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 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 Kiev 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. A more ancient detynets also stood 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), which ran 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.

The question of when the Slavs appeared on the territory where the Old Russian state later formed has not yet been finally resolved. Some researchers believe that the Slavs are the original population of this territory, others believe that non-Slavic tribes lived here, and the Slavs moved here much later, only in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. At the moment, there are many scientific works devoted to the issue of the emergence of the Ancient Russian state, but the question of the emergence of cities and the role they played in the economic, political and spiritual life of Ancient Rus' remains very important. The main goal of this work was to find the role of the city in the Old Russian state. The tasks of determining the functions of cities in economics, politics and culture, as well as theories of the origin of urban settlements on the territory of Ancient Rus', were also outlined.

In any case, Slavic settlements of the 6th - 7th centuries. on the territory of modern Ukraine are already well known. They are located in the southern part of the forest-steppe, almost on the border of the steppes. Apparently, the situation here at that time was quite calm and there was no need to fear enemy attacks - Slavic settlements were built unfortified. Later, the situation changed dramatically: hostile nomadic tribes appeared in the steppes, and they began to build here near the city.

Apparently, the emergence of cities was a consequence of the successes of the eastern trade of the Slavs, which began in the 8th century, and there was the emergence of the most ancient trading cities in Rus', but the role of the city was not limited to trade. The story of the beginning of the Russian land does not remember when these cities arose: Kyiv, Pereslavl. Chernigov, Smolensk, Lyubech, Novgorod, Rostov, Polotsk. At the moment from which she begins her story about Rus', most of these cities, if not all of them, apparently were already significant settlements. 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, Pereslavl on Trubezh, Chernigov on the Desna. Rostov in the Upper Volga region, moved to the 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 emergence of these large trading cities was the completion of a complex economic process that began among the Slavs in their new places of residence. We saw that the Eastern Slavs settled along the Dnieper and its tributaries in solitary fortified courtyards. With the development of trade, prefabricated trading posts, places of industrial exchange, where trappers and beekeepers came together to trade, to visit, as they said in the old days, arose among these one-yard houses. Such collection points were called graveyards. Subsequently, with the adoption of Christianity, at these local rural markets, as usual human gatherings, Christian churches were first of all erected: then the graveyard received the meaning of the place where the rural parish church stands. The dead were buried near churches: this is where the significance of the graveyard as a cemetery came from. Rural administrative divisions coincided with the parishes or were associated with them: this gave the churchyard the meaning of a rural volost. But all these are later meanings of the term: originally this was the name for prefabricated trading and “living” places. Small rural markets were drawn to larger ones that arose along especially busy trade routes. From these large markets, which served as intermediaries between native industrialists and foreign markets, our ancient trading cities grew along the Greek-Varangian trade route. These cities served as trading centers and main storage points for the industrial districts that formed around them. These are two important economic consequences that accompanied the settlement of the Slavs along the Dnieper and its tributaries: 1) the development of the external southern and eastern, Black Sea-Caspian trade of the Slavs and the forestry industries caused by it, 2) the emergence of the most ancient cities in Rus' with commercial and industrial districts stretching towards them . Both of these facts can be attributed to the 8th century.

What significance did the city have, besides being a center for trade? Some of its functions are reflected in the name itself, for example, the word city in the ancient Russian language meant a fortified settlement, in contrast to a village or village - an unfortified village. Therefore, any fortified place was called a city, both a city in the socio-economic meaning of the word, and a fortress itself or a feudal castle, a fortified boyar or princely estate. Everything that was surrounded by a fortress wall was considered a city. Moreover, until the 17th century. this word was often used to describe the defensive walls themselves. From the above we can conclude that the cities played the role of defensive fortifications and served as a refuge from enemy raids.

In ancient Russian written sources, especially in chronicles, there are a huge number of references to the siege and defense of fortified points and the construction of fortifications - cities.

The fortifications of early Slavic cities were not very strong; their task was only to delay the enemy, to prevent him from suddenly breaking into the village and, in addition, to provide the defenders with cover from where they could hit the enemies with arrows. Yes, the Slavs in the 8th - 9th centuries, and partly even in the 10th century, did not yet have the opportunity to build powerful fortifications - after all, at that time the early feudal state was just being formed here. Most of the settlements belonged to free, relatively unpopulated territorial communities; They, of course, could not build powerful fortress walls around the settlement on their own or count on anyone’s help in their construction. Therefore, they tried to build fortifications in such a way that the main part of them consisted of natural barriers.

The most suitable for this purpose were islands in the middle of a river or in a difficult swamp. A wooden fence or palisade was built along the edge of the site and that was all. True, such fortifications also had very significant flaws. First of all, in everyday life the connection between such a settlement and the surrounding area was very inconvenient. In addition, the size of the settlement here depended entirely on the natural size of the island; it was impossible to increase its area. And most importantly, it is not always and not everywhere that you can find such an island with a platform protected by natural barriers on all sides. Therefore, island-type fortifications were used, as a rule, only in swampy areas. Typical examples of such a system are some settlements in the Smolensk and Polotsk lands.

Where there were few swamps, but there were moraine hillocks in abundance, fortified settlements were built on outlier hills. This technique was widespread in the northwestern regions of Rus'. However, this type of defense system is also associated with certain geographical conditions; Separate hills with steep slopes on all sides are also not found everywhere. Therefore, the cape type of fortified settlement became the most common. For their construction, a cape was chosen, bounded by ravines or at the confluence of two rivers. The settlement turned out to be well protected by water or steep slopes on the sides, but had no natural protection on the floor side. This is where it was necessary to build artificial earthen obstacles - to tear off a ditch. This increased the labor costs for the construction of fortifications, but also provided enormous advantages: in almost any geographical conditions it was very easy to find a convenient place and select in advance the required size of the territory to be fortified. In addition, the earth obtained by tearing off the ditch was usually poured along the edge of the site, thus creating an artificial earthen rampart, which made it even more difficult for the enemy to gain access to the settlement.

It should be remembered that it was in the cities that the craft developed. It was through the cities that Christianity penetrated into the pagan environment, and after the baptism of Rus', the cities firmly established their role as the center of spiritual culture.

By the beginning of the 9th century. There were about 24 large cities in Rus'. The Varangians (Normans), who walked through this territory along the routes from the Varangians to the Greeks or from the Varangians to the Persians, called Rus' Gardarika - the country of Cities. In the center of the ancient Russian city, fortified naturally and (or) artificially, there was a detinets (krom - Kremlin), which was surrounded by the villages of artisans, and on the outskirts there were settlements (settlements).

This is how the Eastern Slavs built their fortifications until the second half of the 10th century, when the ancient Russian early feudal state - Kievan Rus - finally emerged.

1. Country of cities

Western European travelers saw medieval Rus' as a country of endless forests and plains with villages and hamlets scattered everywhere. And only occasionally did they encounter cities along the way.

The Vikings (Varangians) had a completely different impression: they called the vast space along the important trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” “Gardariki” - “country of cities”. In the sagas recorded by the ancient Icelanders, 12 large cities of Ancient Rus' are mentioned. Among them are Novgorod, Staraya Ladoga, Kyiv, Polotsk, Smolensk, Murom, Rostov. There were much more urban settlements in the East Slavic lands than in Scandinavia.

According to historians, in the 9th-10th centuries. in Rus' there were 25 cities, in the 11th century - 89, by the end of the 12th century. – 224, and on the eve of the Mongol-Tatar invasion – about 300. Among them, the capital centers of lands and principalities especially stood out. The majestic Kyiv, which in its heyday occupied a huge area (more than 350 hectares), made an unforgettable impression on its contemporaries. And yet, small towns predominated, the fortified part of which - the “detinets”, or Kremlin - was usually only 2-2.5 hectares.

Finally, there were even smaller settlements - numerous serfdoms scattered throughout the country. They were sometimes called simply “gorodtsy” or “gorodishchi”. Surrounded by ramparts and ditches, protected by wooden walls, they often did not even have a permanent population. For the surrounding villages and villages, such towns were a refuge in case of a sudden attack by nomads. In peacetime, only a small number of guards lived here.

“The cities shining with majesty” were thrown into dust as a result of Batu’s invasion. Their number has decreased sharply. Ryazan, which had been destroyed to the ground, was never able to become the capital of the principality again. The once noisy and huge and crowded Kyiv, according to eyewitnesses’ descriptions, was reduced to almost nothing. The Pope's ambassador, Plano Carpini, wrote in 1245: “There are barely 200 houses there, and the Tatars keep those people in the most severe slavery.”

The rise of urban life began again only in the 14th century. Thus, by the end of this century, in Zalesskaya Rus alone there were 55 cities, in Novgorod - 35, in the Tver Principality - 8, etc.

In those days, the traveler was led to the city by a well-worn road, running through dense forests, dangerous swamps, and along river banks. Gradually, the forests parted, villages, hamlets and settlements appeared more and more often, and in the distance grew the dark silhouette of the fortress and the settlement spread around it. Among the one-story buildings, the city cathedral and the impressive, several-story mansions of the “best people” towered above the wooden Kremlin wall.

2. What is a city?

Cities emerge in the era of statehood. The word “city” itself means “fortified, fenced place.” Initially, the city was opposed to the village and the countryside, although its very development was largely determined by the needs of the rural area for handicrafts and imported goods. It was a fortified settlement of artisans and traders, a center of exchange, and the economic center of a large territory.

Cities arose for a variety of reasons. Not so long ago, historians believed that only that settlement that is a trade and craft center should be considered a city. In Rus' there were many cities that grew out of trade and craft villages: Staraya Ladoga, for example, or Gnezdovo, which later grew into Smolensk. But now scientists have paid attention to other ways of the emergence of ancient Russian cities.

Darkevich, V.P. Origin and development of cities of ancient Rus' (X–XIII centuries) [Electronic resource] / V.P. Darkevich // Electronic scientific library on the history of ancient Russian architecture RusArch. 2006. Access mode: www.rusarch.ru/darkevich1.htm

History of Russia: textbook. / A. S. Orlov, V. A. Georgiev, I90 N. G. Georgieva, T. A. Sivokhina. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2008.- 528 p.

Encyclopedia for children: Vol. 5, part 1 (History of Russia and its closest neighbors). / Comp. S. T. Ismailova. M.: Avanta+, 1995.

Small settlements on cleared lands

Rybakov B. A. The first centuries of Russian history

Rybakov B. A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII - XIII centuries.

Princely administrators

The question of when the Slavs appeared on the territory where the Old Russian state later formed has not yet been finally resolved. Some researchers believe that the Slavs are the original population of this territory, others believe that non-Slavic tribes lived here, and the Slavs moved here much later, only in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. At the moment, there are many scientific works devoted to the issue of the emergence of the Ancient Russian state, but the question of the emergence of cities and the role they played in the economic, political and spiritual life of Ancient Rus' remains very important. The main goal of this work was to find the role of the city in the Old Russian state. The tasks of determining the functions of cities in economics, politics and culture, as well as theories of the origin of urban settlements on the territory of Ancient Rus', were also outlined.

In any case, Slavic settlements of the 6th - 7th centuries. on the territory of modern Ukraine are already well known. They are located in the southern part of the forest-steppe, almost on the border of the steppes. Apparently, the situation here at that time was quite calm and there was no need to fear enemy attacks - Slavic settlements were built unfortified. Later, the situation changed dramatically: hostile nomadic tribes appeared in the steppes, and they began to build here near the city.

Apparently, the emergence of cities was a consequence of the successes of the eastern trade of the Slavs, which began in the 8th century, and there was the emergence of the most ancient trading cities in Rus', but the role of the city was not limited to trade. The story of the beginning of the Russian land does not remember when these cities arose: Kyiv, Pereslavl. Chernigov, Smolensk, Lyubech, Novgorod, Rostov, Polotsk. At the moment from which she begins her story about Rus', most of these cities, if not all of them, apparently were already significant settlements. 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, Pereslavl on Trubezh, Chernigov on the Desna. Rostov in the Upper Volga region, moved to the 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 emergence of these large trading cities was the completion of a complex economic process that began among the Slavs in their new places of residence. We saw that the Eastern Slavs settled along the Dnieper and its tributaries in solitary fortified courtyards. With the development of trade, prefabricated trading posts, places of industrial exchange, where trappers and beekeepers came together to trade, to visit, as they said in the old days, arose among these one-yard houses. Such collection points were called graveyards. Subsequently, with the adoption of Christianity, at these local rural markets, as usual human gatherings, Christian churches were first of all erected: then the graveyard received the meaning of the place where the rural parish church stands. The dead were buried near churches: this is where the significance of the graveyard as a cemetery came from. Rural administrative divisions coincided with the parishes or were associated with them: this gave the churchyard the meaning of a rural volost. But all these are later meanings of the term: originally this was the name for prefabricated trading and “living” places. Small rural markets were drawn to larger ones that arose along especially busy trade routes. From these large markets, which served as intermediaries between native industrialists and foreign markets, our ancient trading cities grew along the Greek-Varangian trade route. These cities served as trading centers and main storage points for the industrial districts that formed around them. These are two important economic consequences that accompanied the settlement of the Slavs along the Dnieper and its tributaries: 1) the development of the external southern and eastern, Black Sea-Caspian trade of the Slavs and the forestry industries caused by it, 2) the emergence of the most ancient cities in Rus' with commercial and industrial districts stretching towards them . Both of these facts can be attributed to the 8th century.

What significance did the city have, besides being a center for trade? Some of its functions are reflected in the name itself, for example, the word city in the ancient Russian language meant a fortified settlement, in contrast to a village or village - an unfortified village. Therefore, any fortified place was called a city, both a city in the socio-economic meaning of the word, and a fortress itself or a feudal castle, a fortified boyar or princely estate. Everything that was surrounded by a fortress wall was considered a city. Moreover, until the 17th century. this word was often used to describe the defensive walls themselves. From the above we can conclude that the cities played the role of defensive fortifications and served as a refuge from enemy raids.

In ancient Russian written sources, especially in chronicles, there are a huge number of references to the siege and defense of fortified points and the construction of fortifications - cities.

The fortifications of early Slavic cities were not very strong; their task was only to delay the enemy, to prevent him from suddenly breaking into the village and, in addition, to provide the defenders with cover from where they could hit the enemies with arrows. Yes, the Slavs in the 8th - 9th centuries, and partly even in the 10th century, did not yet have the opportunity to build powerful fortifications - after all, at that time the early feudal state was just being formed here. Most of the settlements belonged to free, relatively unpopulated territorial communities; They, of course, could not build powerful fortress walls around the settlement on their own or count on anyone’s help in their construction. Therefore, they tried to build fortifications in such a way that the main part of them consisted of natural barriers.

The most suitable for this purpose were islands in the middle of a river or in a difficult swamp. A wooden fence or palisade was built along the edge of the site and that was all. True, such fortifications also had very significant flaws. First of all, in everyday life the connection between such a settlement and the surrounding area was very inconvenient. In addition, the size of the settlement here depended entirely on the natural size of the island; it was impossible to increase its area. And most importantly, it is not always and not everywhere that you can find such an island with a platform protected by natural barriers on all sides. Therefore, island-type fortifications were used, as a rule, only in swampy areas. Typical examples of such a system are some settlements in the Smolensk and Polotsk lands.

Where there were few swamps, but there were moraine hillocks in abundance, fortified settlements were built on outlier hills. This technique was widespread in the northwestern regions of Rus'. However, this type of defense system is also associated with certain geographical conditions; Separate hills with steep slopes on all sides are also not found everywhere. Therefore, the cape type of fortified settlement became the most common. For their construction, a cape was chosen, bounded by ravines or at the confluence of two rivers. The settlement turned out to be well protected by water or steep slopes on the sides, but had no natural protection on the floor side. This is where it was necessary to build artificial earthen obstacles - to tear off a ditch. This increased the labor costs for the construction of fortifications, but also provided enormous advantages: in almost any geographical conditions it was very easy to find a convenient place and select in advance the required size of the territory to be fortified. In addition, the earth obtained by tearing off the ditch was usually poured along the edge of the site, thus creating an artificial earthen rampart, which made it even more difficult for the enemy to gain access to the settlement.

It should be remembered that it was in the cities that the craft developed. It was through the cities that Christianity penetrated into the pagan environment, and after the baptism of Rus', the cities firmly established their role as the center of spiritual culture.

By the beginning of the 9th century. There were about 24 large cities in Rus'. The Varangians (Normans), who walked through this territory along the routes from the Varangians to the Greeks or from the Varangians to the Persians, called Rus' Gardarika - the country of Cities. In the center of the ancient Russian city, fortified naturally and (or) artificially, there was a detinets (krom - Kremlin), which was surrounded by the villages of artisans, and on the outskirts there were settlements (settlements).

This is how the Eastern Slavs built their fortifications until the second half of the 10th century, when the ancient Russian early feudal state - Kievan Rus - finally emerged.

1. Country of cities

Western European travelers saw medieval Rus' as a country of endless forests and plains with villages and hamlets scattered everywhere. And only occasionally did they encounter cities along the way.

The Vikings (Varangians) had a completely different impression: they called the vast space along the important trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” “Gardariki” - “country of cities”. In the sagas recorded by the ancient Icelanders, 12 large cities of Ancient Rus' are mentioned. Among them are Novgorod, Staraya Ladoga, Kyiv, Polotsk, Smolensk, Murom, Rostov. There were much more urban settlements in the East Slavic lands than in Scandinavia.

According to historians, in the 9th-10th centuries. in Rus' there were 25 cities, in the 11th century - 89, by the end of the 12th century. – 224, and on the eve of the Mongol-Tatar invasion – about 300. Among them, the capital centers of lands and principalities especially stood out. The majestic Kyiv, which in its heyday occupied a huge area (more than 350 hectares), made an unforgettable impression on its contemporaries. And yet, small towns predominated, the fortified part of which - the “detinets”, or Kremlin - was usually only 2-2.5 hectares.

Finally, there were even smaller settlements - numerous serfdoms scattered throughout the country. They were sometimes called simply “gorodtsy” or “gorodishchi”. Surrounded by ramparts and ditches, protected by wooden walls, they often did not even have a permanent population. For the surrounding villages and villages, such towns were a refuge in case of a sudden attack by nomads. In peacetime, only a small number of guards lived here.

“The cities shining with majesty” were thrown into dust as a result of Batu’s invasion. Their number has decreased sharply. Ryazan, which had been destroyed to the ground, was never able to become the capital of the principality again. The once noisy and huge and crowded Kyiv, according to eyewitnesses’ descriptions, was reduced to almost nothing. The Pope's ambassador, Plano Carpini, wrote in 1245: “There are barely 200 houses there, and the Tatars keep those people in the most severe slavery.”

The rise of urban life began again only in the 14th century. Thus, by the end of this century, in Zalesskaya Rus alone there were 55 cities, in Novgorod - 35, in the Tver Principality - 8, etc.

In those days, the traveler was led to the city by a well-worn road, running through dense forests, dangerous swamps, and along river banks. Gradually, the forests parted, villages, hamlets and settlements appeared more and more often, and in the distance grew the dark silhouette of the fortress and the settlement spread around it. Among the one-story buildings, the city cathedral and the impressive, several-story mansions of the “best people” towered above the wooden Kremlin wall.

2. What is a city?

Cities emerge in the era of statehood. The word “city” itself means “fortified, fenced place.” Initially, the city was opposed to the village and the countryside, although its very development was largely determined by the needs of the rural area for handicrafts and imported goods. It was a fortified settlement of artisans and traders, a center of exchange, and the economic center of a large territory.

Cities arose for a variety of reasons. Not so long ago, historians believed that only that settlement that is a trade and craft center should be considered a city. In Rus' there were many cities that grew out of trade and craft villages: Staraya Ladoga, for example, or Gnezdovo, which later grew into Smolensk. But now scientists have paid attention to other ways of the emergence of ancient Russian cities.

1.

2.

2.1. Tribal Center Theory

The concept of a tribe dates back to the era of military democracy among the ancient Slavs at the stage of decomposition of the primitive communal system. This social structure, including in Eastern Europe, is characterized by a three-tier system of power: a leader-prince endowed with military, judicial and religious (priestly) functions, a council of tribal nobility (“city elders”) and a people’s assembly. In colloquial speech in Rus', tribe meant relatives - these are relatives, loved ones, one’s own; they are protected by the power of the clan, clan revenge. In the tribal cities that united the territory occupied by one or another tribe, where local authorities were concentrated, they see the embryos of the future largest ancient Russian cities, supposedly formed on a tribal basis. Even such a researcher as I. Ya. Froyanov paid tribute to the theory of tribal centers. “The capitals of many of the largest principalities,” writes B. A. Rybakov, “were at one time centers of tribal unions: Kiev among the Polyans, Smolensk among the Krivichs, Polotsk among the Polotsks, Novgorod the Great among the Slovenians, Novgorod Seversky among the Severians.” Meanwhile, in none of the centers listed by Rybakov, the actual urban layers of the 9th century have been discovered, not to mention earlier ones, and in Smolensk and Novgorod Seversky, deposits of even the 10th century have not yet been discovered, despite many years of archaeological research.

The chronicle mentions the "Drevlyanian cities". But we must not forget that in ancient Rus', “grads” (from “gradity”, i.e. to build, erect) meant any fortified points. This does not correspond to the concept of a medieval city in modern science. As the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL) testifies, peripheral tribes or tribal unions that had their own cities, like the Drevlyan Iskorosten, did not at all contribute to true urbanization. On the contrary, their resistance to the centralizing aspirations of the Kyiv princes (the Drevlyans - Igor and Olga, the Vyatichi - Svyatoslav and Vladimir) slowed it down. The dominant role in the tribal kingdoms belonged to the completely armed people, organized in a military manner. This mass, which actively influenced the decisions of their prince and the “best men,” was not inclined to submit to any external force.

Rybakov’s statement that already in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e. Kyiv was the center of the Polyansky union of tribes led by Kiy - “the founder of the dynasty of Kyiv princes”, which “created a city” during the time of Justinian I without any basis. Traces of Korczak settlements discovered by archaeologists on Castle Hill (Kiselevka) and Starokievskaya Hill, dwellings discovered there in the 7th-8th centuries, finds on the Kyiv heights of individual Byzantine coins of the 5th-6th centuries. cannot serve as arguments in favor of the existence of an early urban center with two Kiya residences. Yes, communal settlements arose on the steep slopes above the Dnieper, some, perhaps, fortified. But they did not stand out in any way from the surrounding agrarian environment. The pompous celebration of the 1500th anniversary of the capital of Ukraine had more political than scientific background. Based on the same premises, Chernigov was calculated to be 1300 years old.

The hypothesis about the emergence of Novgorod as a result of the merger of three different ethnic tribal villages, which played the role of tribal centers (hence the division into ends), is speculative. It contradicts archaeological data, since cultural layers earlier than the 10th century. not found on the territory. The founding of Ryazan (originally the tribal center of the Vyatichi) occurred around the middle of the 11th century. As large-scale excavations have shown, it arose as a result of colonization from different regions of Rus'. In Froyanov, the border between the medieval city and the villages seems to be erased, the city appears as a product of the rural archaic element. According to him, “the most ancient cities that arose around the central temples, cemeteries and places of veche meetings were no different from rural-type settlements... At first, these cities probably had an agrarian character.” But then these are not even proto-cities, but something completely different.

Since the tribal theory of urbanization seems unproven, because it ignores archaeological sources, Froyanov’s interpretation of the problem of the veche as the brainchild of tribal institutions that continued to exist in developed cities of the 11th-13th centuries is also questionable.

2.2. "Castle Theory"

It was formulated most frankly by S.V. Yushkov and received wide support in Russian historiography. “We think that the city of the 11th-13th centuries is nothing more than a feudal castle - a burg of the Western European Middle Ages... It is, first of all, a center of feudal rule over the surrounding rural area. Burgs and cities were built both for the purpose of protection from external enemies and no less, and in order to protect the feudal lords from peasant uprisings"; Speaking about the transformation of castles into “real feudal cities,” Yushkov formulates a position for historiography: “As points around which artisans and traders were concentrated, these feudal cities could arise around castle cities, around large princely and boyar villages.” Here ancient Russian cities are mistakenly identified with Western European ones. Since the 20s of the 20th century, historians have proceeded from the false premise that already in pre-Mongol times the development of feudalism in Rus' was not inferior to its classical forms, for example, in Northern France of the 11th-12th centuries.

Meanwhile, as N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky has already convincingly shown, the feudal system, which is characterized by estates, all kinds of immunities and scrupulous regulation of vassal service, began to take shape in appanage Rus' at the turn of the 13th - 14th centuries, and was fully developed in the 16th century, under the conditions of a centralized Russian state. The boyars, servants of the Grand Duke, became large landowners, similar to Western feudal lords. In pre-Mongol Rus', a system based on feuds - hereditary land holdings granted by a lord to a vassal under the condition of military service, participation in administrative management and court - had not yet developed. In Rus', seigneurial-vassal relations until the 14th century. existed in a more patriarchal form of personal relations: the boyars and warriors served the prince not so much for land donations, but on the condition of receiving a share in the captured booty, for weapons, horses and feasts that the prince set for his comrades.

According to written sources, about the Smerd uprisings in the X - XIII centuries. nothing is known. As for the intra-city unrest, for example, with the defense of the rights of the opposing princes to Kiev (1068 and 1113), then here too there are no signs of struggle between classes. The study of the chronicles convinces that each of these events requires an individual approach; that it was not only commoners who took part in the uprisings; that on the side of each of the warring rulers there were parties of their supporters from artisans, small traders and peasants of nearby villages. It is this socially heterogeneous mass that the chronicler understands by “Kievans,” participants in the meeting, “people.”

When analyzing such riots, historians ignored socio-psychological factors: they overlooked the increased suggestibility of the crowd, which, under the guise of a fight for justice, was easily charged with emotions of anger, and an exalted conviction that they were right led to monstrous consequences. “The Kiyans plundered the courtyard of Putyatin, a thousand, and went against the Jews, I plundered” (PVL, 1113). Popular movements of the 11th century. in Novgorod (1015-1017, 70s) are assessed only by Froyanov as arising on religious and everyday grounds. Events 1136, 1209, 1227-1230 were, in his opinion, intrasocial conflicts.

In the absence of large boyar land ownership, based on a developed system of exploitation of the dependent peasantry, as well as class struggle and communal movement for urban liberties against feudal lords, castles on the territory of Rus', similar to Western European strongholds, could not become widespread. It is no coincidence that archeology does not know them. The border princely fortresses or their early residences such as Vyshgorod, and not castles, could become the basis of future cities. In the IX-X centuries. Regular travels of the rulers for the purpose of feeding the squad and collecting tribute for “peace for” (i.e., how to tax the population for the protection of their princely husbands) multiplied the number of princely rates. Like the Frankish kings of the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties, the Russian princes of the druzhina period had no particular commitment to settling down. If there are preferred points of stay, the practice of wandering from place to place takes root.

“Thousands” of monuments, moreover, “all over Rus'” are rather fortified centers of consanguineous or neighboring communities: but what kind of fortifications we are talking about is not clear from the context, since there are no references. Rybakov even classifies the courtyards of the Novgorod boyars as city castles. As for the princely estates from the 11th century, as they are depicted in "Russian Truth", then it is hardly possible to put an equal sign between them and feudal castles. The "prince's courtyard" (not to mention the boyar's courtyards, the fences of which, as archaeologically proven, did not differ from the palisades or fences of ordinary estates) was not necessarily a citadel with a complex fortification system.

Perhaps the only exception is the white stone ensemble in Bogolyubovo, but this is not so much a castle as a palace, a representative princely residence, moreover, built with the participation of Romanesque architects from Germany. Lyubech is given as an example of a feudal castle. But the analysis of the materials casts doubt on his proposed interpretation of the monument. The thing is. that the earliest horizon includes burials dating from the grave goods to the middle of the 12th century. All material from the buildings built above dates back to the second half of the 12th century. and further, until the Mongol invasion. Consequently, the “castle” could not have been built by Vladimir Monomakh. The main territory of Lyubech surrounded by ramparts with layers of the X-XI centuries. remained almost unstudied and only in recent years has it begun to be studied by archaeologists. It can hardly be called a “posad”, since it is a more ancient part of the city, and the fortified remnant of the Dnieper coastal hill, where perhaps the estate of some high-ranking official was located, is a later complex.

The castle theory does not take into account the dynamics of the planning development of urban centers during the 10th - 13th centuries. The generally accepted scheme - a princely-druzhina detinets (Kremlin, Krom) and a trade and craft settlement adjacent to it - too often does not correspond to archaeological indicators. The first belt of fortifications surrounded not necessarily the aristocratic village, but rather the ancient part of the settlement, its core. One of the reasons for the misconception is the poor archaeological knowledge of the “town” parts of cities and excavations in small areas.

As a result of large-scale research in Old Ryazan, it became obvious that the first and second lines of its defensive structures encircle not the Kremlin - the princely residence, as A. L. Mongait believed, but the original city with its adjoining city from the mid-11th century. burial mound. On its square, estates of ordinary townspeople were discovered without any traces of the presence of representatives of the ruling elite. The inventory of semi-pagan burials indicates the absence of property stratification until the middle of the 12th century. At the new stage of the city’s development, when it becomes the capital of the Murom-Ryazan principality, the size of its walled territory increases 8 times, reaching 60 hectares. It was here that the administrative center appeared with three brick churches, boyar “terem buildings” and the courtyards of wealthy artisans and jewelers who worked on orders from the nobility. In the coastal part of the capital city on the Oka, on the site of a necropolis demolished (during the expansion of the development), almost all the treasures of precious jewelry made of gold and silver were found. If we follow formal topographical criteria, based on a simplified sociological scheme, then this central part of Ryazan would have to be called a “posad”.

2.3. The theory of "proto-city-vicks"

Recently, close attention has been paid to this type of monument, intensive study has been carried out, and extensive literature has been devoted to it. We are talking about topographically and functionally similar complexes, usually including settlements, small settlements and extensive burial mounds with a large number of squad burials (9th - early 11th centuries). These include Ladoga, the Rurik settlement near Novgorod, Gnezdovo near Smolensk, Sarskoe settlement near Rostov, Timerevo and Mikhailovo in the Yaroslavl Volga region, Shestovitsy near Chernigov and other objects. The names of these monuments do not reflect their main essence: “open trade and craft settlements”, “embryo cities”, “proto-urban centers”, “proto-cities”.

In fact, these rather complex organisms were closely connected with the interests of international trade and distant predatory campaigns. They were primarily trading places, trading posts (emporiums), which in a number of ways are similar to centers known under the German name “wic” meaning port, harbor, bay. These features include: location on the border; location on the most important trade routes; presence of fortifications; significant area of ​​settlements; mobility of the population and its multi-ethnicity; finds of treasures of Kufic dirham coins and imported luxury items - precious jewelry, silk fabrics, glazed utensils. The viki include Hedeby in Denmark, Skiringssal in Southern Norway, Birka on Lake Mälaren in Sweden, Kolobrzeg and Wolin on the southern Baltic coast, etc.

The “proto-cities” of Eastern Europe were closely connected with two transcontinental routes: the Great Volga Route, leading to the countries of the Muslim East, and the Volkhov-Dnieper Highway - “the route from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which connected Scandinavia and the Slavic lands with Byzantium and the Eastern Mediterranean. The “Road from the Varangians to the Greeks” played not only an important role in trade relations, but also had extremely important military-political and cultural significance. Along the Volga and Don with its tributaries in exchange for furs and other forestry products in the 9th - 10th centuries. coin silver arrived in huge quantities in the form of dirhams - the main payment symbols in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region.

Control over these main communications was carried out in such centers as Ladoga and Gnezdovo, Shestovitsy and Kyiv with their military necropolises. “Colonies” of merchant-warriors (in squad mounds, in addition to weapons, one finds accessories for trade operations - folding scales with weights for weighing silver), places where long campaigns were organized, probably also served as graveyards that regulated polyud and feeding the squad. It is not without reason that the network of “proto-urban” settlements flourished in the mid-10th century - the time of Olga’s reforms. The slave trade could also flourish at the same points. Their coexistence with ancient cities is noted: a sign of the transitional time, the Rurik settlement (late 9th-10th centuries), synchronous with the most ancient strata of Novgorod; the camp in Shestovitsy is simultaneous with early Chernigov and Kyiv.

The entire life of warriors alien to the settled way of life, who temporarily settled in settlements that had nothing in common with urban formations, was aimed at preparing distant and dangerous expeditions, and the artisans who lived there served the needs of this privileged layer. In Gnezdovo, burials of craftsmen were discovered with hammers, files, cutters, chisels - blacksmithing and woodworking tools associated with the construction of new ships and the repair of ships that had already sailed.

Until recently, the leading role of the Scandinavians in the formation and functioning of centers like Gnezdov or Shestovitsy was hushed up. Meanwhile, the expansion of the Vikings (the last, late stage of the Great Migration), which Christian Europe recalled with horror back in the 13th century, played an important role in the history of Kievan Rus. In the largest and richest mounds of the “proto-urban” burial grounds, the burials of these “passionaries” were discovered - people with increased activity, combat capability and endurance, for whom ships served as summer homes. In Gnezdovo - the center of Slavic-Varangian contacts on the central section of the “path from the Varangians to the Greeks”, where the water and portage crossings of the Volkhov - Dnieper - Dvina - Ugra - Oka systems intersected, a group of large mounds stands out, constituting an aristocratic cemetery in the central part of the necropolis. Military leaders were buried according to the Scandinavian rite, to which the accompanying inventory corresponds: weapons, jewelry, amulets, etc. Scandinavian elements, often in a transformed form, along with Slavic, Finnish and Baltic (the military contingents included representatives of different ethnic groups), are very are also strong in other mound complexes of the 10th century. at "proto-cities".

The multi-ethnic composition of the squads of barbarian leaders who carried out predatory campaigns against Constantinople and the Caspian regions with the predominant role of the Vikings, which was also determined by the origin of the ruling dynasty, allows us to believe that “Rus” is not an ethnonym, but a polytonym. Like the Franks already from the 6th century, the early nobility of the era of the formation of the Old Russian state was formed as an ethnically mixed group. As a result of close collaboration with the Slavs, ethnic differences, although they continued to be recognized, ceased to be politically significant. By the beginning of the 11th century. The Varangians who settled in Rus' are assimilated by the Slavs, adopting their way of life and elements of material culture, which is confirmed archaeologically.

It was from this time that military camps - places of deployment of soldiers and at the same time trade and fiscal centers - gave way to qualitatively new formations. Having played their role in the formation of the Rurikovich state, in strengthening the princely-boyar stratum, they cease to exist, by no means forming a “distinct early urban network.” Market places, strongholds of half-merchants, half-pirates, were too unstable, not rooted in the surrounding world, as was typical for medieval townspeople, and did not reliably protect their temporary inhabitants.

With the onset of the “urban situation”, in the new historical conditions of the transition from active external expansion to an orderly internal policy, especially after the adoption of Christianity, what occurs is not the transfer of the settlement to another place, i.e. transurbanization, but the creation of a developed city near it in a naturally protected space new type. Novgorod, Smolensk, Yaroslavl or Rostov the Great did not become direct successors to the Rurik settlement, Gnezdov, Timerevo and Sarsky settlement, which fell into decay. Other factors contributed to this decline of centers associated with the interests of international trade: the “silver crisis” in the East from the 11th century; weakening of the Khazar Khaganate, which was an important intermediary in trade with the East; a change in the historical situation in Scandinavia itself: centralized states are formed in Denmark, Sweden and Norway and the end of the Viking Age comes.

3. The role of the city in the history of Ancient Rus'

What role did cities play in the history of Ancient Rus'? First of all, they were the place of concentration of power - it was here that the prince, his governor or mayor were located. The city was subject to a vast rural district, from which the prince’s people collected tribute.

Boyars and other noble people lived in the cities and had their estates here. In the Novgorod land, for example, all the boyar families - “300 golden belts” - lived exclusively in the capital.

The military significance of the cities was also great. Their residents formed their own militias - city regiments. The well-fortified city fortresses also housed a permanent military garrison, which consisted of professional warriors.

In the center of the city stood the cathedral - the main church of the entire area. In the capitals of large lands, as a rule, bishops were appointed, in other cities - archpriests, to whom parish priests were subordinate. Monasteries also initially arose primarily in or near cities. It was through the cities that Christianity penetrated into the pagan environment. Here, in the middle of the century, heresies also arose.

1.

2.

3.

3.1. City and political affairs

In the XI-XIII centuries. Russian cities developed in the same direction as Western European ones. The original way of life gradually emerged in them, which in Europe was called the “urban system.” Citizens in Rus' actively fought for urban liberties and played an important role in political affairs. “People” (citizens in the broad sense) placed princes they liked on the throne, sought a change of “tiuns”, and demanded from the princes strict adherence to the laws. At the veche (meeting of townspeople), stormy scenes often played out in the presence of the prince; sometimes he was forced to “kiss the cross” (i.e. take an oath) or even enter into a “row” - an agreement with the city. The voice of the people sounded powerfully in this time of military danger. In 1068, after the defeat of the Russian princes in the battle with the Cumans on the Alta River, the people of Kiev demanded that weapons from the city arsenals be distributed to them and a number of political demands be fulfilled. In Moscow, during the invasion of Tokhtamysh in 1382, the City Council prevented panic and organized the defense of the “white stone”. Since pre-Mongol times, the tradition of electing special officials of the city - thousand officials - has been preserved. They commanded the city militia and were in charge of the trial of the “citizens.” The latter often influenced the election of a bishop.

The traditions of love of freedom, democracy and collectivism, thus, were highly developed in Rus' in the 11th-12th centuries. That is why some historians call the ancient Russian political system republican and talk about the existence of city-states in Rus', comparing them with the city-states of Ancient Greece. However, this view is considered controversial.

Subsequently, the traditions of “populism” were not developed. After the Horde yoke reigned in Rus', extremely unfavorable conditions were created for the formation of a special urban system. This is due to a number of reasons. The cities suffered the most from the invasion; they were constantly subjected to raids and raids by the khan’s fierce envoys. Under these conditions, the ancient veche falls silent. But the princely power is rapidly strengthening, supported by the khan’s labels (letters) from Sarai. The power of the thousand was gradually concentrated in the hands of large boyar families and was passed on by inheritance. In Tver, the Shetnevs were thousanders; in Moscow, the noblest boyars, the Khvostov-Bosovolkovs and the Vorontsovs-Velyaminovs, fought for this position (the latter eventually emerged victorious). The matter ended with the fact that, under pressure from the Grand Duke, the post of thousand in Moscow was completely abolished. In the post-Mongol period, ancient democratic customs faded away in cities, and in the XIV-XV centuries. they become predominantly princely centers. The “organizer” and “creator” of the city, its main figure during this period, is the prince, whose will, military and economic power determine the fate of this or that center.

3.2. Urban craft

The economic and cultural significance of the city was largely determined by the fact that skilled craftsmen worked here - architects, stonemasons, carvers, copper, silver and gold craftsmen, icon painters.

The products of domestic urban artisans were famous far beyond the borders of Rus'. Intricate padlocks with keys of complex designs were sold and were very popular in neighboring countries under the name “Russian” locks. The German author Theophilus testified to the high art of the masters of niello (fine jewelry work on silver) and enamel. There are also rave reviews about the masterpieces of Russian goldsmiths. So, in the 11th century. Master jewelers made gilded tombs for the first Russian saints - the brothers Boris and Gleb.

The chronicle notes that “many who came from Greece and other lands” testified: “Nowhere is there such beauty!” In the 12th century artisans who previously worked to order switched to producing products for mass sales.

The Mongol invasion caused particularly heavy damage to urban crafts. The physical extermination and captivity of thousands of artisans undermined the very core of the city's economy. In the middle of the century, craft was based on manual techniques, and therefore on skills acquired over many years of work. The master-apprentice-student connection has been broken. Special studies have shown that in a number of crafts in the second half of the 13th century. there was a fall or even complete oblivion of complex technology, its coarsening and simplification. After the Mongol conquest, many technical techniques familiar to the masters of Kievan Rus were lost. Among the archaeological finds dating back to this period, many items common to the previous era are no longer found. Glassmaking withered and gradually degenerated. The art of the finest cloisonné enamel was forgotten forever. Multi-colored building ceramics have disappeared.

However, from about the middle of the 14th century. a new rise in craft production began. The appearance of a Russian artisan-blacksmith of that time, a master named Avram, who repaired in the 14th century, has survived to this day. ancient gates of St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod. He also placed his self-portrait on them. The master is bearded, has a circle cut, and in his hands are the main tools of labor - a hammer and tongs. He is dressed in a belted caftan just above the knees and boots.

In the second half of the 14th century. Forged and riveted cannons began to be produced, and the production of sheet iron began. Foundry also developed, primarily the casting of bells and lugs from bronze. In Rus' there were outstanding foundry workers, among them the Tver master Mikula Krechetnikov was especially famous - “like you can’t find one like that among the Germans.” For casting, a wax model of the product was first made, into which an alloy of copper and tin - bronze - was then poured. Casting was difficult and required great skill. It was necessary not to disturb the proportion of metals (and be sure to add silver for the purity of the bell ringing!), not to overcook (“not overexpose,” as the masters said) the metal, not to spoil the molds, and to remove the finished product on time. It was not for nothing that there was a belief that, to be extra precautionary, it was necessary to spread some false rumor that could distract the attention of the curious from the work being done.

3.3. Trade and cities

The emergence of surplus products contributed to active exchange, and later to the emergence and development of trade, which went mainly along numerous rivers and their tributaries. The great waterways were especially actively used - “from the Varangians to the Greeks” and along the Volga to the Caspian Sea - “from the Varangians to the Persians”.

The route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” was actively used by the Scandinavian peoples, whom the Slavs called the Varangians (hence the name of the route itself). The Varangians traded with coastal tribes, including the Slavs. They reached the Greek Black Sea colonies and Byzantium. The Varangians not only traded peacefully, but often also robbed, and sometimes were hired to serve in squads, including the Slavic princes, and to serve in Byzantium.

The main items of foreign trade were furs, wax, honey, and servants (slaves). Silks, silver and gold items, luxury goods, incense, weapons, and spices came from the East and Byzantium.

The success of trade was facilitated by the spread of the nomadic Turkic tribe of the Khazars across the southern Russian steppes. Unlike other Asian peoples, the Khazars soon began to settle on the earth. They occupied the steppes along the banks of the Volga and Dnieper and created their own state, the center of which was the city of Itil on the Lower Volga. The Khazars subjugated the East Slavic tribes of the Polyans, Northerners, and Vyatichi, from whom they took tribute. At the same time, the Slavs used the Don and Volga flowing through the territory of the Khazars for trade. IN. Klyuchevsky, citing Arab sources, wrote that Russian merchants transport goods from remote parts of the country to the Black Sea to Greek cities, where the Byzantine emperor takes a trade duty from them - tithe. Along the Volga, merchants descend to the Khazar capital, enter the Caspian Sea, penetrate its southeastern shores, and even transport their goods on camels to Baghdad. Treasures of Arabic coins found by archaeologists in the Dnieper region indicate that this trade was carried out from the end of the 7th-8th centuries.

The emergence of cities among the Slavs was associated with the development of trade. Most cities arose along the Dnieper-Volkhov waterway. More often, at the confluence of two rivers, a place for the exchange of goods appeared, where trappers and beekeepers converged to trade, as they said then for guests. In their place, future Russian cities emerged. The cities served as trading centers and main storage points where goods were stored.

The Tale of Bygone Years already names the cities of Kyiv, Chernigov, Smolensk, Lyubech, Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Vitebsk, Rostov, Suzdal, Murom, etc. In total, by the 9th century. there were about 25 large cities. Therefore, the Varangian newcomers called the Slavic land Gardarika - the country of cities.

The chronicles brought to us the legend about the emergence of Kyiv. Kiy, his brothers Shchek and Khoriv and their sister Lybid founded their settlements (courtyards) on three hills on the Dnieper. Then they united into one city, which they named Kiev in honor of Kiy.

The first principalities appeared. From Arabic sources of the 8th century. we learn that at that time the Eastern Slavs had the following principalities: Kuyavia (Cuyaba - around Kyiv), Slavia (in the area of ​​Lake Ilmen with the center in Novgorod) and Artania. The emergence of such centers testified to the emergence of new intra-tribal relations in the organization of the Eastern Slavs, which created the preconditions for the emergence of a state among them.

3.4. The city is the center of spiritual culture

During the period of decentralization, the values ​​of spiritual culture accumulated by the Kyiv state, the dominance of which was established at the top of the social elite, begin to penetrate deep into the masses, instilling in them new forms of life, economy, law, and religion.

Culturally oriented history and problems of urban development in Rus' are closely interconnected. Among the “many beauties” with which the “bright and bright” Russian land is glorified, a 13th-century scribe. mentions “great, deserted cities,” “wonderful villages,” “monastery vineyards,” “church houses.” “Great cities” appear against the backdrop of rivers and lakes, steep hills and large oak forests. The city, rising on the high bank of the river, surrounded by walls with towers, with monumental churches, princely and boyar buildings, gave the approaching travelers the impression of a miracle. Natural chaotic savagery was opposed by an architecturally organized, humanized, cultivated space, an ordered and domesticated world, where its inhabitants are not in danger, where they are always among their own.

The development of statehood and culture of Rus' is inseparable from the urban system. After the adoption of Christianity, cities and associated monasteries, where outstanding writers and philosophers, architects and artists worked, became the focus of high spirituality based on ideal ethics. The culture of ancient Russian cities is an integral system where religion plays a major role in both collective and individual consciousness. Monasteries are integral parts of the city architectural ensemble, and the cathedral, a national shrine, becomes its dominant vertical and organizing social center. While admiring the masterpieces of ancient Russian architecture, mosaics, frescoes and icons, we must not forget that the best artistic monuments of the 11th-13th centuries. associated with the activities of the church. This corresponded to their popular sound. They inspired reverent love and trembling hope in the people of the Middle Ages.

Living in a world of violence, obsessed with constant fears, they themselves created for themselves sources of help, hope and consolation in the hope of God’s mercy, at least in the next world. Cultivating ideas of the absolute value of the human person, Christianity asserted a common ethical code for all, based on the feeling of guilt and the voice of conscience, and proclaimed the superiority of spiritual values ​​over material ones. Preaching the ideas of mercy, tolerance, calling to do good and fight sinful temptations, it introduced new humane principles compared to paganism. The fear of God's judgment kept man from many extremes, sometimes to the very edge of the abyss. Appealing to Christian commandments, the clergy advocated the unity of Russians and sought to reconcile the warring princes.

The culture of the ancient Russian city is uniform, although the level of scientific, philosophical and theological thinking differed from the level of mass consciousness. People rallied on the spiritual basis of Christianity, which provided them with mutual understanding and unity, while preserving in the depths of consciousness and in ritual practice, in magical rituals and the peculiarities of the veneration of saints - the strongest archaic layers as close as possible to man, rooted in distant times. We are talking about so-called folk Christianity, but not about dual faith. Of course, with the increasingly complex social structure, when a new unity was formed in cities from different social groups with their special worldview, lifestyle and thinking, a variety of levels of culture, more branched and multifaceted, also appeared. However, there were no impenetrable barriers between the elite culture of intellectuals, mainly from representatives of the clergy, the princely squad with its “heroic”, knightly ideals, and the culture of the common people with especially strong pagan traditions inherited from their ancestors.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the work done, three main conceptual theories of city formation were identified: the theory of tribal centers, the castle theory, and the theory of “proto-cities.”

Based on historical facts, a view has been formed about the role of the city in the history of our state, in the process of strengthening it in the international arena, in the pursuit of a civilized life for citizens at a higher level of development. First of all, cities were the place of concentration of power - this is where the prince, his governor or mayor were located. The city was subject to a vast rural district, from which the prince’s people collected tribute. It is in the cities that democracy is born - the veche (a meeting of citizens). The role of the city in military affairs was great. Their residents formed their own militias - city regiments. The well-fortified city fortresses also housed a permanent military garrison, which consisted of professional warriors. The economic and cultural role of the city was largely determined by the fact that skilled artisans worked here - architects, stonemasons, carvers, copper, silver and gold craftsmen, icon painters. The products of domestic urban artisans were famous far beyond the borders of Rus'. The emergence of surplus products contributed to active exchange, and later to the emergence and development of trade, which went mainly along numerous rivers and their tributaries. The great waterways were especially actively used - “from the Varangians to the Greeks” and along the Volga to the Caspian Sea - “from the Varangians to the Persians”. The development of statehood and culture of Rus' is inseparable from the urban system. After the adoption of Christianity, cities and associated monasteries, where outstanding writers and philosophers, architects and artists worked, became the focus of high spirituality based on ideal ethics. The culture of ancient Russian cities is an integral system where religion plays a major role in both collective and individual consciousness.

Based on the work done, it is logical to assume that cities were the centers of economic, political and spiritual life of Ancient Rus'. Mainly cities protected Rus' from disastrous isolation and isolation. They played a leading role in the development of political, economic and cultural ties with Byzantium and Danube Bulgaria, the Muslim countries of Western Asia, the Turkic nomads of the Black Sea steppes and the Volga Bulgars, and with the Catholic states of Western Europe. In the urban environment, especially in the largest centers, heterogeneous cultural elements were assimilated, fused, processed and comprehended in their own way, which, in combination with local characteristics, gave the ancient Russian civilization a unique originality.

Annex 1

NOVGOROD KREMLIN

1. Silhouette of the Novgorod Kremlin

2. Novgorod Kremlin. Draw from a sewn image of the 17th century.

3. Novgorod Kremlin. Draw from the icon of the early 17th century.

Appendix 2

CRAFT PRODUCTS

Appendix 3

TRADE IN THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE

Old Russian merchant. Trading area in a Russian medieval city of the 12th century.

Bibliography

World history: Textbook for universities [Electronic resource]. M.: UNITI, 1997. / Electronic library of non-fiction literature on Russian and world history Bibliotekar.Ru. Access mode: http://www.bibliotekar.ru/istoriya/index.htm

Darkevich, V.P. Origin and development of cities of ancient Rus' (X–XIII centuries) [Electronic resource] / V.P. Darkevich // Electronic scientific library on the history of ancient Russian architecture RusArch. 2006. Access mode: http://www.rusarch.ru/darkevich1.htm

History of Russia: textbook. / A. S. Orlov, V. A. Georgiev, I90 N. G. Georgieva, T. A. Sivokhina. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2008.- 528 p.

Encyclopedia for children: Vol. 5, part 1 (History of Russia and its closest neighbors). / Comp. S. T. Ismailova. M.: Avanta+, 1995.

Small settlements on cleared lands

Rybakov B. A. The first centuries of Russian history

Rybakov B. A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII - XIII centuries.

Princely administrators

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 concept

Historian 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 throughout 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 centers

S.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 emerged back 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 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: Kiev 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 cities

A 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 formation

Historian 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 Kiev, 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 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 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 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.



The question about “The most ancient city in Russia” has long been controversial for scientists and historians. The fact is that they single out several settlements at once as the most ancient city in Russia.

Among them is Old Novgorod

Derbent

.

Derbent is located in Dagestan and it was built many years before our era, and accordingly long before the founding of Kievan Rus itself and the Russian Empire in general.

Now Derbent is part of the Russian Federation and on this basis a colossal number of scientists attribute it to the status of “The most ancient city in Russia”. Critics of this theory, no less eminent scientists and historians, point out that this city cannot be considered the most ancient city in Russia, even because it existed when there was no reminder about Russia or Rus'. In addition, this region is significantly different from ancient Rus' and, in general, from the culture of the Russian people, so it is difficult to classify it as a Russian city. Whether this is true or not is up to each individual to decide. All that remains is to say that a true patriot of his country should know at least a little about the history of his homeland.

Adding fuel to the fire, I would like to note that the dispute over the status of the most ancient city in Russia also includes

If Ancient Novgorod was founded in 859, then Murom celebrated its formation in 862,

but this date cannot be considered 100% true, since the only source of its mention is the Tale of Bygone Years.

Research is being carried out in this city, based on the results of which it is already known that even before 862 there were settlements of Finno-Ugric people, who called this city by its current name (Murom). The Finno-Ugric people themselves appeared in these parts back in the 5th century AD, so the city may well lay claim to the title of the oldest in Russia, since it may currently be about 1500 years old

It is also worth mentioning one of the oldest cities in Russia, which is called

Bryansk .

Officially it is believed that it was founded in 985. Over the years of its formation, the city has undergone slight changes in its name, since it was originally called Debryansk. The first mention of the city is in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which dates back to 1146.

As we can see, the issue of the most ancient city in Russia remains controversial to this day. It is extremely difficult to find the true truth, but knowing the facts about the cities of your country is necessary and interesting.

Smolensk

is one of the first cities of Rus'. In the dated part of the Tale of Bygone Years it is first mentioned in 862 as the center of the Krivichi tribal union.

According to the Ustyuzhensky (Arkhangelogorodsky) vault, it is recorded under the year 863, when Askold and Dir, on a campaign from Novgorod to Constantinople, bypassed the city, since the city was heavily fortified and crowded. In 882, the city was captured and annexed to the Old Russian state by Prince Oleg, who handed it over to Prince Igor, from whose youth power in the city was exercised by governors and squads, and general administration was carried out from Kyiv.

Staraya Russa is an ancient provincial town in the Novgorod region. His exact age is not known, since Karamzin had a hand in history, causing confusion in many events of ancient Rus'.

Veliky Novgorod appears on the paper five-ruble banknote, and Staraya Russa on the iron ten-ruble coin.

So judge who is older.

The city of Staraya Russa is mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years, the fundamental book of the history of Rus'. The city stands on museum values. The area of ​​the ancient settlement is 200 hectares, and excavations were carried out carelessly on one thousandth of this territory. Staraya Russa is an ideal springboard for someone who wants to make a historical discovery.

Temple of the Miraculous Icon of the Old Russian Mother of God

Velikiy Novgorodconsidered the most ancient.

At least that’s what almost every city resident thinks. The chronological date is considered to be 859. The grandiose city, washed by the waters of the Volkhov River, became the progenitor of Christianity in Rus'; the Kremlin and numerous architectural monuments remember the rulers of the early period of our state. This version is also supported by the fact that Novgorod has always been a Russian city and there is a starting age calculation (not something vague, such and such a century...).

Another version, which also has the right to exist, is the one on which most historians insist.

Staraya Ladoga- the most ancient city in Russia. Now Staraya Ladoga has the status of a city and the first mentions of it have come to us since the middle of the 8th century. There are tombstones that date back to 753 . Not long ago, when visiting Staraya Ladoga, V.V. Putin decided to conduct additional research in the surroundings of the city in order to nominate it for the title of a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2014, and this will serve as an impetus for studying its history

In Staraya Ladoga, a church has been preserved in which, according to legends, the descendants of Rurik were baptized.

The debate on this issue will not cease for a long time until irrefutable evidence is found:

Belozersk (Vologda region) - 862

It came from the name of Lake Beloename of the city Belozersk.

The first mention of the city dates back to 862 in the Tale of Bygone Years under the name Beloozero. This date is also the founding date of present-day Belozersk.Initially, the city was located on the northern shore of White Lake; in the 20th century it was moved to the southern shore, where it stood until 1352.

From 1238, the city became the center of the Belozersk Principality and from 1389 it became the Principality of Moscow. The city was devastated by epidemics in 1352 and was revived again, flourished in the 20th century and fell into decline at the end of the 20th century.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the development of the city was facilitated by the Belozersky bypass canal (construction of the Mariinsky water system). The canal transports timber industry materials to St. Petersburg Belozersk. With the opening of the Volga-Baltic waterway, Belozersk established connections with other industrial cities.
The current coat of arms of the city was approved on October 12, 2001 and is: “In a wavy shield crossed with azure and silver at the top there is a widened cross above a silver crescent, at the bottom there are two crosswise silver sterlets with scarlet fins, thinly bordered with azure.” The previous coat of arms was approved under Soviet rule in 1972.

The former and current coat of arms of Belozersk

Architecture of Belozersk - along the embankment of the Belozersk canal, a complex of one-story buildings built in 1846. Its five buildings are located symmetrically
* The Kremlin and the Transfiguration Cathedral - a ring of earthen ramparts surrounded on all sides by a moat. The earthen rampart and ditch amaze with their scale. A three-span stone bridge leads across the moat to the Kremlin territory. In the center of the Kremlin stands the five-domed Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral.
* Church of the All-Merciful Savior (1716-1723) - the five-domed church is one of the first stone churches in the city.
* Church of Elijah the Prophet (1690-1696) - a wooden three-tiered single-domed church in the western part of the city
* Church of the Assumption (1553) is the oldest building in Belozersk. This five-domed temple together with the Church of the Epiphany make up an architectural complex. At the moment these churches are active.
* Belozersky Art and History Museum - the museum is divided into 8 parts, for example
- "Russian Izba Museum"
- "Museum of Regional History"
- "Museum of Nature"
* A monument created for the 1112th anniversary of the city (note the date) a boat, symbolizing that the history of the city is closely connected with waterways.

Rostov (Yaroslavl region) - 862

Smolensk - 862