• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
We thought it would take 3-6 pages.
Send it onto reid.fbi@gmail.com, please.

This is only the first 3 minutes. And then?
And then we have dissenting option of one scientist. Whose researches can be used to defend both positions.
And as a formal comment. I believe vast majority of people here wouldn't be able to understand anything from this video. I'm speak Russian, and it's kinda painful for me to parse Mikulich, who is speaking on some kind of mixture of Russian and Byelorussian. I don't accuse him, but a person without nice background in some Slavic language, Russian or Byelorussian at best (I believe a person with great Ukraininan would be ok as well), would turn it off ASA Mikulich start to speak.
 
OLEG DERNOVICH.
Candidate of Historical Sciences

1. Exotic beginning

Modern historiography connects the early history of Belarus in the 1st Millennium of our era-on the eve of the emergence of statehood — with the interaction of the Balts and Slavs. How and when the latter appeared in the Baltic expanses of the future Belarus, how peaceful were their contacts, what was the reason for the victory of the Slavic language in the end?

But these issues should not obscure from us the geocultural background of the then events, which were no less colorful, and from the point of view of today — and exotic. It should be remembered that our lands were then part of the barbaric periphery of the Roman Empire. It's not only about the finds of Roman coins and products — the processes of the barbarians ' attack on Rome and the post-antique world, as well as the resettlement of peoples, one way or another affected the territory of the future Belarus.

Goths
At the beginning of our era, the East German tribe Goths moved from Scandinavia (including the island of Gotland) to the southern coast of the Baltic sea. Moving along the Vistula and the bug, the Goths assimilated the local population — as a result, in the terminology of archaeologists was formed Walborsky culture. Monuments of this culture, first of all burial grounds left by Goths and related Gepids, are available in the territory of the Brest, Kamenetsky and Stolin areas. Thus the Goths did live in the Brest region.

For us, this story is important here's why. In the modern Lithuanian language to refer to the Belarusians again began to actively use the archaic word Guda. And many linguists believe that the word gudy most likely derived from the name of the Goths. In the era of the Great migration, the Goths turned in its orbit, and also the population that lived in the South-West of modern Belarus, in Polesie, and were neighbours of the Balts. As a result, the name of the Goths has spread throughout the Union of the tribes, subject to the Goths.

But in 375 the Gothic quasi-public education Germanarich was literally wiped off the face of the earth by a Horde of Huns. The Goths retreated, but their traces-archaeological monuments in the Brest region, as well as the name of the people, remained on our land. I should add that goth is the Latin name (Gothi), they call themselves Gutans, Gytos. That's where the "Gudy" in Lithuanian.

This version reveals archaic layers of national consciousness. At the time, Zeno Poznyak very negatively opposed the naming of the Belarusian letuvis in the language of gudy, because this term can be chosen as a synonym for the word "backward". Indeed, the term gudy has letoviska language somewhat grotesque sense — consonant gudus translated as terrible.

There are a lot of borrowings left in the Belarusian language not just from Germanic languages, but from Gothic. The early group of gothic borrowings includes a number of household-related terms: hlevu - shed, hlebu - bread, bljudo - dish, kotilu - copper pot. There are economic terms: dulgu - debt, lihva - profit, lihvarstva. We also mention the military terms: meci - sword, helm - helmet.

Gothic-German borrowings show that the northern newcomers became in a certain sense cultural "donors" of the Slavs and contributed to their civilizational development. The number of Slavic borrowings in Germanic languages is insignificant compared to the number of Germanic words in Slavic languages. Goths, politically and culturally, surpassed the Slavs and had a positive impact on the material and spiritual culture of their subjects.

But the Huns, the winners of the Goths, also experienced a certain influence of the Slavs. Thus, the 6th century Gothic historian Jordan gives an important detail in the story of the burial of the “scourge of God” - the great leader of the Huns of the mid-5th century, Attila:
"After he was mourned by such moans, they celebrate" Strava "(as they call it themselves) on his mound, accompanying her with a huge feast."

The dish in the original and recorded - strava.

Avar push
Another nomad from the East is directly related to the Belarusian history. Avars appeared in Eastern Europe in the middle of the 6th century. Among historians and linguists, discussions continue about the origin of this tribe, or rather, the union of nomadic peoples - they were Turks or Iranian-speaking. However, in their appearance Mongoloid features are clearly visible.

Anyway, Avar Kagan Bayan in 562 managed to create in Pannonia, in the territory of the future Hungary, a rather powerful Avar Khaganate, under the sign of the hegemony of which flowed the history of Central and Eastern Europe in the second half of VI and in the VII century. It was under the rule of the Avars that the Slavs of the Danube Basin and adjacent territories found themselves. And from there, in an effort to evade enslavement by their new rulers (distinguished, by the way, by exceptional cruelty even by the standards of that harsh era), they began to settle. Slavic masses set in motion, one wave of their migration went to the South, to the Balkans, into the possession of Byzantium, another - to the North and the Northeast, to the territory of future Russia.

The period of Avar hegemony was very much reflected in the Slavs, adding to their social structure the features of wandering militarism. From Avar times, joint burials of horsemen and their horses begin to occur. Stirrups also became known from the Avar period.

Slavic problem
Slavs, in fact - the biggest problem. The origin of all nations remains a complex scientific topic for historians, archeologists, ethnologists, and linguists. But with respect to the Slavs, unlike other Indo-Europeans - Indo-Aryans, Germans, Balts - there is no certainty. Nowadays, there is no generally accepted version of the formation of the Slavic ethnos.

The Slavs were first recorded in written (Byzantine) sources only in the middle of the 6th century — 600 years after the Balts, 700 years after the Germans. These earliest testimonies are already dealing with a people divided into two parts - the Slavins and the Antes.

Linguists also do not have a common opinion regarding the emergence of a language that can be considered Slavic or Proto-Slavic. Various scientific versions offer a very extensive period as a time range for the selection of such a language from Proto-Indo-European or Pra-Balta: from the 2nd millennium BC. e. until the first centuries of our era.

The study of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs by means of archeology is faced with the following problem: modern science cannot trace the change or succession of archaeological cultures, the carriers of which could be confidently attributed to the Slavs or their ancestors, in the period before our era.

Still based on a comparison of archaic linguistic formations in recent times made a conclusion that the proto-Slavic language separated from the peripheral Pribaltika languages. Belarusian linguist Viktor Martynov said — zapadnobaltskom dialects.

The process of settling the Slavs from a small area to the vast expanses of the European continent is one of the brightest pages of the ancient history of the peoples. Lithuanian-American researcher Maria Gimbutas so appreciated these tectonic processes:

"Appearing as a small Indo-European group that lived North of the Carpathian mountains ... Slavic farmers were able to survive only because of their perseverance. In the end, they managed to settle in large areas in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the Balkan Peninsula. Their invasion did not become a separate episode of the type of irregular raids of Huns and Avars, but was a systematic successive colonization."

2. Slavs, Wends, Balts ...

Conjugation of terms
We find the first indisputable references to the Slavs in written sources only in the 6th century by the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea, who writes about the "Slavs" in his work The War on Goths (536–537).

The contemporary of Procopius, the Gothic historian Jordan, in his book On the Origin and Deeds of the Geths (551) also writes about the "Slavs" and indicates that they inhabit the expanses between the Carpathians and the Vistula, and in the East bring their borders to the Dnieper. But the majority of the territory of Belarus in the era of the Great Migration of Peoples remained outside the region of this Slavic settlement - with the exception of the southernmost part of modern Brest region.

One of the possible theories of the origin of the name of the Slavs connects it with the root of the “Slov” that meant “language”. Thus, the ethnonym (the self-name of the people) could have emerged as an opposition to the name “Nemets” (from the word “mute”), which was used to refer to the northern neighbors, Germanic tribes, who spoke a language incomprehensible to the Slavs. But this version is not accepted by all linguists. Some argue that the ethnonyms on "-ene", "-yane" are almost always associated with some toponymic objects, most often with rivers, and not with abstract concepts. There is a wide scope for finding these rivers ...

From the tribal name of the Slavs in Greek, the name of slaves appeared - Middle Greek σκλαβοζ, hence the Late Lat sclavus (slave, Slav), German Sklave, French esclave, etc. Slavic captives in the early Middle Ages often became objects of Byzantine, German and Arab slave trade. Even in the 9th century, a significant part of the slaves entering the European markets was of Slavic origin. Western European languages well illustrate this phenomenon.

Veneds
Regarding the Slavins and the Antes of Jordan, there is at least some mutual understanding between historians - the former are regarded as the western part of the Slavs, the latter - as the eastern part. But Jordan also wrote about Venedah. And there is no agreement. According to the Jordan, the Wends (a large tribe that is “worthy of contempt because of their weapons”) actually consisted of Slavs and Antes. At the end of the 1st century AD e. Tacitus wrote about Wends as vagrants, similar to robbers. In contrast to the nomadic Sarmatians, the Wends of Tacitus fought on foot, hiding behind shields.

In Soviet times it became canonical attribution of the Wends to the Slavs. A number of Slavic historians directly derive the genealogy of their peoples from the Wends. Belarusian historian Sergei Rassadin insists that “Jordanian Wends” should not be identified with earlier ones, especially with Tacitus ones. Roman authors did not give the ethnic characteristics of the Veneto. Perhaps, the ancient Venets / Venets should be viewed as a mixed ethnic community with the obvious presence of the Celts or as a stage of the Baltic-Slavic delimitation.

Nevertheless, on the basis of a comparison of archaic language strata, it has recently been increasingly concluded that the pre-Slavic language was distinguished from the peripheral Prabalt languages. Belarusian linguist Viktor Martynov clarifies - from the West-Baltic dialects.

The process of resettlement of the Slavs from a small territory to the vast expanses of the European continent is one of the brightest pages of the ancient history of peoples. Lithuanian-American researcher Maria Gimbutas assessed these tectonic processes:

“Appearing as an insignificant Indo-European group that lived north of the Carpathian mountains ..., Slavic farmers managed to survive only due to their persistence. In the end, they were able to inhabit vast areas in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the Balkan Peninsula. Their invasion did not become a separate episode of the type of irregular raids of the Huns and Avars, but was planned systematic colonization. ”

2. Slavs, Wends, Balts ...

Conjugation of terms
We find the first indisputable references to the Slavs in written sources only in the 6th century by the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea, who writes about the "Slavs" in his work The War on Goths (536–537).

The contemporary of Procopius, the Gothic historian Jordan, in his book On the Origin and Deeds of the Geths (551) also writes about the "Slavs" and indicates that they inhabit the expanses between the Carpathians and the Vistula, and in the East bring their borders to the Dnieper. But the majority of the territory of Belarus in the era of the Great Migration of Peoples remained outside the region of this Slavic settlement - with the exception of the southernmost part of modern Brest region.

One of the possible theories of the origin of the name of the Slavs connects it with the root of the “words” that meant “language”. Thus, the ethnonym (the self-name of the people) could have emerged as an opposition to the name “Germans” (from the word “mute”), which was used to refer to the northern neighbors, Germanic tribes, who spoke a language incomprehensible to the Slavs. But this version is not accepted by all linguists. Some argue that the ethnonyms on "-ene", "-yane" are almost always associated with some toponymic objects, most often with rivers, and not with abstract concepts. There is a wide scope for finding these rivers ...

From the tribal name of the Slavs in Greek, the name of slaves appeared - Middle Greek σκλαβοζ, hence the Late Lat sclavus (slave, Slav), German Sklave, French esclave, etc. Slavic captives in the early Middle Ages often became objects of Byzantine, German and Arab slave trade. Even in the 9th century, a significant part of the slaves entering the European markets was of Slavic origin. Western European languages well illustrate this phenomenon.

Veneds
Regarding the Slavins and the Antes of Jordan, there is at least some mutual understanding between historians - the former are regarded as the western part of the Slavs, the latter - as the eastern part. But Jordan also wrote about Venedah. And there is no agreement. According to the Jordan, the Wends (a large tribe that is “worthy of contempt because of their weapons”) actually consisted of Slavs and Antes. At the end of the 1st century AD e. Tacitus wrote about Wends as vagrants, similar to robbers. In contrast to the nomadic Sarmatians, the Wends of Tacitus fought on foot, hiding behind shields.

In Soviet times it became canonical attribution of the Wends to the Slavs. A number of Slavic historians directly derive the genealogy of their peoples from the Wends. Belarusian historian Sergei Rassadin insists that “Jordanian Wends” should not be identified with earlier ones, especially with Tacitus ones. Roman authors did not give the ethnic characteristics of the Veneto. Perhaps, the ancient Venets / Venets should be viewed as a mixed ethnic community with the obvious presence of the Celts or as a stage of the Baltic-Slavic delimitation.

Balts
Speaking of the Balts, one must also touch on the question of terms. The first written mention of this community belongs to the Roman historian Tacitus. But in his work “On the Origin of the Germans” (98), he called the peoples who lived south of the Venetian (Baltic) Sea as aestias (Latin aestii).

Only after more than a thousand years, the name “Esti” began to gain a foothold for the Finno-Ugric people on the southeast coast of the Baltic. The names Balts and Baltic languages so familiar to us today are neologisms. They were proposed, precisely as scientific terms, by the German linguist Georg Naselman in 1845.

At present, the lands occupied by peoples speaking the Baltic languages make up only 1/6 of the territory occupied by the Balts before the Slavic and German invasions. The former Baltic space was stretched from Prussia in the West to the upper reaches of the Oka in the East, where the militant tribe of the Ghindians lived in the neighborhood of the Volga Finno-Ugrians (a number of Russian chronicles). The territory of present-day Belarus was located in the heart of the Balt cultural area. On the bronze doors of the cathedral in Polish Gniezno, a Romanian-style memorial of the 12th century, images of Prussians are preserved - they are beardless, but with a mustache, their hair is cut.

At the end of the 19th century, the Danish linguist Wilhelm Thomsen, who studied the Baltic-Finnish mutual influences, showed that there are borrowings from the Baltic languages in Finnish and they refer to the names of animals, plants, body parts, colors, categories of time. These borrowings show how many new Baltic Indo-Europeans brought to the Northern lands.

Slavic expansion
In the historical epoch (the time about which there are written sources) the Balts were set aside from the main migration routes. They preserved their archaic forms of life and led an isolated life in the forests. When, under pressure from the Pechenegs, Bulgars and especially the Avars (Obrov), the Slavs began to penetrate the lands of the Western Balts and Finno-Ugrians, they did not meet here with a proper rebuff.

This is where the problems begin for researchers. The first signs of the Slavic expansion are not sufficiently confirmed by archaeological data. The number of burials and settlements was too insignificant. And today, experts argue the extent to which the Slavic influence corresponds to the finds of these artifacts in the Baltic cultures of Belarus at the end of the first millennium - Banzerovsky (central and northern Belarus) and Kolochina (eastern Belarus).

Undoubtedly, the monuments of Prague culture, again found in the very south of Belarus - in the Pripyat and Yaseldy basins, are considered Slavic. The then Slavic civilization looks quite modest - the Slavs lived in semi-dugouts, buried 0.5–1.2 m in the ground. Their inventory was poor. At that time, a different type of housing was distributed among the Balts - ground structures of the columnar structure. Like true forest children, the Balts could afford more comfort. But, unlike the Balts, the Slavs began to move.

It is obvious that the Slavic penetration to the North did not occur without conflicts with the local population - evidence of the cruel clashes are the destroyed Balt settlements. But sometimes for new residents there was enough free space. As G.V. Shtykhov writes, “the farther the Slavs moved north and northeast, the greater was the undeveloped land, non-cut forests, unoccupied floodplains of the rivers”.

Genetics data
The scale of the Slavic advancement causes serious discussions. Traditional historiography establishes linguistic and partly cultural assimilation of local Balts by Slavs. Opponents of this view say that Slavic penetration was very small, but the Slavs managed to create a state, and through its administrative and religious pressure, changes occurred in the region's linguistic and cultural landscape.

It must be admitted that only archaeological data do not allow solving the “Baltic-Slavic problem” of Belarus. The very path of the ethnic interpretation of archaeological artifacts is very risky, even with the stability of one or other traditions of production, for example, ceramics.

But recently, a new kind of historical sources has appeared - genetic materials. The greatest information content is achieved through a parallel analysis of the main types of genetic markers - Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA.

The Y chromosome provides the paternal line of transmission of hereditary information (to the son from his father only, to him from his father, etc.). In recent years, a joint Belarusian-Russian study on the gene pool of Belarus has been conducted. The authors of this work placed Belarusians on the Y chromosome precisely among the circle of Slavic peoples - the western and eastern. Belarusians mainly belong to the Rla genetic group, whose ancestors survived after the Poozersky glaciation (18–17 thousand years ago) and Indo-European expansion from the Northern Black Sea region 6–8 thousand years ago.

This gave grounds to some historians, for example, VL Nosevich, to state that the concept of the Baltic substrate of the ethnogenesis of Belarusians is buried.

But not so simple. The authors of the aforementioned study specifically for Y-chromosome markers revealed a genetic community that covers the territory from Poland to the west of Central Russia and includes Belarus. And this is largely a region of Baltic hydronymy!

Another major genetic marker, mitochondrial DNA, provides for the transmission of genetic information through the mother’s line (daughters receive these genes only from their mother, she’s from her mother, and so continuously for thousands of years). So, modern Belarusians are similar in mitochondrial DNA to both the Balts and the Slavs. In this regard, a hypothesis was formulated that female genes were transferred from a more ancient substrate, whereas male chromosomes reflect Slavic expansion and migration, mainly of the male part of the Slavic population.

If these calculations are correct, then the origin of Belarus should really be linked with the participation of both the Balts and the Slavs. However, one should not forget that cultures have a different mechanism of formation than the biological origin of human populations. And here surprises and transformations can be no less, if not more ...

3. Kaleidoscope of cultures

Archeology data
In the period before the spread in the territory of Belarus of writing, we have to use the concept of “archaeological culture”. This term was introduced in the late 1920s by Australian philologist and archaeologist Viram Gordon Child to designate a collection of archaeological monuments located in the same area and having a number of similarities that unite them. Usually, an archeological culture is given a name by some characteristic feature that distinguishes it from other cultures.

In fact, behind the neutral names of archaeological cultures, at least in the period after Christ’s birth (that is, in our era), historians ’caution is often hidden. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to give ethnic characteristics to those or other communities that have left the descendants of the so-called "archaeological cultures." Therefore, we are looking for messages from ancient authors about our lands in order to somehow compare this information (very general and confused) with the archaeological cultures known in Belarus. We also use the retrospective method, when we trace the connection of one or another “archaeological culture” with the population of a later time, known from written sources.

It is clear that the use of such methods leaves room for endless discussions. But we cannot completely abstractly talk about the people who inhabited Belarus in antiquity, without trying to somehow delineate their origin, as well as the impact on the development of people of a later time.

For all the compactness of Belarus, the ethnocultural processes on its territory did not take place in the same way. In Northern and Central Belarus during the whole “iron age” no radical changes were observed. These were territories stably occupied by the eternal inhabitants of the region - the Balts, whose energy was directed to internal colonization. On the contrary, more diverse and dynamic processes took place in the south of Belarus. The Goths descended here from the North of Europe, the Southern open spaces affected the Great Migration of Peoples, it was in Polesie that Slavicization processes began before all other regions of Belarus.

A very significant change in the life of the local population occurred in the middle of the 1st mil. N. e. Monuments of Eastern-Balt cultures (Dnepro-Dvinsk and shaded ceramics), controversial Kiev culture (possibly mixed Balto-Slavic), and also East German / Gothic / Velbarian culture ceased to exist. At the level of archaeological material, we can trace the formation of communities already closer to us.

Let us try to summarize what we know about the “archaeological cultures” that took place on the territory of Belarus in the middle - the second half of the 1st millennium AD e. - on the eve of the emergence of statehood (see table).

0

These cultures are interesting in that they defined the ethnic and political history of Belarus almost until the XIII century.

Prototype of Lithuania
From the turn of the 4th – 5th centuries, the population of northern and central Belarus began to feel migratory waves. As a result of migrations from the west (from the territory of north-eastern Poland), the Baltic Balts (Prussians and Yatvägi) fell into the space of the Eastern Balts (the ancestors of Letuvis, Latvians and Belarusians). Probably under the influence of the more advanced at the time of the Western Balts, the conservative communities of the Eastern Balts received an impulse in their development. The Eastern Balts were too late in their forests, they needed a new dynamic, which was brought by their Western relatives.

Extrovert impulses from this part of our region led in the middle of the 13th century to the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Mysterious Kryvichi
A far from simple historical problem is the question of the origin and ethnicity of Krivichy. Normatively they are credited to the Slavs (for example, the Moscow archeologist Valentin Sedov, the creator of the concept of the Baltic substrate of Belarus, did so). But both archaeological and written data testify in favor of a more complex history of the owners of the North of our region in a new era.

Krivichy left their funerary monuments - the notorious "long burial mounds." In fact, with a small height, their length sometimes reaches 100–110 meters. The popular name for such kurgans is “volatovki” (from “volat” is a giant).

Today, archaeologists write about the traces of the migration of the population that left long burial mounds. This path is determined, among other things, on the basis of finds of V-shaped corrugated buckles that spread from Germanic cultures in Central Europe through the western Balts to the Krivichsk Pskov Region.

The migration routes of the Krivichi people always passed through the Baltic territories, and this alerted the researchers - there are no Slavic signs here. Anthropologically, the Krivichi turned out to be not just similar, but common with the Latgals (inhabitants of Eastern Latvia). And the hydronymy (names of water bodies) of the Krivitch territory is undoubtedly Balt.

Belarusian archaeologist Alexander Medvedev now directly writes that Krivichi are Balts. Another major expert on Krivichi antiquities, Georgi Shtykhov, relates Krivichi to Eastern Slavs, but having a Baltic component in their pedigree. Shtykhov notes that the relations between the Slavs and the Balts were not unambiguous.

There were peaceful coexistence, and military clashes, and assimilation processes. And not only the Slavs assimilated the Balts, but the Slavs in some cases were assimilated by the Balts.

It should be recalled that the author of The Tale of Bygone Years does not name Krivichy among the "Slovene languages of Russia." At the same time, for the Kiev chroniclers, the Polochans - part of the Krivichy - are certainly Slavs. And in the middle of the XII century, the Krivichi disappeared altogether from the pages of the chronicles.

0

Krivich settlement Tushemlya

Nevertheless, we can attribute the early Krivichi to objective Balts to objective signs. With the emergence in the 9th century of permanent fortified settlements of the Slavs (such as Polotsk, Vitebsk, Lukoml), the initiative finally passed to these recent migrants. The language of urban Krivichi (Polochans) became Slavic.


Paradoxically, Scandinavian settlers and the new Varangian-Russian elite were involved in such language transformations and the transformation of the Krivichy of our land into Polochans.

4. Fires dregovichey

Problem "trinity"
On the example of the Krivichy and the belonging of this ethnic community to the Balts - at least at the early stage of its development - we see that the textbook scheme of the Eastern Slavic trinity of the ancestors of the Belarusians (Krivichi + Dregovichi + Radimichi) does not work. From the careful admission that the basins of the Western Bug and Neman inhabited the Balts (Yatvägi), historians, following archaeologists, reluctantly and with great distance, almost completely ignoring linguistics, are forced to turn to the ethnic interpretation of other tribal communities in ancient Belarus, known from chronicles.

The inevitable question is how is the situation with the modern understanding of the origin of dregovichi and radimichi? It seems that here we can not avoid surprises.

Ancestors
At the beginning of the twelfth century, the author of the Tale of Temporary Years defined the territory of the Dregovichi settlement in a very large region between Pripyat and Western Dvina. However, scarce chronicle information does not allow a detailed description of the space of this ethnic community. Sluchesk (Slutsk) and Klechesk (Kletsk) are called fully Dregovic, respectively, under 1116 and 1149 years. In the XII century, the Kiev chronicler noted that the Dregovichi belong to the “Slavic language”, that they inhabit the central part of the Belarusian region and have their reign. It's all.

Therefore, to reconstruct the origin of the ancient inhabitants of almost half of our region, one has to use mainly data from archeology and linguistics.

It is believed that in the 6th – 8th centuries the Slavic ancestors of the Dregovichi occupied a relatively small (middle) part of the Pripyat basin. The main part of their settlements was concentrated in the area of Pripyatsky Polesie, where the Dregovichy tribal center, Turov, was later founded.

North of Pripyat at that time the Baltic population still lived. The previous (“pre-Dregovich”) Balts are known to us under the conditional name of the culture of hatched ceramics. Life on the sites of the "streak" ceased by the middle of I millennium N. e. In place of fortified settlements came open settlements. They were distributed in the northern part of the land Dregovichi. And typical Eastern Lithuanian things of the 5th – 7th centuries are regularly found in the burial grounds of the central Belarusian region.

The Balts origin in the culture of the dregovic have spiral rings, star-shaped buckles, snake-headed bracelets (snakes and snakes are totems and sacred animals of the Balts). Slavic in origin were such elements of the material culture of the dregoviches as large metal beads, covered with grains, ring-like temporal rings. In addition to decorations, Slavic were sickles, knives, ceramics.

5. Fireplaces

The beginning of the Dregovichi colonization of the left-bank part of the Pripyat basin can be traced along the barrows with the cremation of the period of the 9th – 10th centuries. The mapping of the details of the funeral rite of the Dregovichi kurgans of the 11th – 12th centuries shows the division of the Dregovichi territory into two parts — the northern and the southern. For the northern part mounds are characteristic with the remains of fires at the foot of the embankments. This feature of the northern Dregovich barrows brings them closer to the synchronous barrows of Polotsk, Smolensk Krivichy and Radimichi. In the southern regions there are no traces of fires under the remains of the dead.

In general, in those regions where the Slavs did not encounter the Balts, there is no such detail of the funeral ceremony as the cleansing of the surface for burial by fire. In the mounds of Drevlyane, Polyan, northerners and Vyatichi, the remains of fires at the foot of the mounds are unknown. The remains of similar fires in the Eastern Litovsk barrows are well known, including in graves much earlier than the Dregovic ones. Thus, the fires under the burial grounds of the Dregovichi are the cleansing lights of the Balts.

A similar picture is revealed when studying the anthropological structure of the modern population of the Pripyat basin. Corresponding studies show that nowadays, as in antiquity, the southern boundary of the Baltic anthropological zone is Pripyat.

The population of the Upper Dnieper (north of Pripyat) belongs to the Valdai anthropological type of the Central European race, spread throughout the eastern part of the ancient Baltic territory, including in the eastern regions of modern Lietuva and Latvia. And the modern population of the right-bank part of the Pripyatsky basin belongs to the Polissya anthropological type of Caucasians, close to the modern Ukrainian.

The words
There is another interesting terminological feature. In some regions, the term “kurgans” is unknown to the local population. Kurgan mounds here are called "Kapts". The Russian archaeologist V.V. Sedov showed that the range of the term “kaptsy” in the Upper Dnieper region corresponds to the group of ancient tribes who left settlements with hatched ceramics. “Kapets” is a word of Balt origin. More ancient than the Belarusian "kapets", the Lithuanian word "kapas" means precisely the grave.

And the very name of the Dregoviches refers us to the Baltic roots. The explanation of the origin of the name of this ethnic community from the word “drygva” (“swamp”) has become customary, which allegedly indicates the place of their initial settlement. But it should be recalled that the Belarusian "drygva" comes from the Baltic root. There are many similar words in Lithuanian: dregnas - wet, damp; dregme - dampness, humidity, etc.

Of course, these words reflect the characteristics of the area where the ancient Dregovichi lived - wet wetlands in the Pripyat basin. But the very scheme of the origin of the name is very interesting. According to the Moscow linguist Georgiy Khaburgayev, the name of the Baltic community of the Pripyat region was dreguva, which corresponded to the construction of the name of the neighboring, north-west, Baltic community lietuva. After mixing the Slavs with the Balts, the former basis was preserved in the name of the new community, to which the Slavic “-ichi” was added. Thus, the name “Dregovichi” (drygavichy), which is the Slavicized form of the former Balt name, arose.

Experience
Dregoviches are especially interesting because their example can be used to very clearly trace the Slavic ethnic infusion into the Baltic expanse of the future Belarus.

Krivichi until the moment when they had a state and the Slavs established themselves in the cities founded by them, they retained their Baltic character. And the state ethnos of Polotsk, which emerged on the basis of Krivichy, had Slavic as a literary and sacral language thanks to the Varangian princes and their retinues.

Dregovichi, apparently, approached the border of the 1st and 2nd millennia as a Slavic-speaking community, which, however, firmly preserved the Baltic heritage in its physical appearance, in material and spiritual culture. Dregovichi testify to our Baltic roots, but at the same time they refute the radical concepts of the absence of any Slavic migration to the territory of Belarus in the period up to the 9th century.

6. Radimichi

“Lyashskaya legend”
Today, as well as 900 years ago, any story about radichichi in textbooks begins with references to the wandering of this tribe, who settled in the south-east of Belarus in the Sozh basin. And today, most historians follow the path indicated by the Kiev monk Nestor at the beginning of the 12th century.

The chronicle tradition indicates that the Radimichi were new settlers in Sogd: “The Radimichi and Viatichi were from the Pole family. There were two brothers from the Poles - Rodin, and the second - Vyatka; and they came and sat down: Rodin was in Sogl, and radiichi were called from him. ” In The Tale of Bygone Years, the tradition of the arrival of the Radiches is repeated, and again under the year 984.

Interestingly, the legendary reports of the arrival of the RadiMichs correlate well with archaeological materials. Slavic archaeological sites, older than the IX century, in the territory of resettlement of the Radimichi were not revealed.

On the basis of the chronicler's report on the arrival of the RadiMichs, the ideas of historians that had prevailed for several centuries arose. According to them, the Radimichi were one of the Lyash tribes, who settled in the Upper Dnieper. This legend impressed both Polish authors of the 15th – 16th centuries. - Jan Dlugosh and Matthew Stryikovsky, as well as historians and Slavists of the XVIII – XIX centuries. - Czech Pavel Safarik, Lithuanian Theodor Narbut, Russian Vasily Tatishchev, Nikolai Karamzin, Sergey Solovyov.

The ancestral home of the Radimichi was placed in different corners of Polish territory, including in the Vistula basin near the city of Radom. But there are a lot of toponyms with the base "rad-" in the West Slavic territory.

Already at the end of the 19th century, when the ethnographic and linguistic specifics of Belarusians were actively recorded by Russian authors, the “Lyashsky” origin of the Radimichi made it possible to explain the Belarusian jelly and the tart. At least, the linguist Alexey Shakhmatov and his contemporaries saw Polish features here.

But at the beginning of the 20th century, Efim Karsky proved that joking developed in Belarusian language, regardless of Polish, on a local ethnocultural basis. Karsky wrote that the messages of the chronicler should be understood in a figurative sense. In the sense that the radio came to the Dnieper region from the western regions, where they lived next door to the Poles.

There are no West Slavic features in the material culture of the Radiches. West Slavic influences throughout the VIII – XIII centuries. really covered almost all the Belarusian lands. However, the range of Radimichi is inferior in this sense between the rivers of the Dnieper and the Neman, the basin of the Bug and the Neman.

Radimichsky decorations
In any school or university textbook, when describing Radimichs, jewelery that are considered an integral feature of this tribe - seven-pointed temporal rings are always mentioned. In places where these rings were found by archaeologists, it is possible to delineate the distribution area of the Radimichi in the XI – XII centuries. Special concentration of such finds on the Posozhie.

Seven-rayed temporal rings appeared and spread among Radimichi in the 10th – 11th centuries. But, in their origin, they are associated with earlier specimens of the 8th – 9th centuries, which occur independently of the tribal boundaries over a rather large territory. And these products go back to the ornaments of Arab-Iranian origin.

At the end of the 19th century, the Russian archaeologist Sizov proved that the seven-ray temporal rings belong to the Arab jewelry industry. Once on our lands, they retained the Arabic form, but the Arabic technique of their manufacture was forgotten. In the XI century, the rings began to be made not from silver, but from alloys. The surface of the rings has traces of grain, but not soldered, as in the case of the Arabs, but cast immediately. These products are more rough on the technique of execution. Once having got to the tribal elite, temporal rings were transformed by the material and technology.

Thus, the origin of the temporal rings of Radim women is not at all connected with the problem of the origin of the Radiches themselves. Foreign ornaments served as examples for local craftsmen.

Fashion existed at all times, and not only on jewelry (now its influence even on funeral rites is proved), but it acted selectively on certain ethnic communities. These rings, imported by their nature, were so liked by the radio girls that they later became perceived as their ethnicity.

Huts and Barrows
It is surprising archaeologists that the Radimichi lived in ground huts, and not in semi-Earths, like other Slavs. On this occasion, Valentin Sedov wrote that this custom could have been developed already in the Sozh, not without the influence of the local Balts. True, the Russian archaeologist argues further; in this case, among the earliest posozhsky settlements of the Radimichi, half-inhabitants of the Earth should have been encountered. But semi-earthen settlements in the Sozh basin were not identified.

Common Slavic funeral custom - placing the dead head to the west. In the lands of Radimich often men laid their heads to the east. This is clearly seen in the paired burials, where the dead are put their heads in different directions. However, such kurgans are found on a territory wider than the settlement area of the Radimichi.

Among the things found in Radimasky barrows, there are neck hryvnas - hoops, the ends of which come one by one and decorated with rosettes. The closest analogues of such hryvnas are known in the Baltic antiquities of Latvia and Lietuva. Also of Baltic origin are snakehead bracelets. The metal spirals, characteristic of the Latgalian costume, are also found in the Radimich barrows.

These findings look natural. The beginning of the second millennium of our era was a period of confusion of the Baltic-Slavic population. However, in the Radimich barrows of the 11th – 12th centuries. Baltic elements are found more often than in other areas of the Upper Dnieper and Dvina. Most likely, this fact reflects the later Slavicization of the Balts in the Sozh basin. If in Smolensk-Polotsk Kryvichy the Baltic elements are numerous in the 8th – 10th centuries, and later their number decreases, then in Radimichsky Sozh, items of the Baltic type remain common in the barrows of the 11th – 12th centuries.

Ethnic background
From the middle of the 1st millennium of our era, Posozhie, like most of the territory of Belarus, became an arena of resettlements. This was preceded by the deterioration of the climate in Central Europe. Due to the increase in humidity and cooling, the water level has increased, many territories have become unsuitable for agriculture.

The inhabitants of the banks of the Vistula, among whom were the Western Balts, moved east. The immigrants did not disappear among the local East-Balta population of Belarus, but they brought him many European features of that time, which is particularly well illustrated by the decoration that is reconstructed from archaeological finds.

Some of these western Balts (meaning Yatvyagi and Golad) reached Sozh. The same details of the funeral rite, like on White Mountain in the Chechersk district, are found in Gomel archeologist Oleg Makushnikov between the Elbe and the Vistula rivers. Part of the Western Balts went further east - on the Oka. This community is known in Russian annals as a swagger, giving rise also to the Vyatichi chronicles.

An anthropological study of burials shows that yatvyagi, Radimichi, Vyatichi and near Moscow heads have a similar physical type, the origin of which is associated with the Western Balts. Moscow linguist Georgy Khaburgaev, based on the hydronimy of Posozhya, attributed the language of the pre-Slavic population of this region to the Yatvyazh (Western Balt) dialects.

Another part of the migrants moved through the Dnieper and Dvina to the north and reached eastern Latvia, forming the Latgalian ethnic group.

It may seem unexpected, but the ancestors of the Radmiches are ethnically and culturally closest among the remaining ethnic groups to the Latgals, from the tribal names of which the Germans later formed the name of the country - Latvia.

Archaeologists have long noticed the similarity of ornaments Radicich and Latgalov (radiant brooches and pendants). Differences only in details - Latgalian products have sharp ends, while Radimic products are more rounded. The details also differ from the pendants with the image of the head of the tour (bull).

After another 400–500 years, in the 9th century, Slavic expansion begins in the Sozh basin, known among archaeologists as the distribution of onion-raykovetskoy culture. For example, the wide settlement of the Slavs in the vicinity of the chronicle Homiy (Gomel) dates back to the 9th – 10th centuries. - to the second wave of Slavic expansion in our region. In this way, the descendants of the West-Balt immigrants from the Vistula (“from the Poles”), who remained in the Posozhie, were slandered and went down in history as Radimichi.

The Kievan chronicler Nestor did not know what to do with the Radimachs, which “tongues” they belong to. At the beginning of the chronicle, Nestor listed all the Slavonic, Finno-Ugric and East-Balt communities, but he avoided the linguistic characteristics of the Western Balts (Prussians, Jatvies and Minuses). Also, the chronicler did not attach to any group of languages and Radimichi.

The last time chronicles are mentioned by Radiches under 1169 already as an ethnographic unit of the Eastern Slavs - Russia.

This Slavicization occurred not only due to the influx of Slavic settlers, rather limited, but also due to the active tax and religious policy of Kiev and its Varangian-Russian elite in this region.

7. Expansion of Rus

In the 9th century, Russia entered the historical arena of Eastern Europe. Its appearance a millennium in advance has led to the development of our region. Note that the community of Russia and the later Russia as a territory and a state are two different things.

Viking Age
Nestor in the XII century claimed that the state formation of Russia was started by the “vocation of the Vikings” in Novgorod in 862. Even earlier Slovenia, Krivichi, as well as Finnish-speaking Chud and Merya paid tribute to the Varangians. “Those Varyagi were called Rus, as others are called svay, and others - Normans and Angles ... From those Varyags the Russian land was called,” the chronicler noted.

There is nothing extraordinary in the fact that the tribes paid tribute to the Scandinavians. At that time, the Normans terrorized Europe. The Scandinavian military trading expeditions, starting in 793, reached the shores of Britain, Ireland, France, and the Mediterranean. The southern coast of the Baltic, the basins of the Dvina, the Dnieper and the Volga were the zone of the constant presence of the Vikings.

In Western Europe, the Scandinavian aggressors, Danes and Norwegians, were called Normans (literally “northern people”). They called themselves the Vikings, from the Old Norse "vikingr" - "man of the fjords." At first they were mobile detachments of pirates who operated in coastal waters and hid in bays and inlets. Interestingly, in the Slavic languages, the suffix "ing" has moved to "ez / ide", turning the pirate Viking into "knight".

The Slavs called the Vikings Varangians. This word comes from the old Germanic "wara" ("oath", "oath"). Allegedly, this refers to the oath of allegiance, which the Scandinavians gave to the Byzantine emperor, engaging in the service. And already from Byzantium the word "Varyag" passed to the Slavs.

What pushed the Vikings into distant hikes? First, the overpopulation of Scandinavia and the lack of arable land there. Secondly, social processes. Strengthened to know, the leaders thirst for enrichment. Western Europe was crushing at this time. The situation for the attacks was favorable.

First, the expansion of the Normans had the appearance of raids and devastation of the coast. But in the 10th century, the Normans began to create states in the occupied territories. So, in Northern France, the Duchy of Normandy arose. England in the XI century fully subordinate to the Danish kings, and later underwent conquest from Normandy. Around 1130, the Normans founded their state even in southern Italy - the Sicilian kingdom.

Attracted the Vikings and the expanses of Eastern Europe. It was a transit space connecting the north of Europe with rich Byzantium, where the Vikings could be hired to the Imperial Guard or simply robbed indecently wealthy Romans.

And that's what's important. Eastern Europe, this huge region, ripened for the state of creation. Scandinavian leaders could become princes, subjugating the Balts, Finns and Slavs. But did the Vikings initiate the creation of the first Russian principalities? Disputes about this have not stopped until now.

Around Norman theory
In the first half of the 18th century, the court scholars of the Russian Empress Anna Ioannovna, the Germans in the Russian service Gotlieb-Siegfried Bayer, Gerard-Friedrich Miller and August-Ludwig Schlozer formulated the "Norman Theory". It was based on the assertion that the Scandinavians created the Russian state.

However, the Russian Empire arose in the confrontation with Sweden. The whole state ideology after Peter I was permeated with the pathos of the Poltava victory. Therefore, the Russian patriots, and the first among them the universal Mikhail Lomonosov, saw in the Norman theory the thesis about the backwardness of the ancient Slavs and their inability to independently create a state.

Antinormanists subtracted from Nestor "between the lines", as if Rurik came from the Polab Slavs ... However, they built their versions on intuition and logic, without relying on historical sources. The Normanists were the largest Russian historians, such as Nikolai Karamzin and Mikhail Pogodin.

Ghost Ros River
The balance of power changed dramatically in favor of anti-Normanists only in Soviet times. Academician Boris Rybakov in his writings identified Russia and the Slavs. Moreover, he placed the first Eastern Slavic state in the forest-steppe of the Ukrainian Dnieper region. And the historian derived the name of the state and the people from the tributary of the Dnieper, the Ros River, flowing south of Kiev.

This version has got into textbooks. However, it is not supported by data from various sciences. Linguists say that "Rus" can not come from "Ros". Rather the opposite. Even the word "Russia" is a tracing paper from the Greek name of Russia, used in the office of the Byzantine Empire.

In the 1960s, the Normanists partially regained their positions. True, they were forced to admit that the Slavic proto-state, headed by Russia, existed even before Rurik. The short-term free-thinking of the sixties was reflected in the departure from scientific formalism and inclination to the Norman theory.

Russia is the rowers
According to modern theories, the name Rus can also come from the West-Finnish word “routsi-rootsi” (Swedes). In the Slavic language, the same mechanism worked as in the transition of the Finnish self-name “suomi” to the old Russian “sum”.

But the word “routsi” is borrowed from the Old Germanic language. The basis for it could be the word "rops" ("rowers") - the self-name of those Scandinavians who sailed to the West Finnish lands. At first, only warrior-combatants were called that, regardless of their origin and language. But over time, it was transferred to the entire population of Russia.

For the first time the people of "Rus" is mentioned in Frankish sources. The Spaniard Galinda (saint Prudentius), the alleged author of the Vertina Annals, on May 18, 839, recorded the arrival of the embassy from the Byzantine emperor to the king of the Franks, Louis I the Pious. Along with the embassy, other travelers arrived, asking for help in returning to their homeland:

"He / the Byzantine emperor / sent with them those who themselves, this means his people, called Ros, whose king, called kagan, sent them earlier so that they would notify of friendship with him, asking through this letter ... / return".

The Byzantine emperor did not want the Ruses to return by the same road that they came to him. Because she was "through the barbarians are very cruel and terrible." Therefore, he sent ambassadors through the land of the Franks.

However, the ruler of the Franks decided to figure out what kind of people Ros. And "I learned that they are from the people of Sveons / Sveevs, Swedes /, rather, they are scouts, than petitioners of friendship." Therefore, Louis ordered to detain them, as they would say today, "until clarification."

Russian Kaganat
It is striking that the ruler of Russia was called "Kagan".

And the “Vertinsky Annals” is not the only case. Kagan (Khakan) ruler of Russia calls a number of sources of the IX century. Even in the XI – XII centuries, this title was used in relation to the Grand Duke of Kiev. For example, on the wall in Kiev Sofia there is an inscription: “Save, O Lord, our kagan” (apparently, Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, who reigned in 1073–1076) was meant.

Reference: Kagan is the title of the head of state for many Turkic peoples of the early medieval period. The term "Kagan" was first mentioned in Chinese annals under the year 312. / ... / From the middle of the 6th century, he was accepted by the rulers of the Turkic Kaganate, then he moved on to other Turkic-speaking peoples and states that were genetically associated with him (Avars, Yenisei Kirghiz, Pechenegs, Khazars, etc.). After the liberation of the glade at the end of the 8th - the beginning of the 9th century, the Kievan princes took the title of khagan from the Khazar power, emphasizing the independence of Kievan Rus from the Khazar kaganate (in Russia it existed until the end of the XII century) ...

/ Soviet historical encyclopedia, vol. 6, p. 768-769.

The Byzantines systematically called the ruler of Russia Kagan. The Arab-Persian sources of the 870s mention the Russian Khaganate and emphasize the difference between Russia and the Slavs:

“As for ar-Rusiyi, it is located on an island surrounded by a lake. The island on which they / Russ / live, three days in length, is covered with forests and swamps. / ... / They have a king called the Khakan Rus. They attack the Slavs, drive up to them on ships, disembark, take them captive, take them to Hazaran and Bulkar and sell there. They do not have arable land, and feed only on the fact that they bring them from the land of the Slavs. / ... / And they have no real estate, neither villages nor plowed lands. Their only occupation is trading in sables, proteins and other furs. / ... / They have many cities and they live freely. / ... / They are tall, handsome and courageous in the attacks. But on horseback, they don’t show courage, and they make all their raids and trips on ships. / Rus / wear wide trousers. / ... / Putting on such trousers, assemble them at the knees, to which they are tied ... They all always carry swords "...

Researchers agree that such a kaganate could exist until the middle of the 9th century, later giving way to the state formations described in Russian (Kiev) chronicles. Historians place Kaganate differently - and in the Middle Dnieper region, and in the Slavic-Finnish North, and on the island of Rügen. The zone of influence of this proto-state probably included the Krivichi. It is known, for example, that in the year 859 "the Varangians from across the sea collected tribute from the Chud, and from the Slavs, and from Mary, and from the Krivichi."

But what does the title of kagan mean? Was he not a reflection of the claims of Russia to equality with the Khazars and to rivalry with them for control over the Slavs? Or, on the contrary, testified to vassal dependence on the Khazars? Indeed, in Khazaria there were several "younger" Kagans.

The Khazars, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, were paid by the ancestors of the eastern Belarusians - Radimichi. Like many other tribes of the middle and southern Dnieper, the Khazars took from them "on a silver coin and squirrel skin with smoke." Only in 885, the Varangian Prince Helgi, known in the Eastern Slavic tradition as the Prophetic Oleg, freed them from the Khazar tribute, that is, he subordinated to Kiev.

Thus, before Rurik became entrenched in Novgorod and Kiev, in the middle of the 9th century, the north of Belarus was in the zone of influence of the Vikings (the Russian Khaganate?), And the southeast was subject to the Khazars.

Briefly about the author

Oleg Ivanovich Dernovich (1966 r.) - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Archeology and Special Historical Disciplines of the Mogilev State University named after Arkady Kuleshov.
 
Last edited:
KRYVICHI
(historical ethnogenetic essay)
ALEXEY DERMANT.
historian

Krivichi is the largest ethnic community of the Middle Ages in the vast forest zone of Eastern Europe. They occupied a huge territory: from the headwaters of the Neman in the west to the Kostroma Volga region in the east, from the Pskov lake in the north to the headwaters of Sozh and Desna in the south. The chronicle reports that the Krivichi "sddyat on the top of the Volga, and on the top of the Dvina and on the top of the Dnieper, their same is Smolenesk." According to a number of written sources, the Krivichy belonged to the territory where the Pskov, Polotsk and Smolensk lands later formed. The population of the Polotsk land was known to the chroniclers under the name of the Polochans, however, archaeological materials do not allow them to be recognized as a separate ethnic group (tribe) and isolated from the inhabitants of Smolensk.

Krivichy can be considered the main ethno-forming unit of Belarus: both because they occupied the largest part of the current Belarusian ethnographic area, and because of their influence on the formation of ethnic features (as well as statehood) of the Belarusian people.

Traditionally, the term “East Slavic” is used to characterize the ethnic essence of Krivichy, but there are already enough reasons to doubt it. Even researchers who are not inclined to reduce the scope of the Slavic presence in our lands are forced to admit that “those 19th century historians were probably right who considered the Krivichy to be“ half Lithuanians ”.

A special place occupied by the Kriviches in the so-called "Eastern Slavic" range is due to many reasons. It is indicative that their ethnic essence raised questions already from the first Kyivan chroniclers: there are no Krivichi in the list of Slavic tribes, nor in the list of Baltic and Finnish tribes. Opinions are expressed that, in the historically attested area of their residence, the Krivichi were allegedly as a result of migration, either from somewhere in the west, or from the south (V. Sedov, P. Tretyakov, and others).

It is difficult to agree with this for various reasons. For example:

1) the migration hypothesis clearly contradicts the chronicle reports on the autochthonousness of Krivichy;

2) it also contradicts the legend about the origin and resettlement of Belarusians;

3) the relocation of such a large and fairly homogeneous ethnic community to the vast expanses of Eastern Europe would undoubtedly be reflected in written, linguistic, archaeological, and other sources;

4) the area of maximum distribution of the Krivichi type toponyms indicates more likely a later relocation of a part of the Kryvichi from the Upper Dnieper-Dvino metropolis to other regions;

5) apparently, there was a colonization in the northern direction, as evidenced by hydronyms of the Upper Dnieper-Dvina type of Balt / according to some researchers, already in the VIII century it was the Krivichi who founded Old Ladoga /.

Origin
To solve the problem of the origin of Krivichy the key question is about the origins and ethnic attribution of the culture of the so-called “long kurgans”. Many researchers associate long mounds with the ancestors of the chronicles of the Krivichi.

Until evidence of genetic continuity between the Baltic culture of the Banzerovsky-Tushemla type and the long kurgan culture was revealed, it was not possible to confirm the local character of the latter, which led some researchers to look for its origins in the west - in the Vistula basin.

But today, in the light of new archaeological materials, we can note the obvious connection of the culture of long mounds of the north of Belarus with local monuments of the 3rd – 4th centuries, and a number of common features of the Vitebsk and Pskov long barrows allow us to trace the movement of the carriers of this culture from northern Belarus to Pskovshchina and Novgorodchin. In the same place, in the north of modern Belarus, within the borders of the Krivichy settlement, the most ancient long embankments and synchronous round burials of the third quarter of the 1st millennium, with ceramics of Banzer culture, were discovered.

0

Area of ethnos Krivichi

Significant differences between the Pskov and Smolensk long barrows indicate the independent origin of the latter, which also contradicts the opinion of the movement of the Krivichy from the territory of the Pskov region to the Belarusian and Smolensk Rivers and the Upper Dnieper region.
The Polotsk Krivichy features are archeologically associated with the culture of the early Polotskyn long barrows and the Atokin variant of the Bantser culture, and ethnically primarily with the Balt substrate, and allow us to interpret the message of the chronicle (“from the same Krivichi”) about the Polotchin, in the sense that it was basic the territory of the spread of the Krivic ethnos.

Recently, in view of the absence of serious differences and boundaries between monuments such as the Bantserovschina-Tushemlya and long kurgans, the idea of the closeness or identity of these cultures is becoming more pronounced. The clothing complex of both the Pskov and Smolensk long kurgans, the materials of linguistics and anthropology (the Baltic layer in the hydronymy of the Pskov region, the anthropological unity of the Krivichi and Latgalov) give reason to identify the population that left them with the Balts.

Also very significant is the presence of the hydronymic “axis” connecting Latvia with the northern suburbs. Rather plausibly, it is associated with the “Krievichy” movement as an ethno-linguistic element, which “debaltized” over time.

This circumstance makes it possible to abandon the opposition in the ethnic sense of the definitions of “Krivichy” and “Baltsky”, because the a priori Slavic nature of the Krivichy simply disappears, and their Slavic term (no matter where it could have come from) turns out to be fiction. The emergence of reliable evidence of the Slavic presence (primarily archaeological) on the territory of the Krivichy is thus postponed in the “Russian” era, when an explosion of trade and craft activity occurred. This circumstance forces us to consider the Slavic element on our lands no longer as a result of a real migration movement from somewhere, but rather as a result of rather complex intercultural relations.

I. Lyapushkin, having thoroughly analyzed the monuments of the forest and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe on the eve of the formation of the “Russian” state, came to the conclusion:

"Until the 8th – 9th centuries, the whole region of the Upper Dnieper and the adjacent areas to the upper reaches of the Oka in the east and to Neman in the west, from the border with forest-steppe in the south to the Zapadnaya Dvina basin in the north, was occupied by Baltic tribes"

Let us compare, for example, one of the last opinions about the ethnic composition of the Upper Dnieper and the space further north:

“Due to the fact that it is difficult to recognize the various evidences of Slavic expansion on these lands until the end of the 9th century, in the first phases of its existence, Russia / Varangians-ruotsi-Avt./ interacted primarily with Finnish and Balt groups.”

It is indisputable that in the 9th – 11th centuries there were significant changes in both the material and spiritual culture of the local inhabitants, but the explanation of these transformations solely by the search for traces of “mass Slavic migration” looks like a simplified and biased approach.

It is clear that the presence of a certain clothing inventory and the emergence of a new funeral tradition are sufficiently weighty evidence of the influence of another ethnos. Nevertheless, from time to time, voices of researchers are heard recommending to consider the distribution of specific products specifically as the distribution of products (through trade, borrowing, cultural influence, fashion, etc.), instead of making hasty conclusions about the migration of people. Fashion and cultural trends do not bypass even the funeral ritual (as well as customs in general), which can also be borrowed from ethnic group to ethnic group.

In our case, the principle of “presumption of autochthonousness” can be very useful for objective research, according to which any cultural phenomenon should first be regarded as local in origin, resulting from the evolutionary development of the local culture itself, if the opposite is not proved or cannot be proven.

In this perspective, the thesis about the autochthonous development of ancient Crimean culture on the basis of previous cultures of the Dnieper-Dvina zone (first of all, the culture of the type of Bantserovschina - Tushemlya-Kolochin, and in the longer perspective - the Dnieper-Dvina baltic culture) looks like the most plausible and justified variety of materials.

Interesting arguments in favor of our position were given by Petersburg researcher A. Gerd. Trying to trace the origins of a number of features of the Dnieper-Dvina zone, he came to very important conclusions:

1) that this zone is a fairly integral historical and cultural type;

2) that this integrity is rooted in the cultural continuity of the inhabitants of the region starting at least from the 3rd millennium BC. e.

It turns out that the time and conditions for the emergence of separate historical and cultural zones (including the Dnieper-Dvina) are not at all associated with the era of the supposed Slavic settlement, but go back to more ancient times - long before the historically and even theoretically acceptable Slavic appearance.

Today, the hypothesis that the Slavic stage of the Kryvo history was preceded by the Balts, both in language and in material culture, seems to be the most reasonable. This view is confirmed by the existence in the XII – XIII centuries in the southern outskirts of the Polotsk land of numerous Baltic settlements identified by Russian chroniclers with the “Lithuanian”. At one time, A. Sobolevsky, having considered written reports about Lithuanian attacks on Russia in the XII – XIII centuries, expressed the opinion that "Lithuanian land" occupied parts of the (former) Vitebsk, Pskov, Tver, Moscow and, mainly, Smolensk provinces.

t is easy to see that the delineated territory, which cannot be identified with the political core of the future Grand Duchy of Lithuania, constitutes a significant part of the distribution area of the Polotsk-Smolensk Krivichi. Bearing in mind the synonyms for the time of the concepts “Lithuanian” and “Balts”, this “Lithuania” can be interpreted as balty-speaking Krivichy, who carried out military expansion into neighboring lands.

As for Slavic (mostly linguistic) Krivichy, here, in our opinion, the idea that the Lithuanian historian S. Daukantas expressed in the XIX century deserves attention. He connected Slavicization with the “Russian” factor:

“The krev family / krievai / was so united with the Russians that it speaks Russian, and not in its own way. Kreva ... spoke the same language as the Lithuanians, Zhemoit, years, Prussians. There were two languages in the country of Crews - one written, the so-called Russian, the second - human, the so-called Krevo. ”

Undoubtedly, the main centers of the "connection" of Kryvichi and polyethnic Russia, among which the Slavic language element prevailed, were the cities from which strong assimilation impulses were received, supported by the church and certain circles of the then political elite. At the same time, however, it must be remembered that the total urban culture for a large part of Eastern Europe at that time covered a very small part of the population - 2–5%, while the absolute majority of the inhabitants were conservative village people, among whom autochthones prevailed, and not Slavs.

The partial transition to the Slavic speech of the main component of the Rus, the Varangians, most likely occurred in the Middle Dnieper in the first half of the 9th century, during the formation of the so-called “Russian Khaganate”, from which this speech along with the Rus spread throughout Eastern Europe. In this respect, the discovery of a Slavic inscription in a typical Scandinavian burial of the first quarter of the 10th century, in the necropolis of the proto-urban settlement Gnezdovo in the Smolensk region, the oldest in the Belarusian ethnic space, is indicative. The assimilation of the Krivichy, which should be considered the Eastern Balts, began in fact as a part of the polyethnic “ancient Russian” state.

The above point of view is consistent with archaeological materials. The culture of long kurgans disappears in the Upper Dnieper and Dvina region at the end of the 9th - in the first half of the 10th century, and at the same time completely new monuments appear - round mounds with bruising, not connected by succession with the long mounds and identified with the Slavs. On their basis, the so-called ancient Russian kurgan culture of the 11th – 13th centuries arises. A special role in the genesis of this culture was played by trade and craft centers (proto-cities), the emergence of which caused a certain kind of disturbance and "vibration" of the local cultural tradition. But this is not necessarily due to the influx of a new, ethnically Slavic population. There is evidence of the presence of the Normans in the Dnieper-Dvina interfluve in the late 9th - early 10th centuries.

It is also very significant that Gnezdovo is the only place where there is a large concentration of “Slavic” round barrows with bruising. This settlement, in whose life an important place was occupied by the Swedish Vikings, was a kind of center for the formation of the "Old Russian" (= "Slavic") population of the Smolensk region. The same trade and handicraft centers (Polotsk and other cities) with their population were a very significant factor in the spread of the Old Russian kurgan culture in “ready-made form” in the village outskirts. By the way, it is essential that the culture of long kurgans as a relict phenomenon can be traced almost through the entire X century in the material culture of Polotsk Krivichi. In general, it is clear that in the Polotsk-Vitebsk Podvinie each successive group of monuments preserves some elements of the previous culture longer than in the Smolensk Dnieper region.

One of the main elements of the theory of the migration of Krivichy from the west is the phonetic features of modern dialects (in particular, of Pskov), which unite them with “Lyashsky” adverbs. As linguists believe, a number of dialectal features truly reflect the state when the Krivichy tribal language, together with the northern West Slavic dialects, was a single linguistic geographical area. However, the presence of the same archaic features in the Prussian-Yatviazhsko-Southern Litovsk area, with which some of the ancient Krivian features meet, allows us to associate them not only with the northern West Slavic dialectal zone and can in no way testify exclusively about their “West Slavic” origin.

Archaeological and linguistic analysis destroys the thesis about the migration wave of Krivichi from the west along the Baltic Sea, and archaic phenomena in the Pskov dialects are explained through the Baltic (to some extent through the Finnish) substrate. The existence of certain characteristic features of phonetics in modern Belarusian dialects allows you to define territories slavyanizirovanny through language contacts, and not through migration - this includes the entire Krivitch area in Belarus, which also turns out to be the epicenter of the emergence and spread of typical features of the Belarusian language: jekan, tacania, acania , gekanya and others.

The materials of physical anthropology help to reliably verify the assumption of the absence of a significant influence of Slavic migrations on the formation of the ethnicity of the Krivichy people.

Anthropology
The gene pool of a certain ethnic group is often more stable than its language and culture. Anthropological materials allow with a high degree of probability to consider modern Belarus as direct descendants of the local ancient population. An anthropological study of the Belarusian ethnos over the past 25–30 years “has allowed to propose the concept of continuity of its original genetic information for 100–150 generations, that is, long before the probable colonization of this territory by Eastern Slavs”.

The origins of this succession reach not only the proto-Belurian tribes of the Krivichi, Dregovichi, Radimichi and others, but even the paleo-Europoid racial community of the Neolithic era. Experts pay attention to the “unity of the physical appearance of Western Krivichy, Radimichi and Dregovich, their similarity with the medieval Letto-Lithuanian population”, which is regarded as “a manifestation of a single anthropological substrate”.

V. Bunak, studying craniology (cranial indicators) of the long-term population of Eastern Europe, classified the dolichocephalic (long-headed) type of Krivichy as an ancient form of the Baltic type of northern European race spread from the right bank of the Dnieper to the Baltic Sea.

G. Debets, who investigated the skulls from the burials of Krivichy, Dregovich and Radiches of the X-XII centuries, stated the absence of real differences between them, and also noted their very great similarity with the series of skulls from the Lyutsinsky cemetery (Latvia). Based on this, the author claims that the inclusion of the territory of modern Belarus in the circle of Slavic cultures was not accompanied by any significant migrations, but took place through cultivation.

T. Trofimova introduced the Polotsk Krivichy to the dolichocephalic, broad-faced type and, noting its connection with the Middle and Upper Dnieper and the Baltic, considered this type relict, known at least from the Bronze Age. R. Denisova acknowledged as highly probable the origin of dolichoclic [130] broad-faced tribes of the first quarter of the 2nd millennium on the territory of Belarus from the local tribes of the culture of corded stoneware, which can be considered protobalt.

T. Alekseeva, also joining the Polotsk Krivichy to a long-headed rather broad-faced type, stated:
In their latest publications, T. Alekseeva already admits that the carriers of the first Slavic cultures, the Prague-Korczak and Penkovo, probably also belonged to the long-headed, broad-faced type. However, the presence of Balt hydronymy on a significant territory of these cultures and the placement of this type in the northern part of the Proto-Slavic space adjacent to the range of the Letto-Lithuanian tribes, testifies rather in favor of the researcher’s earlier conclusion (see quotation) and allows us to raise the question of identifying the Baltic anthropological substrate from carriers of the first Proto-Slavic archaeological cultures.

More gracile skulls were found on the territory of the Polotsk Region, which gave reason to call the entire total Krivitch series middle-aged, however, research of the newest materials did not confirm this, testifying that the Polotsk Krivichy are suitable for measuring just the long-broad type. [132]

Meanwhile, earlier V. Sedov, on the basis of studying craniological materials, did not find significant differences between the broad-faced and medium-sized series of kurgan skulls of Belarus. He combined the Polotsk and Smolensk Krivichy, Dregovichi and Radimichi into one group, distinguished by a long-headed, medium-sized type, and noted that the territory of its distribution "in the early Middle Ages coincides in detail with the range of the Dnieper Baltic tribes, as defined by hydronymic messages and archeology."

The Pskov group of Krivichy is anthropologically most similar to the population of the Yatviazhsky area. The features of the physical type of the eastern groups of Krivichy (Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Vladimir-Ryazan) reflect the process of colonization by the western Krivichi (mainly Smolensk) of the upper Volga and the Volga-Klyazma interfluve and the assimilation of the Finnish population there.

In terms of the absolute size of the brain section of the skull and skeleton of the face in relation to the head index and the width of the face, Mazovshane (Slavicized Western Balts), Polotsk Kryvichi, Yatvägi and Latgalians are united by one complex of physical features and in this approach the Norwegians and Anglo-Saxons. As a result of the analysis of craniological materials of several groups according to different signs - in one case (20 signs and 13 groups), the Smolensk Krivichy and Zemgals resembled, and in the other (16 signs and 15 groups) inhabitants of Old Ladoga, Latgals, Dregovichi are close to each other. , Radimichi, Zhemoyt, Smolensk Krivichi and Zemgaly, which confirms the anthropological connection of Krivichi and Balts.

However, paying attention to the heterogeneity of the anthropological composition of the Baltic tribes themselves, it must be emphasized that the kurgan population from the territory of Belarus (including the Polotsk-Smolensk Krivichi) seems primarily to those Baltic groups that in the Iron Age were associated with the Upper Dnieper region (Yatvyagi) and culture carriers of shaded ceramics).

The study of odontological (dental) materials shows that the western series of Krivichy fully correspond to the so-called early latgals Vidzeme and zhemoit, but their greatest similarity is revealed with the eastern latgues of the 8th – 13th centuries. The marked proximity of the Kryvichi dental complex and the Latgals synchronous to them can be explained in favor of the local (Baltic) origin of the former.

There are no obvious anthropological traces of Slavs entering the territory of the Dvina. Those materials that some scholars identify with the Slavs may be associated with other ethnic groups, including the Baltic tribes. At the same time, the only thing that allows to assert anthropological studies is the absence of mass migrations, which could lead to a significant change in the physical type of the population of Belarus.

Thus, the significant similarity of the Baltic tribes (especially Latgals) and the Polotsk Krivichi, witnessed by the majority of anthropologists, allows us to support the opinion of the Slavonicization of the Kryvichi by replacing their Balt language with the Slavic language.

Material culture
Brass-like temporal rings with knotted ends are considered to be the ethno-determining things of Kryvichi. It seems quite convincing that these characteristic Krivichy ornaments of the 10th – 13th centuries have similar rings with prototypes, but with closed or setting ends, found on the monuments of the Banzer-Tushemli culture. V. Sedov sees, in the presence of the culture carriers, the first bracelet-like temporal rings in the Banzer’s habitat and in Lithuania, as well as in the common substrate of the Balt culture of hatched ceramics, evidence of the relatedness of Lithuania and the Polotsk-Smolensk Krivichi. However, the same researcher is considering the possibility of identifying the mentioned early types of rings with the Slavic ethnos.

The Smolensk archeologist V. Schmidt did not agree with the Slavic interpretation and expressed doubt whether the temporal rings (including bracelet-like with closed or setting ends) were decorations of the Slavs only. He finds analogies for them in Lithuania, where they were a characteristic element of the Baltic head dress from the 1st to the 6th centuries. The chronology and territory of the distribution of early bracelet-like temporal rings give reason to consider them a sign of the summer Lithuanian population.

A number of objects (neck hryvnias, jewelery with colored enamel, pendants, different types of temporal rings) found in long kurgans are identical to the monuments of the Baltic tribes, and this becomes a rather serious reason to challenge the Slavic attribution of long kurgans. In general, the female funeral inventory of the long mounds of the Dnieper region has the closest analogies on the lands of the Eastern Baltic and is characterized as Balt. M. Artamonov found in Pskov long kurgans, as well as in the Novgorod hills, quite a few things, among which the Baltic types prevailed. Almost all types of Baltic jewelery, which originate from long kurgans, have analogies in the material of late Krivichi kurgans.

Meanwhile, A. Spitsyn also noted:

“The inventory of the Smolensk sites is similar to the inventory of the so-called“ Lithuanian ”sawmills. Hence, it is possible that in the 7th – 8th centuries, this region was occupied by Lithuanians. Things that are found in the settlements of Lithuanians and Krivichi (Novgorod, region), from the XII – XIII centuries - the same. And these settlements, wherever they are, must be considered Lithuanian. ”

Ribbon wreaths (Vainagi), neck hryvnias, snake-headed bracelets are also found in Krivichi kurgans (this is how the snake cult popular among the Balts), spiral rings and many different horseshoe-shaped brooches defining the specifics of the Balt costume were embodied in art. The problem of Balt origin of the mentioned jewelry was studied by 3. Sergeyeva. She came to the conclusion that they are found almost throughout the entire ethnic territory of Belarus, and such things as animal-like bracelets, twisted neck hryvnias and Vainagi are usually found far from cities, moreover, not in trade routes, but in remote places, which indicates their local origin.

Characteristic of the Krivichi and chest pendants in the form of a horse, which sometimes met two in one burial or doubled with a comb. These items are of particular interest, along with information about the twin deity of well-being and fertility (Belarus. Srotok, Drove, flying. Kumelgan, latv. Jumis) associated with the horse cult common in Balts.

Especially rich in Baltic things burial Polotsk land. An analysis of two hundred inventoried kurgan complexes from the Polotchchiny territory showed that only a quarter of them had temporal rings, and there were no temporal rings in other burials at all, but many metal products were exclusively of Balt origin. And considering the burials with temporal rings (supposedly coming along the set of ornaments to the Slavic side by side - not least due to the presence of “Slavic” temporal rings there), one must take into account their probable non-Slavic origin.

The male attire of the Krivichi is also very similar to the costumes of the neighboring Baltic tribes, which is revealed through a variety of horseshoe fibulae, lyre-like buckles, rings, bracelets, etc. It is interesting that even things are largely “international” armed culture from the Polotsk principality of the end of the XII-XIII century very close to the equipment of heavily armed Prussian nobles.

These facts show once again that “the costume of the 11th – 12th centuries is an indicator of the significant role of the Baltic substrate in the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians, an external manifestation of the formation of ethnic consciousness”, and the found things and products allow us to combine the Krivichy lands with the vast Baltic region, which included the territories of modern Letuva, Latvia, as well as Estonia.

0

The image of the sign of the sun (swastika) on the plates, which are the decoration of the leather belt

In addition to comparing the property complex itself, the study of the ornament, the system of signs with which these things were decorated can help determine the ethnic essence of its creators and carriers. For example, a comparison of archaeological and ethnographic material shows that such a sign as a swastika was common in the regions where the Baltic presence was most felt (especially in the Polotschina) and, thus, the swastika in Belarus is a symbol of cultural traditions of the Balts (including paganism) .

Spiritual culture
The spiritual culture of an ethnos is made up of many parts, but among all its wealth, we are primarily interested in the religious element, for religion and its closely related mythology are the primary sources for the formation of mental archetypes as the ethnopsychological basis of consciousness.

The extremely large space of Kryvyi mythology and its influence on the folk culture of Belarusians requires focusing only on one, but very important part of it - clarifying the genetic relationships of the main characters of Kryvyi’s version of the so-called “main” myth of Indo-Europeans.

Authoritative researchers of the Balts-Slavic antiquity V. Ivanov and V. Toporov managed (mainly based on materials from the Belarusian, Lithuanian and Latvian traditions) to reconstruct a common Indo-European “main” mythological story about the cosmogonic struggle of Perun’s thunder god Perkuns) and his serpentine rival Veles (in the Letuis felnias / felinas, in Latvians Velns, Veis). Scientists have already paid attention to the fact that the most traces of the cult of Veles are preserved in Belarus and in the north of Russia. B. Rybakov explained the spread of the cult of Veles on the large expanses of the forest zone of Eastern Europe by the wide settlement of the Balts from the Bronze Age, when the tribes of the culture of corded ceramics occupied part of the Upper Volga region, reaching even Vologda region.

Yu. Lavchut and D. Machinsky, after analyzing sources from linguistics and mythology, came to the conclusion that it was problematic for Veles to become a member of the common Slavic gods; they also noted that the ancient written monuments indicate the emergence of a pair Perun - Veles in the north of Russia. Drawing attention to the archaeological presence of the Krivichy in the lower reaches of the Volkhov and in the Upper Podvinie, where the toponyms Wels, Veleshy, Veles, Veleschi and Velizh are known, the researchers claim that it was the Krivich who played an important role in the formation of the Perun-Veles sacral pair.

It is interesting that in the north of Belarus the local name of the mounds of “volatovka” isally coincides with the territory of the Krivichi settlement and, like the name Veles, has a vel- basis. It is appropriate to remind here that the temple of this god in Kiev was located exactly where the ships of Novgorod and the Krivichi stayed. Opinion about the connection of the term “volatovka” only with the Slavic ethnos [136] should be considered baseless (compare the book. Vele “soul of the dead”, veles “shadow of the dead”, velines, veliai “time of reverence for the dead”, which agrees well with the Belarusian ideas about giants , as the ancestors of modern people).

V. Toporov, who records the presence of hydronymic balticisms not only in the north of the Krivitch area — in the Pskov and Tver regions, but throughout the whole of Novgorod region, “literally in all its parts,” writes that the variant of the “main” myth in which the third one appears - female character, reconstructed primarily on the materials of the old lands of Novgorod.

“/ He / reveals a very large degree of closeness with the Baltic versions of this myth, which stand out more archaic than the East Slavic reconstructions. If we consider that the Balt version had an indisputable and very significant impact on the Eastern Slavic versions where the Baltic substrate was present (all of Belarus, Smolensk, Pskov, Kaluga region) and where relics of the “main” myth still persist, there are grounds in the “Novgorod” (in the broad sense of the word) versions of this myth suspect the influence of Baltic sources. ”

The formation of the Indo-European myth about Thunderbolt originates in the “heroic” era of Indo-European settlement (somewhere from the end of the 3rd millennium BC), the social function of the military function and the hero of the war leader coincide with it. The closest analogies to the mythological ideas of Belarusians about the Thunderbolt are noted in Letuvisi and Latvians. D. Sheping at one time even expressed the conviction:

"You can not take the name of Perun as Slavic and more correctly accept that it came to Russia either through the Vikings or through the Krivichi, meaning the spread of the religion of the Prussian-Lithuanian Curve among them."

All these messages are in good agreement with the fact that the majority of the gods originated in Iran (Dazhbog, Svarog, Simargl, Stribog, Chora) of the notorious “Eastern Slavic” pantheon, while Perun and Veles, the archaic Indo-European deities, were inherited from the Balts by the Slavs, which is confirmed by the accepted majority linguists theory of the development of Slavic languages from the peripheral Western-Balta dialects.

In the light of this, it becomes clear why the Krivsky area, distinguished by its bright Baltic texture, acts as an environment (center) for the preservation and dissemination of relics of the “main” myth. There are also foundations for joining the Krivichy to the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian-Prussian highest priest Krive-Krivaytis, whose cult occupied a significant place in the religious beliefs of the Baltic tribes. But even with skepticism about the pan-Baltic nature of the cult and the power of the Curve,

“Exploring the pagan pantheon of Belarusians and ethnic Lithuanians, a set of plots and images of their authentic mythology, one cannot but pay attention to the typological proximity of these layers of culture. Such a rapprochement, sometimes even an identity, is the result of not only the mutual influences of their cultures within the framework of a common state - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but also genetic sources. ” The presence of the Baltic substrate can also explain the peculiarities of the local pagan monumental sculpture (including the famous “Shklov idol”).
The natural development of Starokriv culture was forcibly interrupted by the spiritual intervention of the Christian church, which is responsible for a radical change in the ethnocultural situation through the establishment of a new ethnoconfessional self-identification of the local population (which continued after the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), when the baptism of the Balts into the “Russian” faith eventually led to their mental and linguistic ruthenization. However, according to the ideas of the Russian chronicler, Krivichi belonged to the most stubborn supporters of the ancient customs:
«Си же творяху обычая и Кривичи и прочий погании, не ведуще закона Божиа, но творяще сами собе закон».
Therefore, there is nothing unusual in the following:

“In the Polotsk Kriv'i in the XI – XII centuries, in contrast to the East Slavic spaces, the act of baptism inspired by the princes did not occur (examples: Kiev, 988, Novgorod, 990).

Christianization, as a slow process of interaction between the new religion and strong pagan traditions, was officially approved in Polotsk only at the beginning of the 12th century, which further contributed to the emergence of archaic (propaganus) forms of Orthodoxy, which in the 19th century contributed to the preservation of pagan content in a formally baptized culture. Of Belarus. "

It is quite possible that, as a result of such ethno-religious content, even the ethnonym Krivichi could acquire for the creators of ancient written monuments a meaning synonymous with the understanding of the “wrong” and “lawless” people.

Political history
The earliest time from which we can say something definite about political organization in the Krivsky expanse is the end of the Iron Age (V – VIII century), when a Banzer culture is formed on the basis of archaeological cultures of the previous time (Dnieper-Dvinskaya, shaded ceramics, Kiev) - Tushemlya - Kolochin.

The beginnings of statehood on our lands are associated with this culture, which is distinguished by the obvious coincidence of its range with the late eastern and partly northern and southeastern ethnic borders of Belarus. According to A. Pyankov, the intertribal confederation of that time can rightly be called the Krivsky tribal union established on the lands of the Eastern Balts.

In place of the Banzer culture, the principalities of the annalistic tribes come to be, the main ones being Polotsk Krivichi, Dregovichi and Radimichi. Further development of state-forming processes continued in the "Russian" era. The origins of the formation of inter-ethnic “Russian” corporations — the main engine of these processes — must, in our opinion, be sought back in Banzer times, when the individual local rulers relied on professional warriors — the constant princely retinue. This is evidenced by the existence of fortified settlements, similar to real castles, where archaeologists find especially many weapons that could belong to the prince and his army.

In the 9th – 10th centuries, military formations of tribal princes were replenished with Scandinavian (Varangian) aliens. The emergence of the Germanic term "Rus" (ancient vern. Roder "rower; rowing; paddle; sailing on oarships" - Finn, ruotsi - old Russian. Rus) and on the Krivoy territory is linked with the penetration of the latter into Eastern Europe as mercenaries, traders and invaders. At first, socially, “Russia” is only the prince’s squad, its “chivalry” and the administration, and “Russian land” and “Rus” are subject to this ruler and his surroundings territory, state.

At the same time, Polotsk and Smolensk did not belong to the “Russian land” itself, or “Rus” in the narrow sense of the word (which existed in the Middle Dnieper). Until the last third of the 9th century, the Polotsk Kryvichi did not depend on Kiev or Novgorod, and only in the 70s of the 9th century did the princes of Kiev Askold and Dir make a trip to Polotsk and, possibly, put it into the orbit of their influence. But, in any case, under Prince Oleg, Polotsk no longer submitted to Kiev.

All of the above-mentioned cities, which were competitive state-forming centers, belonged to three large ethnocultural and geographical areas: the Finnish-Slovenian North (Novgorod), the Iranian-Polyansky Dnieper region (Kiev) and the Balto-Krivsky Upper Dnieper Region and Povinyu (Polotsk, Smolensk). The first two areas, without completing independent development into state structures, were united by Rurikovich and together they started to create a common state, the Polotsk land showed maximum stubbornness and did not get into this company. The well-known historian and culturologist L. Akinshevich argued on this occasion that “in times of princes” (X – XIII centuries) Belarusian principalities, indisputably, less than Ukrainian and Russian, tended to unite into a single “Russian” whole.

Usually this is explained by the fact that there was a separate princely dynasty. Such an explanation is little convincing. We think that they were distinguished by something else and, first of all, apparently by the fact that the depth of common cultural influences here was less. A significant role was also played by the moment of racial and cultural closeness to the old neighbors (and possibly the ancient relatives), to the peoples of the “Balt” group - to Letuvis and Latvians.

Such ethnocultural motivation of the “Krivsk separatism” had powerful social and religious grounds:

"On the territory of Polotsk Kriv'i, which developed as a sociopolitical organism already in the 9th century, adherence to traditional (age-old) beliefs was strengthened, first of all, by a close connection with the priestly elite of the Balts, the clan Krivay-Krivaytis, some of whose members most likely also led the community during formation and consolidation.

The high degree of sacralization of the Krivska ethnosocium is felt not only in its name, derived from the name that coincides with the title of the high priest of the Balts. It was not by chance that a so-called Gnёzdovsky necropolis arose on Krivsk territory, which had no equal grandeur in Eastern Europe and where the norms of the funeral rites of the pagan military trading class were developed. S. Tarasov believes:

"The priority position in the alliance of the tribes of the genus Kriva probably ensured Polotsk, Polotsk, Polotsk land their exclusive, independent and independent place in the geopolitical conditions of Eastern Europe."

To the representatives of the clergy class, apparently, it is necessary to introduce the first mentioned in the written sources of the prince Rogvolod of Kryvyi (Ragnvald). Even with the likely Scandinavian origin of this leader, his status as a “sacred sovereign” (rex sacrorum) should not cause great doubts - close ethnocultural contacts in the Circubaly region of that time allow us to express the opinion that some of the Varangian leaders could have a sacred status (at least “ the prince Oleg (Helgi) (the ancient northern "holy"), whose idea of death is in good agreement with the ideas of the ritual murder of the "archaic ruler"). Everything noted could be an additional incentive (or condition) on the part of the local population to give the prince authority and recognize the legitimacy of such.

This hypothesis is also confirmed by linguistic materials: the first component of the name of Rogvolod, like his daughter Rogneda, is identical with the other North. ragnar "gods" that fit in with lit. Regeti, lat. redzet "see, contemplate", hence the years. Ragana, white (dial.) ragana - "sorceress, sorceress." At the heart of the names under consideration is the seme “prophetic gift, the gift of foresight” - ragn-, and this term means the one who owns such a gift.

The existence of toponyms associated with the name of Rogneda, and the places where she was allegedly buried (“Rogvald Mountain and Rogneda”, or else “Rognedin Kurgan” on the Perevoz peninsula on Lake Drissa, “Rognedins Kurgans” in the Vileika District and around Kraslava (Latgalia ), Lake Ragnedy to the north of Zaslavya, “Rogneda’s grave” or “Rogneda’s castle” in Zaslavye itself, Rognedin’s grave in Bryansk) is also due to certain religious beliefs. [138] It should be noted that in the popular presentation about “the mountain of Rogwald and Rogneda” the fact of the real story (the murder of the Polotsk prince Rogvolod) is connected with the plot of the “main” myth: the prince was allegedly killed on this mountain with a stone hammer.

It is rather curious that some of the mounds bear the name of the Lithuanian prince and king Mindovg, which is reasonably associated with the pagan cult (“the grave of Mindovg or Voyshelka” existed in the Pinsk suburb of Leshch at the end of Plywood Street until 1955 (see : Kukharenko Yu. Pinsk burial mounds // Slavs and Russia, pp. 87–90).

Of particular interest is the figure of the famous and without exaggeration of the most prominent Prince of Kryvyi - Vseslav the Magician. Already the conditions of birth - “from magic” - were to demand the unusualness of the further life of this sovereign. V. Lobach, considering the available reports about Vseslav, convincingly proves that the prince belongs to the priestly class. From the moment of the magical birth, the prince was given an “ulcer” (distinctive sign), which apparently had a wolf hair that was noticeable from birth, which was considered a sign of the magical ability to turn into a wolf of one's own will; This feature can also be interpreted as evidence of curvature (chosenness, sacredness) - an obligatory feature of all wizards.

The nickname of Prince Vseslav “Volkh” from the epic of Volkha Vseslavich comes from the term “vlhv” - “a pagan priest, a sorcerer”; only a representative of the priestly class at that time could “cast lots”, which Vseslav does, asking the fate of “love yourself” (that is, Kiev); only a magician, like Vseslav, could have a “proclaiming” soul, and it is quite characteristic that the archaic Indo-European definition of a wolf weid-n (o), in the guise of which the prince’s rskashe, can also testify to the prophecy of this beast.

A. Yugov, analyzing some of the controversial places in the Word on the Campaign of Igor, adds to this series other evidences of the “charismatic” image of the Prince of Polotsk: his soul, “transforming”, can change into another body - “friends”; Vseslav's epithet "khytr" means the wizard; the prince acquires the throne of Kiev by means of "clucks" (magic cunning); for one night, he is transferred from near Kiev to Novgorod - “walk around on the blue sky” (hung on a blue cloud).

For our part, we note that the mythological features of Vseslav the Wizard, known from the “Word ...” (ability to turn into a wolf) and the epics about Volkha Vseslavich (born from a serpent), аre in good agreement with the ancient Indo-European notions of the wolf-owner and the serpent, symbolically associated with royal power (cf. Volkh, ruler, volost, power and the name of the god Veles, which is also associated with the wolf and snake cults, with the Indo-European root to denote power). By the way, the other Indo-European sources also had another institution of power known in the Polotchine, the veche (national assembly), which embodied the long tradition of the so-called "aristodemokratii", which has equivalents primarily in Northern Europe (Scandinavian ting).

Till now discussion among scientists of foreign policy actions of Vseslav does not stop. It is known that after the forced expulsion from Polotsk, he went to the Finnish Vod tribe and at the head of it began a campaign against Novgorod. Strange as it may seem, but through the pagan and Baltic context, the latent motivation of such an act of Vseslav becomes clear. The fact is that the Baltic presence was revealed on the lands of the water: a significant number of graves with an eastern orientation, which is considered to be a typical Baltic ritual feature, the distribution in the kurgans of things of Baltic origin, the Baltic hydronymia in the tribe's territory, the presence of a long-headed wide anthropological type, which in this part of Europe is associated with the Balts.

In the Balt context, as it seems to us, one can see traces of the Krivichi colonization, when the carriers of the culture of long barrows, and later Pskov Krivichi penetrated into the Vyatskaya Pyatina. This is confirmed by the fact that in Latvia the descendants of the Vods, who were resettled there in 1445, are known as Crevings, which can be interpreted by their long-standing contacts with Kriviches. Therefore, the approach of Vseslav, to whom the pagans-vod have entrusted their army, not least due to his sacred charisma, is similar to a deliberate tactical step, based on confidence in the “genetically determined” loyalty of the drive.

Also, the coordination of his attack on Novgorod and the popular uprising in this city, inspired by the pagan magician against the bishop and the prince of Novgorod, the enemy of Vseslav, is not at all accidental. Moreover, recent studies indicate a link between pagan reactions in the Baltic (in the lands of encouragement in 1066 and in Sweden in 1067) with the war of Vseslav against Yaroslavichi, the role of the Magician in these events as a potential ally of the Swedish (and possibly obdritic) pagan movement.

It can be assumed that Vseslav enjoyed the greatest (primarily military) support among the Baltic tribes, with the help of which he most likely restored his legal Polotsk throne in 1071. During the reign of Vseslav the Magician, who continued the policy of his father Bryachislav, relations with the neighboring Letto-Lithuanian tribes were predominantly peaceful. The probalta essence of the policies of the Krivsky rulers probably explains the inclusion of villages of the Latgals and lands in their state, where soon two outpost cities appeared - Herzik and Kukenois, which from the second half of the 11th century were part of the Polotsk principality.

By the way, it is not necessary to idealize the Polotsk region’s relations with all Baltic tribes (let us recall the unsuccessful campaign of the zemgals of 1106), but taking into account the frequent clashes between the Balts themselves, we can safely consider the expansion of Polotsk not in line with the “Baltic-Slavic confrontation”, but as a natural struggle for dominance in your region.

According to G. Semenchuk, under Vseslav Bryachislavich, the Polotsk land finally turned into an independent early medieval state. In this case, it had the required attributes and political tools: a stable territory, the highest power in the person of the prince, his dynasty, a special religious organization and the armed forces. All this allowed the Polotsk princes to pursue a foreign and domestic policy that was independent of anyone.

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the fact that as a result of Christianization and the emergence on its basis of “Russian” ethnic and confessional identity, Polotskina found itself in a completely different context. Thus, I. Morzolyuk argues that, despite the special and very specific place of the Polotsk principality in Eastern Europe, it makes no sense to consider it outside the history of Kievan Rus and that it, along with its princely dynasty, was still recognized by contemporaries as part of a single community with a center in Kiev .

It should be borne in mind that the inclusion of different ethnic spaces in this community (if you acknowledge its existence) occurred partly through the influence of urban culture (including in connection with the role of cities as centers of education and writing) and Christian ideology, which directly and indirectly contributed to the assimilation of the traditions of the indigenous population and the formation of "all-Russian" consciousness. It is also important to clarify that the notorious “Kievan Rus” was a metaethnopolitical community that was made up of states linked economically and culturally, and which, despite the differences in language, comprehended their belonging to a single political center.

However, one must also take into account the existence of the “dumb majority” of the then population (in our case, the ethnically Balt), to which the following words of N. Yakovenko can be applied:
“It is unlikely that the bulk of the population (and not the princes, their entourage, and a handful of enlightened scribes) could have at least a rough idea of the size of Russia. It would hardly have occurred to anyone that, living in Porosye, one can reason about the “commonality of one’s origin” with Novgorod or Polotsk. The same written word and unity of the spiritual and intellectual tradition evoked a feeling of mutual kinship - but only in the narrow environment of an enlightened elite. ”

A significant factor was the Polotsk region belonging to the Circumbaltic cultural region. The Baltic geopolitical orientation was a clear distinctive feature of the Polotsk land. [144] There is a rational grain in the opinion that some Polotsk sovereigns had stronger ties with the Baltic-Scandinavian world than with Kievan Rus. On the example of the links of the Polotsk Region with Lithuania, it can be noted that the early medieval ethnocultural opposition Rus-Lithuania was realized here in a more complementary version.

Almost the entire history of the independent existence of the Polotsk Region was influenced by the Lithuanian factor. The military power of Lithuania was used by the Polotsk princes in the "Russian campaigns" in 1156, 1161, 1180, 1198, in the fight against the German knights in 1216, as well as in civil wars, such as Prince Volderem Glebovich, who was not "As a sign of pacification with other princes, for" walking to Lithuania along Lithuania. " It is curious to note that sometimes the chroniclers identified Polotsk and Lithuania: if in the Novgorod First Chronicle Polochans are mentioned as participants in the attack on Kiev, the later Nikon chronicle names Lithuania instead.

Polotsk in the XIII century continued to adhere to the traditional policy of peaceful relations with Lithuania (163). The presence of the first Lithuanian prince Tavtivil on the Polotsk throne has been known since 1263, although he should have occupied it even earlier. Approximately from that time it is possible to talk about the solid entry of Polotsk into the orbit of the political influence of the Lithuanian state. V. Lastovsky gave an apt characteristic of state-dynastic Lithuanian-Polotsk relations:

“The merger of the Polotsk Krivskaya princely dynasty with the dynasties of the Lithuanian princes was so close that it is difficult now to understand where their curvature ended and Lithuanianness began.

The affinity of the Krivichi and Lithuania, the similarity of their customs and culture [146] became the “solution” for a solid foundation on which a new state arose, known at the time of its heyday as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. ”

***
In this essay only the most significant, in our opinion, moments of the Krivichy ethnic history were touched upon. More thorough research is still ahead. But already today, taking into account the materials accumulated by science, one can finally abandon the stereotypical "East Slavic" attribution of the largest "proto-Belar" tribe and agree with V. Toporov that "the previously expressed opinion about the possible" balticism "of the Krivichy has now found new confirmation on independent grounds ".

Briefly about the author

Alexey Dermant (born in 1979) - historian, ethnoculturalologist. He graduated from the Academy of Management at the Presidential Administration of the Republic of Belarus and the postgraduate study of the Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Member of the ethnocosmology center "Kryўya". The editor of the almanac "Druvis".
 
I think that's enough for today. We have a new year holiday.
Balt substrate in the formation of Belarus people.
George Davidyuk Doctor of Philosophy, Professor

Introduction

Every modern nation has ancient roots. The unification of people into social communities took place gradually. The first social communities are tribes. On the basis of different tribes (those that since ancient times lived on the places of their education, and those that came there later) nationalities were formed. Still later, on the basis of nationalities nations arose.
Modern world historiography is most often guided by the theory of civilizations of Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889–1975). According to her, various nations appeared in the process of developing local civilizations. The decisive role in the development of such civilizations was played by the development of spiritual culture, which found concentrated expression in one form or another of religion. Starting from this theory, we will consider the peculiarities of the formation of the Belarusian nation.

***
First of all, let us mention the theory of our outstanding scientist Yefim Karsky (1860–1931). On the basis of archaeological, ethnographic, folklore and chronicle data, it showed a consistent process of the formation of a Belarusian nation different from its neighbors - Russian, Letuvis, Latvian, Ukrainian, Polish. Karsky came to the conclusion that the Belarusian nation was mainly formed in the XI – XII centuries on the basis of three East Slavic tribes - Radimichi, Dregovichi and Krivichi, with the participation of some tribes of the Western Slavs and Balts.

In the 1990s, the books of the Belarusian historian Nikolai Yermolovich (1921–2000) about ancient Belarus were published. On the basis of the richest historical material, first of all, the ancient chronicles, he examined the complex process of the formation of a distinctive Belarusian nation.

Unlike Karsky, Yermolovich argued that Belarusians are not Slavs, but Slavicized Balts. Slavicization of the Balts, in his opinion, stretched across our history. The most important factor in the ethnogenesis of Belarusians was the mutual penetration and mixing of the Baltic tribes of Krivichy, Dregovichi and Radimichi. Polochans were the result of mixing Krivichy and Dregovichi.

Yermolovich also argued that it was necessary to distinguish between ancient (chronicle) Lithuania and modern Letuvu.

Ancient Lithuania, in his opinion, was located on the territory of present-day Belarus: from north to south - between Molodechno and Pinsk, from west to east - between Novogorodk (Novogrudok) and Minsk.

According to Yermolovich, from the IX to the middle of the XIII century, the main vector of the history of Belarus was determined by Polotsk, then it was replaced by Novogorodok. It was the Novogorodsk principality that became the center of the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it was here that the first ruler of the new state Mindovg was crowned (ca. 1195–1263) - presumably in 1246.

Later, the new state was named “Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russian and Zhamoitskoye”. Lithuanian is Belarusian, since almost until the end of the 18th century, western and central Belarus was called Lithuania; Russia is eastern Belarus and northeastern Ukraine, and Zhamoytiya is the western and central part of the present Lietuva.

Since the middle of the XV century, our lands did not give rest to the Moscow kings. The Moscow Grand Prince Ivan III was the first to declare that he was the “Tsar of All Russia,” and that “Little Russia” (Ukraine) and “Belaya Rus” (Lithuania) are the patrimonies of Moscow. ”
For 475 years, the hordes of Moscow rulers invaded us 17 times with fire and sword:
1) 1445-1449;
2) 1492–1494;
3) 1500–1503;
4) 1507–1508;
5) 1512–1522;
6) 1534–1537;
7) 1563–1582;
8) 1632–1634;
9) 1654–1667;
10) 1704–1708;
11) 1770-1772;
12) 1792;
13) 1794–1795;
14) 1812;
15) 1830–1831;
16) 1863–1864;
17) 1918–1920
In total - 80 years of bloody outrages!
The most destructive among all these wars were three: the invasion of the troops of Grand Duke Ivan IV in 1563–1582; the religious war of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1654–1667, the war of the Russians with the Swedes on our territory at the beginning of the XVIIIth century.
As for the war of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Belarusian historian and writer Vladimir Orlov gave her the following description:

“It was the most terrible and bloody war in the history of Belarus.”

The horde of Moscow invaders passed then from Smolensk to Vilna, Grodno and Brest, killing people, burning cities and villages, fields and even forests. Three hundred thousand peasants and townspeople were taken to Muscovy, turned into slaves of its princes and landowners. After that war
“... the population / within the borders of modern Belarus / has decreased by more than half: if before the war it reached 2 million 900 thousand people, then by 1667 there were about 1 million 350 thousand. Lost approximately 53%. In the eastern and northern povetah of Belarus, population losses were even greater. In Polotsk district, they accounted for 75%, in Mstislavsky - 71.4%, in Orshansky - 69.3%."
During the war of Tsar Peter I and the Swedes, both opponents everywhere killed the inhabitants of Belarus, took food, livestock and horses from them, burned cities and villages, castles and estates. As a result, the population that has not yet fully recovered from the effects of the previous aggression in 40 years has decreased by a third!

By these two wars, the Moscow aggressors for a long time stopped the process of the formation of the Belarusian nation. The total destruction of the population and the material foundations of its life has had a most negative impact on all aspects of the life of the Litvinians and Ruthenians, including their language and culture. Having lost their elite (the nobility and the bourgeoisie that was born in the cities) - since it was these segments of the population that suffered the greatest losses - the Belarusians in their overwhelming majority remained peasants. In the cities, Polish language, Polish culture, and the Catholic religion have prevailed since then.

***
After Russia seized the lands of the former ON, that is, from the end of the 18th century, Russian scientists and politicians insist that the original Belarusian nation never existed. She - only part of the Russian people, known as the "Western Russian". Supposedly we have a single gene pool (Slavic), a single language (Russian) and a single faith (Orthodoxy).

To begin with, I will say that Russia itself is not at all Russia and not a Slavic state. Vadim Deruzhinsky showed this beautifully in his book “Secrets of the Belarusian history”. In addition to numerous historical facts, he cited research data from the Russian Genetic Foundation by scientists from the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (RAMS). Employees of the human population genetics laboratory of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences from 2000 to 2006 studied the DNK of Russians in Russia and found that “the genetic code of Russian Russians most closely matches the genetic stock of the Mordvines (they are practically the same people), similar to Finns and Tatars.

The study of the genetic stock of regional populations of the rural population of Belarus showed its fundamental difference from the populations of central Russia in all major markers. The indigenous people of Belarus have nothing from the Turks, nor from the Finns, nor from the Ugrians. That is, genetically Belarusians and Russians have nothing in common with each other.

A few words about the so-called “unity” of the Belarusian and Russian languages. By their origin, grammar, phonetics and lexical composition are two different languages.

Comparing the language of the Belarusian peasants of the period of the XVIII – XIX centuries (when it had not yet been subjected to violent Russification) with the language of the peasants of central Russia, scientists established the complete absence of Turkic vocabulary in the Belarusian language. The grammatical structure of the Belarusian language is of the Indo-European type, and the Russian is of the Finno-Ugric type. Phonetic differences between Belarusian and Russian are very large today. Belarusians dzekat, tsekayut, gekat, akayut ...

Belarusian language in its old form was the state in ON. The Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiello, who from 1386 became the king of Poland under the name of Vladislav II, seated on the throne in Krakow, spoke to the Polish courtiers and voivods in the Belarusian language. They understood him. By the way, the Poles and today easily understand the Belarusian language - unlike the Russian.

In the Old Belarussian language, books were printed on the VKL, and public and private documents were compiled. In this language, Chancellor Lev Sapieha issued the famous “Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” in 1588, in fact the first constitution in Europe, for this set of laws and decrees regulated all spheres of social life - political, economic, social and cultural. In Russia, the first constitution appeared only at the beginning of the 20th century.

Having seized Belarusian lands, the tsarist and then the Soviet authorities systematically ousted the Belarusian language from state institutions, schools and churches, replacing it with Russian. At the same time, they purposefully destroyed our intelligentsia — first the gentry, then the raznochchinnuyu and, finally, the peasant. As a result, during the 220 years of occupation, the majority of Belarusians were forced into Russian.

However, during the last censuses (in 1999 and 2009), the majority of Belarusians (about 80%) named Belarusian as their mother tongue, while 37% of those surveyed said that they speak Belarusian at home.

Yes, today there is an appearance of linguistic affinity between the peoples of Russia and Belarus. But Belarusians remained Belarusians. For 220 years, we have kept identifying ourselves with our ancient language. The time will come and he will return his positions. Again, in cities and villages, the Belarusian meowy “movy” will caress the soul everywhere.

We have no religious unity with the Russians. After the local people moved from paganism to Christianity (which took a lot of time), Arianism was first established on Belarusian lands, then Greek-Orthodox (but not Moscow-style) Orthodoxy, and then Uniatism, which combined Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

For four centuries (XV – XVIII), Belarusian peasants and townspeople prayed in the Uniate churches. By the end of the 18th century, up to 80% of the Belarusian population was Uniate. There was his own metropolitan, his own bishops (Vladimir, Pinsk, Polotsk, Smolensk, Kholmskaya); The Uniate monasteries (Vilensky, Zhirovichy, Lavrishchensky, Novogrudsky and others) conducted educational and educational work; There were Uniate printing houses that produced religious and secular literature in the Belarusian language. The Uniate educational institutions functioned: the main seminary in Vilna trained cadres of higher clergy, the Polotsk and Zhirovichi seminaries trained priests. They all worked in the Belarusian language.

Such a situation didn’t like the Moscow Patriarch, to whom the few Orthodox churches in eastern Belarus were subordinate. After the seizure of the Belarusian lands, the Russian monarchs, Catherine II, then her son Pavel I and grandson Nikolai I, pursued a deliberate policy to destroy Uniatism. The Minister of Internal Affairs of Russia, D. Bludov, set the task for the governors of the western provinces and the Orthodox metropolis in Belarus "to transform the Uniates from the half-Polish and Roman Catholics into the devoted sons of our church and Russia."

At first, the Uniate seminaries were closed, they forced the Uniates to study in Orthodox schools in Moscow and St. Petersburg in Russian, to study the canons and rites of the Orthodox Church. The Uniate churches were flooded with bibles and liturgical literature in Russian. Orthodox priests systematically appeared in the Uniate churches, brazenly climbed the pulpit and served in the Russian language according to the Orthodox rite. Uniate bishops who resisted such actions were transferred to ordinary priests, and priests were sent to prisons or exiled to Siberia. There were many protests of Uniate believers against their "conversion" into Orthodox.

Four decades of “implementation” represented a continuous stream of lies, slander, deception, bribery, threats, arrests, exiles, mass executions. In the end, on February 12, 1839, the Uniate bishops had to sign the Act of joining the Uniate Church to the Orthodox. Belarusians became Orthodox not voluntarily, but as a result of the open violence of the authorities of the Russian Empire and the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). However, many Uniates preferred to convert to Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy.

Today, our authorities support the Orthodox Church to the detriment of other denominations. They do not attach due importance to the fact that the Belarusian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church is a principled opponent of the independence of Belarus. Orthodox priests categorically do not want to translate religious services and documentation into Belarusian, they constantly call for the “merging” of small Belarus with huge Russia - that is, for the voluntary refusal of Belarusians from their sovereignty.

However, despite all their efforts and tricks, the Orthodox Church is losing its position in Belarus. If in the 50s of the 20th century we had about 400 thousand Catholics, now there are four times more of them. And the total number of believers in Protestant communities of various directions reached 700 thousand people.

Some groups of believers in Belarus are still committed to Russian Orthodoxy, but this does not mean that there is a religious unity between the Russian and Belarusian peoples. Russian politicians and church leaders may wish for such unity, but they will not be able to achieve this.

***
Besides the Great Russian, there is another chauvinistic theory of the origin of the Belarusian nation. It came up with the ideologists of the state Lietuva. One of them is the historian Jonas Laurinavicius, whose article «Старажытная Літва: цывілізацыя i дзяржава» in 2007 published Minsk issue Abazhur in five issues.

In the Baltic area in the prehistoric period there were many different tribes. The most famous among them are the Prussians, Yatvägi, Dynova, Golad, Litvin, Zhamoyty, Latgali, Estonian. But Laurinavichus calls them all "Letto-Lithuanian peoples." His chauvinism is so great that he declared “prehistoric Lithuania” more than the Grand Duchy of Lithuania:

“Comparing the concepts of“ Ancient Lithuania ”and“ ON ”it is necessary to emphasize that the first of them is much wider and deeper - both in time and in content. This is civilization. ”

Let us remind Laurinavichusu that in addition to Zhamoitia (the predecessor of Lietuva), ON and Belarus and Ukraine, which were then called Lithuania and Russia, were part of the GDL. Their total area is about eleven times the area of Zhamoiti.

By declaring all the Baltic tribes of the prehistoric period as the “Letto-Lithuanian people,” Laurinavicius cannot indicate what is common to these tribes, which would allow them to be considered a single civilization. Each of them had their own pagan religion, their own ritual, household and material culture. The so-called "Lithuanian civilization" Laurinavicius simply invented.

Along with the substantiation of the concept of “Lithuanian civilization,” in many places of his work he rather rudely, not from scientific, but criticizes Belarusian history textbooks with ideological positions. So, Laurinavicius declared the advantage of Slavic society over the Baltic "mythological". As proof of this thesis, he cited a number of theses. These include: “the political and military activity of this civilization / Zhamoit / in our region during the 11th – 15th centuries”; organized in Europe. "

He categorically does not want to admit the obvious facts:

a) there was no question of any political activity of the Zhamoyts, since they did not have their own state;

b) until the middle of the XVI century they did not have their own written language, and until the XVIII century - secular literature;

c) all stone fortresses were located on the territory of modern or historical Belarus;

d) the high level of development of agriculture in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was among the Litvinians, Rusyns and Poles, but not the Zhamoyts (even in the XIV century, the main sources of providing the population with food were fishing, hunting and gathering, and not farming).

The above-mentioned concepts of the formation of the Belarusian nation are only a part of what has been done in this direction, especially over the past 20 years. But first of all we are only interested in one of them. We are talking about the role of the Baltic substrate in the formation of the Belarusian nation.

The role of the Baltic tribes in the formation of the Belarusian people

This concept is based on rich research material. Its authors carefully trace the history of the development of the Baltic tribes of the entire Baltic area. Especially carefully they explore the period of the appearance of Slavic tribes in the territory, which is now called Belarus. Great attention is paid to such social phenomena as cohabitation of the Balts and Slavs in the floodplains of rivers and around lakes, joint hunting for large animals, exchange of tools and labor, and marriages between Baltic and Slavic youth.

So, in the 6th century AD e. On the territory of the future Belarus the Slavs first appeared. They came from the south and mingled with the local population. The Baltic tribes have lived on this territory for more than 2 thousand years.

The Slavs who came at different times came into contact with the Baltic tribes: Yatvyagami, Dainas, Krivichi and others. They settled in islets, that is, the Balts lived in one place, the Slavs lived nearby in another. Land, forests and water at that time was enough for everyone. Appearing at different times from different angles, the Slavs settled in the upper reaches of the Neman, on the Dvina, the Dnieper, the Pripyat and the Soje.

Materials of archaeological research indicate that the Balts were widely involved in the ethnogenesis of the Slavic tribes. They entered into their composition, adopted their life, culture. The Slavs, in turn, perceived the elements of life, culture and language of the Balts. Thus, the Dregovichi (the Pripyat and the Bug region) and the Radimichi (the upper reaches of the Dnieper and the Sozh) region appeared. The process of forming a single nationality of Belarusians looked like a merger of the local Baltic population with the newly arrived Slavs.

The preservation of a significant layer of hydronymics of Baltic origin in the Belarusian ethno-linguistic territory, the formation of a special anthropological type of population here, together with materials of archeology and ethnography indicate that the local Baltic population was an ethnic substrate during the formation of Belarus. The formation of the Belarusian language also occurred under the influence of the Baltic languages. In other words, the ancestors of the Belarusians are, on the one hand, the local people who lived there for at least 2 thousand years before the Slavic colonization and spoke dialects of the Baltic language groups, and on the other hand the newcomers of the Slavic language who settled here since the 6th century.

Academician Efim Karsky, well-known Russian archaeologist Professor Valentin Sedov, Belarusian historian Nikolai Yermolovich, Polish linguist J. Rozvadovsky, American linguist Y. Sherekh and a number of other scientists formed and convincingly proved this concept, called the theory of the Balt substrate.

In the fundamental work “Belarusians” and other books, Karsky suggested that in the XIII – XIV centuries, the ancestors of Belarusians in some places were assimilated by some Baltic tribes, for example, Yatvyagi and Golad. The Belarusian nation that was formed in this way and its language had an indisputable influence on the Zhamoyts, who began to adopt their civilization from the Belarusians, gradually mastered the language and joined the Christian religion. Already with the Grand Duke Algerda (at the end of the XIV century), the authorities of the GDL legally recognized the Belarusian language as the state language. For three centuries, all voivodship services and the voivods themselves worked in the Belarusian language.

Professor Valentin Sedov has been conducting archaeological excavations on the territory of Belarus for many years. He has amassed a lot of material, which irrefutably proves the huge role of the Baltic substrate in the formation of the Belarusian nation.

Archeology and hydronimics, emphasizes V. Sedov, indicates the formation of the medieval Slavic population of the Upper Dvina and the Dnieper region mainly by the Slavonicization of the aboriginal Balts - newcomers. The formation of the population of Belarus on the basis of the local Baltic tribes was imprinted literally in everything: in the anthropological structure of modern Belarus, their genetics, ethnographic and linguistic features. As for the Belarusian language, the basis of its vocabulary is Baltic (according to E. Karsky - 83% of the roots of words), and the grammar is Slavic.
0

Some Baltic tribes in the early middle ages

A somewhat different argument in favor of the theory of the Baltic substrate in the formation of the Baltic nationality is given by Yermolovich. It complements the arguments of Karsky and Sedov. According to Yermolovich, the Baltic elements in Belarus are identified, first of all, in toponymy, hydronymy and dialectology, as well as in anthropology. Making wide use of the data of these studies, Yermolovich in his book “Stable Belarus” convincingly proved the confusion and mutual influence of the Balts and Slavs, as a result of which the people of Belarus arose.

Analyzing the names of the settlements, as well as the rivers of all regions of Belarus, he found a lot of Lithuanian names (Grodno region, Minsk region, Brest region), Latvian (Vitebsk region, Mogilyov region). On the territory of Beshenkovichsky, Verkhnedvinsky, Vitebsk, Tolochinsky, Chashniki, Gluboksky districts of the Vitebsk region, writes Yermolovich, there are such names as Latygol, Latygovo and the like. The researcher drew attention to the fact that the distribution area of Latygol toponyms coincides with the area of existence of the Dnieper-Dvina archaeological culture of the Balts. Therefore, it is possible that its carriers were the ancestors of Latygol.

Since Sedov conducted research on the Belarusian kurgans and “dug up” a very large amount of research material, let us return once again to his arguments in defense of the theory of the Baltic substrate in the formation of the Belarusian nationality. Having completed many years of archaeological excavations in Belarus and the Smolensk region, summarizing their results in the book “Slavs of Upper Dnieper and Dvina”, Sedov showed the role of the Baltic substrate in the formation of the Belarusian nation. In particular, he noted that the Slavs borrowed the custom of putting axes and spears into the grave from the Balts. This custom spread precisely in that part of the East Slavic range, where the Slavs mixed with the Baltic autochthonous population.

In an interview with the Belarusian newspaper “Literature i Mastavtva” Sedov said:
“From the materials of the excavations in Belarus and in the Smolensk region, it is clear that these lands differ from the Kiev region, the lands of Novgorod, Volyn and Poland by a special type of jewelry that can be compared with the Old Leatu and Old Latvian (breast, neck beads, cervical hryvnia, cult snakes). In large numbers they are preserved in the territory of modern Lithuania and Latvia, and in a smaller one - in Belarus and in the Smolensk region. At the same time, in the Vladimir region, in the Moscow region, in the Kiev region and in the Volyn region there are no such decorations at all. ”

The Baltic substrate in the formation of the Belarusian nationality is confirmed by the anthropology data, obtained as a result of archaeological excavations on the territory of Belarus and the Baltic states. They testify to the formation of the Valdai-Verkhnedvinsky anthropological complex in the area of settlement of the Baltic tribes, suggest the coincidence of the archaeological and anthropological areas, the similarity of the structure of the skulls of the modern Slavs of Belarus (dolichokranny srednelitsy type) with a series of skulls from a number of Baltic burial grounds, as well as Valdai belonging -Verhnedvinsk complex along with the Baltic to a single circle of northern Caucasians.

Sedov believed that "this is evidence that the Belarusian nation was formed due to the assimilation of the Balts." He believed that the formation of the dichuhedral, middle-anthropological type of the Middle Ages and the Valdai-Verkhnedvinsky complex of our time within the Baltic region could not be confirmed by any other circumstances.

The presence of the Balt substrate in the origin of Belarusians is also confirmed by ethnographic data. The ethnographic parallels between Belarus and the Baltic nations are very significant. For example, these peoples have identical cult snakes (snakes), stones and trees (oaks).

The architecture of housing and outbuildings is very similar among Belarusians and Balts. National clothes of Belarus and Balts also have a lot in common.

E. Karsky argued that the constant communication of the Baltic and Slavic tribes, of which the Belarusian nation developed over time, inevitably led to the borrowing of vocabulary by both parties. This process affected not only the languages of neighboring tribes, but also more distant ones. For example, some of the words borrowed by Belarusians from Letuvis and Latvians were familiar to all Belarusian tribes, while another part was only to residents of the north-west of Belarus. Karsky calculated that up to 83% of the Belarusian words have common roots with the words of the Baltic languages. Especially a lot of them in the terminology of agriculture, fisheries and bornicking. In addition, he quoted 100 Baltic words, entirely borrowed from Letuvis and Latvians.

An American linguist, Yu. Sherekh, came to the conclusion that the dialectal differentiation of East Slavic languages is a product of both the colonization movements of various Slavic groups and the ethnic delineation of the substrate heritage. In particular, the scientist believes that "akane" is the result of the interaction of the Slavic language with the Baltic. Modern Belarusian and largely Ukrainian dialects, in his opinion, are located on the territory of the Baltic ethnic substrate.

Relying on the studies of Russian philologists, Sedov concluded that “jokes” and “cuffs” in the Belarusian language are also the result of the influence of the Balts. In his opinion, these two circumstances make it possible to talk about the interaction of the East Slavic language with the Baltic dialects. The elements of “zekania” and “zakane” are characteristic only of a part of the Eastern Slavic population, which settled in the territory of the Baltic-speaking tribes and assimilated the latter.

In the 1980s, Ukrainian scientists, first of all, Professor A. Nesokupny, with their linguistic studies proved the presence of Balticisms in many written sources of Belarus and Ukraine in the 12th – 13th centuries.

In 1990, a Lithuanian philologist Rimsha spoke at a seminar in Pskov devoted to the history of the Pskov Republic, which counted several hundred Balticisms in the Belarusian language.

Thus, domestic, cultural and linguistic interaction of the Baltic and Slavic cultures took place on the territory of the future Belarus, as a result of which the Belarusian nation was gradually formed.

Objective factors contributed to the mutual assimilation of the Balts and the Slavs. According to archeology, there was no significant difference in the socio-economic development of the Slavs and the Balts. This contributed to the organic fusion of the Slavic and Baltic population into a single socio-economic complex.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that this process was rather difficult. The tribes living side by side, as it were, often fought each other. Especially often military clashes occurred in the first two centuries of the neighborhood. The excavations of burial grounds of the 7th – 8th centuries show the burials of warriors of both sides.

The identity of beliefs played an important role in the process of merging the Balts and the Slavs. Both the Slavs and the Balts were pagans.

Christianity, brought from the principality of Kiev, first appeared in the Dregovichi. It gradually supplanted paganism throughout the whole range of the proto-Belarusian population. This happened much earlier than Christianity penetrated Zhamitia.

***
It was as a result of the appearance of the Slavs on the territory of Belarus and their joint life with the Balts that Belarusians arose.

Nevertheless, Russian historians for the most part still oppose the theory of the Balt substrate. Their arguments are based on the postulates formulated by the ideologists of the tsarist autocracy and the Russian Orthodox Church, and later reproduced by the ideologists of the CPSU. Such is the "scientific rationale" of the chauvinistic policy of the rulers of Russia of all times. It is not by chance that the imperial symbols are preserved in the state attributes of the Russian Federation.

It is more difficult to understand why some Belarusian historians, after gaining independence in 1991, continue to zealously protect inventions about the “kinship” of Belarusians and Russians, their “Slavic purity”, about the “brotherly love” of Russians to Belarusians. Moreover, from time to time there are books and articles with anti-Belarussian attacks, with lackey praise of Russian tsarism and communism.

For example, in 2003, a textbook was published in two parts of the “History of Belarus”, which cannot be called anything other than “ideological poison”. All campaigns of the Moscow tsars against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were declared in it “Russian-Polish wars”. The thirteen-year war of Tsar Alexei Romanov against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called "the national-summoning of the supine suprats of the Polish Panoi i u'adnan Rasii". Not a word has been said about the destruction and robbery of our region, about the genocide of our ancestors on the basis of religion. And the seizure of Belarus by Russia at the end of the 18th century and the conversion of the previously free peasantry to the serfs (slaves!) Is referred to in the textbook as “the union of fraternal peoples”. And such an ideological distortion of the history of Belarus is shamelessly presented under the label of “true history”!

In the 60s – 70s of the 20th century, the ideological inspirers of the authors of this textbook organized a struggle against the theory of the “Balt substrate.” Already at that time, she questioned the “Slavic purity” of the origin of Belarus, as well as the theory of a single ancient Russian people, from which Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians allegedly came out. And this destroyed the scientific concepts of many Belarusian historians - academicians, corresponding members, doctors and candidates of science. Therefore, they strongly opposed this theory, defending their own prosperous existence.

In 1973, in Minsk, they tried to organize an All-Union scientific conference on the basis of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR on the ethnogenesis of Belarusians, with the aim of "breaking the ideologically flawed theory of the Balt substrate." However, the theses of many papers sent to the conference supported this theory. This frightened the top party leadership of the BSSR, which started the forum. It lowered the "directive": the conference does not hold. Director of the Institute of History N. V. Kamenskaya received a telephone "instruction" from the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus on ideology A. T. Kuzmin: "to destroy the conference materials." Kamenskaya, in turn, ordered the head of the sector, Professor Adam Zalessky, to burn the texts of the reports sent to the conference. An avid Great-Russian chauvinist, a hater of everything Belarusian, Zaleski fulfilled with great joy the order of the director of the institute.

At that time, I worked at the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR as head of the department of social studies. Once, the director of our institute, Academician Kazimir Buslov, secretly told me about this atrocity of people who dare to call themselves scientists.

Currently, despite the absence of direct ideological interference by the authorities and pro-government organizations in scientific activities, a number of Belarusian historians still uphold the theory of “Slavic purity” of Belarusians. Therefore, in magazines on social sciences, produced by state publishing houses (for example, in the journal “Belaruski gіstarychny Chastopіs”), as well as in school and university textbooks “theory of the Balt substrate” are still not allowed. One has to wait when the scientific concept of the Balt substrate, reliably reflecting reality, overcomes the dogmatism and routine of Belarusian historiography and takes a worthy place in it.

Briefly about the author

Georgy Petrovich Davidyuk (born in 1923) - Belarusian sociologist, Doctor of Philosophy (1969), Professor (1970). In 1962–73 he was in charge of the sociological research sector of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, then headed the philosophy department of the humanitarian faculties of the BSU, and headed the sociology department of the BSU.

Author of monographs "Criticism of the Theory of a Unified Industrial Society" (1968), "Problems of Mass Culture and Mass Communications" (1972), "Introduction to Applied Sociology" (1975), "Applied Sociology" (1979), as well as over two hundred scientific articles.
 
The Byzantines systematically called the ruler of Russia Kagan.
Well, that's wrong. It's possible it's honest mistake, but still.
Byzantium sources that mentions ruses (it's treaties and Constantine's manuals) calls rulers of Russia "archons". Keep in mind, Byzantines had complicated court rituals, and naming of rulers was important; they definitely knew Khazarian Khaganate, and call it's ruler "khagan".
There are three versions of Annales Bertiniani "kagan" (Chaganos).
1. It's personal name of ruler in question. Maybe Hakon.
2. It's meaning that some ruses served Khazarian Khagan. After all, Scandinavians served Greek Emperor, why couldn't Khazars?..
3. It's meaning that there was some kind of "Russian Kaganate", meaning powerful state (kagan is important title, you know), left unnoticed by any external sources.
3a. It's meaning there was one ruler who had megalomania and demanded to be called as the steppe kagan. Like, imagine a pictish chief in Caesar time who demands to call himself "Emperor Rex".

If these calculations are correct, then the origin of Belarus should really be linked with the participation of both the Balts and the Slavs.
...or that (*gasp!*) slavs and balts aren't so distant, and became from the same unity, splitted somewhere in IV century BC (meaning rural Byelorussian who didn't changed being remnants of this unity, not a synthesis).

The grammatical structure of the Belarusian language is of the Indo-European type, and the Russian is of the Finno-Ugric type.
...what's the hell?
Compare russian declension types, and finnish declension types, and never repeat it.

In our case, the principle of “presumption of autochthonousness” can be very useful for objective research, according to which any cultural phenomenon should first be regarded as local in origin, resulting from the evolutionary development of the local culture itself, if the opposite is not proved or cannot be proven.
My personal view. Every time I see in _scientific_ work that opposing idea is politically supported and therefore author of this work is reclaiming historical justice, suppressed by years of opression, I tend to disagree with conclusions. Because when you're biased the opposite way your opponent is, you're not unbiased.
I'm Russian, therefore I'm slavic (I believe), but I strictly believe any nationalistic political ideas being dangerous and unhelpful, and the very idea of nationalistic state in modern world being kinda criminal. I don't need Byelorussian being Slavs or Russians. Authors of articles you provide, though, needs Byelorussian not to be both, to separate them from oppressive Russians. Breaking news: they found things they wanted!
 
Did you translate this? It's very hard to make sense of it. Not because of the grammar but it's difficult to understand whether it's just badly expressed or actual nonsense. Like this:
Are you really saying that the slavs first originated from the przeworsk culture and settled the Elbe region, and then the very same slavs settled the Moscow region? And the time frames are just gibberish as well. 4th to 7th century settlement of the Elbe and vistula regions - eh??
This is Leonid Vasilyevich Milov. Vistula-Oder hypothesis. Kolomiytsev and I do not approve of the Vistula-Oder hypothesis. I took his quotes because he points to the late appearance of Slavs in Belarus.
Kolomiytsev considers Przeworska culture to be the Veneds. But these Veneds are relatives of the Italians, Latins, and Illyrians. This culture of funerary urns occupies a strategically important area with tin and copper. With their bronze swords, they were guilty of the destruction of the Mediterranean civilization: Mycenae, Hatti, cities of the States of Canaan, Crete.
They lived in Poland until the 3rd century BC, Lausitz culture. They are on the map of Ptolemy. Their language is unknown. According to Kolomiytsev, they were conquered by the Celts, who learned how to make weapons of iron.
When this people disappeared, the Germans transferred the name of this people first to the Vandals, then to the Balts. Since they settled there.
If you place Italians in Poland in your games there will be no big mistake
UrnfieldCulture.jpg

eff464575b0059630146d1f5b807cecf.png

1-17.jpg

This is Leonid Vasilyevich Milov. (July 28, 1929, Moscow - November 17, 2007, Moscow) - Soviet and Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2000). Professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Head of the Department of Russian History until the beginning of the XIX century. Member of the International Cliometric Society. The history of Russia from ancient times to the end of the XVII century
L.V.Milov.jpg

I didn't read this work yet, but thesis you presented is plainly wrong.
"И по сей братьи почаша дѣржати родъ ихъ княжение в поляхъ, а въ деревляхъ свое, а дрьговичи свое, а словѣне свое въ Новѣгородѣ, а другое на Полотѣ, иже и полочанѣ. От сихъ же и кривичи, иже сѣдять на верхъ Волгы, и на вѣрхъ Двины и на вѣрхъ Днѣпра, ихъже и городъ есть Смолѣнескъ; туда бо сѣдять кривичи." - "[After the deaths of these three brothers], their gens assumed the supremacy among the Polyanians. The Derevlians possessed a principality of their own, as did also the Dregovichians, while the Slavs had their own authority in Novgorod, and another principality existed on the Polota, where the Polotians dwell. They're progenitors of the Krivichians, who live at the head waters of the Volga, the Dvina, and the Dnieper, and whose city is Smolensk. It is there that the Krivichians dwell, and from them are the Severians sprung."
The confusing thing here is that there is two different meaning of "slavs" in "Tale of Bygone Years". First of them is "superethnic" declaration, like "От сихъ же 70 и дву языку бысть языкъ словенескъ, от племени же Афетова, нарѣцаемѣи норци, иже суть словенѣ." ("Among these seventy-two nations, the Slavic race is derived from the line of Japheth, since they are the Noricians, who are identical with the Slavs."). And the second meaning is for naming people of Novgorod: "Словѣне же сѣдоша около озера Илмера, и прозвашася своимъ именемъ, и сдѣлаша городъ и нарекоша и́ Новъгородъ." (The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Il'men', and were known there by their characteristic name.). The difference is on paper - slavs as a people written through "е" (словенѣ), slavs of Ilmen written through ѣ (словѣне).
The translation of the ancient text is incorrect. I would not pay attention to it. I read Albert Maximov "Rus, which was -2 Alternative version of the story." He points to this mistake of the translator.
EAST SLAVS
If the Slavs were not so fragmented and if there was less disagreement among their individual tribes, then no nation in the world would be able to resist them.
(Al-Masoudi)
WHO SAID IN SLAVYANI IN RUSSIA?
Traditional history long ago figured out the ethnic composition of the ancient Russian state. She attributes to the Slavs the Polyans, Severyans, Drevlyans, Dregovichs, Vyatichi, Radimichi, Polochans, Krivichi, Slovenes, Ulicas, Tivertsy and Volynians. The fact that all these tribes are Slavs is a postulate, the cornerstone on which all Russian history stands. But is it? The evidence base of traditional history in this matter is small, which is not surprising: why, they say, to prove the obvious to everyone? But, I think, traditional historians, who are in hopeless prosperity, sooner or later will have to think about the absurdity of the story that they serve and preserve.

Well, we now consider this question and begin with the Tale of Bygone Years. Here is what is written in it about the Eastern Slavs: “... the Slavs came and sat down along the Dnieper and called themselves Polyans, and others — Drevlyans, because they sat down in the woods, while others sat between Pripyat and Dvina and called themselves Dregoviches, others sat down along the Dvina and called themselves Polochans , on the river, which flows into the Dvina, called Polota, Polotskians called themselves from it. The same Slavs who sat down near the lake of Ilmen were called by their name - the Slavs, and built the city, and called it Novgorod. And the others sat down along the Desna, along the Diet, and along Sula, and called themselves Severyans. And so the Slavic people broke up. ”

A little further in the "Tale ..." it is stated: "That's just who speaks Slavic in Russia: Polyans, Drevlyans, Novgorodians, Polochans, Dregovichi, Severyans, Bugichi, so called because they sat in Bug, and then became Volynians."

As you can see, in the second list, only Bugichi are added to the listed tribes. And where are the Krivichi, Vyatichi, Radimichi, Ulichi, Tiverts? True, in the "Tale ..." there are words that Krivichi come from Polochans, but what is meant by the verb "occur"? We still have not been able to identify all the meanings of certain words that appear in the annals. And if so, then the old Russian texts can be misinterpreted.

This mention of the Krivichy can only mean that the location of the Kryvichy is located beyond Polochan lands. Compare the translation with the original. The original should be understood as a version of the chronicle in the Old Slavonic language, proposed by historians to the readers. The present original (more precisely, its copy, which has come down to our days) is not easily accessible to the ordinary reader, for it is a complex set of letters of the ancient Cyrillic alphabet. Here is a translation: “... and another on the Polote River, where Polochans are. From these latter there are Krivichi sitting in the upper reaches of the Volga ... ". And here is how the original sounds: “... and the other is on the Half, the Polotsk citizens. From them, they are Krivichi, others sit on top of the Volga ... ”. As you can see, Academician Likhachev rather inaccurately translated the original of The Tale of Bygone Years, where it is not at all stated that the Krivichy are HAPPENING from Polochans, they are just LOCATED NEAR Polochans. Speaking differently, it is enough to add a circumstance “aside” in the lines of “A Tale ...”, as it will turn out: “... others of Polotsk. Aside from them, they are Krivichi. ” By the way, such a translation of the original would be more accurate than the one proposed by Likhachev. Why did Likhachev make such a gross mistake by adding the word “occur”? Because the traditional history has always considered and considers the Krivichy to be the same Slavs as the Polotsk citizens. And appeared in translation, inconspicuous, but very important for the traditional history of the word "occur."

Until now, the chronicler's words about the Slavs-Slovenes are interpreted completely incorrectly. It is erroneously considered that the word “Slovene” (this is the original) refers only to Novgorod Slovenes, but, in my opinion, it is necessary to understand that this is Slavs. Let me remind you that the transcription of the modern words "Slavs" and "Sloven" in the original "Tale ..." is the same: "Sloven".

The fact that the Krivichi are Slavs is NOT MENTIONED anywhere in the "Tale ...". On the contrary: "Oleg went on a campaign, taking with him many soldiers: Varyags, Сhuds, Slovens, Meryans, Ves, Kryvichi, and came ...". Here's another: "Varyags from the zamorye collected tribute from Chud, and from Slovens, and Merya, and Krivichi." And: “The Russians said Chud, Slovens, Krivichi and all,” etc. That is, in all the above quotes, the Kryvichi are clearly separated from the Slovens.

In this case, the modern translation of “The Tale ...” should sound like this: “Oleg went on a campaign, taking many soldiers with him: the Varyags, the Chuds, the Slovens, the Meryans, the Ves, the Krivichi, and came ...”, “The Varyags from the zamory collected tribute from the Chud , and from the Slovens, and from Meryans, and from the Krivichi, " "Have told to Russ Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and Ves."

In this case, the modern translation of “The Tale ...” should sound like this: “Oleg went on a campaign, taking many soldiers with him: the Varyags, the Chud, the Slavs, the measure, all of the Krivichi, and came ...”, “The Varyags from the zamory collected tribute from the Chud , and from the Slavs, and from Mary, and from the Krivichi, "" Chud, Slavs, Krivichi, and all said to Russia. "

Immediately, I note that all these excerpts tell about the events of the 9th century. On the events of the X century in the "Tale ..." we read: "... he took with him many Varyags, and Slovens (!), and Chud, and Krivichi, and Meryans, and Drevlyans, and Radimichi, and Polyan, and Severyans, and Vyatichi, and Croats, Dulebs, and Tiverts ... ". For this phrase I will say only one thing: it does not inspire confidence, since the enumeration of the tribes is too long. This is probably a later insertion - an addition to the five originally mentioned tribes. This is confirmed by three excerpts from the "Tale ..." relating to the events of the X century. "Igor also gathered many warriors: Varyags, Rus, and the Polyans, and Slovens, and Krivichi, and Tiverts." Readers should be warned in advance that the Polyans is also not Slavs, but more on that later. “Vladimir also gathered many warriors - Varyags, Slovens, Chuds and Krivichi.” And finally, the last: “And I began to recruit the best men from the Slavs (!), From the Krivichy, and from the Chud, and from the Vyatichi ...”. As you can see, even according to the modern translation of The Tale of Bygone Years, it turns out that the Krivichi are NOT Slavs, as, indeed, Vyatichi.

Tatishchev considered Krivichy Sarmatians. He drew such a conclusion on the basis of the fact that “the word Krivė in Sarmatian language means upper reaches of rivers”. Tatishchev attributed to the Sarmatians all Finno-Ugrians and Lithuanians. By the way, the Lithuanians called Russia krewenzemla, or the land of the Krivichi. Latvians call Russian kreva. We know that, as a rule, he gives the name to the people himself or his closest neighbors. Here is a typical second variant of the origin of this name: the Krivichi actually lived in the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper, Western Dvina and many others.

Without denying a certain Iranian-language component among the Krivichi, the latter, in my opinion, are definitely Balts. This is confirmed by archeology. In the area of the western settlement of Krivichy (Smolensk-Polotsk-Pskov region of the triangle) of the 7th – 9th centuries is represented by the culture of long barrows, in which the Baltic influence is clearly noticeable. And one more thing: krive is among the ancient Lithuanians the high priest Krive-Kriveyto.

About Radimichi and Vyatichi in translation it is said that they come from the kind of Lyachs (Lechs-Poland). ""Polyans live especially, as reckon, there are kind words, and are called clearing and Drevlyans from the word, and narcosis Drevlyans; Radimichi Vyatichi from the poles. Was 2 brothers in the Lyachs, Radim, and other Vyatka". I. e., miss Polyans and Drevlyane on " Lead…» That is, the glade and Drevlyans, according to the “Tale ...”, are from the Kind of Slavs, but the Vyatichi and Radimichi are simply, without mentioning the clan, from the “Lyachs”, who are not even Poles, but simply the inhabitants of “Lyasekh” (Forests), which may simply mean residents of forests. Vyatichi and Radimichi on TV turned out to be Polish Slavs because of an incorrectly interpreted word, which meant only wood. Indeed, these tribes lived in the forests. Besides, is it not too far from Poland that “Polish” Vyatichi climbed?

According to one of the existing versions of the name of the people of the Mordovians in their origin ... Iranian. It turns out that in Iranian languages there is the word martiya, translated as man, man. The suffix “va” was added to this basis, and it happened: Mordva. If you look at the map, you will see that the neighbors of the Mordovians were a tribe of Vyatichi, in case of recognition of the Vyatichi by the Iranian-speaking tribe, it will become clear thanks to which the Mordvinians received this name.

Tatishchev, and then Miller, were considered Vyatichi not Slavs, but Sarmatians. “Their name is Sarmatian and marks in this language people are rude, restless, as they really were. The Chuvash people are still referred to in the Mordovian language as a Vetke. ” A number of historians call the name “Vyatich” with the word “Ant”. But the Antes are not Slavs, I think, but Iranians. We will discuss this in the next chapter.

As for the "Slavs" - the streets and the Tiverts, the "Tale ..." UNANIMALLY determines their belonging to the Iranian-speaking tribes: "... the Greeks called them the" Great Scythian. " In the original, the last two words stood without quotes. The Scythians, as is known, are Iranian-speaking people. I would like to learn from our historians, but where did these “Slavs” go - the streets and the Tivertsi, so numerous and compactly living?

From the foregoing, it is entirely possible to assume that the Vyatichi, Radimichi, Ulichi and Tiverts, most likely, were Iranian-speaking tribes, and the Krivichi - a Balt tribe.

Now it is time to consider the remaining seven Slavic tribes on the subject of their belonging to the Slavs. To Drevlyans, dregovichs, Polotsk, and Novgorod Volyn Slovenia no complaints. They are Slavs. But there are questions on the Polyans and Severyans. In my opinion, these are Sarmatian tribes, naturally, not in their pure form, with a certain Slavic admixture in the Polyans and a significant, perhaps even the predominant Ugric component in the Severyans.

According to a number of modern scholars, the very name of a Slavic tribe "northerners" is of Iranian origin. If the Severyans come from the Slavic word "north" (and in the original "Tale ..." they are called so - "north"), then in what north (sever) are they located? On the contrary, it is southeast of the center of the Slavic settlements. But, in my opinion, the name of a tribe of Severyans can occur from several times mentioned by historians of the Saviri tribe. Jordan divided the Huns into two main branches: aulzigra (Bulgars) and Savirs. Theophanes the Confessor wrote: "The Huns, called savirs, penetrated ...". Procopius, describing Savirs, also said that they are a Hunnish tribe.

About Savirs it is known that this tribe pushed the Ugrians and Bulgars to the west. The last time Savir caught in the Azov region, where they fight with the Romans and the Persians. It was in the year 578. More about them there is no mention. And it was in the second half of the 6th century that Avars appeared on the historical scene in the same region. Compare the names of two tribes: Savirs and Avars. Why none of the researchers did not recognize their identity? But meanwhile this is one and the same tribe, compare without oglassovok: SVR and BR! In the place of a tribe of Severyans in the XV – XVII centuries, chronicles catch sevryuks - a special group of people. The similarity of the names and location give reason to recognize their identity.

Many people know about the Avar kaganate, whose center has become Pannonia. Even "The Tale of Bygone Years" did not pass by obrov, i.e., the Avars, telling how they oppressed the Dulebs. But it is quite possible that the Avar power extended not only to Pannonia and part of Western Ukraine, but also much east, where the Avars probably also lived, known to us by the name of Savirs. In the 750s, there is an invasion in the Transcaucasus of some sevordikov, which the Arabs call savardzhi. In these names the same Savirs are clearly visible. Sevordikov identified with the Magyars, and the Magyars, as you know, Ugrians. Konstantin Bagryanogodnyy has an indication that the Magyars in Levedia were called savarts asphals — strong savarts. That is, there is again an identification of saviers and Magyars.

And about the Severyans. According to archaeological data, newcomers from the east settled on the territory of this tribe, that is, Slavs could not be uniquely these newcomers. And, finally, if the Severyans were Slavs, what prevented their rapid dissolution among the rest of the population of Rus?

The Khazar king Joseph reported (in Kokovtsov’s translation): “This river has numerous peoples ... Bour-t-s, bul-g-r, s-var, arisu, c-r-mis, v-n-tit, sr-v, s-l-viyun ". Let's restore these names completely: Burtases, Bulgars, Avars, Russ, Cheremis, Viatichi, Severyans (or Savirs?), Slavs. This list mentions separately the Slavs, and among the Khazaria’s other neighbors, the same Vyatichi and Severyans. That is, it turns out that both the Ruses, the Vyatichi, and the Severyans were not Slavs, which once again proves the correctness of the statements made here. In fact, no one will say, for example: “Russia is a Slavic country, but Tatars, Bashkirs, Mordovians, Ukrainians and Belorusians also live in it ...”.

The name “Polyans” is clearly visible in the name of the field (pole), these are inhabitants of the fields. The Polovtsi, by the way, got their name from the Slavs by their habitat (residents of fields, steppes). But in the area of Kiev and its environs there were forests. So why - glade? The Greek historian Diodorus of Sicily, who lived in the first century BC (in fact, of course, in later times), wrote about the strong people of the "Pals" - the descendants of one half of the Scythians. Is this a Polyans?

It should also be noted that the areas of southern Russia adjoining Kiev were practically not populated. Prince Vladimir, in order to strengthen the southern regions and Kiev itself, ordered the construction of new cities there and inhabited them by settlers from the northeast: Slavs, Krivichy, Chud, Vyatichi.

By the way, part of the Pechenegs entered the service of the Kiev princes, having received the Porosia land as pastures. But in this case, where are their indigenous inhabitants, the tillers of the glade-Slavs, in whose existence traditional historians so believe?

Why does the Tale of Bygone Years refer to the Slavs of the Polyans and Severyans? Here the answer is very simple: the Polyans were a tribe of Kiev-the capital city of the Grand Dukes. Polyans simply MUST have been Slavs. In the same list were included and neighbors of the Polyans - the Severyans. Here the reason, of course, is not the benevolent attitude of the chroniclers and their customers to their neighbors, they just realized that if the neighbors of the Polyans did not turn out to be Slavs, then questions could arise about the Polyans themselves.

And the chronicler loved the Polyans. Here is what he writes in “A Tale ...”: “Polyans have the custom of their gentle and quiet fathers, shameful in front of their daughter-in-law and sisters, mothers and parents; before the mother-in-law and the maidens, they have great bashfulness ... And the Drevlians lived an animal custom, they lived like cattle: they killed each other, ate everything that was unclean, and they did not have marriages ... all the beasts, they ate all the unclean things, and put a disgrace upon the fathers and in the daughters-in-law, and they did not have marriages ... Krivichi kept this custom ... " As you can see, everyone got the nuts, except for Polyans, naturally.

To a quite reasonable question: why were non-Slavic tribes included in the number of Slavs, and at the same time “The Tale ...” gives a long list of other non-Slavic peoples who speak “their own languages”, the answer can be quite simple. The list of the so-called Slavic tribes included almost all the tribes that constituted the core of the future Old Russian nationality and by the XI century (the time of the beginning of the composition of the "Tale ...") had already become famous, had prince governors appointed by rulers - Rurikovich; the non-Slavic tribes had full political autonomy. Although the tribute paid and those and others.

HOW DOES RUSSIA HAVE BEEN SPEAKING IN SLAVIAN?


Until now, it is believed that the Eastern Slavs, spreading from a single center located in the Dnieper region, were from the very beginning similar, like identical twins, with a single language, without division into any dialects. And only then, during the period of feudal fragmentation, the single language was divided into three parts, which gave us Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. But even if we accept the traditional version, that all twelve Pra-Rus tribes were Slavs, even then it would be difficult to agree with such a version. Huge distances, lack of roads and means of communication and most importantly - the presence of a certain number of foreign population: Finno-Ugric peoples, Turks, Balts, even Scandinavians - in different regions of Russia would have led to the local dialects in the 10th century .

In my opinion, in these times a completely different process took place: the unification of the most diverse languages into a common single language of the nascent state. It so happened that this language was the language of the Slavs, but could win and Finno-Ugric, and Iranian-speaking Sarmatians, and the Balts, and later the Turks. It could happen that in the south, for example, they would speak Sarmatian, in the northeast - in Finno-Ugric, and in the north-west - in one of the Baltic languages and only in the west - in Slavic. In this case, surely there would be several states, a single power, which turned out to be the Russian empire, simply would not have happened and world history would have gone a completely different way ...

So, scientists, supporters of the traditional version of history, are confident that during the period of feudal fragmentation, due to the division of the old Russian people by political, economic and cultural barriers, there was a division of a single language into Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. However, let's pay attention to the Ukrainian language. It is believed that due to the fact that Ukraine was cut off for four centuries from Russia, being at the mercy of the Horde, Lithuania and Poland, the Ukrainian nation managed to emerge here. But this simple theory calls into question the city of Chernigov. The fact is that the Chernigov region was still a part of the Russian state most of the time, and Ukrainians live there, I remind you. For some reason, no one paid attention to such oddity.

But we still have a century-old prescription of Zelenin that the southern Russian population differs from the northern Russians "much more than from the Belarusians." Consequently, at the beginning of the twentieth century, we had a division of Eastern Slavs not into three linguistic ethnic groups, but into four: traditional Ukrainians and Belarusians, and two groups of Russians: some with a tendency to o, and others with a tendency to a. Leon Trotsky was even going to publish, if I am not mistaken, a textbook of the Tambov language.

The situation with the Ukrainian language and, therefore, the origin of the Ukrainian nation clearly shows what is happening with the history of the emergence of individual East Slavic languages.

Some Ukrainian historians, either voluntarily or fulfilling a political order, argue that the Ukrainian and Russian peoples formed separately at the very beginning of the emergence of Kievan Rus, each on its own territory. Their conclusion is unambiguously clear: the history of Kievan Rus is Ukrainian history, and the Russians have practically nothing to do with it. Hence the conclusion to which the Lvov authorities have already arrived, with the silent approval of the central Ukrainian authorities: the Russian language is vulgar.

However, as if in opposition to such a judgment, there is Pogodin's theory, according to which it was the Russian people who created Kievan Rus, and then completely moved to the north and northeast. The vacated territory was occupied by other Slavs - newcomers from the Carpathians.

But, in my opinion, it is still more difficult. First of all, let us remember who settled the key land in this issue, Chernigovskaya (I remind you that Chernigov was a part of the Russian state most of the time, but Ukrainians now live there). These were Severyans who are considered Slavs on TV, but in reality were a Ugrian tribe of savirs with a strong Sarmatian impurity. Savirs (Avars) that came to this region mixed with the autochthonous Iranian-speaking population of this region: Scythians and Sarmatians. Yes, there were Slavs who lived nearby, but there were other neighbors - Alans, also an Iranian-speaking tribe.

Waves of steppe people constantly rolled on the South Russian lands, many of which were settled in parts, or even whole tribes, like Torks and Berendeis, in the southern Russian principalities. And among the steppe dwellers were Turks and Ugrians. However, in the 10th century, the population in the south was quite rare, in contrast to the northeast. Here in the Tale of Bygone Years, "... Vladimir said:" It is not good that there are few cities near Kiev. " And he began to put cities on the Desna, and on the Ostro, and on Trubezhu, and on Sul, and on Stugna. And he began to recruit husbands from the best of the Slavs, and from Krivichy, and from Chud, and from Vyatichi, and populated the cities with them. ” Note that the settlers were not recruited from the Polyans or from the Severyans, however, the new cities themselves were built just on the lands of the Polyans and Severyans. From small numbers (on TV, of course), the Chuds were settlers too. It was these immigrants from the north-east that helped smooth out, in my opinion, such a large difference between the languages of the inhabitants of southern Russia. And let me remind you, Slavic, Iranian, Ugric, and later Turkic tribes lived on the territory of modern Ukraine.

And the catalyst in the vast assimilation process was ORTHODOX. Religious rites coped in the Slavic language, it also wrote books and chronicles. The emerging Old Russian language must have absorbed the elements of the written language, which became a definite standard when a single linguistic community arose. If Vladimir had chosen not the Greek faith, but the Roman or Islam, then the religious services would have gone in Latin or Arabic. No, Latin or Arabic in Russia would not have taken root, but Slavic in the fight against the languages of their neighbors would not have received such strong support in the person of the Orthodox Church. What then would the language win in Ukraine: Slavic, Ugric, Iranian, Turkic? Most likely, in the northwest - Slavic, and in the south and east - Iranian, but the latter would have to wage a difficult struggle with the Ugriches and the Turks. There would have been no great, half European, Catholic or Islamic Russia-Muscovy, as predicted in his book Bushkov. And if something would have been created, then, believe me, the Slavic language, then it would be hard: the remnants of the Slavs would have been simply assimilated to our time. So Slavophiles should be grateful to Prince Vladimir for the “right” chosen faith.

But if we continue to consider forecasts of ethnogenesis in Bushkov's style, then, first of all, it is curious to predict a situation in which our closest neighbors - the Volga Bulgars at the beginning of the 10th century, would accept not Islam, but Orthodoxy. In this case, they would also be included in a single Russian assimilation sphere: the Bulgars are a tribe closely related to the Rus (about this in later chapters), and there were quite a few Slavs in the Volga Bulgaria. It is likely that the Volga region would be slavishly. However, this option is also possible here: the appearance of a significant number of Finno-Ugric elements in this assimilation boiler would lead to the victory of Finno-Ugric languages in the territory of North-Eastern Russia.

It should also be noted that the South Russian tribes - northerners, Radimichi, Vyatichi, in which the Iranian-speaking and Ugric components prevailed, at one time fell under the dependence of the Khazars, becoming their tributaries. This, naturally, influenced the weakening of the assimilation energy of these tribes in the formation of the all-Russian nationality in the future, where the Slavic language eventually won out.

About the predominance of Iranian-speaking languages in South Russia says at least the fact that in Kiev open burial grounds, which are attributed by our scientists to Iranian-speaking Alans. But the recognition of B. Grekov: “The Scythian period, although not connected directly with the history of the Eastern Slavs, however, they reported a number of strokes, left some imprint on the life of the Eastern Slavs: the funeral rite, the Scythian-Sarmatian ritual images, which turned into Russian folk embroidery, zoomorphic and antromorphic fibulae, motifs of Scythian terracotta on clay Russian toys, etc. ”. So, “not bound”, but “informed”. How so? However, this is the logic of Academician Grekov ...

And here he has the same: “... on both banks of the Dnieper there are mounds of Scythian plowmen, that is, one of the most cultural parts of the Scythian tribes. Here we later find the Slavic tribes of the Polyans, Ulichi and Severyans. Scythian burial mounds are separated from Slavic for more than a millennium, but the type of Scythian tombs of Kyiv and Poltava regions remains basically THE SAME. ” Before us is another clear, more than convincing evidence in favor of the fact that a number of Slavic tribes on TV actually turn out to be Iranian-speaking Scythians and Sarmatians. Also, it should be noted that the Ukrainians, due to their peculiarities, speak to the Iranians. So, as you can see, the Scythian period is still directly connected with the history of the "Eastern Slavs", who turned out to be descendants of these Scythian-Sarmatians. But we are talking here, of course, only about those "Eastern Slavs", which were located in the south of the studied East Slavic range. The other “Eastern Slavs” were both Slavs and Balts and Finno-Ugrians.

But the opinion of V. V. Sedov: “The number of Iranian parallels in the language, culture and religion of the Slavs is so significant that the scientific literature raises the question of the Slavic-Iranian symbiosis, which took place in the history of Slavs. Obviously, the historical phenomenon affected only part of the Slavic world and part of the Iranian tribes. During this period, it must be admitted, the Slavs and Iranians lived on the same territory, intermingled with each other, and as a result, the Iranian-speaking population was assimilated. ”

It should also be noted that there is a version that we, Russians, speak a language with an Iranian language basis. That is, Iranian language was so full of Slavic words that it became Slavic. In other words, the Iranian-speaking population adopted Slavic words, retaining its original Iranian language base. In the same way as the Bulgarians in their own Slavic language also retained their own non-Slavic grammar. For example, they have no cases.

Prince Vladimir defines the main pagan gods of the country: "... put the idols of Perun ... and Harsa, Dazhbog and Stribog and Simargl and Mokosh". Meanwhile, Khors and Simargl are Iranian deities, Mokosh, according to B. Grekov, is the goddess of the Finnish tribes, and obviously only Perun can be attributed to the obviously Slavic, and even then not fully, since Perkūnas played the role of Perun in the Baltic peoples. That is why Perun can also be considered a tribal god for the Baltic tribes.

By the way, according to a number of historians, the Slavs did not have a common Slavic religion, and each tribe had its own tribal gods. Does this also indicate that there was no homogeneous Slavic mass on the territory of future Kievan Rus? Archeology can also testify to this. According to her, the various types of ornaments found in the burial grounds were located strictly within the respective tribal associations noted in The Tale of Bygone Years, and the boundaries of these areas did not intersect anywhere.

Khors was the central deity in the ancient Iranian-speaking Khorezm. Byzantine author of the XII century Ioann Kinnam reports that among the Hungarians there are people of the Persian religion, that is, worshipping Khors and other Iranian gods. Not from the ancient Ugric Khors and Simargl included in the list of the main pagan gods of Prince Vladimir? At least, this explanation is clearly more convincing than that offered by some of our historians. In their opinion, the Iranian gods were included among the main gods by Prince Vladimir, with his desire to lure the Khorezm Guard to their service, which the Khazars attracted to themselves in the 70s of the 10th century.

Some historians simply state that “the pagan religions of the Iranian and Finnish peoples began to penetrate the Eastern Slavs very early” (B. Grekov), but how can one imagine this without extensive mutual contacts with large tribal masses of Iranians and Ugrians? What, the Slavs so easily decide to worship foreign gods? It is not about one or two renegades, but about whole Slavic tribes. Let me remind you that traditional historians in general deny the existence of the Iranian population in the territory of future Kievan Rus in the 9th – 10th centuries, although many people say that Iran has a significant influence on the Old Russian state, but they cannot or do not want to explain this influence. At best, it is said that, probably somewhere in the 8th – 9th centuries, a part of the inhabitants of Khorezm (and its central city, Khiva) migrated to Russia through the Khazaria. By the way, is not from there the name of the city of Kiev - Hiova, that is, Khiva?

In the 10th century, Kievan Rus undergoes a rite of baptism and accepts church books in the Bulgarian language. In the Orthodox Church, in contrast to the Catholic, worship and, accordingly, church books were in the local language, but the Bulgarian language was so close to the language of Kievan Rus that the church books decided, at least at first, to leave in the Bulgarian language.

The Bulgarian language is the language of the Slavs, who assimilated the new Bulgar - the Ugrians. In Kievan Rus, assimilation processes were still in full swing, but here Slavic language also defeated. The adoption of Christianity in the Bulgarian (Slavic) language, this process has accelerated and consolidated.

Bulgarians belong to the southern Slavs, but take any book in their language and see how close this language is to Russian.

Therefore, it is possible to speak about Ukrainians as a nation that has absorbed TENS of multi-tribal groups of the population. Maybe it is not surprising that among Ukrainians there are many racially pronounced brunettes and blondes among the Ukrainians.

V. Ivanchuk in one of his articles - a compilation of the works of researchers of the “Ukrainian Question” published in the USA, gives interesting information. “Lviv was of particular importance in Ukrainization. When he became the center of one of the Polish provinces, the Poles introduced Polish into its territory as the state language. The indigenous population did not accept it. And then in Lviv Uniate centers a slang was developed from the Little Russian rural dialect, Polish medieval literary language, Polish Yiddish and German Yiddish. Take a look at the Ukrainian-Russian dictionary and find there a lot of German, Polish, and even English words ... "The Word about Igor's Regiment" and other monuments of the Kiev period are written in Russian and certainly not in Ukrainian. And even after the “Ukrainizers” threw out three letters from the Russian alphabet and added two new ones, spoiling the Little Russian dialect by Polish and German influence, even in such a disfigured form, it did not stop being Russian. ... Very soon ... Polish Count Faddey Chatsky proposes a new theory: the Ukrainian people have nothing to do with Slavs; his ancestors - nomads from the horde of ukrov. Needless to say, no one was able to discover any historical data about this horde.

Bismarck approved the word "Ukraine" for the introduction as a means of dismembering Russia, saying: "We need to create a strong Ukraine by transferring to it the maximum amount of Russian lands."

And Nikita Khrushchev fulfilled Bismarck’s covenant, handing over Crimea to Ukraine.

Thus, is it possible to conclude from this that on the basis of the modern Ukrainian language it is impossible to determine with certainty one or another of its ancient roots, since this language is artificial to a certain extent? In a sense, yes. But at the same time, no doubt, the base for the formation of the Ukrainian language was the Little Russian Cossacks, which, in turn, is rooted in the Tatar hordes. This is indicated by the 17th century historian Lyzlov, the author of the Scythian History. He notes that Mamai’s warriors "had the same language with Russian, and Polish, and hairy mixed." The basis of the troops of Mamaia were Tatars - Turks by language. But, as you can see, not a word about Turkic roots. For traditional history, this is of course a mystery.

The example of the Ukrainian language shows how complex the process of the ethnogenesis of Eastern Slavic peoples was. And talking about the monopolistic Slavic basis in the formation of the Ukrainian nation, as, indeed, the Russian and Belarusian, is impossible.

And more about Slavs

What was the role of the Slavs in the assimilation processes in the territory of the Old Russian state? According to Kozhinov: “By the time the Slavs arrived, the northern part of this territory was inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, the middle part was Baltic, and the southern part was Turkic and Iranian.” There should be some minor adjustments: the Finno-Ugric peoples occupied the north and north-east, and the Balts - north-west.

The Kryvichi were a Balt, not a Slavic tribe, but on the traditional maps of the location of the tribes, its range is not exact. How did historians define the boundaries of tribal settlement? Karamzin writes that, probably, “the whole, Chud and Western Krivichi belonged to the Novgorod region”, since the army of Vladimir (march against Yaropolk), who ruled in Novgorod, “consisted of these peoples”. But if we admit that Novgorod is Yaroslavl (and this is the whole chapter of this book devoted to), then the location of the tribes will be different.

At the same time, it was said a little higher that the region outlined by the Smolensk-Polotsk-Pskov triangle was represented in the 7th – 9th centuries by the culture of long mounds, where the Baltic influence is noticeable. This fact may say that before the Polochans the Baltic tribes were the autochthonous population of this region. However, for such a conclusion, archeology is not needed: just look at the map of the settlement of the ancient Balts.

On school maps, where the region of settlement is indicated as Sloven Ilmen, Krivichy should be indicated instead. It was they who occupied the vast territory, whose borders reached Lake Peipsi in the west, and Lake Ladoga in the north. And strangely enough, our dear official historians will confirm this: the excavations of Ladoga proved that it was a “Slavic settlement and it was Krivichsky”. If it were not for the struggle with the Normanists, who claimed that Ladoga was a Varangian settlement, then they would have kept silent about the results of the excavations or would have related them to the Ilmenite Slovenes. But when the argument against the Normanists turns out to be in the hands, then scientific accuracy must be observed here. As a result, we received evidence that in the depths, beyond the supposedly Novgorod lands, there lived Krivichi. Take a look at the map: how could they be in the area of Ladoga? After all, according to TV between Ladoga and the lands of the Kryvichy, the vast range of Novgorodian words stretches! The conclusion is unequivocal: the Baltic tribe of Krivichy covered a wide area of land with the center in the area of Lake Ilmen.

The Slavs moved to new lands with whole clans, which, on the one hand, made them resistant to assimilation by local tribes, and on the other, gave a strong assimilation charge to slavish the autochthonous population. Speaking about the life of the Slavs, Nestor wrote that they live in clans, each clan separately in its place. That is, the Slavs settled separated families, separate. By the way, back in Soviet times, the opinion was fixed in our science that the Slavic tribes known from the annals were precisely the territorial-political associations formed by crushing and mixing different tribes.

Already at the time of the first Rurikovichs, the regional division into princedoms did not coincide with the corresponding tribal one. Here is what Klyuchevsky wrote about this: “There was not a single region that consisted of only one and, moreover, of a whole tribe; most areas were composed of different tribes or their parts; in other areas, one whole tribe was joined by broken parts of other tribes. ” To these words of the historian it is necessary to add only that the tribes themselves were not homogeneous and whole.

In the context of the above, interesting notes from the 19th century traveler Lapinsky should be given, who left us with information about the Adygei: “In their internal structure, the adige breaks up into three tribes; the most numerous are the Shapsugs, then the Abazdehs follow, the smallest are the Ubykhs ... The Ubykhs make up only one knee. Each tribe is divided into a known number of genera, and the latter are divided into families; but also tribes, and childbirth, and families of the same tribe live mixed, and in every district all tribes and clans are represented. ” If the compact Adygs are so mixed up, then what happened on the boundless plains of Eastern Europe during the time of the Great Migration? Here the conclusion is clear: the tribes had a mixed composition.

The Slavs penetrating to the northeast turned out to be more developed than the locals. Count Uvarov, who was engaged in excavations in the Vladimir-Suzdal region, wrote in his work “Meryans and their life on the kurgan excavations” that he found traces of two tribes in the excavated burial grounds: one native, clearly Merya, and another alien, more developed. This tribe retained its pagan burial rites until the eleventh century.

Let's look at who the Slavs in the northeast have encountered. Merya, Murom, Meschera - all these are Finno-Ugric tribes. In antiquity, the ancestors of the Finno-Ugrians lived in the foothills of the Altai, at least, archeologists and linguists say so. Under the constant pressure of the Turks, the Finno-Ugrians were forced to move to the north-west. That is, like the Slavs, the Finno-Ugrians preferred the Volga region and the Trans-Volga region to domicile.

The excavations near the village of Ananyino in the floodplain of the Kama showed that here in the VII – III centuries BC. e. the Mongoloids lived with a small Caucasoid admixture, which were later partially assimilated by the Mari tribes who came later. At present, it is considered that a certain Mongoloid admixture, which is noticeable today among the peoples of the Volga region, is the result of contacts with the late Stepanians and, above all, with the Tatar-Mongols. But the Anan'ian finds should make a somewhat different look at this: a Mongoloid admixture may turn out to be traces of contacts with the ancient local Mongoloid population. In this case, it may also mean the fact that the ancient Finno-Ugric steppe inhabitants could be pure Caucasians.

Studying the names of the rivers of the Upper and Middle Volga region, linguists came to the conclusion that in ancient times these territories were occupied by various Finno-Ugric tribes (including those close to Udmurts) who left no trace in history. The Meryans, Mari and other Finno-Ugrians, whom the chronicles mark, came later. But the most interesting thing is another: a number of place names in this territory are Iranian-lingual, among them, for example, “Arda” means a side, a region; “Shoy” is the land, the land (is it not from here the name of the city in the Ivanovo region - Shuya?).

The well-known Fatyanovo culture, named after the burial site near the village of Fatyanovo near Yaroslavl, was the culture of the second millennium BC. e. mostly pastoralists and only partly farmers. It is believed that Fatyanovtsy came from the west, from the Dnieper and Desna. Therefore, it is realistic to assume that the Upper and Middle Volga region was “chosen” not only by the Finno-Ugrians who came from the east and southeast, but also by Iranian-speaking herders, whose path the Slavs followed one and a half to two millennia.

So, when the Slavs appeared on these lands, what happened to the natives, if I may say so? Slavs cut them? Or pushed somewhere? Again - peacefully? Archaeologists still can not find traces of any genocide by alien Slavs. There is no doubt that assimilation processes took place throughout this territory. But is it possible for two or three centuries to assimilate without a residue such a number of tribes and peoples in a vast territory? Is it possible that by the 9th century, a dozen of ALIEN tribal Slavic masses (this is on TV) were able to assimilate a significant number of such different tribes living in the vast territory from the Dniester to Oka and Ladoga? Both the Finno-Ugrians, Balts, and Iranians lived in rather homogeneous and compact masses. Well, should there be any tribal formations among these nations that could resist Slavic assimilation, and even themselves could have assimilated the late Slavs?

A good example is the history of the Merya tribe. TV did not include it in the Slavs. Archaeological excavations showed that until the X century, the Merya remained ethnically clean, and the height of the Slavonicization of the region fell on the X and XI centuries. However, almost the entire territory of Kievan Rus, inhabited by the Slavs, from its most ancient times, the chronicles (and they began to be compiled from the XI century), except the tribe of Goladi, do not mark any other non-Slavic tribe. It turns out that all the other local Slav tribes assimilated as soon as possible. But this is nonsense.

Thus, we again come to what was argued a little higher: a number of tribes mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years as Slavic, in the IX century, were not yet Slavs. With this conclusion, there are no questions: in front of us on the territory of the Russian Plain there are many non-Slavic tribes.

In their advancement, the Slavs came across quite populated lands, although traditional history clearly speaks of a sparsely populated northeast. One of the reasons for the version of the weak settlement of the northeast was, of course, the climate. But in the second half of the first millennium of our era, the climate in the east of Europe was completely different - warm and dry. Only from the 13th century did it deteriorate. As evidence in the burial grounds of the north-east of Russia, millet grains were found that were grown here. Millet is a heat-loving culture.

Again, remember how Prince Vladimir populated the inhabitants of the northern regions of the desert lands in the south of Kievan Rus. It turns out that the population density in the north was higher than in the south. The reasons for the neglect of the southern regions have yet to be determined. According to archaeological excavations, in the 8th – early 10th centuries, the Don basin and left-bank areas of the Middle Dnieper were densely populated, with the nomadic component predominating. By the way, this is the area of settlement of the Slavic tribes of the Glades and the Northerners on TV. Here are found the remains of several hundred settlements, whose culture is comparable to the culture of the Khazars. But the most interesting thing here is that all the found fortresses were located on the right, western banks of the rivers. Hence, two possible options: either they had an offensive value in the direction of the west, or were created for defense against the eastern threat.

And one more note on this topic. So, the southern region is densely populated by various peoples, former nomads are moving to a settled way of life. In the 10th century Pechenegs appear here, and everything comes into rapid desolation. What is the reason: with the fall of Khazaria? What happened to the inhabitants of this vast region? These questions have yet to be answered.

Anthropology can make a significant contribution to this issue. According to her data, the inhabitants of the Ancient Russian state were divided into four main anthropological types. For residents of the south-west was characterized by a broad-faced mezokraniya, similar in craniometry to the Slavs of Moravia and southern Poland.

In the areas of localization of the settlement of the fields, northerners, Vyatichi, the narrow-faced anthropological type of the skull structure, characteristic of Iranian-speaking Scythian-Sarmatian tribes, was spread.

The wide-faced dokhokraniya was characteristic for inhabitants of the territory of Belarus. The same anthropological type is characteristic of the Baltic tribes. To the east, in the region of the upper Dnieper and further to the east, the discovered skulls testify to the mixed composition of the population of this region: one can speak of Baltic, Finno-Ugric, and Sarmatian components.

The brachycranian narrow-faced types found in the north-west are closest to the inhabitants of northern Poland, however, who inhabited it in antiquity: the Slavs, the Balts, or even the ancient Germans or Celts, have yet to be determined.

Thus, all of the above makes one doubt the significant predominance (according to TV) of the alien Slavic population in the territory of Ancient Russia: the Slavs were still a minority. But we have a fact: this minority was able to assimilate a significant number of neighboring tribes in a fairly short time.

In this chapter, we raised issues related to the ethnic composition of the ancient Russian state. For this, various chronicles and other written sources were considered. And absolutely casual archaeological research. But they must confirm or refute the conclusions made in this chapter.
Eastern European Tribes Location Map
88c292c6fbea.jpg
Finally, the music of Belarusians, Gudy
 
Last edited:
The translation of the ancient text is incorrect. I would not pay attention to it. I read Albert Maximov "Rus, which was -2 Alternative version of the story." He points to this mistake of the translator.
Theoretically, I wouldn't oppose the possibility of mistake in translations. It's possible to argue with Maximov here; for example, can we found usage of phrasing "От сихъ же" ("so from them") as "located nearby" in contemporal texts of the Tale?.. I'm not a specialist, and specialists prefer to stick to traditional translation. Of course, they can be wrong. As I said, I can't declare myself an expert here.
Still, as you can notice it's reducing being able to rely on the written source.

The Kryvichi were a Balt, not a Slavic tribe, but on the traditional maps of the location of the tribes, its range is not exact.
Again, it's quite possible. As I repeated more then once, ancient texts aren't the model works on ethnographics. Still, then, let me cite: "we have a fact: this minority was able to assimilate a significant number of neighboring tribes in a fairly short time". Until we're going to attribute this to avars (in 9th century, no less) as well, it's kinda strange, don't you think?

Still, the very premise of this discussion built on the presupposition I highlighted at least twice, and you don't comment it, to my pity. What's the strict difference between Slavs and Balts? How can we build a wall between them, to call some people on the left "balts", and on the right "slavs"? What's your criteria?
 
I believe you're mostly correct, just some additions.

1. We shouldn't look at slavs as one great entity in political sense. Every slavic tribe was built on themselves. So question "were slavs were when Avars destroyed Gepids" is quite senseless - some of them lived in Pannonia (and wasn't noticed), some of them assmilated Germans on the west, some of them were Antes.

2. The most daring problem here is actually quite actual, antique and medieval problems just highlight it. Who are slavs? What's constituent an ethnos? Where is the border between ethnos, superethnos and self-identification? When slavs stopped being a tribe in balto-slavic unity? Where is a border between ethnoses; after all, Polish and Russians are both slavs, but political organization, material culture, language - all of this is different?
That's why I use quite a define meaning of Slavs - slavs are people with the same genetic base (of course, with local contamination, as people never forbid themselves with affairs) and using languages that derivated from panslavic language. It's not political, or geopolitical, or racist, it's academical.

3. The worst (don't mistake with the most daring!) problem of determining slav ethnogenesis is uncertanty of sources.

Imagine an archeologist digging out some kind of dig. How can he say was it slavic? It's not exactly likely he would find some kind of writings there, and even if he do, he can't be sure that it's local writings, not some external one. Even if he find a jeverly of some kind - was it local-made or traded into? It can be achieved only doing backtracking - "we declare this culture as slavs, therefore, as we can see how this, definitly slavic material culture could rise from this, earlier, one, this earlier one should be called slavic as well". Still, with majority of slavs living in dug-outs and without great material culture, we shouldn't expect a lot of them found archeologically. As already mentioned Gimbutas presented it, "archeologists were more intersted to find that astonishing scythian animal figurines, not some humble settlements without anything intresting".

Medieval written sources aren't helping a lot as well. They just aren't exactly reliable. First of all, we have very little number of medieval sources survived as they were - book are fragile, you know, so things we quite mostly know are copies. Copies were done by hand, sometimes with obvious editing and inserting. Still, even on presupposition that copies are correct, there is a problem of language used and wording used, as they were linked to common usage of words, and it's hard to understand now. Like, take Annales Bertiniani, a piece of history already cited in this thread and declared as mentioning of "slavic khagan". Still, all we have is that leader of the people who was there called their ruler "rex illorum Chaganos". It's possible that Chaganos is personal name. It's possible it's latin translation of Håkan. Nowhere in Karolingian sources word "Chaganos" was used. How to check? We can't. And don't forget that people who write chronicles weren't angels, so they could make a mistake or even (*gasp!*) put some things wrong conciously, to push some kind of agenda.

Folklore? Folklore is mutable on definition, and serious research of folklore started in XVIII-XIX century. And... well.
I made an (non-scientific) experiment once, involuntarily.
I was 10, and I was in permanent summer camp, with a four hundreds of other kids, from 8 to 16.
It was July, and Russian summer camps tends to organize in "shifts" - one shift is one month, and children can be in one, two or three shifts in season. Also there was one winter shift, in January, but I never was here. Squads were organized by age. I mean, if, for example, Squad 19 was compete from 9-old, it's quite possible you'll be put there in June and July - if you're 9-old. Still, every shift squads were created as new ones, and there was a limit of number in every squad (enforced by number of beds and abilities of watchers), so it was possible to be in different squads if you came to the camp in June and July. Traditionaly, I have two shifts in camp and one (August one) in summer house of my grands.
I was bored, so were couple of my friends, so we went on territory and imagine some kind of "folklore" for some kind of landmarks, as a part of a game. There was a stone looking like a horse if you have a very good imagination - we declared it "stoned horse". There was an unworking sprinkler placed in the forest (hell I know why), we declared it being some kind of communication device (keep in mind that garden sprinklers aren't the part of russian landscape culture, so only one of us even know what it's really was!). Things like this. We laughed, told it some other children, and then my term ended, and I returned home.
So, when I came to the same camp in the next June, I was very surprised and amused that our "legends" kinda stuck. Still, it was mutated. Stoned horse became a stoned unicorn, and legend appeared where is it's horn. Some things we imagined as "isolated" were made into system, and overarching mythology we just pointed was expanded. As I was very ambitious boy, I told it was me who invented all of this, and that some details are incorrect. You guess - nobody believed me.
So, in eleven months, eleven frigging months (with only two months legend being retold - one shift in August, and one shift in January), any memory of people who created a mythology disappeared, and meaning of legends were changed. It was 22 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised I would find traces of this mythology now, and it would be mutated as a hell. Or, maybe, it was forgotten after all.
So, let me say, I don't believe in folk memory saving precise details. Plural for anecdote isn't data, but as far as I know from the history, it's the same there.

Genetic and linguistical sources are the best (that's why I'm using them as criteria), but they don't give sequence, and their dating is "well, half a thousand years, more or less".
So, every kind of historical theory is an interpretation, surely opened for critique. It's possible we would never know anything in history as a certain, and if time camera would be invented, I'm sure our perception of old times would be destroyed. But how - I can't know, and I only have an "educated guesses". Still, some guesses are better then others.

So, dilettantes quite often don't understand it. They use some representation of data, complying some theory, not raw data itself (as raw data is complex, hard to understand by dilettante, and opened to different interpretation, and to do one person should be well-educated in this kind of field. Don't get me wrong, my speciality isn't slavic ethnogenesis (my thesis was about soviet cultural mutation, and I'm working in game development this days), but, thanks the heavens, position I defend here is well-documentated, and I can use explanations clever, professional people made before me.
Thank you for your elaborate reply.

I'm well aware of the problems of defining ethnicity. You're right to distinguish between genetics and self-identification. If you look at the genetic map of Europe posted earlier in this thread, Hungary and Romania aren't so different from their neighbors, but they stand out as non-Slavic when you look at linguistics and self-identification. Rather than say that the Slavs that once lived in these countries were pushed out, it seems that they were assimilated, just as Slavs in their turn assimilated the people that lived in the Balkans before them. What's different is not so much the genetic mix but which element in the genetic melting pot got the upper hand in terms of language and politics. (As Hungary was dominated in turn by various horseriding invaders from the steppes, I'm not really surprised that the last of these put their stamp on the whole. Romania is the surprising one: while romance-speaking Vlachs lived in every country in the Balkans, and in most of them for much longer than in Dacia, this is the only one in which their language and self-identity won out. There the language of the people hiding in the woody hills and mountain valleys from successive waves of steppe horseriders gradually returned to dominate the plains while elsewhere it was pushed further into the margins as time passed.)

I understand that you are trying to stick to the standards of scientific inquiry. I agree with you on that. But I have to disagree with you about the usefulness of taking genetics as your standard. It does give some insight into historical processes of migration of course, no argument there. My issue is that genome doesn't move people to act politically. Whenever you read about a people migrating, or rising up against foreign overlords, their concern is not which of them has which DNA sequence exactly; that's a quasi-scientific overlay that was only added in the very late 19th and early 20th century. Instead it's about whatever they believe they have in common: a language, a history, myths, religion, and so on; and it's about what someone else did to them: an oppressor, a foreign enemy, an exploiter of the people, and so on. As flawed as people's understanding of their own history sometimes is, as frequently shortsighted their perception of their own interests, that's just how it works. You can't take the politics out of history.

That doesn't mean you can't criticize flawed scientific works where the political agenda determined the conclusions rather than the data they were supposed to study. The Belorussian-Baltic thesis looks too convenient to me as well, too perfectly tailored for a young state trying to forge an identity separate from its former motherland. It seems to me that an attempt to paint the Slavs as foreigners to the area fits that agenda. It would allow Belorussians to claim that they are indigenous and thus naturally entitled to their land while the Slavs are latecomers, interlopers, conquerors who should stay away. It would be inconvenient from this nationalist point of view if Slavs actually emerged in this area, if differences between Russians and Belorussians were not fundamental but only a few twists of political history. So, weird theories about Danube origins are political. All politicians recognize the way Nykyus argues for them as well: drag in "evidence" from wherever you find it, even if you have to take it out of context; if the evidence is disproved, don't acknowledge it but move on to another piece of so-called evidence. The opposite view also has political implications, of course, and I'm sure there's plenty of hacks dragging out equally flawed arguments for it. What distinguishes proper science, in my opinion, is the willingness to admit that you're wrong when the evidence points the other way.
 
Thank you for your elaborate reply.

I'm well aware of the problems of defining ethnicity. You're right to distinguish between genetics and self-identification. If you look at the genetic map of Europe posted earlier in this thread, Hungary and Romania aren't so different from their neighbors, but they stand out as non-Slavic when you look at linguistics and self-identification. Rather than say that the Slavs that once lived in these countries were pushed out, it seems that they were assimilated, just as Slavs in their turn assimilated the people that lived in the Balkans before them. What's different is not so much the genetic mix but which element in the genetic melting pot got the upper hand in terms of language and politics. (As Hungary was dominated in turn by various horseriding invaders from the steppes, I'm not really surprised that the last of these put their stamp on the whole. Romania is the surprising one: while romance-speaking Vlachs lived in every country in the Balkans, and in most of them for much longer than in Dacia, this is the only one in which their language and self-identity won out. There the language of the people hiding in the woody hills and mountain valleys from successive waves of steppe horseriders gradually returned to dominate the plains while elsewhere it was pushed further into the margins as time passed.)

I understand that you are trying to stick to the standards of scientific inquiry. I agree with you on that. But I have to disagree with you about the usefulness of taking genetics as your standard. It does give some insight into historical processes of migration of course, no argument there. My issue is that genome doesn't move people to act politically. Whenever you read about a people migrating, or rising up against foreign overlords, their concern is not which of them has which DNA sequence exactly; that's a quasi-scientific overlay that was only added in the very late 19th and early 20th century. Instead it's about whatever they believe they have in common: a language, a history, myths, religion, and so on; and it's about what someone else did to them: an oppressor, a foreign enemy, an exploiter of the people, and so on. As flawed as people's understanding of their own history sometimes is, as frequently shortsighted their perception of their own interests, that's just how it works. You can't take the politics out of history.

That doesn't mean you can't criticize flawed scientific works where the political agenda determined the conclusions rather than the data they were supposed to study. The Belorussian-Baltic thesis looks too convenient to me as well, too perfectly tailored for a young state trying to forge an identity separate from its former motherland. It seems to me that an attempt to paint the Slavs as foreigners to the area fits that agenda. It would allow Belorussians to claim that they are indigenous and thus naturally entitled to their land while the Slavs are latecomers, interlopers, conquerors who should stay away. It would be inconvenient from this nationalist point of view if Slavs actually emerged in this area, if differences between Russians and Belorussians were not fundamental but only a few twists of political history. So, weird theories about Danube origins are political. All politicians recognize the way Nykyus argues for them as well: drag in "evidence" from wherever you find it, even if you have to take it out of context; if the evidence is disproved, don't acknowledge it but move on to another piece of so-called evidence. The opposite view also has political implications, of course, and I'm sure there's plenty of hacks dragging out equally flawed arguments for it. What distinguishes proper science, in my opinion, is the willingness to admit that you're wrong when the evidence points the other way.
What else is left? I knocked out all the source study, the archaeologist Sedov agrees that the Slavs are from the Danube. Remains only genetics. I do not see any errors. On the contrary, i pointed out errors in the translation. The charges are clearly invented and unfounded on your part: it can't be because it can't be.
And it writes that Belarusians are politically motivated, which I strongly doubt, perhaps only one of them. In response, I cited data from an impartial person Maksimov. Is that wrong?
 
Last edited:
Again, it's quite possible. As I repeated more then once, ancient texts aren't the model works on ethnographics. Still, then, let me cite: "we have a fact: this minority was able to assimilate a significant number of neighboring tribes in a fairly short time". Until we're going to attribute this to avars (in 9th century, no less) as well, it's kinda strange, don't you think?

Still, the very premise of this discussion built on the presupposition I highlighted at least twice, and you don't comment it, to my pity. What's the strict difference between Slavs and Balts? How can we build a wall between them, to call some people on the left "balts", and on the right "slavs"? What's your criteria?
Slavs were more developed in some area. They adopted from the Danube advanced construction skills, weapons, potter's wheel. Some items are directly copied from the population of the Danube.
Type of housing: dugouts among the Slavs and ground houses near the Balts. Common items: jewelry, household items from the Balts.
 
They adopted from the Danube advanced construction skills, weapons, potter's wheel. Some items are directly copied from the population of the Danube.
Yes, I believe that's what I said before, giving "my" (= Gimbutas, if you want) reconstruction.

Type of housing: dugouts among the Slavs and ground houses near the Balts. Common items: jewelry, household items from the Balts.
...or same as the Baltic ones.

On the contrary, i pointed out errors in the translation. The charges are clearly invented and unfounded on your part: it can't be because it can't be.
No. You pointed it's maybe an error in the translation. Of course it can.
True, in the "Tale ..." there are words that Krivichi come from Polochans, but what is meant by the verb "occur"? We still have not been able to identify all the meanings of certain words that appear in the annals. And if so, then the old Russian texts can be misinterpreted.
Yes, they quite possibly can. As far as I know, they don't in this particular place, but, as I said, I'm not an expert. Neither is Maxmov; "Rus, which was" isn't a historical research. It's a fantasy author making some scandalous work.
Again, don't get me wrong - such a work can give nice insights, it can rise some important questions; Maximov is absolutely right arguing taking "Tale..." as a gospel, for example. Still, it's not peer reviewed - no scientist read his work before publication to show WHY academians translating "От сихъ же" in this paragraph as a pointing on origin, not geographical position.
That's one more thing you should take about social science methodology (again, as you're not a specialist - you wrote it yourself more then once, so it's not an accusation, I'm just trying to be helpful). Not every work, modern or not, should be used as a source. You should always look how an author came to some conclusion. And, as social science works tend to be long, you should always try to keep your keen on and don't allow researcher taking his _assumptions_ and _maybes_ as a proven facts. Every hypothesis is no better as good first links are.

nstead it's about whatever they believe they have in common: a language, a history, myths, religion, and so on; and it's about what someone else did to them: an oppressor, a foreign enemy, an exploiter of the people, and so on. As flawed as people's understanding of their own history sometimes is, as frequently shortsighted their perception of their own interests, that's just how it works. You can't take the politics out of history.
Yes, I can't; still...
Take US. Americans are a nation, and one of the most "nationalistic" ones in modern history (I mean, they're very concious about it). I wouldn't dare to say "Americans aren't a nation as their genetics are all different, from China to China through Canada". And speaking "are americans a nation? are british a nation? are russians a nation?" is quite political.
But slavs, or balts, aren't a nation. They're ethnic group, with (again, compare Russians and Polish) different language, different myths, different history, different religion. Or, again, Americans and British - they have the same language, even same history and myths to some extent, but I wouldn't call them the same nation (and I know people who disagree). So the only thing such ethnic discussions should be about historical processes of migration. It's just nothing else really here. The moment you're out to explain why people acting some way or another way taking historical accounts, history stops, and political philosophy starts; at best. Usually it's propaganda what's to start, being it "historical Slavic union", "Russian World", "anglo-atlantic union", "pangermanism" or, by the way, "belorussians and balts aren't slavic!"/"russians aren't slavic, as we are!" (the hell, "Russian language is close to finno-ugric in grammatical structure" had hit me like a tank; finno-ugric languages doesn't even have a gender, for crying it out!). I don't believe politics linked with ethnics - in my opinion, "blood" gives nothing in "nation destiny". Ethnically, preNorman population of England and German population of Rhine Valley is the same; historical destinies (whatever it means) are different.
Still, historical process of migrations and older times reconstructions are fascinating in their own right. So I'm here for such reconstructions, not because I want slavic be ancient (or young). I can't take politics out of history, but I can try to pull history out from politics, and that's what I do.
 
Once George Soros said that there is an area where scientific knowledge is not enough, if we talk about economic forecasts ..
I do not claim infallibility, I think that no one guarantees infallibility. I will be only glad when there are reliable refutations, 100% guarantee. Comparative studies are needed, for example, with the same American nation. How many years of their different nations can be formed?
 
I will be only glad when there are reliable refutations, 100% guarantee.
In history you can't get this one until time travel would be invited. I mean, the only method of history, by definition, is reconstruction, and every reconstruction is falliable. The thing we are able to do is to calculate probability of one or another reconstruction.
Is it theoretically possible that slavic ethnos was artifically created by Avar conqueror? Yes, no physical law forbid it. Still, no physical law also forbid said Avars being hyperborean aliens. It's possible that all materials about their powerful plasma weaponary lost, and their death gliders never leave a survivor (of course, for all we know this second version is less probable then first one; still not very convincing). As I said, when we invented our camping mythology, we invented it, no doubt; but if I wasn't the person who did it, I would never know about who did.

Comparative studies are needed, for example, with the same American nation. How many years of their different nations can be formed?
Well, it took them less then three hundreds of years last time. I mean, I don't get an answer. I can't even imagine a point of view declaring Americans doesn't be a nation.
There is a theory, though, that currently (actually, in XX century) American nation splitted on, I believe, six different ones. Can't say I agree. But it's a topic for other place, I presented Americans here just to highlight a difference between nation and ethnos.
 
Yes, I can't; still...
Take US. Americans are a nation, and one of the most "nationalistic" ones in modern history (I mean, they're very concious about it). I wouldn't dare to say "Americans aren't a nation as their genetics are all different, from China to China through Canada". And speaking "are americans a nation? are british a nation? are russians a nation?" is quite political.
But slavs, or balts, aren't a nation. They're ethnic group, with (again, compare Russians and Polish) different language, different myths, different history, different religion. Or, again, Americans and British - they have the same language, even same history and myths to some extent, but I wouldn't call them the same nation (and I know people who disagree). So the only thing such ethnic discussions should be about historical processes of migration. It's just nothing else really here. The moment you're out to explain why people acting some way or another way taking historical accounts, history stops, and political philosophy starts; at best. Usually it's propaganda what's to start, being it "historical Slavic union", "Russian World", "anglo-atlantic union", "pangermanism" or, by the way, "belorussians and balts aren't slavic!"/"russians aren't slavic, as we are!" (the hell, "Russian language is close to finno-ugric in grammatical structure" had hit me like a tank; finno-ugric languages doesn't even have a gender, for crying it out!). I don't believe politics linked with ethnics - in my opinion, "blood" gives nothing in "nation destiny". Ethnically, preNorman population of England and German population of Rhine Valley is the same; historical destinies (whatever it means) are different.
Still, historical process of migrations and older times reconstructions are fascinating in their own right. So I'm here for such reconstructions, not because I want slavic be ancient (or young). I can't take politics out of history, but I can try to pull history out from politics, and that's what I do.
I get what you're trying to do. But I didn't mean politics only as modern nationalism. Common language, religion and myths motivated people throughout history. For example, the great Slav uprising against the East Frankish Empire in the late tenth century was from the perspective of the rebels a struggle for liberation against foreign oppressors; they clearly felt they had something in common which set them apart from their enemy and that commonality was big enough geographically that the uprising affected all Frankish-held lands east of the Elbe. You can't explain this episode without acknowledging that a form of ethnic or national awareness played a part. You also can't reduce it to genetics; as a nice little historical irony, many of the rebels probably had Germanic blood but they still considered Germans foreign oppressors.
 
You can't explain this episode without acknowledging that a form of ethnic or national awareness played a part.
Well. Every event like this deserve separate analysis. In Great Slav Rising (watch the hands!) slavs, alongside germans, subjugated and converted slavs until germans offered slavs to support germans against slavs, and slavs supported germans fighting slavs to preserve independence of slavs from slavs and germans, which they achieved for 200 years.
So, I believe, using such a board frames as "Slavs" or "Germans" aren't really useful in explanations of historical events. You'll need to narrow your frame into "Germans of HRE", "Wends" and "Polish", and also eastern Slavs of Kiev - as Boleslav tried to annex Kiev Rus as well in 1018. Boleslav's language was closer to Wendish then German one, but in the end it was german Henry II who supported Wendish independence from Poland. Or, to be closer to modern days, take American Revolutionary War. Was there some kind of nationalistic sentiments on both sides? Of course. Would it help in analyzing a situation to point that majority of British leaders and population was Germans, and majority of American rebels were Germans?..

That's the thing. As you pointed about Great Slav Rising, "many of the rebels probably had Germanic blood but they still considered Germans foreign oppressors". I don't really know, but it's very possible, sure. That means, I think, that, as a rule, national sentiments aren't really built on ethnic base. In Great Slav Rising, for example (as far as I can say), the most important base was religion; in American Revolution it was political organization. In the end of 9th century, what was common between Wends, Serbs (of Serbia), Rus and Polish? Language, yes. Genetic? yes (Sorbs are very close genetically to Polish even today, after centuries of living on german territory). What else?.. still, we acknowlege them all as Slavs.
 
Well, it took them less then three hundreds of years last time. I mean, I don't get an answer. I can't even imagine a point of view declaring Americans doesn't be a nation.
There is a theory, though, that currently (actually, in XX century) American nation splitted on, I believe, six different ones. Can't say I agree. But it's a topic for other place, I presented Americans here just to highlight a difference between nation and ethnos.
1) How many years did it take for Arabs to multiply and inhabit the lands of Asia and Africa?
2) How many years did it take for the Latins to multiply and inhabit the lands of Gaul, Spain and Illiria?
According to your theory, to assimilate the number of the dominant ethnic group should be more. So the number of Arabs was more than the Egyptians? You say yes, because the Egyptians suffered in the Roman-Persian wars? I will draw an analogy of Gepids and Slavs.
 
Last edited:
1) How many years did it take for Arabs to multiply and inhabit the lands of Asia and Africa?
About four thousand years - first realms that believed to be Arabic dated for 4 thousand years BC in Middle East. Please clarify.
As you're saying about Egypt later... well, Egypt was conquered in 650, and Masri supplanted Coptic in 17th century. So to multiply and inhabit the lands of Egypt it took them thousand years. Even today copts gives about 10% of Egyptian population.

2) How many years did it take for the Latins to multiply and inhabit the lands of Gaul, Spain and Illiria?
About five hundred years for Gaul.
 
Not that you need to actually outnumber a population to enforce your culture and religion on them...

It's not uncommon for conquering people to successfully enforce their culture on conquered people even when, technically, they're still being outnumbered.
 
Not that you need to actually outnumber a population to enforce your culture and religion on them...
It's true. What you DO need to do such, though, is centralized administration.

t's not uncommon for conquering people to successfully enforce their culture on conquered people
Truth to be said, it IS uncommon. Common situations were assimilating of conquerors by locals (like Rus) or some kind of fusion culture emerging (like Romanised Gauls or English culture after Norman conquest).
 
Well. Every event like this deserve separate analysis. In Great Slav Rising (watch the hands!) slavs, alongside germans, subjugated and converted slavs until germans offered slavs to support germans against slavs, and slavs supported germans fighting slavs to preserve independence of slavs from slavs and germans, which they achieved for 200 years.
So, I believe, using such a board frames as "Slavs" or "Germans" aren't really useful in explanations of historical events. You'll need to narrow your frame into "Germans of HRE", "Wends" and "Polish", and also eastern Slavs of Kiev - as Boleslav tried to annex Kiev Rus as well in 1018. Boleslav's language was closer to Wendish then German one, but in the end it was german Henry II who supported Wendish independence from Poland. Or, to be closer to modern days, take American Revolutionary War. Was there some kind of nationalistic sentiments on both sides? Of course. Would it help in analyzing a situation to point that majority of British leaders and population was Germans, and majority of American rebels were Germans?..

That's the thing. As you pointed about Great Slav Rising, "many of the rebels probably had Germanic blood but they still considered Germans foreign oppressors". I don't really know, but it's very possible, sure. That means, I think, that, as a rule, national sentiments aren't really built on ethnic base. In Great Slav Rising, for example (as far as I can say), the most important base was religion; in American Revolution it was political organization. In the end of 9th century, what was common between Wends, Serbs (of Serbia), Rus and Polish? Language, yes. Genetic? yes (Sorbs are very close genetically to Polish even today, after centuries of living on german territory). What else?.. still, we acknowlege them all as Slavs.
Alright, I accept your argument that the operative level of identification was not usually so broad as Slavs but rather Wends, though the latter too is a composite of many distinct tribes who only came together to fight an enemy considered more foreign than the next tribe over. I agree that religion was probably a big part of it but, to be clear, the church at that time was clearly an instrument of imperialism so it's not apolitical either even on that count. For English and American, obviously that's a better level of identification than Germanic during the US revolution, but again afterwards there were plenty of people on both sides who insisted on a special bond between "Anglo-Saxons" (but funnily enough left out the original homeland of those Angles and Saxons).

I completely agree that national sentiments aren't necessarily built on an ethnic basis, if by ethnic you mean genetic. I never argued otherwise. My argument was that national sentiment plays too big a role in history to leave out, but I based it on self-identification. From your examples I don't think you disagree, perhaps I just worded my argument too strongly.