The invasion of Charlemagne and the flight of the Slavs from the Danube region

[Nykyus]

Just in case. Ukraine aren't on Balkans.
Still. Can you show me how did you do your estimate, and where all the slavic peoples fighting Byzantium and inhabiting reliably slavic territories of 9th century came from?

According to the census of Rus, Mongol-Tatars in the 13th century, Southern Russia was less populated. Somewhere corresponds to this figure. I can not find the source. But Northern Russia had then 3 million inhabitants.
Gumilev wrote that a population explosion occurred in Northern Russia in the 13th-15th centuries. Population increased from 3 to 9 million

 

[Nykyus]

According to Kolomiytsev, the density of the population under Chernyakhov in some places was similar to that of today. Very high standard of living for the Goth tribe.
But carriers of Penkovo culture are not included in this category. They were European Indians

 

[Herbert West]

I wonder if you would notice being shadowbanned.

 

[aono]

But Northern Russia had then 3 million inhabitants

...just in case. By Northern Russia you mean Novgorod and Vladimir, right?
Because if you do - you do understand that you're comparing a land whith moderate January temperature of -1 with a land of moderate January temperature of, like, -10 (Ryazan)?

According to the census of Rus, Mongol-Tatars in the 13th century, Southern Russia was less populated.

Administrative (for taxation reasons) division of Mongolian Empire had as biggest division so-called "tumen" - a land that supposed to support one tumen, ten thousands military. In Chingizid Empire, troop/population ratio was 1/20 (1/10 of male population). Therefore one tumen supposed to have something about 200 thousands people living there. Keep in mind that a lot of people were excluded from such a calculation - for example, urban population was excluded, as they payed taxes by other means.
Russia constituted 43 tumens. 43*200=8600. Therefore, 8 and half millions was a population of rural Russia after mongolian offence, where, by the way, Southern Russia suffered most. Excluding Novgorodian lands, as Novgorod wasn't a part of Empire.

Or let's try another approach.
Reported losses of massacre in Kiev was about 50 thousands. Considering urbanization ratio of agrarian society 15% (actually, it's VERY optimistic), and reducing (for discussion sake) casualities in a factor of 2, we'll get about 167 thousands of Kiev' supporting lands only.

And I still don't get how Southern Russia population of 13th century matters to Balkan population of 6th century.

 

[Barsoom]

And I still don't get how Southern Russia population of 13th century matters to Balkan population of 6th century.

I think that he's trying to prove that the alternative to his own theory doesn't work. That is, that the lands of Ukraine/Belarus/Russia were too sparsely populated to explain all the Slavs spreading across half of Europe. That's my best guess, I have to say that I find it very hard to follow Nykyus because he gives us scraps of (what he considers) evidence without telling us what they're supposed to prove.

I'm posting mostly to subscribe. Thanks to your well-sourced and well-written posts, aono, this is actually a very informative thread.

 

[Nykyus]

.
Russia constituted 43 tumens. 43*200=8600. Therefore, 8 and half millions was a population of rural Russia after mongolian offence, where, by the way, Southern Russia suffered most. Excluding Novgorodian lands, as Novgorod wasn't a part of Empire.

An alternative story already? Figures taken from the sky. The Russian army never numbered 430 thousand people. Can found again archaeological and molecular evidence of this? Entertain further.
Otherwise, they would not have been defeated by 3 Mongolian Tyumen, Jebe and Subudai, only 25 thousand.

They themselves refuse to recognize the obvious fact of the actual unity of the Slavic language up to the 13th century, as the Chronicle of Poland says. When reading Arab and European old sources, everywhere the Slavic people, the Slavic script

 

[Nykyus]

I think that he's trying to prove that the alternative to his own theory doesn't work. That is, that the lands of Ukraine/Belarus/Russia were too sparsely populated to explain all the Slavs spreading across half of Europe. That's my best guess, I have to say that I find it very hard to follow Nykyus because he gives us scraps of (what he considers) evidence without telling us what they're supposed to prove.

I'm posting mostly to subscribe. Thanks to your well-sourced and well-written posts, aono, this is actually a very informative thread.

You guessed it. Exactly. The Dnieper hypothesis is flawed.
According to Aono, the Slavs, having just freed themselves from the oppression of the Goths, went to conquer distant lands. Which had plenty of free land and wildlife. For certain death in the fight against the strong Roman Empire.

That is, that the lands of Ukraine/Belarus/Russia were too sparsely populated to explain all the Slavs spreading across half of Europe.

Belarus and Central Russia do not touch. They were part of the Balts. Slavs came quite late

 

[aono]

An alternative story already? Figures taken from the sky.

By whom? By Mongols, who made their calculations and used it to calculate tribute? Very possible, but then we don't have any solid data for russian population, because, I believe, the next panRussian census was made quite later, and therefore I again asking you how do you make your numbers. My method is quite simple - taking estimated urban population, considering 15% urbanization (quite a radical estimate - actually, for lands like Ukraine it would be like 5%), therefore numbers would came. Still, of course, any numbering of populations without solid archeological or demographic data would be taken from the sky and heavily depend from methodology.

Take Vernadsky. His (actually, slighly conservated Milukov's one) method (methods) is following:
1. Peter's census (well, not exactly census but taxpayers revisions, so nothing really solid) shown about 15 millions for 1725. If you want to see how this numbering done, please, don't limit yourself with Wiki, it's very vague about it, and actually saying more about revision on 1722, showing 5 millions; as you can read even there, it's not even nearly correct. Adding Polish and Lithuanian sources, we can add 2 millions more. Therefore, being very conservative, we can safely assume total population of Russia being about 12 millions in 16th century.
2. Still, keep in mind that we're saying about disaster times. Peter keep constant wars. Alexey had Razin insurrection. Beginning of 16th century called "Time of Troubles" for the reason. Earlier there were, well, mongols themselves and plague of 14th century. Meaning that we can't avait drastic growth of population there, until we can't define some factor.
3. Therefore, for XII century we can safely assume 7-8 millions for XII century as a conservative assumption.
That's conform mongolian data, and, as you can see, it wasn't used for this calculation.
Also. Estimated total urban population in XII century is about a million. If we believe in 7 million population, it's 13% urbanization; for agrarian society it's astonishing number. For the reference: urbanization of Russian Empire in 1914 was 18%, including western governorships.
And if you take in mind that Kiev was a most priviliged prince seat, the center of Russian land until mongol devastation, it's highly unlikely it was the least populated.

The Russian army never numbered 430 thousand people.

No, it never was. So? It wasn't russian administrative division, but Mongolian one.

That is, that the lands of Ukraine/Belarus/Russia were too sparsely populated to explain all the Slavs spreading across half of Europe.

Well, yes. That's the problem of Avar theory, not Dnieper one, as I write several times before.
In "my" (actually, I'm just repeating textbooks) theory this spreading took about one-and-half thousand years, happening on par with Germanic and Turkic movements (which took a lot of attention; by the way, Scandinavia never was a dense populated region, still Germans were able to spread across the other half of Europe), in the time of climate change. As it's impossible (rrrrright?) to refuse half of Europe being spread by Slavs to 9th-10th century, this slavs should be spread from somewhere. Until real ruler of Avars wasn't Saruman, who breed slavs as orks, I can't see how it's possible in 3 centuries. Especially if we proclaim Balkans being sparsely populated as well, so they didn't came from there, and baltic lands never were megapolis lands as well.

According to Aono, the Slavs, having just freed themselves from the oppression of the Goths, went to conquer distant lands. Which had plenty of free land and wildlife. For certain death in the fight against the strong Roman Empire.

Nope. According to me, "Slavs" (meaning people who speak on some dialect of panbaltic language, splitting from general baltic group somewhere on a road) and carried r1a1 haplogroup with southern contamination, opposing baltic northern contamination; I'm going to use term "protoslavs"), slowly spreaded, under different names in civilized neighbourhood chronicles (as they hadn't genetics or even comparatible antropology, I'm not scolding ancestors for such a negligence), for, like, one-and-half thousand years. They already were spread when Goths came, they were subjects in Goth empire.
Their problem was that they hadn't Roman (and other civilized) tech for agriculture, so their areals couldn't support big populations - it was slash-and-burn. Still, they lived in nice places, so their death rate wasn't high (of course, everything is relative, and in modern sense their death rate was astonishing). Therefore, as they couldn't really feed big cities, their groups split out and go by river dales to the south from their basic lands (that's to Balkans), to the west (to Poland, Bohemia, Prussia), and to the north (to Northern Russia), pushing balts and finns out or assimilating them. Wildlife wasn't exactly a civilization problem for Homo Sapiens Sapiens for a long, long time (humans can really solve wildlife problem on the very early stage of their development, even if some groups wouldn't be able to survive), and free land wasn't a problem, it was a desired feature. Low population density, low tech level and culture overlap from conquerers prevented unified archeological culture until 5-7 century. Constant moving around supported linguistical unity.
They had two greatest problems.
1. Slash-and-burn agriculture requires to move around. You can take nice harvests from the same plot of earth for 3, maybe 6 years, and then you'll need to wait about 50 years until land would restore. So they weren't afraid of free land, free land was a gift of heavens. Happily, there was a lot of free lands in Eastern Europe.
2. Still, they could exist for the time, and coexist with a lot of local population, paying whoever came and wanted something, until climatic pessimum of earliest medieval happened. Traditional lands stopped to give harvests. You see, the characteristic feature of agrarian society is that they very fast can get into the maximum population their land can allow, and then they would stay stable for centuries. For the protoslavs, climatic pessimum was a disaster (actually, it wasn't neat for anybody). Their agricultural techniques never were very effective in a first place, and climat getting more cold... yeah. So they started to push south. They wasn't think, like, "hey, there is a scary Roman Empire!" - they had a choice, going west/south, or die hungry. People tend to take first approach.
So they came south in a mass. Imagine Ukraine being able to support 300 000 men in good climatic moment; so when climat dropped, it was a half of this number going out (another half stayed where they were). They gang, because, well, they were tribal, but they weren't stupid (I hope I don't need to point how such a ganging forms in history). That's what Byzantium sources seen as "slavic invasions" on Balkans.
If Roman Empire were strong, well, they would be repelled. Thing is, Roman Empire wasn't strong. They had climatic pessimum as well, meaning depopulation of the factor of 4, for crying out loud, they had constant wars on every border, internal strife and barbarian invasions. So protoslavs were able to stick on borders. And this gave them the best thing it could - roman agriculture tech. Of course, it wasn't gene-modified crops and nutriented many-field systems, but it was highly better then things protoslavs had. At this point, we have slavs in written history. Ethnogenesis finished.

Sorry for being poetic, but if germanic invasions were a trauma, slav colonization was like an an illness. As free space, where some group of non-developed people can came and start to harvest something, maybe evicting locals in process (because it's not very easy to stop it without areal patrols; or, at least, big walls with constant patrols). Any point of weakness in established centralized space - hop, slavs are here. Not many of them, sure; but, as I already pointed, agrarian societies tends to grow fast, and their seminomadic agricultural technique means every such a spot would be a secondary center of slavic colonization - and keep in mind that primary center wasn't depopulated, so it would give new waves. As this people never declared themselves masters of the land, no invader seen a need for genocide them, and even when he somehow did, well, such killed group would be fastly replaced. But what invaders did - they destroyed local power structure, leaving slavs. Continuing illness anagolue - when an animal died from carnial trauma (germanic or turkic invasion), bacteria in corpse would thrive.

So it goes.

 

[viola]

For certain death in the fight against the strong Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire was not strong at all when the Slavic migration happened. After Justinian the Byzantines faced destructive wars first against the Sassanids and then against the early Muslim Caliphate. The Balkans became indefensible no matter how unorganized the Slavic tribes might have been compared to the Roman military.

 

[aono]

The Roman Empire was not strong at all when the Slavic migration happened.

Actually, even if it wasn't; how would protoslavs know about it? They weren't some kind of unified, centralized people. Even if some tribe had some info about Roman Empire mere existence, it could be a hidden info for another. Hell, I don't even think that idea of state borders were not completly alien for them. "Your land is a land where you work".

 

[Nykyus]

And what is the difference between the Avar leader Bayan and the Norman leader Rurik?

Here and there runic letters,
here and there the subjects are Slavs,
here and there the Universe is represented as a World tree,
here and there attack on the Roman empire

 

[aono]

Here and there runic letters,

Also runic writings are in Bolgar, in Hungary, in old Turkic... You see, runes are very simple geometrical forms, that's the basic feature.

here and there the subjects are Slavs,

Of course. As I said, every ruler in Eastern Europe would have slavic subjects.

here and there the Universe is represented as a World tree,

I can't say about Avar universe view (quite possible), but definitly a World Tree is a common symbol as well. I can post a list of different mythologies using this type or representation.

here and there attack on the Roman empire

...and everybody in macroregion would attack Roman empire. Somebody - successfully.

I mean, you took non-specific internals. If you want differences...
As far as we can tell, Ruses (Scandinavians, I believe; I wouldn't came so far to accept "Summoning" story as a fact, so Rurik himself can be quite a mythological person, but Ruses as a group, I believe, are a fact) were infantry, and, by the way, base of slavic military tradition is infantry one. Avars definitely were cavalry.
Ruses were Scandinavians (at least I believe it, and looks like genetic research comply). Avars were mongoloids or tungus. That's genetics, material culture, burial types, names...
Ruses were primarily traders (check Byzantium treaties with Ruses), with occasional raids, scandinavian-like (big random fleets terrorizing surroundings for some years, then disappearing). Avars were conquerors and rulers.
Even if you follow Tale of Bygone Ages, still there is a difference of coming. Ruses were invited. Avars came and conquered. Still, I don't trust "Tale" here and believe in a theory I believe where Ruses essentially were a "trade company", using slav lands as a source of trade goods (slaves and furs) to sell in Near East (for silver) and in Byzantium (for silk, primarily); something like Hudson's Bay Company or portugalian langados. In this theory, they became rulers in common sense only in Vladimir's times. If you want to check arguements for this theory, and don't want me to be too long here, check Alexey Tolochko, Essays of Earliest Rus ("Очерки начальной Руси"). Don't get me wrong, Tolochko is controversal, but he is controversal historican, working as historican, and writing historical works. Kolomiytsev is a journalist and politician with historical education (you can check his bio). Again, don't get me wrong, nothing bad is here. But this should be remembered when you value books like that ones.
Also Byzantines and Germans, who knew Avars, and definitely knew Ruses (Ruses traded in Byzantium annually, and, by the way, had nice privilegies) never identified them to russians. Georgians you cited didn't knew avars, and identify both Russians and Avars as "Scythians".

And I want to highlight - to proclaim Rurik Avar, and earliest Slavic as Avars, you'll need to forfiet "Tale of Bygone Ages" absolute authority. You'll need to declare it wrong. That's right approach, I believe (still I can't say I see enough reasons to declare Ruses Avars). But it should be understanded.

 

[Nykyus]

Also runic writings are in Bolgar, in Hungary, in old Turkic... You see, runes are very simple geometrical forms, that's the basic feature.

But in other parts of the world it is not.

I can't say about Avar universe view (quite possible), but definitly a World Tree is a common symbol as well. I can post a list of different mythologies using this type or representation.

All Nations have a world tree and 3 tiers. It comes from Africa, where Sapiens was born.

Of course. As I said, every ruler in Eastern Europe would have slavic subjects.

How much will you give to the population of the Carpathians? If 75 million people lived in Europe, then because of the plague decreased to 25 million people. I think at least 4 million in Dacia 5th century. The rest of Europe has also suffered greatly from the barbaric invasions.
And in the steppes of Ukraine dominated the Goths. After their departure, it took only 200 years.
The population of Ukraine of the 13th century was 300 thousand, and the population of Penkovo culture is much smaller.
And do not forget that the forest-steppe were very vulnerable to attacks from the steppes. Everything: Alans, Utrigurs, Savirs were ready to attack the Balts or Bastarns or Slavs, to anyone

I mean, you took non-specific internals. If you want differences...
As far as we can tell, Ruses (Scandinavians, I believe; I wouldn't came so far to accept "Summoning" story as a fact, so Rurik himself can be quite a mythological person, but Ruses as a group, I believe, are a fact) were infantry, and, by the way, base of slavic military tradition is infantry one. Avars definitely were cavalry.
Ruses were Scandinavians (at least I believe it, and looks like genetic research comply). Avars were mongoloids or tungus. That's genetics, material culture, burial types, names...
Ruses were primarily traders (check Byzantium treaties with Ruses), with occasional raids, scandinavian-like (big random fleets terrorizing surroundings for some years, then disappearing). Avars were conquerors and rulers.
Even if you follow Tale of Bygone Ages, still there is a difference of coming. Ruses were invited. Avars came and conquered. Still, I don't trust "Tale" here and believe in a theory I believe where Ruses essentially were a "trade company", using slav lands as a source of trade goods (slaves and furs) to sell in Near East (for silver) and in Byzantium (for silk, primarily); something like Hudson's Bay Company or portugalian langados. In this theory, they became rulers in common sense only in Vladimir's times. If you want to check arguements for this theory, and don't want me to be too long here, check Alexey Tolochko, Essays of Earliest Rus ("Очерки начальной Руси"). Don't get me wrong, Tolochko is controversal, but he is controversal historican, working as historican, and writing historical works. Kolomiytsev is a journalist and politician with historical education (you can check his bio). Again, don't get me wrong, nothing bad is here. But this should be remembered when you value books like that ones.
Also Byzantines and Germans, who knew Avars, and definitely knew Ruses (Ruses traded in Byzantium annually, and, by the way, had nice privilegies) never identified them to russians. Georgians you cited didn't knew avars, and identify both Russians and Avars as "Scythians".

And I want to highlight - to proclaim Rurik Avar, and earliest Slavic as Avars, you'll need to forfiet "Tale of Bygone Ages" absolute authority. You'll need to declare it wrong. That's right approach, I believe (still I can't say I see enough reasons to declare Ruses Avars). But it should be understanded.

I do not confuse Avars and Normans. Just in games, when they depict Kievan Rus, make it originally Slavic, and when they portray the Avar Khaganate, they make it dramatically different.
Kievan Rus they represent as the first Slavic state. They do not think so about the Avar Kaganate, although you say that the Slavs imposed a language there on everyone. What double standards? Because the Normans are closer in appearance to the Slavs? Or because everyday consciousness refuses to accept it? But the percentage of Caucasians in the Avar was 80%. Only the ruling elite was Mongoloid. These are the remnants of the Caucasoid population of Western Mongolia of the Bronze Age.

Kolomiytsev is a journalist and politician with historical education (you can check his bio). Again, don't get me wrong, nothing bad is here. But this should be remembered when you value books like that ones.

At this time I read again Shchukin "Gothic way." Goths, Rome, and the culture of the Chernjakhov

 

[aono]

But in other parts of the world it is not.

Elder futhark presumably was created from ancient italic writings.
{ ᚠ ᚢ ᚦ ᚨ ᚱ ᚲ ᚷ ᚹ ᚺ ᚾ ᛁ ᛃ ᛈ ᛇ ᛉ ᛊ ᛏ ᛒ ᛖ ᛗ ᛚ ᛜ ᛞ ᛟ } - that's futhark.
{https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Этрусский_алфавит#/media/File:Masiliana_tablet.svg - that's ethruscan.
{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greek_alphabets#Summary_table - that's archaic greek. Notice obvious Fehu (ᚨ, for greek Digramma), Soulo (ᛊ for greek Sigma), Berkana (ᛒ for greek Beta)...

The population of Ukraine of the 13th century was 300 thousand, and the population of Penkovo culture is much smaller.

Please, method of calculation or the source with said method. Mongol numbering gives millions on Ukraine. Until you do I would take traditional, Vernadsky numbering for Kievan Rus population: "7-8 millions for XII century is a quite conservative estimate" (Golden Age of Kievan Rus, p. 120). It fits evidences I know.

Just in games, when they depict Kievan Rus, make it originally Slavic, and when they portray the Avar Khaganate, they make it dramatically different.

They're right. They were dramatically different. Compare Avar and Ruses trade value in Constantinopole, and difference should be self-speaking.

Kievan Rus they represent as the first Slavic state.

Mhm. No. Looking in CK2 (I'm not ready to speak about games as an industry).
On 769 start there is Serbia, slavic kingdom, with Kiev being duchy-level tag with fictional placeholder ruler. The second state usually forming in my games always was Bohemia.
On 867 start Rurik and Dyre themselves are Norse; still Kiev and Novgorod are duchy-level tags. On par with them slavic kingdoms of Serbia, Bulgaria and Great Moravia exist.
On 1066 start Kievan Rus (by history files created by Helgi - Oleg - in 882, and rulers of Kiev became slavic - russian - on Sviatoslav, who became ruler in 945) coexists with Poland, Serbia (created in 768), Croatia. Bulgaria was already destroyed, but the first bulgarian king who is bulgarian, not bolgar (so slavic, not altaic) is Presian I, who died in 852. Great Moravia also don't exist in 1066, being destroyed in 907, and created in 830.
Kievan Rus is always depicted as first russian state. Well, that looks right.

They do not think so about the Avar Khaganate, although you say that the Slavs imposed a language there on everyone.

Because Avar Khaganate wasn't slavic state. It was a state of Avars with slavic subjects. The same way we don't call Roman Empire or early Anglish England "celtic state", even if a lot of subjects were celts. Byzantium wasn't german state as well.
Still, Slavs didn't impose the language to everyone. Imagine you're a Geptide after losing a war with Langobardes, Avars and Byzantines. You're alone (ok, with a family), your enemies killing your people by tens of thousands, you're on the run. Or you're langobard, and your people went out to Italy. Where would you go? You would go to spreading, small, agrarian tribes (who are Slavics), because they're everywhere, and you can hope they need hands on work. What else can you do? So, sure, you would start to speak Slavic - because you became a minority here.
Still, Balkans in CK2 developer book are Slavic, beyond, which is funny and I believe wrong, Avar Khaganate lands. They're Avar.

And in the steppes of Ukraine dominated the Goths. After their departure, it took only 200 years.

Without doubt. But I can't understand why do you equal "dominated by" and "populated majorly by". Roman Judea was undoubtly dominated by Romans, but populated by Jews. Norman England was dominated by Normans, but populated with anglo-saxons. On any map worth looking Finland is part of Russia in 1866, but populated by Finns.

 

[Nykyus]

Because Avar Khaganate wasn't slavic state. It was a state of Avars with slavic subjects. The same way we don't call Roman Empire or early Anglish England "celtic state", even if a lot of subjects were celts. Byzantium wasn't german state as well.

Then why Kievan Rus is not spoken of as a state of Normans with Slavic subjects? What is the gradation of such States?

 

[aono]

Then why Kievan Rus is not spoken of as a state of Normans with Slavic subjects? What is the gradation of such States?

It is spoken as such quite enough, in CK2 for example - until Svyatoslav, when norses were essentially assimilated by local slavs (and were stopped be called normans or vargarians). Simple as that. Also there is a vocal (and major in soviet times) group refusing the very idea of vargarians being Norse - on the very premise that it would proclaim slavic states non-slavic (and slavs being declared impossible to create their own state).
Also, we definitely know that Avars conquered Pannonia, coming as a force, as a people, with their own traditions, language, state system. We doesn't see things like this on Russia; it's really looks like that there was close circle of Normans who ruled slavic nations not as conquering ethos, but as a family matter.

 

[Nykyus]

The capital of Ancient Rus, the city of Kiev until the X century, was a dugouts surrounding each other, surrounding the fortified center (city, fortress, Kremlin, Detinets) and fenced (by a fence, a fortress - a wall, a fence of logs placed vertically).

Spoiler: Dugouts the Slavs

Without going into historical details, we note that the presence of fire in the dugout determined a lot, not only in the domestic and technical, but also socially. If the Kiev Slav (Polyanin) had a fire in the dugout, then he was a “ognishanin” (the head of the generic "fire») and was obliged to pay tribute to his prince. Similarly, afterwards, the glade paid tribute to the Khazars - one sword from one “smoke”. After the Khazars, the glade was paid tribute to the Varangians “three pigeons from the yard”, and then from the “house”. Fire, smoke, courtyard, house - these are the single developing social concepts, in contrast to the “building” (from the “land” - clay) - just buildings (technical term).

The procedure of washing-bathing was called a move, and the place where the move was going on was called a movni. The ancient movni was the "istobka" (a dugout heated by fire). It was in the “istobka” in 945 that Olga burned ambassadors from Drevlyans who killed Igor as revenge, and not in the bath, as is often written in literature (there was no “bath” as a term in Russia then). Then as movni was used by vanity house. But, anyway, in Ancient Russia, apparently, there was no single, very common in its understanding of the word, meaning the structure (technical) in which they lived (or washed). Thus, the global Indo-European term “house” (which came, apparently, from the Germans) meant “economy”, “clan” in Russia, and as a construction began to be understood only from 1230. The term “building” was perceived only as a process, and not a result (creation, done). The dwelling and the cloister were understood as common to all property. Our ancestors could not separate the concepts of residential and non-residential funds, because they lived by a common stepfather, “shelter”, while consumer essences of separate things could not yet be divided. The dugouts were sometimes called "huts" (borrowed from the Ugric Hungarians), "Khiza" and "khizina" (borrowed from the Germans through the Bulgarians), vlazny, large burrows, etc. All this created great difficulties and confusion when translating from Greek and Latin languages (and first of all church), since the Greeks already had the concepts of “housing in general”, and the Russians appeared much later (house, building, building, hut, dwelling, mansion, temple, shelter, palace, etc.) differ from premises for livestock, implements, for storage of food stocks: barn, barn, yard, etc. . P.). Therefore, the analysis of life through foreign sources and chronicles is difficult (V.V. Kolesov, Ancient Russia: the legacy in the word, St. Petersburg: State University, 2000), especially since the levels and characters of the life of Russia and Byzantium were incomparable. This is very important for the analysis of the term “bath”, perceived by the church broadly as “purification in general”, but the Russians didn’t perceive and could not add, and could understand “purification” as a specific procedure in a particular object or structure. One way or another, the “bath” was for a long time an overly official term, and only then in the cities it turned into the concept of “washing facility in general” (no matter how), unlike the notion of washing hut with steam, broom and washing in the pelvis.

 

[aono]

Yes, that's looks correct. As I said, slavic agrotechnics couldn't support big cities until, like, VI century in western Eastern Europe (like, Poland, Czech, Serbia, Bulgaria, Epirus... - where it was possible to borrow more advanced techniques), and until, like, IX century in Russia. There was no ancient Rus itself until X century.

 

[Nykyus]

Well, yes. That's the problem of Avar theory, not Dnieper one, as I write several times before.
In "my" (actually, I'm just repeating textbooks) theory this spreading took about one-and-half thousand years, happening on par with Germanic and Turkic movements (which took a lot of attention; by the way, Scandinavia never was a dense populated region, still Germans were able to spread across the other half of Europe), in the time of climate change. As it's impossible (rrrrright?) to refuse half of Europe being spread by Slavs to 9th-10th century, this slavs should be spread from somewhere. Until real ruler of Avars wasn't Saruman, who breed slavs as orks, I can't see how it's possible in 3 centuries. Especially if we proclaim Balkans being sparsely populated as well, so they didn't came from there, and baltic lands never were megapolis lands as well.

Maria Gimbutas and archaeologists do not agree with you.
The resettlement of the Slavs in Eastern Europe. These centuries were a time when the settlement of the Slavs intensively continued in the forest and forest-steppe zone of Europe. It was complicated and intensified by migrations to Eastern Europe from other parts of the area inhabited by Slavs, which began in the middle of the first millennium AD. e. The resettlement of the Slavs was accompanied by the assimilation of the Finno-Finnish and Baltic tribes living in these territories, however, by the VII – VIII centuries. can only be attributed to the beginning of this process. Assimilation proceeded more quickly where Slavic farmers faced tribes leading a hunting-gathering or cattle-breeding economy. With this kind of management, the population density was low, so the Slavs, without major obstacles, could develop new lands here for arable land, and a few local people joined their ranks.
In the latest literature, attempts have been made to reconstruct the genesis of the East Slavic "tribal" unions, linking it with the general picture of the genesis of the Slavs. One of these reconstructions is as follows.As already mentioned, the predecessors of the Eastern Slavs in Eastern Europe were representatives of a number of large pre-Slavic groups. Localization of the primary totality of the Slavs scientists regard in different ways. Some consider the ancestral region of the Danube, the other - the land between the Western Dvina and Pripyat. The most recent surveys determine that the initial springboard of the migration wave of the 4th – 7th centuries. there were habitats of the sukova-dzedzitsky (Lyashsky) Slavs of the Elbe-Vistula interfluve, which evolved on the basis of the northern part of Przeworsk culture. Around the middle of the 1st millennium and in its third quarter, the migration wave of these Slavonic tribes moved to the Volga-Klyazminsk interfluve, to the Volga-Klyazminsk interfluve area, in its third quarter, to the Volga-Klyazminsk interfluve, in particular, the presence of female "bracelet-shaped" temporal rings with "not tied ends". Unfortunately, history has not preserved the ethnonym of these groups of the population, who mastered the territory of the Volga-Klyazma interfluve.
From the turn of the VII – VIII centuries. in Polotsk-Vitebsk Dvina and Smolensk Dnieper on the same ancient basis, the process of formation of Smolensk-Polotsk Krivichy is going on. Other settlers are also associated with the ancient foundation. First of all, it is Sloven Ilmen and Pskov Krivichi. From the end of the 7th – 8th centuries in Priilmenye a type of burial is formed - the so-called hill culture. Gradually, the Ilmen Slovenes took root in the Ilmen (Ilmer) basin with the Shelon, Lovatya, Mehta rivers, and also part of the Poluzhya and lands east to the Mologa and Chadogoscha rivers. Krivichy, as some researchers believe, got their ethnonym from the Baltic Kreio - I separate, cut off, which also meant the outlying region of the Slavic world (however, Latvians are still called Russian kries). Pskov Krivichi compactly located near Lake Pskov. Somewhat later, Izborsk was probably the tribal center of one of the Krivichy communities. Archeologists consider the burial in the form of “long kurgans” to be the marker of the Pskov Krivichi.

 

[Nykyus]

Spoiler: Sedov Valentin Vasilyevich "Migration of Slavs from the Danube Region"

In the 8th – 9th centuries, when the lands of Eastern Europe were already largely mastered by the mixed Slavic population, there is a wide infiltration of new, relatively numerous groups of Slavic settlers from the Danube. The most important indicators of the entire resettlement process are primarily the emergence and distribution of various property finds of Danube origin.

The first Danube settlers appeared in the southern lands of Eastern Europe at the turn of the VII – VIII centuries. The most striking reflection of this is the finds of non-ferrous metal products at the Pastoral Settlement, whose artistic style reveals obvious Danube sources. As the investigations of O. M. Prikhodnyuk showed, the first master jewelers who worked at this settlement undoubtedly came from the Danube area. Only Danube artisans could bring in the Middle Dnieper the most advanced technologies of provincial Byzantine craftsmanship. Traces of such resettlements of small groups of the Danube population are also recorded in the materials of industrial complexes identified by archaeologists at the Zimno settlement in Volyn and at the Bernashevka settlement on the middle Dniester, when analyzing the finds found in the villages of Gaivoron and Mytkovsky Island in the Southern Bug, Maly Budok in Sumy . By the products of the Danube artisans who moved to the South Russian lands, include many things that were in the treasures of the Dnieper left bank.

With the settlement on the East European Plain rather numerous groups of the Slavic population from the Middle Danube region is associated with the appearance and distribution in the middle of the VIII century. bright Danube jewelry sets, made using the embossing technique and richly decorated with granulation (fig. 113). They include earrings, lunnits, beads, round medallions and rings with hemispherical shields. All these finds were previously unknown in the Slavic lands of Eastern Europe. Initially, guesses were made about their Eastern origin. However, subsequent studies have refuted this opinion. Swedish archaeologist V. Duchko, having investigated comprehensively similar jewelry found in the monuments of Scandinavia, convincingly showed their Middle Danube (great Moravian) origin. The same results were obtained by O. A. Shcheglova, who studied the considered jewelry found in the treasures of the Middle Dnieper. As a result, she argues that the appearance in the middle of the VIII century. in the Middle Dnieper region of the Danube set of ornaments and their subsequent distribution can be due only to the arrival of the population from the Middle Danube region in this region.
Undoubtedly with the resettlement of the Danube Slavs is associated with the appearance in the East Slavonic range of wire temporal rings (or earrings) with a hanging suspension in the form of a bunch of grapes, decorated with patterns of grain and filigree. The earliest among them are pastoral type earrings. They were found at the Pastoral Settlement, at the settlements in Grigorovka and Zelenki, and as part of the Kharyevsky treasure.
The large wave of migration of Slavs of the 9th – 10th centuries, emanating from the Middle Danube region, is indicated mainly in the southern regions of Eastern Europe by silver and bronze wire rings with a suspension of hollow balls in the form of a bunch of grapes and symmetrically rosettes made up of balls of grains.

Such head ornaments were repeatedly met in East Slavic settlements and in burial grounds of the 9th - beginning of the 11th centuries. Thus, during the excavation of the Ykimauchi settlement in Moldova, over three dozen of such granulated rings, made by the master as a result of delicate and complex work, were found. They have a smooth handle with a diameter of 2–3 cm and a large weight of large and small pellets of grain and scanned ringlets. 3-4 more fine-grained beads are soldered on the arms. Traces of the manufacture of these ornaments by local artisans were revealed at the settlement.

Similar head ornaments were met during the excavations of the Alchedar site and the Branesti cemetery in the Dniester region. Earrings or rings of this type were also found on the Princes Mountain near Kanev and on the settlement of Monastyrek on the Dnieper. In Kiev, they were found in burial mounds: two finds were found in a burial revealed in the 90s. XIX century. on Kirillovaya Street, three - in a log cabin, excavated in 1936 near the Church of the Tithes.

Similar decorations were found in mounds with dead bodies of the 10th century. in two burials of Volyn - Peresopnitsa and Novoselki. In the land of the Drevlyane, earrings of this type were found in the mounds of the Rechytsa burial ground, in the region of the Dregovichi residence - in the Lesser Esmones. The most northern is a find on Gnezdovsky settlement.

Quite a lot of these decorations come from the X century hoards. These products, skillfully trimmed with grain and skriy, in the full sense of power can be attributed to the best works of artistic craft of the time. In the hoard found in Borshchevka in Volyn, along with other things there were eight earrings, in Kopievsky hoard in Vinnichin - twenty-seven. They are also contained in treasures found in Gushchino near Chernigov, Denis in the vicinity of Pereyaslavl Yuzhny, Shabelnitsy and Yurkowitz in the Kyiv region, in the treasures, Elizavetgrad and Kherson counties of the Northern Black Sea region.

The root territory of the considered rings with a suspension in the form of a bunch of grapes is the Middle Danube and the Northern Adriatic. Here they became widespread around the middle of the eighth century. and existed until the end of the ninth century, and in some localities they were also found among the antiquities of the tenth century. The Eastern European discoveries of such jewelry (in the literature they are called differently: “earrings of the Volyn type”, “eki-mautskie” or “eye-shaped earrings”) are recently devoted to two articles - E. Yu. Novikova and written together by R. A. Rabinovich and S. S. Ryabtseva. They quite definitely assert that the ornaments in question appeared in the Eastern Slavic lands as a result of the resettlement of the groups of the average Danube population.

Danube origin also has early radial temporal rings, which served as prototypes of seven-beam and seven-blade ornaments of Radimach and Vyatichi. These are primarily the rings of the Zarai treasure of the 9th century, among which there are five-rayed ones with false grains on the shield and three balls at the ends of each beam, and seven-rays with one ball at the ends of the rays. To the same group of temporal adornments, the seven-ray rings of the Poltava treasure, very close to Zaraisky, also belong to the 9th century. Close to the Zaraisk and temporal ring with seven sharp rays, found on the Novotroitsk site of ancient settlement. Here is also found another five-beam ring with false grains on the shield. The date of these finds is also in the 9th century. [974] Novotroitsk rings are cast, obviously, on a place of low-grade silver, copying expensive jewelry brought from the Danube. A somewhat earlier time is the seven-rayed temporal ring originating from the cultural layer of the 8th – 9th centuries. Hotomyel sites in Pripyat Polesie. The radial rings of the same appearance were found in the town of Romenskoye Gornal culture, the town of Borshevsky culture Titchie in the Voronezhskoye Don region, in Kvetuni near Trubchevskoe, and also in the settlements in Gnezdovo near Smolensk and Supruta in Upper Poochye. They are dated as a whole from the 9th – 10th centuries, the Gnezdovskaya find is the border between the 9th and 10th centuries.

Spread knives with volute-like ends on the handles and crosses with the image of a Moravian-type Crucifix.