Abstract

A problem of continuity has always been a topical subject in Eurasian historiography and the name of L.N. Gumilyov appeard in this context most often. Some researchers recognized the ideological connection between the concept and Gumilyov, while the others rejected continuity and divided them: Russian philosophy of the early 20th century and Soviet scientism of the middle of 20th century. One of the plots is usually used to compare the ideas of the Eurasians and L.N. Gumilyov it is an assessment of the role of the Khazar Kaganate in the history of the Eastern Slavs. Moreover, it was reviewed by the Eurasians and L.N. Gumilyov. G.V. Vernadsky presented the history of Eurasia as a consistent set of attempts to create a unified state. Khazaria existed in the era of disintegration in the context of the state-forming process in Eurasia, based on the principle of rhythm. According to L.N. Gumilyov, the Khazars were colonized by representatives of the Persian and Byzantine branches of the Jewish people. The mix of the Khazar and Jewish ethnic groups was weighed down by the national traditions, which became the determining aspect of their different destinies. The Khazar Kaganate established political power in the Volga Bulgaria and Kievan Rus, had benefited from the intermediary trade between Europe and China, and only Svyatoslavs campaign became a closure of existence of this ethnic chimera. It can be said that the methodological approach of the Eurasians and L.N. Gumilyov to the problem of Khazaria was fundamentally different and the only unifying factor was that these events were unfolding in the space of Russia-Eurasia.

Highlights

  • Проблема преемственности в творчестве евразийцев в отечественной историографии является одной из самых дискуссионных

  • Если сопоставить два видения небольшого территориально-временного отрезка истории Евразии, можно увидеть существенную разницу в методологии анализа исторического процесса

  • В рамках этой версии не было места рассуждениям о том, что существование на одном месторазвитии делает народы более близкими друг другу, нежели генетические связи, а если подобные рассуждения и использовались, то с совершенно других методологических установок

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Проблема преемственности в творчестве евразийцев в отечественной историографии является одной из самых дискуссионных. Однако в отличие от предыдущих авторов оценивает их весьма критически. Гумилев не только популяризировал евразийство, но и создал свои самобытные и оригинальные идеи, связанные с теорией этногенеза, которые тем не менее тоже следует назвать евразийскими, поскольку в них говорится о «комплементарности» русского, монгольского, тюркского народов [11, с. Исторические науки и археология евразийцев получили в его работах второе рождение [13, с.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.