Polish material about the "wars" around Rurik and the history of Ancient Rus
One of the most widely read newspapers in Poland last week, Rzeczpospolita, published material Robert Kheda, in which the author decided to introduce the Polish readership to history Russia, namely, with the stage of the history of ancient Russia. The material is devoted to one historical person - Rurik, and it is around this historical image that the reasoning and conclusions of the author of the article “The war around Rurik: who was the creator of Russia?”
Of course, we are not a Polish audience, but if we are talking about the coverage of Russian history by foreign authors, then it would not be superfluous to get acquainted with the fact that these same Polish authors offer to understanding. Still, he writes about our history. Therefore, I think we have the right.
So, this material presents a translation of the article by Robert Kheda with some comments about the author's vision of the history of Ancient Russia.
Who is he and where did the founder of the Rurik dynasty come from? What role did he play in the creation of the first state of the Eastern Slavs, called Rus?
Around the lineage of Rurik there is a constant war between the supporters of the Norman theory and its opponents. For more than 300 years, scientists across Europe have been trying to defend their own (different) points of view. All arguments range from Scandinavian sagas and Byzantine chronicles to archaeological artifacts to DNA testing. Despite the use of such an arsenal, the fundamental essence of the dispute, which, after all, belongs to the sources of national identity, still divides modern Europe.
What is the essence of the dispute?
The basis of the identity of the modern nation is its historical roots, showing the process of formation of society and the state territory. Without historical memory that goes deep into the past, it is impossible to see the value system on which the present, the future is based. An integral part of such a story is the myth of the origin. The pedigree of the authorities ancestor and his affairs greatly influence the sense of identity, creating a sense of pride and national character.
The vision of the ancestor that forms the founding act increases to the status of the most important symbol that distinguishes us from other nations. This is our own history, which gives us the right to be part of the global community of nations. Therefore, it is not surprising that the debate over the origin of the founder of the Eastern Slavic state for several hundred years caused heated emotions. In the end, the Rurik dynasty ruled by Kievan Rus, and then the Principality of Moscow, laying the foundations for modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
In fact, everything is difficult for modern Swedes, Finns, Danes, Germans and Dutch to have their own theory of the origin of Rurik. Among them is the theory of descent from the Baltic tribes. Maybe Rurik came from the emboldened (medieval Slavic alliance in the area of the mouth of the Oder River)? And if he came from the Slavs who inhabited the land between the mouth of the Oder and the Vistula, did Rurik really have Polish or pre-Polish roots?
Next, the Polish author reports that he "knows for sure":
At present, we only know that neither side questioned the following: Rurik ended up in Russia around the year of 862. The persons who called Rurik were from Slavic tribes who could not cope, speaking in modern language, with the construction of effective governance. The elders of the Krivichi, Ilmenian Slovenian tribes, as well as the Finno-Ugric tribes - Chur and Murom, becoming helpless in the face of internal disputes and even tribal wars, invited Rurik to power. The source, created in the XI century, accurately reflects the beginning of the Old Russian principality, adding that the choice of the elders was deliberately imposed on a stranger named the Varangian. Rurik accepted the proposed authority, and since he came with his brothers, he not only founded the state, but also divided it into provinces.
He himself began the reign in Novgorod. A brother named Sineus reigned in Beloozero, and the third of his brothers, Truvor - in Izborsk. It is also known that Rurik expanded the boundaries, subordinating successively to the tribes. When he died about 879, Rostov, Murom and Polotsk were among the most important ancient Russian cities.
Here it is necessary to make a small reference to the modern interpretation of events by Ukrainian historians who created their own historiographic world with statements that there was no Murom in the Vladimir region at that time, and that “Ukrainian” historical “facts” testify, for example, about Ilya Muromets "Eponymous" town near Kiev.
And speaking of the work of the Polish author, it is noticeable that he deliberately emphasizes the question of "possible Polish roots of Rurik."
Polish author continues:
ДNext comes the argument about deciphering the concept of Vareg (Wareg). In the past, and even now, most historians associate this concept with Norman or Viking. Opponents believe that this is a reference to the southeastern coast of the Baltic Sea, thereby denying the roots of the Scandinavian origin of Rurik and his family members. The whole picture is retouched by the fact that the discussion of historians was not a simple debate on knowledge, the debate was more ideological, and therefore emotional.
In fact, the quarrel between the Normanists and their opponents influences modernity, not the past. The former declare that without the influence of the Scandinavians, the Eastern Slavs were not capable of statehood and, consequently, of the progress of civilization. In other words, the northern influences allowed the eastern part of the continent to join Europe. Antinormalists believed and continue to believe that such a theory was initially offensive, not to mention that it looks racist.
A new dispute about the origin of Rurik broke out with a new force during the reign of the Romanov dynasty. And, as you know, this royal dynasty in Russia was closely connected with the German ruling houses. Thus, German scientists should have had the greatest “weight” in Russia in terms of historiography. What remains in this situation? It is best to present the arguments of both parties.
Norman version (Rurik or Roeric):
It should immediately indicate that the theory of the Normanists is considered today to be more convincing and, therefore, probable. Behind this are the historical circumstances and solid evidence collected by modern scientific apparatus. First, the 9th and 10th centuries were a period of expansion of the territory of the Normans, their invasions and colonization. Not only in the North Sea basin, that is, on the shores of Western Europe and Great Britain, but also in Spain (Atlantic), Sicily and Byzantium, that is, in the Mediterranean Sea. Why is the Baltic Sea an exception? Moreover, sources from the XI century mention that, before Rurik, the Eastern Slavic tribes paid tribute to the Normans.
Trails lead us to the etymology, that is, the origin of the name Rurik. It is very close to the old-Scandinavian Hroerich (“bold”, “dominant”). Initially sounding recordings: “rorikR” and “ruRikr” are on runic signs found in Scandinavia. Similar personal names (up to Eric) can also be read in English and German.
Where did Rurik come from according to this theory? At first it seemed that Chroeric from Jutland - in the 9th century, was perpetuated by the Carolingian chronicles.
He was forever a quarreling Carolingian vassal, whose patrimony was on the coast, which borders on modern Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. He took part in the internal confrontation for the Danish throne and was named the historical great-grandfather of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
But he died too early to become a Russian ruler, although it is known that he was at war with the Slavs, but with the western tribes.
The more likely version is Eric Swedish, Konung or the ruler of Uppsala at the time. Indicates this, among others, one of the Scandinavian epics recorded in the XII century. The text mentions Eric, who made an expedition to Courland and owned many lands in what was then Austrasia (part of the territory of modern Germany, France and Belgium). The surname was literally - “Eastern Land” or “Eastern Route”. According to a study by Swedish historians, the times of the rule of Eric correspond to the chronology of Rurik's life. Moreover, the beginning of the exercise of power, that is, 850-860 years, is identified with the period of conquest of the Eastern lands. In addition, Eric is indirectly indicated by both Slavic and Byzantine sources, who derive the word "Rus" on behalf of his family.
In the first texts, the term Rus (Rusi) meant the exact name of the Vikings, “those who arrived from beyond the sea”. In turn, in the Byzantine annals there is the word "Ros" - to highlight the Slavic elites. At the same time, the Dews, the Russians, spoke a different language than their subjects. Meanwhile, Swedish linguists studying the origin of geographic names from the Uppsala region have confirmed numerous cases of the suffix "ros". They made the thesis that in the early Middle Ages the whole region was called Uppland or Roslagen, associated with the ruling family of this particular region.
The Carolingian chroniclers also identified the Vikings (Vikings) as rulers of the Eastern Slavs. There are texts about visiting them by the envoys of Western Europe. It is known that because of the Norman language used, Slavic envoys were perceived suspiciously, almost by Viking spies.
The results of archaeological research also speak in favor of Norman origin. Many years of work were carried out in Novgorod and in Staraya Ladoga. The study allowed to find 1,2 thousand artifacts indicating the obvious presence of Norman culture. Ancient monuments are tangible evidence of a lively trade between the Old Russian state and Scandinavia. Many elements of the ornament are made with the image of the Viking Thor. The same process was observed with weapons, especially in the local production of the famous long Viking swords.
A short archaeological survey should end with burials. In the pre-Christian period, in each tribal culture a different burial rite of the dead was used. It was like the Scandinavian version. Cemeteries characteristic of Northern Europe were found in the Pra-Rus region. However, a certain feature - the lack of boats in the graves.
However, all large-scale evidence exclusively of the Norman theory ultimately upsets the DNA research.
This results of the study of DNA Rurik, which are not provided by the Polish author: 11 from 19 results - haplogroup N1c1 - it (Finno-Ugric and Baltic group), seven - R1a1 - is Eastern Slavs, including Russian, and one - I2a2 - refers to the ancient Paleo-European genus.
Further about the ancient Slavic theory of the origin of Rurik from the Polish author:
Rurik or Rarog?
Behind the theory of the Slavic origin of Rurik is one of the greatest scientists of Russia - Mikhail Lomonosov, who received the thesis about the "underdevelopment" of the statehood of his ancestors. Thus, he entered into a patriotic dispute with the Norman theory, formulated by German scientists studying the history of Russia on the order of the Romanov house. But due to the imperfection of knowledge in the 18th century, Lomonosov incorrectly identified with the Slavic Baltic tribes inhabiting the mouth of the Dvina. Speech, in particular, about one of the tributaries of the Dvina, called Rosa - Rurik's cradle.
In the 19th century, supporters of the Slavic theory of the origin of Rurik focused their efforts on proving that Rurik was from Slavic lands. He came from a West Slavic tribal group that inhabited the northern lands between the mouth of the Elbe and the Oder (encouraged). Speech about the so-called Mecklenburg legends, written in the XVIII century, based on ancient sources. One of them exactly repeats the legend of the three brothers - Rurik, Sineus and Trouvore - and the fate of their eastern epic. He also clearly indicates the origin of the then encourages. An indirect signal was the combination of the name of Rurik with the name of a bird of prey - usually used by the Slavs for hunting. Rarogs called the elders of encouragement, and especially prominent leaders and warriors. In addition, as stated, the ancient ancestral coat of arms of Rurikovich was with the silhouette of a bird of prey, aimed at the victim. The schematic image of this bird has survived to the present day, for example, in the form of a Ukrainian coat of arms, a trident.
However, the legend of the three brothers was refuted when scientists brought a new interpretation of ancient Russian sources. It turned out that Sineus and Truvor were not like brothers, since such words are a translation of the Old Scandinavian –– home, tribe (“home” and “brigade”). In this theory, Rurik came to Russia not with his brothers, but with all the “loyal retinue”.
In this theory, the historical “residence” of Rurik was designated - the same one, between the Oder and the Vistula - the territory of the encouraging - of the Polish lands. This version did not find a response in the Russian Empire (in St. Petersburg) against the background of the Polish insurrection. Because at that time they stopped at the version that representatives of the Krivichi invited Riurik to reign in Russia. And Rurik himself is described as the grandson of Gostomysl — the head of the Ilmen tribes of Slovenia, who had previously disguised one of his daughters as a Scandinavian (probably Finnish) tribal leader. Rurik was born in the same marriage. Thus, Rurik (half-Slavinian, semi-Slavic) got the opportunity to "rule" Rus as a descendant of Gostomysl - from Ilmen slogans (the area of present-day Veliky Novgorod). However, this theory is refuted by those who believe that the Swedes were then called Scandinavian dews.
An important argument of the Slavic historical line: The path from the Varangians to the Greeks. This is about the numerous boats of the Slavic design and the complete absence of long Viking ships along the way. Computer modeling has allowed to prove that such ships would not have crossed the rapids of the Dnieper on the way to the Black Sea.
Further, the Polish author, summing up, asks the question: is a consensus possible in endless debates about the origin of Rurik and how and from where he came to the territories called Ancient Rus.
It seems that the Slavic followers of Rurik no longer exclude his Norman origin. However, they strongly disagree with the key role of the creation of statehood by the Scandinavian invaders or colonizers. They point to numerous proofs of the existence of an Eastern Slavic state even before Rurik, citing Byzantine sources. In their opinion, one can only talk about a voluntary and mutually beneficial trading system, which allows Normans to settle down and live permanently among the Slavs. At that time, the Scandinavians were too undeveloped to physically conquer and hold “under themselves” such vast and rich territories.
The ultimate proof is a local historical tradition. Until the XVI century in Novgorod - the cradle of Russia - there was a rule for the temporary election of the prince by the democratic assembly of the inhabitants - the Veche. The elected prince was primarily military leaders, subject to political control by the "city council". And the princes who tried to expand the military office and politically, were either, or killed in the uprisings of Novgorod.
The material of the Polish author for the article is quite extensive, but the main thing in it is an attempt to highlight several versions of Rurik's origin, and not focus only on one. And because the material does not look one-sided, even if it is seen in an attempt to attract the version of the “possible Protopols” roots of Rurikovich by the ears.
Of course, we are not a Polish audience, but if we are talking about the coverage of Russian history by foreign authors, then it would not be superfluous to get acquainted with the fact that these same Polish authors offer to understanding. Still, he writes about our history. Therefore, I think we have the right.
So, this material presents a translation of the article by Robert Kheda with some comments about the author's vision of the history of Ancient Russia.
Who is he and where did the founder of the Rurik dynasty come from? What role did he play in the creation of the first state of the Eastern Slavs, called Rus?
Around the lineage of Rurik there is a constant war between the supporters of the Norman theory and its opponents. For more than 300 years, scientists across Europe have been trying to defend their own (different) points of view. All arguments range from Scandinavian sagas and Byzantine chronicles to archaeological artifacts to DNA testing. Despite the use of such an arsenal, the fundamental essence of the dispute, which, after all, belongs to the sources of national identity, still divides modern Europe.
What is the essence of the dispute?
The basis of the identity of the modern nation is its historical roots, showing the process of formation of society and the state territory. Without historical memory that goes deep into the past, it is impossible to see the value system on which the present, the future is based. An integral part of such a story is the myth of the origin. The pedigree of the authorities ancestor and his affairs greatly influence the sense of identity, creating a sense of pride and national character.
The vision of the ancestor that forms the founding act increases to the status of the most important symbol that distinguishes us from other nations. This is our own history, which gives us the right to be part of the global community of nations. Therefore, it is not surprising that the debate over the origin of the founder of the Eastern Slavic state for several hundred years caused heated emotions. In the end, the Rurik dynasty ruled by Kievan Rus, and then the Principality of Moscow, laying the foundations for modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
In fact, everything is difficult for modern Swedes, Finns, Danes, Germans and Dutch to have their own theory of the origin of Rurik. Among them is the theory of descent from the Baltic tribes. Maybe Rurik came from the emboldened (medieval Slavic alliance in the area of the mouth of the Oder River)? And if he came from the Slavs who inhabited the land between the mouth of the Oder and the Vistula, did Rurik really have Polish or pre-Polish roots?
Next, the Polish author reports that he "knows for sure":
At present, we only know that neither side questioned the following: Rurik ended up in Russia around the year of 862. The persons who called Rurik were from Slavic tribes who could not cope, speaking in modern language, with the construction of effective governance. The elders of the Krivichi, Ilmenian Slovenian tribes, as well as the Finno-Ugric tribes - Chur and Murom, becoming helpless in the face of internal disputes and even tribal wars, invited Rurik to power. The source, created in the XI century, accurately reflects the beginning of the Old Russian principality, adding that the choice of the elders was deliberately imposed on a stranger named the Varangian. Rurik accepted the proposed authority, and since he came with his brothers, he not only founded the state, but also divided it into provinces.
He himself began the reign in Novgorod. A brother named Sineus reigned in Beloozero, and the third of his brothers, Truvor - in Izborsk. It is also known that Rurik expanded the boundaries, subordinating successively to the tribes. When he died about 879, Rostov, Murom and Polotsk were among the most important ancient Russian cities.
Here it is necessary to make a small reference to the modern interpretation of events by Ukrainian historians who created their own historiographic world with statements that there was no Murom in the Vladimir region at that time, and that “Ukrainian” historical “facts” testify, for example, about Ilya Muromets "Eponymous" town near Kiev.
And speaking of the work of the Polish author, it is noticeable that he deliberately emphasizes the question of "possible Polish roots of Rurik."
Polish author continues:
ДNext comes the argument about deciphering the concept of Vareg (Wareg). In the past, and even now, most historians associate this concept with Norman or Viking. Opponents believe that this is a reference to the southeastern coast of the Baltic Sea, thereby denying the roots of the Scandinavian origin of Rurik and his family members. The whole picture is retouched by the fact that the discussion of historians was not a simple debate on knowledge, the debate was more ideological, and therefore emotional.
In fact, the quarrel between the Normanists and their opponents influences modernity, not the past. The former declare that without the influence of the Scandinavians, the Eastern Slavs were not capable of statehood and, consequently, of the progress of civilization. In other words, the northern influences allowed the eastern part of the continent to join Europe. Antinormalists believed and continue to believe that such a theory was initially offensive, not to mention that it looks racist.
A new dispute about the origin of Rurik broke out with a new force during the reign of the Romanov dynasty. And, as you know, this royal dynasty in Russia was closely connected with the German ruling houses. Thus, German scientists should have had the greatest “weight” in Russia in terms of historiography. What remains in this situation? It is best to present the arguments of both parties.
Norman version (Rurik or Roeric):
It should immediately indicate that the theory of the Normanists is considered today to be more convincing and, therefore, probable. Behind this are the historical circumstances and solid evidence collected by modern scientific apparatus. First, the 9th and 10th centuries were a period of expansion of the territory of the Normans, their invasions and colonization. Not only in the North Sea basin, that is, on the shores of Western Europe and Great Britain, but also in Spain (Atlantic), Sicily and Byzantium, that is, in the Mediterranean Sea. Why is the Baltic Sea an exception? Moreover, sources from the XI century mention that, before Rurik, the Eastern Slavic tribes paid tribute to the Normans.
Trails lead us to the etymology, that is, the origin of the name Rurik. It is very close to the old-Scandinavian Hroerich (“bold”, “dominant”). Initially sounding recordings: “rorikR” and “ruRikr” are on runic signs found in Scandinavia. Similar personal names (up to Eric) can also be read in English and German.
Where did Rurik come from according to this theory? At first it seemed that Chroeric from Jutland - in the 9th century, was perpetuated by the Carolingian chronicles.
He was forever a quarreling Carolingian vassal, whose patrimony was on the coast, which borders on modern Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. He took part in the internal confrontation for the Danish throne and was named the historical great-grandfather of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
But he died too early to become a Russian ruler, although it is known that he was at war with the Slavs, but with the western tribes.
The more likely version is Eric Swedish, Konung or the ruler of Uppsala at the time. Indicates this, among others, one of the Scandinavian epics recorded in the XII century. The text mentions Eric, who made an expedition to Courland and owned many lands in what was then Austrasia (part of the territory of modern Germany, France and Belgium). The surname was literally - “Eastern Land” or “Eastern Route”. According to a study by Swedish historians, the times of the rule of Eric correspond to the chronology of Rurik's life. Moreover, the beginning of the exercise of power, that is, 850-860 years, is identified with the period of conquest of the Eastern lands. In addition, Eric is indirectly indicated by both Slavic and Byzantine sources, who derive the word "Rus" on behalf of his family.
In the first texts, the term Rus (Rusi) meant the exact name of the Vikings, “those who arrived from beyond the sea”. In turn, in the Byzantine annals there is the word "Ros" - to highlight the Slavic elites. At the same time, the Dews, the Russians, spoke a different language than their subjects. Meanwhile, Swedish linguists studying the origin of geographic names from the Uppsala region have confirmed numerous cases of the suffix "ros". They made the thesis that in the early Middle Ages the whole region was called Uppland or Roslagen, associated with the ruling family of this particular region.
The Carolingian chroniclers also identified the Vikings (Vikings) as rulers of the Eastern Slavs. There are texts about visiting them by the envoys of Western Europe. It is known that because of the Norman language used, Slavic envoys were perceived suspiciously, almost by Viking spies.
The results of archaeological research also speak in favor of Norman origin. Many years of work were carried out in Novgorod and in Staraya Ladoga. The study allowed to find 1,2 thousand artifacts indicating the obvious presence of Norman culture. Ancient monuments are tangible evidence of a lively trade between the Old Russian state and Scandinavia. Many elements of the ornament are made with the image of the Viking Thor. The same process was observed with weapons, especially in the local production of the famous long Viking swords.
A short archaeological survey should end with burials. In the pre-Christian period, in each tribal culture a different burial rite of the dead was used. It was like the Scandinavian version. Cemeteries characteristic of Northern Europe were found in the Pra-Rus region. However, a certain feature - the lack of boats in the graves.
However, all large-scale evidence exclusively of the Norman theory ultimately upsets the DNA research.
This results of the study of DNA Rurik, which are not provided by the Polish author: 11 from 19 results - haplogroup N1c1 - it (Finno-Ugric and Baltic group), seven - R1a1 - is Eastern Slavs, including Russian, and one - I2a2 - refers to the ancient Paleo-European genus.
Further about the ancient Slavic theory of the origin of Rurik from the Polish author:
Rurik or Rarog?
Behind the theory of the Slavic origin of Rurik is one of the greatest scientists of Russia - Mikhail Lomonosov, who received the thesis about the "underdevelopment" of the statehood of his ancestors. Thus, he entered into a patriotic dispute with the Norman theory, formulated by German scientists studying the history of Russia on the order of the Romanov house. But due to the imperfection of knowledge in the 18th century, Lomonosov incorrectly identified with the Slavic Baltic tribes inhabiting the mouth of the Dvina. Speech, in particular, about one of the tributaries of the Dvina, called Rosa - Rurik's cradle.
In the 19th century, supporters of the Slavic theory of the origin of Rurik focused their efforts on proving that Rurik was from Slavic lands. He came from a West Slavic tribal group that inhabited the northern lands between the mouth of the Elbe and the Oder (encouraged). Speech about the so-called Mecklenburg legends, written in the XVIII century, based on ancient sources. One of them exactly repeats the legend of the three brothers - Rurik, Sineus and Trouvore - and the fate of their eastern epic. He also clearly indicates the origin of the then encourages. An indirect signal was the combination of the name of Rurik with the name of a bird of prey - usually used by the Slavs for hunting. Rarogs called the elders of encouragement, and especially prominent leaders and warriors. In addition, as stated, the ancient ancestral coat of arms of Rurikovich was with the silhouette of a bird of prey, aimed at the victim. The schematic image of this bird has survived to the present day, for example, in the form of a Ukrainian coat of arms, a trident.
However, the legend of the three brothers was refuted when scientists brought a new interpretation of ancient Russian sources. It turned out that Sineus and Truvor were not like brothers, since such words are a translation of the Old Scandinavian –– home, tribe (“home” and “brigade”). In this theory, Rurik came to Russia not with his brothers, but with all the “loyal retinue”.
In this theory, the historical “residence” of Rurik was designated - the same one, between the Oder and the Vistula - the territory of the encouraging - of the Polish lands. This version did not find a response in the Russian Empire (in St. Petersburg) against the background of the Polish insurrection. Because at that time they stopped at the version that representatives of the Krivichi invited Riurik to reign in Russia. And Rurik himself is described as the grandson of Gostomysl — the head of the Ilmen tribes of Slovenia, who had previously disguised one of his daughters as a Scandinavian (probably Finnish) tribal leader. Rurik was born in the same marriage. Thus, Rurik (half-Slavinian, semi-Slavic) got the opportunity to "rule" Rus as a descendant of Gostomysl - from Ilmen slogans (the area of present-day Veliky Novgorod). However, this theory is refuted by those who believe that the Swedes were then called Scandinavian dews.
An important argument of the Slavic historical line: The path from the Varangians to the Greeks. This is about the numerous boats of the Slavic design and the complete absence of long Viking ships along the way. Computer modeling has allowed to prove that such ships would not have crossed the rapids of the Dnieper on the way to the Black Sea.
Further, the Polish author, summing up, asks the question: is a consensus possible in endless debates about the origin of Rurik and how and from where he came to the territories called Ancient Rus.
It seems that the Slavic followers of Rurik no longer exclude his Norman origin. However, they strongly disagree with the key role of the creation of statehood by the Scandinavian invaders or colonizers. They point to numerous proofs of the existence of an Eastern Slavic state even before Rurik, citing Byzantine sources. In their opinion, one can only talk about a voluntary and mutually beneficial trading system, which allows Normans to settle down and live permanently among the Slavs. At that time, the Scandinavians were too undeveloped to physically conquer and hold “under themselves” such vast and rich territories.
The ultimate proof is a local historical tradition. Until the XVI century in Novgorod - the cradle of Russia - there was a rule for the temporary election of the prince by the democratic assembly of the inhabitants - the Veche. The elected prince was primarily military leaders, subject to political control by the "city council". And the princes who tried to expand the military office and politically, were either, or killed in the uprisings of Novgorod.
The material of the Polish author for the article is quite extensive, but the main thing in it is an attempt to highlight several versions of Rurik's origin, and not focus only on one. And because the material does not look one-sided, even if it is seen in an attempt to attract the version of the “possible Protopols” roots of Rurikovich by the ears.
Information