Brief historiography of the issue. The problem of the emergence of the first Russian cities is still controversial. V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that they arose as a result of the successes of the eastern trade of the Slavs, as warehouse and departure points for Russian exports. In Soviet times, M. N. Tikhomirov opposed this. In his opinion, trade did not bring the cities to life, it only created the conditions for separating out the largest and richest of them. He believed that the real force that brought Russian cities to life was the development of agriculture and crafts in the field of economics and feudalism - in the field of social relations. The specific ways in which cities appeared appeared to Soviet historians to be quite diverse. According to N.N. Voronin, cities in Rus' were built on the basis of trade and craft settlements, feudal castles or princely fortresses. E. I. Goryunova, M. G. Rabinovich, V. T. Pashuto, A. V. Kuza, V. V. Sedov and others agreed with him, to one degree or another. M. Yu. Braichevsky identifies one of the listed possibilities. Most cities, from his point of view, arose around early feudal fortresses and castles. V.L. Yanin and M.Kh. Aleshkovsky believe that the ancient Russian city developed not from princely castles or trade and craft settlements, but from the administrative veche centers of rural churchyards, places where tribute and its collectors were concentrated. V.V. Mavrodin, I.Ya. Froyanov and A.Yu. Dvornichenko believe that cities in Rus' at the end of the 9th - 10th centuries. were built on a tribal basis. They arose as a result of the formation of tribal unions, as vital bodies coordinating and directing the activities of the unions.
Kyiv. According to archaeological data on the appearance of manor buildings, bridges, drainage systems, etc., in relation to the 10th century, we can talk about the existence of only five real cities. At the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century, Kyiv and Ladoga arose, in the first half of the century - Novgorod and at the end of the century - Polotsk and Chernigov.
Author of "The Tale of Bygone Years" calls it the first Russian city Kyiv, and considers the founder of the Russian land Oleg. This follows from the words that he puts into the mouth of the prophetic prince: “ And Oleg, the prince, sat down in Kyiv and Oleg said: “This will be the mother of Russian cities " And he had,” continues the chronicler, “ Varangians, and Slovenes, and others who were calledRussia ". By “others” he meant other participants in the campaign (Chud, Meryu, Krivichi) and clearing. It turns out that " Russian Land" arose as a result of the merger of different tribal clans with the arrival of Oleg and his troops in Kyiv. The meaning of the phenomenon is clear. It has been well known since ancient times and is usually called by the Greek word “sinoikism.” The expression “mother of Russian cities”, like the Greek “metropolis” (from meter - mother and polis - city) - means the founding city. The words of the Prophetic Oleg “Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities” are a kind of prophecy predicting Kyiv the laurels of the founder of all Russian cities (or older cities).
The chronicle also includes information that does not fit into the concept of the Kyiv scribe. Based on Greek chronicles, he talks about how the Russian land became known during the reign of the Roman Emperor Michael. According to the chronicle, in 866 (according to Greek sources in 860), the Rus attacked Constantinople. The chronicler associates these Rus with the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir. If this was indeed the case, it turns out that the Russian land arose at least a quarter of a century earlier than the arrival of Oleg.
The story about Oleg’s campaign against Kyiv is contradictory, and as it turns out, it is full of legendary details that never actually happened. The chronicler claims that Oleg took Smolensk and Lyubech along the way and planted his husbands there. However, at that time these cities did not exist. According to the chronicle, Oleg went to Kyiv with a large army - “we will kill many howls.” But, having come to the Kyiv mountains, for some reason he began to hide it in boats and pretend to be a merchant. Firstly, if this multi-tribal army was really large, it would not be so easy to hide it. Secondly, if it was actually significant, why didn’t Oleg take Kyiv openly - by siege or attack, as he allegedly did with Lyubech and Smolensk, news of the capture of which would have reached the Kyiv princes before the largest army? Most likely, Oleg’s campaign was in fact a predatory raid of a small detachment consisting of representatives of the Slovenes, Krivichi, Varangians, Meri, etc. But not a state-scale enterprise. In this case, it makes sense to pretend to be merchants, especially since to a certain extent this was actually the case. The Rus' raids on the Slavs, which Eastern authors talk about, were directly related to the trade interests of the latter.
According to archaeological excavations, Kyiv arose on the site of a nest of Slavic settlements located in the 7th – 9th centuries on Starokievskaya Mountain and its slopes, the Kiselevka, Detinka, Shchekovitsa and Podol mountains. The settlements were interspersed with empty spaces, arable lands and burial grounds. The oldest settlement was located in the north-west of Starokievskaya Mountain. According to B.A. Rybakov, it dates back to the end of the 5th - beginning of the century. VI centuries At the end of the 9th century, Kiev Podil developed rapidly, courtyard buildings and street layout appeared here.
In 969 – 971, during the reign of the famous warrior prince Svyatoslav Igorevich, Kyiv almost lost its status as the “middle” of the Russian land. Not only the prince and his family, but also the best part of the local nobility could leave him. The Kiev boyars were ready to change their place of residence to a more attractive one, agreeing to settle with the prince in another city - Pereyaslavets on the Danube. Both Svyatoslav and his squad were only waiting for the death of the prince’s sick mother. The reason why such an outcome did not take place was the failure of the Russians in the fight against the Roman empire. The reason why such an outcome could have taken place was that the Kiev squad by that time had not yet completely settled on the ground and the old squad ideals of loyalty and brotherhood meant more to it than their own villages in the Kyiv district.
Under Vladimir, not only religion was changed, but also the final step was taken towards the settlement of the Russian squad. The development of Kyiv, its strengthening and expansion begins precisely at this time. This can be seen from the construction undertaken by the prince. First, a pagan sanctuary was built “outside the courtyard” of the tower, then the Church of the Tithes and the fortifications of the “city of Vladimir”.
A real leap in the development of Kyiv occurred in the era of Yaroslav the Wise after a period of temporary decline caused by the shock of the introduction of Christianity and the struggle of Vladimir’s sons for the Kiev inheritance. Then the city limits expand noticeably. The layout becomes stable. The center is finally taking shape - the “city of Vladimir” and the “city of Yaroslav” with the Golden Gate and the grandiose St. Sophia Cathedral. The fortifications of Kyiv are increasing in area by 7 times.
Ladoga. Judging by archaeological data, Ladoga arose at the same time as Kyiv. This is the only possible place where the legendary Rurik could have come, and from where the Prophetic Oleg could have marched on Kyiv. The calling of Rurik to Ladoga, and not Novgorod, is spoken of in the Ipatiev and Radzivilov Chronicles.
Archaeological excavations have shown that Ladoga as a settlement dates back to the middle of the 8th century, but at that time, along with the Slavs, Balts, Finns and Scandinavians lived here. Archaeologists have discovered Slavic square log houses with a stove in the corner, and large Scandinavian-looking houses. The Slavs began to dominate here in the 10th century. The first fortress in Ladoga was built at the turn of the 9th – 10th centuries. Gradually Ladoga becomes a Slavic city. The first streets appear, stretching along the banks of the Volkhov, and courtyard development, typical of ancient Russian cities.
When Rurik came to Ladoga, it was an international trading post, with a more or less permanent agricultural and trade population. Oleg left it along with his gang back when Ladoga did not constitute a single organism. And only with his direct participation does it acquire urban features. Most likely, it was Oleg who built a stone fortress here, which archaeologists date back to the late 9th - early 10th centuries, which became the first step towards Slavic dominance. Oleg and his people took the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” under their control - this is the goal of strengthening the northernmost point of this trading system. In the 10th century, the Kiev community persistently sought to develop the East Slavic lands, rebuilding fortresses in the most important places, from the point of view of Kyiv. The most ancient Russian cities (Kyiv fortresses) ensured the dominance of Kyiv among the Slavic tribes.
Novgorod. Information about the construction of Novgorod is contradictory. Initially, according to chronicles, the Novgorod fortress was built by the Slovenes who came to these places, then Rurik erected his fortifications here. Finally, in 1044, Novgorod was once again founded by Vladimir, the son of Yaroslav the Wise. Slovenian Novgorod is a ancestral village or tribal center, the location of which is unknown. Many people associate Rurik’s Novgorod with the “Rurik settlement,” located 2 km from ancient Russian Novgorod. Excavations have shown that a settlement existed here already in the middle of the 9th century. Along with the Slavs, who built wooden log houses here (the length of the walls are 4 - 6 meters) and left behind molded dishes and socketed arrowheads, characteristic of the Western Slavs, a number of Scandinavians lived here. The Scandinavian trace is represented by hryvnias with pendants in the form of Thor's hammers, equal-armed and shell-shaped brooches, playing checkers, pendants with runic spells, etc. Only the last message applies to the now famous Novgorod child. It has been confirmed by archaeological excavations. Novgorod of Vladimir Yaroslavich is the oldest Detinets, which occupied the north-western part of the modern Detinets and included the St. Sophia Cathedral and the bishop's courtyard. V. L. Yanin and M. Kh. Aleshkovsky believe that on the site of St. Sophia Cathedral there used to be a pagan temple, i.e. This part of Detinets was also the center of the boyar farmsteads that surrounded it in pre-Christian times. There was also an older Detinets standing here. The first fortress, Detinets, could have been erected on this site under Oleg or Igor.
Initially, Novgorodians were part of the Kyiv city community. The unity of Kyiv and Novgorod of the 10th century is evidenced by chronicle reports about tributes established by Oleg and then Olga, quitrents, traps and banners of the Kyiv princes in the Novgorod land. The connection with the “mother” was mainly political. Posadniks were sent from Kyiv. If it was a prince, for example, Svyatoslav, Vladimir, Yaroslav, this flattered the Novgorodians and made them more independent. The personality of the prince gave the city completeness - both political and spiritual: the pagans believed in a mystical connection between the ruler and the good of society.
Polotsk Polotsk was first mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years in 862 among the cities subject to Rurik. It is also on the list of Russian cities that received Greek tribute, taken by Oleg in 907. Under the year 980, the chronicle speaks of the first Polotsk prince Rogvolod, who allegedly came “from across the sea.”
Systematic archaeological study of the city began in Soviet times. Excavations were carried out here by A. N. Lyavdansky, M. K. Karger, P. A. Rappoport, L. V. Alekseev and others. According to archaeological data, the original settlement in Polotsk arose in the 9th century on the right bank of the river. Cloths. The oldest Slavic strata date back to the 10th century. Detinets at the mouth of the Polota River was built in the second half of the 10th century. It became the center of the future city. Polotsk acquired urban features at the end of the 10th – beginning of the 11th centuries, when courtyard and estate development spread and pavements were built. Polotsk was founded to control the trade route “from the Varangians to the Arabs” (as I.V. Dubov puts it), passing from the Baltic Sea along the Western Dvina, through the Volga portage to the Caspian Sea.
Chernigov. The city was first mentioned in the chronicle in 907, among the Russian cities that received Greek tribute. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus speaks of Chernigov as one of the “Russian fortresses” from where Slavic one-trees come to Constantinople. The first event associated with the city dates back to 1024. Then Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, not received in Kyiv, “ gray on the table in Chernigov».
The city has long attracted the attention of researchers. Mass excavations of Chernigov mounds were carried out in the 70s of the 19th century by D. Ya. Samokvasov. Detinets was studied by B. A. Rybakov. Architectural monuments were studied by N.V. Kholostenko and P.D. Baranovsky. In our time, excavations in Chernigov are led by V.P. Kovalenko. The history of Chernigov was addressed by P.V. Golubovsky, D.I. Bagalei, M.N. Tikhomirov, A.N. Nasonov, V.V. Mavrodin, A.K. Zaitsev, M.Yu. Braichevsky, A.V. Kuza and others.
Archaeological excavations have shown that on the territory of Chernigov in the 8th – 9th centuries there were several settlements of the Romny culture, traditionally associated with the tribes of the northerners. At the end of the 9th century they ceased to exist as a result of military defeat. Their place is taken by monuments of the Old Russian type. The first fortifications in the Chernigov Detinets area were apparently built at the beginning of the 10th century (there is no exact data on this matter). It is believed that in the 80s and 90s of the 10th century, Detinets was rebuilt by Prince Vladimir. Chernigov acquired an urban character at the beginning of the 11th century, as did Polotsk. The city probably monitored the movement along the Desna and had access to the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” connecting it through the Ugra and Oka with the Volga route.
Forced synoicism. The first Kyiv fortresses included Vyshgorod and Pskov. IN Vyshgorod there are no undisturbed deposits of the 10th century, there are only isolated finds. IN Pskov The first fortifications date back to the beginning or middle of the 10th century, but the settlement became a city only in the 11th century.
At the end of the 10th century, Vladimir Svyatoslavich built a number of fortresses near Kyiv to protect it from Pecheneg raids. Among them were Belgorod And Pereyaslavl. Archaeological excavations confirmed the information in the chronicle. Belgorod was built on the site of a Slavic settlement (with an area of 8.5 hectares), located on a cape formed by a ravine and the bank of the river. Irpen. According to excavations, at the end of the 10th century, fortifications of Detinets (12.5 hectares) and the first roundabout city were built here. The ramparts of the city had internal frame structures and powerful masonry made of mud brick. Ancient fortifications Pereyaslavl also date back to the end of the 10th century.
Chronicle reports about the construction of Belgorod and information under the year 988 make it possible to find out exactly how Kyiv created its colonies. According to the chronicle, Vladimir " chop", i.e. collected,dialed people to Belgorod from other cities. He did the same when settling other unnamed cities, the construction of which is reported in Article 988. Therefore, Vladimir united representatives of various tribes and clans into one whole, i.e. artificially did what had previously happened naturally in Kyiv. Before us is the real one forced synoicism, similar to those that the Seleucids staged in their kingdom more than a thousand years earlier.
Information from chronicles about other ancient Russian cities has not been confirmed as a result of archaeological excavations. First fortifications Smolensk dated by archaeologists at the turn of the 11th – 12th centuries. The settlement of Podol dates back to the middle of the 11th century. As is known, ancient Russian Smolensk was preceded by Gnezdovo of the 10th – 11th centuries – an open trade and craft settlement with a multinational population. However, Gnezdovo cannot be recognized as the original Smolensk. In fact, it was a settlement closely connected with the interests of international trade and distant predatory campaigns. It was primarily trading place, a trading post and had no direct relation to the future Smolensk. Beloozero(united under 862) in the 10th century - the village of Vesi. It became an Old Russian city only in the 12th century. Fortifications Izborsk were built at the turn of the 10th – 11th centuries, although the settlement here has been known since the 8th century. Rostov According to archaeological data, it appears no earlier than the 11th century. It is preceded by the Sarskoe settlement of the 9th – 10th centuries, but it, like Gnezdovo in relation to Smolensk, cannot be recognized as the original Rostov. The oldest strata Turov date back to the turn of the 10th – 11th centuries, and the city’s fortifications were built no earlier than the 11th century. Fortifications Lyubecha were also built in the 11th century.
An article about the emergence of cities in Ancient Rus'.
In recent decades, domestic historical science has achieved significant success in developing the problem of city formation in Ancient Rus', which is closely related to socio-economic, political and cultural-religious issues.
Archaeologists have made a significant contribution to the development of this topic. Large-scale excavations of Ladoga, Novgorod itself and the Settlement (Rurikov) near Novgorod, Beloozero, Rostov Velikaya, Suzdal, as well as a number of proto-urban centers allow us to take a new and more detailed look today at the processes of city formation in Rus'.
However, this issue has long been of interest to historians. In the 18th-19th centuries, the works of a significant number of scientists examined the causes of the emergence and early stages of the development of cities in Rus'. Various points of view and even complete theories can be found in the work of such a venerable historian as N.M. Karamzin, who, following A.L. Shletser, believed that urban centers in Rus' appeared in the first half of the 9th century.
Some historians believed that the cities (towns) in Ancient Rus' were a product of the Slavic colonization of the North-West (the future Novgorod lands) and the North-East (the core of the future Suzdal land). S.F. Platonov partly joined them, believing that, along with the processes of colonization, both internal and long-distance trade played a significant role in the process of the formation of cities. It is no coincidence, in his opinion, that almost all early ancient Russian cities arose along the main water systems - the Dnieper and Volga, which at that time were the main connecting routes of Rus' with the Arab East, Byzantium, Volga Bulgaria, Scandinavia, Central Europe and many other lands.
The most detailed “trade” theory of city formation in Ancient Rus' was developed in the works of V.O. Klyuchevsky.
Thus, in the historical science of the 18th - early 20th centuries, a whole kaleidoscope of explanations of the reasons for the emergence of cities in Rus' developed. Economic (trade and craft), defensive, colonization, political, religious, cultural, as well as other factors that significantly influenced the ancient Russian processes of city formation were taken into account, and sometimes put in first place.
In the 20th century, this topic was examined quite deeply and closely in the works of many historians and archaeologists. Quite a lot of attention is paid to the historiography of this issue in our work “New sources on the history of Ancient Rus'” 1 (therefore, in this article we will focus only on the main ones).
A general definition of an ancient Russian city was given in the general work of B.D. Grekov. He believed that “a city is a populated area in which an industrial and commercial population is concentrated, more or less isolated from agriculture.” 2 In other words, for B.D. Grekov, the decisive factor in the process of the emergence of cities in Rus' was the separation of crafts into an independent branch of the economy and the development of trade. B.D. Grekov also noted that “the most important Slavic cities arose along large waterways.” 3 There is an obvious contradiction in these conclusions. It is as follows: in his opinion, feudalism and statehood in Rus', as well as cities, begin in the 9th century. However, according to archaeological data, many types of crafts are distinguished here at an earlier time, and urban centers appear en masse, judging by archaeological and written data, starting from the turn of the 10th-11th centuries. Hence the assumption arises that the hypothesis (concept) of B.D. Grekov about the early feudalization of Rus' starting from the 9th century should be questioned.
For, in my opinion, the emergence of cities is an integral part of the initial formation of early feudal society in Ancient Rus'. Although, as we will show below, there are different, sometimes mutually exclusive, points of view on this matter.
In general, I agree with B.D. Grekov, M.N. Tikhomirov, who states that the dominant factors in the process of town formation in Rus' were economic factors, and not enough attention was paid to the socio-political nature of this phenomenon, although in general he pointed out that the development of feudalism played an important role in this process. 4 It is difficult to agree with this approach, because it is contradicted by the latest research by historians, as well as the results of archaeological excavations obtained in recent decades.
The conclusions of M.N. Tikhomirov also contradict the conclusions of B.D. Grekova. If the latter, as noted above, indicates that the backbone of cities was “the population, to one degree or another separated from agriculture,” then M.N. Tikhomirov noted that urban centers
arose primarily in peasant agricultural areas, where the district is able to feed the population concentrated in certain places. M.N. Tikhomirov actively opposed the “trade” theory, which explained the emergence of the city by the participation of one or another point in trade, and mainly, as he interprets the conclusions of V.O. Klyuchevsky, transit. According to him, cities are permanent settlements where crafts and trade were concentrated. Such centers relied on stable domestic markets for their products and the agricultural region.
However, as archaeological evidence shows, the economies of both proto-urban centers and cities proper were complex. Their inhabitants were also engaged in agriculture, including farming and cattle breeding, fishing, hunting, crafts and, of course, trade, both transit and internal.
Again, archaeological research data, which we will discuss below, suggests that there was no direct, rigid connection between emerging cities and purely agricultural settlements, where, by the way, there were crafts and their participation in various types of trade (of course, in primarily with nearby cities), as well as in indirect form and long-distance transit with both ancient Russian cities and beyond. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain the numerous finds of foreign products (weapons, jewelry, ceramics, etc.) in cultural layers, buildings of rural settlements, as well as in burials and treasures.
B.A. Rybakov, in contrast to B.D. Grekov, I.A. Tikhomirova, points out that “the course of historical development of the tribal system leads to the multiplication of such centers (urban - I.D.) and to the complication of their functions,” 5 and they, in turn (and precisely they), are the basis of future early feudal cities. Thus, B.A. Rybakov tries to link the emergence of cities with the transition from a tribal system to an early feudal society.
Despite the diversity of forms of early ancient Russian cities, modern historical science still identifies the main paths of their development and main forms. In the literature such concepts as “tribal cities”, “proto-urban centers”, “fortified cities”, 6 “city-states” 7 and a number of others are used.
In the 50s of our century, three main concepts of city formation were formulated - “tribal”, “castle” (essentially early feudal) and “multiple”, which are based on the various reasons for the emergence of a particular city, as well as its diversity functions. They were developed in most detail in the works of N.N. Voronin and P.A. Rappoport.
N. Voronin believed that ancient Russian cities could arise on the basis of trade and craft villages, and as a result of the merger of rural settlements, or could be formed around feudal castles or princely fortresses. 8 This concept was further developed and “by the end of the 60s... a theory of the diversity of specific options for the emergence of cities in Rus' was formed.” 9
Unfortunately, despite its attractiveness and the relative ease of explaining the reasons for the emergence of a particular city, it did not take into account the specific historical situation, temporal and territorial factors, as well as the ethnic characteristics and traditions of the population that created cities in their land.
A.V. Kuza, being a supporter of the theory of the plurality of types of early Russian cities, names four leading variants of their emergence: 1) tribal and intertribal centers; 2) fortified camps, churchyards, volost centers; 3) border fortresses; 4) one-time construction of the city.
The views of A.V. Kuza are quite traditional. He notes that “the very appearance of these settlements (with the exception of tribal centers) was brought to life by the development of feudalism in Rus', the emergence of statehood.” 10
Thus, this researcher admits the existence of both tribal cities and early feudal ones. Proposing his periodization of the processes of city formation in Rus': the first period (before the beginning - mid-10th century) - proto-urban, the second (mid-10th - mid-12th centuries) - early urban and the third (from the mid-12th century) - the period of developed cities, A. V. Kuza does not reveal the socio-economic and political nature of the cities that he attributes to different periods of development of society as a whole. In addition, the periodization and typology he proposed are prone to excessive schematism and overly formalized criteria and assessments. However, as he himself notes, the process of city formation in Rus' was more complex than it sometimes seems to researchers.
Completely new approaches to the problem of the emergence of cities in Ancient Rus' were developed by V.V. Mavrodin, 11 I.Ya. Froyanov and his students. In recent years, the historical school of Froyanov has emerged. In the works of his own, as well as of numerous students, based on the extensive historiographical heritage, written and archaeological sources, a new original concept of the emergence and formation of ancient Russian cities in the direct context of ancient Russian society in the pre-Mongol era was developed. AND I. Froyanov in his reflections is based on the thesis according to which, “nowadays we have a huge amount of facts testifying to city-states as a universal form of state in world history. City-states are found almost everywhere.” 12
In another work (co-authored with his student A.Yu. Dvornichenko), he notes that “city-states are often found in societies experiencing a transition period from a pre-class to a class socio-economic formation.” 13
A monograph by these authors is specifically devoted to early urban topics, in which they “mainly complete their study of the problem of the city-state in Ancient Rus'.” 14 And in fact, today this monograph is a milestone and in many ways a final study on ancient Russian early urban topics. It analyzes the extensive historiography of the issue, which was significantly supplemented in the recently defended Ph.D. thesis by S.I. Malovichko, one of I.Ya. Froyanov’s students. 15 He claims that in the works of I.Ya. Froyanov, A.Yu. Dvornichenko, I.B. Mikhailova, the “tribal” theory of the origin of ancient Russian cities was continued and developed. However, he also notes “that the problem itself still remains open.”
The basis of the concept of I.Ya.Froyanov, A.Yu.Dvornichenko is that, having arisen on a tribal basis, “cities become centers of craft and trade, i.e. they add an economic function to their previous socio-political and cultural functions. Full flourishing urban crafts and trade reached in the 12th century. And yet, the main cities of Rus' at that time acted primarily not as centers of craft and trade, but as state centers, standing at the head of the lands - urban volosts - states.
Note that for the early stage of the formation of ancient Russian urban centers (IX-early 11th centuries), the main sources are archaeological. It is necessary to consider the extent to which they confirm or refute the thesis of I.Ya. Froyanov and A.Yu. Dvornichenko. Let us cite as examples only the most studied early urban centers known from written sources. These are such as Ladoga, Gorodishche (Ryurikovo) near Novgorod in the North-West, Gnezdovo (Smolensk) in the South-West and Sarskoye Gorodishche (chronicled Rostov) in the North-East.
Archaeological research on the processes of city formation in Rus' is discussed in detail in a number of our books and articles. A special monograph is devoted to the cities of the North-East, as well as the Yaroslavl Volga region (Rostov the Great, Yaroslavl, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Uglich). 16
In addition, the problems of the emergence of cities, the causes of this phenomenon, their socio-political and economic nature are analyzed in the section of the already mentioned book “The Formation and Development of Early Class Societies.” 17
One of the most studied archaeologically is the same large early urban center as Ladoga. Its excavations have been going on for more than a hundred years and are still ongoing. This city occupied a special position in Ancient Rus', because it was located at the junction of the two most important waterways of Ancient Rus' - the Dnieper and Volga with access to the Baltic. Thus, Ladoga occupied a key strategic position and played a vital role in the history of Rus' as a whole.
The works of A.N. Kirpichnikov detail the history of the development of Ladoga. Based mainly on archaeological data, A.N. Kirpichnikov attempted to highlight several stages in the formation of Ladoga as an urban center. 18
As you know, Ladoga was first mentioned in the chronicles in 862 in connection with the calling of the Varangians and the arrival of Rurik here. It has now been proven that this, as many previously believed, “legend” reflects true events, and Ladoga was the capital of the emerging Russian state - the Rurikovich empire.
The question is why Rurik comes specifically to Ladoga and who, what early state formation “called” him and the mercenaries to these lands. There are many different, sometimes contradictory, versions and hypotheses on this score. The works of D.A. Machinsky and A.N. Kirpichnikov set out a fairly reasoned hypothesis of the socio-political nature of Ladoga before the calling of the Varangians. Thus, D.A. Machinsky claims that at the beginning of the 9th century. here in the Lower Volkhov region there existed a certain proto-state with its capital Ladoga. 19
We find similar ideas in the works of A.N. Kirpichnikov. 20 He also notes that “the independent significance of Ladoga was strengthened by the fact that, having established intra-regional ties with the Veps and Finnish populations, it headed a self-governing region - the Ladoga land, stretching from Lake Onega in the east to the Izhora plateau in the west.” 21 This conclusion means that at the early stage of its existence, Ladoga was not only a tribal, but also an intertribal center, representing the capital of a certain federation.
This is quite consistent with the idea of city-states set forth in the studies of I.Ya. Froyanov and his students. Let's compare the conclusions with the conclusions of archaeologists outlined above. “The city arose as a vital body coordinating and enhancing the activities of social unions that were formed at the end of the tribal system, intertribal in nature... Thus, there is every reason to assert that at the early stage cities acted primarily as military-political, administrative and cultural (religious) centers." 22
As we see, the ideas of archaeologists and historians largely coincide. There are only differences in terminology and some chronological inconsistencies.
Summarizing his observations, A.N. Kirpichnikov writes that “the importance of Ladoga remained for many centuries. If in the 9th century it was a capital city (read - the center of federal tribes. - I.D.), Then in the X-XI centuries. - one of the most important trade and craft centers." That is, in his opinion, only from the turn of the 11th-12th centuries did Ladoga acquire some features of an early feudal center, yielding its former role as the capital to Novgorod.
The predecessor of Novgorod was the Settlement, known according to legend as Rurik, i.e. to some extent reflecting in its name the coming of the Varangians to Rus'.
In recent years, its large-scale research has unfolded, yielding new important results.
For many years, the dominant version was that the Settlement was founded only in the 12th century as a princely residence. As is known, the Settlement itself was mentioned for the first time in the chronicle only in 1103 in connection with the construction of the Church of the Annunciation there. However, judging by archaeological research, an early urban center in its place has existed and developed at least since the middle of the 9th century. Perhaps this is where he came in the 9th century. from Ladoga Rurik with his retinue, i.e. the settlement already existed before the famous events reported in the chronicle.
For many years, the Gorodishche and its materials were constantly attracted by specialists in connection with the problem of the emergence of Novgorod and its place as the most important point in the system of waterways of Rus' - the Baltic-Volga and Baltic-Dnieper. 23 On the first question, E.N. Nosov has repeatedly expressed himself quite clearly. Based on the well-known postulate, according to which the city (read Novgorod - I.D.) could only appear in a class society, he believes that the Novaya (Novgorod) fortress became the successor to the Settlement. 24
This raises the question: what was the Settlement like in the period before the emergence of Novgorod? E.N. Nosov answers this question as follows: “In the 9th-10th centuries. The settlement was a large trade, craft and military-administrative settlement at the junction of the waterways of the forest zone of Eastern Europe, where the Baltic-Volga route and the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” converged.” 25
In his opinion, “the available finds from the Settlement indicate that its inhabitants in the 9th-10th centuries included Slavs and Scandinavians.” 26
Thus, the data obtained do not make it possible to evaluate Gorodishche as a tribal or intertribal center. This can most likely be attributed to Novgorod itself. In this regard, a lot has been written about Novgorod. Let us dwell on just one concept that is now widely accepted. This is the hypothesis of V.L. Yanin and M.Kh. Aleshkovsky, according to which Novgorod was formed from three different-ethnic villages - Slovenian, Krivichsky and Meryansky, i.e. at least two ethnic groups - Slavic and Finno-Ugric - took part in the creation of the city. 27 According to V.L. Yanin, this happened in the first half of the 10th century. This concept is supported by I.Ya. Froyanov and A.Yu. Dvornichenko. They write that "many of the cities - tribal centers, according to the observations of archaeologists, arose as a result of the merger of several settlements. We have before us a phenomenon reminiscent of ancient Greek synoicism." From the latest research it is clear that ancient Novgorod arose as a result of the merger of several ancestral villages. Thus, this city was at an early stage the political center of the pre-state federations.
Following a number of other historians, I.Ya. Froyanov sees that not only Novgorod, but also many other cities of Ancient Rus' arise as a result of the merger of several tribal, sometimes multi-ethnic villages (ends). He finds such a Konchan device in Pskov, Staraya Russa, Ladoga, Korel, Smolensk, Rostov, Kyiv 28 (believing that this list could be continued). It follows from this that many cities were the “capitals” of certain regions (volosts), and therefore carried certain state or proto-state functions.
This situation is fully consistent with archaeological sources, which, however, have limited possibilities for such socio-economic reconstructions. 29
Of particular importance for the topic under consideration is the situation associated with the emergence of Smolensk. There is a lot of discussion and uncertainty here. However, at present, most researchers, primarily archaeologists, accept the following picture of the emergence and formation of ancient Smolensk.
One of the main controversial issues is the relationship between Gnezdov, a well-known complex of monuments located near ancient Russian Smolensk and Smolensk itself. As a result of the analysis of archaeological materials, a conclusion was made that Gnezdovo was an important trade, craft and military center on the most strategically important section of the Dnieper route and had a proto-urban character. The multi-ethnicity of Gnezdov (Slavs, Scandinavians, Balts, Finno-Ugric peoples) is beyond any doubt; 30 disputes are only about the weight of these components and chronological priority. However, the main thing is that Gnezdovo was one of the centers of consolidation of the Eastern Slavs on the way to their creation of the Old Russian nationality and statehood.
We find similar conclusions in the work of L.V. Alekseev. He believes that Gnezdovo was a multi-ethnic trade and craft military-druzhina center that existed since the 9th century. - the direct predecessor of early feudal Smolensk, known to us from chronicles and located in its current location. 31 If the socio-economic and political nature of “Gnezdovsky” Smolensk is basically clear, 32 it is not entirely clear to which center the written sources reporting that Smolensk “is large and many people and is governed by elders” refer. 33 In connection with this message from the chronicle, L.V. Alekseev writes: “So, in the memories of ancient Smolensk, which were used by chroniclers of the 12th century, Smolensk developed as a large tribal center of the Krivichi - a populous city governed by elders...”. 34 However, this message dates back to 862. There are also mentions of Smolensk in the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (10th century).
L.V. Alekseev believes that we are talking about “Gnezdovsky” Smolensk, since only later layers (late 10th-11th centuries) have been archaeologically identified in the city itself. In relation to Gnezdov, this thesis of L.V. Alekseev should be questioned, since it was unlikely to be a Krivichi tribal center, because here, in addition to the Slavic, there was a very significant Scandinavian component. V.A. Bulkin and G.S. Lebedev, comparing Gnezdovo with Birka and defining them as proto-urban centers (wiki), note that “for both centers, apparently, it is necessary to assume a fluctuating composition of the population, its pulsation, and therefore the predominantly temporary nature of the emerging associations." 35 Actually, ancient Smolensk, known from chronicles, was already tribal.
It seems to me that Gnezdovo, and this is confirmed by archaeological data, in the 9th-11th centuries. was that pre-urban multi-ethnic formation, focused primarily on long-distance trade relations, and by no means a tribal center, which fully meets the criteria for city-states, according to I.Ya. Froyanov, and in its early development could not be a feudal city.
In this regard, in my opinion, the statement of I.Ya. Froyanov and A.Yu. Dvornichenko is absolutely correct, according to which “Smolensk, like the rest of the volost centers of Rus', was constituted into a city-state...”. 36
Among the first ancient Russian cities mentioned in the chronicle under 862 is Rostov the Great. The problem of the emergence and future fate of this center is also extremely complex. Its history has experienced repeated ups and downs. The situation with Rostov is sufficient
is close to the connection between Gnezdov and Smolensk described above. Here, too, it is not entirely clear what the chronicler meant near Rostov - the Sarskoe fortified settlement or the city itself in its current location.
Several years ago, I interpreted the main stages of the development of the Sarsky settlement as follows: this settlement begins its life as a Meryan tribal center, then, during the period of active Slavic development of the region, it becomes a proto-city and ultimately turns into a feudal castle, losing its leading role in the region to Rostov. This scheme seemed quite universal, characteristic of the history of the emergence of many ancient Russian cities. However, due to its schematism, the emergence of new materials, and careful study of other points of view, now, in my opinion, it needs to be corrected, as well as a number of definitions clarified. In this regard, a significant role is played by the conclusion of A.N. Nasonov, according to which, “when the “Russian land” spread its “tribute” over the north-eastern “country”, there also existed a Slavic “city” corresponding to old Smolensk and Staraya Ladoga. This city is Sarskoye Settlement near Rostov, which archaeologists identify with ancient Rostov.” 37
Apparently, it is no coincidence that A.N. Nasonov put many of his definitions in quotation marks, because their understanding could be different, including the Slavic “city” - Sarskoye fortified settlement.
Excavations at the Sarskoe settlement yielded a rich collection of things from which one can generally imagine the development of the material and spiritual culture of its inhabitants.
Until the 9th century, namely until the first appearance of the Slavs in the Volga-Oka interfluve, as the vast majority of modern researchers believe, it was the center of the Finno-Ugric tribe Merya. This is confirmed both by numerous archaeological finds that have a typically Finno-Ugric appearance, and by written sources, the most important of which is the message from the Initial Chronicle about the distribution of tribes - “...On Lake Rostov Merya.”
A.E. Leontyev, in his studies dedicated to the Sarsky settlement, defines it as a tribal center and emphasizes its defensive function. Moreover, as I believe, it was not just a settlement-shelter, but was a permanent settlement with powerful fortifications in the form of ramparts and ditches, of which there were very few in this region. In addition, A.E. Leontiev believes that archaeological data confirm the presence of certain tribal functions here - holding public meetings (veche), the location of tribal shrines, the residence of the leader, tribal elders, squads, etc. 38
Archaeological research suggests that the fortifications at the Sarskoe settlement were erected over a long period of time (according to A.E. Leontyev, mainly from the 8th to the 10th centuries). This makes it possible to assert that the inhabitants of this center constantly felt the need to strengthen it, both as a city-state (initially - tribal Meryan, and then inter-tribal - Slavic-Merian), and in strengthening its power over the entire district volost.
In the 9th century. In connection with the beginning of the Slavic settlement of the Volga-Oka interfluve, significant changes occurred in the historical fate of the Sarsky settlement. From this time on, a new stage began in the life of the settlement, and its population became multi-ethnic.
New settlers - Slavs, who are at the tribal stage of development, organically fit into the existing tribal Meryan structure. Based on this symbiosis, the Sarskoye settlement turns into an intertribal ethnic center with a fairly well-developed integrated economy. The latter is especially clearly manifested in archaeological sources in the 10th century, when, along with intertribal socio-political and religious-cultural functions, the Sarskoye fortification acquired significant trade and craft significance, including its great role in trans-European relations. P.N. Tretyakov called the Sarskoe settlement of the 9th century. "embryo of the city." 39
Further, during the 10th century, according to E.I. Goryunova, the Sarskoe settlement from a small Meryan settlement turns into a trade and craft center with an ethnically mixed population. 40 However, E.I. Goryunova does not give a socio-political assessment of the Sarsky settlement of this time. The trade and craft function of the settlement only reflects its economic essence and does not at all contradict its socio-political significance as an intertribal city - a center around which a very significant number of rural settlements were grouped, both along the shores of Lake Rostov itself and the numerous rivers flowing into it. All of them did not have any fortifications, the craft was of a purely domestic nature (primarily woodworking, ceramics, weaving, bone carving). Metallurgy, jewelry and other technologically complex types of crafts were the prerogative of the center - the Sarsky settlement. The same applies to trade, especially long-distance trade. Unfortunately, archaeological data do not give us solid grounds for a sufficiently reliable reconstruction of the socio-political nature of the Sarsky settlement of the 10th century, however, they indirectly confirm the thesis that in the 9th-10th centuries, and, apparently, in the 11th century. The Sarskoe settlement was, first of all, as we have already stated above, an administrative center of the early state.
The existence of the Sarsky settlement in the XII-XIV centuries. recorded by various written sources. According to the existing tradition, most historians and archaeologists believe that at this time this center has become a genuine early feudal castle, a suburb of the prosperous ancient Russian Rostov.
True, there are discussions around some of the messages in the chronicles. A.N. Nasonov, strictly following the written source, connects the message of the 1st Novgorod Chronicle under 1216 with the monument in question. 41 The settlement on the Sara River appears in the chronicle in connection with the struggle between Novgorod and Suzdal.
The Battle of Lipitsa (1216) was preceded by significant tension in relations between Rostov and Suzdal, but it did not lead to armed clashes, but each time, as a result of negotiations, the matter was resolved in favor of the Suzdal residents. In particular, the chronicle says: "... and was at the site of the ancient settlement on the River Sarah, near Saint Marina on Great Saturday, April 9; Prince Constantine came from Rostov, kissing the cross." 42 According to the generally accepted opinion of historians, these “fortifications on the Sarah River” are Sarskoe. However, there is another opinion - this is the position of A.E. Leontyev, according to which the chronicle is not talking about the Sarskoe settlement, but about “Mount St. Mary”. 43 However, on “Mount St. Mary” only material from the early Iron Age is known, and the existence of a monastery here in the 13th century. only local legends speak. More detailed arguments in favor of the assertion that the chronicle speaks specifically about the Sarsky settlement are presented in a special chapter devoted to the early history of Rostov the Great in our book. 44 Apparently, some negotiations were taking place at the site, and it was most convenient to conduct them here in a well-fortified and safe place, which was the center of the area in the 13th century.
There are also reports 45 about the Sarsky settlement associated with the name of the famous epic hero Alexander (Alyosha) Popovich. Alyosha Popovich served the Rostov prince Konstantin Vsevolodovich even after his death, when Rostov fell under the hand of Yuri Vsevolodovich Vladimirsky. “Alexander made the same advice with his despised braves, fearing to serve Prince Yuri - if he takes revenge, even if he was opposed to him in battles: if we separate into different principalities, then we will be afraid among ourselves and involuntarily, since there is disagreement between the princes. And having planned this, I left to serve in Kyiv..." This meeting of the Rostov warriors took place in the city, “which was dug under the Gremyachiy well on the river Gde (Sara. - I.D.), and even now that well stands empty.” A.E. Leontyev identifies this place as the Sarskoye settlement 45. He, following P.A. Rappoport, notes that “the small area, thin cultural layer, reliable fortifications, a small number of finds, among which there are no craft tools and remains of production, allow us to consider this settlement a feudal castle.” 47 However, in my opinion, such reasoning by contradiction is not productive, especially since for Ancient Rus' in general and, in particular, the North-East, sufficiently clear criteria for “feudal castles” have not been developed in Russian historical science. If for an earlier time we are well aware of the cities of refuge. We don’t know what “feudal castles” were like and whether they existed at all. Moreover, the very fact of the gathering of Rostov warriors and their refusal to serve the new prince, the legal successor of their late brother, speaks of serious contradictions in the society of that time associated with the crisis of clan relations. Most likely, what we call the “transfer” of the city happened here. A general assessment and explanation of the nature of this phenomenon, which is very characteristic of Ancient Rus', will be given below. And now about the situation of the Sarskoye fortification - Rostov the Great. A.A. Spitsyn and P.N. Tretyakov identified the chronicle Rostov with the Sarsky settlement. P.N. Tretyakov believed that the city (Sarskoye fortified settlement) was moved to the shore of Lake Nero (Rostovskoye), where modern Rostov-Yaroslavsky (Veliky) is located. 48 According to N.N. Voronin, the Sarskoye settlement and Rostov the Great were independent centers, and the phenomenon of “transfer” of the city is not recorded here. 49
In the studies of A.E. Leontyev, the point of view is formulated according to which “Sarskoe fortified settlement is a stronghold of Mary”, and “Rostov is a stronghold of ancient Russian princely power.” 50 This construction contradicts both archaeological and written sources. The first argue in favor of the fact that already from the 9th century the Sarskoye settlement was a multi-ethnic (Slavic-Merian) center. In connection with the second and the conclusion of A.E. Leontyev, questions arise: why should the Russian princes conduct negotiations in the Meryan center? Why does the Russian “brave Alexander Popovich” meet with his comrades there? This and much more suggests that the interpretation of the relationship and interconnections between the Sarskoye settlement and Rostov should be somehow different. It is extremely difficult to reconstruct this picture in detail. I believe that during the XI-XII centuries. there is a crisis of old tribal relations. This process is evolutionary in nature, and new socio-political structures are gradually formed, which later become the basis of the ancient Russian early feudal society. But for this, society had to go through a rather long and difficult path. Princely power with all its inherent institutions grew out of the tribal community, and at first the people's veche, the council of elders, played a key role in resolving all the most important issues in the life of society. Conflict situations also arose, which ultimately led to a general crisis, one of the reflections of which was the phenomenon of “transfer” of cities. The situation associated with the founding of the city of Yaroslavl generally fits into its framework, although it has significant differences from that described above.
Yaroslavl is one of the ancient cities of the North-East, it appeared at the beginning of the 11th century, i.e. at a time when the ancient Russian development of the Upper Volga region sharply intensified (princely power was strengthened here, the process of Christianization of the region was intensifying). It is no coincidence that the foundation of the city is associated with a legend about the struggle of an Orthodox prince with a sacred pagan beast. This legend certainly has an ancient basis. There are no Finno-Ugric items in the early materials of the urban layers of Yaroslavl. The settlement on Strelka at the confluence of the Kotorosl and the Volga (Medvezhiy Ugol), apparently from its very beginning was multi-ethnic (Old Russian) and did not play the role of a tribal center of the area, but, most likely, was a trade and craft village.
You should pay attention to two significant points reflected in “The Legend of the Construction of the City of Yaroslavl.” Firstly, here there is a manifestation of ancient Russian paganism (“... and behold, there was a settlement, the recommended Bear Corner, in which there were human inhabitants, filthy faiths - the pagans are evil creatures... This idol bows to him, there was Volos, that is, the bestial god ".
Further in the “Tale” it is said that the idol of Volos stood in the Volos Lair, where the sanctuary was located, the sacrificial fire burned, and sacrifices were made. The residents held special honor and respect for the sorcerer, who performed all these rituals. “But in a certain summer, the Blessed Prince Yaroslav happened to sail in boats with a strong and great army along the Volga River, near its right bank, where stood that village called Bear Corner.”
In response to complaints from merchants that the residents of the village were attacking the caravans of their boats, Yaroslav ordered his squad to intimidate the inhabitants of Medvezhiy Corner and bring them to complete obedience, which was immediately done. “And these people, with an oath at Volos, promised the prince to live in harmony and give him tributes, but they did not want to be baptized. And so the noble prince departed for his throne city of Rostov.” Let us pay attention to the fact that after coercion, the residents of this settlement promised to pay the prince “extras”. Apparently, the talk was about establishing control over a key point on the Great Volga Route and redistributing income from transit trade, to which Rostov previously did not have access, with the local community. I will also note one more detail: this time Yaroslav did not go against paganism, and, moreover, the local residents swore an oath to the prince at Volos. So at this stage, a compromise was found between the princely power and the community, paganism and Orthodoxy. Such a precarious balance, of course, could not last for a long time.
As the Legend reports, the pagans of the Bear Corner completely submitted only after the prince deprived them of their main shrine - the “fierce beast”. This is nothing more than the extension of the power of Rostov and his prince right up to the Volga banks. “And there on the island, which was founded by the Volga and Kotorosl rivers and the water flow,” the Church of the Prophet Elijah was built. Then “the prince commanded the people to cut down the wood and clean the place from which they planned to create a city... The Blessed Prince Yaroslav named this city in his name Yaroslavl.”
So, Yaroslavl as a city emerged only in the 11th century. However, in the immediate area he had predecessors who have been known since the 9th century at a distance of 10-12 km from Medvezhiy Corner - Yaroslavl. These are the pro-city trade and craft centers Timerevsky, Mikhailovsky, Petrovsky. These complexes include extensive burial mounds, unfortified settlements, and treasures of Kufic coins buried in the ground in the 9th century. These settlements date back to the 9th century and owe their emergence and prosperity to the functioning of the Great Volga Route. In the burials and buildings of the Timerevo settlement, things were found that came to the Zalessi region from Scandinavia, Central Europe, Khazaria, Volga Bulgaria, and the countries of the Arab Caliphate. They were centers of trans-European trade and important outposts for the Slavs’ development of the Volga-Oka interfluve. Much has been written about these monuments, and there is no need to review their materials in detail again. In general, their assessment given above has also received recognition in the literature. However, one important point should still be specially emphasized. The point is that all these centers, as archaeological data show, were inhabited by the main newcomer Slavic-Scandinavian population on important routes included in the Volga system, and at the same time free from local Finno-Ugric tribes. This is their peculiarity and difference, say, from the same Sarsky settlement or Kleschin, which will be discussed below. And judging by the chronicle reports, the bulk of the Meryan population was located in the period of the 9th - first half of the 10th century. southwest in the basins of lakes Nero (Rostov) and Pleshcheyevo (Kleshchino).
Chronological observations based on the materials of the Timerevo necropolis speak in favor of the fact that at the first stage of the existence of this complex its population was Slavic-Scandinavian, and only from the middle of the 10th century the Finno-Ugric component begins to be clearly visible here. M.V. Fekhner and N.G. Nedoshivina note that “the most intensive growth of the burial ground was observed in the second half of the 10th century, apparently as a result of a significant influx of population into this region of the Yaroslavl Volga region at the time in question.” And further: “In the motley composition of the Timerevo inventory, the first place belongs to items typical of the Finno-Ugric tribes.” 51 These two conclusions contradict each other, and we should not be talking about the influx of new population, but about the inclusion of trade and craft centers in the local community-tribal structure. But in this form they were destined to not exist for long, because at the turn of the X-XI centuries, crisis phenomena of the clan-tribal system appeared, and a rather long transitional stage to new socio-political relations in ancient Russian society began. And just at this time, instead of the proto-urban trade and craft, as well as tribal centers, new early urban centers emerged, which later grew into ancient Russian cities. They coexist for some time. In this regard, you should pay attention to this interesting fact. According to Arab sources, the daily journey up the water was 25 km. 52 Such early urban centers as Gnezdovo, Sarskoye fortified settlement, Timerevo are located approximately at the same distance from the new tribal and trade and craft centers - Smolensk, Rostov, Yaroslavl. The former maintained strong ties with the region that had developed over centuries. For some time they remained tribal or intertribal markets, serving entire regions.
A completely different situation can be seen in the only direct and specific message in the chronicle about the “transfer” of the city in 1152. “In the summer of 6660, Yuri Volodymerich-Pereyaslavl was transferred from Kleshchin and founded a great city (creating a larger city) and the Church of the Holy Savior was erected in Pereyaslav.” 53
Thus, the written source clearly states that the predecessor of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky was the city of Kleshchin. The Kleshchin-Pereyaslavl problem is considered in detail in one of our works, and therefore we have the right to refer the reader to it. 54 Here it is necessary to dwell on Pereyaslavl-Zalessky and its initial history.
In the middle of the 12th century. The Rostov-Suzdal land has strengthened significantly, at this time there is a large construction of new cities, fortresses, churches, not only Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, but also a number of other centers are emerging. In such an environment of economic, cultural, military and political upsurge, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky is being built. According to V.N. Tatishchev, “in the 12th century, the population of the restless outskirts of the Russian land also reached out to the distant forest region” and a mass of new population appeared in the northeastern cities, who were provided with various benefits. 55 In this regard, in scientific and popular literature there is a fairly widespread opinion that these new settlers coming from the south to the Zalessk land bring with them the names of cities and villages, rivers and lakes. Thus, N.N. Voronin writes: “The new location of the city was chosen at the mouth of a small river, the flow of which somewhat deepened the fairway of the lake. The river covered the city from the northwest and east and was named Trubezh in memory of Trubezh in the south; the city received the name of Pereyaslavl, recalling the city of Pereyaslavl-Russian lying on the river of the same name." 56 Similar opinions were expressed in local history literature. 57
One of the main questions in the initial history of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky (Novy) is to clarify the meaning and reasons for the construction of a new fortress at the confluence of the Trubezh River into Lake Kleshchino to replace the old one (Gorodishche), built a little earlier in the same XII century and, apparently, by the same Yuri Dolgoruky.
Various chronicles say that Pereyaslavl-Zalessky (New) was “a great city” (compared to the old one) or “greater than the old one.” There is no doubt that the fortifications of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky are compared with the defensive structures on the northeastern shore of the lake (fortification). In their design, the latter are similar and characteristic of the defensive architecture of North-Eastern Rus' in the 12th century. However, the new Pereyaslavl ones are many times larger in size than the old ones. If the length of the ramparts at the site was approximately 500 m, then in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky they stretched over a distance five times greater (2.5 km). The height of the fortress rampart ranges from 3 to 8 m, and the ramparts of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky with chopped walls are up to 10-16 m higher than those of Vladimir. 58
Thus, the chronicle definitely talked about moving the fortress, which for some reason did not satisfy the princely administration, to a new location, or in other words, about the construction of a new, more powerful earthen fortress to replace the outdated one, despite the fact that it was built in difficult conditions swampy area. This is precisely the role assigned to Kleshchin by N.N. Voronin, who believed that it was one of the strongholds of fortified cities that guarded the most important communications of the region. 59 In other words, in the 9th-11th centuries. Kleshchin served as one of the key centers of the Slavic-Russian colonization of the Zalessk region.
A completely different political and economic situation developed in the middle of the 12th century. Apparently, the answer to existing questions should be sought in the socio-political changes that took place at that time in North-Eastern Rus'. If Kleshchin arises on the basis of a symbiosis of people from the northwestern regions (primarily the Slovenes of Novgorod) and local residents - representatives of one of the groups of the Finno-Ugric tribe Merya, then Pereyaslavl-Zalessky is a different phenomenon - it is primarily the center of the princely administration, a state fortress, possibly an early feudal city; Church power over the area is gradually concentrated in it. Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, along with Rostov the Great, belongs to the category of “large” ancient Russian cities. 60
Archaeological research has fully confirmed the chronicle date of the origin of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky (New). The year 1152 is the generally accepted date for the beginning of the history of this most important center of North-Eastern Rus'. 61
Earlier we noted that Pereyaslavl-Zalessky in the 12th century. did not play such an important role as Rostov the Great, and its main function was to protect the western borders of the region. In addition, it was an outpost in the military-political actions of the ruling elite of the Suzdal region, seeking to subjugate North-Western and Southern Rus' to their influence. 62
It seems that the role that was assigned to Pereyaslavl-Zalessky at the stage of its creation is somewhere close to the role of Pereyaslavl South itself in Kievan Rus. And this is especially clearly manifested at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries, when the struggle for power both within the Vladimir principality and rivalry with other families for the grand-ducal table in Kyiv intensified.
In this regard, it is necessary to evaluate in the most positive way the conclusion of A.V. Kuza, according to which, despite the fact that Pereyaslavl-Zalessky arose in an uninhabited place, it immediately began to take shape not only as a fortress, but also as a genuine city. 63 A.V. Kuza also writes that “the active participation of Pereyaslavl residents, along with Rostov residents, Suzdal residents and Vladimir residents, in deciding the fate of the Suzdal principality after the death of Andrei Bogolyubsky testifies to the political independence of the new city.” 64 Thus, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky was undoubtedly conceived as one of the most important centers of the Suzdal land and played this role for some time, and only then (after the Tatar-Mongol pogrom) it became a secondary city of Zalesye.
Apparently, the main reasons for moving the city here and creating Pereyaslavl-Zalessky were socio-political. If Kleshchin was an intertribal pagan center, then Pereyaslavl-Zalessky is already a princely city with all its inherent functions, including religious - Orthodox.
However, this conclusion does not speak in favor of the thesis about the complete victory of the princely power over the community, but, most likely, about their unity in the conditions of the crisis of the tribal system.
I.Ya. Froyanov, in his recently published fundamental monograph, summarizes the following: “A.E. Presnyakov, speaking about the second half of the 12th and early 13th centuries in the history of Rus', noted the “decline of the political significance of urban communities.” Our research diverges from this opinion of the venerable scientist, showing the political mobility of ancient Russian urban communities, reflected by numerous popular unrest, before which the princely power was powerless.” 65
The development of the theme “City-States in Ancient Rus'” by I.Ya. Froyanov and his school is certainly an important contribution to Russian historiography.
I only believe that in no case, and repeatedly cited authors write about this, can this model be absolutized, considering it universal, but defined as widespread in Ancient Rus'.
1 Dubov I.V. New sources on the history of Ancient Rus'. Chapter: The emergence of cities in Rus'. L., 1990.P.6-27.
2 Greeks DB. Kievan Rus. M., 1949.P.94.
3 Grekov B.D. Kievan Rus. M.;L., 1944.P.250.
4 Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities. M., 1956.P.36-37.
5 Rybakov B.A. The city of Kiya // Questions of history. 1980. N5.С.34.
6 Froyanov I.Ya. Dubov I.V. The main stages of the social development of the ancient Russian city (IX-XII centuries)// Ancient cities: Materials for the All-Union Conference "Culture of Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the Early Middle Ages"/ Ed. V.M. Masson. L..1977.P.69-71.
7 Froyanov I.Ya. Dvornichenko A.Yu. City-states in Ancient Rus' // Formation and development of early class societies: City and state / Ed. G.L. Kurbatova, E.D. Frolova, I.Ya. Froyanova. L.. 1986.S. 198-209.
8 Voronin N.N. On the results and tasks of the archaeological study of the ancient Russian city // Brief communications of the Institute of Material Culture (KSIIMK). 1951 Issue XLI. P.11-12; Voronin N.N.. Rappoport P.A. Archaeological study of an ancient Russian city // Brief communications of the Institute of Archeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences (KSIA AS USSR). Issue 96. M., 1963.P.3-17.
9 Kuza A.V. On the origin of ancient Russian cities (history of study) // KSI A AN USSR. Issue 171. M., 1982.P.11.
10 Kuza A.V. Cities in the socio-economic system of the ancient Russian feudal state of the X-XIII centuries // Ibid. Issue 179.1984. P.3-11.
11 Mavrodin V. 1) Formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1945. pp.114-115; 2) The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian people. M., 1971. P.51.
12 Froyanov I.Ya. Kievan Rus: Essays on socio-political history. L., 1980.P.222-223.
13 Froyanov I.Ya., Dvornichenko A.Yu. City-states... P.207.
14 Froyanov I.Ya., Dvornichenko A.Yu. City-states of Ancient Rus'. L., 1988.S.Z.
15 Malovichko S.I. Domestic historiography of the 18th - early 20th centuries. on the emergence of ancient Russian cities: Abstract of Candidate of Dissertation, St. Petersburg, 1995. P. 18.
16 Dubov I.V. Cities shining with majesty. L., 1985.
17 Dubov I.V. Problems of the emergence of cities in Rus' based on materials from domestic archeology // Formation and development of early class societies. L., 1986.S. 312-330.
18 Kirpichnikov A.N. Early medieval Ladoga // Medieval Ladoga: New research and discoveries / Edited by V.V. Sedov. L., 1985. P.24-25.
19 Machinsky D.A. About the time and circumstances of the first appearance of the Slavs in the north-west of Eastern Europe according to written sources // Northern Rus' and its neighbors in the early Middle Ages / Ed. A.D. Stolyar. L., 1982.P.20-21.
20 Kirpichnikov A.N. Ladoga and Ladoga land // Slavic-Russian antiquities. Issue 1. Historical and archaeological study of Ancient Rus' / Ed. I. V. Dubova. L., 1988. P. 38.
21 Kirpichnikov A.N. Ladoga YIII-X centuries. and its international connections//Slavic-Russian antiquities. Issue 2. Ancient Rus': new research / Ed. I.V. Dubova, I.Ya. Froyanova.SPb., 1995.P.32.
22 Froyanov I.Ya. Dvornichenko A.Yu. City-states... P.30-31.
23 Nosov E.N. Novgorod and Rurik settlement in the 9th-11th centuries. (on the question of the origin of Novgorod) // Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Slavic Archeology... / Ed. V.V.Sedova.Issue 1. M., 1987. P. 5-14.
24 Nosov E.N. Novgorod and Novgorod districts of the 9th-10th centuries. in the light of the latest archaeological data (on the issue of the emergence of Novgorod) // Novgorod historical collection / Ed. V.L. Yanina. 1984. Issue 2(12).P.38.
25 Nosov E.N. Novgorod (Rurik) settlement. L., 1990.P.154.
26 Ibid. P. 166.
27 Yanin V.L., Aleshkovsky M.Kh. The origin of Novgorod (towards the formulation of the problem) // History of the USSR. 1971. N2.С.61.
28 Froyanov I.Ya. Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history. L., 1980.S. 228-229.
29 Dubov I.V. North-Eastern Rus' in the early Middle Ages (historical and archaeological essays). L., 1982.P.66-67.
30 Bulkin V.A., Lebedev G.S. Gnezdovo and Birka (On the problem of the formation of the city) // Culture of medieval Rus' / Ed. A.N.Kirpichnikova, P.A.Rappoporta.L., 1974.P.11-17.
31 Alekseev L.V. Smolensk land in the 9th-13th centuries: Essays on the history of the Smolensk region and Eastern Belarus / Ed. Ya.N.Schapova.M., 1980. P.137-138.
32 Ibid. P. 136.
33 Ustyug Chronicle. M.; L., 1950.P.20.
34 Alekseev L.V. About ancient Smolensk //Soviet Archeology (SA). 1977. N1. P.84.
35 Bulkin V.A.. Lebedev G.S. Gnezdovo and Birka... P. 17.
36 Froyanov I.Ya., Dvornichenko A.Yu. City-states... P.222.
37 Nasonov A.N. "Russian land" and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state. M., 1951. S. 174-177.
38 Leontyev A.E. Sarskoe fortification in the history of the Rostov land (VIII-XI centuries): Abstract of Candidate of Sciences. dis. M., 1975.S. 15-19.
39 Tretyakov P.N. To the history of the tribes of the Upper Volga region in the 1st millennium AD. // Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR (MIA). N5. 1941. P.95.
40 Goryunova E.I. Ethnic history of the Volga-Oka interfluve // Ibid. N94. M., 1961. P.107-108.
41 Nasonov A.N. Russian land... P.175.
42 Novgorod first chronicle of the older and younger editions (NPL). M.; L., 1950
43 Leontyev A.E. "The City of Alexander Popovich" in the vicinity of Rostov the Great // Vestn. Moscow University 1974. N3.C.93-95.
44 Dubov I.V. Cities shining with majesty. P.33-60.
45 Dobrynya Nikitich and Alyosha Popovich. M..1974.P.337.
46 Leontyev A.E. "The City of Alexander Popovich"... P.95.
47 Rappoport P.A. On the typology of ancient Russian settlements // KSIA. M., 1967. Issue. 110. C7; Leontiev A.E. "The City of Alexander Popovich"... P.93.
48 Tretyakov P.N. To the history of tribes... P.93.
49 Pronin N.N. Architecture of North-Eastern Rus'. T.l. M., 1961. P.22.
50 Leontyev A.E. Sarskoe settlement in history... P.22.
51 Fekhner M.V., Nedoshivina N.G. Ethnocultural characteristics of the Timerevsky burial ground based on materials from grave goods // CA.1987.N Z.S.86.
52 Rybakov B.A. Russian lands according to the Idrisi map of 1154 // KSIIMK. Issue, XL.III. 1952.P.40.
53 Complete collection of Russian chronicles (PSRL). T.IV.C.8.
54 Dubov I.V. Cities shining with majesty. pp. 108-117.
55 Tatishchev VN. Russian History. Book III. M., 1974. P.76,193.
56 Voronin N.N. Pereyaslavl-Zelessky. M., 1948.P.7.
57 Litvinov I. Through the cities of Zalesye. M., 1974.P.33; Ivanov K., Purishev I. Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. Yaroslavl, 1986.P.6; Purishev I.B. Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. M., 1989.P.31.
58 Voronin N.N. Pereyaslavl New // Chronicles and Chronicles. M., 1974. S. 141-142; Plishkin P.P. Historical description of the city of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. M., 1902.P.9-10.
59 Voronin N.N. Architecture of North-Eastern Rus' XII-XV centuries. T.1. M., 1961.P.56.
60 Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities. M., 1956 (Insert map).
61 Shpilevsky S.M. Old and new cities and the struggle between them in the Rostov-Suzdal land. M., 1892. P.26; Ivanov K.I. 1) Pereyaslavl-Zalessky in the past and present. Yaroslavl, 1940.P.9; 2) Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. Yaroslavl, 1959.P.15-17.
62 Dubov I.V. Cities shining with majesty. P.116.
63 Kuza A.V. Socio-historical typology of ancient Russian cities in the X-XIII centuries. // Russian city (research and materials). M., 1983. Issue 6. P.28.
64 Kuza A.V. Socio-historical typology... P.28-29.
65 Froyanov I.Ya. Ancient Rus'. M.;L., 1995.P.701.
Over the centuries, as historians note, “there has been a transformation of the main type of settlements: from unprotected settlements located in low places to settlements in high, naturally protected places.” However, experts admit that some of these settlements did not have a permanent population and were in the nature of shelters.
Early urban formations of the 9th-10th centuries were mainly contained within the confines of small fortresses - Detinets. The appearance of urban settlements - settlements of artisans and merchants - occurs no earlier than the end of the 10th century. A number of ancient Russian cities were the main settlements of one or another East Slavic tribe, the so-called tribal centers. There is an almost complete absence of written sources for the 7th-8th centuries. and chronicle evidence for the 9th-10th centuries. do not allow us to establish at least an approximate number of ancient Russian cities of that era. Thus, based on mentions in chronicles, a little more than two dozen cities can be identified, but their list is certainly not complete.
The dates of the founding of early ancient Russian cities are difficult to establish and usually the first mention in chronicles is given. However, it is worth considering that at the time of the chronicle mention, the city was an established settlement, and a more precise date of its foundation is determined by indirect data, for example, based on archaeological cultural layers excavated on the site of the city. In some cases, archaeological data contradicts the chronicles. For example, for Novgorod and Smolensk, which are mentioned in chronicles under the 9th century, archaeologists have not discovered cultural layers older than the 11th century. However, priority in dating is given to written chronicle sources.
At the end of the 10th - first half of the 11th century. Many of the largest trade and craft centers are disappearing or falling into disrepair. However, some continue to exist, but undergo changes, both torographic - settlements are moved over short distances - and functional. If earlier cities were monofunctional, now they begin to combine the functions of trade, craft and princely administrative centers and centers of the local (formerly tribal) district.
From the 11th century A rapid growth in the number of urban population and the number of ancient Russian cities around the existing city centers begins. It is noteworthy that the emergence and growth of cities in the XI-XIII centuries. also occurs to the west - in the territories of modern, and. Many theories have been created about the reasons for the massive emergence of cities. One of the theories belongs to a Russian historian and connects the emergence of ancient Russian cities with the development of trade along the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” This theory has its opponents, who point to the emergence and growth of cities not only along this trade route.
Farm
Archaeological excavations in Russian cities of the 9th-12th centuries. confirm the constant connection of city residents with agriculture. Vegetable gardens and orchards were an indispensable part of the townspeople's economy. Animal husbandry was of great importance in the economy - archaeologists discovered the bones of many domestic animals in the cities, including horses, cows, pigs, sheep, etc.
Handicraft production was well developed in ancient Russian cities. In his major research, based on an in-depth study of material monuments, he identifies up to 64 craft specialties and groups them into 11 groups. Tikhomirov, however, prefers a slightly different classification and questions the existence or sufficient prevalence of some of them.
Below is a list of specialties that are the least controversial and recognized by most specialists.
- blacksmiths, including nailsmiths, locksmiths, boilermakers, silversmiths, coppersmiths;
- gunsmiths, although the existence of this specialty is sometimes questioned, the term can be used here to generalize the various artisans associated with the manufacture of weapons;
- jewelers, goldsmiths, silversmiths, enamellers;
- “woodworkers”, the concept of which included architecture, architecture and carpentry itself;
- “gardeners” - builders of city fortifications - gorodniks;
- “shipmen” - builders of ships and boats;
- mason-builders, who were associated with forced labor and servitude;
- “builders”, “stone builders” - architects associated with stone construction;
- bridge workers
- weavers, tailors (shevtsy);
- tanners;
- potters and glass makers;
- icon painters;
- book scribes
Sometimes artisans were engaged in the production of one specific item, designed for constant demand. These were the saddlers, archers, tulniks, and shield warriors. One can assume the existence of butchers and bakers, as, for example, in the cities of Western Europe, but written sources, unfortunately, do not confirm this.
A city market was a mandatory feature of ancient Russian cities. However, retail trade in our sense of the word in the ancient Russian market was very poorly developed.
Population
The population of other cities rarely exceeded 1000 people, which is proven by the small areas occupied by their kremlins, or detinets.
Craftsmen (both free and), fishermen and day laborers made up the main population of ancient Russian cities. Princes, connected both with the city and with land holdings, played a significant role in the population. Quite early, merchants emerged as a special social group, constituting the most revered group, which was under the direct protection of the prince.
Ancient cities
According to the chronicles, it is possible to establish the existence in the 9th-10th centuries. more than two dozen Russian cities.
| according to the chronicle it dates back to ancient times | |
| 859, according to other chronicles, founded in ancient times | |
| 862 | |
| 862 | |
| 862 | |
| 862 | |
| 862 | |
| 862, according to the chronicle it belongs to ancient times | |
| 863, mentioned among the oldest Russian cities | |
| 881 | |
| 911, now Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky | |
| 903 | |
| 907 | |
| Crossed | 922 |
| 946 | |
| 946 | |
| -Zalessky | 990 |
| Vruchiy () | 977 |
| 980 | |
| Relatives | 980 |
| 981 | |
| Cherven | 981 |
| 988 | |
| Vasilev | 988, now |
| Belgorod | 991 |
| 999 |
The most famous cities of the pre-Mongol era
The most complete list of ancient Russian cities is contained in.
Below is a short list broken down by land, indicating the date of first mention, or date of foundation.
Kyiv and Pereyaslavl lands
| from ancient times vr. | glade breeding center | |
| 946 | suburb of Kyiv, served as a refuge for the Kyiv princes | |
| Vruchiy () | 977 | after the desolation of Iskorosten in the second half of the 10th century. became the center of the Drevlyans |
| 980 | An ancient trade road from Kyiv to the shores of the Baltic Sea ran through Turov | |
| Vasilev | 988 | stronghold, now |
| Belgorod | 991 | had the significance of an advanced fortified princely castle on the approaches to Kyiv |
| Trepol* (Trypillia) | 1093 | stronghold, assembly point for troops fighting the Cumans |
| Torchesk* | 1093 | center of the Torks, Berendichs, Pechenegs and other tribes of Porosye (Rosi River basin) |
| Yuryev* | 1095 | Gurgev, Gurichev, founded by Yaroslav the Wise (baptized Yuri), exact location unknown |
| Kanev* | 1149 | a supporting fortress from where the princes made campaigns in the steppe and where they waited for the Polovtsians |
| Pereyaslavl (Russian) | 911 | now, the center of the Pereyaslavl land, experienced a period of prosperity in the 11th century. and rapid decline |
- - the noted cities never grew beyond the boundaries of fortified castles, although they are often mentioned in chronicles. The Kyiv land was characterized by the existence of cities, the prosperity of which lasted for a relatively short time and was replaced by new cities that arose in the neighborhood.
Volyn land
Galician land
Chernigov land
| 881 | forward point on the way to Kyiv from the north, already mentioned as deserted in 1159 | |
| 907 | Major economic significance; Shestovitsa churchyard is known nearby | |
| Kursk | 1032 (1095) | |
| 1044 (1146) | ||
| Vshchizh | 1142 | |
| 1146 | ||
| ,Debryansk | 1146 | |
| Trubchevsk | 1185 |
Among the Chernigov cities is the distant one on the Taman Peninsula.
Smolensk land
Polotsk land
| 862 | |
| 1021 | |
This is how Ancient Rus' seemed to many foreigners who had ever visited its vast expanses and visited its populous and rich cities.
The primitive idea of ancient Russian cities was formulated by N. Khodakovsky back in the first half of the 19th century. In his view, “A city or a city is simply a fence, a crown, a circle, a line, an embrace” ( Historical system of Khodakovsky: Publication by M. N. Pogodin. In the book: - Russian historical collection. Book 3. M., 1838, p. 76.). This definition deals only with the external typological features of the city, and even then incomplete. Nothing is said about the socio-economic, political, cultural characteristics of urban centers.
The problem of the emergence and development of ancient Russian cities is one of the most important topics of both pre-revolutionary ( In the works of V. N. Tatishchev, M. V. Lomonosov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, N. I. Kostomarov, D. Ya. Samokvasov, V. I. Sergeevich, I. E. Zabelin, A. E. Presnyakov and Many others considered various aspects of the problem of the formation of cities in Rus'.), and Soviet historical science. The paths and forms of formation of ancient Russian urban centers are complex and diverse. In recent decades, Soviet scientists have made significant progress in studying the cultural layers of cities such as Novgorod, Staraya Russa, Kyiv, Pskov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Ladoga and many others. The discoveries and finds of Soviet archaeologists clarified previously unknown or incomprehensible pages of the history of the city in Rus', allowing us to move on to a comprehensive analysis of monuments and historical understanding of the data obtained. The results of historical and archaeological studies of ancient Russian cities suggest that they were feudal centers ( Bulkin V. A., Gadlo A. V., Dubov I. V., Lebedev G. S. Archeology. - In the book. Soviet source studies of Kievan Rus. L., 1979, p. 99-101.). The conclusion of academician is fully confirmed. B. A. Rybakov that cities were the focus of “two cultures of feudalism” - the dominant culture of palaces and estates, led largely by the church, and democratic culture, the most progressive wing of which is represented by urban townspeople” ( Rybakov B. A. About two cultures of Russian feudalism. - In the book: Lenin’s ideas in the study of the history of primitive society, slavery and feudalism. M., 1970, p. 33.). Such general conclusions are based on long-term searches and in-depth studies of the socio-economic nature of the phenomenon of urban formation in Rus', the structure, typology of cities, and their main features. This work continues to this day, and the field of activity for researchers here is vast.
Until now, the fundamental work of academician A.N. has not lost its relevance. M. N. Tikhomirov “Ancient Russian Cities”, which summarized written reports about cities in Rus', as well as the archaeological materials available at that time. M. N. Tikhomirov noted that urban centers arise primarily in peasant agricultural areas, where the district is able to feed the population concentrated in certain places ( Tikhomirov M. N. Old Russian cities. M., 1956, p. 36-37.). M. N. Tikhomirov actively opposed the trade theory, when the emergence of the city was explained by the participation of one or another point in trade and, moreover, mainly in transit. According to him, cities are permanent settlements where crafts and trade are concentrated ( Tikhomirov M. N. Old Russian cities. - Scientist. zap. Moscow University, 1946, issue. 99, p. 8-9.). Such centers rely on stable domestic markets for their products and the agricultural region.
Thus, M. N. Tikhomirov believed that economic factors were dominant in the process of town formation in Rus', and the socio-political nature of this phenomenon was clearly insufficiently studied by him, although in general terms he pointed out that the development of feudalism played an important role in this process.
However, despite this, the works of M. N. Tikhomirov were a significant milestone in the study of the history of the Russian city. Unfortunately, the researcher relied mainly on data from written sources, skeptically assessing the capabilities of archaeological materials. He was partly right, because at that time all the extensive archaeological work in cities was just beginning, and the available data had not yet been prepared for use by historians. A general definition of an ancient Russian city was given in the works of Academician. B. D. Grekova. He believed that “a city is a populated area in which the industrial and commercial population is concentrated, more or less separated from agriculture” ( Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M., 1949, p. 94.). In other words, for B.D. Grekov, the decisive factor in the process of the emergence of cities in Rus' was the separation of crafts into an independent industry and the development of trade. Earlier, B.D. Grekov pointed out that “the most important Slavic cities arose along large waterways” ( Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M.; L., 1944, p. 250.). This conclusion contradicts the conclusions of M.N. Tikhomirov, and, in our opinion, it is more fair.
The geographical factor cannot be ignored, when the bulk of the largest early urban centers arose on the most important waterways, which also had commercial significance. Using the example of a number of ancient Russian cities, including Rostov, M. N. Tikhomirov tried to show that trade for the emergence and development of this center was of purely secondary importance. There are many contradictions in M. N. Tikhomirov’s reasoning on this matter. On the one hand, it points to the fact that Rostov, located on the shore of the lake. Nero, via r. Kotorosl is connected with the Volga and an extensive river network - with Suzdal, Pereyaslavl, Vladimir ( Barsov N.P. Essays on Russian historical geography. Warsaw, 1885, p. 31; Tikhomirov M. N. Old Russian cities, p. 59.). On the other hand, M. N. Tikhomirov notes that Rostov arose far from the main route of the region - Volzhsky and in connection with this trade was of secondary importance for Rostov. Modern research and the latest excavation materials suggest that the river. Kotorosl and lake. The Nero and other rivers in this microdistrict, where Rostov is located, are part of the system of the Great Volga Route “from the Varangians to the Arabs,” along which both transit and internal trade were carried out. Therefore, in the life of the inhabitants of the Sarsky settlement - the predecessor of Rostov, and its own, trade played an important role, apparently equal to handicraft production.
In determining the main functions of cities in general and in Rus' in particular, one should rely on the thesis of K. Marx and F. Engels, according to which the emergence of a city is the result of the separation of “industrial and commercial labor from agricultural labor...” ( Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 3, p. 20.).
The process of the emergence of ancient Russian cities was characterized by Acad. B. A. Rybakov, noting that “emerging cities are not fairy-tale chambers that arise overnight, being erected by an unknown magical force.” He correctly points out that “the course of historical development of the clan-tribal system leads to the multiplication of such centers and to the complication of their functions” ( Rybakov B. A. The city of Kiya. - Questions of History, 1980, No. 5, p. 34.). These centers are the basis of future early feudal cities.
Despite the diversity of forms of early ancient Russian cities, modern historical science still identifies the main paths of their development and main forms. Terms such as “tribal cities”, “proto-urban centers”, “fortress cities” and a number of others have found their place in the literature ( Froyanov I. Ya., Dubov I. V. The main stages of the social development of the ancient Russian city (IX-XII centuries). - In the book: Ancient cities: Materials for the All-Union Conference “Culture of Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the Early Middle Ages.” L., 1977, p. 69-71.). Their meaning is not always completely clear; it also happens that different authors put different content into them.
Special plenums of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences, held in 1941 to 1950, were devoted to the results and tasks of the archaeological study of ancient Russian cities ( The materials of these plenums were published in Brief communications of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences (see: KSIIMK, 1945, issue XI; KSIIMK, 1951, issue XLl; see also; Voronin N.N. On the results of the archaeological study of ancient Russian cities. - Marxist historian, book 6, 1941, pp. 149-152.).
At the plenum in 1950, archaeologists S. A. Tarakanova and M. Yu. Braichevsky, N. N. Voronin spoke with different concepts of the origin of ancient Russian cities. The first believed that the immediate predecessors of ancient Russian urban centers were Slavic “tribal cities” ( Tarakanova S.A. 1) About the origin and time of the emergence of Pskov. - KSIIMK, 1951, issue. XXXV, p. 18-29; 2) On the question of the origin of the city in the Pskov land. - KSSIMK, 1951, issue. XLI.). This point of view has both supporters and critics. In fact, tribal centers apparently provided the basis for the emergence and development of cities. But they cannot yet be called “cities” in the full sense due to the fact that the appearance of such is characteristic of a class society or transitional stages to it, and not for the period when tribal relations dominated.
According to the “castle theory” of M. Yu. Braichevsky, the vast majority of ancient Russian cities grew up on the basis of early feudal fortresses-castles ( Braichevsky M. Yu. On the origin of ancient Russian cities. - KSIIMK, 1951, issue. XLI, p. 12.). Of course, in the conditions of constant feudal wars, the development of new lands, and especially during periods of feudal fragmentation, many cities in Rus' arose in this way. N.N. Voronin quite rightly noted that “the initial core of many cities is a princely fortress, or a feudal lord’s castle... Such are... the “new cities” of Suzdalytsin: Pereyaslavl, Yuryev, Dmitrov, really founded by “princely power”” ( Voronin N. N. On the results and tasks of the archaeological study of the ancient Russian city. - KSIIMK, 1951, issue. XLI, p. 11-12.).
However, fortified cities are only one of many, and not the main, types of early ancient Russian urban centers, although, apparently, most of them are characterized by powerful wood-earth and then stone fortifications. But it’s one thing when a new point arises artificially and initially has a mainly military significance, and quite another thing if this or that “village” or “town” becomes the natural center of a large district - an economic, political, cultural center.
At the same time, a third concept of the formation of cities in Rus' was proposed, which implied a multiplicity of paths for this process and, accordingly, a large number of types of early ancient Russian cities.
N. N. Voronin believed that ancient Russian cities could arise on the basis of trade and craft villages or as a result of the merger of several rural settlements, formed around feudal castles or princely fortresses. This concept of N.N. Voronin was further developed by E.I. Goryunova, ( Goryunova E.I. On the history of cities of North-Eastern Rus'. - KSIIMK, 1955, issue. 59, p. 11-18.) M. G. Rabinovich ( Rabinovich M. G. From the history of urban settlements of the Eastern Slavs. - In the book: History, culture, folklore and ethnography of the Slavic peoples. M., 1968, p. 130-148.), V. T. Pashuto ( Pashuto V.T. On some ways of studying the ancient Russian city. - In the book: Cities of feudal Russia. M., 1966, p. 93-98.) and many other historians and archaeologists. According to the fair remark of A.V. Kuza, “by the end of the 60s... a theory of the diversity of specific options for the emergence of cities in Rus' was formed” ( Kuza A.V. On the origin of ancient Russian cities (history of study). - KSIA AS USSR, 1982, issue. 171, p. 11.).
A. N. Nasonov, who believed that ancient Russian cities were primarily centers of feudal power ( Nasonov A.N. Russian land and the formation of the territory of the ancient Russian state. M, 1951, p. 22.). Since then, these problems have been regularly discussed at symposia and conferences held both within the USSR Academy of Sciences and other historical and archaeological centers. A significant contribution to the study of ancient Russian cities was the above-cited article by N. N. Voronin ( Voronin N. N. To the results and objectives... p. 5-29.). In it, the author summarized the materials accumulated by that time and formulated the immediate tasks, many of which are still relevant today. It is noteworthy that N.N. Voronin not only studied new finds, but also, almost for the first time in Russian historiography, relying on the richest archaeological material, tried to give a typological analysis of ancient Russian early urban centers. In those same years, E.I. Goryunova rightly noted that Soviet archaeologists were only approaching this topic ( Goryunova E.I. On the history of cities... p. 11.). She compiled the first summary of monuments and summed up the results of the study of the cities of North-Eastern Rus', considering the problems of the emergence of Murom, Rostov the Great, Yaroslavl, Suzdal. The following generalization of materials on the history of the ancient Russian city, including the cities of the northeast, was carried out in the joint work of N. N. Voronin and P. A. Rappoport ( Voronin N. N., Rappoport P. A. Archaeological study of the ancient Russian city. - KSIA AS USSR. M., 1963, issue. 96, p. 3-17.). The authors made some general conclusions regarding the chronology and origin of such cities of the Zalessk land as Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir, Beloozero.
Work on the typology and research methodology of ancient Russian cities continues ( Yatsunsky V.K. Some questions of methodology for studying the history of a feudal city in Russia. - In the book: Cities of feudal Russia. M, 1966, p. 83-89; Pashuto V.T. About some ways of studying the ancient Russian city. - Ibid., p. 93-98; Rappoport P.A. 1) On the typology of Old Russian settlements. - KSIA AS USSR, 1967, vol. 110, p. 3-9; 2) Military architecture of Western Russian lands of the X-XIV centuries. - MIA. L., 1967, No. 140, p. 186; Dovzhenok V.N. Social typology of ancient Russian settlements. - Archaeology, 1975, No. 2.) and will undoubtedly lead to a situation where we will be able to clearly determine the historical face of each center at a certain stage of its development. In this regard, special mention should be made of the works of L.V. Alekseev, which examines the history of the Polotsk and Smolensk lands. This author believes that “if the economic reasons for the emergence of cities were the same, then the specific ways of their emergence could be different...” ( Alekseev L.V. Polotsk land: Essays on the history of northern Belarus in the 9th-13th centuries. M., 1966, p. 132.). He also names the necessary conditions for the emergence of an ancient Russian city. This, in his opinion, is “a trade and transit route that provides the artisan with uninterrupted sales of goods, and the presence of a fortified point that guarantees his safety. The latter could be a feudal lord’s castle, a monastery, or even a tribal center with a sanctuary, if one is fortified” ( Right there.).
In his next monograph, L.V. Alekseev, using the example of Smolensk cities, identifies three stages of their development ( Alekseev L.V. Smolensk land in the 9th-13th centuries: Essays on the history of the Smolensk region and Eastern Belarus. M., 1980, p. 186-193.).
At the first stage (9th - early 11th centuries), cities emerged on the basis of tribal centers, and “open trade and craft settlements” appeared, where a multiethnic population was concentrated. In characterizing the latter, L.V. Alekseev relies on the work of Leningrad archaeologists ( Bulkin V. A., Dubov I. V., Lebedev G. S. Archaeological monuments of Ancient Rus' of the 9th-11th centuries. L., 1978, p. 138 and ate.).
The second stage, according to L.V. Alekseev, covers the second half of the 11th - first half of the 12th century. This time was characterized by the emergence of purely feudal cities and the gradual extinction of centers that arose in conditions of tribal relations ( Alekseev L.V. Smolensk land... p. 190.).
And finally, in the 40-50s of the 12th century. the third stage begins, when “many new cities arise in the Smolensk land, which is explained by the internal economic reasons of the country, the maturation of independent productive forces within the former centers and, above all, undoubtedly, crafts, which made the townspeople a special economic force” ( Ibid., p. 190-192.). This stage ends during the Tatar-Mongol invasion.
It should be noted that L. V. Alekseev’s periodization, the dynamics of urban development outlined by him, their features and characteristics at various stages of development are characteristic not only of the Smolensk land, but also of Ancient Rus' in general.
Northeastern cities also go through all these periods in their development; this will be shown in the following chapters of this book.
Of significant interest are the works of V.V. Mavrodin and I.Ya. Froyanov, devoted to the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities and their early history ( Mavrodin V.V., Froyanov I.Ya.F. Engels on the main stages of the development of the tribal system and the question of the emergence of cities in Russia. - Vestn. Leningr. University, 1970, No. 20, p. 7-15; Mavrodin V.V. 1) The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality. M., 1971, p. 51; 2) The origin of the Russian people. L., 1978, p. 122; Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history. L., 1980 p. 216-243.). The works of these researchers formulated the following concept: cities arise on the basis of tribal centers and as a result of the decomposition of the clan system, and later, in the 11th century, they become feudalized. In the monograph by I. Ya. Froyanov, an entire section is devoted to this issue, which provides detailed historiography on the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities. The author came to the conclusion that “the cities of Rus' in the 10th century. were independent public unions..." ( Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus: Essays on socio-political history, p. 227.). I. Ya. Froyanov is a supporter of the tribal basis of the most ancient Russian cities. By the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, when, in his opinion, the disintegration of tribal relations in Rus' was completed, unique “urban volosts” were formed with the main city, suburbs and rural districts. During the 12th century. The process of formation of ancient Russian city-states is underway. For North-Eastern Rus', notes I. Ya. Froyanov, “in the second half of the 12th century. monarchical tendencies emerged, making their way through the veche democracy...” ( Ibid., p. 243.). The development of city-states was stopped by the Tatar-Mongol invasion. These are the main provisions of the concept of I. Ya. Froyanov in connection with the problem of the city in Rus'; they generally reflect his system of views on Ancient Rus', its socio-economic and political structure.
Thus, in the research of I. Ya. Froyanov, the point of view widely presented in historical literature, according to which cities in Rus' are considered as feudal centers ( Yushkov S.V. Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus. M.; L., 1939, p. 131 - 132; Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M., 1953, p. 104; Tikhomirov M. N. Old Russian cities, p. 64.). We believe that the formation of ancient Russian towns should be associated with the process of disintegration of tribal relations and the formation of the early feudal structure of society. F. Engels considered it quite natural for the existence of cities to be centers of “tribes or tribal unions” ( Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 21, p. 163.).
It is important to note that during the emergence of ancient Russian cities, the phenomenon of synoicism, characteristic of many regions of the world, was traced. Here it was expressed in the fact that most of the large cities of Rus' - Kyiv, Novgorod, Chernigov, Suzdal and a number of others - arose on the basis of the merger of several villages, which apparently had a tribal character. It is necessary to trace the mechanism of the city's formation and determine its social status.
A controversial issue remains the socio-economic assessment of the actual phenomenon of the emergence of the city. The traditional point of view is the position, supported by the majority of modern historians, according to which cities are one of the main signs of the emergence of feudalism ( Rabinovich M. G. From the history of urban settlements, p. 132-133.). However, the opinion stated above is known that cities in Rus' arise as a result of the breakdown of tribal relations ( Mavrodin V.V., Froyanov I.Ya.F. Engels on the main stages... p. 13.). It seems that both points of view are not mutually exclusive and that ancient Russian cities are one of the concrete manifestations of the period of the disintegration of the clan system and the formation of feudalism. They arise in a transitional era. Hence the variety of their types. In this regard, the hypothesis of V.L. Yanin and M.Kh. Aleshkovsky that ancient Russian cities arise “from the administrative veche centers of rural churchyards, places of concentration of tribute and its collectors ( Yanin V. L., Aleshkovsky M. X. Origin of Novgorod: Towards the formulation of the problem. - History of the USSR, 1971, No. 2, p. 61.).
Similar views are expressed by P. N. Tretyakov and B. A. Rybakov ( Tretyakov P. N. At the origins of the ancient Russian nationality. - MIA. L., 1970, No. 179; Rybakov B. A. Smerdy. - History of the USSR, 1972, No. 1.). The first pays special attention to the consideration of such trade and craft centers as Kleshchin, Sarskoye fortification, Timerevo, Mikhailovskoye, Petrovskoye as the immediate predecessors of the early feudal cities of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Yaroslavl, Rostov the Great. The general problems of ancient Russian cities are also considered in the works of G.V. Shtykhov, whose research included Polotsk and other cities of the Polotsk land ( Shtykhov G.V. 1) Ancient Polotsk IX-XIII centuries. Minsk, 1975; 2) Cities of Polotsk land IX-XIII centuries. Minsk, 1978.). G.V. Shtykhov believes that cities appear on the basis of tribal centers during the period of transition from the tribal system to feudalism.
In his opinion, “an ancient Russian city is a complex and diverse social organism, which was a center of craft and trade, a fortress, an administrative center of a district or principality, a cultural and religious center” ( Shtykhov G.V. Ancient Polotsk... p. 6.). This definition is comprehensive, but is of a purely general nature and does not allow us to specifically determine the type of cities and their features. According to the conclusion of G.V. Shtykhov, “the emergence of cities is one of the signs of the formation of statehood” ( Right there.). Here he follows the traditional views of historians. In another of his books, he changes his conclusions and focuses on the transitional nature of the era of the formation of cities in Rus' ( Shtykhov G.V. Cities of Polotsk land... p. 17-18.).
The problems of town formation and typology of ancient Russian cities are specially studied by V.V. Karlov, who published two extensive articles on this topic ( Karlov V.V. 1) On the factors of economic and political development of a Russian city in the Middle Ages: Towards the formulation of the question. - In the book: Russian city: Historical and methodological collection. M., 1976, p. 32-69; 2) On the issue of the concept of the early feudal city and its types in Russian historiography. - In the book: Russian city: Problems of city formation. M., 1980, issue. 3, p. 66-83.). In his first work, this author identifies the main types of “pre-urban” settlements. These, in his opinion, are the “castles” of feudal lords and princely fortresses; craft and trading villages, rows, marketplaces, churchyards; tribal (rather, intertribal) centers" ( Karlov V.V. About factors... p. 37.). Further, he examines the main facts of city formation in Rus' and highlights the main functions of ancient Russian cities. V.V. Karlov defines two main lines of development of urban centers in Rus'. In his view, they are expressed, on the one hand, in the struggle of the trade and craft layers for the former urban liberties, and on the other, in the constant desire of the feudal nobility to completely subjugate the cities and make them centers of feudalization of the lands as a whole.
In our opinion, this contradiction has been identified correctly and it seems that it was precisely this that was the driving force behind the development of ancient Russian cities.
V.V. Karlov fully agrees and develops the conclusions on this issue formulated by L.V. Cherepnin ( Cherepnin L.V. On the character and form of the ancient Russian state of the 10th - early 13th centuries. - Historical notes, book. 89. M., 1972, p. 392.). These provisions were developed using the example of the cities of North-Eastern Rus' in the 12th century. Here a clash occurred between the Rostov and Suzdal boyars, on the one hand, and the urban strata of Vladimir. There is a contradiction between the feudal boyar elite and the trade and craft urban people, based on the veche order, which, in turn, is rooted in the period of tribal relations. Thus, back in the 12th century. In North-Eastern Rus', the struggle continued between supporters of the new feudal order and the tribal principle, expressed in contradictions between the “old” and “young” cities.
As a result, V.V. Karlov comes to the conclusion that “the city is not a specific product of the feudal system. From the very moment of its inception, there are many components in it that go beyond the boundaries of feudalism and are not genetically related to feudalism" ( Karlov V.V. About factors... p. 54.).
In other words, many features and characteristics of ancient Russian early feudal cities should be sought in tribal centers. As a result of intensive feudalization, they were gradually suppressed or integrated into the structure of feudal cities, but they ceased to be fundamental and leading. However, this process was not direct and fleeting.
The second work of V.V. Karlov is devoted to the development of issues of the concept of the holy fool of feudal Rus' and its types. An extensive historiography of the issue is given here. The author identifies several stages of city development in Rus' and shows its most characteristic types for each of them. In his opinion, “the most ancient cities arose precisely as centers of large compatriot unions, on the territory of which the political power of local princes spread from the centers” ( Karlov V.V. On the issue of the concept... p. 76.). They were thus strongholds of feudalization, places of tribute collection, and cult centers. At the next stage, in the 11th - first third of the 13th centuries, a whole network of cities appears and this, according to the conclusion of V.V. Karlov, is associated with the “organization of feudal rule within the reigning land” ( Ibid., p. 77-78.).
This characteristic, in our opinion, is seriously inferior in its development to the periodization proposed by L.V. Alekseev, which we discussed above. In general, the works of V.V. Karlov make a serious contribution to the study of town formation processes in Rus', summarize the results of previous studies, contain many fruitful conclusions, and outline prospects for further research on this topic.
Recently, urban issues have also interested A.V. Kuza, who published a number of articles that examined both the history of ancient Russian cities themselves and their immediate predecessors - settlements studied by archaeologists ( Kuza A.V. 1) Russian early medieval cities. - In the book: Abstracts of reports of the Soviet delegation at the III International Congress of Slavic Archeology. M., 1975, p. 62-65; 2) On the origin of ancient Russian cities (history of study). - KSIA AS USSR, 1982, issue. 171, p. 9-15; 3) Socio-historical typology of ancient Russian cities of the X-XIII centuries. - In the book: Russian city (research and materials). M, 1983, issue. 6, p. 4-36.).
In the first of these works, A. V. Kuza compares chronicle references to cities with archaeological data and shows the dynamism of the process of their identification. In the following article, subtitled “history of study,” this author does not limit himself to historiography, but also draws his own conclusions on the problem of the origin of ancient Russian cities. In particular, he argues that “the most ancient cities of Rus' were formed primarily on the basis of tribal and intertribal centers” ( Kuza A.V. About the origin... p. 13.). Next, he considers various types of early-rod or pre-urban formations. These, in his opinion, are open trade and craft settlements (proto-cities), tribal centers, and guard fortresses. In conclusion, he notes that “the era of developed feudalism is indeed characterized by a plurality of forms of urban structure and different ways of city formation, which is confirmed by archaeological research” ( Ibid., p. 15.).
These conclusions of A.V. Kuza are in accordance with modern ideas about the early ancient Russian city ( Bulkin V. A., Gadlo A. V., Dubov I. V., Lebedev G. S. Archeology... p. 99-101.).
The socio-historical typology of not only chronicle cities, but archaeologically identified and studied settlements became the subject of research by A. V. Kuza in his recently published article. The result of this work was the conclusion that “the second half of the 10th century. was a time of active city formation in Rus'" ( Kuza A.V. Socio-historical typology... p. 34.). In addition, A.V. Kuza identified a number of urban features and functions in a number of fortified settlements of the second half of the 10th century. Thus, the list of urban centers of Ancient Rus', for one reason or another, did not develop into early feudal cities and did not appear on the pages of chronicles, is significantly expanding.
In general, the research of A. V. Kuza is characterized by a deep knowledge and full use of the historiographic heritage, a thorough analysis of sources, both written and archaeological, showing the development of the ancient Russian city in dynamics, and not as a static phenomenon. The works of A.V. Kuza lay a solid foundation, taking into account the latest achievements of domestic historical science, for further study of such a complex phenomenon as the process of city formation in Rus'.
In the early 80s, D. A. Avdusin and his students also addressed the problems of the ancient Russian city ( Peter ukhin V. Ya., Pushkina T. A. On the prehistory of the ancient Russian city. - History of the USSR, 1979, No. 4. p. 100-112; Avdusin D. A. The origin of ancient Russian cities (according to archaeological data). - Questions of History, 1980, No. 12, p. 24-42.). We will consider these works below in connection with the problem of “transferring” cities in Rus'.
Speaking about the historical study of the ancient Russian city, and in particular the centers of the Rostov land, one cannot fail to note the great contribution made to the solution of the outlined range of problems by such historians and archaeologists as A. M. Sakharov, A. L. Khoroshkevich, V. L. Yanin, M.V. Sedov and a number of others ( Sakharov A. M. Cities of North-Eastern Rus' of the XIV-XV centuries. M., 1959; Khoroshkevich A.L. Main results of the study of cities of the 11th - first half of the 17th centuries. - In the book: Cities of feudal Russia. M., 1966; Yanin V.L., Kolchin B.A. Results and prospects of Novgorod archeology. - In the book: Archaeological study of Novgorod. M., 1978, p. 5-56; Sedova M.V. 1) Old Russian cities of the lower reaches of the Klyazma River: Author's abstract. Ph.D. dis. M., 1972; 2) Yaropolch-Zalessky. M, 1978; Sedova M.V., Belenkaya D.A. The roundabout city of Suzdal. - In the book: Old Russian cities. M., 1981, p. 95-115.).
The successes of our historical and archaeological science in the study of ancient Russian cities are reflected in the following facts. At one time, M. N. Tikhomirov noted that according to chronicle sources for the pre-Mongol period, there were about three hundred cities in Rus' ( Tikhomirov M. N. Old Russian cities... p. 32-43.). A.V. Kuza, relying on the latest archaeological research, brought their number to four hundred fourteen ( Kuza A.V. Russian early medieval cities... p. 64.). He also noted that “four hundred “chronicle” cities are opposed (? - I.D.) by almost 1,500 archaeologically known and recorded ancient Russian fortified settlements of the 9th-13th centuries.” ( Kuza A.V. Socio-historical typology... p. 5.). According to the calculations of A.V. Kuza, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality has 36 cities, which is quite comparable to the number of urban centers in the Pereyaslav (35), Galician (34) or Smolensk (31) principalities. These calculations were made for the end of the 12th century. 26 urban centers have been excavated or surveyed here. To this number of cities should be added a very significant number of settlements and large settlements, information about which is given in archaeological works devoted to North-Eastern Rus' of the pre-Mongol period ( Uspenskaya A.V., Fechner M.V. Index and map “Settlements and burial mounds of North-Western and North-Eastern Rus' of the X-XIII centuries.” - In the book: Essays on the history of the Russian village of the X-XIII centuries. - Proceedings of the State Historical Museum, 1956, issue. 32, p. 139-150; Goryunova E.I. Ethnic history... pp. 253-264.). The text of the trade agreement concluded with Volga Bulgaria by Prince Vladimir in 1006, which has come down to us in the retelling of V. N. Tatishchev, speaks about a fairly extensive network of cities in North-Eastern Rus', their trade and craft significance.
It reads: “The Bulgarians (Volskie) sent Ambassadors with many gifts, so that Vladimir would allow them to trade in the cities along the Volga and Oka without fear, which Vladimir willingly deigned to do, and gave them seals in all cities, so that they could trade everywhere and with everyone.” , and Russian merchants with seals from the governors went to the Bulgarians to trade without fear, and to the Bulgarians to sell all their goods in the cities as a merchant, and from them buy what you need, but do not travel around the villages, do not sell tiun, virnik, firewood and stink, and You can’t buy from them" ( Tatishchev V.N. Russian History. Book P. M., 1773, p. 88-89.).
Thus, the agreement records the fact that in the cities of North-Eastern Rus' already at the beginning of the 11th century. there is a merchant layer under the control of the feudal administration. Only representatives of this stratum are allowed to engage in foreign trade. On the other hand, foreign merchants are strictly prohibited from establishing their own independent connections and carrying out trade transactions with residents of rural areas of the Volga-Oka interfluve, bypassing urban centers. Based on this, we can conclude that this trans-European trade and connections with other regions were concentrated in cities, and in a sense, cities grew on these connections. And local internal trade was carried out from the cities.
The data presented indicate a fairly large number of suburban formations and cities themselves on the territory of North-Eastern Rus', and the urgent need for their special and generalizing research.
One of the main problems of the urban theme of Ancient Rus' is the question of how cities were formed and on what basis. Above we have already given a detailed historiography of this issue, and now we will try to evaluate these problems using the example of the Volga-Oka interfluve. The process of the emergence of cities must be considered in dynamics, taking into account the complexities and contradictions of the socio-economic and political development of ancient Russian society.
All the complexity and diversity of development paths of Russian cities can be traced through the example of the Volga-Oka interfluve, where almost all the main types of pre-urban and early-urban formations are represented.
In North-Eastern Rus', as we have already noted, early feudal cities were preceded by tribal and proto-urban centers. All of them ceased to exist at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century. and gave way to early feudal urban centers in the historical arena.
Of course, the emergence of ancient Russian early feudal cities followed complex and varied paths, although this process was subject to general historical patterns. The urban centers of North-Eastern Rus' cannot be studied in isolation from the general Russian problems of city formation. They developed according to general laws; here you can see all the same phenomena as in other regions of Ancient Rus'. They are especially close in their chronology, typology, appearance and character to the urban centers of the Novgorod land. This is due primarily to the fact that at the first stage in the 9th-11th centuries. The Zalesskaya land was settled from the regions of the north-west, and people from the Novgorod region were the first Russian settlers here. Of course, the development of cities in the northeast has revealed its own characteristics and has its own unique features.
Here, in North-Eastern Rus', one of the ways of the emergence of an ancient Russian city was fully demonstrated - the so-called “transfer” of cities. We devoted a special work to this topic ( Dubov I.V. On the problem of “transfer” of cities in Ancient Rus'. - In the book: Genesis and development of feudalism in Russia: Problems of historiography. L., 1983, p. 70-82.), but here it is still necessary to dwell on the main aspects of this problem.
The phenomenon of “transfer” of cities in Ancient Rus' has long been studied by domestic historical science. This problem is considered in the works of V.V. Mavrodin, who, using data from written and archaeological sources, reveals the causes and nature of such a historical phenomenon as the “transfer” of the city ( Mavrodin V.V. 1) Formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1945, p. 114-115; 2) The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian people. M., 1971, p. 51.). V.V. Mavrodin cites as examples facts related to the emergence of Smolensk, Novgorod, Rostov the Great, Belozersk, Yaroslavl.
V.V. Mavrodin noted that “the city was moved if the ethnic composition of the population changed, or when the ancient tribal nobility was defeated, or when the transfer was dictated by the needs of trade and military enterprises of the prince” ( Mavrodin V.V. Formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality... p. 51.).
In other words, in his opinion, the main reasons for such transfers were the impossibility of building a sufficiently reliable fortification in the old place; the profitability and convenience of the location primarily for economic reasons and, finally, the emergence of new cities as opposed to the old tribal centers, which was one of the manifestations of the feudalization process.
In archaeological literature, for the first time, the hypothesis of “city transfer” was developed by A. A. Spitsyn using a specific example. He did this on the basis of studying materials from archaeological excavations of the well-known Gnezdovo burial ground, located near Smolensk. According to A. A. Spitsyn, Gnezdovo was ancient Smolensk, and it was moved to a new modern location in the 11th century ( Spitsyn A. A. Gnezdovo mounds in the excavations of S. I. Sergeev. - IAK. St. Petersburg, 1905, issue. 15, p. 7-8.).
Thus, since the time of A. A. Spitsyn, the Gnezdov-Smolensk problem has been in the center of attention of scientists. Now the fund of information about the Gnezdovo complex has been significantly expanded, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Now this is not only the materials of the burial ground and scanty data on the ancient settlements, but also the results of new excavations of settlements, numismatic finds.
A. A. Spitsyn’s hypothesis that Gnezdovo was the original Smolensk of Russian chronicles and that the “transfer” of the city occurred already in the 11th century. challenged in his numerous works by D. A. Avdusin. He interpreted the Gnezdovo burial ground as the cemetery of ancient Smolensk, and the city itself, in his opinion, “appeared where it stands now” ( Avdusin D. A. On the question of the origin of Smolensk and its initial topography. - In the book: Smolensk on the 1100th anniversary of the first mention of the city in the chronicle. Smolensk, 1967, p. 79.). Later, D. A. Avdusin began to believe that Gnezdovo and Smolensk existed in parallel: the first was an economic center, and the second a political one. The impossibility of “transferring” Smolensk, according to D. A. Avdusin, is also due to the significant distance between it and Gnezdovo - about 12 km ( Avdusin D. A. The origin of ancient Russian cities... p. 38-39.).
The hypothesis that the Gnezdovo burial ground is the necropolis of Smolensk could have a right to exist only until the intensive field study of the Gnezdovo settlement began under the leadership of I. I. Lyapushkin ( Lyapushkin I.I. 1) New in the study of Gnezdov. - JSC 1967. M., 1968, p. 43-44; 2) Research of the Gnezdovo settlement. - JSC 1968. M, 1969, p. 66-67.). It immediately became clear that this was the center to which the well-known burial complex belonged. Based on the results of excavations of the Gnezdovo settlement, I. I. Lyapushkin came to a reasonable conclusion, according to which A. A. Spitsyn’s hypothesis that Gnezdovo was the oldest Smolensk has every reason to claim to be true. This assumption, I. I. Lyapushkin believed, can be removed only if layers earlier than the 11th century are discovered in the city itself, that is, synchronous with the burials of the Gnezdovo burial ground and dating back to the 9th-10th centuries ( Lyapushkin I. I. Gnezdovo and Smolensk. - In the book: Problems of the history of feudal Russia. L., 1971, p. 37.).
Subsequently, as the Gnezdovo complex was studied, A. A. Spitsyn’s assumptions received more and more new justifications ( Bulki N. A. Gnezdovsky burial ground and mound antiquities of the Smolensk Dnieper region: Author's abstract. Ph.D. dis. L., 1973, p. 20-21; Bulki and V.A., Lebedev G.S. Gnezdovo and Birka: On the problem of the formation of the city. - In the book: Culture of medieval Rus'. L., 1974, p. 14-15. - In this article, the authors completely reject the hypothesis that Gnezdovo is the cemetery of Smolensk, but also talk about the need for additional evidence to confirm the point of view of A. A. Spitsyn.). Now it is hardly possible to doubt that Gnezdovo was the original Smolensk and gave way to a city on its modern site. Later cultural layers in Smolensk are known, starting from the 11th century ( Alekseev L.V. About ancient Smolensk. - SA, 1977, No. 1, p. 84-91.). The problem of the relationship between Gnezdov and Smolensk, as well as the possibility of “transferring” the city here, is considered in most detail in the monograph by L. V. Alekseev, dedicated to the early history of the Smolensk land ( Alekseev L.V. Smolensk land in the 9th-13th centuries. M., 1980, p. 135 - 154.).
The latest research convincingly shows that Gnezdovo was the original Smolensk. It was a large trade and craft center on the Dnieper route, which also played the role of the main city of the Slavic tribe of the Smolensk Krivichi. L.V. Alekseev calls it “Gnezdovo” Smolensk ( Ibid., p. 136; Alekseev L.V. Smolensk land in the 9th-13th centuries: Essays on the history of the Smolensk region and Eastern Belarus: Author's abstract. doc. dis. M., 1982, p. 22-24.). V. Ya. Petrukhin and T. A. Pushkina believe that centers like Gnezdov focused primarily on external trade relations serving products and imported items of the elite elite ( Petrukhin V. Ya., Pushkina T. A. On the prehistory of the ancient Russian city... p. 110.). We believe that with such artificial isolation from the local environment, they could hardly exist for long. Without rejecting the above functions, one should still agree with the conclusion that they played an important leading role in tribal structures.
According to V. Ya. Petrukhin and T. A. Pushkina, Gnezdovo was a stronghold of the Kyiv grand-ducal power in the land of the Smolensk Krivichi, whose original tribal center was, in fact, the city of Smolensk. Such druzhina graveyards as Gnezdovo, "Rurik's settlement", Sarskoe settlement, Shestovitskoe settlement, Timerevo, according to these researchers, played an important role in the creation of the early feudal Old Russian state. An explanation for their disappearance in the 11th century has also been proposed. - this was due to the “consolidation of lands around the old tribal centers and the collapse of the “Rurikovich Empire”” ( Ibid., p. 109.).
In our opinion, the general explanation of the question of the relationship between Gnezdov and Smolensk may be as follows. In the 11th century Early feudal Smolensk appears on the elevated banks of the Dnieper. It was created on Cathedral Hill and became a fortified early feudal princely support center. This city emerges as a counterweight to the tribal trade and craft complex of Gnezdovo. Gradually, there is an outflow of residents from Gnezdovo, and Smolensk is expanding and getting stronger. This “transfer” did not occur through the volitional effort of any individual or social group, but was an objective consequence of the process of destruction of old tribal ties and the formation of early feudal society.
A. A. Spitsyn was supported by V. I. Ravdonikas, who not only shared his point of view in relation to Gnezdovo-Smolensk, but also gave other similar examples: Belozersk, Old Ryazan, Novgorod, Rostov ( Ravdonikas V.I. On the emergence of feudalism in the forest belt of Eastern Europe in the light of archaeological data. - News of GAIMK. L., 1934, issue. 103, p. 118-119.).
Particularly important data is reported by V.I. Ravdonikas about the emergence of Belozersk. He also makes a general conclusion: “There is some general pattern in this process of growth of ancient Russian cities. The movement of a city to a new location at a certain moment in its development is observed everywhere" ( Ibid., p. 119.).
A similar picture can be observed by studying the history of the emergence of ancient Beloozero. Local legend says that the city of Beloozero was originally located on the northern shore of the lake. Bely and only later was moved to the source of the Sheksna River. Since the 10th century. The city of Beloozero is located at the mouth of the river. Sheksna on its right bank.
Based on the works of N.P. Barsov, A.A. Shakhmatov, P.A. Sukhov, L.A. Golubeva, one can reconstruct the ancient history of Beloozero and see that its formation and development fits well into the process, which is defined as “transfer » cities in Ancient Rus' ( Barsov N.P. Essays on Russian historical geography. Warsaw, 1888, p. 204; Shakhmatov A. A. The Legend of the Calling of the Varangians. St. Petersburg, 1904, p. 53; Sukhov P. A. Slavic settlement of the 9th-10th centuries in southern Belozerye. - MIA, 1941, No. 6, p. 89; Golubeva L.A. All and the Slavs on White Lake. X-XIII centuries M., 1973, p. 57-198.). Settlement near the village. The settlement, discovered by P. A. Sukhov and explored by an expedition led by L. A. Golubeva, was the most important trade and craft center of the early city, apparently preceding Beloozero, located at the source of the Sheksna. Perhaps this was the chronicle Beloozero of the 9th century, from where it was moved to a more convenient place on the shore of the lake. White.
The problem of moving cities is considered by G.V. Shtykhov using the example of those on the territory of Belarus ( Shtykhoz G.V. Cities of Polotsk land... p. 19-20.). He believes that the cities of Polotsk, Borisov, Minsk, and Usvyaty arose as a result of this process. G.V. Shtykhov notes that “the displacement of cities is associated with people abandoning a populated area, as a result of which life in it came to a standstill, and the emergence of a new location in another place, to which the functions of the old city were transferred” ( Ibid., p. 20.). G.V. Shtykhov distinguishes between complete and partial transfer of the city.
As we have already noted, in addition to Gnezdov, in Ancient Rus' there are other examples of the “transfer” of cities - this happens everywhere and is especially typical for the northeast. We record this phenomenon in Beloozero; Timerev is replaced by Yaroslavl, Sarsky settlement by Rostov, Kleshchin by Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. Of course, in each specific case certain features appear, but in general such “transfers” are due to general patterns of development ( Bulkin V. A., Dubov I. V. Timerevo and Gnezdovo. - In the book: From the history of feudal Russia. L., 1978, p. 20.). The old tribal centers and proto-cities of the transitional era are losing their former importance; they are not able to compete with the early feudal princely fortresses and cities, which were founded mainly at the beginning of the 11th century ( Bulkin V. A., Dubov I. V., Lebedev G. S. Archaeological monuments of Ancient Rus' of the 9th-11th centuries. L., 1978, p. 136.). In all known cases of “transfers” of cities, except for the situation with Kleshchin-Pereyaslavl mentioned in the chronicle, one can only rely on information obtained as a result of archaeological research, which, of course, significantly limits the possibilities of historical reconstruction of the phenomenon in question.
Gaps in the sources, the complexity of their interpretation and dating, made it possible to cast doubt on the whole idea and fact of the “transfer” of cities in Ancient Rus'. Such doubts were recently expressed by D. A. Avdusin ( Avdusin D. A. The origin of ancient Russian cities... p. 24-42.). In his view, the “transfer” of ancient Russian cities was supposed to mean the construction of new dwellings, workshops, outbuildings, fortifications, clearing and development of new arable lands and lands, construction of roads, feudal subordination of the entire area. D. A. Avdusin categorically denies the possibility of “transferring” cities in Ancient Rus', explaining this for purely economic reasons. He recognizes only the fact of the “transfer” of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, and only because it is recorded in written sources. D. A. Avdusin is apparently right when he claims that the “transfer” of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky occurred at a later time than the cities of Rus', and therefore cannot be the main argument in favor of this phenomenon as a whole.
The works of D. A. Avdusin’s students also generally reject the possibility of “transferring” cities in Ancient Rus', and instead propose the hypothesis of the existence of so-called “nar” cities in the early Middle Ages ( Leontyev A.E. Sarskoe fortified settlement in the history of the Rostov land (VIII-XI centuries): Author's abstract. Ph.D. dis. M., 1975, p. 22; Petrukhin V. Ya., Pushkina T. A. To the background... p. 100-112.). But the evidence of the simultaneous functioning of cities and settlements parallel to them (camps of Scandinavian warriors ( Rybakov B. A. Kievan Rus. - In the book: History of the USSR since ancient times, vol. 1. M., 1965, p. 489.) or graveyards) is still clearly insufficient. It is doubtful that churchyards will be replaced by “strongholds of the grand ducal power” ( Petrukhin V. Ya., Pushkina T. A. To the background... p. 109.) - cities come, developing from tribal centers. This conclusion should be contrasted with the conclusion that cities are replacing both proto-urban and tribal centers and they are growing on a completely new basis. Although, of course, this path of development cannot be absolute.
The term “city transfer” in our understanding is quite arbitrary and complex economic and social phenomena are hidden behind it. It is no coincidence that they mainly occur at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, when the process of feudalization of Rus' entered a new, more active phase and the fight against tribal formations was nearing completion. One of its manifestations was the “transfer of cities.” At the end of the X - beginning of the XI century. Both categories of early urban formations (proto-cities and tribal centers) begin to lose their significance and are gradually being forced out of the historical arena by genuine cities - centers of administrative and spiritual power, crafts and trade, drawing together the agricultural district. The types of these cities and the ways of their emergence are also different.
It is necessary to dwell on one more point related to the phenomenon of “transfer” of the city. The fact is that the distances from old centers to new ones are in some cases the same.
According to Arab sources, the daily journey up the water was 25 km ( Rybakov B.A. Russian lands according to the map of Idrisi in 1154. - KSIIMK, 1952, issue. XIII, p. 40.). Such early urban centers as Gnezdovo, Sarskoe ancient settlement, Timerevo are located at approximately the same distance (10-15 km) from the early feudal cities that replaced them - Smolensk, Rostov the Great, Yaroslavl, and the Ancient Beloozero (settlement near the village of Gorodishche) is located from his successor at the mouth of the river. Sheksna is at a distance within a day's march.
Apparently, it is no coincidence that new cities arise at such a close distance from the old tribal, trade and craft centers, which maintained strong ties with the surrounding area that had developed over the course of centuries. For some time they remained tribal markets serving entire regions.
In the early Middle Ages, the main routes were the water surfaces of large rivers and lakes. During daylight hours, it was possible to get from a new city to a well-known and familiar trading place, sell or purchase the necessary goods, and return to your hearth in the dark. The distance of 10-15 km was a one-way trip. At the same time, residents of the old center could always easily come to the central city and return back the same day without much effort or risk, fearing being caught in darkness and bad weather on the way. This means that in the first stages of its history, the early feudal city could not exist without connections with tribal centers, which still played an important role in historical development.
The “transfer” of cities in Ancient Rus', although a general phenomenon, was not obligatory for all its regions and centers. The “transfer” of cities takes place in cases where the new emerging class of feudal lords is not able to completely break the tribal nobility, desperately clinging to their power based on tribal foundations and orders. This class does not yet have the opportunity to completely subjugate all spheres of life and activity of the old established centers.
The leading role in the tribal and trade and craft proto-cities was played by the communal principle. And it certainly could not help but come into conflict with the new early feudal orders. The feudal class was formed not only on the basis of the clan-tribal elite; it included traders, artisans, and warrior groups. His social base was wider than the narrow circle of leaders and tribal elders of the period of the clan system. Such a contradiction could not but cause a corresponding confrontation and an intense struggle for economic and political power.
And then, not far from them, as a rule, in more convenient places, directly at the main crossroads of waterways, new early feudal cities arise, as if in contrast to the old tribal centers - market places, where all local crafts and trade, both internal and distant
The “transfer” of cities cannot be imagined as a one-time, fleeting act. The replacement of old centers with new ones completely occurs over the course of approximately 25 years, i.e., during the period of replacement of one generation by another.
New early feudal cities initially retain close ties with the old centers and even some dependence. However, gradually their independence increases, and the former centers either completely disappear from the historical arena or lose their significance so much that their fate cannot be traced either from written sources or from archaeological data.
In the following chapters we will look at all these processes using specific examples of the emergence and development of four cities of North-Eastern Rus' and the early urban centers that preceded them.
The word fortress in Rus' was synonymous with the word city, and the expression “to build a city” meant to build a fortress. That is why we will consider urban construction in Rus' as part of our topic. First of all, let's look at how cities arose in the Russian lands. The problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities has always been the focus of attention of historians involved in the study of Kievan Rus, which is not surprising, because the question of the role of the city as a whole in the development of society in any era is generally one of the central problems of the social sciences. What do modern researchers call an ancient Russian city? Here are some typical definitions:
“A city is a populated area in which an industrial and commercial population is concentrated, more or less separated from agriculture.”
There are also many other definitions. What is the reason for such diversity? Why are scientists still unable to come to a consensus? The reason is that the early Russian city still remains poorly studied.
As a result, the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities does not lose its relevance to this day. It was posed in historiography a very long time ago, but the most interesting and substantiated theory on this subject in pre-revolutionary historiography was formulated by V. O. Klyuchevsky. Soviet historians N.A. Rozhkov and M.N. Pokrovsky, who laid the foundation for the study of Ancient Rus' in Soviet historiography, generally adhered to the concept of V.O. Klyuchevsky, believing that the main political and economic function of ancient Russian cities was trading. Then this problem began to attract more and more attention of Soviet scientists. Often their opinions differed from the concept proposed by V. O. Klyuchevsky. Although K. Marx and F. Engels were close in their views to the theory of V. O. Klyuchevsky, they exaggerated the importance of the economic factor in all spheres of public life. Historians of the school of B.D. Grekov paid special attention to craft production and its significance in the development of ancient Russian cities. The discussion on the problem was continued by such scientists as S.V. Yushkov, who put forward his theory, strongly criticizing Klyuchevsky’s concept. The historian M.N. Tikhomirov actively studied the issue of the ancient Russian city, devoting a separate monograph to this topic. Gradually, the ideas formulated by S.V. Yushkov, B.D. Grekov and M.N. Tikhomirov were significantly developed and supplemented by a number of scientists. The works of A. V. Kuza about ancient Russian cities are very interesting. The scientist himself spent many years excavating ancient Russian cities. Later, works by B. A. Rybakov, P. P. Tolochko and I. Ya. Froyanov appeared. The historian V.V. Sedov tried to harmonize the views of scientists in his concept. And finally, the historian V.P. Darkevich comes forward with harsh criticism of all existing theories and a proposal of his own. Thus, we see that discussions on the issue under consideration do not fade away and have not yet found a compromise.
Naturally, the ideas of one or another author about the origin of ancient Russian cities directly depend on his general idea of ancient Russian reality. Hence such terminological diversity: proto-cities, tribal and feudal cities, city-states, etc. Moreover, each author persistently tries to fit all existing material to his given scheme. But all the material still has not fit into any one scheme, and as new material accumulates, all the old concepts find themselves in a state of crisis. And so far, not a single problem of ancient Russian city life has found a convincing solution.
That is why we set the goal of this chapter: to identify the basic concepts of the origin of ancient Russian cities, to consider their strengths and weaknesses. In this regard, we set the following tasks:
· study historiography on the problem of the origin of ancient Russian cities
· consider each concept separately, identifying its strengths and weaknesses.
Socio-economic conceptHistorian V. O. Klyuchevsky paints the following picture of the emergence of ancient Russian cities: “A quick glance at the geographical location of these cities is enough to see that they were created by the successes of Russian foreign trade. Most of them stretched out in a long chain along the main river route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” along the Dnieper-Volkhov line; only a few - Pereyaslavl on Trubezh, Chernigov on the Desna, Rostov in the Upper Volga region - moved east from this, so to speak, operational basis of Russian trade as its eastern outposts, indicating its flank direction to the Azov and Caspian Seas.” The general meaning of this theory is connected with Klyuchevsky’s idea of \u200b\u200btrade as the driving force behind the emergence of early Russian cities. According to Klyuchevsky, after the Avar invasion in the VI-VIII centuries. During their settlement in Eastern Europe, the Slavs entered a period of disintegration of tribal ties, replaced by territorial ones. A “new social cohesion” is being formed, driven by economic interest, the driving force of which was trade with the countries of the East. Trade attracted individual households into special trading centers - churchyards, which then evolved into large trading cities with areas leading to them. These cities appeared already in the 8th century. and became centers of foreign trade, and in the 9th century. surrounded by fortifications, the military-trading elite of ancient Russian society is concentrated in them.
According to F. Engels, the division of crafts and agriculture contributed to the transition from barbarism to civilization, from pre-class society to class society (“the second major division of labor”). Hence the emergence of fortified cities in the era of military democracy: “In their ditches gapes the grave of the tribal system, and their towers already rest against civilization.”
The historian B.D. Grekov largely relies on Marxist theory; he criticizes Klyuchevsky’s theory, but also comes to the idea that cities arose along rivers and waterways. “The various trade connections of these cities were of great importance in the history of their economic and political growth. It is no coincidence that these cities very early, before the arrival of the Varangians, became centers that united individual Slavic tribes,” he writes.
The historian S.V. Yushkov paid much attention to the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities. Yushkov saw the main reason for the emergence of cities in the separation of industry, trade and agriculture.
The number of cities began to increase rapidly during the period of the late 9th-10th centuries. At this time, major changes took place in the life of Ancient Rus'. The Old Russian state is created and strengthened. Fundamental changes have occurred in both the economic and social spheres. Crafts are separated from agriculture, which becomes the main occupation of the inhabitants. Feudalism is established. First of all, cities arise where crafts and agriculture successfully develop, which results in the emergence of an urban district and the city as its center. Let's take a look at the map of the location of cities in Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries: it is obvious that the greatest concentration of cities is observed around Kyiv. Moreover, many of these cities are not only not connected to the Dnieper waterway, but also to other waterways. These are cities such as Belgorod, Iskorosten, Vruchiy and others. What is the reason for this accumulation? Here the agricultural character of the area should be taken into account. Here are many ancient Russian villages known to us from written sources, such as Olzhichi and Berestovo. Another similar cluster of cities can be found in the area of the upper reaches of the Bug. One of the largest cities in this region, Cherven, is located away from major waterways. A third similar clot is found between Klyazma and the upper reaches of the Volga. Some of the oldest cities in this area, Suzdal and Rostov, are also located some distance from the Volga and Oka rivers. Although a major waterway from the Baltic Sea to the Caspian Sea passed along the Volga. Thus, we see that the location of cities along major trade routes in this case cannot be the reason for their emergence.
Rostov is located on the shore of Lake Nero. But this city is located quite far from the Volga, although it is connected to it by a network of small rivers. Thus, we can conclude that it was not river trade routes that played the most important role in the emergence and development of Rostov. A much more important factor was its location in the “opole”. This was the name of the plots in the North-Eastern part of Rus'. Their soil was very fertile and made it possible to successfully engage in farming and gardening. In addition, Lake Nero was famous for its fish wealth. The city of Suzdal is even less connected to the river network. Only the Nerl River flows nearby, which is a tributary of the Klyazma, and perhaps could have had commercial importance in ancient times. But Suzdal, like Rostov, was located in the center of the region. This allowed him to advance from among other cities in the area. In the same way, such cities as Uglich, Pereslavl Zalessky and Yuryev Polskoy appeared and developed.
The problem of the prehistory of ancient Russian cities was also studied by the historian M. N. Tikhomirov, who believed that the reason for the emergence of cities was fertile lands. All conditions were created here for the separation of agriculture from crafts, as a result of which cities appeared - trade and craft centers.
Thus, we can distinguish two main reasons for the emergence and development of ancient Russian cities. This is a geographical location on important trade routes, as well as a location in fertile lands.
However, many scientists dispute this concept and provide quite compelling arguments against it. They argue that internal trade at this time was in its infancy, and subsistence farming dominated. And, consequently, the emergence of cities cannot be explained by the importance of water trade routes. In addition, they deny the separation of crafts from agriculture. Speaking of which, during excavations even in large cities, hoes, sickles and scythes, as well as fishing gear and shearing shears are simultaneously found, which indicates the mixed nature of the occupations of the inhabitants of these cities.
In conclusion, it should be said that the socio-economic concept identifies trade and the separation of crafts from agriculture as the main driving forces for the emergence of cities in Ancient Rus'. Like other concepts, it has supporters and opponents and is not without weaknesses. Since it is one of the earliest concepts, it has some discrepancies with modern archaeological data.
The concept of the development of cities from tribal centersS.V. Yushkov resolutely rejects the concept of V.O. Klyuchevsky and a number of other pre-revolutionary historians about “a city volost that arose in prehistoric times and was governed by commercial and industrial democracy.” According to the scientist, “the main territorial unit that was part of the Kyiv state was initially a tribal principality, and then, when tribal relations were decomposed, a large feudal lordship that arose on the ruins of these tribal principalities. Each of these feudal lordships had its own center - a city, but this city, although it turned into a commercial and industrial center, was still primarily the center of feudal rule, where the main political force was feudal lords of various types, and not commercial and industrial democracy "
This point of view was also reflected in the works of the historian A.V. Kuza: trade and craft settlements did not play a role in the formation of cities in the early period. “The feudal lords were at the origins of the emergence of cities,” but “they could not complete this process without merchants and artisans.” That is why “at the same time as the feudal lords or soon after them, artisans and merchants appeared in the emerging cities.”
Proponents of this concept argued that cities in Rus' arose from tribal or intertribal centers. According to B. A. Rybakov, cities arose in the era of the tribal system as political centers. The history of each city begins “not only from that elusive moment when it finally acquired all the features and attributes of a feudal city, but, if possible, from the time when a given topographic point stood out from the environment of neighboring settlements, became in some respect above them and acquired some special functions inherent in it.” He also writes that cities cannot arise instantly, and their formation is a long historical process: “Emerging cities are not fairy-tale chambers that arise overnight, being erected by an unknown magical force.” He points out that “the course of historical development of the tribal system leads to the multiplication of tribal centers and to the complication of their functions.”
The theory of the development of cities from tribal and intertribal centers reached its greatest development in the works of P. P. Tolochko and I. Ya. Froyanov. According to P.P. Tolochko, the oldest Russian city was “fundamentally agrarian, its birth and development entirely due to the agricultural district.” The most ancient cities are formed on the basis of previous “tribal cities”. The appearance of the latter, however, no longer refers entirely to the primitive communal era, but to the “transitional stage” to the 8th-9th centuries. At the same time, statehood was being formed. These ancient cities “were not primarily centers of craft and trade; their economic development was based on the agricultural production of the area.” The leading functions of early cities were political-administrative and military, as well as religious. The main organizing force in the initial period is political power. Only later did the cities become centers of feudal rule, and from them did the feudal development of the surrounding area begin. Gradually, crafts and trade also concentrated in cities.
According to I. Ya. Froyanov, the emergence of cities must be associated with the late stage of development of the tribal system. Early cities, in his opinion, were tribal centers. “The organization of society (at the late stage of the tribal system) becomes so complex that its further life activity without coordinating centers turns out to be impossible,” in “an environment saturated with social connections, the crystallization of cities occurs, which are clots of these connections.” Over time, intertribal connections and associations appeared, which were quite large and needed organizing centers. Cities became them. Their main functions were military-political, administrative and religious in nature. Later, the cities are transformed into the centers of city-states. All the most important social institutions were located there, such as the government in the person of the prince, the people's council, tribute flowed into the cities, they were also a sacred center. I. Ya. Froyanov believes that many scientists artificially divide ancient Russian cities into several types. He also denies that proto-cities or other predecessors of cities existed in Rus'.
Scientists who are opposed to this concept cite a lot of archaeological data that diverge from the basic tenets of the theory. “The capitals of many of the largest principalities,” writes B. A. Rybakov, “were at one time centers of tribal unions: Kyiv near the Polyans, Smolensk among the Krivichs, Polotsk among the Polochan, Novgorod the Great among the Slovenians, Novgorod Seversky among the Severians.” But in these centers even layers of the 9th century have not been discovered, not to mention earlier ones. This theory is based on the fact that on the site of many cities, early Slavic settlements were found with traces of the existence of stone-cutting, jewelry and blacksmithing in them, but its followers do not take into account the fact that many similar settlements were discovered outside the subsequently emerging cities.
Thus, the concept of the development of cities from tribal centers is based on the continuity of ancient Russian cities with earlier proto-urban formations. This concept is largely borrowed from foreign historians, and, like the previous one, has discrepancies with archaeological data.
Concept of multiple ways to form citiesA completely different theory was proposed by V.V. Sedov, although it should be noted that the scientist’s views are continuously developing and improving. He considers it archaeologically absolutely proven that there were several ways of forming cities in Ancient Rus'. Cities are formed along four main paths:
· Education from tribal or intertribal centers;
· Formation from fortified camps and graveyards, as well as volost centers;
· Formation from border fortifications;
· One-time construction of cities.
It is interesting that V.V. Sedov tried to look at the origin of ancient Russian cities in the context of the pan-European process of the formation of the city as a certain social phenomenon that arises at a certain stage of the development of society. The scientist showed that the process of city formation beyond the borders of the Roman Empire was a common process for vast regions of Europe, subject to common historical patterns. In the VIII-VIII centuries. to the east and north of the zone of Romano-Germanic synthesis and the borders of Byzantium, on the lands of the Germans, Slavs and Balts, in regions of concentration of the rural population, “non-agrarian” settlements appeared, in which professional artisans and merchants were concentrated. Some of these settlements arose directly from the development of "extensive trade connections." These settlements are proto-cities. They also become centers of crystallization of the military and merchant classes.
The next period of the genesis of ancient Russian cities according to V.V. Sedov is the 9th-10th centuries. – the emergence of early feudal cities proper. Not all proto-cities developed into “real” urban centers, but only those that, along with craft and trade functions, had military, political, administrative and religious functions.
It must be said that in many ways the concept of V.V. Sedov is an attempt to reconcile the old ideas coming from B.D. Grekov and M.N. Tikhomirov with new materials, primarily archaeological (including those obtained by V.V. . Sedov). V.V. Sedov’s concept is to a certain extent a combination of old and new approaches; it combines both their strengths and weaknesses.
The phenomenon of “city transfer”Speaking about the problem of the emergence of ancient Russian cities, one cannot help but pay attention to the phenomenon of “city transfer”, which is observed throughout almost all of Ancient Rus'. This phenomenon was first seriously studied by A. A. Spitsyn, and then by such scientists as I. I. Lyapushkin, L. V. Alekseev, V. A. Bulkin and others. The “transfer of the city” can be seen most clearly in the example of Gnezdov - Smolensk. Gnezdovo is a settlement with an area of about 16 hectares. It includes a fortified settlement at the mouth of the river. Lead (with an area of about 1 hectare) and a settlement. The settlement arose at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries. This place is marked by traces of buildings sunk into the ground, as well as accumulations of molded ceramics. By the middle of the 10th century. Gnezdovo grows along the banks of the Svin and Dnieper, joining the mounds that encircle it in a semicircle. The most intense period of existence of this settlement occurred in the second half of the 10th century. At this time, new fortifications were erected in its central part.
Similar processes occurred in other Russian lands during the formation of the early feudal state. This can be evidenced by both the high degree of separation of agriculture and crafts, and noticeable social differentiation, as well as the ever-increasing role of the squad and international relations. But at the beginning of the 11th century, the progressive development in Gnezdovo was replaced by a sharp decline. The cessation of active trade and craft activities leads to the fact that the settlement acquires an ordinary rural character. At the same time, Smolensk, which is 13 km away. from the settlement begins to develop intensively. By the 12th century it was transformed into a major center of crafts and trade, into the capital of the principality. The city is developing external relations and city functions. Thus, one can see how the tribal center, where the local nobility dominated, is being replaced by a new center focused on external relations, collecting tribute, serving the squad, etc. Gnezdovo is not the only example of such a “city transfer”. Such new princely centers, instead of old tribal ones, arose mainly on international trade routes, which attracted warriors, artisans and traders. Similar examples are the Sarskoye settlement near Rostov, Shestovitskoye near Chernigov, Timirevskoye near Yaroslavl.
Thus, we can say that the “transfer of the city” takes place in those cases when the new emerging class of feudal lords is not able to completely break the tribal nobility. New feudal centers emerged, initially closely connected with the old centers. However, gradually their independence increases, and the old centers disappear or lose their significance.
But not all scientists agree with this interpretation of the phenomenon of “city transfer”. Some associate it with the Scandinavians and assign them a leading role in the functioning of centers such as Gnezdov or Shestovitsy. In Gnezdovo, there is a group of large mounds in the center of the necropolis, which are an aristocratic cemetery. Here, according to the Scandinavian rite, military leaders are buried. This is confirmed by the grave goods accompanying the burial: amulets, jewelry, and weapons. Similar Scandinavian elements were found in other burials at “proto-cities”. It has been archaeologically confirmed that by the 11th century the Varangians who settled in Rus' were assimilated by the Slavs. It was at this time that the military camps, in which warriors and trade and fiscal centers were located, were transformed into qualitatively new formations, cities of a new type. This was facilitated by the adoption of Christianity and the transition to a more orderly domestic policy.
The phenomenon of “city transfer” is the most archaeologically confirmed, but no less controversial concept, as disputes arise around the interpretation of available archaeological data. Its supporters claim the emergence of a city near a previously existing but decayed fortified settlement.
The concept of dynamic urban formationHistorian V.P. Darkevich criticizes all of the above concepts of the development of ancient Russian cities and denies the existence of the phenomenon of city transfer. In return, he proposes his own theory, which connects the process of urbanization and the formation of the Old Russian state. He believes that in connection with the emergence of ancient Russian statehood, the organization of society becomes noticeably more complicated and the emergence of coordinating centers becomes necessary. These functions were performed by the first cities. “The main centers were Novgorod and Kyiv, located, as in an ellipse, in two “foci” of the region, drawn into the “trade movement”; “The Path from the Varangians to the Greeks” is the axis of not only the political map, but also the political life of Kievan Rus. unity is strong as long as both ends of the path are in the same hands.”
V.P. Darkevich believes that the formation of the state in Rus' and the emergence of cities was not a long evolutionary process, but was a dynamic phenomenon. Citing archaeological data, he argues that cities are in no way connected with numerous pre-urban formations. Cities as a historical and cultural phenomenon with new properties arise along with the emergence of the state, are its integral part and symbolize the transition to another, qualitatively new stage in the development of society. Only towards the end of the 10th century were conditions created for the emergence of a new type of settlement that was capable of performing new functions - military, cultural and administrative. It was not economic factors, but the search for new forms of cooperation and solidarity that forced people to unite and create cities. The 10th century became a transitional period.
According to Darkevich, the princes played an important role in the construction of cities; they supervised the designers and “city builders.” Cities served not only as an important control center, but also as a refuge in case of military danger. That is why the construction of powerful fortifications was considered a great undertaking. This reason was one of the first that motivated the builders. Cities were built collectively.
V.P. Darkevich singles out the emergence of ancient Russian cities as a new stage in the development of society of that time and considers this process not evolutionary, but dynamic, flash-like. Thus, he rejects all previously proposed concepts. His theory today has few supporters, but is based on a sufficient amount of evidence and, just like other concepts, has its drawbacks, and we could not lose sight of it in our study of the problem of the origin of ancient Russian cities.
Thus, during the chapter we reviewed the research of leading scientists in the field of the origin of ancient Russian cities and identified five main concepts:
A socio-economic concept that highlights trade and the separation of crafts from agriculture as the main driving forces for the emergence of cities in Ancient Rus'. Like other concepts, it has supporters and opponents and is not without weaknesses. Since it is one of the earliest concepts, it has some discrepancies with modern archaeological data.
The concept of the development of cities from tribal centers, which is based on the continuity of ancient Russian cities with earlier proto-urban formations. This concept is largely borrowed from foreign historians, and, like the previous one, has discrepancies with archaeological data.
The concept of several ways of urban development, which combines several proposed concepts and is rather a compromise theory, but it is also not without weaknesses and has its opponents.
The phenomenon of “city transfer”, which is the most archaeologically confirmed, but no less controversial concept, as disputes arise around the interpretation of available archaeological data. Its supporters claim the emergence of a city near a previously existing but decayed fortified settlement.
The concept of the dynamic formation of cities, which was proposed by the historian Darkevich, who identifies the emergence of ancient Russian cities as a new stage in the development of society of that time and considers this process not evolutionary, but dynamic, flash-like. Thus, he rejects all previously proposed concepts. His theory today has few supporters, but is based on a sufficient amount of evidence and, like other concepts, has its drawbacks, and we could not lose sight of it in our study of the problem of the origin of ancient Russian cities.
These are the most common points of view on this issue in Russian historiography. Of course, there are other opinions, but they, one way or another, fit into the scheme we have proposed.
Consideration of these concepts will help us continue our research in the field of ancient Russian cities and more specifically in the field of kremlins in ancient Russian cities, since it was the Kremlin that was the center and, one might say, the heart of the ancient Russian city. We saw that the issue of the emergence of cities in Ancient Rus' is very ambiguous, which gives us reason to believe that their further development also took different paths. We will try to identify these common features and differences in the course of our work.
