本文關(guān)鍵詞： 英美學(xué)者 古羅斯國家起源 羅斯人　出處：《陜西師范大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：古羅斯國家起源問題是國際史學(xué)界長期爭論的問題之一。20世紀30年代后,俄裔美籍學(xué)者喬治·維爾納茨基將這一問題的研究帶入英美史學(xué)界。此后,英美學(xué)者依據(jù)文獻材料、運用語言學(xué)、考古學(xué)、人類學(xué)的知識,結(jié)合歐洲、阿拉伯和中亞的史料,從比較宏觀的角度對這一問題進行了探討,對古羅斯國家起源問題進行了比較深入的研究。本文按年代分期,重點介紹各個時期對這一問題研究具有重大影響的英美學(xué)者的觀點： 第一部分20世紀40-60年代英美學(xué)者關(guān)于古羅斯國家起源問題的研究,共分三小節(jié),分別介紹喬治·維爾納茨基、亨里克·帕斯凱維奇和尼古拉·梁贊諾夫斯基對古羅斯國家起源問題的研究。這一時期影響最大的是喬治·維爾納茨基,他對諾曼派和反諾曼派進行了批判,對古羅斯編年史《往年記事》提出質(zhì)疑,并詳細研究了留里克其人。他認為羅斯人是黑海東北部阿蘭尼克人的一支,芬蘭人把到過亞速海地區(qū)的斯堪的納維亞人誤認為是“羅斯人”。由于哈扎爾人阻斷亞速海的羅斯人和北方諾曼人之間的商路,在西歐游蕩多年的丹麥封建領(lǐng)主留里克占據(jù)北方后,與此同時急于打通南部商道的諾曼貴族阿斯柯爾特和迪爾南下占據(jù)了基輔,由此為古羅斯國家的建立奠定了基礎(chǔ)。亨里克·帕斯凱維奇的研究主要是針對“羅斯”這個詞的含義,而不是對這個問題的具體研究。而梁贊諾夫斯基對古羅斯國家起源問題的探討,停留在介紹階段,他將各方學(xué)者的觀點推廣到了教學(xué)之中。 第二部分20世紀70-80年代英美學(xué)者關(guān)于古羅斯國家起源問題的研究,分三個小節(jié)介紹。這一時期影響最大的奧門爾詹·普里查克的觀點。普里查克對諾曼派和反諾曼派的爭論進行了評析,提出了自己對研究古羅斯國家起源問題的看法,結(jié)合歷史大環(huán)境討論了影響古羅斯國家起源的重要歷史事件。他認為羅斯人是一群國際商人,是攜帶波羅的海文化的海上游牧民族,他們與草原游牧民族經(jīng)過兩個世紀的結(jié)合,最后催生了斯拉夫文化,形成了古羅斯國家。 第三部分20世紀90年代以后英美學(xué)者關(guān)于古羅斯國家起源問題的研究,分為兩小節(jié)。第一小節(jié)重點介紹這一時期影響最大的西門·富蘭克林和喬納森·謝波德的觀點,富蘭克林和謝波德對《往年紀事》的記載提出質(zhì)疑,他們認為“羅斯人”這個稱呼源于瑞典法律對奧蘭群島的稱呼,羅斯可汗位于伊爾門湖地區(qū),基輔成為國際商貿(mào)中心后,很多羅斯貴族移居基輔,北方羅斯可汗用了近三十年時間完成了政治軍事心的南移,由此形成了古羅斯國家。第二節(jié)簡要介紹托馬斯·努南關(guān)于古羅斯國家起源問題的研究,他主要依據(jù)考古材料,觀點上傾向于諾曼派。
[Abstract]:The question of the origin of the ancient state is one of the long-debated issues in international historiography. After 30s, the Russian-American scholar George Wernatsky brought the study of this issue into British and American historiography, and since then, British and American scholars have relied on the literature. Using knowledge of linguistics, archaeology, anthropology and historical data from Europe, Arabia and Central Asia, this paper discusses this problem from a macro perspective. This paper focuses on the views of Anglo-American scholars who have a great influence on the study of this issue in different periods. Part one: in 20th century, British and American scholars in the 1940s and '60s studied the origin of the ancient Ross state, in three sections, introducing George Wernaecki, respectively. Henrik Paskeevich and Nikolay Ryzanovsky's study of the origin of the ancient Ross state. The greatest influence of this period was George Wernaecki, who criticized the Norman and the anti-Norman. Questioning the chronicle of the chronicles of Groth, the chronicle of previous years, and studying in detail the people of Rarik, who considered the Ross to be a member of the Alanick people in the northeast of the Black Sea. The Finns mistook Scandinavians who had been to the Azov Sea as "Ross." because the Hazare blocked the trade between the Ross and the Normans in the Azov Sea, After the occupation of the north by the Danish feudal lords who had wandered for many years in Western Europe, the Norman aristocrats Askolt and Dir who were eager to break through the southern merchants occupied Kiev. This laid the foundation for the founding of the ancient Ross state. Henrik Paskeevich's research focused on the meaning of the word "Ross." Instead of a specific study of this problem, Ryazanovsky's discussion of the origin of the ancient Ross state remained at the stage of introduction, and he extended the views of various scholars to the teaching. The second part is the study on the origin of ancient Ross by Anglo-American scholars in the 1970s and 1980s in 20th century. It's introduced in three sections. The most influential point of view of this period, Olmmann Pritchuck, who commented on the debate between the Norman and the anti-Norman, and put forward his own views on the origin of the ancient Ross state. The important historical events affecting the origin of the ancient Ross country are discussed in the light of the historical environment. He considers the Ross people to be a group of international businessmen and a maritime nomadic people carrying the Baltic Sea culture, and they have been combined with the nomads of the grasslands for two centuries. Finally gave birth to the Slavic culture, the formation of the ancient country. The third part consists of two sections on the origin of ancient Ross after 1990s. The first section focuses on the views of Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepherd, who were most influential in this period. Franklin and Shepherd questioned the record of the Chronicle of previous years, arguing that the term "Ross" originated in Swedish law for the Oran Islands. Rothkhan was located in Lake Irmen, and Kiev became an international trade center. Many of Ross's nobles moved to Kiev, and Rothkhan in the north took nearly three decades to complete the southward movement of the political-military heart, which led to the formation of the ancient Ross state. The second section gives a brief introduction to Thomas Nunan's study of the origin of the ancient Ross state. Based mainly on archaeological materials, he preferred the Norman school of thought.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：陜西師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D09

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 曹維安;;俄國史學(xué)界關(guān)于古羅斯國家起源問題的爭論[J];世界歷史;2008年01期

2 曹維安;諾曼說新探與諾曼學(xué)派[J];世界歷史;1998年01期

3 沈堅;;維金時代:沖突與交融[J];歷史研究;1989年05期

4 王希恩;國家起源與民族聚合[J];民族研究;1997年02期

5 曹維安;;俄國史學(xué)中的“國家學(xué)派”[J];史學(xué)理論研究;2006年01期

，

本文編號：1526544