... the continuation

So, "The Tale of Bygone Years" reads, that in 882, Novhorod prince Oleg and his warriors "came up to Kyiv hills and Oleg learnt that Ascold and Dir ruled there". He ordered his men to kill Kyiv princes. "And started Oleg ruling in Kiev," reads the chronicle and said Oleg: "Be it (Kyiv) the mother of Rus towns." Proceeding from these words, it is not difficult to draw a conclusion that only the main town, the biggest and the oldest one could pretend to be the first among all Rus (Eastern Slavs) towns.
Then why does Kyiv appear for the first time on the pages of "The Tale" only in the middle of the 9th century? Probably it may be explained by the fact, that the native chronicles usually start counting the years of the Old Rus history since the middle of the 9th century, since 852 to be exact. All that had happened before this date was covered with Cimmerian darkness even for Nestor who lived in the second half of the 11th - first quarter of the 12th centuries. To describe the period of history of the Eastern Slavs up to the middle of the 9th century, the chronicler used verbal folk tales and legends. 
The data of archaeological excavations testify to the fact, that people lived on the territory of the city since days of yore. The traces of their activities are proved by the findings of tools, dwelling remainders, house utensils, decorations, weapons, coins. Since the 1st - 2nd centuries A. D. at the place of present Kiev there existed several settlements of people, Slavs by origin. Much more ancient settlements have also been discovered in the Kyiv area. 
Proceeding from these indisputable factors, some lovers of antiquities without sufficient ground proclaimed Kyiv one of the most ancient towns in the world, reckoning it three, four and even more thousand years of existence. Archaeology states, that life on the territory of tne future town began many thousands years ago. First settlements appeared here in the epoch of the late Paleolithic period, some 20,000-25,000 years ago. 
But the age of any town, including Kyiv, is calculated by scientists only since that time, when a town acquires the features needed for a town centre. The following two features may be considered as the main ones: the presence of the artisan and commercial population and the availability of fortifications to protect artisans and tradesmen. 
Describing the process of emergence of towns historians wrote, that new towns, always fenced about with protective walls and moats had been created. Behind these walls and moats they saved up first capitals. There appeared the need for commercial relations between towns themselves and between them and the rest of the world. With this they were gradually creating means to protect these relations. 
Towns appear at the very definite phase of the human society's development, when classes and state are being formed. 
That is why the oldest settlements, dating from the period of the tribal system and lacking the above-mentioned features, could not at all be considered even as the embryo of Kyiv. 
Just as it is, various attempts of scientists, who worked before the Bolsheviks to prove, that Kyiv had existed at the beginning of A. D., are groundless. For example, Yu. A. Kulakovsky, professor of Kiev university, made up his mind that, as a town, Kyiv had already appeared in the second century A. D., and that Ptolemey, prominent in those days Greek geographer, had plotted it on his map and given it the name of Metropol. 
Coming from the Greek meaning of the word "metropol" — town-mother, some scientists significantly correlated it with prince Oleg's expression, put into his mouth by chronicler Nestor: "Be it the mother to Rus' towns." However, taking into account the approximate coordinates of Metropol, reported by Ptolemey himself, and its location among other ancient towns known to science, Greek colonies in the Northern Black Sea area in particular, one could conclude that the town, mentioned by the great geographer, was located somewhere in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, and this leaves no possibilities to identify Metropol with Kyiv. 
Some historians of the period of early 20th century, and V. S. Ikonnikov, Kyiv historian, among them, without sufficient arguments stated, that Kyiv had existed in the 4th century A. D. and had been the Dnieper capital of Ermanarik — Goth's king. The town bore the name of Danpastadir. 
But the thorough verification of the medieval Scandinavian sources of folklore character — sagas, dating from not earlier than the 12th-13th centuries, that is almost 1000 years after the 4th century, has testified to the fact, that there was no place, where Danpastadir could have been located at the site of future Kyiv, or even in the Middle Dnieper River area. Besides, the territory of the oldest Kyiv had never been a part of Goths' possessions. Recent attempts of the reactionary bourgeois historiography, West German first of all, to revive the "Gothic" theory of Kyiv origin have been debunked by Soviet historians. 
The settlements in the Kyiv area, one continuing and replacing another, exist during the whole first millennium A. D. In the middle and during the second half of this millennium they are gradually merging, growing into a town. But the monuments of material culture, left by the inhabitants, can not by themselves answer the main question: when did it take place, what is the definite time from which Kyiv, as a town, originates: from the 5th, 6th, 7th or even from the 8th century? The answer is to be found in written sources, with correlation of their data with the results of archaeological investigations. 
The discrepancy and lack of data about the ancient past of Kyiv made scientists turn again to the poetic story "The Tale of Bygone Years," dealing with the foundation of Kyiv, and subject it to serious study. For a long time historians treated this story quite mistrustfully.
Here is a story, written by Nestor in the introduction to "The Tale of Bygone Years." In the land of the Eastern Slavic tribe of Polyanians there lived three brothers: "one was Kyi, another Shchek and the third Khoryv, and they had a sister, Lybid' by name. Kyi settled on a hill where now Borychiv Descent runs, Shchek settled on a hill, which is now called Shchekavytsia, and Khoryv settled on a third hill, named Khorevytsi, after him. And they built a town in honour of the eldest brother and named it Kyiv." This note of the source is undated, but it was made in the chronicle earlier than the middle of the 9th century, the point, from which the story in "The Tale of Bygone Years" runs. 
Sceptical attitude of many historians to the above-mentioned episode is explained first of all by its down-right folklore background. The main motives of Nestor's story are popular in the world folklore long since. They are plots, roaming from nation to nation, from country to country. Such is first of all the interpretation of the name of the town from the name of the man, who founded it: Kyi founded Kyiv, Romulus — Rome (Roma in Latin), Krakus — Krakow, etc. And one of the Old Kyivan Rus' chronicles reads, that the name of the town of Turov ostensibly originates from legendary Tur, the founder of the local princes' dynasty. 
One of the main motives in Nestor's story was that about three brothers-heroes. This motive made scientists be even more on alert. It is also spread in folklore of various peoples. For example, folklore traditions trace out the origin of Slavs from the three brothers-ancestors: Rus', Chekh, and Lyakh. 
But thorough study of the subsequent pages of "The Tale of Bygone Years" led Academician B. A. Rybakov to a conclusion that Nestor's version of Kiev's rise should not be legendary in its basis. Really, chronicler Nestor then definitely refutes the legend, according to which Kyi was not a prince but an ordinary ferryman on the Dnieper. "Some people do not know," he writes, "but state that Kyi was a ferryman, that ostensibly there was a ferry from the opposite bank of the DnieperRiver to Kyiv and they would say: 'To the ferry to Kyiv.' " But if Kyi had been a ferryman he would not have gone to Tsargrad (Constantinople). Meanwhile "this Kyi a prince in his kin, and he did go to the tsar (Bizantine emperor). Though we do not know to which one, we do know that the tsar, to whom he came, did him great honour. On his way back he came to the Danube, selected a place, and built a town and wanted to settle down there with his kin, but those who lived nearby did not let him do it. Until now the people who live in the Danube area call that site of the ancient town — Kyivets'. As for Kyi, he returned to his town, and here he died." 
So Nestor told us a complex and rich in events political biography of one of the Polyanian princes, who had been received by the Byzantine emperor, and who then had undertaken audacious attempt to gain a foothold on the Danube, which had been in those days the northern border of the Byzantine Empire. Kyi failed to realize his plan, since he was not able to overcome the resistance of the pre-Danube tribes. The version of this kind could not be invented for no particular reason. It must have had the factual basis. 
At the same time one may suppose, that Nestor hardly had at his disposal any documents or written sources about Kyi — otherwise he would have known the name of that Byzantine emperor to whom Kyi had come. So long as the years of rule of all the emperors are known, this would have permitted to define, at least approximately, the period of Kyi's travel to Constantinople. The main thing is to find out the date of Kiev's origin. 
But Nestor knew nothing of it. For him those days of Kyi were extreme antiquity. So, he got his story about the foundation of the oldest Eastern Slavic town from verbal folk tales. There is no wonder in it, because the chronicler created his "The Tale of Bygone Years" several centuries after Kiy's time. However, the information of the sources that are much more older than "The Tale" not only gives us a lucky possibility to be convinced of Kiy's existence as a real historical figure, but also to determine, though approximately, the span of time, when he could have built the future Old Rus' capital and pay a visit to Constantinople. 
In early medieval Armenian "The History of Taron," which is a collection of legends not always connected with the history of Armenia, there is a tale about the three brothers: Kuar, Meltey, and Khorean who founded a town in the far country of Paluny. Here you can't but recollect the country of Polyanians and two brothers-founders of Kyiv — Kyi and Khoryv from "The Tale of Bygone Years." Besides, linguists have found out that though the names of the middle brothers are not alike outwardly, they appear to be similar in meaning: both Old Rus "Shchek" and Armenian "Meltey" mean "serpent," that is why the second name is a translation of the first one. 
Similarly to Nestor's story about Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv, the Armenian legend of Kuar and his brothers says, that at first the brothers lived each in his own place, and then they built a town on a hill. There are some other similar places. It is hardly a mere coincidence — even the sequence in the enumeration of the brothers' names is similar. Scientists believe, that the considered passage from "The History of Taron" absorbed the Old Rus legend about the foundation of Kyiv, though in a changed form. 
Let us take into account that the most probable author of the first part of "The History of Taron," containing the story of Kuar, Meltey and Khorean is an Armenian church figure Zenob Glak, Father-Superior of a monastery in Taron, Armenian area. He lived either in the 6th or in the 7th century. It is very likely that the historical folk legend about Kyiv's origin reached Armenia at about that time. Because the ties of Eastern Slavs with Transcaucasian lands go down to extreme antiquity, at least to the second half of the 6th — 7th centuries. 
Sources contain information of Rus' people near Derbent in the middle of the 7th century. Still earlier, in the years of Greek emperor Maurikius (582-602) Rus' people and Armenians met in Frakia, in the lower reaches of the Danube. At that time the Eastern Slavs threatened the lands beyond the Danube, possessed by Byzantium, and the Empire government set off the Armenian and other vassal troops against them. Finally, the ties between Rus and Armenia could be exercised during the wars between Rus and Persia. In one of the late Rus' chronicles there is an important mention that "under the reign of tsar Irakly (Byzantine emperor, who ruled in 610-641) Rus attacked tsar Khozdroy of Persia." 
That means that Kyi lived already in the 7th century and may be even earlier. But when exactly? 
The story, reminding the Rus' tale of Kyi and Armenian one of Kuar, is told in a number of Byzantine medieval sources, in "The Miracles of Dmitry Solunsky" in particular. The leader of Precarpathian-Danube Slavs —Kuver (it is very much like Kuar from "The History of Taron") stirred up a rebellion against Avars, who enslaved his people. But he was defeated and together with his supporters had to escape to Byzantium. Similarly to Kyi, Kuver visited the emperor in Constantinople, tried to settle down in the lower reaches of the Danube and even made claims on a number of Byzantine domains, including Fessalonica. But the attempts of Slavs to take hold of this town failed and Kuver's further destiny is unknown. 
Basing on the likeness of Kyi's, Kuver's, and Kuar's biographies, some scientists just identified these personalities and dated the life of the Polyanian prince from the first half of the 7th century. That is how they defined Kuver's period of activities in the Byzantine sources (apart from "The Miracles of Dmitry Solunsky", Kuver, though having the name of "Kuvrat," is depicted in the works of Greek authors Nikiphor and rheophanes, as well as in the chronicle of Egyptian bishop Joan). It is more natural to assume, that some tacts from Kyi's biography were used while describing Kuver's activities. Kyi could have been his predecessor and even relative. 
To determine the period of Kiy's life and activities, the general trends of political and economic life of Eastern Slavdom in the middle of the first millennium A. D. should be taken into account. This was the epoch of the origin of class relations, when armed conflicts were constantly in practice to solve intertribal problems, when organizations of prince's body-guards (druzhinas) were formed and put forward their leaders. To make a long story short the transition from the primitive communal system to feudal one was about to set in. This state of human society is called by scientists the epoch of "military democracy." 
In the 5th-6th centuries, under the influence of the factors mentioned and also because of the external danger on the part of nomadic hordes from the Northern Black Sea area, some uncoordinated Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe, and there were several dozens of them, began uniting into large tribal unions. With this, territorial strip farming was being changed to continuous lands of these unions. This unification into large unions (there were about 15 of them) was an important step towards developing the Slavic tribal system, which betokened the origin in the future of the Eastern Slavic statehood. Probably not accidentally Nestor called these tribal unions "principalities," though they were not yet as such. 
The circumstances of creating large tribal unions could be as follows: at first, for the time of great military campaigns, there appeared provisional unions, made up of members of prince's armed force, belonging to various tribes. As a rule, they were young people. Boats were tarred and equipped or horses were made ready, swords and spear-heads were forged and the most experienced or lucky man was chosen as a leader ("prince"). Then they would leave for the lower reaches of the Danube or even the southern shore of the Black Sea for a year or two. Many of them perished during these campaigns being killed by the Byzantine heavily armed cavalry or burnt alive in the boats with horrible "Greek fire" - jets of burning oil thrown on the enemy from Greek ships. Those who were lucky returned home with rich plunder. 
Such temporal tribal unions promoted step by step rapprochement of these tribes, transforming the ties between them into more solid and constant ones. Several tribes (it is difficult in each particular case to give even approximately their number), having the similar way of running economy, living under the same natural conditions and not far from each other were gradually drawing together. The necessity to solve the questions of home and foreign policy made their leaders arrange intertribal meetings at first, and later on-common permanent meetings (vitches) for several tribes. In this way or so, the unions of tribes, including the Polyanian unions, were being formed. 
"The Tale of Bygone Years" recorded the creation of tribal unions, though dating this process from times after Kyi's rule. As was mentioned above, Nestor had had rather a vague idea as to the chronology of events of that far epoch. 
According to "The Tale of Bygone Years", Kyi was most likely a leader of one of the largest tribal unions, hence their formation had taken place before his appearance on the political scene. 
So, somewhere in the middle of the first millennium A. D. there existed 6 very large tribal unions, may be they were even inter-union associations. According to Nestor, it was Polyanians who took priority among them, and "who are now called Rus'." Kyiv was the centre of the Polyanian union, which was called by the chronicle a principality. Scientists consider this Polyanian association of the Eastern Slavs the kernel of the ancient Rus' state, and gradually Kyiv becomes its capital. But that will happen later, in the 8th-9th centuries. And at that time by the middle of the first millennium A. D. the Polyanian union had been no more than one of many largest tribal associations. 
By the end of the 5th century A. D., the onset of the tastern Slavs to the Northern borders of Byzantium strengthening. The Danube border had always been one of the most disturbing boundaries of the Empire. Numerous "barbarian" tribes, which inhabited the lands north of the Danube and also the Black Sea steppes, were constantly bringing threats to Romeys (Byzantine people called themselves Romeys or Romans, meaning that their state stemmed out of the Roman one). The distructive waves of "barbarian" invasions, which rolled through the lands of the Empire in the 4th-5th centuries, did not affect it for long. Neither Goths, who came from the misty Baltic Sea area, nor Huns — nomads of Asiatic steppes — could consolidate their hold on the Byzantine territory. 
The situation on the Danube was radically changed when the Empire was threatened by numerous Slavic tribes. By about the second half of the 5th century, as a result of their gradual settling apart from the native territory between the Dnieper and the Vistula, the Slavs had moved to the south and had become direct though rather dangerous neighbours of Byzantium. Their small encounters with frontier guards grew into large-scale military operations. According to Byzantine sources, by the end of the 5th century, the Slavs had captured a considerable part of the lands on the left bank of the Danube. 
Concluding alliances with other peoples of the Danube-Black Sea basin — the ancient Karps, Costobokians, Roksolanians, Sarmatians, Hepids, Goths, Huns, etc., the Slavs participated in invasions of the Balkan peninsula still earlier, in the 2d-5th centuries. Byzantine writers were often mistaken, when they had to define the ethnology of numerous "barbarian" tribes, which threatened the Empire. That is why there are grounds to believe, that it was Slavs, those "Gothic horsemen", who according to one of the Greek sources, devastated Macedonia and Fessalia in 517 A. D. 
But invasions of the Byzantine Empire by the Slavs became systematic only since the end of the 5th century. One may state with greater assurance, that as a rule the Danube boundary of Byzantium was crossed by the Eastern Slavic detachments, among which there were Polyanians. This urged the Empire government to take more care of strengthening the Danube line. The Slavic charge was being rebuffed by both the sword and diplomatic tricks. Since the 6th century Greek emperors tried to make the Slavic leaders serve them. Such a policy had the aim not only to secure themselves from the invasion on the part of strong Slavic princes' armed forces but with their help to protect themselves against Avars' and Bulgarians' raids. 
That is why the Byzantine government bribed and cajoled the leaders of Slavic tribal unions and, step by step, this became a state policy. Pheophilactus Simocatta testifies, that in the 6th century the Eastern Slavs became "Romans' allies" in the struggle against Avars. The practice of concluding alliances between the Empire government and the leaders of Slavic tribal associations reached considerable progress in the second half of the 6th century. Though its foundations were laid a little bit earlier. 
Having scrutinized "The Tale of Bygone Years," B. A. Rybakov has arrived at a conclusion, that the episode described by Nestor, concerning Kyi's visit to the Byzantine emperor unknown to the chronicler, dates from the beginning of the rule of Justinian (527-565) or even his predecessor Anastasius I (491-518). But let's come back to Nestor's story, when Kyi was received by this Byzantine emperor with great honour. Procopius Caesarean, prominent Byzantine writer, who created his "War with Goths" in the middle of the 6th century, told a story, which is very similar to the previous one and even coincides with it in some details. 
It is worth mentioning, that the Byzantine historians of the 6th-7th centuries called the Eastern Slavs, who at that time only started to form the Old Rus nationality, Ants. Procopius says, that Roman emperor Justinian treated Hilbudiy, Ants' leader, in a good way, and charged him to protect the Empire's Danube, border. It was in 530. 
Probably the emperor believed, that Hilbudiy knew the political situation in the Danube area very well as well as war tactics of tribes, pressing the Empire from the north, and this would help him not only to rebuff the enemy's attacks but also to hold the onset of his brothers-Slavs. 
Really, for some time Hilbudiy justified Justinian's expectations. More than once he carried out brave raids to the left bank of the Danube and as Procopius states "killed and enslaved the barbarians living there." But then the neighbouring tribes attacked Hilbudiy and prevented him from settling on the Byzantine northern boundary. 
Hence, the biographies of Kiy and Hilbudiy have much in common, if they are not one and the same. Byzantine historical works inform, that it was just under the reign of Justinian I, that regular invitations of Slavic druzhinas to protect the Danube border of the empire were put into practice. There exist sound grounds to believe, that Kyi was one of the Slavic military leaders, who conducted negotiations with Justinian I and served him with his men for some time. It is quite probable, that he is presented in Procopius Caesarean's literary work as Hilbudiy. It is also probable, that the word "kyi ", which in all the Slavic languages had the meaning of "club", "cudgel", "hammer", etc., had nothing in common with a name, being just a nickname of the lucky military leader similar to the Frank king Charles, who had the nickname Martel (hammer). 
Retelling a version of "The Tale of Bygone Years" about Kiy's visit to Constantinople, the North Rus' Nikon chronicle reports in addition, that the prince of Polyanians went to Tsargrad (Constantinople) "with great array." Basing on this fact, V. N. Tatishchev, a Russian nobiliary historian, and then other scientists came to a conclusion that Kyi had launched a military campaign against the Byzantine capital. In general the Nikon chronicle draws special attention to Kyi's military activities. 
The majority of present-day historians do not have profound trust in this additional information from the Nikon chronicle, because this chronicle is a late source (compiled in the 16th century) and the nature of its earlier data, not mentioned in other chronicles, has not yet been unriddled so far. Not insisting upon the uconditional authenticity of the Nikon chronicle's information about Kyi, we still should like to attract the reader's attention to the semantic correspondence of this news to Nestor's story of Kiev's foundation, because "The Tale of Bygone Years" testifies, that Kiy built the town on the Danube only when coming back from Byzantium, i. e. when his service to Justinian I could have come to an end. 
In the following story of the Rus chronicler about the armed conflict of the Polyanian prince with the Danube tribes the Byzantine emperor is not mentioned at all. Besides, though the Nikon annalistic code was made up in the 16th century, its author, according to Academician D. S. Likhachov, the greatest expert in chronicles, made use of "some annalistic lists of rather ancient origin which did not reach our days." 
Proceeding from the information of Procopius about Hilbudiy and from the historical situation in the first half of the 6th century, one may suppose, that the meeting of the Polyanian military leader with Justinian I took place in about 530. But following the sequence of the annalistic story about Kyi, one should consider, that this occurred some time after Kiev's foundation. But all written sources definitely give no information as to the exact date. That is why let us again turn to archaeological findings as they are material ones. 
Unlike written monuments, the material ones permit a qualified and inquisitive researcher to restore the picture of everyday life of people, be it that of princes, landlords, or rank-and-file artisans and crop growers. 
The archaeologist's spade extracts out of ground the remains of both fortifications, temples, palaces, towers 18 and ordinary dwellings, home utensils, garments, etc. That is why the combination of evidences of both types of sources allows with maximum possible, for so distant time, completeness to reconstruct the history of Kiev of the 12th, 11th, 10th, and earlier centuries. 
If one casts a look at the walls of an excavation made by archaeologists, one will recollect the puff-pastry. Each stratum corresponds to a particular span of time. The deeper the stratum the older it is. These strata are dated most precisely and easily, when the archaeologists are lucky to find coins, bearing the years of their coinage or the name of the ruler (emperor, king, prince, etc.), who put them into circulation. 
As it was mentioned at the beginning of our story, according to Nestor, Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv had settled each on his hill. Scientists ascertained, that Kyiv had really emerged from a cluster of settlements, located on Kyiv "mountains." Archaeologists believe that Kyi's mount is present Zamkovaya Hill or Kiseliovka Hill, Shchek's mount or Shchekavitsa — is a hill rising between Zamkovaya Hill and Yurkovytsia Hill. The location of the third mount, which formerly was the possession of Khoryv and bore the name Khorevytsia, has not been definitely determined by researchers. Most likely it is Lysa (bald) Mount. It is worth mentioning, that Old Rus things were found on all the three mounts. On Zamkova Hill the remains of an ancient town site, dating from the end of the 5th-6th centuries were found. Hence, archaeological findings support the story of "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the existence of separate settlements of Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv on Kyiv hills. 
The notes of the Old Rus scribe about the construction of Kyi's town by monks also correspond to historical truth. On Starokyivs'ka Hill archaeologists have found an ancient town site, fortified with a moat and earthen bank. From the north and the east the town was protected by steep slopes and ravines. Things, which testify to the artisan and merchant activities of the population, were preserved on this site: silver and gold goods (coat pins, bracelets), plates and dishes, remains of implements and dwellings, everyday life things and, finally, coins. 
In particular, they found the Byzantine coins of Justinian I and even those of his predecessor emperor Anastasius I (491-518). There are sound grounds to consider the described ancient town to be the remains oi Kyi's town. This was the beginning of Kyiv. It dates as far back as the end of the 5th century. 
Surely, the Kyiv of the end of the 5th-6th centuries was little like the capital of Old Rus, the populous animated town of the 10th, 11th and later centuries. 
Comparative study of written and material monuments makes it possible to offer the following approximate chronology of events, connected with the rise of the oldest Eastern Slavic town and the activities of its founder. Somewhere in the 480s (it is impossible to determine the exact date of Kyiv's emergence so far) Kyi laid his town and fortified it. Hence, Kyiv is about 1500 years. Only several decades later, being already an elderly man, Kyi went to Constantinople, met emperor Justinian I and later on, most likely at his own risk, made an audacious attempt to consolidate his hold on the Danube, having infringed on Byzantium's northern borders. 
The Polyanian prince failed to realize his intentions and had to return to Kyiv, where he lived to his death. 
Lately there appeared a supposition, that Kyi had visited Justinian's I predecessor — Anastasius I and that this could have occurred at the end of the 5th-at the beginning of the 6th centuries. 
That is how the matter stands as to the time and circumstances of Kiev's origin.