Skoro ten został odnotowany to dlaczego inne miałyby nie być

Jak rozumiem dowód na fikcyjność  traktatu z 907 to Paszkiewicz czy konkretnie coś  innego ?

Jaroslav’s expedition of 1015, in which the author might have participated in person, supplied him with a model for the description of prince Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople. Most readers know this description in the revised version of the Povest’ vremennyh let, which attaches it to the fictional expedition of 907. Oleg appears in this description at the head of a host of many tribes (“Varangians, and Slovenians, and Chud, and Slovenians (sic!), and Krivichi, and Merja, and Derevljany” and seven more tribes) embarked on 2000 boats of 40 rowers each. This fantasy is a common fixture in standard works on Byzantine and early Rus’ian history

ABSTRACT: The dates provided by the Russian Primary Chronicie for the events of the second half of the ninth and the first half of the tenth century are widely recognized to be guesses by an early-twelfth-century compiler. Scholars admit that these dates cannot resist critical scrutiny, yet quote them nevertheless as a matter of tradition and convenience. The present survey summarizes a series of studies by the author (while adding some new argu-ments) which pleadfor a critical chronologicalscheme basedon a carefulre-examination of the Chronicle’s textual structure as well as on a comprehensive re-reading of the non-Russian sources for the period. This exercise produces a series of dates which differ from the traditional chronology. The most significant and demonstrable changes con-sist in reducing the reign of Rjurik ’s son, Igor, from 912- 945 to 941 945, and in delaying the arrival of Rjurik him-self from 862 to the 890s. The chronological changes proposed suggest a different pattern for the events that led to the creation of the Russian stale than commonly believed. Whatever its possible drawbacks, the new chronological scheme claims one distinct advantage over the old: every datę proposed is backed by evidence and can be scrutinized, thus opening the way for criticism and improvement.

On the side of the Rus, Oleg is attested as king between 911 and 941. He loses supreme power in the course of the failed attack on Byzantium in the summer of 941 yet keeps a substantial number of followers with whom he tries a fresh start at Bardha'a in the summer of 944. This expedition fails and Oleg is killed in Azerbaijan in the winter 944/5. Oleg probably became king shortly before 911, since his subsequent career extends for more than thirty years. Igor, by contrast, reigned for less than four years, from the late summer of 941 to the beginning of 945. The new chronology of Oleg's reign moves the creation of his first base on the Upper Dniepr, in Smolensk/Gnezdovo, the subsequent expansion down the Dniepr and the conquest of Kiev from the 880s-890s to the 910s-930s. The long years of excavations in Kiev have produced nothing, in fact, to indicate any importance of the site in the ninth century. Kiev's alleged standing as the capital of the Rus since 882 (the year of its capture by Oleg in the Primary Chronicle) has left no tangible traces. Uil The gap between the archaeological findings and the data of the written sources disappears once the latter are properly interpreted.

This chronology calls for a revision of a deeply rooted view of the early Russian history. The emergence of the "Rus' of Kiev" is delayed by several decades. The Rus who attacked Constantinople in 860 can no longer be linked to Kiev; they came, no doubt, from farther north. Many other constructions and theories built on the chronicles' chronology fall apart. I want to emphasize once more, though, that my analysis of the Russian sources is hardly original. In preferring the text in the Novgorod First Chronicle to its adaptation in the Primary Chronicle and in rejecting the chronology of both, I did little more than apply to the writing of history the conclusions reached by generations of philologists. And so it turns out that the original text employed in the Novgorod First Chronicle suggests the same chronology of the early reigns as that aberrant Hebrew document, the anonymous Khazar Letter from the Genizah of Cairo.

There are other indications that. Igor died young. The chronicles present his only son, Svjatoslav, as a child who could be put on a horse, as if to lead the troops to avenge his father's death, yet was unable to hold a spear; he was probably no older than twelve, cf. I. Sorlin, Le témoignage de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète sur l'état ethnique et politique de la Russie au début du XI siècle, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 6, 1965, p. 147-188, see p. 153, n. 4. Igor's widow, Olga, is also young. After having executed her husband, the Derevlians concocte a plan of marrying her to their own ruler, Mai; later she visits Constantinople and charms the emperor who wants to marry her in his turn. The same story is told in the Novgorod First, ed. Nasonov, p. 110-114, and in the Primary Chronicle, ed. Lihacev, p. 42-45; however, the author of the latter text sets the marriage of Olga and Igor in 903 (p. 23) and Olga's trip to Constantinople, in 955 (p. 44-45), which would imply that she gave birth to Svjatoslav while in her mid forties and seduced the emperor in her chronicles" account of Olga is strongly tainted with legend is beyond the point. What needs to be emphasized is the gap between her image as young and beautiful widow in the original Skazanie and the artificially imposed chronological framework, 'the problem has been dealt with by many scholars, and I will quote the solution proposed by

w sensie terytorialnym nazwa "Ruś" przez długie wieki oznaczała tylko i wyłącznie okolice Kijowa (głównie ziemie Polan), a takie terytoria jak obszar radymicki czy drewlański nie określano mianem "Rusi". O ziemiach wiatyckich czy krywickich nie wspominając. Dopiero stulecia XIII i XIV, a więc czas rozwoju organizacji cerkiewnej na ziemiach "wschodniosłowiańskich",

Nie wiem czy Ruś założyli Wikingowie (jak to zwykło się twierdzić) czy Finowie, ale na pewno Rosjanie to w ogromnej części ludy fińskie (jeśli chodzi o ich pochodzenie). Nie tylko potwierdza to DNA, ale wystarczy na nich popatrzeć, że wyglądają "jak Finowie" bardzo często.

Nie wiem czy Ruś założyli Wikingowie (jak to zwykło się twierdzić) czy Finowie, ale na pewno Rosjanie to w ogromnej części ludy fińskie (jeśli chodzi o ich pochodzenie). Nie tylko potwierdza to DNA, ale wystarczy na nich popatrzeć, że wyglądają "jak Finowie" bardzo często.

Podobno Rurykowicze "z prawego loza" nalezeli do linii N-Y10931. Mamy probki aDNA sredniowiecznych Wikingow ze Szwecji oraz Estonii nalezace do galezi pokrewnych z tego drzewka. Wszystkie te probki przypominaly najbardziej wspolczesnych Szwedow.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...x_lzV8JN2KJ40Yr

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y4339/

Distance to: SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_84001
0.02542222 Swedish
0.02724525 Norwegian

Distance to: VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK512
0.02382715 Swedish
0.02996196 Icelandic

Distance to: VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK489
0.02366944 Swedish
0.02404655 Danish

Distance to: VK2020_EST_Saaremaa_EVA:VK508
0.02805030 Swedish
0.03839663 Norwegian