Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs and the formation of statehood. What is ethnogenesis? Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs

Where did the Slavic people come from? There are quite a lot of theories about this. In this article we will try to understand what ethnogenesis is. Let's find out what hypotheses about the origin Eastern Slavs exist.

What is ethnogenesis?

Nations did not arise overnight. Different people united in small groups, which gradually expanded. Small communities grew into entire tribes. In living together, they developed their own foundations, habits, rules and traditions that distinguished them from other groups.

What is ethnogenesis? This is the initial stage of the formation of nations. The process of transition from individuals to a group with the same way of life, the same culture. The formation of an ethnos, that is, a people, occurred due to various reasons and factors.

Each nation has a different history of origin. The emergence and formation of a nationality or nation can be influenced by the geographic environment, religion, and neighboring groups of people. Settlers and invaders also make their contribution to the development of the people. Some peoples, for example, the Germans, Americans, and Swiss arose as a result of an external challenge.

Slavs

In cultural and ethnological terms, a people is a community of people united by certain characteristics. Previously, they were blood relationships, but over time, language, religion, historical past, traditions and culture, and territory began to be considered such signs.

There are approximately 70 peoples living in Europe, some of which are Slavs. They represent the largest settlements in Central, Southern, Eastern Europe, on Far East and in the Asian part of Russia. Worldwide, their number is approximately 350 million.

There are eastern, southern and western branches of the Slavs. Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are classified as Eastern Slavs due to their closer cultural and linguistic ties. According to some researchers, the ancestors of these peoples constituted the main population of the Old Russian state in the Middle Ages, representing one nationality.

Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs

Under the name of the Wends, the Slavs appear in various written sources back in the 1st millennium BC. Before this, there were several pre-Slavic ethnic cultures (for example, Przeworsk), which most likely gave rise to these peoples. However, the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs still remains open. And now the opinions of scientists on this matter differ.

The Slavs are believed to belong to the Indo-European language family, which includes many other peoples. And they come from the central and eastern regions of Europe. According to various hypotheses, this is the territory between the Oder and the Vistula, the Middle Danube, Pripyat Polesie, etc.

It is assumed that they lived in small tribes, and after the first millennium they began to unite into larger formations - tribal unions. Gradually they divided into western and eastern branches, and over time the southern branch also appeared. The Eastern Slavs are often called Antes. They lived next to the tribes of Avars, Goths, Khazars, Pechenegs, and Polovtsians.

All these tribes had a significant influence on the ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs. There were often wars and raids between them. The Khazars even managed to impose tribute on the Slavs. Researchers do not exclude the possibility that modern East Slavic peoples may be descendants of joint marriages between Slavs and East European tribes.

Theories of the origin of the Eastern Slavs

There are various hypotheses about the origin and spread of the Slavic tribes. Thus, the autochthonous theory of ethnogenesis reports that the Slavs did not come from other territories, but arose in the valleys of the Dnieper and Dniester.

According to the migration theory, during the 3rd-7th centuries they settled in the territory between the Dnieper and the Dniester, in the eastern valleys of the Dnieper. Later, some of them spread to the territory of southern Ukraine, the Southern Bug and modern Moldova. The other part, having encountered the Varangians, stopped in the north-west of Russia and founded Veliky Novgorod, also occupied the territory of Beloozero and the Tver region.

There is also a mixed theory that suggests that migration among the Slavs occurred. Only not everyone moved; some remained on the territory of their historical homeland, continuing their usual way of life.

Conclusion

What is ethnogenesis? This is the process of the birth and formation of a people. Although the term also includes its further development. The study of ethnogenesis includes the study of linguistic, cultural, historical features a certain people, their way of life, geographical location and movements throughout their existence.

The origin of the Eastern Slavs still leaves more questions than answers. There are many theories, historical and semi-legendary documents about its formation, but there is no consensus in scientific circles.

15. Ethnogenesis and settlement of the Slavs. Identification of the Eastern Slavs.

Let us turn to the first part of the code, the Initial Chronicle, and see how it illuminates the ethnogenesis and settlement of the Slavs, as well as the separation of the Eastern Slavs from the Slavic community.

As already noted, the chronicles, according to established tradition, began their narrative by presenting biblical stories. The Tale of Bygone Years also begins its narrative with a story about how, after the great flood, the sons of Noah dispersed from their clans on the earth. The chronicler traces the history of the Slavs from Noah’s youngest son, Japheth. He and his family went “to the northern and western lands.” If we take into account the place where Noah’s ark sank to earth after the flood, i.e. Mount Ararat in the Caucasus, it turns out that the clan of Japheth headed to Europe. However, the chronicler indicates specific areas of Europe as the ancestral home of the Slavs. The chronicle speaks of the Roman province of Noricum, located in the upper reaches of the Danube and Drava rivers, and declares that the “Noricians” are the Slavs. Elsewhere it is said that the Slavs settled along the Danube, in the lands of Hungarian and Bulgarian.

Further, the chronicler tells that those oppressed by the Volokhs, i.e. Roman tribes, the Slavs left the Danube and settled in different territories: on the Vistula River - Poles, on the Morava River - Moravians and Czechs. Some of the Slavs went further east - to the area of the Dnieper and Dniester rivers. As the Slavic tribes that settled there, the chronicler names well-known unions of East Slavic tribes - Polyans, Drevlyans, Ulichs, Tivertsy, etc. Thus, the settlement of the Slavs in different territories means the separation of various groups of Slavs, including the separation of the Eastern Slavs.

The Tale of Bygone Years marked the beginning of the “Danube version” of the origin of the Slavs. This version has found wide circulation in historical literature, in particular in the works of famous Russian historians. This version was supported, for example, by V.O. Klyuchevsky, who made some additions to it. According to Klyuchevsky, the Slavs left the Danube for the Carpathians and lived there from the second to the seventh centuries AD. Only after “staying in the Carpathians” the Slavs were divided into Western, Southern and Eastern.

Thus, Klyuchevsky, following the author of “The Tale,” believed that the Eastern Slavs were not the indigenous inhabitants of Eastern European territory, but aliens, colonizers, who, moreover, came there shortly before the creation of their own state. At the same time, in the works of historians of the 19th century one can find another point of view - about the residence of the Eastern Slavs in the territories in which they are known in the Primary Chronicle (precisely indicating the territories of the Polyans, Drevlyans, etc.), from ancient times. For example, a historian Zabelin in the book “The History of Russian Life from Ancient Times” he noted that the Slavs from time immemorial lived where our Primary Chronicle knows them. According to Zabelin, the Slavs settled within the Russian plain, perhaps several years before the birth of Christ, and our history dates back to the time of Herodotus.

These two points of view - Slavs-colonialists and Slavs-natives can also be found among Soviet historians. Supporters of the idea that the Slavs are not the indigenous inhabitants of the East European Plain are also busy searching for the ancestral home of the Slavs, but they are looking for it in more northern latitudes compared to the data in the Tale of Bygone Years. Some historians consider the middle Dnieper and Dniester regions to be the ancestral home of the Slavs, while others consider the area between the Vistula and Oder rivers to be the ancestral home of the Slavs. There is a point of view that combines both versions of the ancestral home. According to this point of view, the ancestors of the Slavs lived on a large territory of Central and Eastern Europe, stretching from north to south for 400 km, from west to east - about 1.5 thousand km. The western half of this territory in the north reaches the Baltic Sea, in the south it is limited by the mountains - the Tatras, Sudetes and Carpathians. The eastern half of this territory extends in the north to the Pripyat River, in the south to the Ros River basin, as well as the headwaters of the Dniester and Southern Bug rivers. Another approach, like Zabelin’s, comes from the indigenous habitation of the Slavs in the territory of their subsequent residence. He brings the Slavs out of the Tishinets-Komarovskaya archaeological culture dating back to the 15th – 12th centuries. BC. and the Chernolesk culture, dating back to the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. It is not difficult to notice the politicization of this approach, since it strives at all costs to prove the priority of the Slavs in the formation of the state. As a rule, discussions about the indigenous habitation of the Slavs in this territory end with the conclusion about the early formation of the state of Kievan Rus.

The works of Academician B. Rybakov are distinguished by the desire to prove at all costs the Slavic priority in the formation of the state. Let's look at this using a typical example. The Tale of Bygone Years mentions Kiy, after whom the city of Kyiv is named. The chronicle says that Kiy was a prince, made campaigns against Byzantium, and that the Byzantine emperor received him and showed him significant honors. It is noteworthy that already in the era of the chronicler there were conflicting information about Kiy, since the chronicle also gives another point of view about this character - it is mentioned that, according to other data, Kiy was a simple carrier across the Dnieper. The chronicler himself, however, does not share this point of view, but nevertheless cites it. Many researchers believe that the chronicle character Kiy with his brothers Shchek and Khoriv and their sister Lybid are nothing more than fictional characters needed to explain the origin geographical names, like Romulus and Remus, who gave their name to the city of Rome. Indeed, in Kyiv there are the Shchekovitsa and Khorivitsa hills, and the Lybid River flows. But in the works of Academician Rybakov there are not only no references to this point of view, but also to the chronicler’s data that Kiy may have been a carrier. Only one point of view is unconditionally and unconditionally accepted - that Kiy was a prince, because it works on the author’s concept of the early origin of statehood among the Eastern Slavs. Moreover, B. Rybakov places Kiya in the 6th century, thereby proving the origin of the East Slavic state before the appearance of the Varangians in the Dnieper region, although there is no specific data indicating the real existence of Kiya and especially that he lived in the 6th century. None of the Byzantine sources mentions Kiy and his reception by the Byzantine emperor.

One way or another, the Eastern Slavs began to live on the territory of the East European Plain. The chronicler describes in detail the place of settlement of specific Slavic tribes (according to modern points of view, the chronicle is more likely to talk about tribal unions). The chronicle describes where the Polyans lived, where the Drevlyans lived, where the Vyatichi, Radimichi, Dregovichi, Slovenes, Ulichs, Krivichi, Polochans, Northerners, Tivertsy and others lived.

16. The theory of state and law about the essence of the state and the prerequisites for its emergence.

There are numerous theories of the state: socio-economic (Marxist), contractual (social contract theory), patriarchal, psychological, theological and many others. Theological theory, for example, proceeds from the fact that the formation of a state is the will of Providence. Psychological theory seeks the origins of statehood in people’s desire for organization, which is expressed, among other things, in the desire to shift responsibility to leaders and obey them. Patriarchal theory views state relations as a new stage of tribal relations, and the state itself as an expanded clan that has taken on a new quality. The most common are socio-economic and contractual theories of the state.

Let's look at these theories in more detail. Let's start with the socio-economic (Marxist) theory of the state. This is not at all explained by the fact that this theory is the most correct. Simply, for political and ideological reasons long years in our country, this theory was considered the only correct one and displaced all other points of view from domestic social science. It is contained in all books and textbooks dealing with this problem, published in Soviet period. The inertia of thinking is such that even after Marxism ceased to be a state ideology, in most school textbooks and applicant aids, the origin of the state among various peoples, including the Eastern Slavs, is explained precisely from the point of view of this theory. At the same time, at present the theory itself is often not named, which creates the illusion of presenting the material within the framework of some other approaches. Therefore, many school graduates sincerely believe that they have studied some new points of view on the issue of state formation, but in fact this new is nothing more than the well-known old. The likelihood that a student will encounter precisely this theory when working independently with literature is greatest.

It is these circumstances that make it necessary to begin acquaintance with the views on the essence of the state from Marxist theory. It is based on a socio-economic, and, more precisely, class approach to the definition of the state. Briefly summarizing the essence of the theory, it boils down to the fact that the state is tool of the ruling class. It is clear that with this approach the emergence of the state will depend on the time of the emergence of classes. According to Marx, the state did not arise immediately with the emergence of human society. Under the primitive communal system there was no state, since there was no division of humanity into classes. Gradually, the development of material production led to the emergence of surpluses, to what Marxism calls “surplus product.” It was appropriated by the already emerging tribal elite, as a result of which the emerging social stratification was strengthened, antagonistic classes and private property arose. The ruling classes were faced with the need to preserve their property and their power. For this, Marxist theory believes, they created a special apparatus of coercion in relation to the socially lower strata - the state.

In the history of mankind, according to Marxist theory, there were various states - slave, feudal, capitalist. As K. Marx, F. Engels, and after them V.I. Lenin assumed, the state that will arise as a result of the socialist revolution, i.e. the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat will no longer be a consequence of the division of society into antagonistic classes, and, therefore, will be a kind of transitional stage to a society without a state. In this regard, the term “semi-state” was sometimes used. Marxism argued that a moment would come in human history when there would be no classes, and therefore no state, when, as Engels put it, the state would take its place in the museum along with the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.

The views of Marx and Engels on states are sometimes called both original and absurd. Indeed, in Marxist theory one can find statements that the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is more democratic than bourgeois-democratic states. From the point of view of logic and common sense, a dictatorship cannot be more democratic than democracy. But this statement expresses the logic of the Marxist view of the state, according to which every state protects class interests. Indeed, according to this logic, bourgeois democracy expresses the interests of the bourgeoisie, i.e. minorities of society, and the bourgeois-democratic state suppresses the majority of the people. The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat expresses the interests of the working people, that is, the majority, and suppresses the exploiting minority with its dictatorship. It turns out that if the state, by definition, must suppress someone, then let the majority suppress the minority rather than vice versa. So it turns out that the dictatorship of the proletariat turns out to be more democratic than bourgeois democracy.

It is not difficult to see that the Marxist theory of the state, while correctly emphasizing the connection of the state with the social class structure, is a very one-sided theory, since it relies on the coercive, suppressive functions of the state, on confrontation in society and class struggle. At the same time, it is completely ignored that the state is necessary not only for the socially higher strata of society, but that without it the functioning of a civilized society as a whole is impossible. In the Marxist interpretation of the state, the functions of protecting human rights, maintaining order in society, etc. fade into the background. The political unproductivity of this approach is obvious.

The Marxist theory of the state dominated Soviet social science by political reasons. More common is the theory of the social contract, which appeared during the Enlightenment. The essence of this (contractual) theory comes down to the following. In ancient times, people enjoyed all natural rights (obtained by birthright) and lived in conditions of absolute, unrestricted freedom. Gradually they realized that such a life would result in negative consequences - “a war of all against all.” In fact, the absolute, unlimited freedom of a person includes, for example, the right to kill another. But if this other person is also guided by such a right, it is not difficult to imagine what will result living together of people. Gradually, humanity came to the idea that the freedom of one person should end where the freedom of another begins. People began to understand that for normal human coexistence (and a person is not able to live alone), it is necessary for each person to transfer part of his rights (we were not talking, for example, about the right to life) to some kind of coordinating body that would ensure normal the coexistence of people will save them from bloody anarchy. The state became such a body.

Thus, in the theory of social contract, the state does not act as a body serving the interests of one group of people, but as a body necessary for all members of society, regardless of their class or other affiliation.

Naturally, these different theories interpret the question of the prerequisites for the formation of a state differently. If in Marxist theory the state is an instrument in the hands of the ruling class, then the prerequisites for its emergence will be associated with the emergence of classes, and their emergence, associated with socio-economic development, in turn forces us to pay attention precisely to the socio-economic prerequisites for the formation of the state. The social contract theory, based on the fact that the state is the result of a certain social agreement, focuses on others - namely, the political and psychological prerequisites for the formation of the state. Consequently, in various textbooks and textbooks the prerequisites for the formation of a state can be illuminated in different ways.

Prerequisites for the formation of the state among the Eastern Slavs in the light of the main theories of the origin of the state. Most school textbooks set out the prerequisites for the formation of a state within the framework of Marxist theory. It looks like this. The Eastern Slavs lived in tribes, or rather in tribal unions. The Polans, Drevlyans, Slovenes, etc. mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years are precisely tribal unions. Tribal unions occupied a large territory - up to 100 km in diameter; they already had social differentiation. There was a tribal elite: tribal princes and their entourage, princely squads, clergy - priests (magi). In parallel with the process of social differentiation, another important process for the formation of the state took place - the collapse of clan relations, the replacement of the clan community with a neighboring one.

The residence of the Slavs by clans, among other factors, was determined by natural, climatic and economic conditions. Farming in the wooded areas in which the Slavs lived was impossible without large quantity workers. It was necessary to cut down or burn the forest, uproot the stumps, and plow the land. Slash-and-burn farming system required enormous labor, participation in agriculture of large groups and determined the residence of the Slavs by clans. But gradually the most labor-intensive part of the work was done. The arable land was freed from forests, the so-called old arable land. It became much easier to process them and an individual family could handle it. Gradually, families began to leave the tribal community within which they lived and settle separately. People from other clans and other clan communities began to settle next to them. In the end, these families, not connected by ancestral relations, began to unite into neighboring communities. Neighborhood community ( peace, rope) existed from the time of the formation of the state until the beginning of the 20th century.

The emergence of a neighborhood community was a historically progressive phenomenon. At the same time, now an individual family could no longer count on the help of the clan in the event of a crop failure or other disasters. This circumstance intensified the process of property differentiation in the community. Some families went bankrupt, others grew rich. Among the communal peasants, categories of dependent population began to appear, well known from ancient Russian sources. For example, procurement- these are those who took out a loan (kupa) and paid for it. Property differentiation led to the separation of socially higher and socially lower strata among the communal peasants themselves, which, together with the separation of the tribal elite and the elite of the tribal union, led to the stratification of society as a whole. Thus, the socially superior had a need to secure their position, to create an instrument of their dominance and preservation of economic and political privileges. With the unification of tribal unions, the power of the tribal elites was transformed into state power. This is how the state arose among the Eastern Slavs.

Social contract theory outlines this process by focusing on other factors. Slavic tribes, tired of the internecine struggle, decided to streamline their lives and transferred power to the people, who began to personify the state. Confirmation of this can be found in The Tale of Bygone Years. It says that the Slavs living in the Novgorod region, tired of civil strife, turned to the Varangians with an appeal: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come and lead us." As the chronicle testifies, the Varangians responded to the call of the Slavs and came from across the Varangian Sea Rurik, Sineus And Truvor. Rurik, according to chronicles, sat down to reign in Novgorod, Sineus - in Beloozero and Truvor - in Izborsk. This message dates back to 862. Part of Rurik’s warriors, led by Askold And Dirom, did not stay with him in Novgorod, but went south along the great waterway "from the Varangians to the Greeks"(i.e. from Scandinavia to Byzantium). Having reached Kyiv, Askold stopped there and began to reign there.

In 879 Rurik dies. His young son Igor remained in the care of a guardian - a relative of Rurik Oleg. Oleg did not reign only in Novgorod, but together with Igor and his squad headed south. Having reached Kyiv, he was amazed by the beauty of this city. Having lured Askold by deception, he killed him and himself began to reign in Kyiv. At the same time, he retained power in Novgorod and, thus, united the two centers of ancient Russian statehood. During his reign, Oleg subjugated the vast majority of the Slavic, as well as the Finnish tribes that lived closely with them, to the authorities of Kyiv. According to historians, Oleg thus created the body of the ancient Russian state. Therefore, the date of Oleg’s reign in Kyiv, indicated in the chronicle - 882 - is considered the date of formation of the ancient Russian state.

17. “Norman theory” and disputes around it.

The history of the formation of the ancient Russian state set out in the chronicle, which, as we see, in its premises serves as an illustration of the theory of the social contract, has been a subject of controversy among historians for many years. In the 18th century, based on ancient Russian sources, including the above plot, the so-called “Norman theory” was formulated, which caused numerous discussions. Therefore, it seems appropriate to supplement the presentation of the theory and history of the formation of the Old Russian state with a historiographical story about the “Norman theory” and the disputes around it.

The "Norman theory", as it is called, was created around the middle of the 18th century by scientists Johann Gottfried Bayer, Gerard Friedrich Miller And August Ludwig Schlözer. During the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna, there were many foreigners in Russia - at court, in government, scientific and other institutions. Miller, Schlözer and Bayer, like many others, arrived in Russia, found their second home in it and remained here until the end of their lives. They did a lot to study Russian history and carefully studied Russian chronicles.

The views they expressed, called the “Norman theory,” were distorted and coarsened in the domestic historical literature of the Soviet period. They were credited with dislike for Russia, an arrogant, disdainful attitude towards it. Thus, in the overwhelming majority of studies published during the Soviet period, the views of the “Normanists” boiled down to the following three theses:

1) the Slavs are a backward, wild people who could not create their own statehood. The state in Rus' was created by the Varangians;

2) the name of the state - “Rus” - is also not of Slavic, but of Varangian origin;

3) the Varangians were for the Slavs the bearers of not only statehood, but also culture in the broad sense of the word.

It is not difficult to see that in this presentation the “Norman theory” looks not as a scientific, but as primarily a political theory, intended to prove the backwardness of the Slavs and the advanced level of development of the European peoples.

Now the works of the “Normanists”, for example, Miller, have been published in Russian, and everyone can see how tendentious and distorting the truth the interpretation of Soviet historians was. In fact, supporters of the “Norman theory” were not interested in politicized issues related to the level of development of the Slavs, but in the origin of the name “Rus”.

Why was the “Norman theory” presented in this way during the Soviet period of history? This is due to the politicization of discussions around the theory itself. Therefore, let us turn to the history of this discussion.

The “Norman theory” was created during a period when Russia was dominated by foreigners. Therefore, the theory has sometimes experienced unfair criticism, which, in fact, can be explained as a reaction of rejection to this period. It is worth remembering that the first to sharply oppose the “Norman theory” was the famous Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov, whose peak of activity occurred during the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. Elizabeth ascended the throne as a result palace coup, which put an end to the domination of foreigners in Russia, so under her any evidence of Russian priority was, as they say, in time. There is no doubt that Lomonosov, who protested against Bayer’s point of view about the foreign origin of the word Rus, did so for scientific reasons, without any admixture of political conjuncture. But his point of view resonated widely thanks in large part to the political situation.

During the reign of Catherine II, whose maiden name was Sophia-Augusta-Frederike of Anhalt-Zerbst, the argument that no foreigners on the Russian throne was a decree for us, of course, was not in use. Therefore, objections to the “Norman theory” fade away.

In the XIX – early XX centuries. the political passions of the previous century become irrelevant, so the dispute around the “Norman theory” finally moves into the scientific plane. Many prominent historians of the 19th century, for example, Karamzin, were Normanists, and did not see anything unpatriotic in this (which, of course, is fair). Many scientists who did not fully share the “Norman theory” at the same time recognized that in the specific conditions of the formation of the ancient Russian state, it could not help but experience a foreign factor, including the Varangian one. The history of Russia is the history of a country that is being colonized, Klyuchevsky noted. At the same time, talking about the ancient Russian state as an exclusively Slavic state is historically incorrect and politically unproductive.

In the years Soviet power The politicization of the Norman question returned. All Soviet textbooks and books were written from the position of anti-Normanism, sometimes quite militant. This position was considered patriotic, state, and the only correct one.

Militant anti-Normanism became a common phenomenon in Soviet historiography. A number of works denied the real existence of not only Sineus (it was believed that this was an incorrect translation of the expression “with his court,” i.e. Rurik came with his court) and Truvor, but also Rurik. It was argued that Askold and Dir were Slavic princes, representatives of the Polyan tribe, who reigned in Kiev until they were killed by the treacherous Varangian Oleg (on this occasion, one of the modern historians wrote that with such success, they can be called Khazars, Magyars or Ethiopians; one may not trust the chronicle information that they are Varangians, but we have no other data). Askold, Dir and Igor the Old were considered the founders of the dynasty of Kyiv princes. By all means, it was argued that the state arose before the calling of the Varangians, that is, no later than the middle of the 9th century. Points of view about the non-Slavic origin of the word “Rus” were hushed up.

The question arises: why the Soviet historical science, subordinate to the communist one, i.e. class and internationalist ideology, suddenly abandoned it and took a national-state position, proving the priority of the Slavic princes over the Varangian ones? It would seem, what does the ideology of the proletarian (more precisely, considered as such) state have to do with class-alien exploiting princes? This phenomenon can be explained by a number of factors. Firstly, at the stage of the Great Patriotic War There was a final turn from internationalist to national-state ideology, which was associated with the crisis of the first. The war finally overthrew the thesis about the priority of class values over national-state values, and hopes for class solidarity between German and Soviet workers were not justified. The Stalinist regime began to use traditional, including national, religious and state values to strengthen itself. Religion was rehabilitated and for the first time during the existence of the Soviet state, the church was given the opportunity to function normally. In propaganda, internationalism was replaced by patriotism. For example, the slogan “Workers of all countries, unite!”, under which everyone marched Soviet newspapers, was replaced by the slogan “Death to the German occupiers!” The International Anthem, which is the anthem communist parties, was replaced by the national anthem. The regime began to look for support in Russian history. ABOUT Tsarist Russia stopped talking about it as a prison of nations, its foreign policy no one else assessed it as expansionist. Orders were established in the names of great commanders - Suvorov, Kutuzov, Ushakov, Alexander Nevsky, Bogdan Khmelnitsky, many of whom were previously interpreted as defenders of the exploitative regime. In the context of such a policy, of course, the Norman theory, which assumed a certain role for tribes of Germanic origin in the creation of a Slavic state, did not suit the court. Hence the attitude towards it in Soviet historiography.

The attitude towards the Norman theory in Soviet historiography is also explained by other reasons. It's not just about the zigzags of Soviet propaganda. Soviet ideology was based on the thesis of the superiority of the socialist system. The messianic motives of Soviet propaganda coincided with the messianic motives in the official ideology of the autocracy. Under these conditions, the campaign to affirm domestic priorities in various spheres of life gained unprecedented popularity in the USSR, which often took on ugly forms (for example, the campaign against cosmopolitanism and sycophancy before foreign countries in the post-war years). The light bulb, radio, television, printing - all this, according to official propaganda, was first invented in Russia. It was claimed that we invented the steam locomotive before Stephenson, Morse code before Morse himself, even penicillin was declared a Russian invention. Under these conditions, it was impossible to adhere to the point of view that foreigners took part in the formation of the ancient Russian state.

Thus, anti-Normanism was elevated to the rank of state policy, and disputes around the “Norman theory” were artificially elevated to the number one issue in national historiography. In this context, the above interpretation of the “Norman theory” by Soviet historians is quite understandable.

Meanwhile, in recognizing the fact of Norman influence, in particular, in the fact that the princely dynasty is not of Slavic, but of Varangian origin, as well as the name of the country, there is nothing unpatriotic or offensive. This has happened very often in history. Many ruling dynasties were founded by non-indigenous people, and this is a common practice. The names of many countries also have non-indigenous origins. For example, Bulgaria, inhabited predominantly by Slavs, bears the name of the Turkic-speaking tribe of Bulgarians from Volga Bulgaria. One of the most militant and nationalistic German states, Prussia, bore the name of the Baltic tribe of Prussians, which had nothing in common with the Germans. Neither its rulers nor its population saw anything offensive in this. So patriotism in our country was interpreted incorrectly.

What conclusion can be drawn from this? Firstly, of course, under no circumstances should scientific discussions be allowed to become politicized. Secondly, it is unlikely that the “Norman theory” should be interpreted too broadly - as a theory about the role of the Varangian factor in the formation of ancient Russian statehood. The role of this factor is confirmed by numerous sources and there is no subject for discussion here. Thirdly, it follows that from the “Norman theory” it is not political, but scientific problems that should be extracted. Only they will help clarify complex issues concerning the formation of the ancient Russian state. Such problems should include clarification of the following circumstances:

Who are the Varangians, are they Normans?

Origin of the name Rus

The time of formation of the ancient Russian state.

Let's move on to consider them.

18. The problem of the time of formation of the state and the origin of the name “Rus”. It is generally accepted that the Normans are inhabitants of Scandinavia. But who are the Varangians? Is the concept of “Varangians” identical to the concept of “Normans”? Let's try to understand this issue.

There are several points of view on this matter, which can roughly be called the ethnic, ethnosocial and social approach.

The ethnic approach defines the Varangians as an ethnos, a people. Its supporters rely, in particular, on the PVL, which contains the following evidence: “On this same Varangian Sea sit the Varangians and then the Varangians: Svei, Urman, Gothe, Rus, Anglyans.” It is easy to see that the word “Varangians” is used here as a general (generic) name for specific peoples living in Northern Europe, mainly along the Baltic Sea coast - Svei (Swedes), Urmans (Norwegians), etc. Consequently, there is reason to believe that the Varangians who appear in the history of the formation of the ancient Russian state are the Scandinavians, and, therefore, the Normans.

There is other evidence for this besides PVL. In Sweden, a lot of ancient records are found that talk about campaigns against the East Slavic lands. The Scandinavian sagas also tell about this. The names of the first princes who were on the ancient Russian throne are Scandinavian. The list of similar examples can be continued.

Thus, within the framework of the ethnic approach, the most common point of view is that the Varangians are an ethnic group of Scandinavian origin, and the Varangians are the Normans.

Another point of view, also within the framework of the ethnic approach, comes from the postulates of anti-Normanism, which was mentioned above. Its essence is that the Varangians are an ethnic group, but not of Norman, but of Slavic origin. A supporter of this point of view is, for example, the historian A.G. Kuzmin, who believes that the Varangians are a tribe living on the Baltic coast, but not on the northern (Scandinavian) coast, but on the southern one, and are of Slavic origin. Its name comes from the Indo-European term “var”, that is, water. Thus, according to this point of view, the Varangians are Slavs living near water (sea), that is, Pomeranians.

The ethnosocial approach proceeds from the fact that when determining the essence of the Varangians, one must proceed from the fact that they are not just a people, but a certain social group within the people. Its supporters proceed from the fact that the word “Varangian” comes from the terms “vareng” or “varang”, as the inhabitants of Byzantium called the mercenary squads that served them. According to this approach, the Varangians are mercenary squads of the Normans.

The social approach is based on determining the social status of the Varangians without connection with their national origin. Supporters of anti-Normanism often resort to it, since it allows them to separate the concepts of “Varangians” and “Normans”. Within this approach, the Varangians are simply defined as wandering mercenary warriors of various origins. There is a point of view according to which the word “Varangian” is associated with the words (derived from the words) “enemy”, “enemy”.

The most common view is that the Varangians are either Scandinavians (Normans) or a squad of Norman origin.

There are also different points of view on the issue of the origin of the term “Rus”, disputes over which gave impetus to the debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists. There are ethnic, ethnosocial and geographical approaches.

The ethnic approach defines Rus' as a people. In this case, the argument is the already cited quote from the PVL, where Rus' is listed as one of the peoples living along the shores of the Baltic (Varangian) Sea, along with the Swedes, Norwegians, Goths and others. It is believed that this people, together with other Varangians (Norman peoples), came to the East Slavic lands and subsequently gave their name to the ancient Russian state. Active opponents of the Norman theory and the recognition of any Norman influence in general sometimes also consider Rus' to be a people, but of a completely different origin and living in completely different places.

The ethnosocial approach, although it notes (as a rule) the Varangian origin of Rus', at the same time does not completely identify the Varangians and Rus'. In ancient times, the name Rus was not a separate Varangian tribe, but a Varangian squad (a squad of Varangian origin). This point of view is shared by the majority of famous Russian historians, who noted that among the Slavs, Rus' meant a squad, the basis of the ruling class. For example, the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky noted that “Rus” (precisely in the form of a term) was not heard at all among the Eastern Slavs in the 8th century, and in the 9th and 10th centuries. Rus' among the Eastern Slavs are not yet Slavs, but an alien and ruling class among the native and subject population.

The ethnogenesis of the Slavs is the origin and formation of the Slavic community. It includes not only the emergence and isolation of the Slavs from a whole set of peoples, but also their further settlement and development as a people.

Problems of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs remain relevant for many centuries. This is explained by the fact that there are many mysteries, many questions to which there are no clear answers yet. And knowing the history of our ancestors is the sacred duty of each of us. Therefore, it is worth at least trying to delve into this important and serious historical aspect, such as the ethnogenesis of the ancient Slavs.

The first written evidence of the Slavs dates back to the fourth century AD. However, we know that the ethnogenesis of the early Slavs goes back to the last era (to the middle of the first millennium). Then the Slavs were separated from the large Indo-European family of peoples.

They can be divided into three large groups. The first of them is migration, that is, the Slavs moved from one territory to another. It, in turn, is divided into:

The second theory is autochthonous. It is diametrically opposed. It says that the Slavs did not move anywhere, but initially lived in Eastern European lands. This point of view is supported by Russian scientists.

And the third hypothesis is mixed. It was proposed by the scientist Sobolevsky. It lies in the fact that the Slavs appeared in the Baltic states, and then moved to the lands of Eastern Europe.

This is how various sources and historians imagine the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. And they have not yet come to a consensus, and they are unlikely to ever come.

Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs

An important aspect remains the culture of the Slavs, which existed at the dawn of their development. They lived in special houses that were built along the banks of rivers.

The ancient Slavs carefully protected their homes. They did this with the help of palisades, ravines, and ditches. After all, the threat of attack always existed.

The first occupations of the ancient Slavs were fishing, and a little later farming and hunting. The man was a breadwinner, a protector. And the woman was assigned the role of keeper of the hearth: she raised children, prepared food, and made clothes.

Over time, the Slavs learned to process metal and make tools and household items from it.

Slavs: ethnogenesis and settlement

The migration of the Slavs was due to the fact that in the third to seventh centuries it was generally massive. This era is appropriately called the Great Migration. By the sixth century, the Slavs had reached the Baltic and Black Seas.

Around the same time, the division of all Slavs into eastern, western and southern occurred. A little later they appeared on the territory of modern Belarus. Already in the eighth century, the Slavs firmly settled in the Balkans, and from the north - in the area of Lake Ladoga. This is how the ethnogenesis and early history of the Slavs are briefly presented.

After dividing into three branches, each of them began its own history. But everywhere there was a tendency towards the formation of tribal unions. For example, among the Western Slavs they are Pomeranians and Polabs. The Eastern Slavs were divided into thirteen tribal unions (Polyans, Krivichi, Northerners and others). And the South Slavic tribes included Bulgarian, Serbian and other tribes.

These unions became a prerequisite for the formation of states, but that’s another story...

Ethnogenesis of the Slavs according to archaeological data

The first recorded archaeological sources date back to the first millennium BC. However, we cannot reliably say that they belong to the Slavs. But the monuments dating back to the fifth and sixth centuries are definitely of Slavic origin.

The problem of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs according to archaeological excavations is the impossibility of one hundred percent certainty classify them as Slavic. It is difficult to trace their continuity.

The ancestral home of the Slavs and their ethnogenesis

Most scientists are inclined to believe that the ancestral home of the ancient Slavs was Eastern Europe, as well as Central Europe. It was framed by the Elbe, Vistula, Dnieper and Dniester rivers. It was there that the Proto-Slavs, the predecessors of the Slavs, lived. Of course, there are scientists who hold other points of view, more dubious.

The early history of the Slavs, their ethnogenesis, was always strongly influenced by other peoples, who were often hostile. In addition, natural and climatic conditions played a big role here.

When studying the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, the key questions are the location of their ancestral home and the beginning of the dialect division of the Proto-Slavic language. Until now, these questions remain unresolved, largely because researchers make a methodological mistake by initially using the inductive method. Numerous amateur linguists are especially guilty of this, creating popular but false theories about the origin and former greatness of their own peoples on the basis of several indisputable linguistic phenomena that may have different interpretation and reasons. At the same time, official linguistics is mired in the study of unimportant issues such as searching for analogues in the case paradigms of local adverbs. If one of the authoritative specialists takes on a more serious topic, then to support his own conclusions he tries to select a random selection of facts, both linguistic and extralinguistic, creating a new theory or modernizing an outdated one.

In the first half of the last century, there were several theories of the Slavic ancestral home, which can be summarized into two main ones - the Dnieper and the Vistula-Oder, especially popular in the post-war years among Polish scientists ( Filin F.P.., 1972, 10, Shirokova F. G., Gudkov V. P., 1977). Later, authoritative experts, with their searches for the ancestral home of the Slavs, only confused scientists and complicated the problem. For example, V.V. Sedov developed his theory of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, with whom he identifies to a certain extent the carriers of the Lusatian, Chernyakhov, and Zarubinets cultures ( Sedov V.V., 1979). An absolutely fantastic theory was built by O. M. Trubachev. He tried to convince everyone that the ancestral home of the Slavs was somewhere in Pannonia ( Trubachev O. N., 1984, 1985), having very meager and dubious arguments for this. In general, both old and new theories contradict each other to varying degrees, so no one is convinced, which leads to more and more new attempts to find a final solution (cf. Popovska Taborska Hanna, 1990, Sedov V.V.., Eremenko V.E., 1997, Aleksakha A.G., 2013, etc.).

Those that had correspondences in nine of the ten Slavic languages, which were finally left to define them, were considered common Slavic. family relations graphic-analytical method. Along with common words, in most cases, derivatives from them were also removed, that is, entire nests of words, the main word of which was recognized as common Slavic. For example, if the word * bělъ was recognized as common Slavic, then along with it all cognate words were excluded from the list (* bělěti, *bělina, *bělašъ, *bělocha, *bělota etc.).

In principle, it would be correct to take into account all words that are not common, but there were important reasons for the exclusion. Firstly, derived words could have arisen in different places independently of one another in different time according to the general laws of word formation, and this could harm the establishment of related ties between languages at the time of their isolation from the common language. Secondly, in the used etymological dictionaries Proto-Slavic language has a large disproportion in the representation of lexical material different languages, associated with the lack of sufficiently complete dictionaries of some of them. Quite often, Proto-Slavic words are presented in different versions, for which correspondences from two or three languages are given, while the available correspondences from other languages are not given even when they can be found in dictionaries. Of course, there should be a certain difference in the volume of Proto-Slavic vocabulary for different languages - in peripheral languages it is smaller, and in central ones it is larger. However, this difference cannot be multiple, therefore, for the objectivity of the study, it was necessary to carry out some correction of the lexical material taken for analysis - to supplement it, if possible, for some languages and to remove excessive, repeated data for others. For such correction, etymological dictionaries of individual Slavic languages, as well as bilingual dictionaries were used (see). During the correction, the removal of derivatives from common words was continued, for the reason stated above, although sometimes exceptions were made for words that reflected the meaning of the original concept. If the word was not recognized as common Slavic, then derivatives from it were taken into consideration, unless, of course, they were different versions of the same concept. For example, words with the same root that are not common Slavic were included in the list * xaba, *xabina, *xaborъ, *xabъ, *xabъjь, *xabъje, while verbs derived from them with similar meaning were excluded * xabati, *xaběti, *xabiti.

It should also be noted that some words with the same root, similar in meaning, were put into correspondence with one marked “how...”. For example, in the general register there are two Proto-Slavic words * barъ And * bara. Although none of them is common Slavic, their identical meaning allows us to consider these words as variants of one common Slavic word, which is found in one form or another in all Slavic languages. Another example of a common Slavic word can be two forms * čmel And * čmela, although such variants can be considered separately, since sometimes even small differences in words correspond to different groups of languages. However, we repeat, such lexical wealth is not distributed unevenly across languages only due to insufficient knowledge of individual languages.

Despite the additions made, there were not enough words in Macedonian and Lusatian (the combined Upper and Lower Lusatian) to be included in common system relationships. When constructing the diagram, there was also a lack of Belarusian words, which is obviously a consequence of insufficient study of dialect vocabulary.

The first result of the analysis of Proto-Slavic vocabulary was the verification of the thesis about the dual origin of the Russian language, which some linguists had long put forward. For example, A. A. Shakhmatov in one of his works ( Shakhmatov A. A., 1916) not only spoke about the great difference between the northern and southern Russian dialects (adverbs), but even considered possible close connections between the northern dialect and the Polish language. V.V. Mavrodin spoke in the same spirit, who admitted the possibility of the Western origin of the Krivichi (Mavrodin V.V., 1973, 82), and L. Niederle spoke out even more clearly when he wrote:

To this day, traces of its dual origin can be seen in the Great Russian language, since the dialect north of Moscow is very different from the southern Russian dialects ( Niederle Lubar, 1956, 165).

The division of the Eastern Slavs into four nationalities (southern and northern Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians) is confirmed not only by the difference in language, but also by the difference in ethnographic ( D.K. Zelenin, 1991, 29). The thesis about such a four-part division was also supported by R. Trautman. He also divides the Russians into two separate peoples (speakers of the northern and southern dialects) and, citing the authoritative testimony of Zelenin, writes that the ethnographic and dialectological difference between these peoples is greater than between the Belarusians and the Russians of the southern dialect ( Trautman Reinhold 1948, 135). In general, the division of the Slavs into three or four groups is largely arbitrary. It has long been noted that certain separate features connect pairs of Slavic languages of different groups, in particular such as Slovak and Slovene, Ukrainian and Slovak, Slovene and Ukrainian ( Vanko J. 1984., Mečkovska Nina Borisovna. 1985, etc.).

When compiling a table-dictionary of Slavic languages, it was noticed that Russian language represented in it disproportionately big amount words in relation to other languages, and on the constructed graphic diagram of the relationships between Slavic languages, the area of the Russian language was superimposed on the areas of the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. In principle, this could be a confirmation of the thesis about the existence of an Old Russian language common to all Eastern Slavs, but in this case we would have to add Ukrainian and Belarusian words, which are absent from it, to the many Russian words. Under such conditions, constructing a scheme became completely impossible, because the connections between some languages contradicted their connections with others. Only after dividing the entire set of Russian words into two equal dialects were the connections between all languages \u200b\u200bordered. This division can be done quite easily, since etymological dictionaries show the distribution of Russian words by region. To divide regions into dialects, the following indication was used:

In the modern territory of distribution of the Russian language, there are North Russian and South Russian dialects and a large strip of transitional dialects between them, which passes through Moscow ( Melnichuk O.S., 1966).

Thus, words common in Smolensk, Kaluga, Tula, Ryazan, Penza, Tambov, Saratov and more were classified as the southern dialect southern regions. Accordingly, words recorded in more northern regions were classified as the northern dialect. Words common only in Siberia and the Far East were not taken into account, but there were not many of them. True, the interpenetration of the vocabulary of the two main Russian dialects, associated with the common historical development of their speakers, could not but result in the blurring of the boundaries between them, which was reflected in the construction of the scheme of family relations.

Counts of the number of common words between individual languages gave the results shown in Table 13. The total number of words from individual languages accepted for analysis is presented in the cells of the main diagonal of the table.

If we compare the data obtained with the data of the first studies ( , 1987), then you can see a certain difference between them. In particular, in the data presented, the connection between the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Polish languages is much weaker, and the connection between the Ukrainian and the northern dialect of Russian is more pronounced. This can be explained by a certain subjectivity of the compilers of dictionaries, associated with their erroneous ideas about the unity of the Great Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. Accordingly, the lexical fund of the Russian language at one time included many Ukrainian and Belarusian words that were considered simply southern or western Russian. On the other hand, some Ukrainian and Belarusian words not found in Great Russian were mistakenly considered borrowings from Polish even when they were originally Ukrainian or Belarusian. V. Dahl’s Russian language dictionary played a particularly negative role here ( Dal Vladimir, 1956). Giving him credit for the rich factual material he collected, it should still be noted that he considered Ukrainian, Belarusian and both dialects of the Russian language to be a single language and therefore with the same mark “southern.” classified both the words of the southern dialect and the words of the Ukrainian language into the Russian language, and with the mark “Zap.” also noted Belarusian words. A critical assessment of these marks by V. Dahl has already been expressed by some scientists, in particular I. Dzendzelivsky ( Dzendzelevsky Y.O., 1969).

Table 13. Number of common words in pairs of Slavic languages

Language	floor.	Czech	slvts.	white.	Ukrainian	S.-Russian	Yu.-Rus.	agricultural	slvn	Bulgarian
Polish	374
Czech	247	473
Slovak	229	364	458
Belarusian	169	167	177	356
Ukrainian	238	257	265	266	487
North Russian	165	198	192	240	271	484
South Russian	189	205	217	253	304	330	480
Serbian-Croatian	172	239	246	154	248	225	241	519
Slovenian	126	199	207	106	180	169	181	303	394
Bulgarian	104	148	148	83	160	162	156	265	193	360

However, despite the partial incorrectness of the lexical material under study, the diagram of family relations of Slavic languages, built on its basis (see Fig. 41).

Rice. 41. Scheme of family relations of Slavic languages.

True, as expected, certain difficulties arose in determining the position of the regions of the two main Russian dialects. Due to the close historical development of these dialects, the number of words in common with some other Slavic languages in each of them differs little from each other. In addition, it is possible that the author may make mistakes when attributing some words to one or another adverb. The two areas of Russian dialects obtained by graphical construction are so close to each other that they could be swapped in the diagram.

However, the configuration of the circuit is almost no different from that published in the previous work ( , 1987), except that instead of one area of the Russian language, there are two areas of its two dialects, and the areas of some other languages have moved somewhat relative to each other. (cf. diagram to the left).

Graphic system of relationships between Slavic languages
(Stetsyuk V.M.., 1987, p. 38)

Bg - Bulgarian language, Br - Belarusian language, P - Polish language, R - Russian language, Sln – Slovenian language, Slc – Slovak language, CX – Serbo-Croatian language, U – Ukrainian language, H - Czech.

The unconditional presence of errors in the lexical material of the samples on the basis of which both schemes were made does not significantly affect their configuration, because the errors are non-systematic in nature, while the relationships between languages have a certain pattern. Due to the special proximity of the dialects of the Russian language, other considerations were taken into account when placing them in the general scheme of Slavic relations. In particular, the phonetic features of the North Russian dialect (more specifically the Novgorod-Pskov dialect) give reason to place it closer to the Polish language than the South Russian language, as noted by Shakhmatov. In addition, the above-mentioned partial incorrectness of the lexical material of the southern Russian dialect, which contains words characteristic of more Western languages, was taken into account. However, since the newly obtained scheme of kinship relations of the Slavic languages does not differ particularly from the previously constructed one, it fits quite well into the same place on geographical map(See Fig. 42). The map shows the areas in which the primary identification of individual Slavic dialects began, from which modern Slavic languages later developed.

Rice. 42. Areas of formation of individual Slavic languages.

Bolg- Bulgarian language, Br- Belarusian language, P- Polish language, Yu.-r– southern dialect of the Russian language, S.-r.– northern dialect of the Russian language, Slv– Slovenian language, Slc– Slovak language, Agricultural– Serbo-Croatian language, Ukr- Ukrainian language, H- Czech.
(A map of the entire original Slavic territory is provided in the section).

The location of the areas of the initial formation of individual Slavic languages coincides with the territory of the second ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans. Moreover, as studies have shown, in the same areas of the Middle Dnieper basin, the formation of Germanic and Iranian languages, as well as Slavic dialects, also took place. Research and explanation of the cause of this phenomenon can be carried out through the efforts of scientists of various specialties - ethnologists, ethnosociologists, geographers, etc., but so far they have been given the working title "". The existence of ethno-forming areas confirms the opinion of some Slavists, who believe that even in the depths of Proto-Slavic certain dialect formations were formed, from which they later developed modern languages. Also, in fairness, it should be noted that several years before the publication of the first results of research using the geographical method, the territory of Slavic settlements was determined in a similar way by Machinsky:

A comparison of data from written sources and archeology convinces us that from the beginning of the 2nd century. BC. and until the middle of IV d. AD the bulk of the ancestors of the historical Slavs (called by the Germans Venethi) lived in the territory bounded from the west by the middle Neman and the middle and upper Bug, from the south - by a line running from the headwaters of the Western Bug to the lower Psel, from the east - by a line connecting the headwaters of the Psel and Oka, the northern border is conditionally drawn on the basis of linguistic data on middle Western Dvina to the source of the Dnieper on the upper Oka ( Machinsky D. A., 1981, 31-32).

Kukharenko, in one of his early works, having examined the monuments of the early Slavic tribes, the so-called “burial fields,” outlines the southeastern border of the settlement of the early Slavic tribes so that it “ran from the headwaters of the Southern Bug to the east, along the Ros River and further along the Dnieper to approximately the confluence of the Psel River into the Dnieper..., turned to the north east, went Pslom, and then crossed to the upper reaches of the Sula” ( Kukharenko Yu. V., 1951, 15-16). You can see on the map that this definition almost exactly corresponds to the southern border of the ethno-forming areas of the Middle Dnieper.

Toponymy data speaks in favor of the reliability of the areas of formation of Slavic languages that we have identified. True, so far convincing data are available only for the areas of the Czech and Slovak languages. It is known that the Czech Republic has its own Volyn (near Strakonice, South Bohemian region), as well as several settlements Duliby from the tribal name Dulebs, who once inhabited Volhynia, the ancestral home of the Czechs. Comparing the names of the settlements of the Czech ancestral home and the modern Czech Republic, one can see certain parallels in them: Dubne - Dubna, Ostrov - Island, Rudná - Rudnya, Hradec - Gorodets. However, similar names are from common appellatives such as oak, birch, alder, apple tree, black, white, city, field, stone, sand, island, etc. can be formed according to the general laws of word formation independently in different places of Slavic settlements. Names that are quite original should be taken into account, at least those that do not have several duplicates. And it turned out that there are quite a lot of parallels in the names of settlements in Volyn and the Czech Republic:

Duchcov(North Bohemian region) – Duhce(north of Rozhishche, Rozhishchevsky district, Volyn region),

Jaroměř(north of Hradec Kralove, East Bohemian region) – Jaromel to the northeast of Kivertsi, Kiveretsky district, Volyn region),

Jicin(East Bohemian region) – Yuchin(near Tuchin, Goshchansky district, Rivne region),

Krupa(Central Bohemian region) – Groats(near Lutsk),

Lipno(South Bohemian region) – Lipno(in the extreme east of the Kiveretsky district of the Volyn region),

Letovice(South Moravian region) – Letovishche(in the far north of Shumsky district, Ternopil region),

Ostroh(east of Brno, South Moravian region) – Prison(Rivne region),

Radomyšl(near Strakonice, South Bohemian region) – Radomysl (to the south of Lutsk), although there is another Radomysl already on the territory of the Slovak ancestral home),

Telč(in the west of the South Moravian region) – Telchi(in the extreme east of Manevichi district, Volyn region).

However, it is interesting that there are names of settlements that, by their shape, confirm that it was from Volyn that the Czechs migrated to their modern territory. It is known that when people migrate, they sometimes give their new settlements diminutive names from the old ones. In our case we have three such examples:

Horazd"ovice(in the south of the West Bohemian region) – from Garazja(south of Lutsk),

Pardubice(East Bohemian region) – from Paridubs(to the west of Kovel in Starovizhevsky district of Volyn region),

Semčice(near Mlada Boleslav, Central Bohemian region) – Seeds(in Styri, Manevichi district, Volyn region).

Czech, Moravian and Slovak place names with parallels in Ukraine. Czech place names are indicated in blue, Moravian ones in black, Slovak ones in red.

Many parallels can be found between Slovak toponymy and the toponymy of the ancestral homeland of the Slovaks, although sometimes they have doublets in other places, which may either be coincidental or reflect a migration route. Here are examples of diminutive names in new settlements:

Malinec(Central Slovak region, east of Zvolen) – Malin(district center of the Zhytomyr region and a village in the Mlynovsky district of the Rivne region),

Malčice(East Slovak region), Malchitsy (Yavorov district, Lviv region) – Maltsy(Narovlya district, Belarus),

Lucenec(southern Central Slovak region), Luchynets (Murovano-Kurilivsky district, Vinnytsia region) – Luchin(Popelnyansky district, Zhytomyr region),

Kremnica(Central Slovak region) – Kremno(Luginsky district, Zhytomyr region).

There are also pairs of names that are almost identical:

Makovce(north of the Eastern Slovak region) – Poppy(Novogradvolynsky district, Zhytomyr region),

Prešov(East Slovak region) – Pryazhev(slightly south of Zhitomir),

Košice(East Slovak region) – Kitties(Ovruch district, Zhytomyr region),

Levoča(East Slovak region) – Levachi(Bereznevsky district, Rivne region).

There are also several pairs of names, the coincidence between which can be accidental: Humenne (East Slovak region) - Gumenniki (Korostishevsky district, Zhitomir region), although there is Gumenny near Vinnitsa, Bardejov (East Slovak region) - Bardy ( Korosten district of Zhitomir region), etc. Of the hydronymic names, only Uzh can be noted - there are rivers under this name in Slovakia and in the ancestral home of the Slovaks (Pripyat).

Slavic toponymy is discussed in more detail in the block "Prehistoric toponymy of Eastern Europe" and in the section "".

If the localization of the areas of formation of Slavic languages is determined correctly, then new or earlier unknown facts will confirm its location. This happened after becoming familiar with the ethnographic map of Belarusians, compiled by Professor E.F. Karsky in 1903, which indicated the areas of individual Belarusian dialects. As it turned out, the dialect with the most characteristic features of the Belarusian language largely covers the ancestral homeland of the Belarusians. A fragment of a map with the area of this dialect shaded in red and the border of the ancestral homeland of the Belarusians marked in dark color is shown on the left.

The specified dialect (very "acoustic" and with a hard r ) occupies the central part of the entire Belarusian territory. More peripheral dialects are characterized to a greater or lesser extent by features common to Russian, Ukrainian or Polish languages, which is obviously due to later influences from neighbors. The most characteristic features of the Belarusian language are at the same time the most ancient, that is, they correspond to the language at the beginning of its formation. Thus, we see that the dialect with ancient features preserved very close to the specific area of its original formation. The lack of complete agreement is easily explained by later migrations.

The reliability of the localization of the areas of formation of Slavic languages can also be confirmed by other facts, in particular this. Based on various data, we will come to the conclusion that the Mordovian ethnic group always remained in the area of their ancestral home between the upper reaches of the Oka and Don or not far from these places. If the ancestral home of the Bulgarians was indeed located on the left bank of the Desna, then the Mordovians should have been their closest neighbors in the east, and in this case there should have been some specifically Mordovian-Bulgarian correspondences that have no analogues. It could also be linguistic connections, but in this case we have other convincing data. Studying Slavic and Mordovian epic songs, the Russian scientist Maskaev identified interesting Mordovian-Bulgarian motifs, in particular in the epic about the construction of a large city (Gelon?) and, denying the possibility of mediation by Russians or other peoples (there is nothing like this in Russian or other epics), takes take the liberty to say the following:

The conclusion suggests itself that the Mordovian-Bulgarian community in the epic song is most likely explained by the long proximity of the tribes of these peoples in the past ( Maskaev A. I., 1965, 298).

An in-depth study of the folklore of the Mordovians and Bulgarians may reveal other interesting parallels. And in general, various evidence can be found to confirm the location of the areas of formation of Slavic languages. However, it seems that after sharp criticism of the graphic-analytical method and the results obtained with its help ( Zhuravlev A.F., 1991) the topic of the ancestral home of the Slavs turned out to be closed to linguists. At least in Russian publications it was no longer raised. It remains unclear whether the linguists agreed with my localization of the settlement sites of the ancient Slavs, or whether this topic no longer interests them. The same can be said about archaeologists, who do not require an alternative option from linguists.

Genesis of the state, as is known, usually occurs in two ways. It was either the natural development of peoples or conquest by external forces. All ancient states were divided into two large groups: nomadic and sedentary.

Bargaining in the country of the Eastern Slavs. Pictures on Russian history.

Phases of the genesis of the state

Transition to a producing economy
Separation of management and production functions
Transition to a neighboring (agricultural) community
Property differentiation (separation of the poor, middle and wealthy layers)
Social stratification (differentiation) and the formation of the tribal nobility
Formation of estates and classes
Association of territorial communities

Basic theories of ethnogenesis

There are three theories of the ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs:

autochthonous (i.e., the indigenous origin of the Slavs is the Dnieper River valley). It was based on archaeological sources. The most prominent proponent of this theory is Academician Rybakov.
migration (the Eastern Slavs, as a branch, separated in the 1st century BC from the common Slavic branch). According to this theory, the Slavs migrated east in two directions during the Great Migration:
1. Homeland: Odr and Vistula river basins (Western)
2. Homeland: Danube River basins (Southern)
Synthesis of autochthonous and migration theories

In the 1st century AD, Slavic tribes lived in the Dnieper basin and on the East European Plain. Sources and works confirming this: Byzantine historians, such as: Herodotus, Tacitus, Ptolemy, Pliny the Elder, Arab sources of the 6th – 8th centuries (Al-Masudi, Al-Istarkhi, etc.) The only Russian source: The Tale of Bygone Years ( XII century).

Settlement of the Eastern Slavs by the 8th century

The approximate area of settlement of the Eastern Slavs is from the Carpathian Mountains to the Middle Oka and Upper Don from west to east, and from the Neva and Lake Ladoga to the middle Dnieper region from north to south. It is important to note that the Eastern Slavs were also called Ants.

Tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs in the 7th-8th centuries.

Polyana (middle Dnieper region)
Drevlyans
Dregovichi (territories of modern Belarus)
Polotsk (R. Polot)
Northerners
Krivichi (Upper Volga and Dnieper)
Radimichi
Vyatichi
Ilmen Slovenes (Lake Ilmen)
Buzhans (or Dulebs)/Volynians
White Croats (Prykarpattya, the westernmost tribal union)
Tivertsy
Ulichi (the southernmost tribal union)

Activities of the Eastern Slavs

In particular, the main occupation of the Eastern Slavs was agriculture:

Slash-and-burn (in the North)
Shifting
Arable (in the South)

Rye, wheat, barley, and millet were grown. The main tools of labor were: a plow (from the 7th century), a plow, a hoe, sickles, flails (for threshing), grain graters. Gathering, hunting and fishing also played a certain role. Crafts developed (they emerged in the 6th century in cities). The Path from the Varangians to the Greeks, which arose in the 9th century, played a special role for the Slavs. This chain looked like this: Baltic Sea - r. Neva - lake Ladoga - r. Magus - lake Ilmen – Dnieper rapids – Constantinople (Black Sea). Mainly furs, wax, honey, and flax were exported.

Some large cities of Rus' VII - VIII centuries.

Novgorod
Chernigov
Pereyaslavl
Smolensk
Suzdal
Moore

Of course, these are just a few of them. It should be noted that in general by the 9th century there were about 24 large cities in Rus'.

Social order

The tribal unions were headed by princes and representatives of the clan nobility. There were public meetings (only men took part in them) - veche gatherings. In the 8th century, there were pre-state formations - tribal unions. Pagan beliefs took place. In the VIII-IX centuries. a pan-Slavic pantheon of gods was formed:

Svarog - the main god
Perun - lightning
Dazhdbog - the sun
Stribog - wind
Makosh - fertility
Volos (Veles) – cattle and the underworld

Priests who performed various rituals were called Magi. The places where these rituals were performed were called kapitsa.

Results of ethnogenesis

Certain conclusions follow from the above. By the 8th century, the East Slavic ethnos consisted of 13 large tribal unions. The agricultural basis was farming. Crafts, trade, crafts, as well as appropriating types of economy developed. We lived in a neighboring community (the period of military democracy). There was an arming of all free people (ancient Slavic man - lyudin). Customary law was preserved, and veche democracy also took place. Was present external threat. All these factors became the conditions for the formation of the ancient Russian state.

Questions and assignments for the topic "Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs"

What are the main phases of the genesis of the state?
Name the main theories of the ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs and describe them.
What was the approximate territory of settlement of the Eastern Slavs by the 8th century?
Name 13 tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs.
What was the social structure of the Eastern Slavs and what did they do?