How the Khazars created Russia
Horseman of the Khazar Khaganate from the Alans. Mid-ninth century Dmitrov arch. complex. Reconstruction by O. Fedorov
The theory of the Norman origin of Russia arose or was introduced into scientific circulation in the XNUMXth century. It appeared, one might say, simultaneously with the emergence of historical science in our country. After that, for a long time it became the most important issue that determined the emergence of the Old Russian state.
Of course, the “Norman” theme was also mentioned in such works as the Synopsis, but compilation works on historical topics before the XNUMXth century cannot be called fully scientific.
The works that laid the foundations of the "Norman theory" were "On the Varangians", "On the Origin of Russia" and "Geography of Russia and neighboring regions according to northern writers", all of them belonged to the pen of G.Z. Bayer, and the first was written by him in 1735. This theme was supported in 1745 by H. F. Miller. This is how the "Norman theory" or the theory of the influence of the Scandinavians on the emergence of the ancient Russian state arose.
At the beginning of the XNUMXth century, A.-L. Schlozer wrote the work "Nestor", so there was a "Norman trio": Bayer - Miller - Schlozer, which caused many jokes among students of historical universities.
The report of G. F. Miller in 1749 caused a storm of emotions on the part of M. V. Lomonosov, and 29 meetings of the Historical Assembly were devoted to the discussion of this theory. In these disputes, Lomonosov laid the foundations of the anti-Norman theory.
Both of them were based on the problem of the ethnos, which either influenced or created the Old Russian state. The dispute was, of course, at the level of knowledge possessed by scientists in the XNUMXth century, and science was only taking its first steps. M. V. Lomonosov, in the fight against Miller, argued that the Roxolans, Goths and Varangians were the Slavs who created Russia. But the author of the first scientific Russian history, V.N. Tatishchev, deduced the Varangians from the Finns, since they lived closer to the Slavs, but right across the sea.
History was just taking its first steps, and many theories, from a modern point of view, were phantasmagoric assumptions. Although, judging by modern “theories”, against the backdrop of a drop in the level of education, we again rolled back to the XNUMXth century, it is true that those who wrote their “studies” at that time possessed the entire arsenal of the scientific apparatus of their period, while the current “theorists” do not they know even half of what is prescribed for the XNUMXth century, not to mention the XNUMXst century, but they reason with the "scientific air of an expert."
And then the Khazars came
On the whole, historians of the XNUMXth century had no doubts that the Khazars somehow influenced the emergence of the Old Russian state, even Catherine II, who wrote on historical topics, thought so. She assumed that due to the fact that the Khazars were pressing on the Slavs in the south, they were forced to turn to the Varangians, as the chronicle also told us.
But the little-known today I. F. G. Evers, decided to look at this problem differently. J. F. G. Evers was a famous historian of the early 1825th century. He was an ardent opponent of the Norman theory of Miller, and especially Schlozer, believing that they were mistaken in attributing the creation of the Old Russian state to the Swedes. His work was published in XNUMX.
He proceeded from the fact that it was not the Varangians from across the sea who created the state for the Slavs, before the call, the Slavs already had their own state form of government:
The Russian state at Ilmen Lake was formed both in word and deed before Rurik's autocracy, with which, however, Schlozer begins Russian history.
The analytical method in science took its first steps, its roots were in the then fashionable "skepticism", therefore it was the norm to subject everything and everyone to absolute doubt. So the enemy of the "Normanists" Evers resolutely rejected the annals of Nestor. He wrote that he lived 250 years after the calling of the Varangians and could not know how the calling of the Varangians actually took place, and even more so that southern Russia could have been of Khazar origin.
Evers relied on English translations of Arabic sources from the XNUMXth century period. And they reported the following:
Khozra is close, on the banks of the Atel, there are the people of Bertasa, they are called Bertases, but in general the land is called Khazar, Russian and Servir.
The Russians are a numerous people of the Turks, the neighbors of the Slavs.
Through complex constructions, Evers explained who the Russians really were. The Russians, as he assumed, came from the Roxolans or Alans, non-scientific philology in the style of "Russians - Etruscans" did not originate in the XNUMXth century, but much earlier, she is still alive today, and Evers tried to work within its framework.
So, if the Roxolans are close to the Alans, and the Alans are related to the Khazars, then:
The primitive Russ were certainly Turkish and, probably, the Kozar tribe.
The Alans of the Black Sea and the North Caucasus were under the rule of the Khazars, their habitat is outlined by the Saltov-Mayak archaeological culture. But the Alans, like the Roxolans, are ethnic groups of Iranian origin, not Turkic, although, as archaeological finds testify to us, they gradually switched, at least in the steppes of the Black Sea region, to the Turkic language.
Image of a rider. Chalk. Mayak settlement. Voronezh region. GE. SPb. Author's photo
These Rus lived, according to Evers, under the Khazar, according to Eastern authors, or - Russian (Old Russian chronicles), Black Sea. This sea was called Russian, because the Russians lived on its coast. The Russians who lived in the south, along the shores of the Russian (Black) Sea, could not live in the north, on the shores of the Varangian Sea. Therefore, “to go beyond the sea” meant “to go” not for Lake Ladoga, but for the Sea of \uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov: the Slavs, calling on their first princes from Khazaria, could go beyond the seas ...
That is why, back in the XNUMXth century, Prince St. Vladimir was called a kagan, since the Russian princes of Khazar origin had the title of kagan.
And not “a gang of Swedes by A. L. Schlozer”, but Khazar Rus from the Crimea, whom the Byzantines [“Theophan’s successor”] called Tauro-Scythians, since they were from the Crimea, attacked Constantinople around 866. In connection with this campaign, the name of the Russians rose, and the Khazar name began to be mentioned less often, he writes:
From the news of the Byzantines, no one mentions the Khazars between 834-888, during which the foundation of the Russian state took place, and there was a campaign of Askold and Dir against Constantinople. Is it possible to assume the conjecture that these two incidents elevated the Russian tribe too much, and that the main mass of the people was shielded by it?
In the same way, I. F. G. Evers explains the term "Varangians", applicable to the Russians and Varangians. He wrote that the Khazars more than once served as mercenaries in Constantinople, where, being in the guard, they received the name of the Varangians. Many of them, having been baptized there, built the church of St. Elijah in Kyiv.
And he traces the names of the first Russian princes to the Turkic ones. But in the end, Evers points out that this hypothesis is just a guess. Like many of his predecessors, he, rejecting the Russian chronicle, nevertheless believed that the Ilmen Slavs, experiencing external pressure, went overseas for help, but not the northern, Varangian, but the southern, Sea of Azov, and called on the Khazar Rus, who showed them an example of meek management of Kyiv and glades.
Axes. Saltovsky burial ground. Kharkov region. GIM. SPb. Author's photo
Rurik, moving north, deployed his forces in Ladoga - against the Scandinavian Normans, on Beloozero - against the Permians, in Izborsk - against the Summers. The Ugrians Askold and Dir, who accompanied him, served, like all Hungarians (Ugrians), the Khazars. They asked to go south and settled in Kyiv under the general rule of the Khazars.
That they are Ugric or Hungarian, he deduces from the following conclusions:
1. Nowhere in the annals is it said about their Russian origin.
2. Askold and Dir are buried on Ugrian mountain.
3. Oleg called himself a Ugric guest to attract Askold and Dir.
4. They, like the Ugrians, ruled in Kyiv under the rule of the Khazars for 17 years.
He wrote that Schlozer himself says that Oleg took Kyiv from the Khazars, so he thought that Askold and Dir were under the auspices of the Khazars. Who Oleg is, how he relates to the Rus-Khazars, it is not clear from his reasoning. Evers does not explain why the Rus-Khazars came north to the Slovenes, and then moved south to Kyiv against the Khazars. This was the extent of his observations.
Such a theory appeared at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. Today, few people know about it, except for historians. But, despite the source study and analytical weakness, it found its continuation in subsequent scientific works. And most importantly, it gave a powerful impetus to the development of the thesis about the anti-Northern origin of the Russian state. It is this hypothesis that owes its origin to the southern, later Slavic, theory of the origin of Russia.
Later, in the middle of the XIX century. historians who argued with the famous S. A. Gedeonov, who rejected the Scandinavian origin of Russia, most often did this with an eye on Evers.
In the end, the Black Sea Rus of Gedeonov is extremely close to the Rus of Evers, with the only difference that Gedeonov considered it Slavic, and Evers considered it Khazar.
The first steps of scientific thought in Russia
This was the period of formation of scientific thought. An important role in this was played by the so-called. "skeptical school", which studied historical sources in detail. But its head, M. T. Kachanovsky, supported Evers's theory, but with extreme caution and only during his lectures.
All this information environment made it possible to move on to new types of analysis, we must not forget that positivism was only in its infancy, and what seems ordinary to us today, for example, the notorious “common sense” or “logic”, only arose with the development of modern science, technology and society.
Without this understanding, the transition to a new stage in the development of mankind and Russian society in that period is impossible. In general, it can be described as a transition to a scientific approach, in the modern sense. What was implied by the emergence of analysis, as such, in particular, analytical translations of ancient texts. Of course, the level of translation of the sources of that period is significantly inferior to the modern one, but this was a major step for science.
It was at this time that more accurate translations of Arabic texts made by H. D. Fren appeared, where Slavs, Russ and Khazars were clearly distinguished. Thus, the theory of the "Khazar" origin of the Rus was dispelled, and its foundation - inaccurate and incorrect translations - was completely undermined.
This was an extremely important event in the historical world of Russia, when scientific translation and analysis of texts began, and other disciplines related to the study of the past were born: from chronology to archeology.
This instructive story shows all the current amateurs to put forward "historical hypotheses" in the style of the XNUMXth century, that without source analysis and knowledge of historiography, this will only be idle conjecture. Instructive here is the example of dangerous amateurs from history - "Chronologues". Who pass off their gag as “scientific” research, while being completely unfamiliar with the scientific tradition and those disputes around various historical dates, which are sometimes conducted by professionals for several centuries.
In relation to Russian history, for example, it can be noted that the dates of early ancient Russian history that we study at school are relative, since all historians know, from the beginning of the twentieth century, that the initial Russian chronicle, as established by the famous Russian historian A.A. .Chess, is undated.
And again the Khazars
But back to our Khazars. The Khazars have not disappeared from sight. Their influence on the history of the Slavs seemed too attractive.
I will not touch on all the ups and downs associated with the study of this ethnic group in the second half of the XNUMXth century, I will only pay attention to one most important factor. I always write about this in my articles: the thinking of ethnic groups and peoples is always directly connected with material culture and production relations.
This happened at the end of the 150th century, when the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, under the influence of the development of commercial and industrial capital in Russia, created his own “trade” theory of the emergence of Russia or the Old Russian state. His theory influenced a huge number of his followers and students. And if Klyuchevsky paid little attention to the "Khazar problem", then his contemporary V.I. Lamansky directly believed that the Slavs, leaving the tribal life, fell under the rule of the kaganate. The Khazars, who ruled the Slavs for XNUMX years, laid the foundations of the state system.
From Khazar finds. Drawing of a menorah (dipinto) on an amphora. XNUMXth century Kerch archaeological museum. Author's photo
He did not write anything about the ethnic composition of Russia, but V. A. Parkhomenko in a number of works from 1913 to 1925. comes to the conclusion that the Khazars took control over the southern tribes of the Eastern Slavs, who lived in the steppes, the field, hence the meadow.
And the international name for the glades was Rus. Khazar judges judged Russia. Rus served in the army of Khazaria. A huge number of Rus lived in the trade and political center of Khazaria - Itil.
Russia, which was part of the Khazaria, waged a long struggle for the Kyiv shopping center, which was controlled by the forest Slavs, the Drevlyans. But only Igor Stary was able to capture it, having killed the Drevlyansk princes Askold and Dir. Only after that did Kyiv become the Polyana capital. The campaign of Svyatoslav was caused not by the fact that the prince fought with an external enemy, but by a showdown in the kaganate, between his ethnic groups: the Rus-glades and the Khazars: the glades returned their lands. After Svyatoslav, his grandson Prince Mstislav appeared in the lands of the Kaganate.
Parkhomenko's theory about the influence of the Khazars on Russia and the Slavs was the last of its kind.
The confusion associated with incorrect translations of historical sources and erroneous analytics based on this, and, in fact, the incorrect use of sources, has led to hypotheses with a confusion of ethnic groups.
The "Khazar theory" was generated by the "Norman theory", rejecting the influence of the Varangians, it erected over the tribes of Eastern Europe - the power of the Khazars. Also important here was the patriotic feeling, which did not want to accept such a view of history. It forced many researchers to put forward dubious hypotheses, the fruits of mental constructions, and not scientific analysis, thereby rendering a disservice to science.
One has only to repeat, such hypotheses, which we remember, were associated with the period of the formation of positive scientific thought in the XNUMXth century, but such theories today can only be evidence of degradation.
Information