BOLTENKOVA L.F., RYABOVA E.I. Territory of the Russian Principalities in the IX-XII Centuries and the Today Importance of this Issue

DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.31.1.001

L.F. BOLTENKOVA Doctor of Sciences (law), Professor at the Institute of public administration and management, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration Moscow, Russia

Е.I. RYABOVA Candidate of Sciences, Assistant Professor at the Academy of Labour and Social Relations in the city Sevastopol, Sevastopol, Russia

TERRITORY OF THE RUSSIAN PRINCIPALITIES IN THE IX-XII CENTURIES AND THE TODAY IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE

On the basis of historical sources and scientific literature the article describes the territory of Russian principalities in the IX-XII centuries (the Old Russian state.) It is shown that in the IX-XII centuries Ukraine as a state did not exist and the Moscow Principality gained strength and became the spiritual and political center of Russia. As the center of Russia, Moscow then provided all assistance to those who formed the Ukrainian state. The part of the Ukrainian political elite is acting counter-historically when it denies the Russianness of their territorial roots.

Key words: state, Russianness, statehood, law, history, politics.

It is historically incorrect to assert, as it often happens, that the Kiev princes in the IX-X centuries collected Russian lands. Russ came from the North-West in small numbers. They formed the military and political elite first in Novgorod, then in Kiev. Other lands lived "on their own" and they were not Russians. For example, the land of the Drevlyans, the land of the Nords, the land of the Vyatichi, the land of Krivichi, the land of Radimichi, etc. There were princes everywhere. Russian princes from Kiev had to fight for power in other lands.

Having established their power in one way or another, they declared such land Russian. That is, when discussing that period, we are not talking about unification of Russian lands, but about the spread of Russian power territorially. In the West, the spread of that power was stopped by poles and other West Slavic and non-Slavic tribes (nationalities). Moreover, they were ready to establish their own power in Kiev. So, naturally, the indigineous tribes made their choice in favour of the Eastern vector of development. That choice was made voluntarily by the Kievan princes and it was strategically correct.

Before showing what areas have become Russian principalities, it is necessary to name the tribes living in the space of the future old Russian state. The following researchers studied the problem: M.V. Lomonosov, N.M. Karamzin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, N.I. Kostomarov, Yu.A. Limonov, A.E. Presnyakov, G.V. Vernadsky, V.T. Pachuco, M.N. Tikhomirov, D.A. Chwolson, A.N. Nasonov, A.V. Cherepnin, L.N. Gumilev, N.S. Kozlov, V.I. Kozlov, M.N. Gromov, A.A. Novoselsky, D.D. Pogorski, L.F. Boltenkova and other.

It is clear from various sources, that in its heyday the Ancient Russia united in its composition 22 non-Slavic peoples, who were at different levels of social development, including: Ugro-Finnish, Baltic and Turkic tribes [6]. Among the Slavic tribes there were: Polyane, Drevlyane, Radimichi, Krivichi, Ulichi, Nords, Volhynians, Tivertsy, Dregovichi, Buzhans, White Croats, Polotsk, Slovene (s) and Vyatichi [7. P. 342; 8. P. 33-34, 39].

The picture of the placement of the Eastern Slavs on the East European Plain was vividly painted by an ancient Russian chronicler Nestor at the end of the 11th-early 12th century, who described the events that had taken place nearly three hundred years before him. Most of the information of the ancient Russian chronicles was confirmed by both other written and archaeological sources. On the right bank in the middle reaches of the Dnieper river lived Polyane and Kiev was the centre of their land; Drevlyane lived to the North and West of the Polyane, between the rivers Ros and Pripyat, Iskorosten was the center of their land; Dregovichi lived to the north of Polyane and Drevlyane, on the left bank of the river Pripyat; Bougains and Volhynians lived to the west of Polyane, along the upper course of the Southern Bug; Ulichi and Tivertsi lived further to the south-west, in the Dniester basin; White Croats lived in Transcarpathia; Northerners inhabited the left bank of the river Dnieper, the basins of the rivers Suly, Seym and Desna, reaching in the east to the river North Donets; Radimichi lived to the north of Northerners, between the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Sozha; Krivichi lived north of Radimichi, in the the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and Dvina, with the center in Smolensk; Polochans inhabited the basin of the Western Dvina along the river Polote; Slovene lived in the area of Lake Ilmen; and finally, Vyatichi lived in the very east of the region occupied by the Eastern Slavs, inhabiting the basin of the upper and middle Oka and Moskva River.

Analyzing the territory inhabited by the Slavs, who then formed the Old Russian state, L. F. Boltenkova writes that “there are no Rus among the listed tribes and their territories [5. P. 36].” In this case, there is no need to prove in detail how “Rus came” to the Slavs or how Rus, Russians turned out among the Slavs. This question has been studied by different sciences for centuries. We are impressed by M.V. Lomonosov’s the position, who considered it true that Novgorodians in alliance with Chud and Kriviches invited Ros Varyags to rule them. Varyags are not an ethnos. The chronicle clarifies that the word “Varyag” has a general meaning and applies to anyone who came from the Baltic shores or, as Lomonosov put it, the Varangian shores. These were: the Swedes, the Danes, the Norse, the Goths, the Angles and the Rus (Ros). V.O. Klyuchevsky believed that “our” Varyags were armed merchants and Western Varyags were pirates or coastal robbers. V.O. Klyuchevsky described it in the following way: “Traces in the language and in the ancient tradition point out to this character of our Varyags. In the regional Russian lexicon, the Varyag (put in bold by V.O.K.) is a peddler, a petty trader and to varyagigate (put in bold by V.O.K.) means to engage in bargaining. It is curious that when a non-commercial armed Varyag needed to hide his identity, he pretended to be a merchant coming from Russia or going to Russia [11. P. 27].”

As for the Varyags and Rus, Solovyov S.M. wrote: “It remains for us to say a few words about the meaning of the names – the Varyags and Rus. Comparing various scientific interpretations, one can deduce the correct conclusion that the word Varyags meant groups of people, who left their homeland and were forced to seek fortune on the seas or in alien countries; that word, apparently, was formed in the West, among the Germanic tribes; in the east, the tribes of Slavs, Finns, Greeks and Arabs had the same common name for such squads, it was Rus, meaning, as you can see, seafarers coming on ships by sea, entering rivers inland of countries living along the coast of the sea. Let us add here that the name “Rus” was much more common in the south than in the north, and that, in all likelihood, Ros was known on the shores of the Black Sea before the first half of the ninth century, before the arrival of Rurik and his brothers. Such, in our opinion, are the most probable conclusions that can be obtained from the numerous discussions about the Varyags and Russia [17. P. 119].”

We will not go into details about the northern or southern location of the Varyags-Rus. In fact, today it is clear from various sources that the Varyags – Rus moved from the North to the South, but in the South they were practically always present.

So, Lomonosov, Klyuchevsky, Soloviev did not refute the theory of the arrival in Novgorod, Beloozero, Izborsk of the Varyags-Rus (Ros): Rurik, Sineus and Truvor under agreement. This happened in the year 862. The date is celebrated today as the beginning of Russian statehood. In fact, yes, it was the beginning of Russian statehood. But it is difficult to respond positively to the question: whether the people of Novgorod, the Kryvichi and Chud, that is, the federative tribes, who invited the Varyags-Rus, recognized themselves as Russians during the times of Rurik. On this issue, there is a point of view that the people of Novgorod of the period of Ancient Russia did not call themselves Russians, although they participated in “common life”, but sought to preserve their independence [5. P. 53-67].

Facts confirming this position are the uprisings, first against Rurik, then against Kiev, the establishment of a republican form of government, a federal structure, and subsequent wars with Moscow for independence. Nevertheless, there are historical grounds for considering Novgorod an integral part of the Old Russian state. That is, the Novgorod land is a part of the Old Russian state. It should only be clarified that contemporaries considered Novgorod to be “external Rus”, lying to the north of “internal Rus,” the Russian land. This view belongs to Constantine Bagryanorodny [4. P. 8-10]. Let's enumerate other parts of the Old Russian state.

Kiev land, which the Soviet (including Ukrainian) scientists considered the political and territorial core of the Old Russian state, did not develop, in their opinion, into a separate principality. That land was considered the common dynastic heritage of the ancient Russian princely family [18. P. 5].

“Russian land” between Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl constituted the territory of Kiev land. Initially (until the XI century), Chernigov and Pereyaslavl were ruled from Kiev, they did not have their own princes. In the XII-XIII centuries, Kiev land was identified with the “Russian land,” but geographically they did not coincide. The main possessions of Kiev were located on the right bank of the Dnieper, including the Drevlyane land and the land of the Dregovichi. The western borders of the Kiev land were located along the Western Bug river line, the southern borders were on the Ros river and the upper course of the Southern Bug [14. P. 30-33]. At the time of Vladimir Monomakh, Vyatka, Volyn, Turov, and Pereyaslavl were parts of the Kiev Grand Throne. In a word, the composition of the grand-ducal possessions changed with a tendency to decrease in size. Specifically, the borders of the Kiev land were described by: A.N. Nasonov, P.P. Tolochko (in Ukrainian), M.V. Dovnyar-Zapolsky, M.N. Tikhomirov, N. Molchanovsky, N.P. Dashkevich, V.I. Dovzhenok, A. Dobrovolsky (in Ukrainian), O.V. Bodyansky (in Ukrainian), A.T. Smilenko (in Ukrainian) and others. Among the authors there are not only Soviet, but also authors of the period of the Empire.

It should be emphasized that the borders of the Kiev land have been scrupulously investigated and maps have been drawn up.

Chernigov principality. This principality and its territory were the objects of research by V.N. Tatishchev, K.M. Borozdin, M.P. Pogodin, M.E. Markov, A.K. Zaitsev, D.Ya. Samokvasov, P.V. Golubovsky, B.A. Rybakov and others. The state territory of the Chernigov principality was formed depending on the general processes of the formation of the Old Russian state. The core of the territory of that principality were the lands of ethnic Nords (Slavs), who acquired the “Polyane” ethnographic appearance in the X-XII centuries. At the end of the ninth century (specifically, in 884) the Nords were still mentioned in Chronicals. In that year, the great Prince of Kiev Oleg laid a “light” tribute on the Nords.

Olga strengthened the statehood of the Nords by establishing a system of graveyards and tributes. Chernigov, as a state entity, is mentioned in the Chronicals in 1024 and in second place after Kiev. But in fact, Chernigov was known in history before that, already in the Russian Treaties with Byzantium of 907 and 945. The specific issue of the boundaries of the Chernigov principality is studied in the works of the above authors, as well as A.A. Spitsyn, I.I. Lyapushkin, I.P. Rusanov, N.I. Nadezhdin, N.V. Kholostenko.

Pereyaslav principality. This principality was the largest and most important (along with Kiev and Chernigov) within the Old Russian state. It occupied the forest-steppe zone on the left bank of the Dnieper. The ethnic composition of the principality was not simple, but mostly included Nords and Polyane. The Nords mostly settled in the eastern part and far to the south, and Polyane – mostly in the western. Nords were incorporated into the Old Russian state at the end of the 9th century by Prince Oleg. In the year 884, there is a record in the Chronicle: “Oleg went on the Nords and won a victory over them and imposed a light tribute on them ...”.

But, as noted above, Nortds were also part of the Chernigov principality, that is, we would say now that Nords were a divided ethnic group. The boundaries of the Nords’ lands were delineated by researchers on the basis of archaeological data [13. P. 217]. We would like to single out one detail: Pereyaslavl appeared on the land of Polyans. Do not forget that Kiev also appeared on their land.

Polotsk land. It should be stressed primarily that the Polotsk land was the first to separate from the Old Russian state, that is, it began the process of disintegration of that state. Polotsk land was studied by I.A. Garizhsky (1819), K.A. Govorsky (1853), A. Yelsky, M. Brodovich, M.V. Dovnar-Zapolsky, V.E. Danilevich, L.V. Alekseeva and others. The term “Polotsk land” was taken by the researchers from the Chronicle. As indicated by L. V. Alekseev, the emergence of the term “Polotsk-Minsk land” on the initiative of researcher V.I. Pichéty is wrong and does not correspond to the historical documents [1. P. 203]. Polotsk land is Northern Belarus. Geographically, it is the Pridvinskaya lowland, from Orsha to Minsk. The main waterway is the Western Dvina. The ethnic nature of the Polotsk land has not yet been precisely determined. It is believed in the sources that the Slavic tribe Krivichi arrived to this land not earlier than the VIIth century [2].

Faced with the Dregovichi, who had settled in the lands south of Minsk, Borisov and Drutsk, the Krivichi stopped. The city of Polotsk was built on the right bank of the Polota, near its mouth. A tribute to the prince flowed here. It is known that the princes of Polotsk fought Novgorod for the “border” lands. It should be noted that the Polotsk princes stood out among others in their desire for independence both from Kiev and anyone else. However, in the first half of the XIII century, the weakened Polotsk land was subordinated to Lithuania. That is, the ancient Russian period of the Polotsk land ended in the middle of the XIIIth century.

Smolensk land. According to archaeologists and historians, the core of the Smolensk land was the branch of the Krivichi, who settled in the upper reaches of the Western Dvina, the Dnieper and the Volga. They are called: “Smolensk Krivichi” or “Dnieper Krivichi” [16. P. 240-242]. Krivichy and their history were studied by: N.I. Nadezhdin, M.P. Pogodin, I.D. Belyaev, M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, M.K. Lyubavsky, P.V. Golubovsky, N.P. Barsov, I.M. Krasnoperov, V.V. Sedov, Ya.V. Stankevich, N.N. Usachev and others.

The science concluded that the political territory of the Smolensk land in the XII century coincided with the Krivitch ethnographic land. It is believed that the Krivichy assimilated the Balts, who had lived since antiquity. It is known from history that Oleg left Novgorod, accompanied by Krivichy, allies of Novgorod, as a part of his squad. He arrived in Smolensk, left his deputy there and moved on (then occupied Kiev). That is, Smolensk’s dependence on Oleg came earlier than he arrived in Kiev. Having occupied Kiev, he became the Grand Duke, believing that Novgorod and Smolensk were already in his submission. The beginning of the political isolation of Smolensk from Kiev was laid around 1125-1127, although the prince at that time was the grandson of the Kiev Prince Vladimir Monomakh. In 1137, Rostislav, the grandson of Vladimir Monomakh, established a local bishop in Smolensk [10]. The principality of Smolensk rises and begins to play a significant role in the common Russian affairs. In the middle of the XII century, Smolensk territory was delineated in the boundaries between the Polotsk land (from the headwaters of the Lovat to the mouth of the Toropa river and further to Orsha). In the south-west, the border point was Luchin, in the east – to the middle course of the Bolva river. In the northeast – the upper reaches of the Ugra and to the headwaters of the Moscow river, it wedged between the rivers Moskva and Volga. In the north, the border rose from Rzhev to Lake Seliger [16. P. 257].

Polovtsy land. The fates of Polovtsy and Russians merged at the beginning of the XI century. It was a complex, controversial, tragic and at the same time a close-alliance interrelation of nationalities. P. V. Golubovsky devoted much time to the study of 350 years of life of these nationalities. In 1883, his work “Pechenegs, Turks and Polovtsy before the Tatar invasion” was published. In 1889, he published a book “Polovtsy in Hungary” [15. P. 260]. The history of the Polovtsy in the context of the Old Russian state was studied by: D.A. Rasovsky, B.D. Grekov, M.N. Tikhomirov, A.N. Nasonov, I. Berezin, P.M. Melioransky, V.A. Parkhomenko, A.I. Popov and others. Pletneva S.A. believes that the history of the Polovtsy has been studied quite fully [16. P. 257].

The borders of the Polovtsy land were unstable: they were nomads, attacked the settled population, robbed, burned, and could remain in the conquered territory or go to other places. The task of the Russians was to ensure their own security. But gradually, gaining strength, the Russian princes began to oust the Polovtsy or to become related with a part of them. Some major victories over the Polovtsy are mentioned in “The Legend of Igor's Regiment”. Under the blows of the Russian princes, part of the Polovtsy moved to Byzantine, part to Georgia. Z. V. Anchabadze wrote a serious work about Polovtsy in the North Caucasus [3]. In the late 90s of the XII th century, skirmishes between Polovtsy and Russians almost ceased. On the contrary, Polovtsy participated in the political life of Russia. However, such participation was selective. For example, when the principality of Galicia-Volyn was the scene of fratricidal wars, Polovtsy together with Russian princes went there in 1202, 1208, 1226 and 1235, that is, almost until the arrival of the Mongol-Tatars.

The Polovtsy participated in the campaign of Izyaslav against Kiev in 1234. The Polovtsy, as well as the Russians, were the object of the Tatar conquests. Moreover, they fled, dissolving in the Russian territories of the Old Russian state. In short, for about 200 years the Polovtsy were in close relations with Russia, exerting mutual influence on each other, but with the advantage of Russia.

Galitsko-Volyn lands. The history of these lands is full of dramatic changes. In ancient times, Dulebsky tribal alliance existed here, and in the 6th century AD that union was broken by avars. Volyn, a former tribal union center, faded and Vladimir Volyn rose. A rich layer of boyars was formed, the following cities grew: Peremyshl, Danilov, Lutsk, Terebovl, Lviv, Cherven, Kholm, Berestye, Drogichin. In the XII century, Galich rose. The Galician principality was formed on the lands of the Slavs: White Croats, Tivertsy, Ulichi. In the XII-XIII centuries, Prince Roman Mstislavich Volynsky united the Galician land and Volyn. This principality existed until the XIV century, having survived the Tatar-Mongol invasion. Relations between Kiev and Galicia-Volyn principality were complex. Having become part of the Old Russian state in the Xth century, these south-western lands demonstrated a tendency to separation already from the XIth century. The rich local nobility did not want to submit to Kiev. On this basis, there were constant “external” and internal conflicts. Some princes replaced others, but there was no peace. The Principality fell into districts: Galitsky, Zvenigorod and Vladimir. This enabled Hungary (King Andrew) to occupy the Western Russian lands. Prince Daniel took the royal title from Pope Innocent IV. The process of catholization began. After the death of Daniel (in 1264), the Galician-Volyn principality disintegrated into four parts. In this form, in the XIV century Galicia was captured by Poland, and Volyn – by Lithuania. After the Union of Lublin (1569), the Galician and Volyn lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Vladimir-Suzdal principality. The territory of this principality is between the river Oka and the upper reaches of the Volga. The original name of the principality is Rostov-Suzdal because of the ancient cities – Rostov and Suzdal. By decision of the feudal congress in 1097 Suzdal land came into the possession of Vladimir Monomakh. He has transferred this land to the management of his son Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157), who became the first prince independent from Kiev. Note that his independence was guaranteed by his father, Vladimir Monomakh. Yuri Dolgoruky, as you know, built Moscow, which later became the center of an independent Moscow principality. The son of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrew Bogolyubsky did not seek to be in Kiev, unlike his father, who for a few years was the Great Prince in Kiev and died there. Andrei Bogolyubsky transferred the capital of “his” principality to Vladimir. From history it is clear that Kiev – Suzdal – Vladimir – Moscow are in a historically vital relationship, that is, in essence, they are one family. But, as you know, large families tend to live apart, “living in their own homes – apartments,” but it is impossible to tear out their blood and kinship ties, even if the family members have leave for different countries.

The land-principalities considered above, except for Novgorod, which was a republic, were not the only ones in the composition of the Old Russian state. Other lands were less state-organized, but they also created the history of the Old Russian state. Specific tribes, tribal alliances have been named above. Let’s name the lands: Turov-Pinsk, Murom and Tmutarakan.

The foregoing, based on the analysis of various sources, suggests that Ukraine did not exist as a state in the period from the 9th to the 14th centuries. Moscow principality was gaining momentum at the period. O. I. Chistyakov and I. D. Martysevich wrote that “The ancient Russian state did not coincide with the present-day Ukraine either in territory or in population, they have only one common trait – their capital – Kiev. One can’t talk about specifically Ukrainian culture, language, etc in the IXth and even in the XIIth centuries [9. P. 26].”

Although the further history of a part of the Russian lands intersects with the history of Ukraine (it is not the subject of this article), but we specifically note that without the Moscow principality, the Russian state, the Russian empire or the USSR, the Ukrainian statehood would not have taken place, the territorial basis of which contains the Russian principalities of the IXthe to the XII centuries.

With regard to the modern value of the territorial structure of the Old Russian state, the relevance of the issue we see in the events taking place in Ukraine. Part of the political elite inadequately perceives the territorial basis of the Ukrainian statehood. This problem can be resolved, if we turn to the history of the formation of Ukraine. Since modern Ukrainian political figures, on the one hand, consider Old Russian princes and princesses as “their own”, and on the other hand, they are trying to prove in every way that they are not Russians, but Ukrainians, there is a doubt about the legality of historical “succession”. The Ukrainian political elite by deniaing their “Russianness” put themselve outside the historical roots, creating difficulties for themselves and the people.

In reality, while remaining Ukrainians, it is possible to maintain a kinship with the Russians.

REFERENCES:

1. Alekseev L.V. Polockaja zemlja [Polotsk land] // Old Russian principalities of the X-XIII centuries. Moscow, 1975 (In Russ.).

2. Alekseev L.V. Arheologicheskie pamjatniki jepohi zheleza v srednem techenii Zapadnoj Dviny [Archaeological sites of the Iron Age in the middle reaches of the Western Dvina]. – Proceedings of the Baltic Expedition. Moscow, 1959. Vo l. 1 (In Russ.).

3. Anchabadze Z.V. Kipchaki Severnogo Kavkaza po dannym gruzinskih letopisej XI-XIV vv. [Kipchaks of the North Caucasus according to the Georgian chronicles of the XI-XIV centuries] // Materials of the session on the problem of the origin of the Balkar and Karachai peoples. Nalchik, 1960 (In Russ.).

4. Bagryanorodny C. Ob upravlenii gosudarstvom [On the state management] // Izvestiya GAIMK. Moscow-Leningrad, 1934. Vol. 91 (In Russ.).

5. Boltenkova L.F. Stanovlenie i razvitie rossijskogo mnogonacional'nogo gosudarstva (VI v. – nastojashhee vremja) [Formation and development of the Russian multinational state (from the VI century to the present time)]. In five books. Book 1. The formation and development of the Russian Empire as a common house of different ethnic groups. Moscow, 2011 (In Russ.).

6. Istorija krest'janstva SSSR [The history of the USSR peasantry]. Moscow, 1990. Vol. 2 (In Russ.).

7. History of the USSR from ancient times to the present day In two series. In twelve volumes. First episode. Moscow: "Science"; 1966. Vol. 1 (In Russ.).

8. History of State and Law of the USSR: a textbook. Part 1 / Ed. Yu.P. Titov. Moscow: Legal. lit.; 1988 (In Russ.).

9. Istorija SSSR s drevnejshih vremen do nashih dnej. V dvuh serijah. V dvenadcati tomah. Pervaja serija [History of State and Law of the USSR. – Part 1] / Ed. O.I. Chistyakova, I.D. Martysevich. Moscow: MSU, 1985 (In Russ.).

10. Kashprovsky E.I. Uchrezhdenie Smolenskoj episkopii [The establishment of the Smolensk bishopric]. Kiev, 1896 (In Russ.).

11. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russkaja istorija [Russian history]. Moscow: Eksmo; 2009 (In Russ.).

12. Kuchera M.P. Perejaslavskoe knjazhestvo [Pereyaslavl princedom] // Ancient princedoms of X-XIII centuries. Moscow: "Science", 1975 (In Russ.).

13. Lyapushkin I.I. Dneprovskoe lesostepnoe levoberezh'e v jepohu zheleza [Dnieper forest-steppe left bank in the iron age]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1961. No. 104 (In Russ.).

14. Nasonov A.N. «Russkaja zemlja» i obrazovanie territorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva [“Russian land” and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state]. Moscow, 1951 (In Russ.).

15. Pletnev S.A. Drevnerusskie knjazhestva X-XIII vv. [Old Russian principalities of the X-XIII centuries]. Moscow, 1975 (In Russ.).

16. Sedov V.V. Smolenskaja zemlja [Smolensk land] // Old Russian principalities X-XIII centuries. Moscow, 1975 (In Russ.).

17. Soloviev S.M. Sochinenija. Kn. 1. Istorija Rossii s drevnejshih vremen [Collected works – Book1. The history of Russia since ancient times]. Moscow, 1988. Vol. 1-2 (In Russ.).

18. Tolochko P.P. Kievskaja zemlja [Kiev land] // Old Russian principalities of the X-XIII centuries. Moscow: "Science"; 1975 (In Russ.).