Origin of the Slavs There are many hypotheses about the origin of the Slavs. Some attribute them to the Scythians and Sarmatians who came from Central Asia, others to the Aryans and Germans, others even identify them with the Celts. In general, all hypotheses of the origin of the Slavs can be divided into

The debate about the place and time of origin of the Indo-Europeans, set out in the previous chapter, already suggests that the conditions for the emergence of “historical” peoples also do not have clear solutions. This fully applies to the Slavs. The problem of the origin of the Slavs has been discussed in science for more than two centuries. Archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists, and ethnographers offer different concepts and hypotheses and so far remain mostly of their own opinion.

And the range of controversial issues is very wide. One contradiction lies on the surface: the Slavs under this name entered the historical arena only in the 6th century AD, and therefore there is a great temptation to consider them a “young people”. But on the other hand, Slavic languages ​​are carriers of the archaic features of the Indo-European community. And this is a sign of their deep origins. Naturally, with such significant discrepancies in chronology, both the territories and archaeological cultures that attract researchers will be different. It is impossible to name a single culture that has maintained continuity from the 3rd millennium BC. until the middle of the 1st millennium AD

Local history hobbies also caused damage to scientific study of the problem of the origin of the Slavs. Thus, German historians, back in the 19th century, declared all any noticeable archaeological cultures in Europe to be Germanic, and the Slavs had no place on the map of Europe at all, and they were placed in a narrow area of ​​the Pinsk swamps. But the “local history” approach will prevail in the literature of various Slavic countries and peoples. In Poland they will look for the Slavs as part of the Lusatian culture and the “Vistula-Oder” concept of the origin of the Slavs will decisively prevail. In Belarus, attention will be paid to the same “Pinsk swamps”. In Ukraine, attention will be focused on the Right Bank of the Dnieper (“Dnieper-Bug” version).

1. THE PROBLEM OF SLAVIC-GERMAN-BALTIC RELATIONS

For at least one and a half thousand years, the history of the Slavs took place in conditions of close interaction with the Germans and Balts. In addition to German, the Germanic languages ​​currently include Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and to a certain extent English and Dutch. There are also monuments of one of the extinct Germanic languages ​​- Gothic. The Baltic languages ​​are represented by Lithuanian and Latvian; the Prussian language disappeared just a few centuries ago. The significant similarity between the Slavic and Baltic languages, as well as their known similarity with the Germanic languages, is indisputable. The only question is whether this similarity is primordial, going back to a single community, or acquired during the long-term interaction of different ethnic groups.

In classical comparative historical linguistics, the opinion about the existence of the Slavic-Germanic-Baltic community stemmed from the general idea of ​​​​the division of the Indo-European language. This point of view was held in the middle of the last century by German linguists (K. Zeiss, J. Grimm, A. Schleicher). At the end of the last century, under the influence of the theory of two dialect groups of Indo-European languages ​​- Western - centum, Eastern - satem (the designation of the number “hundred” in Eastern and Western languages), the Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages ​​were identified in different groups.

Currently, the number of opinions and ways of explaining the same facts has increased significantly. The disagreements are aggravated by the tradition of specialists from different sciences to solve problems only using their own material: linguists with theirs, archaeologists with theirs, anthropologists with theirs. Such an approach should obviously be rejected as methodologically invalid, since historical issues cannot be decided in isolation from history, much less against history. But in conjunction with history and in the aggregate of all types of data, very reliable results can be obtained.

Were the Germans, Balts and Slavs united in ancient times? The Bulgarian linguist V.I. insisted on the existence of a common proto-language of the three Indo-European peoples. Georgiev. He pointed out a number of important correspondences in the Balto-Slavic and Gothic languages. However, these parallels are not enough to conclude about their original unity. Linguists too unsubstantiatedly attribute the features of the Gothic language to Proto-Germanic. The fact is that for a number of centuries the Gothic language existed separately from other Germanic languages, surrounded by foreign ones, including Balto-Slavic. The correspondences identified by the linguist may well be explained by precisely this centuries-old interaction.

Well-known domestic specialist in Germanic languages ​​N.S. Chemodanov, on the contrary, separated the Germanic and Slavic languages. “Judging by the data of the language,” he concluded, “direct contact between the Germans and the Slavs was established very late, perhaps not earlier than our chronology.” This conclusion was fully shared by another prominent Russian linguist F.P. Owl, and no significant arguments have yet been opposed to him. Linguistic material, therefore, does not provide evidence even for the fact that the Balto-Slavs and Germans formed in the neighborhood.

In German historiography, the Proto-Germans were associated with the culture of Corded Ware and Megaliths. Meanwhile, both of them have nothing to do with the Germans. Moreover, it turns out that on the territory of present-day Germany there are no native Germanic toponyms at all, while non-Germanic ones are represented quite abundantly. Consequently, the Germans settled in this territory relatively late - shortly before the beginning of our era. The only question is the alternative: did the Germans come from the north or from the south.

The toponymy of some southern Scandinavian territories is usually cited in favor of the northern origin of the Germans. But even in Scandinavia, the Germans hardly appeared long before the turn of our era, and, for example, the Suevi moved there from the continent only during the era of the Great Migration of Peoples (IV-V centuries AD). The main body of Scandinavian toponymy is closer not to Germanic, but to Celtic (or “Celto-Scythian”), as was shown in the works of the Swedish scientist G. Johanson and the Swedish-American K.H. Seaholma.

In this regard, the genealogical legends of the Normans are curious, reporting their arrival “from Asia,” with which was associated the idea of ​​an ever-flourishing country, incomparably richer than the cold Atlantic coast. In the Younger Edda, the geography of which is represented by three parts of the world - Africa, Europe or Aenea and Asia, the latter is represented by Troy. “From north to east,” the saga writes, “and to the very south stretches the part called Asia. In this part of the world everything is beautiful and lush, there are possessions of the fruits of the earth, gold and precious stones. And because the land itself is more beautiful and better there in everything, the people inhabiting it are also distinguished by all their talents: wisdom and strength, beauty and all kinds of knowledge.”

The saga recognizes the ancestor of the settlers from Troy as Thror or Thor, who at the age of 12 killed his teacher, the Thracian Duke Loricus, and took possession of Thrace. In the twentieth generation of Thor's family, Odin was born, who was predicted to be famous in the north. Having gathered many people, he went north. Saxony, Westphalia, the land of the Franks, Jutland - submit to Odin and his family, then he goes to Sweden. The Swedish king Gylvi, having learned that people called Aesir had come from Asia, offered Odin to rule over his land.

The discussion about the language of the Ases is interesting: “The Ases took wives for themselves in that land, and some married their sons, and their offspring multiplied so much that they settled throughout the Saxon Country, and from there throughout the northern part of the world, so the language of these people from Asia became the language of all those countries, and people believe that from the recorded names of their ancestors one can judge that these names belonged to the very language that the Ases brought here to the north - to Norway and Sweden, to Denmark and the Land of the Saxons. And in England there are old names of lands and places, which, apparently, do not come from this language, from another.”

The Younger Edda was written in the 20s of the 13th century. But there are two earlier versions associated with the Norman Aces. This is the “Norman Chronicle” of the 12th century, which seems to justify the rights of the Norman Duke Rollo to take possession of the north of France (“Normandy”) at the beginning of the 10th century, since it was there that the Normans from the Don came in the 2nd century. In the north of France, burial grounds left by the Alans are still preserved. They are also scattered in other places in north-west Europe, a memory of which is also served here by the widespread name Alan or Aldan (in the Celtic vowel). Another source is the 12th century chronicle of Annalist Saxo. It even names the exact date of the resettlement: 166 AD.

The Ynglinga Saga (written down like the Younger Edda by Snorri Sturluson, apparently from the words of the 9th century skald Thjodolf) speaks of Great Svitjod (usually interpreted as “Great Sweden”), which occupied vast areas near Tanais (that is, the Don). Here was the country of the Aesir - Asaland, whose leader was Odin, and the main city was Asgard. Following the prophecy, Odin, leaving his brothers in Asgard, led most of them north, then west through Gardariki, after which he turned south to Saxony. The saga quite accurately represents the Volga-Baltic route, and Gardariki is the region from the Upper Volga to the Eastern Baltic, where the western direction gives way to the southern. After a series of migrations, Odin settles in Old Sigtuna near Lake Mälarn, and this area will be called Svitjod or Mannheim (the dwelling of men), and Great Svitjod will be called Godheim (the dwelling of the gods). Upon death, Odin returned to Asgard, taking with him the warriors who died in battle. Thus, “Great Sweden”, which is given a very significant place in Swedish literature and in general in the constructions of the Normanists, has nothing to do with Kievan Rus, and the Saltovsk culture near the Don is both archaeologically and anthropologically linked precisely with the Alans, whom many eastern sources IX - The 12th centuries were called “Russians”.

It is interesting that the appearance of the Scandinavians is noticeably different from the Germans (due to the mixing of the descendants of the Corded Ware and Megalith cultures, as well as Ural elements). The language of Odin's ancestors and descendants is also far from that of the continental Germans. The plot related to the “Aces” has another meaning in the sagas: “Aces”, “Yas” were called the Alans of the Don region and the North Caucasus (they are also known under this name in Russian chronicles).

It is also interesting that anthropologists note the similarity of the appearance of continental Germans to the Thracians. It was the assimilation of the local Thracian population by the Danube Slavs that created a seemingly paradoxical situation: of all the Slavs, the current Bulgarians, and not Germany’s neighbors, are anthropologically closest to the Germans. The closeness of the appearance of the continental Germans to the Thracians gives direction to the search for their common origins: they were in the region of the band ceramics cultures and, within its framework, moved to the north-west, confronting or involving tribes of a different appearance into their movement.

The Germans are reliably visible on the Lower Elbe within the framework of the Jastorf culture from about the turn of the 7th-6th centuries. BC e. In the southern reaches, the Celtic influence (of the Hallstatt and later La Tène cultures) is noticeable. As elsewhere in the buffer zones, on the border of the Celtic and Germanic tribes there was repeated interpenetration of cultures, with first one advancing, then the other. But on the eve of N. e. as a result of the almost universal retreat of Celtic cultures, the advantage ends up on the side of the Germans.

The decisive linguistic argument against the hypothesis that there was ever a unity of the Germans with the Balto-Slavs is the absence of any intermediate dialects. The three peoples have been neighbors since the first mention of them in written sources, but it is obvious that by the time of their territorial rapprochement they were linguistically, culturally and socially established societies.

Archaeologically, the earliest stage of Germanic and Balto-Slavic interaction may be the advance around the 3rd century BC. e. groups of the Jastorf population beyond the right bank of the Oder into the area of ​​distribution of the Pomeranian culture at that time. There is an assumption that later these newcomers were pushed back by the tribes of the Oksyv culture, but the solution may be different: in the course of long-term interaction, groups of Jastorfians could have been influenced by the local population, although they retained their language. It was here, in all likelihood, that the Goths were formed and perhaps some other tribes close to them, whose culture was noticeably different from the Germans themselves.

In general, the question of the existence of the original German-Balto-Slavic community is quite unanimously resolved in the negative

2. THE PROBLEM OF SLAVIC-BALTIC RELATIONS

The problem of the Balto-Slavic community causes more controversy than the question of German-Balto-Slavic unity. Disagreements appeared already in the 18th century, in the dispute between M.V. Lomonosov with the first Normanists, during which the Russian scientist drew attention to the facts of linguistic and cultural proximity of the Balts and Slavs. The solution to the question of Slavic ancestral home and in general the question of the conditions for the emergence of the Slavs. But at the same time, the following must be taken into account: since the Germans were not an autochthonous population of the Western Baltic territories, the question of the ancestral homeland of the Balts and Slavs should not be made dependent on the presence or absence of similarities with the Germanic in their language.

The closeness of the Slavic and Balto-Lithuanian languages ​​is obvious. The problem is to determine the reasons for this phenomenon: is it the result of long-term residence of two ethnic groups in the neighborhood, or a gradual divergence of an initially single community. Related to this is the problem of establishing the time of convergence or, conversely, divergence of both linguistic groups. In practice, this means clarifying the question of whether the Slavic language is autochthonous (i.e., indigenous) in the territory adjacent to the Balts, or whether it was introduced by some Central or even Southern European ethnic group. It is also necessary to clarify the original territory of the Proto-Balts.

In Russian linguistics at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the prevailing opinion was about the original Balto-Slavic community. This view was strongly defended, in particular, by A.A. Shakhmatov. Perhaps only I.A. held the opposite opinion quite consistently. Baudouin de Courtenay, and the Latvian linguist J.M. Endzelin. In foreign linguistics, the initial similarity of these languages ​​was recognized by A. Meillet. Later, the idea of ​​the existence of a common proto-language was almost unconditionally accepted by Polish linguists and rejected by Lithuanian ones. One of the most compelling arguments in favor of the existence of the original community is the fact of the morphological similarity of languages; V.I. pays special attention to this. Georgiev. Currently, both abroad and in Russia there are supporters of both points of view.

Almost the majority of discrepancies arise from different understandings of the source material. The thesis about the autochthony of the Germans in Northern Europe is taken for granted in many works. The absence of visible traces of the proximity of Germanic languages ​​with Slavic prompts the search for a “separator”. Thus, the famous Polish scientist T. Ler-Splavinsky placed the Illyrians between the Slavs and Germans, and moved the Balts to the northeast, believing that the Slavs were closer to the Germans. F.P. Filin, on the contrary, saw more common features between the Germans and the Balts, and on this basis localized the ancestral home of the Slavs to the southeast of the Balts, in the region of Pripyat and the Middle Dnieper. B.V. Gornung also starts from the assumption of the autochthony of the Germans in the North, and therefore defines the original territory of the Slavs quite far in the southeast from the places of their later habitat. But since the Germans were not an autochthonous population of the Western Baltic territories, the question of the ancestral homeland of the Balts and Slavs should not depend on the presence or absence of similarities with the Germanic in their language.

The question of the origin of the Balts itself seems simple, since the settlement of the Balts entirely coincides with the zone of distribution of the Corded Ware cultures. However, there are problems that must be taken into account.

In Northern Europe and the Baltic states, since the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic eras, two anthropological types coexist, one of which is close to the population of the Dnieper Nadporozhye, and the other to the Laponoids. With the advent of the battle ax culture tribes, the proportion of the Indo-European population here increases. It is very likely that both waves of Indo-Europeans were close in linguistic terms, although differences caused by the time gap were inevitable. It was a proto-Baltic language, recorded in the toponymy of fairly large areas of Eastern Europe. The Laponoid population apparently spoke one of the Uralic languages, which was also reflected in the onomastics of these territories. A significant part of this population was assimilated by the Indo-Europeans, but as Finno-Ugric groups later advanced from the Urals, the boundaries of the Indo-European languages ​​again shifted to the southwest. In the 2nd millennium BC. waves of movements of tribes of the Srubnaya culture from the east reached the Baltic states, but they did not have a significant impact either due to their small numbers or due to linguistic and cultural proximity.

More originality was introduced by the tribes that moved into the Baltic states during the existence of the Unetica and Lusatian cultures (XIII-VI centuries BC). These, in all likelihood, are the same tribes that brought the ethnonym “Vends” to the Baltic states, and turned the Baltic Sea itself into the “Gulf of Veneds”. At one time A.A. Shakhmatov, recognizing the Baltic Veneti as Celts, noted Romance-Italic elements in their language, which also affected the Baltic languages. In the very population of the coastal strip of the Baltic Sea, which was occupied by the Wends, in particular on the territory of Estonia (and not only) there is a pronounced (and still persisting) admixture of the Pontic (or more broadly Mediterranean) anthropological type, which could have been brought here precisely with the Venetian wave.

In the previous chapter, mention was made of the toponymic “triangle” - Asia Minor-Adriatic-South-Eastern Baltic. Actually, it does not seem to concern the main Baltic territory. But a certain similarity between the languages ​​of the Veneti and Balts is still visible. The river Upios is known in Bithynia. A parallel can be the Lithuanian “upe”, and the Prussian “ape”, and the ancient Indian “ap” - “water”. The names of the rivers of the Southern Bug and Kuban (Iranized in form) - Hypanis - can also be put in connection with these parallels. In other words, with the Veneti, a population close to the Black Sea Indo-Aryans in language came to the Baltic states (the Aryans themselves went not only to the east, but also to the northwest).

IN AND. Georgiev sees indirect evidence of the existence of the Balto-Slavic proto-language in the history of the Indo-Iranian community. He recalls that such a commonality can be traced only in the most ancient written monuments, and not in modern languages.

Slavic languages ​​were recorded 2000 years later, and Lithuanian 2500 years later than the Rig Veda and Avesta, but the comparison is still not conclusive. The Rigveda and Avesta appeared during a period when the Iranian and Indian tribes were in contact, whereas later they had virtually no contact. The Slavs and the Balts directly interacted as neighbors at least since the times of the Rig Veda and Avesta, and it is necessary to explain why there are no intermediate dialects between these, although related, but different languages.

But in the arguments of opponents of the concept of the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language, in addition to those mentioned, it must be recognized that there are differences in areas that were important precisely in the ancient era. This includes counting to ten, designating body parts, and names of immediate relatives, as well as tools. It is in these areas that there are practically no coincidences: coincidences begin only with the metal era. Therefore, it is logical to assume that in the era preceding the Bronze Age, the Proto-Slavs still lived at some distance from the Balts. Consequently, it is hardly possible to speak of the existence of an original Balto-Slavic community.

3. WHERE AND HOW TO LOOK FOR THE HOMELAND OF THE SLAVS?

The inconsistency of the concept of the original German-Balto-Slavic and more local Balto-Slavic community narrows the range of possible “candidates” for the role of Proto-Slavic archaeological cultures. The search for such among “young” cultures (V-VI centuries) practically disappears, since the affinity recognized by everyone goes back to the Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age. Therefore, the above-mentioned opinion of A.L. cannot be accepted. Mongait about the emergence of the Slavic ethnos itself only around the 6th century AD. There is no more basis in the concept of I.P. Rusanova, leading the Slavs out of the Przeworsk culture - the western borders of Poland in the 2nd century. BC e. - IV century n. e., adjacent in their northern borders to areas with a Baltic population. The version of one of the most thorough researchers of early and medieval Slavism, V.V., cannot be accepted either. Sedov, who led the Slavs out of the region of the Western Balts, adjacent to the Lusatian culture of the last centuries of its existence - subklosh cultureV-II centuries. BC e.

F.P. Filin, who did not connect the origin of the Slavs with the Balts, allocated the Slavs the territory from the Dnieper to the Western Bug. The researcher warned that this territory was inhabited by the Slavs in the 1st millennium BC. e. Whether there were Slavs before and where exactly they were - he considered at this stage an insoluble question.

Attention B.A. Rybakova and P.N. Tretyakov was attracted by the Trzyniec culture of the Bronze Age (c. 1450-1100 BC), which occupied the territory from the Oder to the Dnieper. The proximity to Baltic cultures in this era no longer raises questions from the point of view of linguistic patterns, but in the culture itself there is clearly a mixture of two different ethnic formations: different burial rites (cremation and disposition), and burials with corpses are close to the Baltic type.

In other words, this culture may have been the first contact between the Slavs and the Balts. It indeed resolves many issues that arose during the discussion of facts indicating Balto-Slavic closeness. But another problem arises: if these are Slavs exploring initially non-Slavic territory, then where did they come here from? The culture was initially identified by Polish scientists, and at first they did not even suspect that it was spreading to the Dnieper. On the Dnieper, more significant manifestations of this culture were identified, and B.A. Rybakov suggested that the spread did not go from west to east, but from east to west. However, such a conclusion seems premature. In the east at that time, the Timber-frame culture dominated, within which there was no place for the Slavs or Proto-Slavs. Therefore, it is advisable to take a closer look at the southwestern territories adjacent to this culture.

This is exactly the path O.N. took. Trubachev. Following A. Meillet, he logically perceived the fact of the archaic nature of the Slavic language as a sign of its antiquity and came to the conclusion that archaism is a consequence of the coincidence of the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans and the ancestral homeland of the Slavs. It would probably be more careful to talk about the coincidence of the territory occupied by the Proto-Slavs with one of the large groups of Indo-Europeans. The scientist agreed with those German specialists who generally placed the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans in Central Europe (north of the Alps), but within the framework of this concept, the chronological depth did not go beyond the Eneolithic, which in the light of many other data seems incredible. As for searching in this territory the most ancient Slavs, then the range of arguments can be expanded by involving both linguistic and archaeological-anthropological material.

In our anthropological literature there are two different experiences in solving the problem of Slavic ethnogenesis. One of them belongs to T.A. Trofimova, the other - T.I. Alekseeva. These experiments differ significantly both in approaches and in conclusions. One of the significant discrepancies in the conclusions of T.A. Trofimova and T.I. Alekseeva is to assess the place of the band ceramics culture in the Slavic ethnogenesis of the population. At T.A. Trofimova, this population turns out to be one of the main components, and it is precisely, starting from her conclusion, that V.P. Kobychev connects the original Slavic type with this culture. Meanwhile, as shown by T.I. Alekseeva and confirmed by a number of other anthropologists, the population of band ceramic cultures could have been part of the Slavs either as a substrate or as a superstrate, but among the Germans this element was decisive.

Interesting and rich article by T.A. Trofimova departed from the autochthonist theories that dominated in the 40s of the 20th century, and was aimed against Indo-European comparative studies. As a result, noting the presence of different components in the composition of the Slavs, the author did not consider it possible “to consider any one of these types as the original Proto-Slavic type.” If we take into account that the same types were part of the Germans and some other peoples, then anthropology was practically excluded from the number of sciences capable of taking part in solving the problems of ethnogenesis.

Works by T.I. Alekseeva appeared in the 1960-1970s, when the restrictive framework of autochthonism and stadialism was largely overcome. Taking into account the migrations of tribes and the indisputable provisions of comparative studies sharply raises the importance of anthropology in understanding the history of the emergence of peoples. Anthropology is becoming not only a means of verifying the provisions of linguistics and archeology, but also an important supplier of original information that requires a certain theoretical understanding. As material accumulates, anthropology provides, on an increasing scale, answers to the questions of when and in what relationships ancient ethnic formations converged and diverged.

In quantitative terms, the most representative of the Slavs is the type of population of the Corded Ware cultures. It is the broad-faced, long-headed population typical of Corded Ware cultures that brings the Slavs closer to the Balts, creating sometimes insurmountable difficulties for their anthropological demarcation. The presence of this component in the Slavs indicates, however, a territory much larger than the area of ​​Baltic toponymy, since related populations occupied a significant part of the left bank of Ukraine, as well as the northwestern coast of Europe, in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. This should also include the zone of distribution of the Dinaric anthropological type, which manifests itself in the modern population of Albania and Yugoslavia (especially Montenegrins, Serbs and Croats) and which is usually identified with the ancient Illyrians.

Tribes with burials in stone boxes and the Bell-Beaker culture, who also buried their dead in cists (stone boxes), also took a noticeable part in the formation of the Slavs. Since the Slavs, according to T.I. Alekseeva, connect the types of “northern European, dolichocephalic, light-pigmented race and southern European brachycephalic, dark-pigmented race.” The population of the Bell-Beaker culture should attract special attention in solving the problem of the ancestral home of the Slavs.

Unfortunately, this culture is almost completely unstudied. It is generally noted to be spreading from North Africa to Spain. Here it gives way to the Megalithic culture, and then around 1800 BC. moves quite quickly partly along the western coast of the Atlantic, becoming part of the future Celts, partly to Central Europe, where their burial grounds are recorded. The origins of this culture can be seen somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean, perhaps in Western or even Central Asia. Apparently, the Hittites and Pelasgians were related to this population (in any case, their migration took place within the same Indo-European wave). It is with this Indo-European wave that the Ligurians who occupied Northern Italy are linked, who in some ancient reports are called the western branch of the Pelasgians. And it is quite noteworthy that the main deity of the Ligurians was Kupavon, whose functions coincided with the functions of the Slavic Kupala, and the corresponding cult in Northern Italy survived until the Middle Ages. It follows from this, by the way, that in the Alpine zone, along with the Proto-Slavs, there were also independent tribes close to them in language and, perhaps, beliefs.

The chain of place names running from Spanish Lusitania through Northern Italy to the Baltic states belongs to the Indo-European population, moreover, to that branch in which the roots “meadow” and “vad-vand” designate valley and water. Strabo noted that the word “vada” among the Ligurians means shallow water, and in the Balkans, in the zone of settlement of the Pelasgians, in Roman sources the rivers are called “Vada” with some definition. The ethnonym “Pelazgi” itself finds a satisfactory explanation precisely from the Slavic languages. This is a literal transfer of the “people of the sea” ethnic group known to ancient authors (in the literature there is an option for “Pelazgians” as “flat surface”). Back in the 19th century, the Czech scientist P. Safarik pointed out the widespread use in Slavic languages ​​of the designation of the water surface as “pelso” (one of the ancient names of the Slavic version is Balaton) or “pleso”. Both the Russian city of Pleskov (Pskov) and the Bulgarian “Pliska” come from the name of the lake. This concept is also preserved in the modern designation of a wide water surface - “reach”. The verb “goit” - to live, was also known in not so long ago (“outcast” means “outlived” from the community or some other social structure). A significant list of early Slavic place names in the Danube region was collected by P. Safarik. Recently it was revised and supplemented by V.P. Kobychev.

The Slavs are distinguished from the Balts, first of all, by the presence in their composition of the Central European Alpine racial type and the population of the bell-shaped beaker culture. Ethnic waves from the south also penetrated into the Baltic states, but these were different waves. The southern population came here, apparently, only as an admixture among the Veneti and Illyrians, perhaps different waves of Cimmerians who passed through Asia Minor and the Balkans. Both the origins and languages ​​of these ethnic groups were quite similar. The speech they understood, apparently, was also heard in the zone of the Thraco-Cimmerian culture in the Carpathian region, since it also arises during the resettlement from the Black Sea region and the left bank of the Dnieper. The language of the Alpine population, as well as the language of the Bell-shaped Beaker culture, differed from the Baltic-Dnieper and Black Sea dialects.

The Alpine population was probably not originally Indo-European in its origins. But if in the Celtic languages ​​a non-Indo-European substrate is clearly visible, then in Slavic it is not visible. Therefore, only the Indo-European tribes had a real impact on the language of this population, among which the most significant were the tribes of the Bell-Beaker culture.

At present, it is difficult to decide whether the Slavic language came in a “ready-made” form to Central Europe, or whether it is being formed here as a result of the mixing of the population of the Bell Beaker cultures and different variants of cultures going back to the previous tribes of the Corded Ware culture. The long-term neighborhood undoubtedly contributed to the mutual influence of the Proto-Slavic language with the Illyro-Venet and Celtic languages. As a result, there was a continuous process of mutual assimilation and the emergence of intermediate dialects within different tribal associations.

T.I. Alekseeva, who admits that the Bell-Beaker culture is a possible original Slavic anthropological type, indicates the proximity of the ancient Russian and even modern Dnieper population to the Alpine zone: Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy, Southern Germany, and the northern Balkans. And in this case we are talking specifically about the movement of the Proto-Slavs from West to East, and not vice versa. Historically, the spread of this type can be traced first to Moravia and the Czech Republic, then to the future tribes of the Ulichs, Tiverts, and Drevlyans. Anthropology cannot indicate the time when such a population moved from Central Europe to the east, since, like most tribes of Central Europe, the Slavs practiced corpse burning, and for two and a half millennia anthropologists were deprived of the opportunity to follow the stages of tribal migrations. But significant toponymic and other linguistic material has come down from this era. And here the most significant contribution belongs to O.N. Trubachev.

The scientist came to the conclusion about the coincidence of the region of origin of the Indo-Europeans and the Slavs for several decades. The most important stages were books about craft terminology (among the Slavs it was closer to the ancient Roman one), then about the names of rivers and other toponyms in the region of the Right Bank of the Dnieper, where along with Slavic ones, Illyrian ones are also found. And finally, the search for Slavic place names in the Danube region, from where Russian, Polish, and Czech chroniclers (sometimes in legendary form) deduced the Slavs and Rus.

In the works of O.N. Trubachev, as a rule, offers only relative chronology: what is ancient and where. In this case, archaeologists and historians bring chronology. Ukrainian archaeologists, in particular A.I. Terenozhkin, expressed an opinion about the Slavism of the Chernoles culture adjacent to the Cimmerians of the 10th-7th centuries BC. It is noteworthy that in the border strip between the Cimmerians themselves and the Black Foresters along the Tyasmin River in the 8th century BC. e. fortified settlements appeared, which indicated an intensified demarcation between the Chernolestsy and the Cimmerians. The most remarkable thing is that the identified O.N. Trubachev, Slavic toponymy completely overlapped with the Chernoles archaeological culture, right up to the left bank of the Dnieper at the south-eastern borders of the culture. Such a coincidence is an extremely rare case in ethnogenetic research.

As a result, the Chernoles culture becomes a reliable link both for moving deeper and for finding subsequent successors. It should be borne in mind that new settlers will follow the old footsteps from Central Europe, and the border between steppe and forest-steppe for many centuries will be the scene of most often bloody clashes between steppe nomads and sedentary farmers. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that with the beginning of social stratification, related tribes are involved in the struggle among themselves.

Solving the question of the ethnicity of the Chernoles culture helps to understand the nature of the earlier Trzyniec culture. It precisely marks the path of the ancient Slavs from the Alpine regions to the Dnieper. At the same time, the ritual of corpse burning apparently reveals the Slavs themselves, while in the ritual of corpse deposition the Slavic anthropological type in pure form not represented. This, in all likelihood, was predominantly a Baltic population. In all likelihood, it was here that the first contact of the Slavs with the Balts took place, which fully explains the convergence and divergence of both in language. It was here, within the framework of this culture, that the southern dark-pigmented brachycephalus crossed with the light dolichocranes and assimilated them.

4. MIDDLE Dnieper REGION IN THE SCYTHO-SARMATIAN TIME

Despite all the importance of the ethnic history of the Middle Dnieper region for understanding many aspects of the later history of the Slavs and the formation of the ancient Russian state, there are still a lot of blank spots here. The Belogrudovskaya (XII-X centuries BC) and Chernoleskaya cultures, in particular, their relationship with the Trzyniec culture, are poorly studied, although an important connection with Central Europe is indicated in this case. The transitions to subsequent cultures have not been traced. There are objective reasons for this: one of the main indicators of culture (material and spiritual) - the funeral rite - among tribes with corpse burnings is very simplified and leaves archaeologists with practically only ceramics. HE. Trubachev, polemicizing with archaeologists who perceive changes in material culture as a change of ethnic groups, notes, not without irony, that a change in ornamentation on vessels may not mean anything at all except fashion, which, of course, captured different tribes and peoples in ancient times.

Changes in the appearance of culture on the Middle Dnieper could also occur due to population changes in the steppe regions, as well as due to constant migrations from the west or northwest to the east and southeast. Just at the beginning of the 7th century BC. The Cimmerians leave the Black Sea region and after about a few decades the Scythians appear in the steppe. Is the former agricultural population still in place? B.A. Rybakov in his book “Herodotus Scythia” proves that it has survived and retained a certain independence. He draws attention, in particular, to the fact that at the junction of the steppe and forest-steppe strips, where there were fortified settlements in Cimmerian times, the border strip was strengthened to an even greater extent. This is convincing evidence of the heterogeneity of the territory designated by Herodotus as “Scythia”. And the very indication of the existence in the north of “Scythia” of “Scythian ploughmen” with their cults and ethnological legends is important. It is curious that these tribes had a legend about their living in the same place for a thousand years. In this case, the legend coincides with reality: a thousand years before Herodotus passed from the beginning of the timber-frame culture in the Black Sea region, and a thousand years separated the “Scythian plowmen” from the emergence of the Trzyniec culture.

According to legend, “golden objects fell from the sky onto the Scythian land: a plow, a yoke, an ax and a bowl.” Archaeologists find cult bowls in Scythian burials, but they are based on forms that were common in pre-Scythian times in the forest-steppe cultures - Belogrudov and Chernolesk (XII-VIII centuries).

Herodotus also encountered different versions regarding the number of Scythians: “According to some reports, the Scythians are very numerous, but according to others, the indigenous Scythians... are very few.” During the heyday of the Scythian unification, a fairly uniform culture spread to many non-Scythian territories. What is happening is approximately the same as in Central Europe in connection with the rise of the Celts: La Tène influence is noticeable in almost all cultures. When in the last centuries BC the Scythians mysteriously disappeared (according to pseudo-Hippocrates they degenerated), old traditions and, apparently, old languages ​​were revived on the territory of Scythia. The Sarmatian invasion from the east contributed to the decline of the Scythians, but the impact of the Sarmatians on the local tribes was less than that of their predecessors.

In the 6th century BC. A new culture called Milograd appears on the territory of Ukrainian and Belarusian Polesie. The southwestern features noted in it suggest a shift of part of the population from the foothills of the Carpathians to the forested areas of the Pripyat basin. According to researchers, we are talking about the Neuroi mentioned by Herodotus, who, shortly before his trip to the Black Sea region, left the original territory due to an invasion of snakes. It is usually noted that the Thracians had a snake totem and Herodotus simply took literally the story of the invasion of a tribe with such a totem. The culture existed until the 1st-2nd centuries AD. e. and was destroyed or covered by tribes of the Zarubintsy culture, which arose in the 2nd century BC. e.

The intersection and interweaving of the Milograd and Zarubintsy cultures gave rise to a discussion: which of them is considered Slavic? At the same time, the debates were mainly about Zarubintsy culture, and many researchers participated in them to one degree or another. Most archaeologists in Ukraine and Belarus recognized the culture as Slavic. This conclusion was consistently substantiated by P.N. using a large amount of material. Tretyakov. Authoritative archaeologists I.I. objected. Lyapushkin and M.I. Artamonov, and V.V. Sedov recognized the Baltic culture.

The Zarubinets culture arose simultaneously with the Przeworsk culture in southern Poland. The latter included part of the territory that was previously part of the Lusatian culture and some archaeologists saw the original Slavs in it. But their Slavic identity is proven both by the traditions of material culture and by the logic of the historical-genetic process. B.A. Rybakov considered it no coincidence that both cultures seemed to repeat the boundaries of the Trzyniec culture, and the Zarubinets also the intermediate Chernoles culture. The Zarubins were associated with the Celts who settled as far as the Carpathians and had to constantly defend themselves from the Sarmatian tribes that appeared at almost the same time at the borders of the forest-steppe.

Until now, along the border of the forest-steppe, rows of ramparts stretch for hundreds of kilometers, which have long been called “Snake” or “Troyanov”. They have been dated variously - from the 7th century BC. until the era of St. Vladimir (10th century). But the ramparts were clearly erected to protect precisely the territory of the Zarubintsy culture, and it is natural that the Kiev enthusiast A.S. Bugai found material evidence that they were poured around the turn of our era.

It is noteworthy that the settlements of the Zarubintsy culture were not fortified. Obviously, the Zarubins lived peacefully with their northern and western neighbors. They fenced themselves off from the steppe, where the Sarmatians were roaming at that time, with ramparts inaccessible to cavalry. The shafts still make an impression. And a logical question arises: how organized must society be in order to build such structures? And this society, judging by the housing, did not yet know inequality: it was the work of free community members of many settlements.

The Zarubinets culture, securely covered from the south, fell in the 2nd century AD. as a result of a new invasion from the northwest. P.N. Tretyakov found evidence that the Zarubins moved to the northeast and east to the left bank of the Dnieper, where they later merged with a new wave of Slavic settlers from Central Europe.

Being a consistent supporter of the concept of Slavic affiliation of Zarubintsy culture, P.N. Tretyakov did not define his attitude towards the Milogradites, repeatedly leaning first one way or the other (namely the Baltic side). Strong arguments against their Baltic-speaking were given by O.N. Melnikovskaya. Chief among these arguments is the fact that the culture was localized much further south than previously thought: namely, at the headwaters of the Desna and Southern Bug. The earliest monuments of the Milogradovites are located here and their movement to the northeast, traced according to archaeological data, chronologically coincides with the resettlement of Herodotus's Neuroi.

HE. Melnikovskaya does not determine the ethnicity of the Milogradovites-Neurs, however, giving preference to the Slavs and finding in the Milogradovites those characteristics that P.N. Tretyakov proved the Slavicity of the Zarubins. Belarusian archaeologist L.D. Pobol was inclined to see the Milogradovites as the predecessors of the Zarubins. V.P. Kobychev, without connecting the Milogradovites with the Neuroi, suggested their Celtic origin. But the connection here is apparently indirect, indirect. Tribes retreating from the Carpathian region to the northeast could have taken part in the formation of the Milogradovites. These are either Illyro-Veneti, or Slavs or related tribes. The Illyrian presence is recorded precisely at the upper reaches of the Desna and Bug, although in general the toponymy of the region occupied by the Milogradovites is Slavic. And the Celts were nearby. Archaeological research in Romania made it possible to discover Celtic burials of the 4th century BC in the vicinity of the Milograd culture. e.

The obviously non-Baltic origin of the Milograd culture resolves the issue in the same direction regarding the Zarubinets culture. This culture could be recognized as Baltic only if the arrival of Zarubins from one of the above-mentioned Baltic regions could be allowed. But in all these areas, even after the emergence of the Zarubintsy culture, measured (and stagnant) life continued.

But, being both Slavic, the cultures clearly did not mix and were different from each other. Even when they found themselves in the same territory, they did not mix. This gives reason to believe that the Zarubins came to this territory from outside. Their appearance on the territory of the Milograd culture deepened the difference with the Baltic tribes. And they could only come from the west, northwest or southwest. L.D. Pobol notes that the culture “has very few elements Western cultures and incomparably more southwestern, Celtic.” The author finds types of vessels that are considered to be Pomeranian in Hallstatt burials near Radomsk, as well as in burials in this territory of the Bronze Age.

Thus, in the Middle Dnieper region the constant presence of the Slavic population can be traced since the 15th century BC. to 2nd century AD But this territory is not the ancestral home. The ancestral home remained in Central Europe.

In the II-IV centuries. AD The Slavs were part of the Chernyakhov culture, the territory of which scientists identify with the Gothic state of Germanarich. In the 5th century Slavs made up the majority of the population of the Hunnic state of Attila. Unlike the warlike Huns and Germans, the Slavs did not take part in battles. Therefore, they are not mentioned in written sources, but Slavic features are clearly visible in the archaeological culture of that time. After the collapse of Attila's state, the Slavs entered the historical arena.

In the VI-VII centuries. The Slavs settled in the Baltic states, the Balkans, the Mediterranean, the Dnieper region, and reached Spain and North Africa. Approximately three-quarters of the Balkan Peninsula was conquered by the Slavs within a century. The entire region of Macedonia adjacent to Thessalonica was called “Sclavenia.” By the turn of the VI-VII centuries. includes information about powerful Slavic flotillas that sailed around Thessaly, Achaea, Epirus and even reached southern Italy and Crete. Almost everywhere the Slavs assimilate the local population. In the Baltics - Wends and northern Illyrians, as a result the Baltic Slavs are formed. In the Balkans - the Thracians, as a result a southern branch of the Slavs arises.

Byzantine and Germanic medieval authors called the Slavs “Sclavinians” (the southern branch of the Slavs) and “Antes” (the eastern Slavic branch). The Slavs who lived along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea were sometimes called “Venedi” or “Veneti”.

Archaeologists have discovered monuments of the material culture of the Sklavins and Antes. The Sklavins correspond to the territory of the Prague-Korchak archaeological culture, which spread to the southwest of the Dniester. To the east of this river there was another Slavic culture - Penkovskaya. These were antes.

In the VI - early VII centuries. The territory of their current residence was inhabited by East Slavic tribes - from the Carpathian Mountains in the west to the Dnieper and Don in the east and to Lake Ilmen in the north. The tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs - the Northerners, Drevlyans, Krivichi, Vyatichi, Radimichi, Polyan, Dregovichi, Polotsk, etc. - were also in fact states in which there was a princely power that was isolated from society, but controlled by it. On the territory of the future Old Russian state, the Slavs assimilated many other peoples - Baltic, Finno-Ugric, Iranian and other tribes. Thus, the Old Russian people were formed.

By the 9th century. Slavic tribes, lands, and principalities occupied vast territories that exceeded the area of ​​many Western European states.

Literature:

Alekseeva T.I. Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs according to anthropological data. M., 1973.
Alekseev V.P. Origin of the peoples of Eastern Europe. M., 1969.
Denisova R.Ya. Anthropology of the ancient Balts. Riga, 1975.
Derzhavin N.S. Slavs in ancient times. M., 1945.
Ilyinsky G.A. The problem of the Proto-Slavic ancestral home in the scientific coverage of A.A. Shakhmatova. // News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences. Pgr., 1922. T.25.
Kobychev V.P. In search of the ancestral home of the Slavs. M., 1973.
Letseevich L. Baltic Slavs and Northern Rus' in the early Middle Ages. A few controversial comments. // Slavic archeology. Ethnogenesis, settlement and spiritual culture of the Slavs. M., 1993.
Melnikovskaya O.N. Tribes of Southern Belarus in the Early Iron Age. M., 1967.
Niederle L. Slavic antiquities. T.1. Kyiv. 1904.
Niederle L. Slavic antiquities. M., 1956.
Pobol L.D. Slavic antiquities of Belarus. Minsk, 1973.
Problems of ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Kyiv, 1978.
Rybakov B.A. Herodotus “Scythia”. M., 1979.
Sedov V.V. Origin and early history of the Slavs. M., 1979.
Sedov V.V. Slavs in the early Middle Ages. M., 1995.
Slavs and Rus'. Problems and ideas. A three-century dispute in a textbook presentation. // Comp. A.G. Kuzmin. M., 1998.
Slavic antiquities. Kyiv, 1980.
Tretyakov P.N. East Slavic tribes. M., 1953.
Tretyakov P.N. In the footsteps of ancient Slavic tribes. L., 1982.
Trubachev O.N. Linguistics and ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Ancient Slavs according to etymology and onomastics. // Questions of linguistics, 1982, No. 4 - 5.
Trubachev O.N. Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs. M., 1991.
Filin F.P. Origin of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian languages. L., 1972.

Formation of early feudal Slavic peoples. M., 1981.
Safarik P.Y. Slavic antiquities. Prague - Moscow, 1837.

Apollo Kuzmin