its analogue, "table", or "capital city" is known. However, the "table" was not only Kyiv, but also a number of other cities of Russia, which were owned by representatives of the ancient Russian princely family, for example, Novgorod. Kyiv, being the capital, should at least be distinguished by some specific definition, or even be called something else.

Such epithets do appear in the sources, but only in the 11th-12th centuries. One of them, the “oldest city”, is recorded in The Tale of Bygone Years, in the story of the events of 1096: about the invitation of the Kiev prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavovich and Pereyaslavsky, Vladimir Vsevolodovich (Monomakh), their cousin Oleg Svyatoslavovich, to Kyiv, for conclusion contracts. In another text, the "Word for the Renewal of the Church of the Tithes", dating from the middle of the 12th century, Kyiv is called "the elders in the cities", the Kyiv prince - "the elders in the princes", and the local metropolitan - "the elders in the saints".

Another definition, the very “mother of cities”, is a direct copy from the Greek mHtropolis, from one of the epithets of Constantinople, and is used to “equalize” the status of Kyiv with Constantinople, Nazarenko notes. According to him, this expression is no longer so common; in addition to the annalistic story about the capture of Kyiv by Oleg, only its use in the memorial service of consecration in 1051/3 of the church of St. George in Kiev attracts attention; here the city is also called "the capital city".

The concept of the all-Russian capital was formed in the XI-XIII centuries, the author of the article notes. In itself, the idea of ​​a single, main "capital city", according to A.V. Nazarenko, organically belongs to the complex of imperial political ideas; attempts to form and implement it have been repeatedly made in the Western, Latin world. Plans for the construction of a single capital were repeatedly undertaken by the Frankish, and later by the German rulers, he writes. So, Charlemagne tried to create a national center parallel to Rome with elements of sacralization in Aachen. Otto III tried to embody the same, essentially "Rome-centric" idea, when he tried to organize an empire with a center in Rome according to the late antique model. Frederick I Barbarossa was also an apologist for the empire ruled from Rome. However, a number of such important factors as the fragmentation of the feudal period, political and ecclesiastical polycentricity (as well as the opposition of these centers) prevented this idea from being realized in the West.

In Russia, where such a concept could have been based on the Constantinople, and not on the Roman model, its formation was significantly facilitated by the era of the autocracy of St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise, during which a fairly developed metropolitan ideological complex managed to take shape around Kyiv, which contributed, according to A. IN. Nazarenko, further, more distinct crystallization of the idea of ​​eldership of Kyiv. In addition, the researcher notes that the fundamental connection that existed between the church-administrative unity of the country and the idea of ​​the political sovereignty of its ruler, made the presence of the all-Russian Kiev Metropolis the most important prerequisite for the formation of the idea of ​​the state unity of Russia and its preservation in the conditions of political particularism, which, in turn, , stabilized the idea of ​​Kyiv as the capital of Russia as a whole. All together, this formed a strong ideological complex, which determined the amazing historical survival of the idea and feeling of all-Russian unity, concludes A.V. Nazarenko.

Sources and literature

Nazarenko A.V. Was there a capital in Ancient Russia? Some comparative historical and terminological observations // A.V. Nazarenko. Ancient Russia and the Slavs (Historical and Philological Studies). Ancient Russia and the Slavs (Ancient States of Eastern Europe, 2007). M., 2009. S. 103-113.

FROM VIII in. under the Abbasids, the Arabs, seeking to expand their trade, penetrated into Eastern Europe. They had two main routes: one on ships across the Caspian Sea from the northern edge of Persia, the other on camels from Khovarezm (Khiva) along the present-day Kirghiz steppes.

By either road they reached the large state of the Khazars, who occupied the lower reaches of the Volga and Don and the eastern Ciscaucasia. The Khazars, representing a mixture of Finnish and Turkish tribes, combined wandering and sedentary life; residents of the capital I t and l, located on both sides of the Volga (slightly higher
Arabic dirhem (from Russian treasures).
present-day Astrakhan), lived in city houses only in winter, and in spring and summer they went to the steppes for nomads. The Khazars obeyed two rulers: the kagan, who received divine honors, but was also responsible for the disasters of the country with his life, and the run, who was a real ruler, commanded troops, collected taxes, ruled cities. Sailing up the Volga, the Arab merchants reached the city of Bolgar, not far from the confluence of the Kama, where they entered into trade relations with people related to the Danube Bulgarians. The Slavs and Finns from today's central and northern Russia brought to the Volga markets a lot of all kinds of goods for the Arabs; Arab silver dirhems reached the Baltic Sea and penetrated into Scandinavia.

The main commodity exported by the Arabs from Eastern Europe were the skins of fur-bearing animals: sables, ermines, beavers, martens, etc.; of these, not a single fur was so valued as a black-brown fox. The Arab geographer and traveler Masudi says: “Dark fox fur is the most fashionable in the east; kings and princes of Arab and Persian make themselves hats, caftans, fur coats and capes from it, interrupting each other with their luxury. One of the caliphs wanted to determine which fur was the warmest: for this, he ordered to wrap water bottles in various skins on a cold winter night; it turned out that the only thing under the silver fox was that the water did not freeze.

Crossing from the Volga to the Don and further along the left tributaries of the Dnieper, Arab merchants reached Kyiv; further to the west, Jews were intermediaries in the fur trade and slaves, delivering fur goods to Muslim Spain and Ma-mushroom (north-western Africa, now Morocco and Algeria), and slaves from Bohemia to the market in Itil. In c. The trade relations of the Arabs began, as it were, to embrace the Christian countries of the old Roman Empire, Italy and Byzantium. Byzantium itself was at this time, thanks to heavy internal unrest and external failures, in disorder and weakness.

Following Nicephorus, who overthrew the reign of Irina, three emperors, one after the other, achieved power by force, relying either on the rebellious soldiers or on the capital's population, among which there were masters of artistic crafts who worked for the court and for the church, casters, jewelers, sculptors, icon painters, drapers, perfumers, and especially manufacturers of silk fabrics, the main pride of Byzantium since the time of Justinian, who obtained the secret of sericulture from the Chinese. In Constantinople, two extremes coexisted side by side: on the one hand, it was considered blasphemy to doubt the correctness of the decisions of the divine power of the emperor, on the other hand, the people of Constantinople and the army, following the example of the proletarians and legions of ancient Rome, awarded purple to the people of their election.

Proclaimed by the Paulician army, Leo V The Armenian resumed the war against the icons. “You see,” he told his supporters, “that all sovereigns who recognized icons and worshiped them died either in exile or in war. Only the iconoclasts died a natural death on the throne and were buried with honor in the temple of the Apostles. I also want to imitate them, so that after the long life of me and my son, our kingdom will last until the fourth and fifth generation. At his insistence, the cathedral 815 Mr.. forbade lighting candles and smoking incense in front of the “soulless tree” and condemned the “useless and inconsistent with the traditions of the church” production of icons. The persecution of the monks began again, the destruction of churches. However, iconoclasm was only held up by the threat posed by the heretical army. As soon as the soldiers were removed from the capital, Empress Theodora, who ruled in the childhood of Michael III, 843 g. restored the veneration of icons; the new cathedral established a feast of Orthodoxy in memory of deliverance from iconoclasm and all other heresies.

The controversy over icons greatly weakened Byzantium and lowered her intellectual life. While the iconoclasts were destroying works of art, the monks, for their part, wanting to strengthen the faith, destroyed books and attacked science because it nourished the spirit of doubt and criticism. The most talented and courageous defender of icons, Fyodor Studit (i.e., a monk of the Studite, strict hostel) called on the pope, a foreign lord: “Hear us, apostolic head, God-chosen shepherd of Christian sheep, the key-bearer of heaven, the rock of faith on which the Catholic ( universal) church; you are Peter, decorating the throne of Peter. Conquer the heretical beasts with the magic of the enchanting sounds of the word of God. After such appeals, the popes really began to interfere in the affairs of the Byzantine church, and it seemed to have lost its independence.

From the outside, Byzantium suffered one setback after another. The Spanish Saracens took possession of the island of Crete on the threshold of the Aegean Sea: its new name, Candia, comes from the Arabic handak, a deep ditch with which the conquerors surrounded the fortress they built. At the same time, Muslim sailors began to attack Sicily and southern Italy. Byzantine trade in the Mediterranean declined. From the north, the empire also had no rest. The Bulgarian Khan Krum, the conqueror of Emperor Nikifor, took Sardik (now Sophia) from the Byzantines and approached the capital, wanting to “thrust a spear into the Golden Gate”. Although this successor made peace with the empire, the frontier line had already passed not far from Constantinople. In the northwest, Byzantium had a new enemy - Russia: they disturbed the Greek X er with about-nes in the Crimea, attacked the Asia Minor coast of the Black Sea. IN 860 on 200 Russian ships sailed to Constantinople, plundered and burned the suburbs of the capital; with difficulty managed to beat off this "terrible northern thunderstorm", "rude barbarian people." as the Byzantines used to say.

Historically, it so happened that in Russia centuries are written in Roman numerals, although lately one can increasingly see the use of Arabic numerals to designate a century. This happens due to banal illiteracy and ignorance of how to write this or that century in Roman numerals, and people are also increasingly asking questions, what is the 19th century in numbers?

What is the 19th century

To not just answer the question What is the 19th century and to get rid of such questions in the future, you need to understand how Roman numerals are read. In fact, there is nothing complicated here.
So, Roman numerals are denoted as follows:
I-1
II - 2
III - 3
IV-4
V-5
VI–6
VII-7
VIII - 8
IX-9
X-10
It turns out that only 5 Roman numerals have an individual style, the rest are obtained by substituting I. If I is in front of the main digit, this means minus 1, if after, then plus 1.
With this knowledge, you can easily answer the question - what century is the 19th century?

What is the 19th century

And yet, what is the 19th century? Reading these simple numbers, many break them into 3 values ​​- X, I, X and get some very strange century - 10 - 1 - 10, i.e. 10 thousand 110 centuries. Of course, this is not the correct layout. The number XIX consists of 2 components - X and IX and is deciphered very simply - 1 and 9, i.e. it turns out 19.

Thus, the answer to the question, what is the 19th century, will be the 19th century.

What will the rest of the centuries written in Roman numerals look like?

XI-11
XII - 12
XIII-13
XIV-14
XV-15
XVI-16
XVII-17
XVIII - 18
XIX - 19
XX-20

The age in which we now live is denoted as XXI.

What is the 19th century

Many people wonder why in Russia they began to designate centuries with Roman numerals, because everyone knows that in the same English language centuries are denoted by familiar Arabic numerals, which are known and understandable to everyone, so why complicate your life?

In fact, everything is quite simple, the fact is that Roman numerals are used far from exclusively in Russia and not only in the designation of the century. It is believed that Roman numerals are more solemn and significant than the banal Arabic ones, known to everyone. Thus, Roman numerals have been used for centuries to denote particularly significant events or to give some kind of solemnity, to highlight.

It is quite easy to make sure that not only the age is indicated by Roman numerals, it is enough just to look at the book edition of the works in several volumes, where the volumes are probably numbered in Roman numerals. In all countries, monarchs were numbered in Roman numerals: Peter I, Elizabeth II, Louis XIV, etc.

In some countries, even years are denoted by Roman numerals, which is much more difficult than learning which century the 19th century is, because when hundreds and thousands are added, Roman numerals also increase by several digits - L, C, V and M. Years marked with Roman numerals, unlike centuries, look really intimidating, so 1984 is written as MCMLXXXIV.

Also, Roman numerals denote all the Olympic Games. Thus, in 2014, the XXII Winter Olympic Games were held in Sochi.
Thus, it can be said that without knowing what century the 19th century is, a person deprives himself of the opportunity to freely read about various events taking place in the world.

Most likely, in the near future, centuries in Russia will still be indicated by traditional Arabic numerals, and questions like what century the 19th century is will disappear by themselves, because the nineteenth century will be written in a way that is understandable to everyone - the 19th century.

And yet, it is simply necessary for a literate person to know at least the first hundred Roman numerals, because far from only centuries are indicated by them.

INTRODUCTION

During the VI-IX centuries. among the Eastern Slavs there was a process of class formation and the creation of the prerequisites for feudalism. The territory on which the ancient Russian statehood began to take shape was located at the intersection of the paths along which the migration of peoples and tribes took place, nomadic routes ran. The southern Russian steppes were the scene of an endless struggle of moving tribes and peoples. Often Slavic tribes attacked the border regions of the Byzantine Empire.

In the 7th century in the steppes between the Lower Volga, the Don and the North Caucasus, a Khazar state was formed. Slavic tribes in the regions of the Lower Don and Azov fell under his dominion, retaining, however, a certain autonomy. The territory of the Khazar kingdom extended to the Dnieper and the Black Sea. At the beginning of the 8th century the Arabs inflicted a crushing defeat on the Khazars, and deeply invaded the north through the North Caucasus, reaching the Don. A large number of Slavs - allies of the Khazars - were taken prisoner.

From the north, the Varangians (Normans, Vikings) penetrate into the Russian lands. At the beginning of the 8th century they settle around Yaroslavl, Rostov and Suzdal, establishing control over the territory from Novgorod to Smolensk. Part of the northern colonists penetrates into southern Russia, where they mix with the Rus, taking their name. In Tmutarakan, the capital of the Russian-Varangian Khaganate was formed, which ousted the Khazar rulers. In their struggle, the opponents turned to the Emperor of Constantinople for an alliance.

In such a complex ooetanovka, the consolidation of the Slavic tribes into political unions took place, which became the embryo of the formation of a single East Slavic statehood.

In the ninth century as a result of the centuries-old development of the East Slavic society, the early feudal state of Rus was formed with its center in Kyiv. Gradually, all the East Slavic tribes united in Kievan Rus.

The theme of the history of Kievan Rus considered in the work is not only interesting, but also very relevant. Recent years have passed under the sign of changes in many areas of Russian life. The way of life of many people has changed, the system of life values ​​has changed. Knowledge of the history of Russia, the spiritual traditions of the Russian people, is very important for raising the national consciousness of Russians. A sign of the revival of the nation is the ever-increasing interest in the historical past of the Russian people, in its spiritual values.

FORMATION OF THE OLD RUSSIAN STATE IN THE IX CENTURY

The time from the 6th to the 9th centuries is still the last stage of the primitive communal system, the time of class formation and the imperceptible, at first glance, but steady growth of the prerequisites of feudalism. The most valuable monument containing information about the beginning of the Russian state is the chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years, where did the Russian land come from, and who in Kyiv began to reign first and where did the Russian land come from," compiled by the Kiev monk Nestor around 1113.

Starting his story, like all medieval historians, with the Flood, Nestor tells about the settlement of Western and Eastern Slavs in Europe in antiquity. He divides the East Slavic tribes into two groups, the level of development of which, according to his description, was not the same. Some of them lived, in his words, “in a bestial way”, preserving the features of the tribal system: blood feud, remnants of matriarchy, the absence of marriage prohibitions, “kidnapping” (kidnapping) of wives, etc. Nestor contrasts these tribes with glades, in whose land Kyiv was built. Glades are "smart men", they have already established a patriarchal monogamous family and, obviously, blood feuds have been outlived (they are "distinguished by a meek and quiet disposition") History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. / A.P. Novoseltsev, A.N. Sakharov, V.I. Buganov, V.D. Nazarov; ed. A.N. Sakharov, A.P. Novoseltsev. - LLC "Publishing house AST-LTD", 1997.p.216 ..

Next, Nestor tells how the city of Kyiv was created. Prince Kiy, who reigned there, according to Nestor's story, came to Constantinople to visit the emperor of Byzantium, who received him with great honors. Returning from Constantinople, Kiy built a city on the banks of the Danube, intending to settle here for a long time. But the locals were hostile to him, and Kiy returned to the banks of the Dnieper.

Nestor considered the formation of the Polyan principality in the Middle Dnieper region to be the first historical event on the way to the creation of the Old Russian states. The legend about Kii and his two brothers spread far to the south, and was even brought to Armenia.

Byzantine writers of the 6th century paint the same picture. During the reign of Justinian, huge masses of Slavs advanced to the northern borders of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine historians colorfully describe the invasion of the empire by Slavic troops, who took away prisoners and rich booty, and the settlement of the empire by Slavic colonists. The appearance on the territory of Byzantium of the Slavs, who dominated communal relations, contributed to the eradication of the slave-owning order here and the development of Byzantium along the path from the slave-owning system to feudalism.

The successes of the Slavs in the fight against powerful Byzantium testify to the relatively high level of development of Slavic society for that time: material prerequisites for equipping significant military expeditions had already appeared, and the system of military democracy made it possible to unite large masses of Slavs. Distant campaigns contributed to the strengthening of the power of the princes in the indigenous Slavic lands, where tribal principalities were created.

Archaeological data fully confirm the words of Nestor that the core of the future Kievan Rus began to take shape on the banks of the Dnieper when the Slavic princes made campaigns in Byzantium and the Danube, in the times preceding the attacks of the Khazars (VII century).

The creation of a significant tribal union in the southern forest-steppe regions facilitated the advancement of the Slavic colonists not only in the southwest (to the Balkans), but also in the southeast direction. True, the steppes were occupied by various nomads: Bulgarians, Avars, Khazars, but the Slavs of the Middle Dnieper (Russian land) apparently managed to protect their possessions from their invasions and penetrate deep into the fertile black earth steppes. In the VII-IX centuries. Slavs also lived in the eastern part of the Khazar lands, somewhere in the Azov region, participated together with the Khazars in military campaigns, were hired to serve the kagan (Khazar ruler). In the south, the Slavs apparently lived in islands among other tribes, gradually assimilating them, but at the same time perceiving elements of their culture.

During the VI-IX centuries. productive forces were growing, tribal institutions were changing, and the process of class formation was going on. As the most important phenomena in the life of the Eastern Slavs during the VI-IX centuries. it should be noted the development of arable farming and the development of handicrafts; the disintegration of the tribal community as a labor collective and the separation of individual peasant farms from it, forming a neighboring community; the growth of private land ownership and the formation of classes; the transformation of the tribal army with its defensive functions into a squad that dominates the tribesmen; capture by princes and nobility of tribal land in personal hereditary property.

By the 9th century everywhere on the territory of the settlement of the Eastern Slavs, a significant area of ​​arable land cleared from the forest was formed, testifying to the further development of productive forces under feudalism. The association of small tribal communities, which is characterized by a certain unity of culture, was ancient Slavic tribe. Each of these tribes gathered a popular assembly (veche) The power of the tribal princes gradually increased. The development of intertribal ties, defensive and offensive alliances, the organization of joint campaigns, and, finally, the subordination of weaker neighbors by strong tribes - all this led to the enlargement of the tribes, to their unification into larger groups.

Describing the time when the transition from tribal relations to the state took place, Nestor notes that in various East Slavic regions there were "their reigns." This is also confirmed by archeological data.

The formation of an early feudal state, which gradually subjugated all the East Slavic tribes, became possible only when the differences between the south and north were somewhat smoothed out in terms of agricultural conditions, when there was a sufficient amount of plowed land in the north and the need for hard collective labor for cutting and uprooting of the forest has decreased significantly. As a result, the peasant family emerged as a new production team from the patriarchal community.

The decomposition of the primitive communal system among the Eastern Slavs took place at a time when the slave-owning system had already outlived itself on a world-historical scale. In the process of class formation, Russia came to feudalism, bypassing the slaveholding formation.

In the IX-X centuries. antagonistic classes of feudal society are formed. The number of combatants is increasing everywhere, their differentiation is intensifying, there is a separation from their midst of the nobility - boyars and princes.

Important in the history of the emergence of feudalism is the question of the time of the appearance of cities in Russia. Under the conditions of the tribal system, there were certain centers where tribal councils met, a prince was chosen, trade was carried out, fortune-telling was carried out, court cases were decided, sacrifices were made to the gods and the most important dates of the year were celebrated. Sometimes such a center became the focus of the most important types of production. Most of these ancient centers later turned into medieval cities.

In the IX-X centuries. the feudal lords created a number of new cities, which served both for the purposes of defense against nomads and for the purposes of domination over the enslaved population. Handicraft production was also concentrated in the cities. The old name "city", "city", denoting a fortification, began to be applied to a real feudal city with a citadel-kremlin (fortress) in the center and an extensive craft and trading settlement.

With all the gradualness and slowness of the process of feudalization, one can still point out a certain line, starting from which there are grounds for talking about feudal relations in Russia. This line is the 9th century, when a feudal state was already formed among the Eastern Slavs.

The lands of the East Slavic tribes united into a single state were called Rus. The arguments of the "Norman" historians who tried to declare the founders of the Old Russian state the Normans, who were then called Varangians in Russia, are unconvincing. These historians stated that under Russia the chronicles meant the Varangians. But as has already been shown, the prerequisites for the formation of states among the Slavs developed over many centuries and by the 9th century. gave a noticeable result not only in the West Slavic lands, where the Normans never penetrated and where the Great Moravian state arose, but also in the East Slavic lands (in Kievan Rus), where the Normans appeared, robbed, destroyed representatives of local princely dynasties and sometimes became princes themselves. Obviously, the Normans could neither assist nor seriously interfere with the process of feudalization. The name Rus began to be used in sources in relation to part of the Slavs 300 years before the appearance of the Varangians.

First mention of the people grew up found in the middle of the 6th century, when information about it had already reached Syria. The glades, called, according to the chronicler, Rus, become the basis of the future Old Russian people, and their land - the core of the territory of the future state - Kievan Rus.

Among the news belonging to Nestor, one passage has survived, which describes Russia before the appearance of the Varangians there. “These are the Slavic regions,” writes Nestor, “that are part of Russia - the glades, the Drevlyans, the Dregovichi, the Polochans, the Novgorod Slovenes, the northerners ...” Reader on the history of Russia: In 4 volumes, - T 1. From ancient times to the 17th century. / Comp.: I. V. Babich, V. N. Zakharov, I. E. Ukolova .-- M .: MIROS - Intern. relations, 1994. p. 121. This list includes only half of the East Slavic regions. The composition of Russia, therefore, at that time did not yet include the Krivichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi, Croats, Ulichi and Tivertsy. At the center of the new state formation was the Glade tribe. The Old Russian state became a kind of federation of tribes, in its form it was an early feudal monarchy Isaev I.A. History of the State and Law of Russia: A Complete Course of Lectures. - 2nd ed. revised and additional - M.: Lawyer, 1998.S.14..

Eastern Europe in the ninth century. Ancient Slavs

Seversk land and the Khazar Khaganate in the 9th century.

In the 2nd floor. VIII - beginning. 9th century the power of the powerful Khazar Khaganate extends over the vast expanses of South-Eastern Europe. Khazaria proper covered a triangle from the lower Don and the Volga delta to the Terek and the foothills of the central part of the Caucasus (Artamonov 2001: 532). In the steppe Crimea, the Azov region, the Don region and the Lower Volga region, the Bulgarian hordes conquered by the Khazars roamed, and the upper reaches of the Don, Seversky Donets and Oskol were inhabited by the Alans resettled from the Caucasus (Pletneva 1986: 41-45). In the north, the power of the Itil rulers was recognized by the Burtases (burt-s), Volga Bulgarians (bulg-r), Savirs (s-v-ar), Erdzya (arisu), Cheremis (ts-r-mis), Vyatichi (v-n- n-tit), northerners (s-v-r) and s-l-viyuns (radimichi or glade).

The political power of the Khaganate was largely determined by its favorable geographical position, which allowed the Khazars to act as trade intermediaries between Europe and the countries of the Arab East. According to A.P. Novosiltsev, the strengthening of the Khazar presence in the Dnieper and Volga regions was primarily due to the fact that “in the middle of the 8th century. the united Arab state began to disintegrate, ... The Mediterranean Sea was under the control of Byzantium, hostile to the Arabs ... [and] this pushed Muslim merchants to trade through the Khazar possessions, and the Khazar authorities to find ways to strengthen their control over the trade arteries of Eastern Europe " (Novosiltsev 1990: 202-203). The final formation of the trade route through Khazaria dates back to the last decades of the 8th century. According to A.V. Komar, namely from the 780s - 790s. a constant influx of Arab coins begins to the Saltov population (Komar 1999).

From Khazaria, dirhams went to Eastern Europe in two directions - the Volga and the Don. The first, playing the role of a transcontinental highway, connected the Muslim world with the Kama region and Northern Europe. The second served the needs of the northern provinces of the Khazar Khaganate. He walked along the Don (Alans and Don Slavs), from which caravans got to the Upper Oka (Vyatichi) through the portage, which existed at the end of the 16th century. The English diplomat D. Fletcher, who visited Russia in 1588, reported that “along the Don (as the Russians assure) it is possible to get from the city of Moscow by water to Constantinople and to all parts of the world, dragging only a boat (according to their custom) through a small isthmus or a narrow strip of land… This was recently proved by one envoy sent to Constantinople, who sailed first along the Moscow River, then entered another, called the Oka, then dragged his boat to the Don, and from there he swam all the way with water” (Fletcher 1991: 29 ). From the Upper Oka, the route through the Seim and the Desna (northerners) went to the Upper Dnieper region (Radimichi), from where part of the dirhams could fall to the Smolensk Krivichi, as evidenced by the finds in the Upper Dnieper region of the treasures of Kufic dirhams, the youngest coins of which were minted in the 810s - 820s gg. The question of the receipt of Arab silver in the Middle Dnieper, to the meadows - the westernmost Slavic association recognizing the power of the Khazars, is debatable. In this region, finds of single coins of Ser. VIII - beginning. 9th century (Fasmer 1931:15), however (in contrast to the Upper Dnieper region) not a single reliable treasure of this time has been noted. The exception is the mentioned I.I. Lyapushkin (with reference to R.R. Vasmer) “a coin hoard (?) of 194 AH. (809/810)" from Kyiv (Lyapushkin 1968: 48), but R.R. Vasmer only notes the discovery in Kyiv in 1927 of four Samarkand dirhams of 194 AH. (809/810), but does not say that they were part of the hoard (Fasmer 1931: 15). In this regard, we can assume that some receipts of dirhems in the 1st third of the 9th century. to the clearings were probably carried out, but until the discovery of treasures of this time, this assumption remains hypothetical.

The kaganate could fulfill its interests with the help of military contingents stationed in the lands of subject tribes. In 1991, at the Roman settlement "Mountain of Ivan Rylsky" (Rylsk), M.V. Frolov investigated the ruined burial of a Khazar warrior (Fig. 1), accompanied by the burials of a horse and a dog, as well as the tips of two socketed diamond-shaped spears found nearby and typical of steppe antiquities of the 8th-9th centuries. iron two-piece bits with nail-shaped cheekpieces. Presumably, objects and bones were thrown out of a rounded pit, analogues of which are known at some burial grounds of the Saltov culture. According to the researcher, "the discovered burial is an undeniable evidence of contacts between the northerners who lived in the ancient settlement and the nomadic population of the steppes in the early stages of the development of the Romny culture" (Frolov 1992: 14). Perhaps discovered by M.V. Frolov, the burial indicates the presence in Rylsk at the turn of the 8th - 9th centuries. the Khazar division, which controlled the strategically important area of ​​the connection of the trade routes going through the Kursk Poseimye: Oka - Samodurovskoe lake - Tuskar - Seim and Oka - Samodurovskoe lake - Svapa - Seim (Fig. 2). Khazar outposts could also be the Suprut settlement on the Upa, which controlled the probable section of the transition from the Don to the Oka, Chernigov, which closed the exits to the Lower and Upper Dnieper and Kyiv, which was the Khazar foothold on the right bank of the Dnieper.
The stronghold of the Khazar power on the Dnieper Left Bank could be located on the Psel River near the city of Sumy (Ukraine), the beautifully fortified Bititsky settlement. Probably, the headquarters of the Khazar governor-tudun was located here and a detachment of soldiers was stationed, whose duties included collecting tribute, repelling enemy raids and maintaining peace among the tribes dependent on the kaganate. The population of Bititsa was multinational. This is evidenced by the yurt-like dwellings of nomads discovered during excavations, which coexisted with semi-dugouts typical of the Slavs. The ancient settlement was also a large craft center, in the vicinity of which pottery workshops operated, the products of which were sold on the vast territory of the Dnieper Left Bank.

The Bititsa settlement perished during an enemy attack, as evidenced by the traces of a fire discovered by archaeologists and the skeletons of dead people. According to V.V. Priymak, the defeat of Bititsa occurred at the beginning of the 9th century, at the very height of the civil strife that broke out in Khazaria after Tsar Obadiy declared Judaism the state religion (Priymak 1994: 15). The religious reform aroused the discontent of the Christians, Muslims who lived in Khazaria, and those who did not want to abandon the faith of the pagan ancestors, but a more compelling reason for the start of the uprising was the political transformations that accompanied the introduction of Judaism, as a result of which the kagan was removed from power and turned into a religious symbol, and the actual power concentrated in the hands of one family, passing it by inheritance. This is what caused the indignant Khazar leaders and elders to oppose the central government. Civil strife tore apart the Khaganate for several decades. Finally, the rebellion was pacified, but the victory went to the rulers of Khazaria at a high price. Dozens of fortified castles were destroyed, many soldiers died or left their homeland, the kaganate lost a number of border areas, while in others the desire for independence grew (Artamonov 2001: 433 - 434,438 - 441).

On the Dnieper Left Bank, in the area of ​​the Romny culture, a possible reflection of these turbulent events was the construction of numerous fortified fortresses-fortifications, designed to protect their inhabitants in the conditions of anarchy that gripped the Khaganate. However, judging by the data of the Russian chronicle, the northerners for quite a long time (until 884) continued to recognize their dependence on the Khazars, which allowed them to receive high-quality products from the handicraft centers of the Khaganate, facilitated participation in trade operations with Khazar, Central Asian and Middle Eastern merchants, and also provided protection from the raids of the nomadic tribes in the southern Russian steppes.

Interesting information about the Slavs of Eastern Europe is contained in an anonymous description of the northern countries, included in the book created between 903 and 913. Iranian geographer Ibn Rust treatise "Dear values". The “Country of the Slavs” described by him appears before the reader as a tribal union (head of heads) with strong supreme power (“their head is crowned, they obey him and do not retreat from his words”), perhaps a retinue (“this king has riding horses ... has his beautiful, durable and precious chain mail”), tax collection in the form of polyudya (“the king annually goes around them”) and a control system (svt-malik - supanej) similar to the control system of the Khazar Khaganate (kagan and king-shad) (Khvolson 1869: 32-34).

In the localization of the "Country of the Slavs" by Ibn Rust, the starting point is the distance of 10 "days of travel" between it and the Pechenegs, who are, as it were, outside of his "Description". However, in the reports about the Khazars and Burtases, it is noted that these peoples are at war with the Pechenegs, and the esegel “the first of the Magyars’ lands” lying next to the Volga Bulgarians is adjacent to them. At the same time, Ibn Ruste has no reports of contacts between the Pechenegs and the Slavs and Alans. Perhaps this is indirect evidence of the early nature of the source, since after the Pechenegs invaded the Black Sea steppes (end of the 9th century), the process of interaction between these peoples with them is quite fully reflected in the multilingual literature of that time.

Thus, the time of compiling the “Description” placed by Ibn Ruste probably found the Pechenegs still in the trans-Volga steppes, where, according to Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, “they had their habitat on the Atil [Volga] river, as well as on the Geikh [Ural] river, being neighbors of both the Khazars and the so-called bonds” (Konstantin Porphyrogenitus 1989: 155). S.A. Pletneva believes that the Trans-Volga Pechenegia lay in the forest-steppe zone between the Volga and Ural rivers, reaching in the north to the Zhiguli Mountains, called in some sources the Pechenegs (Pletneva 1958: 164). The westernmost region of the Pecheneg settlement was the left-bank Saratov Volga region, from where the author of the "Description" probably begins the countdown of the "days of the journey" to different peoples.

In his article dedicated to the overland highway Bulgar - Kyiv, B.A. Rybakov established that, depending on the complexity of the route, a “travel day” for caravans traveling overland ranged from 31 to 46 km, while a typical journey day (when traveling long distances) should be considered 35 km (Rybakov 1969: 190). The same value was used by A.P. Motsya and A.Kh. Khalikov in their work devoted to the archaeological sites located along the Bulgar-Kyiv route (Motsya, Khalikov 1997: 138). Ibn Ruste reports that "from the land of the Pechenegs to the land of the Slavs" 10 days of travel. (Khvolson 1869: 28). However, the nearest Slavic settlements in this region were located on the Upper and Middle Don, at a distance of about 480 km (14 "days of travel") from the Saratov Volga region. As an explanation for this discrepancy, two assumptions can be put forward: either this is a mistake of the original source, or this segment of the route was overcome by caravans at the maximum possible speed for them (46 km per “day” of the journey along B.A. Rybakov).

According to B.A. Rybakov, land caravans going along the Bulgar-Kyiv highway entered the "Country of the Slavs" in the Don region, in the area where the so-called. "Voronezh knot" of monuments of the Roman-Borshevsky culture. According to the researcher, the largest of the monuments of this “node” is the settlement near the Mikhailovsky cordon on the river. Voronezh may well be correlated with Vantit (Vabnit) - "the first city of the Sakaliba from the east." It is pushed far to the east and, indeed, is the first Slavic settlement for travelers coming from the Volga, and in size (over 2 km along the perimeter of the defensive rampart) the settlement was equal to Suvar, one of the largest cities in Volga Bulgaria (Rybakov 1969: 194). Agreeing with the hypothesis of B.A. Rybakov about the location of Vantit in the Forest-Steppe Don region, the researchers involved in this problem correlate other archaeological sites with it: A.N. Moskalenko and A.Z. Vinnikov - the settlement of Titchikhu, A.P. Motsya and A.Kh. Khalikov - Animal Settlement, A.D. Pryakhin, placing Vantit in the lower reaches of the river. Voronezh, which previously assumed the Animal Settlement in this role, now correlates Vantit with a complex of monuments of ancient Russian times near the northern outskirts of the modern city of Voronezh (Moskalenko 1981: 79; Pryakhin 1988: 95-96; Vinnikov 1996: 72; Motsya, Khalikov 1997: 136 ; Pryakhin 1997:110).

Regarding the ethnicity of the inhabitants of the Slavic settlements of the Don region, most archaeologists believe that most of them can be correlated with representatives of the tribal union of the Vyatichi (Efimenko P.P., Tretyakov P.N., Artamonov M.I., Artsikhovsky A.V., Mongait A. .L., Nikolskaya T.N., Rybakov B.A., Vinnikov A.Z., Grigoriev A.V.). However, we believe that it is more correct to correlate the "Country of the Slavs", not with the Land of the Vyatichi, as did F. Westberg, V.F. Minorsky, T. Levitsky and B.A. Rybakov, but with the Seversk land.

One of the main arguments is the analysis of the funeral rite described by Ibn Ruste, the archaeological analogue of which is cremation on the side, followed by the placement of an urn with ashes in the upper part of the burial mound: “When one of them dies, they burn his corpse ... The next day after burning the deceased, go to the place where it took place, collect the ashes and put them in an urn, which they then put on a hill ”(Khvolson, 1869. p. 29). Such a rite was not typical for the Vyatichi, it is also not known among the southern (Croats, Ulichs, Tivertsy) or southwestern (Volhynians, Drevlyans, Polyana) tribes of the Eastern Slavs and among the Radimichi living on the Dnieper Left Bank. YES. Khvolson, relying on the reading of the name of the king of the Slavs as "Svyatblk", considered him the Moravian prince Svyatopluk (870 - 894), and attributed his subjects "partly to the Moravian Slavs, partly to the Slavs, who lived at a distance of about 350 miles to the west of the Pechenegs ", who inhabited the lands between Khazaria and Byzantium (Khvolson, 1869. P. 49,140,144). However, the funeral rite of the population of Great Moravia also does not correspond to the “Description” of Ibn Rust, because the Moravians were baptized as early as 831 and during the time of Svyatopolk I (870-894) they traditionally buried their dead according to the Christian rite (Sedov 1995: 284-297).

We find full compliance with the funeral rite described by Ibn Rust only in the burials of the bearers of the Romny culture of Poseimye, the Middle Desna and the Upper Sula, in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bresidence of the annalistic "north", with which the inhabitants of the "Country of Slavs" seen by the Arab traveler should be correlated.

However, when correlating the “Country of the Slavs” with the Seversk land, it remains unclear how on the eastern border of the range of the northerners, which stretched in the 820s - 850s. from the Dnieper in the west to the upper reaches of the Seim in the east, there could be the city of Vantit, localized by most archaeologists on the Don and whose name by a number of researchers quite reasonably correlates with the name of the Vyatichi contained in Joseph's letter (v.n.n.tit). In our opinion, the localization of Vantit in the Middle Don, the material culture of the Slavic population of which had much in common with the culture of the Upper Oka Vyatichi, is quite logical, and the apparent contradiction between the definition of the "Country of the Slavs" as the Seversk land and the inclusion of the territories inhabited by the Vyatichi in it is removed if we take into account attention opinion A.V. Grigoriev, according to which active colonization in the 9th century. regions of the Upper Oka and the Middle Don, with a population related to the northerners in terms of material culture, most likely came from the Seversk land (Grigoriev 2000: 177). Over time, the settlers who separated from the main Severyansk massif gradually turned into a separate ethno-political formation, which adopted the name “Vyatichi” in honor of their legendary leader. However, at the time of compiling the description of the "Slavic Land", they could still recognize the supreme supremacy of the ruler of the Severyansk tribal union, receiving in return help and support in the development of new lands.

Of interest is the message of Ibn Ruste that the ruler of the Slavs eats mare's milk. This is completely alien to the traditional way of agricultural societies, but is characteristic of nomadic cultures and may indicate that the Slavs described by Ibn Rust were ruled by a person who adhered to steppe customs. It could be a certain representative of the Khazar nobility, whom the northerners considered as their legitimate ruler, equally equidistant from all the tribal formations included in the union and thereby maintaining the necessary balance within their association. If the assumption of D.A. Khvolson that “S.vit.m.l.k” is not a title, but a personal name “S.vit.b.l.k”, then Ibn Ruste’s testimony should not necessarily refer specifically to Svyatopolk I of Great Moravia (Khvolson 1869:139-140). Among the Slavic peoples, several more rulers with a similar name were recorded, for example, the Russian Svyatopolk the Accursed or Svyatopolk Pomeranian in Poland, i.e. the name Svyatopolk was included in the circle of princely names and, accordingly, representatives of various Slavic dynasties could wear it. As for the message of Ibn Ruste, it is possible that he recorded the beginning of the assimilation of the ruling clan of the Seversk land, which often had a demonstrative character. The closest analogy is the Russian prince Svyatoslav, whose parents had the Scandinavian names Igor (Ingvar) and Olga (Helga).

When determining the date of compilation of the description of the northern peoples cited by Ibn Ruste, the authors proceed from the fact that the Magyars mentioned in it could not have appeared on the territory of Khazaria earlier than the 820s, and the absence of a description of the three centers of Russia traditional for later Arab geographers (as-Slaviya, al-Arsaniyya and Kuyaba) makes it possible to determine its upper chronological bar, since "Kuyaba", which was the Middle Dnieper enclave of Russia, could arise only after Rurik's "boyars" Askold and Dir captured Kyiv before their campaign against Constantinople in June 860 Based on the foregoing, this description can be dated to the 2nd third of the 9th century.

Russia on the Dnieper.

In the 1st floor. 9th century the hegemony of Khazaria on the Dnieper and Volga begins to experience military-trade pressure from the side of "Rus", political dominance among which was carried out by people from various Scandinavian regions. Russia moved along the Dnieper and Volga from the north, from the Volkhov and Ladoga regions - regions in which North European antiquities are recorded from the middle. VIII - ser. 9th century (Kuzmin, Mikhailova, Sobolev 1997).

The first campaigns in the Dnieper direction were probably reconnaissance in nature and were carried out in the form of devastating, but short-lived Viking raids. Information about some of them was preserved in the Byzantine hagiographic literature of the early 9th century. So, the Life of St. Stefan Surozhsky” reports that in con. VIII - first quarter. 9th century the Russian army, led by the “Novgorod prince” Bravlin, devastated the Crimean possessions from Chersonese to Kerch and, after a 10-day siege, took Surozh by storm (Gumilevsky 1888: 21). St. Stephen of Surozh died in 787, but the attack took place after that “after a small number of years”, which allows us to narrow his date to the interval between 790 and 820. The starting point from where this campaign could begin was probably not Novgorod (which did not yet exist at that time), but founded by Scandinavian settlers in the middle of the 8th century. Ladoga, where the III tier of Zemlyanoy Settlement (c. 780 - c. 810) and the hoard of Kufic coins of 749 - 786, found in 1892, belong to the times of the legendary Bravlin.

However, the basis of the prosperity of Ladoga was not only wars, but also the accompanying trade. It was the intermediary role in eastern trade and the maintenance of the transit route that led, according to N.E. Nosov, to the rapid rise of Ladoga in the second half. 8th - 9th centuries (Nosov 1997). According to Ibn Rusta, the main goods of the Rus were furs and slaves. “Their only occupation is the trade in sables, squirrels and other furs… They raid the Slavs,… capture them, take them to the Khazars and Bulgarians and sell them” (Bartold 1940: 21).

The Volga Bulgars, who carried out intermediary trade, were not interested in establishing direct contacts between Russia and Arab merchants and, possibly, prevented the advance of Russian caravans down the Volga through their lands. By doing so, they forced Russia to find detours to penetrate the Caspian and lay routes along the Dnieper and through the Byzantine possessions in the Crimea. This is how one can explain the dating back to the 880s. Ibn Khordadbeh’s message that Russian merchants “take out beaver fur, black fox fur and swords from the most remote (parts) of the country of the Slavs to the Rum (Black) Sea, and the king of Rum takes tithe from them, and if they want, then they they go along the Tns (Tanais-Don), the river of the Slavs, and pass through the strait the capital of the Khazars, Khamlykh (Itil), and their (Khazar) ruler collects tithe from them. Then they go to the Dzhurdzhansky (Caspian) Sea and land on any of its shores ... and sometimes they bring their goods on camels from Dzhurdan to Baghdad ”(Data 1985: 292). Material confirmation of the early contacts of Russia with the state formations of South-Eastern Europe is the Peterhof treasure, which consisted of 82 Kufic and Sasanian coins, the youngest of which was minted in Balkh in 804/5. Byzantine is represented by the Greek name “Zacharias” scratched in two lines, Scandinavian - 12 dirhams with Scandinavian runes, including the name “Ubbi” and the word “kiltR”, Khazar - 4 coins with Turkic runes and Arabic - 2 dirhams with the sign “kaf” and the inscription “Praise be to Allah” (Lebedev 2002: 22–23).

Probably, the early contacts of the Khazars and Rus were not limited only to trading operations. Arrowheads of the Gnezdov type and an ax with cheekbones were found at the Bititsa hill fort, which may indicate the presence of Rus warriors in the ranks of the storming Bititsa (Komar, Sukhobokov 2004: 166). These could be mercenaries, the practice of attracting them to serve in the military units of the kaganate is evidenced by the reports of Arab authors of the 9th-10th centuries. and the results of archaeological research of the Volga region sites (Balymersky burial ground) (Izmailov 2000: 84).

Possibly in the 1st half. 9th century the practice of forceful influence on Byzantium in defending their trade interests, which was later successfully carried out by ancient Russian rulers, began to take shape.
This may be evidenced by the coincidence of dates committed between 825 - 842. invasion, during which the ruinous “in their name and deeds, the people of Rus” devastated the Asia Minor regions from the Bosporus to Sinop, capturing the capital of Paphlagonia, Amastrida, which was located several passages from Constantinople, and news of the first Russian-Byzantine diplomatic contacts in the late 830s.

A colorful story about the raid of Russia on the Byzantine city of Amastrida located in Asia Minor has been preserved in the life of St. George of Amastrid: “There was an invasion of barbarians, Russians, - a people, as everyone knows, extremely wild and rude, not bearing any traces of philanthropy ... this destructive people both in deed and in name, starting ruin from Propontis and visiting other coast, finally reached the fatherland of the saint (Amastris), mercilessly cutting down every gender and every age, not sparing the elders, not leaving infants unattended, but equally arming a deadly hand against everyone ”(Drevnyaya Rus 2003: 90 - 91).

Probably, this campaign affected not only the Byzantine possessions, but also the lands of the Khazar tributaries on the Dnieper Left Bank and the Slavic unions that lived along the Dnieper. On the outbreak of military activity in the first decades of the 9th century. testifies to a fairly significant group of treasures hidden at about the same time in the Upper Dnieper region (Mogilev 815, Vitebsk district 822/23), on Psla (Novotroitskoye 819 and Lower Syrovatka 813). ), Desna (Lower Novoselki 812 or 817) and on the Oka (Baskach, 1st third of the 9th century, Khitrovka 811, Borki 818, Lapotkovo 817), as well as a series of treasures from the Upper Volga region (Ugodichi , Sarskoye settlement, Uglich, Zagorodye, Semyonov Gorodok, Demyansk, Nabatovo) (Lyapushkin 1968: 82,110-111; Kropotkin 1968: footnotes; Kropotkin 1978: 113). Most of the younger coins of these hoards date back to the second half. 810s - first floor. 820s, however, the presence of a dirham of 833 in one of the dwellings of the Novotroitsk settlement may push back the date of the alleged shelter of this group of treasures to the middle. - 2nd floor. 830s, giving us the opportunity to connect the fact of their concealment with the campaign of the Russian army against Byzantium.

In this regard, the fate of the Novotroitsky settlement located on Psla (Sumy region, Ukraine) is interesting. I.I. Lyapushkin believed that Novotroitskoye was destroyed by the Pechenegs at the end of the 9th century. However, a gap of more than half a century between the date of minting the youngest of the coins found at Novotroitskoye (833) and the time of the appearance of the Pechenegs in the southern Russian steppes (890s) seems excessive.

The analysis of arrowheads found during excavations of the ancient settlement can help clarify the question of the ethnicity of the enemies who attacked Novotroitskoye. Of the 19 specimens found, 10 belong to the types distributed primarily in the north of Russia, mainly among the Finno-Ugric tribes (Kama and Middle Volga regions, Sarskoye settlement, Vyatka). A number of tips also have analogies among the antiquities of Russia in Gnezdovo, Shestovitsa, Gulbishche, Chernaya Mogila (Lyapushkin 1958: fig. 9: 1,3,4,7,10,11; fig. 62: 5; fig. 83: 1 ; Table XCIII: 14). According to the classification of A.F. Medvedev, they belong to types 2, 35, 39, 41, 42, 45, 50, 61, 63. Five tips were found in the filling of burnt residential buildings. Of particular interest is the tip from dwelling 43 - flat, socketed, two-thorned (Lyapushkin 1958: 125). According to the classification of A.F. Medvedev, it should be attributed to type 2, which was used along the western borders of Russia from the con. VIII to Ser. 13th century and was “undoubtedly borrowed by the Russians from their western neighbors. In Western Europe, double-thorned tips ... were also used for incendiary arrows, so that they would cling to the roof and not fall to the ground” (Medvedev 1966: 56). Thus, with a high degree of certainty, it can be argued that the Novotroitskoye settlement was destroyed not by nomads, but by a detachment of the Rus, part of which, presumably, were archers from among the Finno-Ugric tribes allied or subordinate to the Rus.

The population taken prisoner became slaves, and residents unsuitable for this by age or physical data were killed on the spot. This is evidenced by the remains of seven dead people found in six dwellings (No. 2, 4, 24, 30, 39, 43) of the Novotroitsk settlement. All of them belong to women of mature age (about 40 years old, and one of them was probably humpbacked) and small children aged 10-12 months to 5 years (Lyapushkin 1958: 54, 59, 95, 104, 118, 125) . This is very reminiscent of the "handwriting" of the ruins of Amastris. There, the Rus also acted "not sparing the elders, not leaving babies unattended." Parts of human skeletons were also found during the study of the cultural layer, so it can be argued that the losses of the Novotroitsk northerners were not limited to the seven old women and children killed in semi-dugouts. In general, the fate of the settlement is a vivid illustration of the testimony of Ibn Ruste that “when they [Rus] attack another people, they do not lag behind until they destroy it all. The women of the vanquished are themselves used, and the men are enslaved” (Khvolson 1869: 38-39).

Based on the above facts, we can carefully assume that Russia (treasures of the Upper Dnieper region) that floated along the Dnieper, after the defeat of the Byzantine possessions in the Crimea and Asia Minor, on the way back, walked with fire and sword along the northwestern outskirts of the Khazar Khaganate (Lower Dnieper, Desna, Oka ) and, having caused the loss of a large group of treasures along the Volga, returned to the region of the Volkhov and Ladoga regions.

One of the results of the Amastridian campaign could be the emergence in the north-west of modern Russia of a state formation that united under the rule of Russia numerous Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes that inhabited the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Volga. This allowed the ruler of Russia to take the title of "kagan", thereby declaring his independence and equality in relation to one of the most powerful Eastern European states of that time.

The practice of a later time shows that the result of Russian invasions of Byzantium was usually the conclusion of a peace treaty containing favorable trade conditions for Russia. Perhaps this was precisely the goal of the mission sent by the “Kagan of the Rus” to the Byzantine emperor in the late 830s. Information about it is contained in the Annals of Bertin, compiled by Bishop Prudentius. According to them, the Byzantine embassy that arrived at the court of Louis the Pious in 839 included people “who said that their name was growing up,” whose ruler was called “khakan” (Sakharov 1980: 36-37). They visited the Byzantine emperor, but could not return home by a direct route, “because the paths by which they arrived in Constantinople went among the barbarians, very inhuman and wild tribes.” Probably, the “barbarians” meant the Hungarians who dominated the Black Sea region from 829, who attacked the trade caravans that crossed the Dnieper rapids, just as the Pechenegs who replaced them did.

Louis questioned the ambassadors and, having learned that they were “Sveons” (Swedes), he detained them until the true purpose of their arrival was clarified. However, it can be assumed that everything ended well and the ambassadors returned to their homeland. With one of the participants in this mission, S.S. Shirinsky connects the burial from barrow 47 in Gnezdovo. In his opinion, this is evidenced both by the ritual (burning of the corpse in the boat) and the composition of the finds, among which are the golden solidus of Emperor Theophilus turned into a pendant, a massive Carolingian spur made of silver and silver embroidery (Shirinsky 1997). Perhaps the discovery of the “ambassador” burial in Gnezdovo is not accidental, because in the 1st floor. 9th century Gnezdovo was the southernmost point of Russia's advance on the Dnieper and probably marked the border of the "Russian Khaganate", the existence of which, since the late 830s, has been recorded not only by European, but also by Eastern sources.

Sources can also help in determining the exact location of the country of the Rus. According to Ibn Rusta, the Rus lived “on an island surrounded by a lake. The circumference of this island ... is equal to three days of travel; it is covered with forests and swamps; unhealthy and cheese to the point that it is worth stepping on the ground with your foot, and it is already shaking, due to (looseness from) the abundance of water in it. Rus has a tsar, who is called Khakan-Rus... Rus has no arable land and eats only what it produces in the land of the Slavs,... their only trade is the trade in sable, squirrel and other furs, which they sell to those who wish” (Khvolson 1869: 34- 36).

Trying to localize the location of the island of the Rus, we proceed from the fact that the image of a vast island surrounded by a huge freshwater reservoir could appear in the works of Muslim geographers as a result of a description of one of the segments of the northern part of the Volga route (Baltic Sea - Gulf of Finland - Neva - Lake Ladoga - Volkhov - Lake Ilmen - "Seliger Way" - Upper Volga), bounded on both sides by such significant freshwater reservoirs as Lake Ladoga and Lake Ilmen.

A detailed description of the movement along this segment was left by Adam Olearius, who visited Russia as part of the Holstein diplomatic mission in 1634. After crossing the border, the embassy sailed 12 miles along Lake Ladoga, on the morning of July 22 made a stop at the Volkhov Bay, arrived in Ladoga in the evening, from which it sailed to the second half of the next day. Until evening, a flotilla of 7 ships crossed two rapids and spent the night at the monastery of St. Nicholas in Posada. In the middle of the day on July 24, with a fair wind, the ships sailed 4 miles to the village of Gorodishche, from where, after midnight, another 4 miles to the village of Soltsy. After resting all day, the embassy in the evening walked 6 miles to the village. Gruzino, from where on July 26 at three o'clock in the morning we walked 4 miles to the village of Vysokaya. The flotilla spent the whole next day and night on the move, and on the morning of July 28, by sunrise, arrived at the village of Krechevitsa near Novgorod (Olearius 1986: 297-301). For the entire journey along the Volkhov, the total length of which is 224 km, the German embassy moving against the current spent about 7 days, on average passing 32 km per “day of travel”, which almost fits into the early medieval standard.

Unfortunately, we could not find a description of the passage of the same route downstream, but if we apply the calculation system of the 9th - 10th centuries. , then rafting along the river with a length of 224 km should have taken travelers no more than three “days” of travel. Thus, the area lying along the banks of the Volkhov may well be correlated with the "island of the Rus" Ibn Ruste in size (210 - 225 km² - "three days' journey" in length and width), topography (land bounded by large lakes), climate ( unhealthy, damp) and landscape (covered with swamps and forests).

It is interesting to compare the description of Ibn Ruste with the historical topography of the Ladoga region in the 2nd half. VIII - 1st floor. ninth century. According to E.N. Nosov, Ladoga was founded “on the northernmost outskirts of the Slavic world, two hundred kilometers from the indigenous territory of the Slavs near Lake Ilmen. At that time continuous uninhabited swampy forests stretched from it to the west, and to the east only far away on the Syasi river, areas of settlement of Finnish-speaking tribes began. In contrast to the Ilmen Poozerie with its fertile soils and wide floodplains of the Veryazhi River and Lake Ilmen, in contrast to the developed valleys of the large rivers of the Priilmenye - Lovat, Pola, Msta, the lower reaches of the Volkhov did not give any special advantages for the development of agricultural activities. In the vicinity of Ladoga there was no dense cluster of rural settlements and it was not the center of an agrarian region, which ensured and determined its well-being. Known settlements were found only directly along the Volkhov, and the gravity and confinement of the main ones to the most difficult sections of the water artery is clearly felt. The first group directly includes Ladoga itself and its immediate surroundings, the second is located 9 km upstream from it at the most dangerous Gostinopol rapids, the third is 30 km above the latter, at the Pchev rapids. Each group had fortified settlements, which is significant, since the settlements of this time in the Ilmenye and in the Ladoga area are rare ... The existing picture speaks of a riverine agglomeration, and not of population groups in places most convenient for agriculture and cattle breeding. The main thing was maintenance of the track, and agrarian and economic activity was in the background” (Nosov 1997).

If the correlation of the “Island of the Rus” with the Ladoga and Volkhov region is correct, then it was here that the administrative center of the “Russian Khaganate” was located and the residence of its ruler was located. From here, the Rus set off on distant trading campaigns and predatory raids on the settlements of the Slavs, who, according to Gardizi, to avoid captivity and ruin “came to serve the Rus in order to gain security for themselves by this service” (Bartold 1940: 22). PVL reports that the “Varangians from overseas” levied tribute from the Krivichi, Slovenes, Chud and Mary, through whose lands a significant part of the Dnieper and Volga routes passed. Gardizi's definition of the subjects of the Rus as Slavs-“Sakalibs” should not confuse us, since under this term Arab geographers often meant not only ethnic Slavs, but also other northern peoples of Eastern Europe.
Under 862, the PVL reports that the tribes that paid tribute to the Varangians “expelled the Varangians across the sea and did not give them tribute and took more liberty in themselves, and there was no truth in them, and there was clan for clan, and there was strife in them, and fight a cup for yourself” (PVL 2007: 13). Probably, this event should be attributed to the 2nd floor. 850s, since the "boyars of Rurik" Askold and Dir appeared near Constantinople in June 860. A possible cause of the uprising could be the death of the Khagan of the Rus, who made a trip to Amastrida and organized an embassy in 839. The death of a powerful ruler inevitably had to cause a struggle for power between his heirs or successors, which led to the weakening of Russia and gave the tributary tribes a chance for a successful uprising. The reason for the conflict that arose within the rebels could be the claims of each of the winners to exercise hegemony instead of the departed Varangians. The result of the strife was the sending “over the sea” of a delegation of Chuds, Slovenes, Krivichi and Vesi, which invited Rurik and his brothers to “own and reign over us”.

According to A.N. Kirpichnikov, the archeological vocation of the Varangians is recorded in Ladoga by the appearance of a small group of permanent residents from Scandinavia, who left behind a separate burial mound (13 mounds) in the Plakun tract, a number of features of which make it related to the burials of Jutland. The nature of urban development is also changing. In layers 2nd floor. 9th century on Zemlyanoy settlement, standard-sized plots of land were found - parcels, similar to those found during excavations in the Danish city of Ribe (Kirpichnikov 1997). Taking into account that the ambassadors who arrived in Ingelheim were “from the Sveon clan”, it can be assumed that the Kagan of the Rus himself belonged to the number of Sveons-Swedes. In this case, it is very logical to call in his place the squad of the old rivals of the Swedes - the Danes.

Probably, Rurik retained the title of "Kagan". This can be evidenced by the part of the correspondence of Emperor Louis II of Germany and the Byzantine Emperor Basil, preserved in the Salerno Chronicle and dated 871, mentioning peoples whose rulers, according to the Byzantines, bear the title “Khakan”, which is not used in relation to these rulers in Western European terminology: “Khagan we call the sovereign Avars, not the Khazars or the Normans.” This message is well combined with the entry in the Bertinsk annals about the Rus-Sveons who arrived from Byzantium. In addition, as A.V. Nazarenko, “from the answer of Louis it is clear that in the Byzantine imperial office around 870, as in 839, the Old Russian prince continued to be called “Khagan”, moreover, this title was clearly correlated with the title of the Khazar Khagan” (Drevnyaya Rus 2003: 290).

According to sources, the title "Kagan" along with the title "Grand Duke" was applied to the rulers of Russia until the end of the 12th century. The anonymous Persian author "Hudud al-Alam", describing at the end of the 10th century. the country of the Rus, to the east of which “the mountain of the Pechenegs, to the south - the river Ruta, to the west - the Slavs, to the north - the uninhabited north” reports that its ruler is called “Rus-Khakan” (Novoseltsev 1965: 399). In the XI century. Metropolitan Hilarion, who created the “Sermon on Law and Grace”, calls Vladimir I and Yaroslav the Wise kagans, in the “Sermon on Igor's Campaign” Oleg Svyatoslavich is titled as such, and one of the graffiti of the 11th - 12th centuries. from the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral contains the appeal “Save, Lord, our kagan” (Artamonov 2001: 492 Footnote 1214).

Soon after the arrival of Rurik, the center of power was transferred from Ladoga to the sources of the Volkhov, and Gorodishche (Rurik's settlement) became the capital of the state - the oldest Novgorod of Russian chronicles. “A significant population density in the Poozerye and south-west of Lake Ilmen, an extensive river network covering vast territories developed by the Slavs created the best opportunities for the administrative management of the entire land and the collection of tribute. In addition, the convergence of trade routes here also included the region of the source of the Volkhov in international trade and contributed to its economic growth” (Nosov 1997).

The new advance of Russia along the Dnieper dates back to the same time. It is connected with the campaign of Askold and Dir, who asked for leave from Rurik with his “kind” to Tsargrad. It is possible that Rurik's close associates took with them a military contingent that became unnecessary to the ruler of Northern Russia after the consolidation of his power and the distribution of possessions among the “husbands” who participated in the call. As an analogy, one can cite the actions of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, who in 980 chose from the Varangian mercenaries who helped him in seizing power “good, smart and brave men and distributed cities to them; the rest went to Tsargrad to the Greeks” (PVL 2007: 174).

According to Byzantine sources, on the night of June 18, 860, the capital of the empire was unexpectedly blocked by several hundred Russian warships with eight thousand troops on board and besieged. The “Venetian Chronicle” reports that “the people of the Normans on three hundred and sixty ships dared to approach Constantinople. But since they could in no way damage the impregnable city, they boldly devastated the surroundings, killing a large number of people there, and so triumphantly returned home ”(Drevnyaya Rus 2003: 291).

The tension that arose as a result of this attack could persist in Russian-Byzantine relations until the accession of Emperor Basil I the Macedonian (866 - 886), who “the people of the Russians, warlike and godless, through generous gifts of gold and silver and silk clothes, attracted to the negotiations and , having concluded a peace treaty with them, persuaded them to become participants in divine baptism and arranged it so that they received an archbishop who received ordination from Patriarch Ignatius, ”whose second patriarchate dates back to 867 - 877. Attempts to convert Russia have happened before. This is evidenced by the message about the baptism of Prince Bravlin and the fact that Konstantin the Philosopher, during his stay in Kherson in 861, found the Gospels and Psalters written in Russian letters, according to which the future enlightener of the Slavs learned to read and speak Russian (Artamonov 2001: 444 - 445) .

Kyiv became the center of Dnieper Rus, in which Askold and Dir settled even before their campaign against Constantinople in 860. PVL reports that they captured this tribal center of an insignificant (“the Drevlyans and other surrounding people oppressed the glades”) right-bank association of glades, without meeting a special resistance: “And poidosta along the Dnieper, and going past and seeing on the mountain the city and ooprashasta and rest chii segradok. They decided it was the essence of the three brothers Kyi, Shchek, Khoriv, ​​who made a city and a bend, and we are sitting on a tribute to their goat family. Askoldo and Dir remained in this city and many Varangians were svookupist and often own the Polish land” (PVL 2007: 13). Probably, it was then that a demonstrative tribute could be paid to the Khazars with swords, which were the favorite weapon of "Rus".

This was a direct challenge to Itil, who, in response, could try to block the movement of caravans going to the Kiev Dnieper region, since the northerners who lived along the Sozh and occupied the Chernigov Desenye still recognized their dependence on the kagan and paid tribute to him. The existence of a ban on the import of eastern coins into the areas adjacent to the Dnieper can be evidenced by V.L. Yanin, the loss of dirhems from the area of ​​circulation of the Upper Dnieper region, on the territory of which during this period “not only not a single treasure was registered, but not even a single coin” (Yanin 1956: 105-106). A similar situation is observed in the Kiev Dnieper region. M.K. Karger, having analyzed the Kiev finds of oriental coins, concluded that “it is necessary, first of all, to categorically reject the belief that the Kiev hoards of oriental coins cover the period from the end of the 8th to the beginning of the 10th century ... No hoards of the 8th and even 9th centuries. was not found in Kyiv ... the most famous Kiev hoards of eastern coins were buried: two not earlier than the first quarter and one not earlier than the middle of the 10th century. This important fact, confirmed by numerous observations of the composition of Kufic coins in the burials of the Kiev necropolis, introduces a significant refinement in the dating of Kiev-Central Asian trade relations, which, judging by numismatic data, are more typical for the 10th than for the 9th and even more so for the 8th century. (Karger 1958: 123-124).

Despite the rather active actions taken by the Itil rulers, they could not force Askold and Dir to leave the Kiev Right Bank they had captured, which indicated the emergence of a new force in South-Eastern Europe, which not only openly challenged the Khazar power, but also successfully carried out the capture and retention of part of the lands that are part of the Kaganate.

Russia and the tribes of the Dnieper Left Bank at the end of the 9th century.
The Ruses were able to completely oust the Khazars and establish full control over the Dnieper route only a quarter of a century later, under the successor of Rurik, Oleg Veshchem. The chronicle reports that “in the year 6390 (882) Poide Oleg, drink a lot of howling, Varangians, Chud, slovn, measure, all, Krivichi, and come to Smolensk with Krivichi, and take the city, and plant your husband, go down from there, and taking Lyubets, and planting your husbands ... And killing Askold and Dir ... And Oleg the prince went to Kiev, and Oleg said: "Behold the mother of the Russian city" (PVL 2007: 14). Having finished with Askold and Dir, Oleg conquers in 883 the Drevlyans, in 884 - the northerners, and in 885 - the Radimichi. in the second case, the prince simply "defeat the svereny and put a light tribute on n", and in the third, the matter was completely managed by diplomatic means: "you give tribute to the Radimich of Rka. give me and vdasha Olgovi for a schlyag like a goat and a dahu "(PVL 2007: 14). Probably after the "tormenting" of the Drevlyans that happened before their eyes and the rapid disintegration the Roma of the Khazar tributaries of the northerners, the Radimichi, simply decided not to tempt fate and submit to force, recognizing the power of Oleg on the same conditions on which they had previously recognized the power of the Khazar Khagan. The result of these campaigns was the emergence of the Old Russian state and the establishment by the Rurikovich of complete control over the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks."

The Khazars' response to the rejection from the kagan of significant territories with a large population living on them could be the extension of the trade blockade introduced under Askold and Dir to the Volga centers of Russia. According to V.Ya. Petrukhin, this is evidenced by the cessation in the last quarter of the 9th century. the influx of Arab silver to Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, which was fully resumed only after the death of Oleg in the 910s, but already from the Central Asian possessions of the Samanids, through Volga Bulgaria, bypassing Khazaria (Petrukhin 1996: 11).

The Khazars could no longer take more decisive action to protect their interests and subjects on the Dnieper Left Bank. Tried allies of the Magyars at the end of the 9th century. were expelled by the Pechenegs from the Don-Dnieper interfluve, and then the victors attacked the northern and western provinces of the kaganate. A powerful state with a strong economy, a vibrant culture and a strong central government collapsed. In the hands of the Khazars, several Taman and Eastern Crimean ports remained, as well as the mouth of the Volga and the lower reaches of the Don, along which a busy trade route passed.

Probably another East Slavic alliance that was drawn into Oleg's conflict with the Severians and Radimichi were their kindred Vyatichi, who lived in the strategically important Oka basin.
The close ties between the Vyatichi and the Khazars are evidenced not only by the annalistic report about the payment of Khazar tribute by them until the 960s, but also by the presence of Saltov jewelry among the finds obtained during excavations of the settlements and burials of the Vyatichi. However, written sources about the clashes between Russia and the Vyatichi are silent until the campaigns of Svyatoslav in the 960s. Does that mean they didn't exist at all? It is known that Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople in 907 was attended not only by “many Varangians, and Slovenes, and Chud, and Krivichi, and Merya, and Derevlyans, and Radimichi, and Polyany, and Severo”, but also Croats, Dulebs, Tivertsy and Vyatichi. On what conditions and under what circumstances the warriors of these tribes were part of Oleg's army is unknown.

In connection with the Seversk War of Oleg and the problem of his relations with the Vyatichi, a special group of treasures buried at the end of the 9th century is of considerable interest. in the Vyatichi lands on the Upper Oka. They include oriental coins, Slavic, Finnish, Saltov (Khazar) and Scandinavian ornaments. Among them, we should mention the hoards near the village. Mishnevo Likhvinskogo u. Kaluga province. (101 dirhams with a younger date of 867, a fragment of a silver chain made of ribbed wire); from. Ironworks of Zaraisk Ryazan province. (dirhams with the youngest date 877/878, 2 neck torcs of the Vyatka type, bracelets, five- and seven-beam temporal rings, Saltov earrings, a silver tip of the belt); hillfort near the village Supruty of the Shchekino district of the Tula region, destroyed during the assault (more than 100 skeletons of the dead inhabitants have already been discovered; two treasures have been published: a) 20 dirhams with the latest date of 866, 2 Saltov earrings, a wire temporal ring, a silver toggled torc of the Glazov type with faceted heads, twisted into a spiral b) iron bits with bronze curly cheek-pieces (Scandinavia, Borre style), chased plaques for belt sets, possibly an iron coulter; the treasure was in a Roman stucco pot (dating of things - the end of the 9th century); from. Beans. Telchensky district, Oryol region (337 dirhams with the younger date 875/876); the village of Ostrogov (dirhams with a younger date of 870); v. Rastovets (dirhams with a younger date of 864); s.Khitrovka. Kashirsky district, Tula province. (1007 Arab and Byzantine coins with the younger date 876/877)

It is curious to note that the treasures in the Severyansk Poseimye, adjacent to the Upper Oka, near the village of Moiseevo, Dmitrievsky district, Kursk province, also date from the same period. (R. Svapa): a) up to 30 silver dirhams with a younger date of 865 and one Byzantine coin of Michael III the Porphyrogenic (842 - 867) b) in an earthenware vessel there is a treasure trove of Arab dirhams of the 9th century. .

Considering the closeness of the younger dates of the coins found in the hoards, it seems unlikely that these were simple “accumulative” hoards. The composition of the hoards itself testifies to the same. As noted by T. Noonan and R.K. Kovalev, the treasures that fell into the ground at the end of the 9th century “consisted mainly of older dirhams, minted before 860.” Based on the analysis of a number of hoards, including those from Khitrovka, Bobyl and Pogrebny, they conclude that “during the period around 860-880, which can be called the era of Rurik, there was a huge amount of coins in circulation. More than half of the dirhams from hoards buried in Eastern Europe between c. 780-899, was buried at that time.” Researchers associate the mass loss of these treasures in the form of hoards with the outbreak of “intense wars in the Russian lands, in which competing Viking groups and local peoples were involved” (Noonan 2002: 156, 158; Noonan, Kovalev 2002: 155–156).

Judging by everything, the period of fallout of the Upper Oka and accompanying post-Seim hoards falls on the last decades of the 9th century, most likely in the 880s. Such a one-time loss of them was probably associated with a deep and devastating raid of the Rus into the country of hostile Slavic tribes (northerners and Vyatichi), and the main goal of the campaign could be a distracting blow against the eastern northerners and their kindred Vyatichi, which did not allow their detachments to assist the warring with Oleg Desninsky relatives.

Based on the topography of the treasures, one can even try to restore the probable route of this campaign - from the Yaroslavl Volga region to the mouth of the Oka, upstream to the mouth of the Upa (treasure near the village of Mishnevo), further along the Oka and its tributaries (the defeat of the Suprut settlement), then up Oka to Samodurovsky Lake, from here along Svapa past Moiseevo (dirham 865). Perhaps the campaign ended with an exit to the Seim and the Desna and a connection with the army of Oleg the Prophet, but something else is not excluded. Having defeated the Vyatichi as potential allies of the northerners, and creating a threat to the Eastern Severyansky lands (Poseimye), the Volga Rus and its allies returned to their bases in the Timerevo region. Carrying out such complex strategic operations is not unusual for the squads of Russia of that time. An operation similar in concept was carried out a century later, in 985, during the campaign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich against the Volga Bulgaria. The forces of Vladimir himself and the governor of Dobrynia, having set out from Kyiv and Novgorod, respectively, converged at a predetermined point in the Upper Volga region and from here moved on boats towards Bulgar. At the same time, from the side of the steppes, the Torks allied to Vladimir hit the Bulgars.

In connection with the events of the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries. Of particular interest are the materials of the settlement of Supruty, destroyed at that time, in the lands of the Vyatichi on Upa. Among them, attention is drawn to the abundance of materials of Scandinavian and northern origin: cauldrons, scales, lanceolate arrowheads, luxurious bits in the Borre style, torcs and brooches with faceted heads, ice-driving spikes, shield-shaped pendants, rook rivets. In all this, one sees a vivid illustration of the statement of T.S. Noonan regarding “rival groups of Vikings”, who, relying on local tribes, fought among themselves for control over the wealth of Eastern Europe. A similar point of view is shared by V.V. Murasheva, who believes that the totality of materials from the Suprut settlement reflects the process of "establishment by the Vikings of control over the most important river routes of Eastern Europe." According to the researcher, the ancient settlement was a key point of the infrastructure of this section of the route" and was occupied by some Varangian squad, which turned it into "an administrative center and a tribute collection point" (Murasheva.2006: 199). In this case, it is possible that the campaign in the country of the Vyatichi was also caused by the need to put an end to the rival of Scandinavian origin, which was dangerous for the Rurikovich, and relied on a squad that was polyethnic in composition (the population of Suprut, apparently, had a mixed Slavic-Balto-Finnish composition, in life and culture of which there was a significant Khazar influence) (Vorontsova 2002: 109-119).

However, it is more likely that the Suprut Russ, surrounded on almost all sides by tribes dependent on the Kaganate, were Khazar mercenaries, called upon to guard one of the key links of an important trade route and whose presence was recorded by al-Masudi in the army of the Kaganate (“Rus and Slavs ... also serve in army of the king). Probably, the Khazars used infantry units in conditions where the actions of the steppe cavalry would not have been effective, for example, in very rugged, swampy or wooded areas. One of these Slavic-Russian units could be based on the Suprut settlement, controlling the transition from the Don to the Oka and protecting these lands from the raids of the Baltic (golyad) and Scandinavian detachments. In this case, the elimination of Suprut was for Oleg a necessary condition for strengthening his own positions in the lands of the Khazar tributaries. The conclusion of V.V. also speaks in favor of this option. Murasheva regarding items from the Suprut hoard of 1969: “the complex is the rarest for the Viking era “rider” treasure (a bit with cheek-pieces, two sets of belts and silver plates that can be interpreted as overlays on the front and back pommel of the saddle) ... set, the details of which are cast in silver, are associated with the arts and crafts of the Khazar Kaganate” (Murasheva 2006: 199). Thus, this treasure could belong to a noble Rus - the head of the mercenary Khazar garrison.

Finding of dirhams minted under Samanid Ismail ibn-Ahmad in 900 and 903/904 at the Suprut settlement. (imitation) allowed A.V. Grigoriev to put forward a hypothesis that “the numismatic complex of the Suprut settlement could have been formed no earlier than 904 and no later than the 1st half. 10s 10th century Taking into account the discovery of a dirham in 906 at the Shchepilovsky settlement, the dating of the death of the settlements of the early period can be somewhat narrowed. Probably, the defeat of the settlements and the liquidation of the trade route took place in the region of 910-915. (Grigoriev 2005: 139). However, found in the layer of the Suprut settlement (dirham 900, excavations by S.A. Izyumova, kv.96-97, 2nd layer; imitation of the dirham 903/904, excavations by A.V. Grigoriev, kv.102, turf) single Samanid dirhams (Grigoriev 2005: 193-195), most likely cannot be associated with this defeat, since in all the above treasures (Mishnevo, Zheleznitsa, Supruty, Bobyl, Ostrogov, Rastovets, Khitrovka, Moiseevo) only Abbasid coins were recorded, minted until the 880s. and got into the area of ​​the Romny culture along the Don-Oksky route from Khazaria. Other eastern coins (Abbasid 10th century, Samanid, Saffarid and Tahirid dirhems) began to arrive in Eastern Europe from Volga Bulgaria only in the 10s of the 10th century, after the blockade introduced by the Khazars in the last quarter of the 9th century was broken. (Petrukhin 1996: 11). That is, the gap between the loss of treasures with Abbasid dirhams and the beginning of the arrival of Samanid dirhams after the organization of the water trade route connecting the Middle Volga and the Kiev Dnieper region is at least 25 years. This, in turn, indicates that the settlement was repopulated some time after the defeat.

In any case, coordinated strikes on the Seversky lands from Kyiv to the Chernigov Podesenye region and from the north through the lands of the Vyatichi would inevitably lead to a quick surrender of the northerners, which was recorded in the PVL. Unable and apparently unwilling to engage in a protracted war in the vast Seversk territories, Oleg was satisfied with receiving “light tribute” and establishing tight military control over the Chernigov region, directly adjacent to the Dnieper and the Dnieper route. It is likely that a Varangian ruler settled here, who had a noticeable autonomy in relation to Kiev. In this case, we can assume the reason why the Volga squads stopped on the northern borders of Poseymye - Oleg needed to maintain a certain balance of power on the Left Bank, acting as a third, decisive force. The existence of a dependent, but unconquered Seversk land was a guarantee against the excessive strengthening of the Chernigov ruler. And the presence of a powerful Russian military contingent near Chernigov (camp in Shestovitsy) was supposed to deter possible unpredictable actions of the eastern northerners. At the same time, both possessions were a shield for Kyiv against a possible strike from the Khazar Khaganate. Regarding the Vyatichi, it can be assumed that the crushing raid of Russia made a certain impression on them, manifested in the participation of their detachments in Oleg's Constantinople campaign.

Russia on the Volga and the Caspian

Speaking about this outbreak of military activity, one should also pay attention to a curious pattern that begins to be traced precisely from that time. Almost following the wars of Rus against the Slavic tribes recorded by the PVL at the end of the 9th century, eastern sources testify to the invasion of pirate squads of the Rus into the Caspian between 864-884. Then, in 907, Oleg's campaign against Constantinople follows, and in 909-910. Russ, entrenched on about. Abesgun, raid the banks of Mazanderan and smash the city of Sari. In 911, an agreement was concluded between Oleg and Byzantium, and in 913-914. Russ reappear in the Caspian. A similar situation can be traced later - the Rus were again noted in the Caspian in 943 - 944, immediately after the end of the confrontation between Prince Igor and Byzantium.

Such a sequence can be explained by the situation that developed in Kyiv after its capture by Vladimir in 980. The Varangian army gathered by him to fight Yaropolk, not satisfied with the end of the war, presented the prince with a demand: 2 hryvnia from a person and Volodemer said to them, wait even to collect kun for a month and wait for a month and not give them and decide the Varazians salted you with us and show us the way to the Greeks. He told them to go and choose from them good men of wisdom and goodness, and distributing to them cities and others, and going to Tsaryugrad to the Greeks” (PVL 2007: 37). Probably, after the completion of each of the series of wars waged by the Kievan princes with the help of the Scandinavians (against the Slavic tribes under Oleg, against Byzantium under Oleg and Igor), they had a surplus of military force in their hands, representing a frank threat to their own power and the well-being of the state. The way to get rid of such “surpluses” was to send them on a new, even more distant independent campaign. Vladimir, on the other hand, had to play for time by cunning, gather his own forces and, ultimately, “fuse” the Varangians to Constantinople as mercenaries - probably the sad outcome of most of the Caspian enterprises of the Rus made this direction of campaigns very unpopular among the northern warriors. Another reason for the cessation of the raids of Russian squads on the Caspian was the defeat of the Jewish Khazaria by Svyatoslav and the appearance of Khorezmian garrisons in the Khazar cities, hardly inclined to let the military detachments of the pagans into the areas inhabited by fellow Muslims.
In connection with the Caspian direction of the movement of Russia, the role of the Volga route in the formation of the Old Russian state should also be considered. Arab sources report, as is known, about three centers of the Rus: Kuyaba, as-Slaviya and as-Arsaniyya. The first two of them are traditionally identified with Kiev and Novgorod (Slovenian land). The location of the third, from where black sables are brought for sale and where foreigners are not allowed under pain of death, remains controversial. You can determine its location by considering the places of concentration of finds of Scandinavian origin. At the same time, it should be noted that the mention of these three centers dates back no earlier than the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries. (860s - the arrival of Askold and Dir in Kyiv).

Located near Smolensk, Gnezdovo arises in the beginning. 9th century, which is supported by the dating of a number of studied mounds and the lower layer of the settlement itself. From the very beginning, it had a mixed composition of the population, which included Slavs, Scandinavians, Balts and, in part, Finno-Ugric peoples. But the situation is approximately the same with the proto-urban centers of the Yaroslavl Volga region. The Timerevo, Mikhailovsky and Petrovsky complexes appeared in the 9th century, reaching their peak in the middle of the 10th century. Based in the Meryan lands, these centers controlled the Volga trade route.

Thus, in the IX century. Archaeologically, two centers have been traced from where the military-trade activity of Russia could come from and which can claim the role of “as-Arsania” of Arab sources. Ibn Haukal writes: “As for Arsa, I have not heard anyone mention that strangers reached it, because they [its inhabitants] kill all strangers who come to them. They themselves go down the water for trade and do not report anything about their affairs and their goods and do not allow anyone to follow them and enter their country ”(Novoseltsev 1965: 412).

The message of al-Saveji differs somewhat from this: “There are three groups of Russ. One group is close to the Bulgar, and their king is in the city called Ku.a.na, and it [the city] is larger than the Bulgar. [Another] group is called Ausani and their king is in a place called Arta. The [third] group, the best of all, is called Jalaba (Jaba). And merchants do not go there and do not go further than Bulgar. And no one comes to Arta, because every foreigner who goes there is killed” (Novoseltsev 1965: 413).

It is interesting that usually the "best" or "highest" group of Russ is called the second of them, called as-Slaviyya. In this case, al-Saveji puts her in third place, calls her "Jalaba" and attributes to her a feature that is usually attributed only to Arsa - the killing of strangers.

But the most interesting here is the last assertion that merchants who want to deal with the inhabitants of "Jalab" and, probably, Arta, "do not go further than Bulgar". From this it follows that the path to these lands goes precisely through the Bulgar, that is, along the Volga. It is Bulgar that is the starting point for everyone who wants to get into the lands of the Rus. This unequivocally points to the nearest point of concentration of the Varangian-Russian antiquities in the Yaroslavl Volga region - Timerevo, Mikhailovskoye, Petrovskoe. Apparently, this is “Arsa”, since it is known that as-Slaviyya (Novgorod) is “the most distant group of them”. The statement that the inhabitants of Arsa kill strangers (i.e., in fact, Muslim merchants) appeared, perhaps, at the time of the next sharp confrontation between Russia and the Muslims after another unsuccessful campaign against the Caspian Sea, which was, for example, the raid of 909/910, which ended extermination of aliens (Drevnyaya Rus 2003: 223).

The news of this defeat could not evoke warm feelings in Volga Rus for the Muslims, the closest of whom lived in Bulgar. Probably, every Muslim in that period was considered as an enemy infiltrator, with whom they acted accordingly. Later, the statement about the beating of foreigners became a stable legendary characteristic of the inhabitants of the third "center" of the Rus, starting to roam according to the works of Arab geographers. In addition, there was another reason due to which the inhabitants of the Upper Volga region could treat strangers with suspicion and apprehension. It appeared in the second half of the 10th century, when the Horosan ghazi squads began to appear in the “lands of the Sakaliba” beyond the Bulgar, engaging in the capture of slaves. They, “moving along the path of merchants, reached the limits of the land of the Slavs, attacked their settlements there and immediately took the slaves abroad” (Mishin 2002: 182). Of course, in the light of such visits, the inhabitants of “the lands of the Sakaliba, and first of all the Rus that dominated there, could see in any Muslim a potential hunter for slaves or their scout.

Thus, the message that the inhabitants of Arta are killing strangers may be evidence of the difficult relationship between two political entities - Volga Russia and Volga Bulgaria, in an attempt to establish their hegemony over the trade route passing through Itil. Presumably, the result of this confrontation was a certain balance of power, when the rulers of Volga Bulgaria allowed the Rus to trade in their markets, but blocked their further advance down the Volga, and Rus, which controlled the Upper Volga region, prevented any penetration into the lands subject to it of possible agents of its "probable enemy". Hostility towards Muslims could reach its peak after unsuccessful campaigns to the Caspian Sea and the following extermination of the remnants of the returning Russian squads by the Muslim population of the Lower and Middle Volga

It cannot be said that the Rus saw in the Volga route only a convenient way for robber raids. Apparently, the events on the Volga developed according to the same scenario as on the Dnieper. The only difference was that, having stumbled upon the Volga Bulgarians and unable to overcome the blockade they had established, the Rus found a workaround through the Byzantine possessions in the Crimea and the Khazar possessions in the Don and Lower Volga, from where they still penetrate the Caspian. After the first "reconnaissance" raids (c. 884, in 909/910, 913), Russia undertakes a full-scale invasion in an attempt to firmly establish itself in this region (campaign of 943/944). Ibn Miskawayh testifies to the seriousness of their intentions. According to him, having occupied the strategically important city of Berdaa, the Rus declared to the local residents that they would guarantee them security and freedom of religion if they obeyed them: “There is no disagreement in faith between us and you. The only thing we want is power. It is our duty to treat you well and to obey you well.” Approximately the same could sound the speech of the Rus in relation to the Dnieper Slavs. In the event that Russia was consolidated on the Caspian coast, it would take control of both ends of the Volga route, and then progressive “development” of the territory that appeared between them according to the “Dnieper option” could follow.

However, the Russians failed to gain a foothold among the stable state formations of Transcaucasia, with an aggressive Muslim population, deprived of a constant influx of fresh forces. Yes, and Khazaria with the Volga Bulgaria were more serious opponents than the East Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribal unions of the Dnieper and the Upper Volga region. The attempts made under Svyatoslav and Vladimir to remove these barriers from the Volga route only led to a worsening of the situation for Kievan Rus itself. As a result of the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate, the Black Sea steppes became a source of constant threat to the southern Russian borders, and the wars with Volga Bulgaria only confirmed the dominance of the Bulgarians in the Middle Volga, which continued until the Mongol invasion.

Summing up, we can try to build the following picture of the development of events in Eastern Europe during the 9th century.

1. In the 1st half of the 9th century. on the territory of the Dnieper Left Bank, a proto-state formation is being formed on the basis of a tribal union of northerners (“Country of Slavs” by Ibn Ruste), which is probably headed by the descendants of the Khazar nobility, who settled here after the end of the civil war in the Khaganate as Itil vassals. The power of the ruler of the "Country of the Slavs" could also extend to the Vyatichi, Radimichi and, possibly, the glades.

2. In the 2nd third of the 9th century. in the north (the lands of the Krivichi, Slovenes, Mary and Chud) a proto-state formation (“Russian Khaganate”) is formed, headed by “Varangians who came from across the sea”, the ruler of which takes the title “Kagan”. Its outposts are Gnezdovo on the Dnieper and the Yaroslavl Volga region on the Volga. The squads of Russia begin to raid the Dnieper and Volga routes, trying to put them under their control. Russia reinforces its trading interests in the Dnieper direction with a demonstration of military power in the form of campaigns against Byzantium (Surozh and Amastrida) and the northern outskirts of the Khazar Khaganate (the death of the Novotroitsk settlement, the appearance of a group of treasures hidden in the second half of the 830s on the Desna, the Lower Seim and Oke). On the Volga, the policy of containment of Russian activity pursued by the Volga Bulgarians led to the laying of bypass highways by the Rus through the Byzantine and Khazar possessions, allowing them to penetrate the Caspian and further, to the countries of the Arab East.

3. Middle - 2nd floor. 9th century - a period of military activity on the Dnieper Left Bank, in which Russia plays a leading role. The territory of the northerners, Vyatichi and Radimichi - tributaries of Khazaria - is subject to raids, as evidenced by the loss of treasures in Poseymye and on the Upper Oka, the defeat of the Suprut settlement. This can be associated with Oleg's campaigns in the struggle for the unification of the northern "Kaganate of the Rus" and the Kiev enclave of Russia Askold and Dir into a single state. As a result of these campaigns and a series of wars between Russia and the Slavic tribes, the Dnieper trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" is under the complete control of the Russian princes. Neither the first Rurikovich nor their heirs managed to achieve the same result on the Volga, despite the loud, but ephemeral successes of Svyatoslav.