Good afternoon, dear friends. This is "History Lessons with Tamara Eidelman". Today we begin a new course in the history of Ukraine. And let's start, of course, with Ancient Rus', so familiar and so mysterious. Thank you to everyone who supports us, without you we would have achieved nothing, nothing. Thanks to our sponsors on YouTube, thanks to our patrons on Patreon, thanks to those who have mastered the Boosty platform in Russia and continue to donate even in the current conditions, this is incredibly important to us. If the heroes of my lecture today, the inhabitants of Ancient Rus', knew about the existence of the profession of psychologist, they would be very surprised. They had completely different mechanisms for supporting people in difficult circumstances. People were supposed to tell their problems to the priest during confession, and they expected spiritual consolation from the priest. And also, a person of Ancient Rus' almost always acted in accordance with the rules of his collective. There was very little room left for individual solutions. But as the centuries passed, the human personality gradually acquired more and more importance. The great achievement of modern times is the independence of the individual, but we have to pay a high price for it - with our complexes and psychological problems. And when you look out the window, you immediately want to run to a psychologist for consolation. I am sure that in the modern world, the profession of a psychologist will be more and more in demand every year. That is why those who take the Practical Psychology program at the online academy of additional professional education "Ed Pro" in order to obtain the profession of a consulting psychologist make the right choice. By starting your studies at the Ed Pro Academy, you can quickly but confidently acquire the psychological counseling skills necessary to start a private practice in ten and a half months of intensive training. During the training, you will master transactional analysis - one of the fundamental methods of psychotherapy, learn to analyze personality, establish contact with a person, and most importantly, you will be able to apply all the psychological tools you have mastered for personal growth and development. After graduation, you will receive an official diploma of professional retraining and the right to work as a consulting psychologist. In this program, you will take part in weekly Zoom meetings with teachers, practicing psychologists and exchange experiences with other students. Upon completion of your training, you will be able to professionally help people who today are increasingly seeking psychological support. To get to know more about studying to become a psychologist within the framework of the program "Practical Psychology" from the academy "Ed Pro", take its test drive. You will receive five video lessons of the program for free and understand whether the online learning format is right for you. Thanks to the Ed Pro Academy for giving me the opportunity to master a new and very necessary profession. And thank you for supporting "History Lessons with Tamara Eidelman". And with the promo code "HISTORY" you get a 10% discount on training. So, the history of Ukraine. I worry for various reasons. Well, first of all, it is clear how today, alas, unfortunately, this topic is politically charged. However, it must, of course, be noted that history has always attracted the attention of politicians from different sides, and my poor, poor science is being torn to pieces; everyone wants to use it for their own interests. But that is precisely why it is probably worth talking calmly, attentively, and without hysteria about this very, very important topic. I don’t want to give it to demagogues, speculators from any side. At the same time, while preparing for these lectures, I realized that I don’t know as much about the history of Ukraine as I would like, and this is also very important for me. I am also learning a lot now, discovering a lot for myself, to some extent overcoming the snobbery of big brother, which, alas, lives in all of us, and this is also all very useful for me. We will start, naturally, from the beginning, with Ancient Rus'. And it’s no coincidence that I said that she is familiar and at the same time mysterious. On the one hand, all of us who at least once, at least somehow, came into contact with Russian history, with Ukrainian history, we seem to know everything about Ancient Rus. The calling of the Varangians, Rurik and his brothers Sineus and Truvor, Novgorod, Kyiv, the Prophetic Oleg, who goes and descends from Novgorod to Kyiv, captures it, becomes prince there, says: “This will be the mother of Russian cities,” and moves the center of his possessions here. Prophetic Oleg, who sets off for Byzantium, nails his shield to the gates of Constantinople. Well, and then we know what happens to him: he accepts death from his horse, he is bitten by a snake. Igor, who rules after Oleg and rules for a long time, but is known mainly for his terrible death, his greed, his cowardice or caution, you could say that, when he was going to fight against Byzantium, too, the Byzantine ambassadors offered peace, he consulted with his squad, the squad said: "Come on, sail to Byzantium by sea, it is unclear what will happen there, it is better to conclude an agreement." They didn't get any loot, so they had to find wealth closer, they went to collect tribute from the Drevlyans, they left, having already received the tribute, the squad was again dissatisfied, they said: "They took too little tribute." Igor sets out for the second time to collect tribute, for some reason the Drevlyans don’t like this, they say: “If a wolf gets into the habit of going into a flock, then until he has dragged away all the sheep, he will go again and again.” They grab Igor, tie him to two bent trees, and let them go. And so the poor prince ends his life. Princess Olga. Well, everyone has heard about her, of course, about this also seemingly very well-known, and at the same time completely mysterious lady. If anyone hasn’t heard or forgotten, we have a whole lecture dedicated to it on our channel. Olga, about whom so many tales have been told that she was supposedly a peasant, was from near Pskov. Some people say, no, she’s actually from the Balkans, from Bulgaria. And someone says, no, she is a Varangian maiden, a princess. Why is her name Olga? And she may be a relative of Prophetic Oleg. Well, we also know all sorts of amazing things about Olga. We know a completely fabulous story about how she took revenge for Igor in very strange ways, when the first ambassadors sent by the Drevlyans in the hope of making peace and even, perhaps, concluding a marriage alliance between her and their prince, the first ambassadors were for some reason carried in a boat through Kyiv, and thrown into a pit, and buried alive, and the second were burned in a bathhouse, and the third were simply practically sacrificed on Igor's grave. And finally, there should be three more revenges, if this is a fairy tale. And then there is a fourth, amazing story about how she besieges Iskorosten, the capital of the Drevlyans, and tells them that, okay, I will make peace with you, but you will pay me tribute in sparrows and pigeons from every house. They happily collect these birds, and cruel Olga orders that tow be tied to the paw of each of them and set on fire. Of course, students always really don't like this story. Birds with burning paws rise up and fly to their nests, and, of course, the city burns down. Well, I can console everyone that it’s clear that this didn’t happen, naturally. This is the tale of Olga's revenge. By the way, similar stories about birds were connected not only with Olga, this is a wandering plot. Another famous story is, of course, also at least half a fairy tale. Olga is one of the first Christians in Rus'. And here is the story of how she went to Constantinople, and the Byzantine emperor fell in love with her and wanted to marry her. But for some reason she didn’t want this at all and said: “Well, I’m a pagan, so let me get baptized, you’ll be my godfather.” And the emperor, if we are to believe the chronicler, was such a fool that he did not know that a godfather could not marry his godmother, and he immediately and happily agreed. And when Olga was baptized, she said: “Well, now you can’t marry your daughter, ha-ha-ha!” And she left. Well, this is a fairy tale for many reasons: firstly, because the emperor, naturally, knew that it was impossible to marry a goddaughter; secondly, because Olga at that time was already well over fifty, for that time simply a very old woman; thirdly, the emperor, who then ruled in Constantinople, was married. Well, that’s a different conversation, it’s absolutely clear that the chronicler simply needed to show how cunning Olga was, how she shocked everyone, what an impression she made on everyone. Well, then the next legendary character is Svyatoslav, the son of Olga and Igor, who was very little when his father was killed. We can judge this because Olga, having set out to take revenge, took him with her, that is, he could already sit on a horse, let’s say. But when the battle began, he threw the spear with his weak hand, it fell right in front of his horse's hooves, and the boyar Svenel said: "Well, the prince has started, and it's time for us to fight," and the battle began. That is, it is absolutely clear that at first Olga ruled for him, but then, when he grew up, he became a famous warrior who never sat still, constantly went on campaigns, and during campaigns he slept on the bare ground, only putting his saddle under him, and he ate only meat fried on coals, and when he wanted to attack someone, he sent them a knightly warning: “I want to attack you.” That is, I am coming at you, I am coming at you with war. And there are also many different stories about Svyatoslav, many different fairy-tale plots, and there are also quite real descriptions. The Byzantine historian Leo the Deacon, who was present at the negotiations between the Byzantines and Svyatoslav, left an incredibly colorful description of it: when the boat in which the prince and his men approached the river bank, where the Byzantine emperor and his courtiers were, everyone was surprised to see that the prince was wearing a simple white shirt, naturally, no luxurious clothes like the Byzantines had, a shaved head with one forelock and a ring in his ear. Therefore, there is an incredible number of images of Svyatoslav, in which he is simply the real Taras Bulba, approximately. Then the son of Svyatoslav Vladimir, the future Vladimir the Saint, aka Vladimir Krasnoe Solnyshko, the hero of epics, Vladimir, who is first described in the chronicle as a terrible villain who killed his brother in a struggle for power, a voluptuary who has three hundred wives, a man who commits many different bad deeds, and then decides to choose a faith from different faiths, choosing Christianity, and then, of course, being reborn, drives everyone along that street, which will later be called Khreshchatyk, all the inhabitants of Kyiv into the Dnieper and baptizes them, sends his uncle Dobrynya to Novgorod to baptize everyone there. Well, a completely different life begins in Rus'. One of the sons, Vladimir Yaroslav, the one who would become Yaroslav the Wise, under whom the Kievan Sophia Cathedral would be built, under whom the book business would flourish in Rus', Yaroslav, who was obviously so famous and respected that all his children, both sons and daughters, married foreign rulers, we, first of all, of course, know Anna Yaroslavna, who was sent to France, and others too, one was married to the Norwegian king, another to the Hungarian. There were a lot of interesting things. I'm just going through all these plots because I'm assuming that they are, in general, well, familiar. Maybe without much detail, but this is what we know from childhood. And then it turns out that the history of Ancient Rus is practically reduced to this, to these wonderful legends, in which reality is mixed with fairy tales, to these wonderful stories about strange, sometimes wonderful, sometimes creepy rulers, about the deeds they did, the speeches they made, although it is clear that these speeches were put into their mouths by a chronicler who lived much later. Well, that's all, such a fabulous Ancient Rus'. And I absolutely do not want to give up these fairy tales: they are wonderful, they are beautiful, they inspired artists, poets, everything is wonderful. But besides these, there is still a lot more that we often don’t think about. There is a Kiev historian and archaeologist, Alexey Tolochko, he evokes very strong feelings in his colleagues, who often argue with him, and some of his versions simply cause a storm of objections or, on the contrary, admiration. But, in any case, he is a very interesting historian. He has a book called "Essays on Early Rus". And this book caused a storm of emotions for various reasons, but in particular because he questioned that very chronicle story that we just ran through. He writes the following: "The Tale of Bygone Years" - that is, the chronicle - "is a classic genre of medieval tales about the origin of peoples. The value of such tales for reconstructing the past of peoples is not high, and science has long since learned to treat them as cultural artifacts, recognizing their significance as monuments of the historical imagination of their era, but in the search for reliable knowledge, turning to evidence of a different kind." Well, indeed, if you think about it, there are many similar medieval texts describing the early centuries of the Frankish state, or telling about Charlemagne, or telling about German rulers. And, of course, historians use them, but always with some caution, because after all, what was written 1000-1500 years ago was written with completely different goals, and it was not the chronicler’s task to leave us a clear, historical, well-founded narrative. He wrote for the edification of his readers, for the exaltation of Christianity. He was not a historian, he was a chronicler. I continue to quote Tolochka, who says that a slightly different situation has developed in Russia: historians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries always began their narratives practically with a retelling of the chronicle. And this has already been recorded, and the chronicle legends have become part of such a very real history. Here he writes: “In modern presentations of the early history of the Kievan state, we are dealing, in essence, with a chronicle legend told in scientific language.” Tolochko, of course, got very carried away in his exposure of the chronicle; he raised his hand against the great scientist, Academician Shakhmatov, and simply deprived his research of any value, and refused him. He keeps talking about how outstanding Shakhmatov is, and then he just literally wipes his feet on him. It’s very fascinating to read, but it’s somehow difficult for me to accept this position, because, well, at university they taught me for a long time, they explained how great Shakhmatov’s method is, he developed a method for analyzing chronicle texts. I always explained to my students that it was as if he was conducting archaeological excavations in the chronicles: in those chronicles that have reached us, he found more and more ancient layers, those that have not been preserved in their original form, but later chronicles have absorbed them. Well, I'm not even talking about the fact that one of the first books, written by my father under the pseudonym En Natanov, is called "Journey to the Land of Chronicles" and is, in general, dedicated to Shakhmatov and his research. So it’s hard for me to accept all of this, and I understand that it’s not just me, but also many other historians who reject these constructions of Alexei Tolochko. But the very idea that the chronicle is, after all, a medieval text and a collection of legends. In this case, Alexey Tolochko is not original, because many scientists are talking about this. This means, of course, that it is wrong to perceive Ancient Rus' only as the chronicler described it. There is archaeological data, there are stories of Byzantine historians, Arab historians, and travelers. And scientists use all of this, they combine all of this. And then, of course, the picture of this ancient life of the 18th, 9th, 10th centuries becomes much more voluminous, much more interesting. But at the same time... There are many things I love about history, but in particular, the more you learn about it, the more questions arise. We often think that history is a mystery because we don’t know something. Well, what is a riddle? It is something incomprehensible, a mystery, unknown. So who killed Saints Boris and Gleb? The chronicler reports that this was done by Svyatopolk the Accursed, and the Scandinavian sagas say that it was done by the Varangians who served Yaroslav the Wise. There is also a lecture on our channel about the murder of Boris and Gleb; those who wish can watch it. This is a secret, this is a mystery, that's right. But on the other hand, there are a huge number of mysteries in history, not because we know little , of course there are some, but because we know a lot. The more we learn, the more unclear it becomes. And I think it's great, it's very interesting. Historians, archaeologists, linguists, and ethnographers have collected a huge amount of information about the life of the Eastern Slavs, who inhabited the Eastern European Plain even before the state appeared here, about the life of ancient Rus'. And that is precisely why the number of controversies associated with this period is simply off the charts. And this is an amazing thing. Naturally, here again we remember politics, but it’s not just about politics. Probably, in some early history, again in France and Germany, there are also many disputes, maybe I just don’t know such a number of different historiographical problems associated with Western history, so it seems to me from afar that there are fewer such disputes there. And maybe they are, in any case, not so hot, not so spicy. But in any case, Ancient Rus' is so ancient, so fabulous, and disputes, sometimes turning into fistfights, in the most literal sense, have been raging for at least three centuries. Sometimes this is a completely scientific discussion, sometimes it really is something that goes beyond the boundaries of just dry science. Probably everyone has heard about how in the 18th century the German historian Schlözer, who worked in Russia, came up with what would later be called the Norman theory, when he began to speak and write about how the state in Rus' arose because it was brought by the Varangians. The Norman theory, we will not get distracted by this now, many scientists developed it in different ways, it changed, naturally, over the centuries, but it is very characteristic that at the beginning of all these disputes there is literally a scandal, because Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov could not bear such an insult. How is this possible? The state arose in Rus' because the Slavs themselves could not create a state? And he was raging about it. It was here that he often resorted to beatings. And he was indignant and wrote that this could not be. What is this? Is this a historical dispute? Well, probably yes, both cultural and political to some extent. And so it all continues. Well, not all, maybe I'm exaggerating, but very often such things arise. Probably everyone has heard about this completely absurd situation, when now in Russia the name Kievan Rus is beginning to disappear from school history textbooks. Today, there is a lot of talk about this, but in reality, this is the squeezing out of the concept of "Kievan Rus", well, at least from school history, it happened before the invasion of Ukraine, at least since 2014. And this is also such a curious thing, because in Soviet times, of course, they used the concept of Kievan Rus. But there was such a political bias in the other direction, because on the contrary, what was connected with Novgorod, what was connected with the calling of the Varangians, who came from some incomprehensible Western country, that seemed dangerous. And Kievan Rus was shown as purely Slavic, of course, naturally, Russian, let's say, we will talk about this now. And the Varangians, academician Rybakov made enormous efforts over many years of his long life, explaining that the Varangians were bandits, robbers, their role in the history of Ancient Rus' was only negative and generally insignificant, but today it is completely clear that this is not so. But it is clear, again, that this was done for political reasons. But Kievan Rus rose up on its shield. There were also various fantastic things here. Well, in particular, the same Boris Aleksandrovich Rybakov believed that the word "Rus" itself came from the name of the Ros River, which is located to the south of Kyiv, hence the word "ros", and from there further "Russia". Linguists also showed that this could not have happened; there was no alternation of Ros-Rus in ancient languages. But this too was generated by certain political views, political ideas. On the other hand, let's say, absolutely incredible passions raged, and to some extent continue to rage, during the discussion of such a seemingly completely academic question about the influence of the East on Ancient Rus': the steppe dwellers, the nomads. In Soviet times, much was written about the terrible, cruel, treacherous nomads who attacked Slavic villages and there shot their arrows at the harmless, unfortunate Slavs. Well, we know that not long ago President Putin talked about the Pechenegs and Polovtsians, who also always offended the poor Russians. But this is such an incredible simplification of the relationship between the steppe and Ancient Russia. Of course, they fought, of course, they shot, but this is a small part of the vast cosmos of relations between Russia and the East. We will also talk about this later. It is also a very characteristic thing how today these issues are raised on the political shield, so to speak. In 1975, the outstanding Kazakh poet Olzhas Suleimenov published the book "Az and Ya, the Book of the Well-Intentioned Reader". It is very exciting and interesting to read. But he writes in a somewhat casual, but very easy manner. I read and laughed with delight at his jokes, at his ironic analysis of chronicle news or the texts of historians. But today it is clear that from a scientific point of view this book does not stand up to any criticism at all. Everything there is at a fairly amateurish level, and various serious historians showed this, in general, even then. But, characteristically, the main criticism of Suleimenov’s book came not from historians, but from party leadership at the highest level. This book is devoted to the analysis of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", that is, in general, this is an academic question, philological, historical. One can discuss how much the modern interpretation is academic and how well-founded it is. He had a very clever idea, he discovered a huge number of Turkisms in "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", and there really are a lot of them there, and there were many Eastern influences that Soviet historians did not notice. But from this Suleimenov concluded that the author of "The Tale of the Campaign" was generally a bilingual person, that he was equally fluent in both Old Russian and Polovtsian languages, and from this he got a completely different interpretation of both "The Tale" itself and Prince Igor, who turned out to be almost a negative character. Well, everyone probably remembers that "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" ends with Prince Igor escaping from captivity, and the entire Russian land rejoices, and he goes to Kyiv, to the Church of the Virgin Mary of Pirogoshcha, and everyone rejoices, and ends with the line "Glory to the princes and the squad! Amen." Here Suleimenov proved that the preposition “a” does not mean “and”: like “Glory to the Prince and the squad, amen,” that’s how it has always been understood, but that this is an opposition, that is, “Glory to the Prince, and to the squad – amen,” the squad – all perished. But I say again, all of Suleimenov’s linguistic constructions were taken apart by serious philologists and historians and, in general, destroyed. But it was the party organs that attacked him even more; the Central Committee of the Kazakh SSR, on orders from Moscow, adopted a resolution condemning this book. What's the matter? Because he dared to raise the question of Eastern influence in Ancient Rus' and in particular in The Tale of the Campaign. Well, Suleimenov’s book has long since become, well, it’s easy to find on the Internet, well, it has become, in general, such a curious work of the poet. But the controversy surrounding "The Word" does not subside. Just like, say, when I was studying at the university, I really wanted, and not just me, but many others, that the outstanding historian Alexander Alexandrovich Zimin, a remarkable specialist in medieval Rus', who wrote a huge study proving that The Tale of the Campaign was a forgery, that it was actually written in the 18th century, was right. Today we know for sure that this is not true. The great linguist Andrei Anatolyevich Zaliznyak analyzed the language of "The Tale of the Campaign" and absolutely accurately proved that this book could not have been written in the 18th century. It uses words that were not known in the 18th century because manuscripts with these words had not yet been found. Why did you so want Zimin to be right? Yes, all for the same reason. Because when he wrote his research, he was subjected to such criticism, specifically from his superiors, that he involuntarily wanted it to be so. We are strangely constructed, of course, and we approach history strangely. Just like in many ways, probably, the incredible popularity of the books of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov, this is a completely special phenomenon, and here his books are different and there are different reasons for their popularity, but I think that to some extent one of the reasons for his popularity was that he said and wrote things that were not accepted in Soviet historiography. His books were not published for a long time. Well, not to mention the tragic fate of Lev Nikolaevich himself, who spent so many years in the camp, and his great parents. - all this created a certain aura. And to this day, I am regularly asked at various lectures what I think about Gumilyov’s concepts. But again, serious science has long since stopped taking what he wrote seriously. As I was preparing for today’s lecture, I started looking at what he wrote about Ancient Rus', and my eyes literally popped out of my head. And all this seemed like some kind of incredible revelation. So, what is the point of all these stories? And about the Norman theory, and about Suleimenov, and about Gumilev? The fact is that the story seems to be centuries old, but it was and continues to be perceived as something incredibly relevant. The tragic stage that relations between Russia and Ukraine are going through today is reflected in history as well. What is ancient Rus'? Is this the history of Russia or is this the history of Ukraine? I begin the course on the history of Ukraine by talking about Ancient Rus. But if I were starting a course on Russian history, I would also start with Ancient Rus'. And on this matter there are many theories, sometimes intersecting in some way, sometimes contradicting each other. The famous Ukrainian historian Mikhail Sergeyevich Grushevsky, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, believed that the history of Ancient Rus is exclusively the history of Ukraine. He applies the concept of "Ukrainian people" to, say, the Antes people. and in ancient Byzantine sources, various peoples are very often mentioned, which historians later put forward as candidates for the ancestors of the Slavs. Here, in particular, there is the Antes people. Grushevsky believed that they were Ukrainians. And he writes about Ukrainian princes, the Ukrainian state, in the 9th-10th centuries. In general, it is clear that this was very important for him. Hrushevsky was not only a major historian, but also a very important political figure of the independent Ukrainian state; he was a member of the Central Rada, the government that emerged in Ukraine after the 1917 revolution. And it was very important for him to trace the history of the Ukrainian people from ancient times, to find its roots. Here he writes, for example: “The historical life of the Ukrainian people begins 1500 years ago, and for some coastal parts of the current Ukrainian territory - 2500 or a little more.” To some extent, this is certainly true, because historical life in the territories where Ukraine is located today, of course, began a very long time ago. Another question: can we say today that those people who lived here 1500-2000 years ago were Ukrainians? Or that they were Russians, or that they were Belarusians? In my opinion, this is, of course, a huge modernization of history. These were the ancestors of Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, but they were completely different people. What should we call these inhabitants of Ancient Rus'? In my opinion, to say that these were Ukrainian princes, or Russian princes, or Belarusian princes is completely incorrect from a historical point of view. It would be easier to say, say, the Kiev prince, or the Smolensk prince, or the Novgorod veche, or the Polotsk prince. This is much more historical and more in line with, most likely more in line with, the feeling of that time. Judging by ancient Russian sources, there were lands, people felt themselves primarily as residents of the Kyiv land, the Chernigov land, the Smolensk land, and so on and so forth. In the center of such land there is usually a city. And so people identified themselves in their relationship with this city. Here we are, Chernigov residents, or, there, we are residents of the Kyiv land. And before that, what did they call themselves? But we don’t know how, and this is very interesting. How is it that we don’t know, you might say, the chronicler told us so much about this, that the Polyans lived around Kyiv, and to the west lived the Drevlyans, whom Olga went to take revenge on. And approximately in the area of the Pripyat swamps were the Drigovichi, and to the north were the Krivichi, Vyatichi, and to the south were the Ulichs, Tivertsi and others. The chronicler told us all this. But here a problem arises, which is that the Tale of Bygone Years was compiled at the beginning of the 12th century. And even if it relied on other texts, earlier ones, such as those identified by Shakhmatov, these texts were written in the 11th century. And what did the people who lived, say, around the Dnieper in the 9th century, 18th century call themselves? in the 17th century? They left no written sources. If we take any map of Ancient Rus', these very Slavic tribes will be written there. Usually, say, in school atlases everything is done this way for ease of understanding. Here, the Slavic tribes, the Polyans, the Drevlyans, and so on and so forth, are highlighted in one color. On the outskirts, in a slightly different color, are the Finno-Ugric tribes, to the north are the Baltic tribes, and to the south are the nomadic peoples: the Polovtsians and the Pechenegs. Everyone is sitting, everyone knows their spot. Here the Slavs live, here the Finno-Ugrics, there the Balts, here the Turkic tribes roam, and each has its own habitat. This doesn't happen, of course. But first of all, of course, they were all mixed up. and this has been proven many times, for example, by archeology, when in burials, say, not far from Kyiv or Chernigov, Scandinavian objects are found, images of the Torah, clearly eastern objects are found. Why did this happen? We'll come back to this now. But for now, let's look at least at the Slavs, at those whom we call Slavs. They were actually called that by Byzantine historians, already by the chronicler. But the people who lived in the Dnieper region, they used to say that someday, well, I don’t know, some merchant would come to them. He says: "Who are you?" They said: "We are Slavs"? It's very difficult to imagine this. It is highly doubtful that they had this kind of feeling. Today we can say that there were peoples who spoke different versions of Old Slavonic, Old Church Slavonic, Old Russian, you can call it whatever you like. There were Eastern Slavs who lived on the Eastern European Plain, there were Western Slavs, the ancestors of, say, the Czechs and Slovaks, there were Southern Slavs who lived in the Balkans. But they obviously perceived themselves differently. This is the first thing. Second question: what were these people like? Olga, when she came to the Drevlyans, did they understand each other, did they speak the same language? Why then are some called Polyans and others Drevlyans? It is around these questions, seemingly purely academic, that passions have been raging for several centuries. Were all these tribes Slavic, or maybe they were unions of tribes, even they were tribes, were they united or were they aware of their very big differences? There is no doubt that there were differences between them. The chronicler often wrote about this, and this, by the way, too. Well, if the associations are called differently, then they probably differ. The archaeologists have done an amazing job, because many burials contain jewelry with which the deceased were placed in the grave. Today you can go into one store, buy a ring like this, and there they have these beads, and there they have this. But for that time, the jewelry that was worn by both women and men, by the way, had a very important, sacred meaning. Especially if it is what the person was buried with. That is, they won’t just put some ring, some belt, some thing there. And there are archaeological maps that show different types of jewelry. And it is clear that in different parts of Ancient Rus' they are different. And this probably speaks of some differences. Back in the nineteenth century, the remarkable historian Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov, you can call him a Russian historian, you can call him a Ukrainian historian, both will be true, he was very interested in the history of Ukraine in general, the Ukrainian people and, in particular, Ancient Rus. In the 19th century, he was a member of the famous Cyril and Methodius Society; they dreamed of creating such a Slavic brotherhood, of uniting all Slavic peoples. It would seem that he should therefore say that all Slavs were united in ancient times. But he, on the contrary, very unexpectedly and wittily proved that there was nothing of the sort. There were a lot of differences. Here is an interesting argument he has: “Apparently, the mutual hostility of the Polyans and the Drevlyans” - well , right in the time of Olga, they mean - “belongs to such a distant century that any search for its traces in our time must seem like nonsense.” In our time - meaning the 19th century. "And yet, to this day, in the eyes of a Ukrainian, a descendant of the Polyane," - then an interesting remark, "or their successor on earth," - that is, living in the places where the Polyane lived, - "in his eyes at his neighbor, the Polischuk, a descendant of the Drevlyane and the heir to their name," - well, what is meant is that the Polischuk is a resident of Polesia, the Drevlyane are those who live in the forests, - "a shadow of hostility lurks. For a Ukrainian, the Polischuk is either a sorcerer capable of evil deeds, turning people into wolves, or a fool, ridiculed in intricate jokes. Even more prominent in the imagination of the same Ukrainian is the Litvin, under this name, of course, the people are not truly Lithuanian, but Belarusian, that is, the descendants of the Krivichi and Drigovichi. The Lithuanian land is still for the Ukrainian a land of miracles and sorcery, just as the Krivska land was a land of sorcery during the "Vseslav Polotsky", that is, in the 11th century. But this is also such a curious view of a 19th century historian, but unexpected. Here he suddenly sees how in the Slavic lands, which in the 19th century, of course, were not strictly divided into Ukrainian and Belarusian. But he sees how some differences, perhaps dating back to the depths of centuries, are preserved in the Slavic lands. This may be an unexpected approach and, perhaps, for today’s historical science, it is overly poetic. But it is very interesting when he suddenly sees how in the Slavic lands, as if from ancient times, differences are sprouting up, which at one time, perhaps, were much stronger, and in the 19th century they manifested themselves in superstitions and folklore. Another remarkable historian, well, rather, more accurately, probably the folklorist Dmitry Konstantinovich Zelenin, who did a lot for Slavic folklore, he very clearly distinguished between northern Russian folklore and southern Russian folklore. And I remember how I was once very impressed, when I first read Zelenin, by how differently mermaids were imagined in the north of Rus' and in the south. Because in the south, mermaids, well, to put it simply, are just like in Gogol, such beautiful young beauties. And the further north you go, the more terrible the mermaids are: they are huge, huge, fat women with breasts hanging down to the ground, absolutely creepy. And this is not a small thing. These are very ancient ideas, very ancient images. For some reason, there were some in the south and others in the north. If we return to Kostomarov, he generally believed that in Ancient Rus' there was no single nationality inhabiting Ancient Rus'. And he saw six entire nations. He believed that there was a southern Russian nationality, there was a Great Russian nationality, there was a Belarusian nationality. And he also saw the Severskaya, not the Northern, but the Severskaya. Here in Novgorod-Seversky, where Prince Igor was from, there were really very big differences. He saw the Seversk people, he saw the Poleska people, he saw the Novgorod people. During the Soviet era, the prevailing idea was that all the inhabitants of Ancient Rus constituted one ancient Russian people. Here they removed the concept of Great Russian, Little Russian. There was simply Ancient Rus', there was the ancient Russian people, all more or less the same. But on the one hand, this was indeed the view of serious historians. At the same time, of course, he fit very well into the idea of, I won’t say about a single Soviet people, but, in any case, about a single space of the Soviet Union. At least, there, in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. And there, naturally, there should have been one nationality since ancient times. Today, in general, of course, historians mainly look at the inhabitants of Ancient Rus', assessing their diversity. But the same great Andrei Anatolyevich Zaliznyak, having analyzed the Novgorod birch bark letters, came to the conclusion that the language spoken and written by the Novgorodians was very different from the language of southern Rus'. Of course, they would understand each other and understood each other, and it was no coincidence that there were enormous contacts. The princes and their retinues moved from Kyiv to Novgorod without any problem, and then from Novgorod to somewhere in Chernigov or Galich. But they were very different, and much is said and written about these differences. Does this mean that today's Russia and Ukraine are not connected in any way? Of course not. Just as the idea of a single ancient nationality does not at all confirm the absolutely anti-historical assertions that those who lived in the south of Rus' always called themselves Russians. No, it’s just on a completely different plane. And this is probably very important to understand. And then we can calmly, without any political twists and turns, approach this ancient time. Just like if you stop thinking about the Varangians as aliens from the terrible West, corrupting the poor unfortunate inhabitants of Rus' throughout the ages, and the Polovtsians and Pechenegs as some kind of eternal enemies of the Slavs, and just look at reality, then at least at the finds, so to speak, and at the conclusions of historians, then, for example, you can see a huge number of Scandinavian things in the burials of warriors. And not only in Novgorod or Smolensk, well, for example, also near Kiev. Likewise, as you can see, there is a huge number of oriental things. The famous 10th century burial site near Chernigov, the "Black Grave", is a beautiful, very well excavated burial site of a clearly distinguished warrior. Scandinavian items were found here, which leave no doubt that this man was of Scandinavian origin. He was a Varangian. Well, for example, because it’s unlikely that anyone else would have been given an image of the Scandinavian gods. And here are the two horns from which he apparently drank at feasts with his prince, clearly of eastern origin. And this also does not mean that they were simply brought from somewhere and placed there. Because the squad most likely consisted of a wide variety of people, coming from the east from the steppe, coming from Scandinavia and mixed together. This is also a question that is absolutely amazing, how many centuries it has been solved, solved and still not solved. This is a question about the name of the state that arose in the Dnieper region. What was that? This was Rus, and there was Kievan Rus, Southern Rus, Ancient Rus, in any case the word "Rus" is used. What is this anyway? We are very confused by the fact that the word "Rus" is derived from the word "Russian". And immediately there is a feeling that, well, it’s clear, Rus, which later became Russia. But for several centuries historians have been unable to agree on where this name came from. And it’s not just a matter of origin, but the fact that it’s unclear who was being described by this very word. Academician Rybakov and many other historians really wanted to believe that this was what they called, well, who? The Slavs, of course, who lived here. This is how the Ros River appears and from it, of course, the Russian land. But, unfortunately, the study of historical geography has shown that, for example, in the early days of the existence of the state of Kievan Rus, the Ros River was not yet part of it. It would be rather strange if the state was named after a river that was not subject to the local rulers. Again, this means, as I already said, Ros-Rus, there was no such alternation. Another option, proposed by very serious linguists, is to derive the word Rus from the Finnish word "rodsi", which means "to row". And then a fairly consistent thing is built. Who rowed along the rivers, through these lands? The Varangians, naturally, who followed the route from the Varangians to the Greeks and went to trade in Constantinople. They were probably called rowers. Here is the word "rodsi". That is, these are not so much people as merchants passing through here. Very beautiful, very logical. But the question arises: why does the chronicler, who, by the way, often uses “Rus” as a synonym for the Varangians, but not always, and the chronicler uses this form, and this very “Rus” is similar to the names of other peoples, there “ves’”, “sum’” - these are all not Slavic peoples. But if this is still a description of the people, then what do the rowers have to do with it? That is, scientists still cannot agree: is “Rus” some kind of ethnic group or is it something else altogether? Because today, for example, there is an assumption, beautiful, in my opinion, very complex, that initially the word “Rus” did not describe some people or some tribe, but some association of those who served the prince. For example, those who collected people, who collected tribute. Those who walked with Igor, who were they? Igor is a Scandinavian name, and his warriors have a variety of names. This, perhaps, was some kind of unification not of the people, but of the top, let’s say. And then, very serious scientists developed this idea further, and then gradually it became some kind of ethnic group, that is, describing some kind of people. To be honest, it’s very difficult for me to understand how it can be that at first it was some kind of elite of tax collectors, and then it became the people. There is something here, it seems to me, that historical science needs to think about. But in any case, it is clear that even the question of the origin of the name of the state and, accordingly, those who were described by this word, even this question has not yet been resolved and, probably, will not be resolved for a long time. Just as there are absolutely different opinions on the question of what this Russian land is. It is clear that today in a textbook it may be written Ancient Rus, or Kievan Rus. Well, they didn't say that back then. But in ancient documents the words “Russian land” are regularly found. Famous words from "The Tale of Igor's Campaign": "Oh, Russian land, we will be overwhelmed, oh Russian land, you are already behind the hill." When I read it at school, it was clear to me: Igor is probably leaving Russia. But the Russian land is not Russia at all. Moreover, it looks like this is not even Ancient Rus'. This is how the complex of lands that we associate with this word. There is a very important date, in all textbooks the year 882 is highlighted in bold. Creation of the Old Russian state. What happened, according to the chronicler, in 882? Prince Oleg, the future Prophetic Oleg, came down from Novgorod, reached Kyiv, and in Kyiv sat the former warriors of Rurik, Askold and Dir, who for some reason left here. And Oleg, knowing this, pretended to be a merchant. The merchants allegedly brought their goods, Askold and Dir, left the fortress, were immediately captured and killed. Oleg pointed to Igor, Rurik's son, and said: "Here he is, the real prince." Igor was still little, Oleg began to rule in Kyiv. And thus, under his control were Novgorod and Kyiv, that is, most of the route from the Varangians to the Greeks, and this is the Ancient Russian state. But, obviously, the thought suggests itself that the Russian land is the land from Novgorod to Kyiv. Based on most of today's research, this is not the case. The outstanding specialist in historical geography Vladimir Andreevich Kuchkin, he did a lot of this. He studied all the mentions of the words "Russian land" in the texts and writes: "In general, Ancient Rus' extended not in the meridional, but in the latitudinal direction. Its greater part was located on the right bank of the Dnieper, occupying mainly the watershed separating the basins of the Pripyat and Western Bug from the basins of the Southern Bug and Dniester. Novgorod the Great with its cities, the principalities of Polotsk, Smolensk, Suzdal, Ryazan, Murom, Galician, Vladimir, Volyn were not included in the Russian land. Thus, it turns out that the Russian land is a small piece. And if we think carefully now about the list of lands that were not included, Novgorod was not included, that is, what will be the future Russia, the Polotsk principality was not included, that is, the future Belarus, Vladimir Volynsky was not included, that is, today's Ukraine. That is, it was a piece, it was a concept that is absolutely impossible to transfer to any of today's phenomena. Well, or rather, it is possible, but you just need to understand that these words meant something completely different than what is understood today when they say, say, Russia. Or when in the 19th century they said Great Russia, Little Russia and Belarus. It seems to me that it is very useful to understand how all this changes over the centuries. Another question is that Kyiv was, of course, in the center of both the Russian land and the Old Russian lands in general, this is actually beyond doubt. No matter how hard today's textbook publishers or those who give them these orders in Russia try to erase Kyiv from the history of Ancient Rus, this... Well, I would say that this is funny if it were not very, very sad. It is absolutely clear that Kyiv played a huge, gigantic role. It is clear that around it there were these different lands, inhabited by different people who spoke different, but close languages. How will scientists define them, as a single nationality? as different nationalities? This let's leave it at that, these are academic disputes. It is clear that at some point a certain unity was formed here, consisting of parts that were very diverse, but at the same time closely related to each other. So, Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities, around which most of the events described, at least in the initial chronicle, take place. These events mainly, well, just from the end of the 9th century, and Askold and Dir came, then Oleg appeared here, and then Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, Vladimir. And all this mainly revolves around Kyiv. But Askold and Dir were not the first rulers here. Someone was earlier. The chronicler tells us about this. There was a ferry across the river, across the Dnieper, there lived a man named Kiy. Therefore, those people who had to cross the Dnieper, they went there and said: "Where are you going?" "And to the ferry to Kyiv." And from here the city of Kyiv arose. But the chronicler somehow finds this strange. A man, by after whom Kyiv is named, was a carrier. He immediately corrects himself and says: "But they are telling the wrong story about him being a carrier. In fact, he was a prince and even went to Byzantium, and the Byzantine emperor received him there with honor. And he also had two brothers, whose names were Schek and Khoryv. And there are mountains in Kyiv - Shchekovitsa and Khoryvitsa. They also had a sister, Lybid, and there is a river called Lybid. But it is clear that this is a fairy tale. Here are all these explanations that the mountains Shchekovitsa and Khoryvtsya are because there were Shchek and Khoryv, and Kyiv is because Kyiv is a ferry. This is what is called folk etymology. These are wonderful, wonderful, beautiful fairy tales. Of course, as soon as the three brothers appear, the feeling also arises that we are dealing with a fairy tale. But on the other hand, there were historians who took this very seriously. But it’s still the same Boris Alexandrovich Rybakov, whom I have already mentioned several times. He developed the idea that there was a dynasty of Kiy's descendants that ruled in the city of Kyiv, and that Askold and Dir, aka... Rybakov really wanted to minimize the presence of the Varangians. That Askold and Dir were not at all the Varangians, Rurik's warriors, who came here to Kyiv from Novgorod, but that it was actually one Slavic ruler, whose name was Oskoldyr, and his name comes from the name of the Oskol River. And then Oleg came and killed this Oskoldyr. What can one say? Well, of course, the creation of Oskoldyr from Askold and Dir is approximately the same level of reasoning as the Kyiv ferry. On the other hand, of course, it would be interesting to understand. Unfortunately, we know practically nothing about Kiy, whom the chronicler mentions. Even about Rurik, who came to Novgorod, whose historicity many also doubt, we know more about Rurik in some details, there are scientists who find Rurik there, indeed, in Scandinavia, and there is something to rely on. It's very unclear with Kiy. The same Boris Aleksandrovich Rybakov, he, starting from this chronicle story, Prince Kiy went to Byzantium, he writes: "The legendary Kiy acquires the real features of a major historical figure. This is a Slavic prince of the Middle Dnieper region, the founder of the dynasty of Kyiv princes." The chronicler says that Kiy lived on the Dnieper, but the fact that he was the founder of the Kyiv princes is already fantasy. "He is known to the Emperor of Byzantium himself, who invited Kyi to Constantinople and showed him great honor." The chronicler writes that the emperor showed Kiy great honor, but he does not write that the emperor invited him. This too has already been supplemented by the imagination of a modern historian. "The discussion was obviously about the deployment of Kyi's troops on the Danube border of the empire, where the Polyans built a fortification, but then abandoned it and, led by their prince, returned to the Dnieper." The chronicler writes that Kiy was in the Balkans, but he does not write at all that the emperor asked him to come with an army. This is also all a product of fantasy. These creations do not belong to the 20th century, but they are based on a text from the 15th century. In the 15th century, there was a historian in Poland named Jan Dlugosz who wrote a twelve-volume history. He also lived such an interesting, fascinating life. The 15th century was a turbulent century, there was a lot going on there, he was the bishop’s secretary, saved this bishop from death, protecting him from murderers, after that, naturally, he made an excellent career. And so he wrote a large twelve-volume history. And in this story, in particular, he talks about Kiev and his descendants who ruled in Kyiv. He also says that the Polans are the inhabitants of Poland. But perhaps Soviet historians in the 20th century did not really like this idea. And the idea of the Kiya dynasty was taken into service. But this was written by a 15th century historian who clearly made it up completely. And he came up with it again for the same political reasons that influenced historical science in the 20th century, as well as in the 15th. They are very simple. Jan Dlugash carefully substantiated the idea that the lands of the Dnieper basin should be subject to the Polish kings. Such a simple, straightforward move. The remarkable historian and archaeologist Vladimir Yakovlevich Petrukhin writes: "Jan Dlugash was not as naive as some modern authors who did not critically perceive his construction. The fact is that the Polish chronicler sought to substantiate the claims of the Polish state to Kyiv and therefore identified the Kyiv Polyans with the Polish. He considered Kyi to be a Polish pagan prince, and so on. Referring to these constructions, some historians attributed Askold and Dir to the Kievan dynasty." But the variety of fascinating constructions around the ancient history of Kyiv does not end there. A completely different version emerges, which is very interesting to read. And then you read it and think so deeply, deeply. But to understand this version, you first have to go very far from Kyiv. In Egypt, in Cairo, documents from the so-called Cairo Geniza were found back in the 19th century. What is a genizah? This is a place where for many centuries Jews, well, maybe I can’t say exactly now, well, buried sacred manuscripts. The Jewish religion does not allow one to simply throw away or burn a text that mentions the name of God. The written text is sacred and cannot be destroyed. Accordingly, if documents become unusable and become dilapidated, they are rewritten, but the old documents are still stored in such storage facilities. And in the Cairo Genesis ancient Hebrew documents were found that are absolutely invaluable for the history of the Jewish people. They are kept at Cambridge University, and already in the 20th century, in the 60s, several texts were found there, written in Kyiv by residents of Kyiv, but in Hebrew. And there they found a letter with which, apparently, a man with a name that seemed to sound Jewish, but at the same time a little strange, arrived in Cairo. His name was Mar Jacob ben Hanukkah. Hanukkah is a Jewish holiday. That is, the father of this Jacob was called Hanukkah, which is rather strange, since Jews generally don’t name their children that. But there was, however, a man with that name, and from this text it is clear that he had a brother. This brother borrowed a large sum of money, but he was attacked by robbers, he was killed, the money was stolen, and the guarantor was this same Yakov. And then he was put in prison because he couldn't pay back his brother's debt. And then he was sent from Kyiv, apparently he traveled to different Jewish communities and got as far as Egypt, most likely, he died there, in the hope that his fellow believers would give him money, and he would be able to repay the debt. And here is this letter, describing his sad fate, it is signed by eleven people who also have such rather strange names. And these are Jewish names and, obviously, Khazar ones. This is how the Khazars appear in our conversation, those same unreasonable Khazars, it seems, yes, if we believe Alexander Sergeevich, whom Oleg, why did you have to take revenge on. This text is, of course, incredibly interesting in itself. It was written in the 10th century, which means it is the oldest written source written in Kyiv itself. It is written in Hebrew, but there are runes, a writing that was deciphered: "As I read." That is, some representatives of the Jewish community write this text, and someone read this text and, using the runes that were used in Khazaria, wrote: “I read it.” And two scientists, Norman Golb and Omelyan Pritsak... Omelyan Pritsak is a man with a very interesting, complex fate, a man who was born in Ukraine, then ended up in Germany during the war, studied in Germany, and then ended up in America and became a very prominent orientalist. So they studied this text and created the following theory: why does this runic inscription suddenly appear on a text written in Hebrew? They decided that it was some Khazar official who sat in Kyiv and somehow signed this letter. Now I have read it, that is, I confirm that this is so. It's a little strange. Why did he have to do that? From this they came to the conclusion that Kyiv in the 10th century was a fortress that belonged to the Khazars. The Khazar Khaganate was generally located in the lower reaches of the Volga. Much to the dismay of Soviet historians, the Khazar elite adopted Judaism. And that is why the Khazars were usually described... Well, or they were kept silent about, or they were described as almost half-wild nomads, who attacked Rus' again, terribly tormenting Rus'. Well, here is Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov, whom I have already mentioned, who, with all his brilliance and, to use his terms, passionarity, of course, obviously suffered from some anti-Semitism. For him, the Khazars were simply terrible; unlike the Mongols, whom he highly valued, he perceived the Khazars as cruel enemies of Rus'. So, he writes: “While collecting tribute for the Khazars in the Drevlyan land, Igor was killed.” Why Igor collected for the Khazars and not for himself, I don’t know. "Resistance to the Khazars, and not war with Byzantium, became the main problem for Kyiv." This is Gumilyov's view. Well, as I already said, his views are, in general, mostly completely fantastic. But the fact that the Khazars were unreasonable, cruel, and oppressed Rus' has been written about many times. And in the chronicle, firstly, there is a story about how the Khazars took tribute from the Slavic tribes, and this tribute was paid to them with swords. Well, that is also complete fantasy, because, of course, what everyone expected from the Slavic tribes was not swords at all, but first of all furs, honey, wax, slaves, and not swords at all. Well, the chronicler comes up with this story about how the Khazars took tribute in swords, and the Khazar elders looked at this tribute and said: "Woe to us. We fight with sabers, they are sharp only on one side, but their swords are sharp on both sides. So, of course, they will rule over us, and not we over them." It is clear that this story was written much later to justify the wars that the Kyiv princes waged against the Khazars. And there is also a story in the chronicle about how Askold and Dir came to Kyiv: "And walking along the Dnieper and passing by, he saw a town on the mountain, and said: "Honour, is this a town?" Well, whose town is this? "And the inhabitants answer them." Here they say that there were three brothers, Kiy, Shchek and Khoryv, who founded this city. "And we sit, paying tribute to their clan, the Khazars." We pay tribute to their clan, the Khazars. This text, like many other ancient Russian texts, can be interpreted in completely different ways. That is, we sit, we, the continuers of their clan, and pay tribute to the Khazars. From here, everything follows logically. And the Varangians said: "Now you will pay tribute to us, but you will not pay tribute to the Khazars." Such racketeering of the 9th century. But it can be read completely differently. Here Golb and Pritsak read it differently. They believed that we were paying tribute to their Khazar clan. That is, they proceeded from the fact that Kyiv was founded by the Khazars. They even came to the conclusion that the Khazars had a Khorezm military leader who was called Kuya, and it was he who founded a fortress on the outskirts of the Khazar lands. The sources call Kyiv "Kuyaba". "This is the city of Kuya," said Golb and Pritsak. Well, my listeners probably already understood that all this is such a witty and interesting construction, it is all based, in general, on one word, on this runic inscription on the letter, made in Khazar runes. That is, from this they conclude that a Khazar official did this, hence the conclusion that the Khazars created this fortress. Well, another remarkable Ukrainian archaeologist Petro Tolochko, the father of Alexey Tolochko, to whom I have already referred. He analyzes this in detail and quite reasonably says that, in general, Khazar antiquities, and Khazar antiquities are usually associated with the so-called Saltovskaya archaeological culture, but there are almost no Khazar antiquities in early Kyiv, and therefore it is unclear how, how to imagine that this city was founded by the Khazars? And, of course, there is little evidence to support this theory. On the other hand, there are linguists, there are works by the outstanding linguist Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov, an excellent specialist in mythology in general. He has a work analyzing the chronicle story about Vladimir's religious reform. We know that before Vladimir, again, if we believe the chronicler, began to choose from different faiths, he began with the fact that, having seized power in Kyiv, for some reason he placed images of different gods on the high bank of Kiev. And above all stood the god Perun, the god of thunder, the squad is always subordinate to the gods of thunder. Everything is clear here. And then the chronicler lists the names of the gods, and this is one of the main sources from which we learn something we can learn about the beliefs of Ancient Rus. Well, those interested are referred to the lectures that I have on my channel about Slavic beliefs. And the chronicler lists: Dazhbog, Stribog, Mokosh, Khors and Simargl. And in these names, the Slavic roots are quite clearly visible: Dazhbog, most likely, is the god of the sun, the sun gives life. Mokosh is a female deity. But who are Khors and Semargl? Even by the sound it is clear, we do not understand these roots. Oh, how much has been written about these deities. And in general, most are inclined to think that Khors is, most likely, my students always say: "Oh, it's Khors, it's an English horse!" No, Khors is most likely an Iranian root. It is some kind of Iranian deity. Maybe there are also different options: a solar deity, a thunderstorm deity. Simargl is also such an eastern Iranian root. Sometimes it is associated with the simurgh bird, which often appears in the folklore of Iranian-speaking peoples. But now even this is not important. That is, among the gods that Vladimir placed on the hill, for some reason there are two gods who bear Iranian-speaking names. This is somehow, of course, also connected with the influence of the East. Perhaps, by the way, with the same Khazars. Among them were Iranian-speaking, Turkic-speaking. How can this be understood? What is Vladimir doing? He came to power, and he places under the primacy of Perun, his main warrior god, he obviously places those gods that his subjects worshiped. From this we conclude that among his subjects, there were obviously many people who came from the steppes, speaking some Iranian dialects. This, by the way, is also supported by finds, not in Kyiv itself, but in the south of Rus'. Here is the same Saltovskaya culture and others, where eastern things are clearly visible. This once again shows how complex, how Ancient Rus was an amazing formation, where people lived, praying to different gods, speaking different languages, coming here from different directions. And unlike those who are trying to remove the Scandinavians from ancient history, remove the Turks and steppe dwellers from ancient history, or who are trying to remove Kyiv from the history of Russia, or cut Russian and Ukrainian history in the same way. It seems to me that this diversity, this wealth, this beauty, this incredibly interesting combination of different influences. And when, also relying on archaeological finds, you imagine beautiful ancient Kyiv ... I realized, also preparing for this lecture, that I have never been to Kyiv in winter, but always in spring or summer. Therefore, I always imagine these green hills, with many trees, with blossoming chestnuts. There are also a lot of studies about what these very first ancient Russian cities were like. Not at all what we imagine from some films or pictures: a huge city, there are traders there, of course, a huge market. It was all still in its infancy. In the cities, of course, they grazed cattle, there were vegetable gardens and orchards. It is clear that here, on Starokievskaya Hill and on Zamkova Hill, the nobility was located, the princes were located. There was a hill fort here, a fenced area. Here is the center of power. Below, obviously, lived, well, let's say, also the elite, but maybe smaller. There were warriors, there were merchants, maybe large ones, all sorts. Well, and below, on the hem, naturally, simpler people. And there are also many disputes about whether there were, well, let's say, at the moment when Oleg comes, here were different such small settlements that only later united, or was there already a single city? Well, probably, for our conversation now this is also not so important. What is important is that, say, at the end of the 9th and especially in the middle of the 10th century, this city, united, indeed, from different, of course, settlements, from different groups of people who came here, this city begins to develop, its importance increases sharply. There is also such a beautiful theory that in the previous centuries, in the 18th, early 9th, the Volga route played a big role, along which Arab trade went, along which Arab silver went. The number of Arab dirhams that archaeologists find is absolutely enormous. But at the end of the 9th century, for various reasons, this trade stopped for a while. It's just that in Central Asia, where these coins mainly came from, there was a crisis, trade weakened. And at that moment, well, what we call the route from the Varangians to the Greeks begins to rise, and great Kyiv begins to grow. But Alexey Tolochko believes that the main trade was, which went along the Dnieper route, the slave trade, and in exchange for this they received silk from Constantinople. Also a very unexpected approach, because well, usually they say how they transported furs, they received a luxury item. But what kind of luxury items - it's not entirely clear. It's also hard to imagine ... Usually the silk business is combined with the East, well, with China, of course, maybe Constantinople. Also imagine silk coming here to the Kyiv princes - this completely suddenly, from some unexpected side turns this whole city. Although it is clear that furs were transported here, and these wonderful Kyiv jewelers were here. And a completely different stage in the history of these places begins, but about it in the next lecture of this series. Thanks to everyone who made this recording possible, thanks to our patrons on Patreon, thanks to our sponsors on YouTube, thanks to those who subscribed to donations on the Boosty platform. We are very grateful to you all. Without you, we cannot do anything. And of course, I want to know how you perceive the chronicle legends? Are they reality for you, or is it a fairy tale? I look forward to your comments. Good luck!