Conclusions
Nicholas Zharkikh
"List of Rus’ Towns" (SRG) is a kind of handbook on the geography of Eastern Europe, perhaps a project of a geographical encyclopedia, which was never realized.
In the manuscript tradition, SRG most often accompanies chronicles, but autonomous copies (not part of chronicles) are also known. Therefore, the SRG was not considered an integral (inseparable) part of the annals, but only an additional article to it.
The oldest and best, closest to the protograph copy of the SRG is attached to the Commission list of the Novgorod 1st chronicle of the younger edition, rewritten in the middle of the 15th century.
All copies belong to the same edition, the later copies differ from the early (best) only by the accumulation of errors and the rearrangement of one block of text. The stemma of these copies does not depend on the stemma of the annals in which they are transcribed. Therefore, it should not be called SRG chronicled list of towns.
All 442 records of SRG are Commented in the work. For the debatable objects, all localization options proposed in the literature are considered, a motivated criticism of erroneous localizations is given, and in some places new, better (in my opinion) localizations are proposed.
About 75 records of the SRG are borrowed from chronicles, of these borrowings, up to 47 % are borrowings from the Hypatian Chronicle (Primary Chronicle and Kyiv Chronicle of the 12th century). The Novgorod Karamzin’s (1428) and / or Novgorod 4th (1437) chronicles, as well as the Novgorod 1st chronicle, were undoubtedly used. Thus, the SRG was most likely compiled in Novgorod in the second quarter of the 15th century.
Distinct traces of the use of the Pskov Chronicle, the "Vytautas Chronicle" and the Simeon Chronicle were traced. An assumption has been made about the existence and use the list of "Dnipro-Left Bank" geographical objects.
62 % of all SRG objects are clearly associated with modern settlements. At a superficial glance, this creates the illusion of an easily understandable and reliable source. However, 17 % of objects are localized only with some probability, 16 % cannot be localized (including false and illusory localizations proposed in the literature), 2 % are duplications of names, and 3 % are purely literary objects (mentioned in written sources, but in reality did not exist).
Only 41 % of all SRG objects are real towns – settlements that had fortifications (this number includes not only fortifications that functioned at the time of drafting of the SRG, but also Old Rus’ towns, which had long been destroyed at that time). 24 % are unfortified settlements, 15 % are uninhabited tracts, 17 % are water bodies. Those authors who automatically consider all the objects named in the SRG to be towns (fortifications) are mistaken.
An important feature of the SRG is the lack of geographical arrangement of objects. Not only the SRG as a whole, but also each group highlighted in the work shows chaos in the spatial placement of objects. A quantitative measure of this chaos is the entropy of the list (the ratio of the length of the real route to the theoretically possible route of the minimum length). On average, this entropy is 250 %, and for the "Ryazan" group it reaches 900 %. One can clearly see this chaos on the maps of optimal and real routes.
Also, when mapping objects in many groups, it is possible to detect a relatively compact core and foreign objects significantly distant from the core. The reasons for their inclusion in one or another group cannot be traced, for example, it is unclear why Jerusalem is included in the "Toropets-Jerusalem" group.
These two circumstances – the chaotic nature of the lists and the presence of foreign objects – completely disprove the erroneous view common among researchers that an unknown object located in the list between two known ones should be searched for in the area between these known objects. One shouldn’t do that. This unknown object could be anywhere in Eastern Europe or even beyond.
According to written sources independent of the SRG, it was possible to date 264 objects mentioned in the SRG, which is 60 %. Such a relatively large number makes it possible to date each group of objects in particular, and from this to deduce the date of the SRG as a whole. The most early date for SRG is determined by the first mentions of Odoev (1422), Vrev (1426), Khotmyshl and Mezetsk (1432). The most late date of the SRG is determined by the date of the Commission List of the Novgorod 1st Chronicle (1450s). This independently confirms the conclusion made above: the SRG was compiled in the 2nd quarter 15th century, perhaps even closer to the end of this period.
It is important to note that the existence of only 186 settlements is independently confirmed during the period when the SRG was written. For the entire time from 10th to 15th centuries it is not possible to indicate a single year when all dated objects of the SRG existed at the same time. Therefore, it is impossible to date objects on the basis of only mentions in the SRG. It is impossible on this basis even to affirm their real existence, because in the SRG we also meet purely literary objects.
In the SRG, capitals of 17 political bodies are mentioned, including seven bodies that existed at the time of writing of the SRG. But political geography, state ownership of objects did not interest the scribe of the SRG, the ancient or modern metropolitan status of the settlements was not noted in any way.
Headlines in SRG do not correspond to political bodies – neither ancient nor modern. For example, the Smolensk principality never existed in the territorial composition recorded in the "Smolensk" group of the SRG, plus the fact that in the 2nd quarter 15th century the entire territory of the former Smolensk principality long ago belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Researchers often, but quite mistakenly, take blocks of SRG records between titles for some political bodies, but such "bodies" mostly never existed and are themselves purely literary objects.
The utilitarian, practical purpose of drafting the SRG cannot be determined. Numerous proposals in the literature are mostly unsatisfactory or, at best, explain the purpose of some constituent parts of the SRG, but not the SRG as a whole. I think that the goal was not utilitarian – it was planned to compile a geographical encyclopedia of Rus’ lands, but this work broke in at the very beginning.
Now we can answer the question "historical source questionnaires»:
1. When was the text written? – In the 2nd quarter 15th century, maybe even closer to the end of this period.
2. What historical period does the text cover? – The text contains a mixture of objects that existed in the times of Kyivan Rus’ and objects of the last 75 years (4th quarter 14th – 1st half 15th century).
3. Where is the text written? – In Veliky Novgorod.
4. What geographical area does the text cover? – Part of the territory of Eastern Europe (with a rebound to Jerusalem).
5. What sources were used when compiling the text? – Undisputedly used Hypatian Chronicle, Chronicles of Veliky Novgorod 1st half 15th century, the Pskov Chronicle, the Simeon Chronicle (of Moscow origin) and the "Vytautas" Chronicle (composed in Vilna around 1430). The hypothetical "Dnieper-Left Bank" list of geographical objects used in the SRG originates from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (probably from Vilna).
6. How competent was the author in the matters he wrote about? – It is impossible to trace the author’s attitude to the materials collected by him. The SRG scribe was forced to use the materials he managed to collect, and among them there were parts of very different quality and different levels of competence.
7. What was the purpose of writing the text? – No utilitarian, practical purpose of the SRG is visible. Perhaps it was a project of a geographical encyclopedia of Rus’ lands.
8. What methods of source processing did the author use to achieve his goal? – It is possible to think that part of the sources was copied without much changes, but the scribe tried to write the names borrowed from the Hypatian Chronicle closer to the territorially close objects. These attempts were not always successful.
9. What structural parts does the text consist of? – At least 20 structural parts (groups) can be distinguished, which strongly contrast with their sources and level of quality. Some groups can be fairly confidently divided into subgroups.
From the variegation of the text of the SRG, it follows that it is not possible to give one general assessment of its source value – the degree of trust must depend on the quality of a specific group of records or even on the quality of the ascending source (where it can be established).