Chapter I “Narrative sources about Goths of Ermanaric” is dedicated to analysis of literary evidences. Paragraph 1 is related to Res Gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus — the last outstanding Roman historian, for whom the kingdom of Ermanaric was a political reality, Paragraph 2 — to works of early Byzantine historians Eunapius and Zosimus, who described the final events of Ostrogothic history in Eastern Europe, Paragraph 3 — to Jordanes’ Getica containing the most complete information about the Ostrogothic kingdom, Paragraph 4 — to the Bible of Ulfila, Paragraph 5 — to a Christian hagiographie work Passio s. Sabae Gothi (these two sources reflected^ many fundamentals of Gothic society in the IVth century AD allowing to estimate the level of its historical development), Paragraph 6 — to analysis of Germanic epic tradition, which saved the memory about the mighty Ostrogothic king Ermanaric, and Paragraph 7 to early medieval historical chronicles. The indicated sources cover the history of Ostrogoths and their kingdom in Eastern Europe in varying degrees. But notwithstanding the incompleteness of each of them, as a whole they create a quite certain information field allowing to cover the key issues of the Gothic history in IVth century AD.
Chapter II “Kingdom of Ermanaric in European and American historiography” comprises the analysis of reach historiographic heritage concerning this kingdom. Within two centuries scholars have collected and analyzed virtually the whole corpus of written evidence about Goths (P.F. Suhm, K. Zeuss, Th. Mommsen, K. Müllenhoff, W. Tomaschek, Th. Grienberger, J. Marquait, W. Streitberg, etc.). Studying of this problem showed a basic range of issues connected with territorial and chronological framework of the Osthrogothic state and its polyethnicity. In the first third of XXth century the German concept of the Gothic history found its logical end in numerous works of L. Schmidt. In 1930—40s studying of the concerned problematics was heavily influenced by national-socialist ideas, which became an ideological basis for justification of the German aggression to the East (F. Altheim, H. Jankuhn, K. Gloger, etc.). The last paragraph of the chapter includes the historiographic analysis of studying of Ermanaric’s empire’ in West-European and American science in the 2nd half of XX—early XXIst centuries: ethnological studies of R. Wenskus about Tradition-skern, N. Wagner’s monographs about Jordanes’ Getica, works of R. Hachmann, which were of great methodological importance for studying of sources about Gothic ethnogenesis, G. Schramm’s studies of Ermanaric’s ‘empire’ as a predecessor of Kievan Rus’. The modern level of West-European Gothic studies is reflected in numerous publications by H. Wolfram. In terms of coverage and insight in the most difficult issues of the Gothic history his final work is unprecedented. Works of a German archaeologist V. Bierbrauer made an important contribution in understanding of those complex ethnocultural processes, which occurred in Central and East European Barbaricum in IV—Vth centuries AD.
In the 2nd half of XXth century the Gothic issues were also studied by scholars from Scandinavian countries: a Swedish linguist and historian J. Svennung, a Finnish explorer I. Korkkanen, a Danish scholar A.S. Christensen, etc. Since the middle of the century monographic works concerning the Gothic problematics have been appearing in UK and US: these are works by C. Brady, E.A. Thompson, D.T. Barnes, H. Bradley, R Heather, J. Matthews, O.J. Maenchen-Helfen, etc. We also have to note a considerable contribution made by Polish scholars, especially M. Maczynska and A. Ko-kowski. At the same time, an evident drawback of West-European studies of East European Goths is a poor use of archaeological sources, which serve as more objective evidence of ethnopolitical situation in the south of East Europe than traditional narrative texts.
In Chapter III “Kingdom of Ermanaric in Russian historiography” we distinguish four stages in studying of the Gothic issues in Russian and Ukrainian science. Paragraph 1 is dedicated to the analysis of works of Russian scholars of XIX—early XXth centuries: A.A. Kunik, A.S. Budilovich, F.A. Braun, A.N.
Veselovsky, F.I. Uspensky, N.P. Dashkevich, I.V. Sharovolsky, Y.A. Kulakovsky, etc. Some of them considered Goths as some kind of Normans of the Great migrations age and the Ermanaric’s ‘empire’ as a predecessor of Kievan Rus’. But most of Russian scholars thought that Goths played much more modest role in Russian history. When V.V. Khvoiko discovered Chernyakhov antiquities, the Gothic problematics acquired a new, archaeological aspect, which resulted in a stormy discussion with German scholars (R Reinecke, etc.).
Paragraph 2 considers development of Gothic studies in Russia in a period of establishing of Soviet Marxist history. Works of V.I. Ravdonikas and a ‘Gothic group’ in GAIMK established a notion of Ermanaric’s Goths as a quite primitive tribal alliance, which persisted in the Soviet science until 1970—80s.
Paragraph 3 contains the analysis of works by Soviet archaeologists and historians of the 2nd half of 1950s—1980s, who touched upon the Gothic problematics anyway. Mitigation of ideological pressing with the beginning of a ‘thaw period’ altogether had a positive influence upon studying of Gothic problematics in Russia (discussion concerning problems of Chernyakhov culture in 1957 and further numerous archaeological studies of antiquities dating back to the second quarter of the 1st millennium AD, publishing of Jordanes’ “Getica” by E.C. Skrzinskaya, etc.). It was that time when the accent in studying of the subject of our interest started to shift to the area of archaeological research (works of M.A. Tikhanova, P.N. Tretyakov, E.A. Rikman, VV. Kropotkin, V.D. Baran, Y.V. Kukharenko, etc.). By 1980s, under pressure of continuously multiplying archaeological facts, the number of advocates of the Gothic attribution of Chernyakhov culture has increased (M.A. Tikhanova, M.B. Shchukin, Y.V. Kukharenko). This idea was developed by the most prominent Russian linguist V.N. Toporov. His work immediately induced an incisive criticism on the part of academic B.A. Rybakov and V.P. Budanova. Some years later Budanova’s own book was published — it was the first monographic work concerning the Gothic problematics in Soviet historical studies. The final conclusion of the author was that a traditional concept of‘Ermanaric state’ could not be considered as adequate to a set of ancient written evidence about this ‘state’. The book by V.P. Budanova showed that it was impossible to study the Gothic problematics further being limited only to analysis of traditional literary sources. By that time it was evident that information allowing scholars to have a new look on the old problem was confined not in written, but in archaeological sources.
Paragraphs 4 analyze results achieved by contemporary Russian scholars in studying of Ermanaric’s kingdom. At the turn of XX—XXIst centuries there appeared new approaches to historical estimation of anciejit societies, including Chernyakhov, which had been previously considered as late primitive one. At this time fundamental monographic studies concerning the history of Goths and Chernyakhov culture were created by M.B. Shchukin, A.M. Oblomski, M.M. Kazanski. They testify that priority in studying of Ermanaric’s kingdom and its culture has transferred to archaeologists. Meanwhile, all the enormous corpus of archaeological sources is still far from being completely used for studying of the phenomenon of our interest.