Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Некоторые ключевые вопросы истории Таврики X-XI вв.: политико-административный аспект|
|Other Titles:||Some key questions of history of Taurica X-XI centuries: political and administrative aspects|
|Authors:||Науменко, В. Е.|
Naumenko, V. E.
|Publisher:||Изд-во Урал. ун-та|
|Citation:||Науменко В. Е. Некоторые ключевые вопросы истории Таврики X-XI вв.: политико-административный аспект / В. Е. Науменко // Античная древность и средние века. — Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та, 2011. — Вып. 40: К 50-летию Уральской школы византиноведения. — С. 165-188.|
|Abstract:||This article consideres some key questions of history of Taurica X–XI centuries. Firstly, the ending of the Khazar period in peninsula. Secondly, the role of Taurica in system of Russian-Byzantine relations in Х century. At last, thirdly, mutual relations of Byzantium and nomads of Northern Black Sea Coast in X–XI centuries. It’s necessary to notice that the sequence and character of events occurring on peninsula are reconstructed on the basis of complex analysis of written, epigraphical, sphragistical and archaeological sources. The analysis of sources testifies that already by the end of IX century considerable part of strategically important mountainous and seaside areas of Taurica located between Cherson and Bospor (socalled “Klimates”) was under direct control of administration of thema Cherson. For the first time at official level results of process of the statement of a new political and administrative system on peninsula were reflected in Kletorologion of Philotheos (899). Simultaneously in Crimea the church system was improved. As testifies notitia of Nicholas I Mystic (901–907), it included five administrative units – archbishops Cherson, Bospor, Gottia, Sugdeja and Fully. History of Taurica in Х century, especially of the second half of century, in many respects defined the Russian-Byzantine relations. The present crisis burst in 80th of Х century. It was connected with «Korsun campaign» of Prince Vladimir. This work attempts critical analysis of sources on this problem. Among the basic conclusions it is necessary to mention wide scale of Russian military expansion on peninsula at this time, not reflected in written form, but well proved during archaeological research in Cherson, Sugdeja, Aluston, Bospor and Tamatarha. The establishment of new themes in Taurica (Bospor and Sugdeja) and the Tmutarakan princedom in the Asian part of Bospor becomes the basic consequence of military and political opposition of Russia and Byzantium. Comparison of narrative and archaeological sources shows that the nomadic population of peninsula throughout Х – first half of XI centuries remained pechenegs. Approach of “polovtsians period” in the history of Taurica in the beginning of the second half of XI century had no catastrophic consequences for local population.|
ИСТОРИЯ СРЕДНИХ ВЕКОВ
СРЕДНИЕ ВЕКА (ИСТОРИЯ)
|Origin:||Античная древность и средние века. 2011. Вып. 40: К 50-летию Уральской школы византиноведения|
|Appears in Collections:||Античная древность и средние века|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.