The chronicle collection "The Tale of Bygone Years" is the only written source confirming the existence of the so-called Kievan Rus. Appearing to the world at the time of the formation of the "official version" of our ancient history, it is now and then subjected to just criticism of specialists and cannot be regarded as a reliable historical document.
But even if we take seriously this purely literary work and the events described in it, then this is at least not enough to confirm the existence of such a medieval association as Kievan Rus. Well, such an "outstanding" state in Eastern Europe could not leave behind only one written historical source! But first things first…
Could Kiev be the capital of Russia?
To begin with, I would like to consider the very possibility of the emergence of such a Dnieper association as Kievan Rus, and in particular its center - Kiev. Even for a person who is far from historical science, it is clear that the likelihood that Kiev, located somewhere on the outskirts, could become the center of the state is not just negligible, but also absurd. First, regardless of the initial size of the state, they always try to locate its capital as close to the center as possible - away from the external borders and their potential enemy. Thus, the center of the country will be reliably protected from external invasion, which we do not see at all in the case of Kiev, which was located on the outskirts of the medieval state.
Secondly, another, the most favorable place for the location of the capital is the point of intersection of transport routes. In this case, from the center you can always easily get to any, even the most remote corner of the state. Otherwise, it is simply impossible to manage such a giant association as Kievan Rus without the availability of modern means of communication (telephone, radio, television, telegraph, Internet). But in the case of Kiev, we see the exact opposite picture - it is not only located on the outskirts, but also lacks convenient transport links with most significant cities - Moscow, Novgorod, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Polotsk and others.
Promotional video:
Thirdly, most of the medieval capitals are not only administrative, but also trade centers of their states. For the convenience of maintaining trade, they could be located on the shore of the sea or a large river. And in the case of Kiev, at first glance, everything is fine - it is located on the Dnieper. But this is only at first glance! Since the prospects for the development of international trade along the Dnieper River are highly doubtful. Its tributaries make it possible to enter such "partisan" territories as Pripyat, Polesie or Pinsk, the development of which was not completed even by the beginning of the 20th century. What can we say about the earlier period and the prospects for the development of transit trade through these lands. And here the supporters of the Varangian way - "from the Varangians to the Greeks" come to the aid of the dubious position of Kiev. According to some historians,it was this path that connected the northern Baltic lands, Novgorod, Kiev and the Black Sea. Absolutely irrational, and in some places absurd, it involves the passage of an intricate, winding route "Baltika - Volkhov - Lovat - Western Dvina - Dnieper" and overcoming two watersheds by portage. But the Varangians are real heroes of their time, they don't care about anything! They can drag their ships overland and do not seek direct routes!
But seriously, the distance along the route "Baltic - Volkhov - Lovat - Zapadnaya Dvina - Dnepr" is 5 times longer than the distance along the route "Baltika - Zapadnaya Dvina - Dnepr", which involves only one portage and goes directly to the Black Sea … Not to mention the fact that it was possible to "go to the Greeks" along the route "Baltic - Vistula - Bug - Pripyat - Dnepr". But, no matter how the Varangians went there, the existence of an economically profitable trade route connecting the north, Kiev and the south is very much in doubt. This is very unlikely due to the natural geographic features of the Dnieper itself - below Kiev it is dotted with rather dangerous rapids that exclude the possibility of the passage of merchant ships. Thus, the famous French engineer and cartographer Guillaume Boplan writes in his work "Description of Ukraine":
The fertility of the soil delivers bread to the inhabitants in such abundance that they often do not know what to do with it, especially since they do not have navigable rivers flowing into the sea, with the exception of the Dnieper, which, 50 miles below Kiev, is barred by thirteen rapids, the last of which is a good seven miles from the first, which is a whole day's journey, as shown on the map. This barrier prevents them from melting their bread to Constantinople.
Interesting fact! As it is in the XVII century. has suddenly ceased to be a navigable river, along which the largest trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passed just a few centuries ago? Well, let's say that the selfless merchants of that time were not afraid of any obstacles. Thirsty for profit, they were ready to zip along an absurd route, drag their ships dozens of miles, smash them on the dangerous Dnieper rapids, and all in order to get from the Baltic to the Black Sea through Kiev. Then a completely natural question arises: where, in fact, is the existence of a seaport or at least a seedy fortress located at the mouth of the river. Dnieper? Indeed, only with their help, the Kiev princes could control trade and order on this route. But they simply do not exist!
And only in the future the representatives of the Ottoman Empire will erect the geographically and strategically important fortress of Achi-Kale, blocking the exit to the Black Sea from the Dnieper. It is for Achi-Kale that Prince Potemkin will fight for almost a year and a half. In 1788 it will be conquered, and from 1792 it will bear the Russian name - Ochakov. A little earlier (in 1778) at the mouth of the river. Dnipro will appear another large city - Kherson. But it was also founded as a Russian fortress and has nothing to do with the existence of Kievan Rus. As well as the fortress laid in 1784 in the Dnieper-Bug estuary, from which the city of Nikolaev traces its history.
But this time too, the precarious position of Kievan Rus "is saved by cunning historians." In particular, they literally come up with the existence of an ancient Russian port at the mouth of the river. Dnieper. Say, earlier on the site of the small town of Aleshki, which was founded in 1784 and since 1854 has been called Tsyurupinsk, a fairly rich commercial port city of Oleshye (XI century) was built, which appeared during the existence of the Cossack Sich. At the same time, there is no direct historical evidence of this "miraculous metamorphosis". And all the real archaeological finds only prove that at the beginning of the XVIII century. there really was a Cossack fortification that arose at the end of the 17th century. However, this settlement was called Dneprovsk, and only after a while it was renamed in honor of the fictitious old Russian city of Oleshie. After all, to change toponymy,especially if the need arises, it is not difficult for historians!
But back to our "great trade route", which, by all definitions, was supposed to be a tidbit for dashing robbers. To protect them from them, the princes and their subjects were simply obliged to build well-fortified settlements on the banks of the Dnieper. Having inns for the rest of merchants and the necessary infrastructure, over time they were supposed to expand and gradually turn into fairly large cities. And now the question: how many of these ancient Russian cities on the banks of the river. Do you know the Dnieper? Small Kanev with a population of only 28,000 people, the village of Lyubech, the regional town of Rogachev, Orsha and Smolensk? But this is an insignificant number in terms of its geographic and strategic scale! Especially considering the fact that the Scandinavians called the territory of Ancient Russia nothing else than Gardarika - the country of cities. Where are these cities? And this is not to mention especially dangerous sections of the "Great Trade Route" - the Dnieper rapids, overcoming which meant reliable protection from an external attack by robbers. Such protection could only be guaranteed by the fortifications erected along the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." But where are these fortifications?
Kiev archeology: few finds, many tales
And now let's try to look at the problem of the existence of Kievan Rus from an economic point of view. According to her postulates, any more or less large trading city is a place where transactions are made and there is a customs fee, i.e. washed. And in this case, historians are trying to convince us that Kiev was just such a place. He "gave the go-ahead" to actively trading merchants following the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", and here all merchants since the "pre-Kiev" times had to pay myt. At the same time, one of the most influential figures in Soviet history, professor and academician Boris Rybakov, writes the following in his study "City of Kiya":
The assumption about "customs fees" in the vicinity of the future Kiev is supported by a large number of finds of beautiful bronze objects decorated with multicolored champlevé enamel. Brooches, decorative chains, details of drinking horns in compact mass are found in the space from the mouth of the Desna to Rossi.
What is the academician telling us about? It turns out that the customs everywhere demanded the payment of myt in money, and the "Dokievsk" and Kiev customs officers were painfully greedy for works of applied art and, out of their kindness of soul, took a duty from merchants not in money, but in various utensils? However, thanks to academician Rybakov for this too! Indeed, unlike the modern "luminaries" of the Ukrainian historical science, he at least did not lie and honestly, albeit in a veiled form, but stated: near Kiev, a myt coin was not found. On the other hand, there is an abundance of household utensils made of bronze. By the way! The Scandinavian researchers came to a similar conclusion, who also refute the "greatness of the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks." According to them, the share of Byzantine coins accounts for less than 1% of all finds,discovered on the territory of archaeological complexes. At the same time, a large number of discovered silver dirhams indicates a fairly developed trade relations with the Russians who lived in the Volga region.
Summarizing all of the above, the conclusion suggests itself. Essentially, Kiev is more of a regional trade center. He is far from the title of "world" center of trade relations, and even more so he could not play a significant role in the political life of ancient Russia. If it were really the capital, then fortifications would undoubtedly form around its center, eventually forming satellite cities, protecting its approaches from all sides. For example, around Moscow, the Golden Ring was formed with well-fortified cities and monasteries. The approaches to St. Petersburg are protected by a large number of forts and an extensive network of suburbs, etc.
Unlike Moscow and St. Petersburg, Kiev was very, very weakly defended, because of which, at the slightest threat from a potential enemy, it easily passed from hand to hand and could not withstand the onslaught. At the same time, on the territory of the city itself, we do not find even the faintest semblance of an impregnable citadel, which befits the status of the capital. There is not even a hint of the Moscow Kremlin, or even the smaller Pskov or Novgorod structures. And all the known fortifications were erected on the territory of Kiev much later, in the late 17th - early 18th centuries. All this once again underlines a certain bankruptcy of Kiev in political, trade and economic terms. In response to these facts, historians do not stop repeating one thing: they say, at one time Kiev suffered greatly from the Tatar-Mongol invasion, was plundered, burned,destroyed, etc. Then it is quite a logical question: why such a "large capital" of Kievan Rus was not restored and shone in its greatness in spite of the enemies? Why did the same Moscow, burned down in 1812 and several times in an earlier period, always rebuild quickly? While the "poor, unhappy" Kiev was broken, depressed and vegetated in the shadows almost until the onset of the Soviet era.
Just for reference, some statistics, so to speak, an opportunity to look at the problem from the other side. At the turn of the XVIII - XIX centuries. the population of Kiev is 188,000 people. The population of the then very young Odessa - more than 193,000 people. About 198,000 inhabitants live in Kharkov at this moment. By the end of the XIX century. Moscow is already home to about 800,000 people, and St. Petersburg, together with the suburbs, has more than 1,350,000 residents. At the same time, the population of Kiev practically does not increase, and it itself is an insignificant provincial, practically provincial city on the territory of Russia and just a railway junction. And the point here is far from being "historical injustice"! And the geographical and strategic location of Kiev. Located far from major trade and economically significant centers,it is not very attractive for settlement and continues to be just a province. And along with its vegetation, the southern region and New Russia are being actively developed. Even with the advent of Soviet power, the capital of Ukraine is not Kiev, but Kharkov, in which practically no one speaks Ukrainian. And only in the post-war period, when in 1947-1954. the architectural ensemble of Khreshchatyk was built, Kiev acquires a more attractive, solemn appearance, becomes a more "metropolitan" and beautiful city. Kiev is acquiring a more attractive, solemn appearance, becoming a more "metropolitan" and beautiful city. Kiev is acquiring a more attractive, solemn appearance, becoming a more "metropolitan" and beautiful city.
In general, even in the past, Kiev was never considered as a single settlement. So, at the end of the XVIII century. on the future territory of the modern city there were three separated settlements: the Kiev-Pechersk fortress with suburbs, two versts from it was Upper Kiev and three versts from them lay Podol. According to the "Geographical description of the city of Kiev, composed by the Kiev garrison by lieutenant Vasily Ivanovich Novgorodtsov"
… The Old or Upper City of Kiev consists of four sections, which are surrounded by an earthen rampart with deliberately deep ditches and are called Andreevsky, Sofia, Mikhailovsky and Pechersky branches … There were wooden particular courtyards - 682.
At that time, in the Kiev-Pechersk fortress, which included the Lavra and the suburb, Novgorodtsev recorded 2 male monasteries, 8 stone and 3 wooden churches. And the inspector who arrived counted 9 state-owned stone and 27 wooden buildings along with a suburb and 1095 particular (civil) courtyards.
The most populated part of Kiev was Podil. Namely:
In the city of Kiev-Podil there are buildings: male monasteries: stone - 7, wooden - 2, female stone - 7; churches: stone - 9, wooden - 77; magistrate buildings: stone - 4, wooden - 7; philistine courtyards: stone - 3, wooden - 1926.
Thus, in all three scattered settlements of Kiev, there were less than 4,000 courtyards (houses), three of which were stone. And the total number of inhabitants, according to the census at the time of the reign of Catherine II, did not exceed 20,000 people! In other words, a mediocre regional center. The trading opportunities of the then Kiev can be judged by the phrase of the same lieutenant:
Merchants from the Kiev bourgeoisie, who would have had large capital, no, except for three or four, while others have mediocre, better to say, small capital.
In other words, the nature of the trade was very, very mediocre. He goes on to say:
Along the Dnieper River in the spring and in the low-water period, also in autumn from the Great Russian cities: from Bryansk, Trubchevsk, and from the Little Russia: Novgorodok-Seversky and from other places to Kiev and to the Little Russian cities of Pereyaslav, Gorodishche, Kremenchug and Perevolochny with bread, with bread wine, with strip iron and cast iron, with hemp oil, diogtum, with ropes, matting, with honey, with ham bacon and wooden utensils, barges, or so-called canyons go, and from Poland in rafts, timber and firewood, and other forest supplies are floated … In the city of Podil there is a pier for ships.
In a word, the lieutenant does not report anything interesting and particularly outstanding about the life of the provincial city of Kiev in his report. The general picture of the "gloomy provincial chronicle" is also confirmed by archaeological excavations. Designed to discover the material values of the past, they have been actively pursued on the territory of Kiev since the mid-50s. XX century During this time, a decent amount of various insignificant trifles was discovered, thanks to which many scientific works were written. What is the bottom line? - In the end, nothing! The treasures, which are of particular value for archaeologists, are discovered on the territory of Kiev, especially in Podil, with cherished regularity. But the problem is that the Byzantine coins found in this case have nothing to do with the period of the birth of the “statehood” of Kievan Rus and the formation of its “capital”. And based on the official dating of the discovered coins, only one conclusion can be drawn: ordinary robbers buried silver and gold in the Dnieper expanses.
Well, what about the Old Russian coins? Yes, too, no way! Period XII-XIII centuries. was officially declared "coinless" by "historians". Say, there was no money in that era and, accordingly, it is pointless to look for them. At the same time, some pundits offer their own version of commodity-money relations - the existence of the so-called hryvnias, which were essentially silver bars.
Silver bars (hryvnias) are, of course, much better than the generally “coinless” period. But then a completely natural question arises: how did ordinary people pay for their purchases in the bazaar? Agree, it is difficult to imagine some man in the street who came to "skimp on little things" and each of the sellers "cuts off" a small piece of silver from his ingot. Any coin is a simple yet ingenious invention of mankind. After all, all coins are identical to each other - they are equal in weight and composition, which means they have absolutely the same purchasing value. As for the ingots, to determine by eye how much silver should be “cut off”, for example, for a chicken - neither the seller nor the buyer can do this with pinpoint accuracy. Therefore, even ordinary common sense suggeststhat if coins have entered circulation at least once in the history of the people, then they will not go anywhere - this is convenient and greatly simplifies commodity-money relations.
But the problem is that silver and gold coins gradually wear out in the course of their daily use. For example, there was a coin weighing 12 g, and a year later, you see, it no longer weighs 12 g, but 11 g. What to do in this situation? The man came up with a way out - over time, paper bills were invented, which did not lose their weight, and, consequently, their purchasing power, either after a year or two. But this happened over time, and so far hryvnia has been invented - a kind of 200-gram silver bills.
Thus, silver hryvnia bars are not expendable coins! These are large denomination bills intended for settlement for bulk purchases. And most likely they were in circulation not instead of small coins, but along with them. Moreover, they paid only for large transactions, for example, merchants for their wholesale. And ordinary people still went to the shop or market with small coins. In this case, a new question arises: why historians persistently date the hryvnia to the 12th – 13th centuries? Indeed, even according to the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, they were in circulation until the 16th century, and there is no apparent reason to link their existence to the period of Kievan Rus. The answer to this question is not as simple as it might seem at first glance.
The hryvnia is a specific measure of silver. At the same time, completely different coins could be in circulation - dinars, efimkas, thalers. They could be silver or gold. The main thing is that they were all converted into a single silver hryvnia weighing 200 g. Moreover, their flow had to flow into a single princely mint, which, according to the "stories" of historians, could only be located in Kiev, as in the capital of Kievan Rus. And that means that it was here that archaeologists had to find a large number of treasures with hryvnia every now and then. But where are these treasures !? Let's turn to official historical sources for the answer! Thus, the Book of Ivan Spassky "Russian Monetary System" indicates the following:
Only one coin was found in Kiev [in 1792], and even then not in the ground, but as a pendant to an icon, while all the rest gravitate towards the northwestern edge of the ancient Russian state: one was found in the ground near the ancient Yuryev (Tartu) the other on the island of Saarema; there are indications about the find in the Petersburg province. There are several known imitative coins originating from Scandinavia. "Yaroslavl srebro" is therefore attributed to the period of Yaroslav's reign in Novgorod - at the hand of Vladimir, who occupied the Russian table. Just as the image of Christ was placed on the coins of the early Kiev type described above, here the other side is occupied by the image of the Christian patron saint of Yaroslav - St. George.
Further more interesting:
… At the end of the 20s. XIX century. several more coins appeared: two silver coins of Vladimir were found in Boryspil in Ukraine, and one each at the Tsimlyansk settlement (ancient Sarkel - Belaya Vezha) and in Poland - as part of the Lenchitsky hoard. In 1852 the famous Nezhinsky treasure was found - about 200 silver coins.
Thus, these coins can hardly be called "truly Kiev" - they are found anywhere, but not in the coin warehouses-hoards of the capital of Kievan Rus. For example, one of the largest treasures was discovered in 1906 on the territory of Tver. Many coins of the Kiev type were unearthed during the excavation of the Gotlandian hoard in Sweden. At the same time, historians do not provide any evidence that these “treasures” were minted in Kiev. Conclusion: their linking specifically to Kiev is nothing more than another speculative move by "would-be historians". And only one find on the territory of the Mikhailovsky Monastery could speak in favor of the minting of truly Kiev coins in Kiev. But, unfortunately, it was made in 1997, i.e. already during the period of "Svidomo independence", and could well have been simply falsified. And the proof of this is all the latest "sensational" finds of modern Ukrainian archaeologists. Either they discovered a mass grave of the victims of the "Baturyn massacre", then, miraculously, the "Ukrainian" version of the Orlikov constitution was revealed to the world, although the "Mova" in the 18th century. did not exist yet. In a word, if for propaganda or political purposes it is necessary to discover the sunken Atlantis in the middle of the Kiev reservoir, then Ukrainian toilers-archeologists will easily dig it out there.then the Ukrainian archeological workers will dig it out there without difficulty.then the Ukrainian archeological workers will dig it out there without difficulty.
But it is known for certain that under the so-called Kiev silver coins should be understood about 340 types of coins with different silver content. Most likely, they began to be minted as soon as the princely treasury was empty, and after they were forcibly introduced into circulation at the desired rate, which directly testifies to the economic weakness of the principality. But still! What are the Kiev treasures and what does their presence indicate? In most cases, these are modest stash of ordinary people. In essence, these are silver or gold jewelry set aside for a "rainy day": rings, earrings, crosses. As a rule, they are hidden in pots and simply buried in the ground. As for the larger treasures, for example, those belonging to the same merchants, in this case, not everything is so transparent and simple. Here is just one of the latest examples. "Treasure from the ruins of the Tithe Church" by S. I. Klimovsky, an employee of the Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, published in the "East European Archaeological Journal" (No. 5 (6), 2000). This article starts off quite promising:
Among the ancient Russian cities, Kiev ranks first in the number of treasures found …
However, after that there is a description of some mythical finds made in the XI century, and about which is known only from the chronicles of subsequent centuries. Of the reliably made discoveries, the author was the first to mention the treasure discovered “in the choir of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, which was the secret monastic treasury of the 17th – 18th centuries. and numbering 6184 gold coins … . Undoubtedly! This treasure is a real treasure for archaeologists and historians, but, unfortunately, it has nothing to do with ancient Kievan Rus. Finally, S. I. Klimovsky provides truly reliable information:
In 1955, during excavations on the street. Vladimirskaya, 7-9 in a dwelling of the 13th century. an earthen pot was found near the stove, in which there were gold kolts, earrings, silver twisted and plate bracelets, and rings. This treasure, hidden during the siege of 1240, for many years became the last Old Russian treasure discovered in this part of Kiev. And now, 43 years later, on the opposite side of the street, a new treasure was found, sharply different from those known in the area, but closely related, like most of them, to the events of December 1240.
Based on this, it is not difficult to predict the rhetoric of interested historians: all ancient treasures have long been plundered, and “reliable” rumors about their early existence reach us. At the same time, any sane person can draw a completely logical conclusion: all the coin hoards discovered on the territory of Kiev indicate that this ancient city has never been and could not be the capital of the Russian state.
Kiev was not an administrative, commercial or economic center of Kievan Rus. Otherwise, he would now and then delight archaeologists with valuable finds proving his power and the economic flourishing of the ancient state. Why isn't this happening? Here the answer is already extremely simple! Because Kievan Rus with its capital Kiev is nothing more than an invention of historians interested in this.
Based on the book by Alexei Kungurov "Kievan Rus was not, or What the historians are hiding"