Chapter five. Five tribes
In a small cozy living room apartment on Baker street two friends comfortably settled in soft chairs near the burning fireplace to start a leisurely conversation:
- Are you sure, Holmes, that no Prague culture has ever existed, that it is from the beginning to the end is the invention of learned men, an artificial structure created to show all the archaeological traces of Slavic ancestors? After all, in this case we are dealing with one of the most grandiose hoaxes in the scientific world?
- Depends what you mean by Prague culture, doctor. If we understand under this term those antiquities that were discovered in the vicinity of the Czech capital, and that do not go beyond the basin of the Upper and Middle Elbe and the Morava valley, then why – this community is quite real. A small, compact, located within the borders of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and East Germany, its appearance here is now confidently dated to the end of the VI century. But if you want to convince me that in the Gothic era in the swamps of Pripyat was hiding a small tribe, which after the defeat of the Germans ferocious Huns suddenly got out of his refuge and began to spread rapidly in different directions, until it filled the entire space from the Elbe to the Volga and from the southern Baltic to the Peloponnese, namely in this we are trying to convince Russian archaeologists, the vain work – in this fable I will never believe.
- In short, you deny the right to existence of a single people on the territory that Russian archaeologists have taken their Prague offspring?
- It's perfectly worded, my friend. And isn't it obvious that at that time in such vast spaces of one culture, in principle, could not be? Consequently, there was no great ethnic group, settled in the early VI century from the Baltic to the Danube. In my opinion picky even korchakskoy the culture of Western Ukraine is an artificial construction, not fully reflecting the real situation. In its area there are clearly at least two independent people, relatively speaking, "Buzzards Volhynia and Galicia podporucznik". I'm not talking about other communities forced by scientists into the Prague area. Zukowska tribes of the basin of the Oder did not have cemeteries, they have sprayed the ashes of burned bodies on the earth's surface. Fundamentally a different funeral rite of passage. In addition, they had no earthlings, they built ground houses. And their ceramics are not similar to Prague. About the originality ipotechnogo community, I think, remind you don't need? As you can see, doctor, what scientists dubbed "Prague" turned out to be a scattering of peoples, initially very different in customs, origin and, most likely, in languages, unrelated to each other.
– But it happens that different Nations are United in a single whole? Remember, Holmes, what an impressive size reached Chernyakhovskaya culture. I think it was only slightly inferior to the occupied territories of "Prague".
"That's right, doctor, but you forgot to add one little detail. Chernyakhov is a material reflection of the Gothic Kingdom. It was a powerful power, the ruling class in which were many East Germans, and not only for Goths. Led the country a king named Ermanaric, whose conquest of the Jordan compares with the victories of Alexander the great. Even if that a slight exaggeration, in any case, the Chronicles tell us of a strong leader and impressive size of the Empire. Characteristically, in the case of the Chernyakhov culture we are in reality faced with a number of renowned histories of the peoples – the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Gepids, Heruli, and so on – are United within a single state. Thanks to which they have common traditions, similar ceramics, weapons and jewelry. That allowed archaeologists to include them all in the composition of Chernyakhov. I draw your attention, Watson: despite the certain similarity of the abandoned monuments, in such a huge area in the Gothic era, however, lived not one ethnic group, but many different peoples. And what power and what king gave us the Prague "monster"? Something I don't remember about the famous rulers of the wends or sklaviny. Where is the beginning that unites these people? Where is the common core? Where a tribe that has managed to conquer the other and establish a great Kingdom?
– Do you think, Sherlock, that "pot" of peoples of this rod was not?
– My dear Watson! To win others we must at least have weapons.
Take a look at this card. She was compiled by a Russian archeologist living in Paris, Michel Kazansky. It shows almost all the finds of any serious weapons in the area of "pottery" tribes. Of course, the darts and arrowheads do not count, they are not included here. You yourself can be convinced of the absolute disarmament of the inhabitants of these places. This is especially true of the Penkovo and Korchak zones. Even the Balts of the forest, living in the wilds of the Dnieper region, look like militarists against them. Apart from one find of the tip of the spear, then all that is found in the space between Pripyat, the Dnieper, the Carpathians and the Danube is five axes. It is possible, however, that all of them were used for commercial purposes. We have such potential conquerors with you. In addition, in order to wage a war successfully, it is necessary to rally one’s own people first.
- Do you think that the "pottery" tribes could not do it?
- Listen, Watson, that wise Procopius wrote about these people: "they are not controlled by one person, but since ancient times they live in democracy (δημοκρατία)." The latter term is most often translated as" democracy "or even"democracy". In fact, the Byzantine chronicler meant something different. As the commentators of his works (Gennady Litavrin and others) tell us: "the word δημοκρατία in the days of Procopius became, as they believe, a technical term denoting the omnipotence of the parties (dims) of circus fans or even just a synonym of "chaos". The Emperor of Mauritius in his "Strategicon" tells how exactly such "people's rule" looked like in the sklavins and ants: "Being in a state of anarchy and mutual enmity, they do not know the combat order, do not strive to fight in the right battle, do not want to appear in open and even places... Since they have different opinions, they either do not come to an agreement, or even if they agree, then the decision immediately violates others, because everyone thinks the opposite to each other and none wants to give in to another... Since they have many leaders and they disagree with each other, it is useful to take some of them by means of speeches or gifts, especially those that are closer to the borders, and to attack others, so that hostility to all would not lead to (their) unification and autocracy." Meanwhile, the doctor, in the face of "sklaviny" the Byzantines are faced with what is probably the most capable of all the "pot" communities of Eastern Europe. I think you understand, Watson, that the Greeks used this nickname to refer to the lower Danube tribes of the mortgage. The'kivtsi they called antes. Other inhabitants of the "container zone" lived too far from the borders of the Empire to disturb her, and so the Byzantines just was not for them shortcuts. It ipotesti known to neighbors as "sklavyny" repeatedly plundered the Balkan provinces of Constantinople. Sometimes these people back from the threat of raids across the Danube with a rich booty and thousands of prisoners deported. In addition, the Chronicles show that the inhabitants of Wallachia and Moldova at one time entered the war with the ants and defeated the latter. But even this nation, the most advanced "container" brethren, it seemed to the Byzantines crowd of poorly armed men, unorganized and anarchic. What then to speak about their Northern neighbors, much poorer, having no experience of military operations and the state organization?
– Do you hint at the fact that the natives of Eastern Europe were not able to unite on such a global territory as archaeologists assign to the Prague community?
- Of course, colleague. These people even within small regions hardly found among themselves a common language. In the literal and figurative sense of the word. Let us imagine the situation that has developed North of the Danube and East of the Carpathians after the departure of the Huns. Dozens of tribes were here torn from their usual places and mixed in the most incredible combinations. The local residents could not suddenly, as if by insight, feel like one people, come up with a common name, speak a single adverb. There was a painful, difficult and slow search for new identities. Those who were once Goths, Huns, vandals, Dacians, Romans and Veneti, was trying to figure out who they are now, as they call themselves, with whom to be friends with and who may be feuding. Before us the world is not quite developed ethnic groups, a kaleidoscope of fragments of different tribes, frantically trying to merge into new forms.
– It turns out that the term "Slavs" the Byzantines could not hear from their Danubian neighbours, since the latter do not quite understand how they should now be called, for they were shattered into many small heterogeneous formations and did not have a common name?
- Those who tell us about the great tribe "sloven" or "slavan", from whose self-name, allegedly, there was a famous Byzantine nickname of sklavina, it would be good to finally decide on a specific place where these legendary people could live. I think historians have in many ways deliberately folded Prague "elephant" to get away from a direct answer to this simple question. From the Danube to the Baltic we have demonstrated a single culture, they say, its population and were the ones "slavename"-"slavename". But now that we have successfully dispelled this Mirage, what can historians say about this? Logically, this name should have been used by the tribes living directly on the banks of the Danube. After all, there was watching their "sklaviny" the Byzantines. But here is the mortgage community. It is clearly local, heterogeneous, formed far from the Baltic language zone. Under no circumstances could these people speak Slavic. And, then, in their speeches did not exist the roots of the "word" or "glory", from which scientists are trying to produce suffering ethnonym. Theoretically, the population of the Penkov culture could speak in an adverb close to the Baltic. But these people, as far as we know, were called antami. Are there any chances that the Slavs called themselves tribes Korchak zone? Frankly, they are minimal. The population of the notorious "German tube" in the upper reaches of the Dniester river, you can safely delete from this list: too far from the Baltic to the Dnieper was formed this community. Surely, there was more mostarska, Sarmatian, Thracian or goto-haeska it. To be honest, there is little chance that such a self-name was born in Volyn, despite the geographical proximity of the region to the shores of Pripyat and the Dnieper. However, in any case Volyn not solve the main problem of Slavists. The aborigines of those places were not known to the southerners, they did not communicate with the Byzantines for obvious reason – a significant distance from the Danube borders. So it turns out that the Greeks simply had no one to hear the coveted word.
- But now, why are scientists so long held his fiction. "Prague" in the form in which it was promoted, removed all the questions at once. She explained why the Byzantines saw sklaviny on the Danube, and dig their antiquity archaeologists at Kiev and the Pripyat. This concept defined the Slavs "main ancestors" and made the latter the closest relatives of ants and wends. It allowed to explain how almost the entire territory of Eastern Europe has spread one language.
- You're very subtle about "grandparents," Watson. You see, the main problem faced by the researchers of Slavic prehistory is the inability to bring all these people from a single root. By the way, archaeologists initially based on the idea of two equal ancestors, who saw in the chronicle antes and sclavini. The implication was that two closely related culture Penkovsky and korchakskoy – participated on an equal footing in the development of open spaces of our continent. Scientists called this process "Slavic colonization". In a sign that both communities had a direct relationship to the widespread settlement of the future of the Slavs, academician Sedov called them, respectively, "Prague-korchakskoy" and "Prague-pen". His "Prague" was and those and others. Migration of the remaining "pot" of tribes – ipotetical and colocinni – questioned. Relied that the "penkovs and korchaks" spoke a single dialect, and therefore everywhere spread a common language. But as the in-depth study of antiquities, historians began to understand that such a picture of "Slavic colonization" does not stand up to any criticism. It was found that the degree of relationship between the two main contenders for the title of our ancestors was greatly exaggerated. Now this fact is admitted even by Igor Gavritukhin for which the "penkovs and korchaks"peoples who somewhere a long time ago had a common ancestor, to the VI century have long been dispersed, comprising two different community, sometimes colliding among themselves". But this archaeologist, as we have already established, did everything in his power to bring Korchak to the forest zone of the Dnieper. Meanwhile, it is clear to any specialist that the tribes that "somewhere and for a very long time had common ancestors" can not speak a single adverb. Their tongues had to go a good distance. If we take into account the true origin of the inhabitants of Galicia and Volhynia, will have to admit that the language gap between these tribes and the ants of the Dnieper forest-Steppe in reality was even deeper. Their adverbs could not be similar among themselves.
- Right, Watson! Although it should be noted that the version of the origin of the Slavs from both peoples was initially limping from both sides. Sorry for the involuntary pun! In this situation, the Slavic language zone should have been clearly divided into two dialect areas, but linguists did not reveal anything like that. In addition, with the deepening of research, it became clear that not only Penkovites with Korczak, but to some degree all their other "pottery" brothers participated in the "colonization", that is, in the relocation to the West and South of the continent. At the same time, the pattern of migration turned out to be very complicated and confusing. Human flows were distributed not too evenly. So, to the north of the Carpathian Mountains, people from the Korchak area clearly dominated. On the contrary, within the Carpathian depression, the Penkovian traditions were much more common. To the South from the Lower Danube, in the former Byzantine possessions, the hypoteshti monuments were found many times more than the Penkovsky monuments, and there are almost no Korczak monuments there at all.
- It turns out that three different people went to the West and the South, with their own special routes? How then did it happen that all their descendants spoke in the same language?
- And this is, Watson, the main mystery of world Slavic studies. Only I must correct you, my friend, there were not three tribes, but at least five. After all, we have established that the inhabitants of the Upper Dnieper, the notorious “German traffic jam,” were quite different from the rest of the inhabitants of the Korchak region. Consequently, at least two separate nations lived in this zone. One - in Galicia, the other - in Volyn. In addition, Kolochins of the Desna also took part in migrations to the West. So it comes out - five different tribes. Somewhere they were mixed with each other, but some areas were quite compact. Some of these people went to the South to develop the Balkan Peninsula, someone moved to the North-West, along the Carpathian ridge to the Elbe, some were on the Middle Danube, inside the Carpathian basin, others remained in the same place, and some daredevils moved to the North- east, in the direction of the upper reaches of the Volga and Ilmen Lake. In total, five different nations are sent almost in all directions of the World; nevertheless, their descendants speak the same language. There is something to grab the heads of scientists! The way out was found in the creation of the Prague concept, when a number of tribes were forcibly united, inventing the notorious "monster", and others, such as Penkovo and Kolochyn, were simply ignored. So the Slavs had "main ancestors".
- In this case, Holmes, it turns out that Korczak - conditionally called by you "Volhynians" and "Galicians" - are no longer the great ancestors of the Slavs than the same Penkovites or hypothets? Who would have thought that our invisible people would have such an abundance of ancestors! It is a pity that we will never know how those who lived to the North from the Slavins and Antes actually called themselves.
“Do you think so, Watson?” On the contrary, I am convinced that the self-names of the Proto-Slavic peoples are not so difficult to establish. If scientists did not try to drive all these people in bulk to Prague, declaring the last property of the famous Slavins, they would have long since found the real “pottery” tribes, at least, most of them.
- I do not understand how it can be done in principle? You yourself know that the Byzantine chronicles, except sklavin and ants, other peoples in this area is not noticed. Ukrainian archaeologist Rostislav Terpilovskiy suggested, however, that the population of Kolochin culture can be called Wends. However, this hypothesis is based only on the fact that the latter were the direct heirs of the Kiev-Zarubynets tradition, and they certainly were Veneds, at least in the eyes of Tacitus and his contemporaries.
- That's the whole point, doctor, that they were the Wends only for the Romans and the Germans. Before us is a typical ekzoetnonym, that is, the name given from the side. And the problem is not that the label "Wends" was alien in origin, but the fact that not a single Proto-Slavonic tribe took upon itself.
- And what's the difference if the nickname in any case was given by foreigners?
- Do not tell, Watson! In fact, it is not so important how an ethnonym arose, is it native or who came from the side. Much more significant - it is accepted by the people or not. Sometimes it happens that the people, who are called by all the neighbors around them in a certain way, eventually reconcile themselves with such a clique and begin to use such a label. Of course, it is adapted to the needs of its own language, “smoothed” in its own manner, and then used as a completely familiar term. I note that all tribal people, regardless of their origin, of the world have an amazing vitality. They penetrate the language, giving rise to a large number of single-root words, they fall out onto the terrain in the form of names of rivers and lakes, their echoes hover over the area where the carriers once lived, even after the nicknames themselves die. I personally call this phenomenon the "long echo of the ethnonym". We see nothing of the kind in the words “Wends” in relation to the bulk of the Slavs, including those who lived in the area of the Kolochin culture. The combination of consonants "in-d" turned out to be decidedly alien to the very structure of the Slavic speech. There are no hydronyms produced from this root in the zone of distribution of Kolochins. The oldest Slavic records also do not know the word "Wends". From here, I conclude that the Alto-Slavs in general, and Kolodtsy Podsheny in particular, did not even consider themselves. Red, their southern neighbors Penkovtsy, too, were not called Antes. As Russian linguist Oleg Trubachev noted: “Neither the Wends nor the Antes were never the self-names of the Slavs.” I will tell you more, Watson: the Danube aborigines just as well did not use the nickname "sklaviny" in relation to themselves. On the territory of Eastern Europe in the zone from the Carpathians to the Danube, the Dnieper and the Pripyat no toponyms with the roots Venda, ant or Sklava were found. That, all three terms are alien labels that the immediate neighbors tried to fasten to the "pottery" ones. But they were not accepted by the aborigines themselves.
- But how then do we find the real names of the "pot" tribes?
- Watson, how many times have I told you: in order to find something, you first need to clearly clarify to yourself what exactly we are looking for. And then the loss is immediately found itself, almost without any effort. It will just fall into your hands, like an overripe apple from a branch. Let's formulate together what exactly we are looking for. First, it must be the oldest ethnonyms of the Slavic world. Secondly, judging by the parts from which many "potted" tribes evolved, such names could not look Slavic. Thirdly, the long echo of these ethnonyms should hover over that zone of Eastern Europe, where each of the notorious five tribes lived. And this means that the required labels must appear in the toponymy of these places, and even, quite possibly, in the oldest chronicle tradition, first of all, in the chronicles of the Eastern Slavs, since it is these people who settled in the original area.
- In this case, the traces of missing labels should be found in the "Tale of Bygone Years", the oldest of all Slavic chronicles, born just in the East of this world.
“Your logic, as always, is irresistible, Watson.” Let us open this historical essay, and even better, we will use the services of specialists who performed this operation before us. For example, a prominent Russian linguist, Professor Grigory Khaburgaev, wrote a book called “The Ethnonymy of the Tale of Bygone Years”. Studying the names of ancient peoples mentioned in this chronicle, the researcher discovered a layer, as he called them, “primary ethnonyms” among the Proto-Slavic tribes. There are only four of them: Dulebs, Croats, the North and the Serbs. And they all differ in the absence of the usual suffixes-yane or -ichi, characteristic of the later names. According to Professor Khaburgaev, the magnificent four did not arise any later than the VII century. And if not all, then many terms from this list demonstrate a clear foreign language influence. Listen to what the Russian historian Anton Gorsky writes about them: “The listed ethnonyms are non-suffix. Obviously, these are the names of the“ old ”tribes that fell apart in the 6th-7th centuries. Shards of such tribes that settled in different regions were kept in their names memory of the former tribal structure. " As you can see, Watson, scientists are aware of the existence of a number of ethnonyms of the Proto-Slavonic peoples of the period of interest to us, although researchers are somewhat confused by their alien origin. But look for those areas that were occupied by the ancients of suspicious appearance.
- Do you think that they are somehow connected with the settlement zone of the five original tribes?
- And now we will check it. Let's start with the dupes. Watson, if you please, open Wikipedia, look what is written there about this tribe.
- Of course, Holmes: “Duleby (Old Slavic - Dulby) is a union of Eastern Slavic tribes in the territory of Western Volyn in the 6th - early 10th centuries. They belong to the Prague-Korchak archaeological culture. Trubachev, this ethnonym (* dudlebi) is derived from the Germanic * daudlaiba "legacy of the deceased" and indicates its proximity to the ancient West German range (within the framework of Velbar culture). "
- Pay attention, Watson, what a curious situation is developing around the origin of the Dulebs. On the one hand, according to the nameless authors of the electronic encyclopedia, they are Slavs, and even specifically Eastern Slavs. On the other hand, their name, as established by Russian linguist Oleg Trubachev, comes from roots that had circulated in the West German area. Notice, doctor, precisely in West German. Although on the territory of the former kingdom of Germanarich, it would be more logical to expect the language trace of the East Germans. That is why a somewhat exotic version was born of some Western tribes "within the framework of Velbar culture." Meanwhile, in fact, within the Velbar-Chernyakhov community, researchers discover only East Germanic peoples: Goths, Gepids, Heruli, Piri, Rugov and others. Therefore, from my point of view, it is much more likely that the term "Dulebs", given its peculiarities, was introduced here by no means by the Gothic peoples. Of the other Germanic ethnic groups that penetrated into the East of Europe, consider the attention of the Vandals and, especially, the Bastarians. The former were formed in the Vistula valley within the framework of the Przeworski community. The latter came from more western territories, Silesia is considered their ancestral homeland. At the same time, those and others, on the eve of the rise of the Gothic tribes, actively penetrated the lands of Western Ukraine. Look, for example, how this disposition looks on the map of the Belarusian historian Vyacheslav Nosevich.
Eastern Europe in the 1-2 centuries according to V. Nosevich (with clarifications) on the eve of the invasion of the Gothic tribes
On the banks of the Dniester and the Southern Bug, vandals and bastarns mixed with each other, as well as with other local inhabitants: Thracians, Sarmatians, and Wends. Later, these areas will be part of the Gothic kingdom. So for me, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the West German principle manifested itself in these territories - too complex ethnic processes were taking place here in the previous period.
“You mean, Sherlock, that the Dulebs might well have been descendants of the Vandals, or, more likely, Bastarns?”
“Watson, you know perfectly well how I dislike hasty conclusions.” Let's say this: we have in our hands a wonderful fact of the West German name of one of the tribes in Eastern Europe. Let's not hurry and first find out where these people lived. "The Tale of Bygone Years" remembers that "Dulebs are alive in the Bug, where there are now Velynians." The oldest Slavic chronicle, therefore, considers this mysterious people to be the forerunner of a rather powerful union of the Volhynian tribes, who settled in the early Middle Ages along the banks of the Western Bug River. In addition, the Russian linguist Grigori Khaburgaev to whose works we have already referred, although he supports his colleague Oleg Trubachev on the issue of the West German roots of the ethnonym Duleba, nevertheless offers another version of the origin of the unusual name: from * dudl-eipa - "country of bagpipes". Compare with modern German "dudelsack" - "bagpipes". In this case, the word “Volynyane” itself is a tracing-translation of the ancient ethnonym “Duleba”.
- In the framework of this version, it turns out that the dules by transcription from German were called "whistlers" or "bagpipers"? And while they lived, of course, in Volyn. More precisely, this area was named in their honor.
- In any case, Watson, let's look at the map, where the Volynyans area is marked, in principle coinciding with the historical region of Volyn. What can you say about their country, colleague?
Fragment of a map of V. Nikolaev
- It is quite extensive and occupies a significant part of the range of Korchak culture.
- That's right. However, if you look at toponymy with the root "duleb", then it turns out that it goes beyond the limits of Volyn everywhere. Similar names, in addition to the neighborhoods of the Western Bug, are found at the headwaters of the Dniester, along the entire right bank of the Pripyat, and even on the Uzh River near Kiev. That is why archeologist Valentin Sedov writes about Dulebs: “The Chronicles associate them with the Bug, but this does not mean that the territory of the East Slavic duleb resettlement was confined to the basin of this river. . In other words, for this historian, the Dulebs are the ancestors of Volynians, Drevlyans, glades, and even parts of the Dregovichs.
“Look, Holmes: Duleb toponyms are found almost throughout the entire Korczak zone - from the Dniester to the Pripyat, and from the Western Bug to the Middle Dnieper. Perhaps this is the name of all Korczak inhabitants?
“I would agree with this assumption, if it were not for the two very important circumstances that Ukrainian archaeologist Leonty Voitovich points out to us.” Firstly, he draws the attention of his colleagues to the difference in the funeral rites of the inhabitants of Galicia and Volyn, which we have already said. Secondly, this researcher discovered that toponyms with the root “Duleb” are found only in the northeastern periphery of the Upper Dnieper region, in the areas bordering Volyn. Therefore, Voitovich Dulebov associates with the bearers of the Kurgan tradition in the Korchak area, and the Carpathian population recognizes as a different people - the Croats. It should be noted, he is not alone in his opinion. Lubor Niederle, a Czech historian of the late 19th - first half of the 20th century, wrote about the stay of the Croats in the Upper Dniester. In his famous book "Slavic Antiquities" on the issue of interest to us, he literally says the following: "Most likely the Croat settlements were located in Eastern Galicia and Bukovina, near the Dniester and Prut, where traces of their stay remained in toponymy." Already today, the modern St. Petersburg researcher Alexander Mayorov, the author of the monograph “Great Croatia,” clarifies the boundaries of the initial settlement of this tribe. According to this Russian historian, the Croats initially occupied the region of the Upper Dniester and the adjacent territories of the Prut-Dniester interfluve. Later they settled on both sides of the Carpathian ridge, having mastered the Transcarpathian lands at the source of the Tisza. As for the Vistula basin and more western regions, according to Mayorov, the Croats will get there later. As you can see, Watson, many historians confidently place the Croatian tribes in the region where the graves were found, covered with stone slabs on top. At the same time, Ukrainian archaeologists Boris Timoshchuk and Leonty Voitovich directly connect the bearers of this rite with the Croats. Valentin Sedov also adhered to the same opinion: "In the Old Russian time, the sub-faceted graves became the ethnographic feature of the Croatian range of the Upper Dniester."
- I can not understand just one thing. If the Tale of Bygone Years was written about the Croats and Duleb, if the location of the corresponding toponymy was already known to scholars since Niederl, why historians stubbornly did not recognize the fact that the Korchak tribes were called by these names, and not somehow?
- Understand, Watson, the recognition of the “Kurgans of Volhynia” by Dulebs, and the “sub-ticks of Galicia”, respectively, by the Croats completely destroyed the concept of “main ancestors”. After all, then instead of one people, proclaimed by the “core” of future Slavs, historians had two different tribes in their hands. And both are highly suspicious in origin. Do not forget, colleague, that the traditions of these people arise on the northeastern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains, the natives of which the Ukrainian archaeologist Leonty Voitovich called "the complex symbiosis of Dacians, Slavs, Germans and Sarmatians". The ethnonyms of these tribes themselves hint at the addition of the Duleb and Croat from very unexpected elements. We have already talked about the West German nickname of the inhabitants of Volyn. Their Carpathian neighbors are in no way inferior to them in this regard.
- You want to say that the term "Croats" also turned out to be not quite Slavic?
- That's right, colleague. Listen to what science knows about this ethnonym. Alexey Sobolevsky, a pre-revolutionary Russian linguist, also discovered that he is not related to Slavic dialects. The scientist deduced this name from the Iranian languages, referring to the characteristic for Iranians formant -at. The opinion of Sobolevsky was shared by the famous German philologist of Russian origin Max Fasmer. According to one of its versions, the strange name comes from the Iranian expression haurvatar - "guardian of cattle", on the other - from a different Iranian phrase * harva (n) t - "abundant in women". In either case, the primary carriers of this name are certain Sarmatian tribes of the Northern Black Sea region, whose penetration into the upper Dniester is not a surprise for archaeologists.
“It turns out that initially the Croats were either Sarmatian nomads, or tribes dependent on them, pasturing cattle, and perhaps even supplying wives to their masters.
- Do not rush to conclusions, Watson! The fact is that with the Iranian hypothesis of the origin of the name of the Croats, another version has long and stubbornly competed, which I would call Daco-German. It derives the nickname of this tribe from the Carpathian mountain range, at the foot of which invariably find traces of these people. Fyodor Brown, a pre-revolutionary Russian нгmigré linguist, believed that the Thracian name of the mountain range was transformed into the speech of the German Bastarians in the form of harvada and in this form became the ethnonym of the local Aborigines. In any case, as you can see, the names of Croats and Dulebs are not directly related to the Baltic language environment. They probably formed in the vicinity of the Carpathians among an unimaginable mixture of the peoples living there: the Germans, the Thracians, the Sarmatians and others. The Venetian influence on the speech of these people was not too significant. In your opinion, could the Slavists recognize the Korczak tribes as consisting of Dulebs and Croats? After all, this recognition put a big and fat cross for all attempts to bring the Slavs from a single Venetian area.
- You want to say that historians knew the real state of affairs, however, wanting to prove with all their might Korczak’s belonging to the Dneprovsky Veneds, did they turn a blind eye to the real facts?
- Most of them even tried to present the Croats and Dulebs as some kind of insignificant groups on the outskirts of the range of "potted" tribes. Georgy Vernadsky, for example, writes: "In the eighth and ninth centuries, Western Volyn was the residence of Dulebs, and Galicia, located on the northeastern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains, was the birthplace of Croats (croats)." It is easy to see that the American explorer shifts the residence of both tribes closer to the Carpathians, presenting "Croats (croats) and Dulebs" as "two anto-Slavic tribes that lived in the upper Dniester region." Thus, this researcher settles both peoples in the area of the so-called "German traffic jam". The question of how the majority of the population of the Korchak area called itself the American historian generally brackets it. Otherwise, the Russian academician Valentin Sedov was looking at the problem. Take a look, doctor, on the map made by him. Here, the tribes seem to be placed correctly: dules settled to the South of Pripyat, from the Western Bug to the banks of the Dnieper, in the main territory of Korczak culture, and the Croats are shown where they really lived - from the headwaters of the Dniester to its middle reaches Carpathians.
The distribution map of the Proto-Slavic ethnonyms from the book by V. Sedov "The Origin and Early History of the Slavs"
However, the academician had his own delusions. For example, he attributed the Croats to the Penkovo community, considering them more likely to come from the Antean environment. Look, doctor, what the propagation zone of Penkovo ceramics looks like in the feed of this researcher, the borders of which on the map are marked with the line under the number "2". Regarding the Dulebs, Valentin Sedov was literally one step away from recognizing this ethnonym as the self-name of all the Korchak tribes. He already proposed "identifying them with the population of the Volyn-Kiev-Pripyat part of the Prague-Korchak culture." In essence, the historian assigned the main possessions of this community to the Duleb tribes. In those years, however, it was believed that it initially stretched far to the West, right up to the sources of the Oder and the banks of the Elbe. Moreover, the origins of Korchak culture, and, consequently, the ancestral home of Dulebs, Sedov were invariably placed on the territory of Poland. The latest archaeological research and, especially, dating, both radiocarbon and along tree sawnings, show that the ancestors of the Slavs mastered the spaces to the West from the Vistula much later than the Ukrainian lands. This means that the initial possessions of Korczak are reduced to the areas of distribution of only two tribes: the Dulebs in Volyn, Pripyat and Kyiv region and the Croats in the North-Eastern Carpathian region. Alas, the Slavists did not dare to admit this obvious fact.
- Well, God is with them. The main thing is that we have already found two people from our “magnificent four”. It remains to find a place in the sun for the north and the Serbs.
- I think, with the first no difficulties will arise. Nestor, the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, listing the location of various Slavic tribes of his time, said, in particular, the following: "while others are graves on the Gums and Seven, on Sulya and on the north." Thus, the chronicle settles the mysterious norths where the Kolochin monuments of culture were located in the previous period: on the banks of the Desna, Seim and Suly. Yes, you compare yourself, Watson, the area of Kolochin and the area occupied by the people of the northerners on the eve of the creation of Kievan Rus. Perhaps, the descendants moved a little bit to the South in comparison with their ancestors, nevertheless, retaining all the main possessions. At the same time, note that archaeologists date Kolochino culture to V-VII centuries, and linguists assure us that the ethnonym "North" did not originate any later than the VI century. How can we not then compare one and the other?
Two fragments from the maps of V. Nikolaev. The Kolochin area and the main lands of the northerners are highlighted.
– It turns out that archaeological colocinni, those direct heirs of Kievan traditions were not wends, as expected by some researchers, but only the chronicle Severs? Well, at least one of the primary ethnonym similar to Slavic. After all, if I'm not mistaken, it comes from the word "Sever-North"? A fitting name for a tribe that has climbed so deep into the wilds of the forest.
– I'm afraid to disappoint you, Watson, but in the Slavic origin of this name, and bore his tribe, there are well-founded doubts. To begin with, that lived colocinni in the area of the Baltic toponymy. They met private Iranian names of the Baltic sea, but no more. Judging by the names of local rivers and lakes, the Slavs came here very late, after the collapse of the three main branches. They came here specifically in the form of Eastern Slavs. That is why Valentin Sedov clearly associated kolochin tribes with forest Balts, the pre-Slavic population of The upper Dnieper. Now under the influence of newfangled concepts of the Prague inhabitants of Podesena, of course, recorded in the Slavs. But the question of why they did not show their ethnic face in the toponymy of these places, and hung unanswered. In parallel, many linguists point to a fairly transparent Scythian-Sarmatian etymology of the term "Sever", raising it to the Iranian roots *sew and *saw, meaning black. By the way, the stable connection of this region with this color shade comes from the unthinkable depth of centuries. Suffice it to say that the capital of the severs was the city of Chernigov, the name of which is difficult not to see all the same specific color. In addition, such rivers of the region as the Sejm and Sev, according to linguists, also come from the Iranian names "dark" or "black river". Oh, and finally, it is impossible not to recall that it was here, on the banks of the Desna and Seym, the ancient Greek writer Herodotus noticed people "melanchlens," that is, "people who dress in black."
- You want to say, Holmes, that the chronicle northerners turned out to be direct descendants of the legendary “black cloaks”, which were reported by the father of all historians?
- Have you not yet understood, Watson, that it is useless to rely on ethnonyms in search of the roots of any peoples whatsoever? Tribal labels can easily deceive any researcher, easily slipping from one ethnic group to another. Therefore, we will not make hasty conclusions. The descendants of the severs of the very tribes or their ancestors came here later - we do not know. But the fact that this country with an enviable consistency to the names associated with the black shade, I think, is quite obvious. The love of dark colors has been manifested here consistently for thousands of years. Kolochintsy were among those who preserved this unusual tradition. Consequently, nothing prevents us from considering them as the Severs of the "Tale of Bygone Years".
- Then we have left unanalyzed only one ethnonym from among the primary ones: the Serbs. What does science know about these people
- Perhaps, of all the four, this is the only people whose original location can only be divined. True, Valentin Sedov, on the basis of archaeological considerations, recognized the Serbs as coming from the Penkovsky area. In his view, the Serbs were some part of the Ants tribes. The Antes themselves, as we remember, relied on this historian of the Slavic-Iranian symbiosis, that is, a mixture of the Dnieper Wends and the Alan-Sarmatian nomads. Therefore, the academician did not doubt the steppe origin of this name: “The ethnonym Serbs also goes back to the Iranian world, it is associated with the Iranian word * ser-v- with the meaning“ guard, guard cattle. ”According to another version advocated by linguist Oleg Trubachev, the term is derived from the Indo-Aryan expression “thugs.” Let me remind you that this name was first mentioned by Claudius Ptolemy, but his “Serbs” lived very far in the East: between the Volga and the Caucasus Mountains and were apparently directly related to the Sarmatian community of nomadic tribes. Oleg Trubachev argues that for this term there took place "the occurrence (with an arbitrarily abrupt change in the ethnic composition of the carriers themselves) in the pre-Slavic range on the part of Pobuzhya." when the original nickname of a certain steppe people became the name of a certain group of Slavic ancestors. The renowned linguist believed that this transition had taken place on the banks of the Southern Bug. The remaining variants of the origin of the term "Serbs" look less convincing. Lubor Niederle drew attention to the Latin inscriptions "servi Sarmatae", literally - "Sarmatians servants", who sometimes decorated Roman maps when describing the environs of the Carpathians. What, as we see, is only one of the options for deriving the name of the Serbs from the Roman nickname of dependent people - "serves". Some researchers have tried to produce the name of the tribe from the Slavic roots. It turned out: "pahari", "relatives", "joined". However, all these attempts, firstly, do not look too convincing, secondly, they contradict each other, and, thirdly, they are not supported by the majority of historians. Therefore, to date, the Iranian version of the origin of the ethnonym "Serbs", taking into account its mention from Ptolemy, seems to be the most reasonable.
- What do we have, therefore, it turns out? In the face of the Serbs, we are dealing with the Antes, at least with the help of their part, which received its name from the steppe nomads. How can you not remember that the name "Anta" is also of Iranian origin. Only, apparently, Penkovtsy themselves did not consider themselves antes. But the ethnonym "Serbs" has taken root in their midst, as it still has a people in the Balkans, which is called in a similar way. It is possible that the population of the Penkovsky area was divided into a number of tribes, and one of them bore the name "Serbs". Although it is possible that this was a common self-name of the majority of Antes. After all, we don’t know about the other primary ethnonyms that came out of this zone. Apart from, of course, the Croats, which some historians attribute to Penkovtsy, others to Korczak. Such a "controversial" population lived in the area of the "German Cork" on the northeastern slopes of the Carpathians. I think it would be fair not to ascribe them to Penkovo or Korczak, but to consider them a completely independent individual people - the Croats. As for the inhabitants of the Lower Danube region, the zone of the Ipoteshta culture - the Slavins of the Byzantine chronicles - their real name, unfortunately, remains a mystery to us. Unless, of course, these people even had it. The Danube aborigines, as is known, consisted of many small groups, each of which could well have its own nickname. We will call these people sklavinami, since their self-name has escaped us.
- Personally, I would not be in a hurry to put a sign of full equality between the Antes and the Serbs. Perhaps the last name was borne only by those Penkovsky tribes that lived on the shores of the Southern Bug, where, according to Oleg Trubachev, there was a transfer of the steppe label to the local farmers. But I do not rule out the possibility that all Antsky tribes could be called Serbs. In general, researchers have long noticed the similarity of the two pre-Slavic ethnonyms: the north and the Serbs. Given the floating sound "" in "-" b "and frequent rearrangement of consonants in the roots of words, not discarding the possibility that we are talking about different variations of the pronunciation of the same name. By the way, archaeologists also note a high degree of similarity between Penkovo and Kolochin cultures. There is no sharp border between them. One hour smoothly and naturally flows into another. Moreover, typical Kolochin pots are found on Penkovo settlements up to the Dniester, and the dishes typical of Ants, in turn, penetrate deeply into the forest Podesyeеньеa. There is a possibility that these people considered themselves to be one people, despite the fact that part of them found themselves in the forest zone, and another settled in the Dnieper forest-steppe. Although, while still offering to offer Penkovists, to call collectively antes, bearing in mind, some of them were called Serbs, and Kolochin people were called north, not excluding, however, the fact that they could be a single ethnic group with their southern brethren.
- How difficult it is with these ancient peoples! Some historians are ready to shove all “potted” tribes in bulk into the framework of a single culture. You, Holmes, strongly oppose this. In turn, they themselves are ready to unite the North and the Serbs. Although experts refer them to different archaeological communities. From all this, my head is spinning and I can hardly understand who is brought to whom by a relative.
“I'm afraid you misunderstood me, Watson.” I do not consider the Ants (or, if you wish, the Serbs) to be one people with the Northerners. I just wanted to draw attention to their proximity and the lack of clear boundaries between these tribes. Archaeologists, for example, studying the settlements on the left bank of the Dnieper in the contact zone of the people of Kolochyn and Penkovo each time have a serious difficulty with which of the two communities to refer to antiquity. One kind of goes smoothly into the other. By the way, a similar picture is observed in the western regions. Sklavin close to the Croats, they in turn are similar to the neighboring Dulebs. And we will not find any sharp borders from Pripyat to the lower reaches of the Danube. Nevertheless, if we take the extreme points - the population of Wallachia, on the one hand, and Pripyat Polesie, on the other, the difference will be visible even to the naked eye. The original five nations in principle consist of similar elements, but their ratio is different in each tribe. For clarity, I have prepared for you, Watson, this scheme. It is clear that it is very conditional, but it still gives some idea of the kinship relations of the "pottery" peoples and their origin.
- “Well, with the help of God, we seem to have sorted out with all the" pottery "tribes that lived in Eastern Europe in the middle of the 6th century. It remains only a little - to understand how they all became one people - the Slavs.
- And why did you, Watson, take it that the Slavs were a single ethnic group? On the contrary, all that we know about them indicates that we are not one people, but a whole placer of very different tribes of origin. At best, it makes sense to talk about a single label and common speech. Therefore, I will allow myself to alter your task. We have to decide on two key problems. First: it is necessary to deal with the fact why the Byzantines in the VII-VIII centuries began to be called "sklavinami" almost all the inhabitants of Eastern Europe. And second, and most importantly, it is necessary to realize how the entire population of the endless spaces from the Elbe to the Volga and from the Baltic to the Egeida spoke the same language. Which is characteristic - akin to the Baltic dialects. Of course, it was much easier for those scientists who pampered themselves with "Prague" fairy tales. In spite of the facts, they took both Korczak and Pen'kivtsi from the depths of the forest zone of the Upper Dnieper, the inhabitants of the Balto-speaking tribes, called Tacitus "Wends". However, it cost us to grasp the details and these illusions completely dissipated. See for yourself. Only the modest north of the marshy jungles between the Desna and Diet interfluves can be considered direct descendants of the Dnieper Wends. The Ants, who lived in the open spaces of the Ukrainian forest-steppe, absorbed a considerable number of Gothic elements, not to mention the Vandal and Sarmatian splashes, so at best they are only half of Veneto. Dulebs were formed in Western Ukraine from the most diverse fragments of the kingdom of Germanaric. Considering their Carpathian funeral traditions and the West German nickname, I would recognize them rather as descendants of the Bastarns, around which the scattered great-grandchildren of the Thracians, Balts, Sarmatians and Gothic Gepids united. If they have a Vened beginning, then no more than a quarter. And then I take to the maximum. Their neighbors - the Croats - formed even further from the forest zone of the Upper Dnieper, in the vicinity of the Carpathians. Here, on the banks of the Dniester, the Germanic, Thracian and Sarmatian elements are even more prominent than those of the Dulebs. And the Venetian component could not exceed one tenth here. If we take those tribes that were called by the Slavs among the Byzantines, and among the archaeologists as the hypothecians, then among the inhabitants of Wallachia and Moldova there came from the Venetian range at a level of a few percent. And now, you and I, Watson, should explain who, and in what magical way, imposed on all these disparate tribes a single speech surprisingly similar to the languages of the forest Balts of the Upper Dnieper region.
- Yeah. The task we have decidedly complicated. Can you, Sherlock, confuse the already difficult investigation.
- Don't be so sad, my friend. Believe me, we have already taken the first important step towards finding the truth. We managed to find five tribes from among the main Slavic ancestors. It remains to establish the place and time, where and when they all formed a single community and found a common speech. Understand, Watson: what was the main mistake of our predecessors? Historians, studying the "potted" cultures of the 5th-6th centuries, looked intently only at their past, trying to discern something in common there. But to their deep despair, they did not find the intersection points in the previous period of the history of these peoples. After that, the Slavists had to deal with already frank juggling to explain the appearance of their ancestors. All their "Prague concepts" are created in order to find the missing intersection point. How not to call it - source or root. However, if such an intersection of the historical lines of all the "potted" peoples was not found in their recent past, can it be found in the near future?
- I do not understand, Holmes, what kind of future are you talking about? Everyone knows that by the 7th-8th centuries of our era, Slavic tribes had already spread everywhere from the Elbe to the Dnieper and the Don and from the Baltic to the Hellas. And all of them, as if by magic, spoke in a single dialect. Listen to what a famous linguist, professor at Harvard University, Henryk Birnbaum, writes about: "From the VII to the IX centuries inclusive, the Slavs occupied a vast territory in Eastern and Central Europe, which stretched from the Adriatic and Aegean seas in the south to the base of the Jutland peninsula and the Baltic Sea on the northwest and Gulf of Finland, Lake Ladoga and the upper Volga region in the northeast, in the west the Slavs reached the eastern Alps, the Bohemian forest, the Saale river and the territory on the other side of the Elbe downstream, while in the east they have long crossed the central Dnieper. " Before us is the phenomenal spill of a single speech across the vast expanses of our continent! And you show us a picture of the opposite. According to your information, by the middle of the 6th century no unity of the Slavs existed yet. Instead, there were only five tribes, very different in origin, most of which turned out to be almost in no way connected with the Baltic language world. Moreover, according to your statements, these people were deprived of supreme power and virtually unarmed. How could they become one super-ethnos and master a common language ?!
- This mystery will be revealed to us. Let's not get excited and take a close look at how the future Slavs spread throughout our planet. I think we are waiting for a lot of interesting discoveries. In the end, before the beginning of the VII century there is not much time left, is it? Maybe in this brief moment we will still be able to discover something that will unite the tribes of Eastern Europe and give them a single dialect?
