Centers of chronicle writing in ancient Rus'. Chronicles and centers of chronicle writing in ancient Rus'

The chronicle of the ancient Slavic state was almost forgotten thanks to the German professors who wrote Russian history and set as their goal to rejuvenate the history of Rus', to show that the Slavic peoples were supposedly “virginly pure, not stained by the deeds of the Russians, Antes, barbarians, Vandals and Scythians, whom everyone remembered very well.” world".

The goal is to tear Rus' away from the Scythian past. Based on the work of German professors, a domestic historical school arose. All history textbooks teach us that before baptism, wild tribes lived in Rus' - “pagans”.

This is a big Lie, because history has been rewritten many times to please the existing ruling system - starting with the first Romanovs, i.e. history is interpreted as beneficial at the moment to the ruling class. Among the Slavs, their past is called Heritage or Chronicle, and not History (the word “Let” preceded, introduced by Peter the Great in 7208 years from S.M.Z.H., the concept of “year”, when instead of the Slavic chronology they introduced 1700 from the supposed Nativity of Christ). S.M.Z.H. - this is the Creation / signing / of Peace with the Arim / Chinese / in the summer called the Star Temple - after the end of the Great World War (something like May 9, 1945, but more significant for the Slavs).

Therefore, is it worth trusting textbooks that, even in our memory, have been rewritten more than once? And is it worth trusting textbooks that contradict many facts that say that before baptism, in Rus' there was a huge state with many cities and towns (Country of Cities), a developed economy and crafts, with its own unique Culture (Culture = Kultura = Cult of Ra = Cult of Light). Our ancestors who lived in those days had a vital Wisdom and worldview that helped them always act according to their Conscience and live in harmony with the world around them. This attitude to the World is now called the Old Faith (“old” means “pre-Christian”, and previously it was called simply - Faith - Knowledge of Ra - Knowledge of Light - Knowledge of the Shining Truth of the Almighty). Faith is primary, and Religion (for example, Christian) is secondary. The word “Religion” comes from “Re” - repetition, “League” - connection, unification. Faith is always one (there is either a connection with God or there is not), and there are many religions - as many as there are Gods among the people or as many ways as intermediaries (popes, patriarchs, priests, rabbis, mullahs, etc.) come up with to establish connection with them.

Since the connection with God established through third parties - intermediaries, for example - priests, is artificial, then, in order not to lose the flock, each religion claims to be “Truth in the first instance.” Because of this, many bloody religious wars have been and are being waged.

Mikhailo Vasilyevich Lomonosov fought alone against the German professorship, arguing that the history of the Slavs goes back to ancient times.

Ancient Slavic state RUSKOLAN occupied lands from the Danube and the Carpathians to the Crimea, North Caucasus and the Volga, and the subject lands captured the Trans-Volga and South Ural steppes.

The Scandinavian name for Rus' sounds like Gardarika - a country of cities. Arab historians also write about the same thing, numbering Russian cities in the hundreds. At the same time, claiming that in Byzantium there are only five cities, the rest are “fortified fortresses.” In ancient documents, the state of the Slavs is referred to as Scythia and Ruskolan.

The word “Ruskolan” has the syllable “lan”, which is present in the words “hand”, “valley” and means: space, territory, place, region. Subsequently, the syllable “lan” was transformed into the European land - country. Sergei Lesnoy in his book “Where are you from, Rus'?” says the following: “With regard to the word “Ruskolun”, it should be noted that there is also a variant “Ruskolan”. If the latter option is more correct, then the word can be understood differently: “Russian doe.” Lan - field. The whole expression: “Russian field.” In addition, Lesnoy makes the assumption that there was a word “cleaver”, which probably meant some kind of space. It is also found in other verbal environments. Historians and linguists also believe that the name of the state “Ruskolan” could come from two words “Rus” and “Alan” after the names of the Rus and Alans who lived in a single state.

Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov had the same opinion, who wrote:
“The same tribe of Alans and Roxolans is clear from many places of ancient historians and geographers, and the difference is that the Alans common name an entire people, and the Roxolans are a word derived from their place of residence, which is not without reason derived from the river Ra, as the Volga (VolGa) is known to the ancient writers.”

The ancient historian and scientist Pliny puts the Alans and Roxolans together. Roksolane, by the ancient scientist and geographer Ptolemy, is called Alanorsi by figurative addition. The names Aorsi and Roxane or Rossane in Strabo - “the exact unity of the Rosses and Alans asserts, to which the reliability is increased, that they were both of the Slavic generation, then that the Sarmatians were of the same tribe from ancient writers and are therefore attested to have the same roots with the Varangians-Russians.”

We also note that Lomonosov also refers to the Varangians as Russians, which once again shows the fraud of the German professors, who deliberately called the Varangians alien, and not Slavic people. This manipulation and the birth of a legend about the calling of a foreign tribe to reign in Rus' had a political background so that once again the “enlightened” West could point out to the “wild” Slavs their denseness, and that it was thanks to the Europeans that the Slavic state was created. Modern historians, in addition to adherents of the Norman theory, also agree that the Varangians are precisely a Slavic tribe.

Lomonosov writes:
“According to Helmold’s testimony, the Alans were mixed with the Kurlanders, the same tribe of the Varangian-Russians.”

Lomonosov writes - Varangians-Russians, and not Varangians-Scandinavians, or Varangians-Goths. In all documents of the pre-Christian period, the Varangians were classified as Slavs.

Lomonosov further writes:
“The Rugen Slavs were called for short the Ranas, that is, from the Ra (Volga) River, and the Rossans. This will be more clearly demonstrated by their resettlement to the Varangian shores. Weissel from Bohemia suggests that the Amakosovians, Alans, and Wends came from the east to Prussia.”

Lomonosov writes about the Rugen Slavs. It is known that on the island of Rügen in the city of Arkona there was the last Slavic pagan temple, destroyed in 1168. Now there is a Slavic museum there.

Lomonosov writes that it was from the east that Slavic tribes came to Prussia and the island of Rügen and adds:
“Such a migration of the Volga Alans, that is, Rossans or Rosses, to the Baltic Sea occurred, as can be seen from the evidence given by the authors above, more than once and not in short time, which is clear from the traces that have remained to this day with which the names of cities and rivers should be honored.”

But let's return to the Slavic state.

Capital of Ruskolani, city Kiyar was located in the Caucasus, in the Elbrus region near the modern villages of Upper Chegem and Bezengi. Sometimes he was also called Kiyar Antskiy, named after Slavic tribe ants. The results of the expeditions to the site of the ancient Slavic city will be written at the end. Descriptions of this Slavic city can be found in ancient documents.

"Avesta" in one of the places talks about the main city of the Scythians in the Caucasus near one of the most high mountains in the world. And as you know, Elbrus is the highest mountain not only in the Caucasus, but also in Europe in general. “Rigveda” tells about the main city of the Rus, all on the same Elbrus.

Kiyara is mentioned in the Book of Veles. Judging by the text, Kiyar, or the city of Kiya the Old, was founded 1300 years before the fall of Ruskolani (368 AD), i.e. in the 9th century BC.

The ancient Greek geographer Strabo, who lived in the 1st century. BC. - early 1st century AD writes about the Temple of the Sun and the sanctuary of the Golden Fleece in the sacred city of the Russians, in the Elbrus region, on the top of Mount Tuzuluk.

Our contemporaries discovered the foundation of an ancient structure on the mountain. Its height is about 40 meters, and its base diameter is 150 meters: the ratio is the same as Egyptian pyramids and other religious buildings of antiquity. There are many obvious and not at all random patterns in the parameters of the mountain and the temple. The observatory-temple was created according to a “standard” design and, like other Cyclopean structures - Stonehenge and Arkaim - was intended for astrological observations.

In the legends of many peoples there is evidence of the construction on the sacred Mount Alatyr (modern name - Elbrus) of this majestic structure, revered by all ancient peoples. There are mentions of it in the national epic of the Greeks, Arabs, and European peoples. According to Zoroastrian legends, this temple was captured by Rus (Rustam) in Usenem (Kavi Useinas) in the second millennium BC. Archaeologists officially note at this time the emergence of the Koban culture in the Caucasus and the appearance of the Scythian-Sarmatian tribes.

The temple of the Sun is also mentioned by the geographer Strabo, placing in it the sanctuary of the Golden Fleece and the oracle of Eetus. There are detailed descriptions of this temple and evidence that astronomical observations were carried out there.

The Sun Temple was a veritable paleoastronomical observatory of antiquity. Priests who had certain knowledge created such observatory temples and studied stellar science. There, not only dates for farming were calculated, but, most importantly, the most important milestones in world and spiritual history were determined.

The Arab historian Al Masudi described the Temple of the Sun on Elbrus as follows: “In the Slavic regions there were buildings revered by them. Among the others they had a building on a mountain, about which philosophers wrote that it was one of the highest mountains in the world. There is a story about this building: about the quality of its construction, about the arrangement of its different stones and their different colors, about the holes made in the upper part of it, about what was built in these holes for observing the sunrise, about the things placed there precious stones and the signs marked in it, which indicate future events and warn against incidents before their implementation, about the sounds heard in the upper part of it and about what befalls them when listening to these sounds.”

In addition to the above documents, information about the main ancient Slavic city, the Temple of the Sun and the Slavic state as a whole is in the Elder Edda, in Persian, Scandinavian and ancient Germanic sources, in the Book of Veles. According to legend, near the city of Kiyar (Kiev) there was sacred mountain Alatyr - archaeologists believe that this was Elbrus. Next to it was the Iriysky, or Garden of Eden, and the Smorodina River, which separated the earthly and afterlife worlds, and connected Yav and Nav (that Light) Kalinov Bridge.

This is how they talk about two wars between the Goths (an ancient Germanic tribe) and the Slavs, the invasion of the Goths into the ancient Slavic state by the Gothic historian of the 4th century Jordan in his book “The History of the Goths” and “The Book of Veles”. In the middle of the 4th century, the Gothic king Germanarech led his people to conquer the world. It was great commander. According to Jordanes, he was compared to Alexander the Great. The same thing was written about Germanarakh and Lomonosov:
“Ermanaric, the Ostrogothic king, for his courage in conquering many northern peoples, was compared by some to Alexander the Great.”

Judging by the testimony of the Jordan, the Elder Edda and the Book of Veles, after long wars, Germanarekh captured almost all Eastern Europe. He fought along the Volga to the Caspian Sea, then fought on the Terek River, crossed the Caucasus, then walked along the Black Sea coast and reached Azov.

According to the “Book of Veles,” Germanarekh first made peace with the Slavs (“drank wine for friendship”), and only then “came against us with a sword.”

The peace treaty between the Slavs and Goths was sealed by the dynastic marriage of the sister of the Slavic prince-tsar Bus - Lebedi and Germanarech. This was payment for peace, for Hermanarekh was many years old at that time (he died at 110 years old, the marriage was concluded shortly before that). According to Edda, Swan-Sva was wooed by the son of Germanarekh Randver, and he took her to his father. And then Earl Bikki, Germanareh’s adviser, told them that it would be better if Randver got the Swan, since both of them were young, and Germanareh was an old man. These words pleased Swan-Sva and Randver, and Jordan adds that Swan-Sva fled from Germanarech. And then Germanareh executed his son and Swan. And this murder was the cause of the Slavic-Gothic War. Having treacherously violated the “peace treaty,” Germanarekh defeated the Slavs in the first battles. But then, when Germanarekh moved into the heart of Ruskolani, the Antes stood in the way of Germanarekh. Germanarekh was defeated. According to Jordan, he was struck in the side with a sword by the Rossomons (Ruskolans) - Sar (king) and Ammius (brother). The Slavic prince Bus and his brother Zlatogor inflicted a mortal wound on Germanarech, and he soon died. This is how Jordan, the Book of Veles, and later Lomonosov wrote about it.

“The Book of Veles”: “And Ruskolan was defeated by the Goths of Germanarakh. And he took a wife from our family and killed her. And then our leaders rushed against him and defeated Germanarekh.”

Jordan. “History is ready”: “The unfaithful family of Rosomons (Ruskolan) ... took advantage of the following opportunity... After all, after the king, driven by rage, ordered a certain woman named Sunhilda (Swan) from the named family to be torn apart for treacherously leaving her husband, tied to fierce horses and causing the horses to run away different sides, her brothers Sar (King Bus) and Ammius (Zlat), avenging the death of their sister, struck Germanarech in the side with a sword.”

M. Lomonosov: “Sonilda, a noble Roksolan woman, Ermanarik ordered to be torn apart by horses because her husband ran away. Her brothers Sar and Ammius, avenging the death of their sister, pierced Yermanarik in the side; died of a wound at one hundred and ten years old"

A few years later, the descendant of Germanarech, Amal Vinitarius, invaded the lands of the Slavic tribe of Antes. In the first battle he was defeated, but then “began to act more decisively,” and the Goths, led by Amal Vinitar, defeated the Slavs. The Slavic prince Busa and 70 other princes were crucified by the Goths on crosses. This happened on the night of March 20-21, 368 AD. On the same night that Bus was crucified, a total lunar eclipse occurred. Also, a monstrous earthquake shook the earth (the entire Black Sea coast shook, there was destruction in Constantinople and Nicaea (ancient historians testify to this. Later, the Slavs gathered strength and defeated the Goths. But the former powerful Slavic state was no longer restored.

“The Book of Veles”: “And then Rus' was defeated again. And Busa and seventy other princes were crucified on crosses. And there was great turmoil in Rus' from Amal Vend. And then Sloven gathered Rus' and led it. And that time the Goths were defeated. And we did not allow the Sting to flow anywhere. And everything worked out. And our grandfather Dazhbog rejoiced and greeted the warriors - many of our fathers who won victories. And there were no troubles and many worries, and so the Gothic land became ours. And so it will remain until the end"

Jordan. “History of the Goths”: Amal Vinitarius... moved the army into the territory of the Antes. And when he came to them, he was defeated in the first skirmish, then he behaved more bravely and crucified their king named Boz with his sons and 70 noble people, so that the corpses of the hanged would double the fear of the conquered.”

Bulgarian chronicle “Baraj Tarikh”: “Once in the land of the Anchians, the Galidzians (Galicians) attacked Bus and killed him along with all 70 princes.” The Slavic prince Bus and 70 princes were crucified by the Goths in the eastern Carpathians at the sources of the Seret and Prut, on the present border of Wallachia and Transylvania. In those days, these lands belonged to Ruskolani, or Scythia. Much later, under the famous Vlad Dracula, it was at the site of Bus’s crucifixion that mass executions and crucifixions were held. The bodies of Bus and the rest of the princes were removed from the crosses on Friday and taken to the Elbrus region, to Etaka (a tributary of the Podkumka). According to Caucasian legend, the body of Bus and other princes was brought by eight pairs of oxen. Bus's wife ordered a mound to be built over their grave on the banks of the Etoko River (a tributary of Podkumka) and in order to perpetuate the memory of Bus, she ordered the Altud River to be renamed Baksan (Busa River).

Caucasian legend says:
“Baksan (Bus) was killed by the Gothic king with all his brothers and eighty noble Narts. Hearing this, the people gave in to despair: the men beat their chests, and the women tore out the hair on their heads, saying: “Dau’s eight sons are killed, killed!”

Those who carefully read “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” remember that it mentions the long-gone Time of Busovo, the year 368, the year of the crucifixion of Prince Busovo, which has an astrological meaning. According to Slavic astrology, this is a milestone. On the night of March 20-21, turn 368, the era of Aries ended and the era of Pisces began.

It was after the story of the crucifixion of Prince Bus, which became known in ancient world and the plot of the crucifixion of Christ appeared (was stolen) in Christianity.

The canonical Gospels nowhere say that Christ was crucified on the cross. Instead of the word “cross” (kryst), the word “stavros” is used there, which means pillar, and it does not talk about crucifixion, but about pillaring. That is why there are no early Christian images of the crucifixion.

The Christian Acts of the Apostles 10:39 says that Christ was “hanged on a tree.” The plot with the crucifixion first appeared only 400 years later!!! years after the execution of Christ, translated from Greek. The question arises: why, if Christ was crucified and not hanged, did Christians write in their holy books for four hundred years that Christ was hanged? Somehow illogical! It was the Slavic-Scythian tradition that influenced the distortion of the original texts during translation, and then the iconography (for there are no early Christian images of crucifixions).

The meaning of the original Greek text was well known in Greece itself (Byzantium), but after the corresponding reforms were carried out in the modern Greek language, unlike the previous custom, the word “stavros” took on, in addition to the meaning of “pillar,” also the meaning of “cross.”

In addition to the direct source of execution—the canonical Gospels—others are also known. In the Jewish tradition, which is closest to the Christian one, the tradition of the hanging of Jesus is also affirmed. There is a Jewish “Tale of the Hanged Man” written in the first centuries of our era, which describes in detail the execution of Jesus by hanging. And in the Talmud there are two stories about the execution of Christ. According to the first, Jesus was stoned, not in Jerusalem, but in Lud. According to the second story, because Jesus was of royal descent, and stoning was also replaced by hanging. And this was the official version of Christians for 400 years!!!

Even throughout the Muslim world it is generally accepted that Christ was not crucified, but hanged. In the Koran, based on early Christian traditions, Christians are cursed who claim that Jesus was not hanged, but crucified, and who claim that Jesus was Allah (God) himself, and not a prophet and the Messiah, and also denies the crucifixion itself. Therefore, Muslims, while respecting Jesus, do not reject either the Ascension or the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ, but they reject the symbol of the cross, since they rely on early Christian texts that speak of hanging, not crucifixion.

Moreover, the natural phenomena described in the Bible simply could not have occurred in Jerusalem on the day of Christ’s crucifixion.

The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew say that Christ suffered passionate torment on the spring full moon from Holy Thursday to good friday, and that there was an eclipse from the sixth to the ninth hour. The event, which they call an “eclipse,” occurred at a time when, for objective astronomical reasons, it simply could not have happened. Christ was executed during the Jewish Passover, and it always falls on a full moon.

Firstly, there are no solar eclipses during a full moon. During a full moon, the Moon and the Sun are on opposite sides of the Earth, so the Moon cannot block the Earth's sunlight.

Secondly, solar eclipses, unlike lunar eclipses, do not last three hours, as is written about in the Bible. Maybe the Judeo-Christians meant a lunar eclipse, but the whole world did not understand them?...

But solar and lunar eclipses are very easy to calculate. Any astronomer will say that in the year of Christ’s execution and even in the years close to this event there were no lunar eclipses.

The nearest eclipse accurately indicates only one date - the night of March 20-21, 368 AD. This is an absolutely accurate astronomical calculation. Namely, on this night from Thursday to Friday, March 20/21, 368, Prince Bus and 70 other princes were crucified by the Goths. On the night of March 20-21, a total lunar eclipse occurred, which lasted from midnight until three o'clock on March 21, 368. This date was calculated by astronomers, including the director of the Pulkovo Observatory N. Morozov.

Why did Christians write from move 33 that Christ was hanged, and after move 368 they rewrote the “holy” scripture and began to claim that Christ was crucified? Apparently the crucifixion plot seemed more interesting to them and they once again engaged in religious plagiarism - i.e. simply theft... This is where the information in the Bible came from that Christ was crucified, that he suffered torment from Thursday to Friday, that there was an eclipse. Having stolen the plot with the crucifixion, the Jewish Christians decided to provide the Bible with details of the execution of the Slavic prince, without thinking that people in the future would pay attention to the described natural phenomena, which could not have happened in the year of Christ’s execution in the place in which he was executed.

And this is far from the only example of theft of materials by Jewish Christians. Speaking about the Slavs, I remember the myth of Arius’s father, who received a covenant from Dazhbog on Alatyr Mountain (Elbrus), and in the Bible, Arius and Alatyr miraculously turned into Moses and Sinai...

Or the Judeo-Christian baptismal rite. The Christian rite of baptism is one third of the Slavic pagan rite, which included: naming, fire baptism and water bath. In Judeo-Christianity, only the water bath remained.

We can recall examples from other traditions. Mithra - born on December 25th!!! 600 years before the birth of Jesus!!! December 25th - to the day 600 years later, Jesus was born. Mithra was born of a virgin in a stable, a star rose, the Magi came!!! Everything is the same as with Christ, only 600 years earlier. The cult of Mithras included: baptism with water, holy water, belief in immortality, belief in Mithras as a savior god, the concepts of Heaven and Hell. Mithra died and was resurrected in order to become a mediator between God the Father and man! Plagiarism (theft) of Christians is 100%.

More examples. Immaculately conceived: Gautama Buddha - India 600 BC; Indra - Tibet 700 BC; Dionysus - Greece; Quirinus - Roman; Adonis - Babylon all in the period from 400-200 BC; Krishna - India 1200 BC; Zarathustra - 1500 BC. In a word, whoever read the originals knows where the Jewish Christians got the materials for their writings.

So modern neo-Christians, who are trying in vain to find some kind of mythical Russian roots in the native Jew Yeshua - Jesus and his mother, need to stop doing nonsense and start worshiping Bus, nicknamed - the Cross, i.e. The Bus of the Cross, or what would be completely clear to them - the Bus of Christ. After all, this is the real Hero from whom the Judeo-Christians based their New Testament, and the one they invented - the Judeo-Christian Jesus Christ - turns out to be some kind of charlatan and rogue, to say the least... After all, the New Testament is just a romantic comedy in the spirit of Jewish fiction, supposedly written by the so-called. “Apostle” Paul (in the world - Saul), and even then, it turns out, it was not written by him himself, but by unknown/!?/ disciples of disciples. Well, they had fun though...

But let's get back to Slavic chronicle. The discovery of an ancient Slavic city in the Caucasus no longer looks so surprising. In recent decades, several ancient Slavic cities have been discovered in Russia and Ukraine.

The most famous today is the famous Arkaim, whose age is more than 5,000 thousand years.

In 1987, in the Southern Urals in the Chelyabinsk region, during the construction of a hydroelectric power station, a fortified settlement of the early urban type, dating back to the Bronze Age, was discovered. to the times of the ancient Aryans. Arkaim is five hundred to six hundred years older than the famous Troy, even older than the Egyptian pyramids.

The discovered settlement is an observatory city. During its study, it was established that the monument was a city fortified by two wall circles inscribed within each other, ramparts and ditches. The dwellings in it were trapezoidal in shape, closely adjacent to each other and located in a circle in such a way that the wide end wall of each dwelling was part of the defensive wall. Every home has a bronze casting stove! But according to traditional academic knowledge, bronze came to Greece only in the second millennium BC. Later, the settlement turned out to be an integral part of the ancient Aryan civilization - the “Country of Cities” of the Southern Trans-Urals. Scientists have discovered a whole complex of monuments belonging to this amazing culture.

Despite their small size, fortified centers can be called proto-cities. The use of the concept “city” to fortified settlements of the Arkaim-Sintashta type is, of course, conditional.

However, they cannot be called simply settlements, since the Arkaim “cities” are distinguished by powerful defensive structures, monumental architecture, and complex communication systems. The entire territory of the fortified center is extremely rich in planning details; it is very compact and carefully thought out. From the point of view of the organization of space, what we have in front of us is not even a city, but a kind of super-city.

The fortified centers of the Southern Urals are five to six centuries older than Homeric Troy. They are contemporaries of the first dynasty of Babylon, the pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the Cretan-Mycenaean culture of the Mediterranean. The time of their existence corresponds to the last centuries of the famous civilization of India - Mahenjo-Daro and Harappa.

Website of the Arkaim Museum-Reserve: link

In Ukraine, in Tripoli, the remains of a city were discovered, the same age as Arkaim, more than five thousand years. He is five hundred years older than the civilization of Mesopotamia - Sumerian!

At the end of the 90s, not far from Rostov-on-Don in the town of Tanais, settlement cities were found, the age of which even scientists find it difficult to name... The age varies from ten to thirty thousand years. The traveler of the last century, Thor Heyerdahl, believed that from there, from Tanais, the entire pantheon of Scandinavian Gods, led by Odin, came to Scandinavia.

On Kola Peninsula slabs with inscriptions in Sanskrit that are 20,000 years old have been found. And only Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, as well as the Baltic languages coincide with Sanskrit. Draw conclusions.

The results of the expedition to the site of the capital of the ancient Slavic city of Kiyara in the Elbrus region.

Five expeditions were carried out: in 1851,1881,1914, 2001 and 2002.

In 2001, the expedition was headed by A. Alekseev, and in 2002 the expedition was carried out under the patronage of the State Astronomical Institute named after Shtenberg (SAI), which was supervised by the director of the institute, Anatoly Mikhailovich Cherepashchuk.

Based on the data obtained as a result of topographic and geodetic studies of the area, recording astronomical events, the expedition members made preliminary conclusions that are fully consistent with the results of the 2001 expedition, based on the results of which, in March 2002, a report was made at a meeting of the Astronomical Society at the State Astronomical Institute Institute in the presence of employees of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, members of the International Astronomical Society and the State Historical Museum.
A report was also made at a conference on the problems of early civilizations in St. Petersburg.
What exactly did the researchers find?

Near Mount Karakaya, in the Rocky Range at an altitude of 3,646 meters above sea level between the villages of Upper Chegem and Bezengi on the eastern side of Elbrus, traces of the capital of Ruskolani, the city of Kiyar, were found, which existed long before the birth of Christ, which is mentioned in many legends and epics different nations world, as well as the oldest astronomical observatory - the Temple of the Sun, described by the ancient historian Al Masudi in his books precisely as the Temple of the Sun.

The location of the found city exactly coincides with the instructions from ancient sources, and later the location of the city was confirmed by Turkish traveler XVII century by Evliya Celebi.

The remains of an ancient temple, caves and graves were discovered on Mount Karakaya. An incredible number of ancient settlements and temple ruins have been discovered, many of which are quite well preserved. In the valley near the foot of Mount Karakaya, on the Bechesyn plateau, menhirs were found - tall man-made stones similar to wooden pagan idols.

On one of the stone pillars the face of a knight is carved, looking straight to the east. And behind the menhir you can see a bell-shaped hill. This is Tuzuluk (“Treasury of the Sun”). At its top you can actually see the ruins of the ancient sanctuary of the Sun. At the top of the hill there is a tour celebrating highest point. Then three large rocks, hand-cut. Once upon a time, a slit was cut in them, directed from north to south. Stones were also found laid out like sectors in the zodiac calendar. Each sector is exactly 30 degrees.

Each part of the temple complex was intended for calendar and astrological calculations. In this, it is similar to the South Ural city-temple of Arkaim, which has the same zodiac structure, the same division into 12 sectors. It is also similar to Stonehenge in Great Britain. What makes it similar to Stonehenge is, firstly, the fact that the axis of the temple is also oriented from north to south, and secondly, one of the most important distinctive features Stonehenge is the presence of the so-called “Heel Stone” at a distance from the sanctuary. But there is also a menhir landmark at the Sun Sanctuary on Tuzuluk.

There is evidence that at the turn of our era the temple was plundered by the Bosporan king Pharnaces. The temple was finally destroyed in IV AD. Goths and Huns. Even the dimensions of the temple are known; 60 cubits (about 20 meters) in length, 20 (6-8 meters) in width and 15 (up to 10 meters) in height, as well as the number of windows and doors - 12 according to the number of Zodiac signs.

As a result of the work of the first expedition, there is every reason to believe that the stones on the top of Mount Tuzluk served as the foundation of the Sun Temple. Mount Tuzluk is a regular grassy cone about 40 meters high. The slopes rise to the top at an angle of 45 degrees, which actually corresponds to the latitude of the place, and, therefore, looking along it you can see the North Star. The axis of the temple foundation is 30 degrees with the direction to the Eastern peak of Elbrus. The same 30 degrees is the distance between the axis of the temple and the direction to the menhir, and the direction to the menhir and the Shaukam pass. Considering that 30 degrees - 1/12 of a circle - corresponds to a calendar month, this is not a coincidence. Azimuths of sunrise and sunset during summer and winter solstice differ by only 1.5 degrees from the directions to the Kanjal peaks, the “gate” of two hills in the depths of the pastures, Mount Dzhaurgen and Mount Tashly-Syrt. There is an assumption that the menhir served as a heel stone in the Temple of the Sun, similar to Stonehenge, and helped predict solar and lunar eclipses. Thus, Mount Tuzluk is tied to four natural landmarks along the Sun and is tied to the Eastern peak of Elbrus. The height of the mountain is only about 40 meters, the diameter of the base is about 150 meters. These are dimensions comparable to the dimensions of the Egyptian pyramids and other religious buildings.

In addition, two square tower-shaped aurochs were discovered at the Kayaeshik pass. One of them lies strictly on the axis of the temple. Here, on the pass, are the foundations of buildings and ramparts.

In addition, in the central part of the Caucasus, at the northern foot of Elbrus, in the late 70s and early 80s of the 20th century, an ancient center of metallurgical production, the remains of smelting furnaces, settlements, and burial grounds were discovered.

Summarizing the results of the work of the expeditions of the 1980s and 2001, which discovered the concentration within a radius of several kilometers of traces of ancient metallurgy, deposits of coal, silver, iron, as well as astronomical, religious and other archaeological objects, we can confidently assume the discovery of one of the most ancient cultural and administrative centers of the Slavs in the Elbrus region.

During expeditions in 1851 and 1914, archaeologist P.G. Akritas examined the ruins of the Scythian Temple of the Sun on the eastern slopes of Beshtau. The results of further archaeological excavations of this sanctuary were published in 1914 in the “Notes of the Rostov-on-Don Historical Society.” There, a huge stone “in the shape of a Scythian cap” was described, installed on three abutments, as well as a domed grotto.
And the beginning of major excavations in Pyatigorye (Kavminvody) was laid by the famous pre-revolutionary archaeologist D.Ya. Samokvasov, who described 44 mounds in the vicinity of Pyatigorsk in 1881. Subsequently, after the revolution, only some mounds were examined; only initial exploration work was carried out on the sites by archaeologists E.I. Krupnov, V.A. Kuznetsov, G.E. Runich, E.P. Alekseeva, S.Ya. Baychorov, Kh.Kh. Bidzhiev and others.

Modern Russian historical science about ancient Rus' is built on the basis of ancient chronicles written by Christian monks, and on handwritten copies that are not available in the originals. Can you trust such sources for everything?

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is called the oldest chronicle code, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have reached us (and in total about 1500 of them have survived). "Tale" covers events up to 1113, but its earliest listing was made in 1377 monk Lawrence and his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.

It is unknown where this chronicle was written, which was named Laurentian after the creator: either in the Annunciation Monastery Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital of North-Eastern Rus' moved from Rostov to Vladimir.

In the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born; the bishop of this monastery, Simon, was one of the authors of a wonderful work of ancient Russian literature "Kievo-Pechersk Patericon"- a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.

One can only guess what kind of list from the ancient text the Laurentian Chronicle was, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered - VAfter all, each customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to his own interests and to discredit his opponents, which was quite natural in conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely enmity.

The most significant gap occurs in the years 898-922. The events of the “Tale of Bygone Years” are continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' until 1305, but there are gaps here too: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Rus' before the baptism were clearly disgusting to the monks of the newly brought religion.

Another famous chronicle - the Ipatiev Chronicle - is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where it was discovered by our wonderful historian N.M. Karamzin. It is significant that it was again found not far from Rostov, which, along with Kiev and Novgorod, is considered the largest center of ancient Russian chronicles. The Ipatiev Chronicle is younger than the Laurentian Chronicle - it was written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years, includes records of events in Kievan Rus and Galician-Volyn Rus.

Another chronicle that is worth paying attention to is the Radziwill chronicle, which first belonged to to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Koenigsberg Library and, under Peter the Great, finally to Russia. It is a copy of the 15th century with more ancient list XIII century and talks about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Laurentian chronicles, but is much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.

They are called a valuable source “for the study of material culture, political symbolism and art of Ancient Rus'.” Moreover, some miniatures are very mysterious - they do not correspond to the text (!!!), however, according to researchers, they are more consistent with historical reality.

On this basis, it was assumed that the illustrations of the Radziwill Chronicle were made from another, more reliable chronicle, not subject to corrections by copyists. But we will dwell on this mysterious circumstance later.

Now about the chronology adopted in ancient times. Firstly, we must remember that previously the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, chronology was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which occurred before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on what year, March or September, it occurred this event, and in what month: until March 1 or until September 1. Translating ancient chronology into modern times is a labor-intensive task, so we compiled special tables, which historians use.

It is generally accepted that chronicle weather records begin in the “Tale of Bygone Years” from the year 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from the year 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language this message goes like this: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this king Rus' came to Constantinople, as it is written about in the Greek chronicles. That’s why from now on we’ll start putting numbers down.”

Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Rus', which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Furthermore, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the entry for 862, the first mention of Rostov. But does the first chronicle date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?

Indeed, Byzantine chronicles recorded the campaign of Rus' against Constantinople under Emperor Michael III, but the date of this event is not given. To derive it, the Russian chronicler was not too lazy to give the following calculation: “From Adam to the flood 2242 years, and from the flood to Abraham 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David 600 years and 1 year , and from David to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years, and from the captivity to Alexander the Great 318 years, and from Alexander to the birth of Christ 333 years, from the birth of Christ to Constantine 318 years, from Constantine to the aforementioned Michael 542 years.”

It would seem that this calculation looks so solid that checking it is a waste of time. However, historians were not lazy - they added up the numbers named by the chronicler and got not 6360, but 6314! An error of forty-four years, as a result of which it turns out that Rus' attacked Byzantium in 806. But it is known that Michael the Third became emperor in 842. So rack your brains, where is the mistake: either in the mathematical calculation, or did they mean another, earlier campaign of Rus' against Byzantium?

But in any case, it is clear that it is impossible to use “The Tale of Bygone Years” as a reliable source when describing the initial history of Rus'. And it's not just a matter of clearly erroneous chronology. “The Tale of Bygone Years” has long deserved to be looked at critically. And some independent-minded researchers are already working in this direction. Thus, the magazine “Rus” (No. 3-97) published an essay by K. Vorotny “Who and when created the Tale of Bygone Years?” » reliability. Let's name just a few such examples...

Why is the calling of the Varangians to Rus' so important? historical event- there is no information in European chronicles where this fact would necessarily be focused on? N.I. Kostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has reached us contains any mention of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Why are our chronicles silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.

In this regard, the fate of “Russian History from Ancient Times” by V.N. Tatishchev is very characteristic. There is a whole series of evidence that after the death of the historian it was significantly corrected by one of the founders of the Norman theory, G.F. Miller; under strange circumstances, the ancient chronicles used by Tatishchev disappeared.

Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:

“The monk Nestor was not well informed about the ancient Russian princes.” This phrase alone makes us take a fresh look at the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which serves as the basis for most of the chronicles that have reached us. Is everything in it genuine, reliable, and weren’t those chronicles that contradicted the Norman theory deliberately destroyed? The real history of Ancient Rus' is still not known to us; it has to be reconstructed literally bit by bit.

Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book " Slavic kingdom", published back in 1601, wrote:

“The Slavic family is older than the pyramids and so numerous that it inhabited half the world.” This statement is in clear contradiction with the history of the Slavs as set out in The Tale of Bygone Years.

In working on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources, of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or perhaps were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of the Norman theory and casting doubt on the Tale of Bygone Years.

Among other sources he used, Orbini mentions a book that has not come down to us. chronicle history Rus', written by the thirteenth-century Russian historian Jeremiah. (!!!) Many other early chronicles and works of ours have also disappeared primary literature, which would help answer where the Russian land came from.

Several years ago, for the first time in Russia, the historical study “Sacred Rus'” by Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov, a Russian emigrant historian who died in 1970, was published. He was the first to notice "Isenbek boards" with the text of the now famous Veles book. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant, General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in an English chronicle: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it... And they went overseas to foreigners.” That is, an almost word-for-word coincidence with the phrase from “The Tale of Bygone Years”!

Y.P. Mirolyubov made a very convincing assumption that this phrase found its way into our chronicle during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, who was married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, whose army was defeated by William the Conqueror.

This phrase from the English chronicle, which fell into his hands through his wife, as Mirolyubov believed, was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the grand-ducal throne. Court chronicler Sylvester, respectively "corrected" Russian chronicle, laying the first stone in the history of the Norman theory. From that very time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the “calling of the Varangians” was destroyed, persecuted, hidden in inaccessible hiding places.

IV. PECHERSK ASCETS. THE BEGINNING OF BOOK LITERATURE AND LEGISLATION

(continuation)

Origin of the chronicle. – Sylvester Vydubetsky, its compiler. - A fable about the calling of the Varangians. – Daniel the Pilgrim.

Laurentian list of "Tale of Bygone Years"

By all indications, these two works, filled with high merits, earned Nestor the respect of his contemporaries and a lasting memory in posterity. Perhaps he wrote something else that has not reached us. In any case, his authorial fame can primarily explain the fact that subsequently such an important monument of ancient Russian literature as the initial Russian Chronicle began to be associated with his name; although she did not belong to him.

Our chronicles arose with the direct participation of the Russian princes themselves. It is known that already the son of the first Christian prince in Kyiv, Yaroslav, was distinguished by his love for book education, and gathered translators and scribes around him; forced to translate from Greek or rewrite ready-made Slavic-Bulgarian translations. Here we must understand translations of Holy Scripture, the works of the Church Fathers, as well as Byzantine chronographs. Yaroslav's zeal for the success of Russian literature is also evidenced by the patronage he provided to such a gifted writer as Hilarion, who by his will was elevated to the rank of metropolitan. The same phenomenon was repeated here as in Danube Bulgaria: Boris was baptized along with all the Bulgarian land; and under his son, the book lover Simeon, the prosperity of Bulgarian book literature began. Yaroslav's sons continued their father's work. At least it is known that Svyatoslav Yaroslavich already had a significant book depository, from which the Collection known under his name came down. Deacon John, who copied this collection from a Bulgarian manuscript for Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, noted about this prince in his afterword that he “fulfilled his pay with divine books.” Some of their boyars also imitated the princes. From the same era, we have preserved a copy of the Gospel known under the name “Ostromir”. It was written by order of Ostromir, former relative Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich and his mayor in Novgorod, as the writer himself, some deacon Gregory, noted in the afterword. Particularly dedicated to book education is Yaroslav's grandson Vladimir Monomakh, who himself was an author. Two of his works have reached us: an eloquent letter to Oleg Svyatoslavich about his son Izyaslav, who died in battle, and the famous “Teaching” addressed to children. Even if both of these works were written with the help of one of the clergy close to him, in any case, a significant share of the creativity here undoubtedly belongs to the prince himself. The participation of Vladimir Monomakh in the cause of Russian literature is most clearly confirmed by the fact that it was during his reign of Kyiv and, of course, it was not without his assistance that our first chronicle was compiled. There is no doubt that the beginnings of chronicle writing in Rus' date back to an earlier time and, in all likelihood, to the era of the book lover Yaroslav. Brief notes about important military events, about the birth, about the death of princes, about the construction of the most important temples, about solar eclipses, about famine, the sea, etc. could be included in the so-called. Easter tables. From these tables chronicles developed in the West; so it was with us. Easter tables came to us, of course, from Byzantium with their chronology based on indicts, with the solar circle, etc. The mentioned notes, as in Western Europe, conducted by our literate monks at the main episcopal churches or in the silence of the monastery cells. With the development of literacy, the need arose in Rus' to explain where the old Russian princes came from, and to perpetuate the deeds of the modern princes: a need arose for historical literature. Transferable Byzantine chronographs, or reviews world history, served as the closest samples for our chronicle. Such a chronicle naturally should have appeared in the center of the Russian land, near the main Russian prince, i.e. in the capital Kyiv.

A few miles from the capital, further behind the Pechersk monastery, on the steep bank of the Dnieper, there was the St. Michael’s Monastery of Vydubetsky, which was especially patronized Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavich, father of Monomakh. By the way, he built a stone church of St. Mikhail. After Vsevolod, this monastery enjoyed special respect and patronage from his descendants. When Vladimir Monomakh established himself on the Kiev table, Sylvester was the abbot of the Vydubetsky monastery. The beginning of our chronicles, or so-called, belongs to him. The Tale of Bygone Years, which took upon itself the task of telling “where the Russian people came from, who first reigned in Kyiv and how the Russian land was established.” The author of the "Tale" obviously had skill in the book business and remarkable talent. He based his work on the Byzantine chronograph Georgiy Amartol, who lived in the 9th century, and his successors, having at hand a Slavic-Bulgarian translation of this chronograph. From here Sylvester, by the way, borrowed a description of the different peoples and languages that inhabited the earth after the Flood and the Babylonian Pandemonium. From here he took the news about the first attack of Rus' on Constantinople in 860 and about the attack of Igor in 941. The story is often decorated with texts and large extracts from Holy Scripture, from collections of Old Testament stories (i.e. from Palea), from some church writers Greek (for example, Methodius of Patarsky and Mikhail Sinkel) and Russian writers (for example, Theodosius of Pechersk), as well as from Slavic-Bulgarian works (for example, from the Life of Cyril and Methodius), which indicates the author’s rather extensive reading and his preparation for his business. Stories about the first times are filled with legends and fables, as is the case in the initial history of any people; but the closer to its time, the more complete, more reliable, and more thorough the “Tale” becomes. Its reliability, of course, has increased since the final establishment of Christianity in the Kyiv land, especially since the time of Yaroslav, when literacy began to develop in Rus' and when the above-mentioned notes on the Easter tables began. Traces of these tables are visible in the fact that the chronicler, telling events by year, also designates those years whose events remained unknown to him or in which nothing remarkable happened. For the 11th century, he was still served by the memories of old people. Sylvester himself points to one of these old men, namely the Kyiv boyar Yan Vyshatich, the same one who was a friend of Theodosius of Pechersk and died in 1106 at ninety years of age. Citing the news of his death, the author of the Tale notes: “I included a lot of what I heard from him in this chronicle.” History of the second half of the 11th century and beginning of XII was committed before the eyes of the author himself. His conscientious attitude to his work is evident from the fact that he tried to collect stories about this time at first hand, i.e. I questioned eyewitnesses and participants whenever possible. Such, for example, are the testimonies of some Pechersk monk about St. Abbot Theodosius, about the discovery and transfer of his relics from the cave to the Church of the Assumption, the story of some Vasily about the blinding and detention of Vasilko Rostislavich, the stories of the noble Novgorodian Gyurat Rogovich about the northern regions, the aforementioned Yan Vyshatich, etc.

Vladimir Monomakh, in all likelihood, not only encouraged the compilation of this chronicle, but, perhaps, himself helped the author by providing information and sources. This circumstance can explain, for example, the entry into the chronicle of his letter to Oleg Svyatoslavich and the “Teachings” to his children, as well as the famous agreements with the Greeks of Oleg, Igor and Svyatoslav - agreements, Slavic translations of which were, of course, kept at the Kiev court. It is also possible that, not without his knowledge and approval, the well-known fable that Rus' called three Varangian princes from across the sea to restore order in its vast land was included on the first pages of the chronicle. When and how this fable was first put into practice will, of course, forever remain unknown; but its appearance in the second half of the 11th or the first of the 12th century is sufficiently explained by the circumstances of that time. In history, one often encounters the tendency of sovereigns to trace their family from noble foreigners, from a princely tribe of another land, even from an insignificant tribe, but for some reason became famous. This vain desire was probably not alien to the Russian princes of that time and, perhaps, Monomakh himself. The idea of the Varangian origin of the Russian princely house could very naturally arise at a time when the glory of Norman exploits and conquests was still resounding in Europe; when the entire English kingdom became the prey of the Norman knights, and in southern Italy they founded a new kingdom, from where they destroyed Byzantine Empire; when in Rus' there were still memories of the close ties of Vladimir and Yaroslav with the Varangians, of the brave Varangian squads who fought at the head of their militias. Finally, such a thought could most naturally arise with the sons and grandsons of the ambitious and intelligent Norman princess Ingigerda, Yaroslav's wife. Perhaps this idea initially appeared not without the participation of the Russified sons or descendants of those Norman immigrants who really found their happiness in Russia. An example of such noble people is Shimon, the nephew of that Varangian prince Yakun, who was an ally of Yaroslav in the war with Mstislav of Tmutarakan. Expelled from his fatherland by his uncle, Shimon and many fellow citizens arrived in Russia, entered Russian service and converted to Orthodoxy; Subsequently, he became the first nobleman of Vsevolod Yaroslavich and helped with the construction of the Pechersk Church of the Mother of God with rich offerings. And his son Georgy was governor in Rostov under Monomakh. In the era of the chronicler, friendly and family ties of the Russian princely house with the Norman sovereigns still continued. Vladimir Monomakh himself had in his first marriage Gida, the daughter of the English king Harold; their eldest son Mstislav was married to Christina, daughter of the Swedish king Inga Stenkilson; two granddaughters of Vladimir were married to Scandinavian princes.

When Sylvester began his chronicle work, two and a half centuries had already passed since the first attack of Rus' on Constantinople, mentioned in the “Chronicle” of Amartol. The chronicler, in fact, begins his “Tale of Bygone Years” with this attack. But, in accordance with the naive concepts and literary techniques of that era, he prefaced this historical event with several fables, as if explaining the previous fates of Rus'. By the way, he tells the Kiev legend about the three brothers Kiya, Shchek and Horeb, who once reigned in the land of the glades and founded Kyiv; and next to it he placed a legend, the first grain of which, in all likelihood, came from Novgorod - the legend of three Varangian brothers called from across the sea to the Novgorod land. This speculation, obviously, was not yet a well-known legend: we do not find a hint of it in any of the other works of Russian literature of that time. But later he especially. lucky. The legend expanded and changed, so that among the later compilers of chronicles, it is no longer Rus' and the Novgorod Slavs who call on the Varangian princes, as was the case with the first chronicler, but the Slavs, Krivichi and Chud who call on the Varangians - Rus', i.e. the entire great Russian people are already ranked among the Varangians and appear in Russia under the guise of some princely retinue arriving from overseas. Such a distortion of the original legend is, of course, to blame for the ignorance and negligence of Sylvester's later copyists. Sylvester finished his Tale in 1116. Vladimir Monomakh was obviously pleased with his work: two years later he ordered him to be installed as bishop of his hereditary city of Pereyaslavl, where Sylvester died in 1123.

Almost at the same time as the "Tale of Bygone Years" by Abbot Sylvester, the work of another Russian abbot, Daniel, was written, namely: "Walking to Jerusalem." We have seen that pilgrimage, or the custom of going to worship holy places, arose in Rus' after the establishment of the Christian religion. Already in the 11th century, when Palestine was under the rule of the Seljuk Turks, Russian pilgrims penetrated there and suffered oppression there along with other Christian pilgrims. Their numbers increased from the beginning of the 12th century, when the Crusaders conquered the Holy Land and founded a kingdom there. Busy fighting with other Turks, i.e. with the Polovtsians, our princes did not participate in the crusades; nevertheless, the Russian people sympathized with the great movement of Western peoples against the infidels. This sympathy was also reflected in Daniel’s notes about his walk. He simply calls himself the Russian abbot, without naming his monastery; judging by some of his expressions, it is believed that he was from the Chernigov region. Daniel was not alone in visiting the Holy Land; he mentions a whole squad of Russian pilgrims and calls some by name. His entire work breathes deep faith and reverence for the sacred objects that he was privileged to see. He speaks with praise of the King of Jerusalem Baldwin; who paid attention to the Russian abbot and allowed him to place a censer on the Holy Sepulcher for the Russian princes and for the entire Russian land. Among the princes whose names our abbot wrote down for prayer for their health in the Lavra of St. Sava, where he had shelter, the first place is occupied by: Svyatopolk - Mikhail, Vladimir (Monomakh) - Vasily, Oleg - Mikhail and David Svyatoslavich.

Speaking about copyists of books in ancient Rus', we should also mention our chroniclers

Almost every monastery had its own chronicler, who wrote down information about the most important events of his time in brief notes. It is believed that the chronicles were preceded by calendar notes, which are considered the ancestor of any chronicle. According to their content, chronicles can be divided into 1) state chronicles, 2) family or clan chronicles, 3) monastic or church chronicles.

Family chronicles are compiled in the genera of service people in order to see public service all ancestors.

The sequence observed in the chronicle is chronological: the years are described one after another.

If nothing noteworthy happened in any year, then nothing appears in the chronicle against that year.

For example, in the chronicle of Nestor:

“In the summer of 6368 (860). In the summer of 6369. In the summer of 6370. I expelled the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began to suffer from violence within themselves; and there is no truth in them...

In the summer of 6371. In the summer of 6372. In the summer of 6373. In the summer of 6374 Askold and Dir went to the Greeks...”

If a “sign from heaven” happened, the chronicler noted it too; if there was a solar eclipse, the chronicler innocently wrote down that on such and such a year and date “the sun died.”

The father of the Russian chronicle is considered to be the Monk Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. According to the research of Tatishchev, Miller and Schletser, he was born in 1056, entered the monastery at the age of 17 and died in 1115. His chronicle has not survived, but a list from this chronicle has reached us. This list is called the Laurentian List, or the Laurentian Chronicle, because it was copied by the Suzdal monk Laurentius in 1377.

In the Patericon of Pechersk it is said about Nestor: “that he is content with the life of summer, toiling in the affairs of chronicle writing and remembering eternal summer.”

The Laurentian Chronicle is written on parchment, on 173 sheets; up to the fortieth page it is written in the ancient charter, and from page 41 to the end - in the semi-charter. The manuscript of the Laurentian Chronicle, which belonged to Count Musin-Pushkin, was presented by him to Emperor Alexander I, who presented it to the Imperial Public Library.

Of the punctuation marks in the chronicle, only the period is used, which, however, rarely remains in its place.

This chronicle contained events up to 1305 (6813).

Lavrentiev's chronicle begins with the following words:

“This is the story of bygone years, where the Russian land came from, who in Kyiv began to reign first, and where the Russian land came from.

Let's begin this story. After the flood, the first sons of Noah divided the earth....”, etc.

In addition to the Laurentian Chronicle, the “Novgorod Chronicle”, “Pskov Chronicle”, “Nikon Chronicle” are known, so called because on the “sheets there is a signature (clip) of Patriarch Nikon, and many others. Friend.

In total there are up to 150 variants or lists of chronicles.

Our ancient princes commanded that everything that happened in their time, good and bad, be entered into the chronicle, without any concealment or embellishment: “our first rulers, without anger, commanded all the good and bad that happened to be described, and other images of the phenomenon will be based on them.”

During the period of civil strife, in the event of some misunderstanding, the Russian princes sometimes turned to the chronicle as written evidence.

It is unknown where this chronicle was written, which was named Laurentian after the creator: either in the Annunciation Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital of North-Eastern Rus' moved from Rostov to Vladimir.

Another chronicle that is worth paying attention to is the Radziwill chronicle, which first belonged to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Koenigsberg library and under Peter the Great, and finally to Russia. It is a 15th century copy of an older 13th century copy and talks about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Laurentian chronicles, but is much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.

Now about the chronology adopted in ancient times. Firstly, we must remember that previously the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, chronology was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which occurred before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on what year, March or September, this event occurred, and in what month: until March 1 or until September 1 . Translating ancient chronology into modern times is a labor-intensive task, so special tables were compiled, which historians use.

It is generally accepted that chronicle weather records begin in the “Tale of Bygone Years” from the year 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from the year 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language, this message sounds like this: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this king Rus' came to Constantinople, as it is written about in the Greek chronicles. That’s why from now on we’ll start putting numbers down.”

Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Rus', which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Moreover, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the entry for 862, the first mention of Rostov. But does the first chronicle date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?

Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Rus' - such an important historical event - in European chronicles, where this fact would certainly be focused on? N.I. Kostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has reached us contains any mention of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Why are our chronicles silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.

Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:

Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book " Slavic kingdom", published back in 1601, wrote:

Among other sources he used, Orbini mentions the extant chronicle history of Rus', written by the thirteenth-century Russian historian Jeremiah. (!!!) Many other early chronicles and works of our initial literature have also disappeared, which would have helped answer where the Russian land came from.

Now let us turn directly to the chronicle record for the year 862, which reports on the “calling of the Varangians” and mentions Rostov for the first time, which in itself seems significant to us:

“In the summer of 6370. They drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began to rule over themselves. And there was no truth among them, and generation after generation rose up, and there was strife among them, and they began to fight with themselves. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and some Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders - that’s how these were called. The Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and all said to Rus': “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us."

It was from this record that the Norman theory of the origin of Rus' sprouted, degrading the dignity of the Russian people. But let's read it carefully. After all, it turns out to be absurd: the Novgorodians drove the Varangians overseas, did not give them tribute - and then immediately turned to them with a request to own them!

Where is the logic?

Considering that our entire history was again ruled in the 17-18th century by the Romanovs, with their German academicians, under the dictation of the Jesuits of Rome, the reliability of the current “sources” is low.