Матесвента - 34
Мерила - 280
Мефодий - 44
Модар - 30
Моисей - 44
Мундерих - 24
Нерва - 19
Нибелунги (Нифлунги) - 53, 65
Ной - 306
Один - 55, 81, 278, 282, 286, 354
Одоакр (Адаккар) - 66, 70, 72, 350, 351
Одотей - 30, 255
Олимпиодор - 29, 351, 370
Орозий Павел - 37, 39, 182, 369
Острогота - 194
Питей из Массалии - 303
Плиний Старший - 23, 181, 191, 205,227
Полибий - 29
Поликарп, св. - 49
Помпей Трога - 342
Помпоний Мела - 23, 342
Приск Панийский - 39, 173
Прокопий Кесарийский - 132, 182, 186, 192, 212, 283, 294, 330, 331
Прокопий узурпатор - 24, 26, 369
Промот - 271
Псевдо-Арриан - 265
Псевдо-Захарий Ритор - 343
Птолемей - 342
Радагайс - 287
Рандвер - 65
Рискупорид VI - 170
Ротестей - 216
Руиморид - 24
Савва Готский - 5, 18, 49, 50, 213-217, 229, 271, 286, 288, 292
Саксон Грамматик - 70
Сар - 53, 70, 74, 335, 336, 338, 339, 342, 345, 346, 351, 352, 371
Сафрак - 30, 75, 76/173, 177, 255, 322, 364, 371
Сванхильд - 53, 61-63, 65, 66, 71, 350, 351, 353
Септимий Север - 166
Серила - 70
Сёрли - 62, 63, 65, 70, 74, 350, 353
Сигерих - 356
Сигурд - 61, 65
Сильван - 355
Сифка - 56, 66
Созомен - 351
Сократ - 38
Страбон - 289, 342
Сунильда - 53, 74, 88, 335-337, 339, 345-347, 350-352
Тацит - 19, 51, 91, 152, 153, 181, 205, 226, 227, 238, 269, 288, 289, 342
Теодорих Великий - 33,41,45, 66, 70, 72, 92, 244, 325, 350, 351, 355, 386
Теофил - 293, 295
Тиу - 282
Тор - 285
Тотила - 34
Траян - 269
Тюрвинг - 54, 55, 57
Унила - 294
Фарнобий - 255
Фемистий - 263, 369
Феодосий - 21, 26, 29, 30
Филимер - 40, 156, 189-191, 193, 288, 376
Филипп - 293
Филосторгий - 43, 44
Фотий - 29
Фравитта - 24
Фридрерик - 70
Фритела (Фритла) - 65, 70
Фритигерн - 30, 40, 171, 252, 255, 276, 292, 364, 371
Хама - 69
Хамдир - 53,61,62,63, 65, 70, 74, 350, 353
Ханала - 40
Харон - 242, 268
Харлунги - 65
Хейдрек - 53-57, 59, 71, 73, 232, 237, 277, 354, 383
Хемида - 70
Хервер - 53-55, 57, 122, 277, 354, 355
Херменрик - 70
Хильдерик - 270
Хлёд - 55-57, 59, 74, 75, 220
Христос - 46, 49, 282, 295
Хумли - 51
Цезарь- 21, 153, 289
Шапур - 181
Эвтарих - 40
Эгил - 278
Эмбрика - 70
Эмерка - 65
Эорманарик (Эрменериг) - 53, 73
Эрманарих (Эрменрих, Германарих) -3-386
Эриульф - 24
Эрп - 62, 65
Этерпамара - 40
Этла - 67, 68, 72, 322
Юлиан (Юлиан Отступник) - 19, 24, 26
Юлий Цивилис - 350
Юний Соран - 49
Юпитер - 278
Юстиниан - 34
Ярмерик - 53, 70, 71, 73
Summary
One of the most actively developing subjects of contemporary historical studies is the research of statehood formation in various regions of Europe. Study of its ancient roots, various types of early states may shed light on origins of historical and cultural peculiarity, which worked at ground zero of European peoples’ history, including that on the territory of Russia and Ukraine. At the turn of Antiquity and Middle Ages Eastern Europe saw the rise of one of the largest potestary formations known as the Ostrogothic kingdom of Ermanaric. For archaeologists this time in the south of Eastern Europe is marked with a phenomenon of Chernyakhov culture, which crossed the border separating barbarity from civilization.
Historiography of Goths in Eastern Europe is very extensive and diverse. However, up to date there are no monographic studies containing an integral analysis of Ostrogothic potestarity in IV^ century AD. Meanwhile, history of Ermanaric’s kingdom appeals not only to classicists but also to mediaevalists studying the origins of West-European statehood as if with ‘clean sheet’ and generally without regard to the heritage of the Black-Sea period in the history of Goths. The age of Ermanaric is just as well important for those who study the history of Russia, since it was exactly that time, when Eastern Europe saw the rise of the largest ethnopolitical formation before Kievan Rus’.
In Russian historiography this subject was ill-starred until the recent time due to several reasons quite far removed from the science. The official Soviet science of 1930—70s could mention Goths and Ermanaric only with latent understatement of scale and role of his kingdom. The level of historical development of Ostrogoths in IVth century AD was estimated as being not higher than a primitive alliance of tribes’. Depending on beliefs and sometimes nationalistic, political, personal, etc. favours, narrative sources let the scholars draw directly opposed conclusions about the Ostrogothic kingdom and its role in political and cultural life of the south of Eastern Europe.
Situation in the Gothic studies started to change cardinally in 1980—90s, first of all — owing to the change of ideological directives and the progress in studying of Chernyakhov culture. By the end of XXth century a weighty contribution in development of the Gothic studies has been made by European scholars, such as R. Hachmann, H. Wolfram, V. Bierbrauer, R Heather, J. Tejral, A. Kokowski, M. Maczynska, etc. It seems that for today’s generation of scholars the above-mentioned publications toghether with a fundam-etal book of Austrian scholar H. Wolfram drew a certain line in study of Goths. But the phenomenon of the Ermanaric’s lingdom still remains largely unexplored. It appears that it requires a different approach and, first of all, a higher level of historical analysis of the whole body of sources and historiographic heritage accumulated within two centuries.
Chronological framework of our study covers the IVth century AD, when the south of Eastern Europe saw formation and heyday of Ermanaric’s kingdom. They correspond to Phases C2, C3, D1 of archaeological chronology of European Barbaricum. The Ostrogothic kingdom appeared at remote North-Western boundaries of Late Ancient oecumene in the beginning of the period, which may be defined as the turn of Antiquity and Middle Ages (IV—VIth centuries AD). Its geographical framework include not only the main territory of Ermanaric’s domain between the Dniester and the Severski Donets (within the area of Chernyakhov culture), but also the whole sothern half of Eastern Europe, where Goths interacted with other peoples of this extensive region.
Our study has an interdisciplinary nature. In terms of age and several sources used (the work of Ammianus Marcellinus, etc.) it belongs to the problematics of contemporary classical studies. But in terms of subject (‘barbarian kingdom’) and other sources (Jordanes’ Getica, early medieval heroic epos, etc.) it enters the area of medieval studies. Our work is based on the analysis of various types of sources — written, linguistic, archaeological, as well as that of epic tradition with further correlation of obtained results. In order to extract authentic information we had to perform a repeated verification of the basic narrative sources. While studying archaeological materials we used not only traditional methods (comparative-typological, cartographic, stratigraphic, etc.), but also a civilization approach, which allowed us to define the development level of Chernyakhov culture creators without any prejudice. The obtained results were interpreted with the use of a historical-comparative method, as well as with regard to the latest achievements of historical politology.