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 XX^th 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 2^nd 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 1^st 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.