home-Celebrities-Hungarians. Amazing history of the people

Hungarians. Amazing history of the people

Where did they come from? The answer to this question was obtained by chance, when the kinship of the languages ​​of the Hungarians and a number of peoples of the Far North of Russia was discovered. It’s hard to believe, but nomadic reindeer herders came to Europe, becoming one of the most distinctive peoples of the Old World.

The beginning of the 1st millennium AD in Eurasia was marked by the invasion of the Huns and a significant cold snap, which marked the beginning of the Great Migration of Peoples. The wave of movement was also picked up by the Ugric ethnic group, which inhabited the territories on the border of the southern taiga and forest-steppe of Western Siberia, from the Middle Urals to the Irtysh region - the proto-Ugrians. From those who went north came the Khanty and Mansi, and those who moved west to the Danube were the ancestors of the Hungarians, or Magyars, as they call themselves - the only representatives of the Finno-Ugric language family in Central Europe.

Relatives of the Magyar

The very names of the Mansi and Magyars come from the common root “Manse”. Some scientists believe that the words “Voguls” (an outdated name for the Mansi) and “Hungarians” are consonant variants of the same name. Gathering, hunting and fishing - this is what the ancestors of the Magyars, Mansi and Khanty did. The vocabulary associated with the last two activities has been preserved in the Hungarian language ever since. Basic verbs, words describing nature, family ties, tribal and community relations are also of Ugric origin. It is curious that the Hungarian language is more similar to Mansi than to Khanty. The first two languages ​​turned out to be more resistant to borrowings from others and retained more of their ancestor language.

The mythology of the Hungarians, Khanty and Mansi also shows common features. They all have an idea of ​​​​dividing the world into three parts: in the Khanty-Mansi myths these are the air, water and earthly spheres, and in the Hungarian ones - the upper (heavenly), middle (earthly) and lower (underground) worlds. According to Magyar beliefs, a person has two souls - a soul-breath and a free soul-shadow, which can leave a person and travel, the same existence is mentioned in Mansi myths, with the difference that men can have 5 or 7 souls in total, and for women - 4 or 6.

Neighbors of the Hungarians, their influence on culture

Moving along the Volga region, the ancestors of the Hungarians met on their way the Scythians and Sarmatians - peoples of Iranian origin who taught them cattle breeding, agriculture and metal processing - copper, bronze and subsequently iron. It is very likely that the proto-Hungarians in the second half of the 6th century were members of the Western Turkic Khaganate and, together with the Turkic people, actively participated in Central Asian and Iranian politics. Iranian motifs and themes can be traced in Hungarian mythology and fine arts, and in Hungarian chronicles, Persia is often mentioned as the country where the “relatives of the Magyars” live. Arminius Vambery, a famous Hungarian traveler and orientalist, searched for them while traveling in Central Asia and Iran in the second half of the 19th century.

Having mastered cattle breeding in the steppes east of the Southern Urals, the ancestors of the Magyars led a nomadic lifestyle, and hunting and farming began to play a supporting role in the economy. Probably, after the uprising of part of the Ugric tribes against the Turkic Khaganate, by the end of the 6th century, the proto-Hungarians appeared on the territory of modern Bashkortostan, in the Lower Kama basin, the Southern Cis-Urals, and partly on the eastern slopes of the Urals. Presumably in this area was Great Hungary (Hungaria Magna) - the ancestral home of the Hungarians, which is mentioned in the report of the medieval monk-diplomat Giovanni Plano Carpini and in the Hungarian chronicle “Gesta Hungarorum”. Some researchers locate Greater Hungary in the North Caucasus, others believe that it did not really exist, because in the Middle Ages scientists were inclined to look for the ancestral homeland of all peoples. The first, most widespread version is supported by the discovery of the Bayanovsky burial ground in the lower reaches of the Kama.

Russian and Hungarian archaeologists examined it, found in it similarities with the burials of Hungarians of the 9th-10th centuries, as well as objects of clearly Hungarian origin, and believe that the finds speak of the common ancestors of the population of the Cis-Urals and European Hungarians. Similar tribal names of the Bashkirs and Hungarians and the same geographical names in Bashkiria and Hungary confirm the former proximity of these peoples.

Expansion and migration of the Magyars

In the 6th-7th centuries, the Magyars gradually migrated to the west, to the Don steppes and the northern shore of the Sea of ​​Azov, where they lived next to the Turkic Bulgars, Khazars, and Onogurs. Partial mixing with the latter gave the Magyars another name for the ethnic group - Hungarians, this is especially noticeable in the Latin Ungari, Ungri, English Hungarian(s) and other European languages, and the Russian language borrowed the Polish węgier. On the new land - Levedia (named after the outstanding leader of one of the Hungarian tribes), the Hungarians recognized the power of the Khazar Kaganate and participated in its wars. Under the influence of new neighbors, the structure of society, legal norms and religion gradually became more complex. The Hungarian words “sin”, “dignity”, “reason” and “law” are of Turkic origin.

Under pressure from the Khazars, the territory of residence of the Magyars shifted to the west, and already in the 820s they settled on the right bank of the Dnieper, where they used to be. About 10 years later, the Hungarians left the power of the Khazar Khaganate, and by the end of the 9th century they gradually settled in the steppes between the Dnieper and Dniester.

They named their new homeland Atelkuza - in Hungarian Etelköz means “between the rivers”. The Magyar tribal union took part in the Byzantine wars. In 894, the Hungarians and Byzantines launched a crushing attack on the Bulgarian kingdom on the Lower Danube. A year later, when the Magyars went on a long campaign, the Bulgarians, led by Tsar Simeon I, together with the Pechenegs, struck back - they ravaged Atelkuza and captured or killed almost all the young women. The Hungarian warriors returned and found their lands devastated, their pastures occupied by enemies, and only a small part of the entire people remained. Then they decided to leave these lands and move to the Danube, where the Roman province of Pannonia had previously been located, and later the center of the Hunnic Empire.

The direction was not chosen by chance, because, according to Hungarian legend, the blood of the Huns flows in the Magyars. Perhaps there is some truth in it, because after the defeat of the troops remaining after the death of Attila, the remaining Huns, led by his son, settled in the Northern Black Sea region and lived there as a separate nation for about two hundred years, until they were completely assimilated with the local residents. It is likely that they could have intermarried with the ancestors of modern Hungarians.

As stated in the Hungarian chronicles of the Middle Ages, the Magyars went to the Danube region to take away the legacy of their leader Almos, descended from Attila. According to legend, Yemesha, Almos's mother, dreamed that she was impregnated by the mythical bird Turul (from the Turkic "hawk") and predicted to the woman that her descendants would be great rulers. Thus the name Almos was given, from the Hungarian word “àlom” - sleep. The exodus of the Hungarians occurred during the reign of Prince Oleg and was noted in 898 in ancient Russian chronicles as a peaceful departure through the Kyiv lands to the west.

In 895-896, under the leadership of Arpad, son of Almos, seven Magyar tribes crossed the Carpathians, and their leaders concluded an agreement on an eternal union of tribes and sealed it with blood. At that time, there were no major political players on the Middle Danube who could prevent the Hungarians from taking possession of these fertile lands. Hungarian historians call the 10th century the time of finding the homeland - Нonfoglalas. The Magyars became a settled people, subjugated the Slavs and Turks who lived there and mixed with them, because they had practically no women left.

Having adopted much of the language and culture of the local residents, the Hungarians still did not lose their language, but, on the contrary, spread it. In the same 10th century, they created a writing system based on the Latin alphabet. Arpad began to rule in his new homeland and founded the Arpadovich dynasty. The seven tribes that came to the Danube lands numbered 400-500 thousand, and in the 10th-11th centuries 4-5 times more people began to be called Hungarians. This is how the Hungarian people appeared, who founded the Kingdom of Hungary in the year 1000. In the 11th century, they were joined by the Pechenegs, expelled by the Polovtsians, and in the 13th century - by the Polovtsians themselves, who fled from the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The Paloce ethnic group of the Hungarian people are their descendants.

In the 90s of the 20th century, genetic studies were carried out to search for the ancestors of the Hungarians, which showed that the Hungarians are a typical European nation, taking into account some distinctive features of the inhabitants of the north of Hungary, and the frequency of a group of genes characteristic of peoples speaking Finno-Ugric languages, among the Hungarians it is only 0.9%, which is not at all surprising, considering how far fate took them from their Ugric ancestors.


In the widely known phenomenon of the Great Migration of Peoples, the Germans played a significant, if not decisive, role. The Germans are tribes of the Indo-European language group who occupied by the 1st century. AD lands between the North and Baltic seas, the Rhine, Danube, Vistula and in southern Scandinavia. The problem of the origin of the Germanic tribes is extremely complex. As you know, the Germans did not have their own Homer, nor Titus Livius, nor Procopius. Everything that we know about them belongs mainly to the pen of Greco-Roman historians, the language of whose writings is not always adequate to the phenomena of German reality.

The ancestral home of the Germans was Northern Europe, where their movement to the south began. This migration pitted the Germanic tribes against the Celts, which led to conflicts in some areas, and to an alliance and ethnic mutual influence in others.
The ethnonym “Germans” itself is of Celtic origin. At first the Celts called the Tungrian tribe this way, then all the tribes living on the left bank of the Rhine. Roman authors borrowed this ethnonym from the Celts, but Greek writers did not distinguish the Germans from the Celts for a long time.

Germanic tribes are usually divided into three groups: North Germanic, West Germanic and East Germanic. The south of Scandinavia and the Jutland peninsula were the common homeland, the “workshop of the tribes” of the northern, eastern and western Germans. From here, some of them moved along the ocean coast to the north of Scandinavia. The bulk of the tribes from the 4th century. BC. maintained a tendency to move south into the continent and west. The North Germans are the tribes of Scandinavia who did not go south: the ancestors of modern Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Icelanders. East Germans are tribes that migrated from Scandinavia to Central Europe and settled between the Oder and Vistula rivers. Among them are the Goths, Gepids, Vandals, Burgundians, Heruli, and Rugians. The question of when they settled in these areas remains controversial. However, by the beginning of AD. they were already located in this region. The most significant group is the West Germans. They were divided into three branches. One is the tribes that lived in the Rhine and Weser regions, the so-called. Rheinskweser Germans or the cult association of Istevons. These included the Batavians, Mattiacians, Chatti, Tencteri, Bructeri, Hamavians, Hasuarii, Hattuarii, Ubii, Usipeti and Cherusci. The second branch of the Germans included the tribes of the North Sea coast (the cult union of the Ingevons). These are the Cimbri, Teutones, Frisians, Chauci, Ampsivarii, Saxons, Angles and Varni. The third branch of the West German tribes was the cult union of the Germinons, which included the Suevi, Lombards, Marcomanni, Quadi, Semnones and Hermunduri.

The total number of Germanic tribes in the 1st century. AD was about 3-4 million people. But this modest figure decreased by the beginning of the Resettlement, because the German tribal world suffered human losses as a result of wars and inter-tribal conflicts. It was hit by epidemics and shocks due to periodic fluctuations in climatic conditions, natural changes in the resources of fauna and flora, and the transformation of landscapes as a result of the use of fire, new tools or labor methods.

Already in early times the Germans were engaged in agriculture. It was an auxiliary type of economy. In some areas, significant areas were occupied by wheat. However, barley predominated among the crops, from which, in addition to bread, beer was made. They also sown rye, oats, millet, beans, and peas. The Germans grew cabbage, lettuce, and root vegetables. The need for sugar was compensated by honey. For some tribes, hunting and fishing played an important role. It should be noted that using a plow and a wheeled plow, the German tribes could only cultivate light soils. Therefore, there was a constant shortage of arable land. The economic way of the Germans was primitive; “they expect only a grain harvest from the land.” The primitive farming system required large areas to feed a relatively small population. The search for such lands set entire tribes in motion. There was a seizure of the possessions of fellow tribesmen, and later of convenient lands on the territory of the Roman state.

Before the start of the Migration, the dominant role in the economic life of the German tribes belonged to cattle breeding. Cattle is “their only and most beloved property.” Cattle breeding was especially developed in areas rich in meadows (Northern Germany, Jutland, Scandinavia). Mostly men were employed in this sector of the economy. They raised cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, goats, and poultry. Livestock was valued, seeing in it not only labor, but also a means of payment. Dairy products and meat of domestic and wild animals played an important role in the food of the Germans.

Already at this time, the Germanic tribes were developing a craft, the products of which were not very diverse: weapons, clothing, utensils, tools. The technology and artistic style of handicrafts have undergone significant Celtic influences. The Germans knew how to mine iron and make weapons. Mining of gold, silver, copper, and lead was also carried out. The jewelry business developed. German women excelled at weaving and pottery, although the pottery was not of high quality. Leather dressing and wood processing were developed.
The Germanic tribes were very active in trade. Within the Germanic tribal world, natural exchange prevailed. Livestock was often used as a means of payment. Only in the areas bordering the Roman state were Roman coins used during trade operations. By the way, they were also valued as decoration. The centers of internal trade were the fortified settlements of the growing German rulers. The centers of German-Roman trade were Cologne, Trier, Augsburg, Regensburg, etc. Trade routes passed along the Danube, Rhine, Elbe, and Oder. The zone of trade contacts included the Northern Black Sea region. Merchants sailed the North and Baltic seas. Trade with Rome played a significant role. Rome supplied the Germanic tribes with large quantities of ceramics, glass, enamel, bronze vessels, gold and silver jewelry, weapons, tools, wine, and expensive fabrics. Agricultural and livestock products, livestock, leather and skins, furs, as well as amber, which was in special demand, were imported into the Roman state. Many tribes had the special privilege of freedom of intermediary trade. Thus, the Hermunduri conducted trade operations on both sides of the upper Danube and even penetrated deep into the Roman provinces. The Batavi transported livestock to the Rhine region. Trade was one of the powerful incentives for the readiness of the Germanic tribes to move. Contacts with Roman merchants gave them not only information about new lands and routes to these lands, but also contributed to the formation of “attractive goals” for their future migrations.

The Germanic tribes lived in a tribal system, which in the first centuries AD. was in a state of decomposition. The main production unit of German society was the family (large or small). The processes of transition from a tribal community to an agricultural community were actively underway. But the clan continued to play a significant role in the life of the Germanic tribes. Members of the clan were united by the common territory in which they lived, their own name, religious customs, a common system of government (national assembly, council of elders), and unwritten law. The clan was the support of any member of this clan, because the very fact of belonging to it gave a certain security. Constant contacts between separated relatives determined the preservation of clan ties and sacred unity. However, in everyday economic practice, the clan gave up its position to the large family. It consisted, as a rule, of three or four generations who lived in a large (up to 200 m2) oblong stone or wooden house, surrounded by fields and pastures. Several houses formed a farm. Similar settlements were located at a considerable distance from each other. Probably the farm psychology of the Germanic tribes was reflected in their reluctance to build cities. Neighborhood ties prevailed between the residents of the settlements. The interests of community members were taken into account not only in economic activities. The Germanic tribes did not have private land ownership. Common ownership of land united community members when attacked by enemies. They jointly built wooden or earthen fortifications that helped withstand enemy attacks. Residents of the settlements participated in worship and in ensuring the established rules of life for the community.

By the beginning of the Resettlement, the German community was no longer homogeneous, although social stratification was still quite weakly expressed. Most German burials do not have grave goods. The material culture of the Germanic tribes of this time was not distinguished by diversity, technical perfection and was closely related to its functional purpose. Only a few finds stood out for their wealth and craftsmanship, but in such cases we are dealing not with local production, but with Celtic imports, which fully satisfied the needs of the still small German nobility. By the beginning of the Migration, the tendency towards the rise of the German nobility became noticeable. It is formed from representatives of the old tribal nobility and the newly emerging elite of the tribe, the so-called. “new nobility”, which gains weight in the tribe as the warriors and their leaders capture various booty and vast lands during military campaigns.

The central figure among the ancient Germans was a free member of the community. It combined economic activities, the performance of military duties and participation in public affairs (national assembly, religious ceremonies). The social importance of such a free member of the community was determined primarily by belonging to a family with a certain status. On the eve of the Migration, the status of the family of each German depended not so much on wealth, but on the number, origin, authority of his ancestors, and the general opinion about the family and clan as a whole. The nobility of the clan, although it did not stem from wealth, did provide certain material advantages, for example, in the division of land.
Although the central figure in the economic life of the Germanic tribes, as noted earlier, was a free member of the German community, sources suggest that there was a layer of people economically dependent on free community members. They were either fellow tribesmen or prisoners. Tacitus calls them slaves, based on the fact that such people were obliged to give the owner part of the production and work for him. In addition, they had a lower social status. Thus, a slave by birth was considered a foreigner. The Germans had domestic slaves who grew up and were raised together with their owners. They differed from them only in their personal lack of rights, for they were not allowed to carry weapons or participate in public meetings. Another category of slaves is those placed on the ground. However, here we can only speak conditionally about primitive patriarchal slavery. Such a slave could have a family, a household, and all dependence was expressed only in the alienation of part of his labor, or the products of labor. Among the Germanic tribes in everyday life there was not much difference between a slave and a master. Slave status was not for life. A person captured in battle could be released or even adopted after some time. The volume of slave labor was a small part of the life of the Germans. Not every rich family had slaves. Primitive German slavery fully corresponded to the needs of the primitive economy of the Germans.
The basis of the political structure of the ancient Germans was the tribe. As in economic life, the central figure was a free member of the German community. The People's Assembly, in which all armed free members of the tribe participated, was the highest authority. It met from time to time and resolved the most significant issues: the election of a tribal leader, the analysis of complex intra-tribal conflicts, initiation into warriors, the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace. The issue of relocating the tribe to new places was also decided at the tribe meeting. One of the authorities of ancient Germanic society was the council of elders. However, on the eve of the Resettlement, its functions and tradition of formation changed. Along with the wise patriarchs of the tribe, representatives of the new tribal nobility, represented by the leaders and the most influential persons of the tribe, took part in the council. The power of the elders gradually became hereditary. The Council of Elders discussed all the affairs of the tribe and only then submitted the most important of them to the approval of the people's assembly, at which representatives of the old and new nobility played the most active role.

The representative of the highest executive and administrative power was the leader of the tribe elected by the people's assembly, as well as the leader of the tribe who was removed by it. Among ancient authors it was designated by various terms: principes, dux, rex, which, according to researchers, in its semantic meaning is close to the common German term konung. The king's sphere of activity was very limited and his position looked very modest. “Their kings do not have unlimited and undivided power.” The king was in charge of the current affairs of the tribe, including judicial affairs. On behalf of the tribe, he conducted international negotiations. When dividing the spoils of war, he had the right to a larger share. The power of the king among the Germanic tribes also had a sacred character. He was the keeper of tribal traditions and customs of his ancestors. His power was based and supported by personal authority, example and ability to persuade. The kings “act more by persuasion than by having the power to command.”

Military squads occupied a special place in the political structure of ancient German society. Unlike the tribal militia, they were formed not on the basis of clan affiliation, but on the basis of voluntary loyalty to the leader. The squads were created for the purpose of predatory raids, robberies and military raids into neighboring lands. Any free German who had a penchant for risk and adventure (or profit), or the abilities of a military leader, could create a squad. The law of life of the squad was unquestioning submission and devotion to the leader (“to come out alive from the battle in which the leader fell is dishonor and shame for life”). As a rule, representatives of two polar social categories of ancient Germanic society became warriors. These could be young people from noble families, proud of their origin, the antiquity of the family, striving to increase its glory. Those who did not have strong family ties, did not particularly value ancestral traditions, neglected and even opposed them, joined the squad no less actively. The squad caused considerable concern to the tribe, because sometimes with its raids it violated the concluded peace treaties. At the same time, as an experienced military force and a well-organized force, the squad in critical situations formed the core of the tribal army, ensuring its military success. Later, during the Resettlement, the squad turned into the basis of the king’s military power. However, since she served not the king, but her leader, the latter often became a rival to the head of the tribe. Leaders of individual squads often became leaders of entire tribes, and some of them became kings. However, the authority of such kings was fragile and was determined primarily by their nobility of origin. The power of the king, which grew out of the power of the military leader, was extremely unstable, and as long as the Germans were dominated by norms based on the principles of kinship, the “new nobility” could not claim monopoly control over the “public field.”

Thus, by the beginning of the Migration, the Germanic tribes already represented a fairly serious and mobile force, capable of both occasional penetration into Roman territory through the participation of squads in military raids, and of advancing to new territories by the entire tribe or a significant part of the tribe in order to conquer new lands .
The first major clash of the Germanic tribes with Rome was associated with the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutons. The Teutons were a group of Germanic tribes who lived along the western coast of Jutland and in the areas of the lower Elbe. In 120 BC. they, together with the Cimbri, Ambrones and other tribes, moved south. In 113 BC. The Teutons defeated the Romans at Norea in Noricum and, devastating everything in their path, invaded Gaul. Their advance into Spain was stopped by the Celtiberians. In 102-101. BC. The Teutons suffer a crushing defeat from the troops of the Roman commander Gaius Marius at Aqua Sextiae (now Aix in Provence). The same fate befell in 101 BC. Cimbri at the Battle of Vercellae.
The second migration push from the Germanic tribal world, preceding the Great Migration of Peoples, occurred in the 60s. I century BC. and is associated with the Suebi tribes. Some researchers consider the Sueves to be a union of tribes, others believe that they are some kind of large tribe, from which daughter tribes gradually separated. By the middle of the 1st century. BC. The Suevi became so strong that it became possible to unite several Germanic tribes under their rule and jointly set out to conquer Gaul. The military migration movement of this union to Gaul had its pauses during which means of subsistence were obtained. And although these pauses were short-lived, the process of conquest of Gaul dragged on. Under the leadership of the Areovist king, the Suevi tried to gain a foothold in Eastern Gaul, but in 58 BC. were defeated by Julius Caesar. It was after this raid by the Ariovists that the Romans began to call the entire collection of tribes beyond the Rhine and Danube Suevi. In addition to the Marcomanni and Quadi, which will be discussed below, the Suevi included the Vangios, Garudas, Triboci, Nemetae, Sedusii, Lugia, and Sabines.

Caesar's struggle with Ariovistus ended with Caesar's victory and the expulsion of Ariovistus from Gaul. As a result of defeat in the war with Rome, the alliance of tribes under the leadership of Ariovistus disintegrated.
Some of the Suevian tribes went to Moravia and were later known in history as the Quadi tribe. Other Suevian tribes played a significant role in the tribal alliance led by Marcomanni Marobodus (8 BC - 17 AD).

Thus, the migration impulse associated with the Suevi revealed the desire of the Germanic tribes for consolidation and was actually the first experience of such consolidation. It was after the defeat of the Sueves by Caesar that a massive process of formation of various alliances began among the Germanic tribes. The unification movement was caused by the desire of individual tribes to protect themselves from the Roman state and maintain their independence. After Caesar's triumph, the Romans repeatedly invade and conduct military operations in German territory. An increasing number of tribes find themselves in the zone of military conflicts with Rome. At the same time, the daily life of the Germans, even without losing their independence, is deprived of internal stability, but not all Germanic tribes, after forceful contacts with Rome, lose the desire to maintain autonomy and independence. Only the strong support of their neighbors could guarantee the independence of the tribe and provide the ordinary German and his family members with a peaceful and quiet life. The tribe had a better chance of maintaining stability and reliable protection from external threats, being part of a large tribal association. During this period, a type of tribe also emerged that strives for leadership and is capable of leading. The Marcomanni managed to lead the Germanic tribal world for a short time. These tribes originally lived in the Middle Elbe, but then moved to the Main region and during the 1st century. BC. took part in various intertribal clashes. So, in 58 BC. they fought in the forces of a tribal alliance led by Ariovistus, but already in 9 BC. Roman troops under the command of Drusus defeated the Marcomanni, after which they moved to the present territory. Bohemia, which had previously been abandoned by the Boian tribes. Here the Marcomanni became the core of an alliance of related (Quads, Semnones, Lombards, Hermundurs) tribes led by Marobod. However, the war with the Cherusci by Arminius in 17, and then the overthrow of Marobodus in 19, led to the end of the Marcomanni hegemony and their transformation into clients of the Roman state. It is difficult to judge what reasons, other than the desire of Maroboda for sole power, prevented the Marcomanni at this time from maintaining strong control over the Suevian group of tribes - lack of strength, foreign policy difficulties or something else, but the fact remains: the Marcomanni temporarily lost the palm to the Cherusci, one from significant tribes living between the Weser and Elbe north of the Harz. At the end of the 1st century. BC. they were conquered by Drusus and Tiberius. However, already in 9 AD. The alliance of tribes led by Arminius dealt a crushing blow to the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest: three legions with legates and all auxiliary troops were killed.

Major defeat of the Roman army in the Teutoburg Forest at the beginning of the 1st century. AD was the logical conclusion of the period of external activity of the Germans, which became, as it were, an overture to the Great Migration. They showed mobility, gained experience in successful military operations, found a form of consolidation such as a military alliance, which increased their strength and was later used by them many times during the Resettlement. The first military alliances (Cimbri, Teutons, Suevi Ariovistus, Cherusci Arminius, Suevo-Marcomanni Marobodus) were fragile and short-lived. They were formed in the original German territories, in the interests of a military organization, with the aim of opposing Rome and did not represent absolute ethnopolitical unity. The merger processes were not without conflict. The need for consolidation was probably fueled not only by the presence of a strong neighbor - the Roman Empire, or other competing neighboring "peoples", but also by the internal evolution of the social traditions of the Germanic tribes. The formation of the first military alliances can be considered as a manifestation of the beginning processes of confrontation and simultaneous rapprochement of the Roman and barbarian worlds.
In turn, the Empire's attitude towards the Germans evolved. Although throughout the 1st century. AD, the Roman campaigns into the lands of the free Germans continued, they even managed to win a number of victories, however, they had to give up the dream of conquering Germany forever. The Roman Empire at this time most of all needed protective measures that could at least somewhat slow down the onslaught of the Germanic tribes. At the end of the 1st century. The border that separated the population of the Roman Empire from the ethnically diverse Barbaricum solum was finally determined. The border followed the Rhine, the Danube and the Limes, which connected these two rivers. Limes Romanus was a fortified strip with fortifications along which troops were stationed. This was the border that continued for many hundreds of years to separate two very different and opposing worlds: the world of Roman civilization, which had already entered its acmatic phase, and the world of the Germanic tribes, which were just awakening to active historical life. However, the Empire carried out its policy of containing the Germans not only through military strengthening of its borders.

Another means of deterrence was to be trade. The network of trade roads is expanding, the number of points of permitted trade with Germanic tribes is growing. Many tribes receive the privilege of freedom of intermediary trade. By developing traditional trade and economic ties and creating new ones, the Empire hoped to keep the excessive excitement, thirst for new things and penchant for adventure of the German leaders within the framework necessary for its tranquility.

However, this policy of the Empire gave opposite results. The more Rome drew the Germanic tribes into its sphere of influence, the more dangerous a rival it created for itself. Communication between the Rhine Germans and Roman soldiers and merchants stimulated changes in their tribal system. The influence of the tribal nobility increased, whose representatives served in the Roman army, received Roman citizenship, and mastered the Roman way of life. At the same time, the nobility was dissatisfied with the dominance of the Romans, which led, for example, to the uprising of Arminius. By restraining the Germans from migrating, Rome indirectly stimulated their internal development. Agriculture and crafts improved, the organization and power structure in the tribe became more stable, and population density increased. At the same time, in a number of cases, the Empire managed to successfully combine forceful and non-forceful methods in containing the excessive activity of the Germanic tribes. This can be said about the Batavians, who back in 12 BC. were conquered by the Romans. But the defeated enemy is widely recruited for military service. As a result of the oppression of the Batavians led by Julius Civilis in 69-70. rise up in rebellion. It covered the area from the Sambre, Scheldt, Meuse and Rhine to the Ems. Along with the multi-ethnicity of the Batavian Union, which included: Germanic tribes - Canninefates, Frisians, Bructeri, Tencteri, Kugerni, Celticized Germans - Nervii and Tungrians, Celtic tribes - Treveri and Lingones, the position of its participants in relation to Rome stood out clearly: from active opponents to tribes of faithful and devoted. The uprising of the Batavians of Civilis was suppressed, but the Roman government increasingly needed help from the Germans and was forced to negotiate with their leaders. And even after the suppression of the uprising, the Batavians continued to be recruited for military service. Strongly built, blond Batavian warriors were known as skilled horsemen and sailors. Mostly they consisted of imperial bodyguards.

The humiliating defeat in the Teutoburg Forest and the growing consolidation of the Germanic tribal world increased the concentration of Roman troops on the Rhine, but ended the Empire's trans-Rhine aggression. After the suppression of the Batavian uprising, auxiliary units were no longer stationed in the provinces from which they had been recruited, communications between the Rhine and Danube borders were shortened and improved, the Decumate fields on the right bank of the Rhine were included in the Empire, and new castellas were built. The Germans remained free, but their independence was conditional.

Thus, in the diversity and diversity of historical events and destinies of individual Germanic tribes, in the seeming chaos of inter-tribal alliances and conflicts between them, treaties and clashes between the Germans and Rome, the historical foundation of those subsequent processes that formed the essence of the Great Migration emerges. We have already spoken about the objective prerequisites and motivating reasons that pushed the Germanic tribes towards the historical movement: the need to develop new lands for farming and cattle breeding, climate change and the need to move to regions that are more favorable in this regard, etc. But in order to realize these prerequisites, the tribes themselves had to acquire a certain new historical quality. The tribe had to become quite stable and mobile in socio-economic and military-organizational terms. This was ensured by the development of a system of power and subordination, the independence of military structures (squads) and the level of armament of all free Germans, which made it possible to repel the enemy’s onslaught when the squad was on a campaign, and to supply reserves for armed formations.

What was also important was the predominance of cattle breeding over agriculture, and at the same time a sufficiently high level of agriculture, allowing the tribe to change its location without destructive consequences for the breeding economy. It was also necessary to weaken tribal isolation and develop the skill of a fairly stable and long-term unification, because, as the fate of individual tribes shows, the very existence of a tribe during the Migration sometimes depended on its ability to unite with other tribes in the process of contacts and conflicts with Rome.

Equally important was the “accumulation of knowledge” about Rome. It was they who helped to outline the goals of movement, determined the nature of military and other preparations for advancing into the Roman borders, and formed in the tribal consciousness, which recorded both defeats and victories, ideas about the possibility of success in confrontation or interaction with the Roman state.

So, the need to leave one’s native place could arise when the tribe, having acquired a sufficiently high level of development, realized itself as a single and powerful community, and was very numerous. Many Germanic tribes achieved such “readiness” by the beginning of the Marcomannic Wars, which opened the Great Migration of Peoples.



Origin of peoples

How people, nations and races appeared.

There are a great many hypotheses about the appearance of people on earth. Some say that God created us, others suggest that we were brought by aliens. Every nation, every religion has its own point of view on the origin of man. There is no point in proving the correctness of any theories, nor in refuting them. The fact that without understanding history, without knowing one’s ancestry, it is impossible to foresee our near and distant future does not require proof.

Speaking about genealogy, we assume not only a store of information about our immediate ancestors, but also knowledge of the history of our people, our language. Speaking about history, you often come across the idea that peoples appear out of nowhere, carry out a mission prescribed by no one knows who, and disappear without a trace. This circumstance is especially noticeable in the history of the Indo-European peoples.

The origin of races is nowhere and never linked either to the appearance of Homo sapiens or to the development of ethnic groups. It is assumed that somewhere in distant Africa, in time immemorial, Homo sapiens, undoubtedly white, appeared, populated all continents, and then, for some unknown reason, divided into three main races. Ethnic groups have formed quite recently. Slavs in the 5th century, Germans a little earlier. The oldest in Europe, the Greeks and Romanesque peoples, appeared a thousand years earlier.
Everything seems to be fine and wonderful. It is not clear how the ancestors of the same Slavs and Germans communicated with each other. The answer is something like this: “...in a proto-language or Indo-European language!” Then the question arises, why first the Germans, and then the Slavs, suddenly forgot their speech? Literally, in one or two centuries they switched: some to Germanic, some to Slavic.

Then they lived side by side for a couple of thousand years and each spoke their own language. Despite the pressure of information technology, having survived the horrors of Nazism, already in the era of post-industrial society, many residents of Lusatia speak their native Slavic language. For several centuries, the Volga Germans lived in complete isolation from Germany and spoke their native language. For almost a millennium, Tatars, Chuvash, Mordovians, Mordovians, Mari, and Udmurts lived together with the Russians. They kept their speech.

What global processes occurred at the beginning of our era that forced some ethnic groups to die instantly, by historical standards, and gave birth to others. Wars? The Great Migration of Peoples? But weren't there wars earlier or later? There were, and some more. The horrors of the world wars of the twentieth century could not be dreamed of by the ancient inhabitants of Europe even in nightmares. The campaigns of Caesar and Attila were child's play compared to a continuous front, carpet bombing, volleys of hundreds of artillery pieces at every kilometer or crematoria in concentration camps.

Migration of peoples - a myth?

Or maybe there were no sharp transitions? Ethnic groups and languages ​​originated much earlier. And the relocations are somehow not very good. It’s one thing when healthy and strong men travel. With weapons in their hands and on war horses, they make long journeys. Having plundered a foreign country, turned local residents against themselves, and received trophies, the heroes return to the arms of their loved ones to lick their wounds.

It is another thing to invade a hostile country, dragging behind you infants, helpless old people, the sick and disabled. One has to very much doubt the combat effectiveness of such an army, and even more so the advisability of such campaigns. The resettlement of the Goths looks especially funny. From Sweden they moved to the Vistula. Then they moved to the Dnieper and Don. Having plundered the Greek cities of the Black Sea, the Goths took up arms against the Romans. Having defeated Rome, the wanderers finally settled on the territory of the empire. The most interesting thing is that absolutely the entire population moved from one place to another, leaving behind neither cities, nor villages, nor descendants capable of preserving the language and glory of their ancestors.

Really, at the call of their leaders, people abandoned their land, houses, acquired property, put old people and children in carts or on their shoulders and rushed to unknown countries to gain glory for kings and gold for royal wives? In every nation there is a category of people who are ready for adventures at the call of their hearts. Part of the population can be attracted by easy prey and tempting prospects.
On the other hand, there will always be sensible people. There are pathological conservatives who, under no circumstances, are able to change their place of residence or change their usual way of life. In the end, there must be opposition to the leaders. Where is all this? Why should leaders carry a burden with them? What's common sense? There are more questions than answers.

What happens? Relocation is a myth, fairy tales and fiction. There was no sign of him. What happened? There was a collapsing Roman Empire, which had more and more new opponents. There was a written history of Rome. Competent and inquisitive scientists grew up who tried to understand where tribes came from that were capable of fighting on equal terms with the great empire, and sometimes even winning.

Rome and the barbarians

During its heyday, Rome was not strong in the arts or sciences. The strength of Rome is the army. The advantage of the Romans is their ability to fight. They were deeply indifferent to what language their enemy spoke; they were of little interest in the chronicles of the defeated peoples. At the initial stage of their history, the Romans called all their opponents Gauls. The Greeks brought science to Rome. Together with the Greek teachers, the term “barbarians” came to Rome.

The Roman and Greek understandings of the word barbarians were very different from each other. The Greeks called all non-Greeks barbarians. The Romans shortened the meaning of this word, excluding from it the peoples who at that time were part of the empire. In practice, by the beginning of the new era, the Romans called the peoples living in the north or northeast of the empire barbarians.

Conquests and the defense of vast territories constantly required replenishment of manpower. The Roman army was replenished by residents of the border regions. Some legions consisted exclusively of representatives of one tribe. Often the “barbarians” became major military leaders and emperors of Rome. The new nobility needed a pedigree comparable to the chronicles of patrician families. It was at this time that the need arose for descriptions of the exploits of barbarian tribes.

Rome received the histories of neighboring peoples, the peoples were given Roman historians. Historical science acquired written sources. There is no need to talk about the reliability of such sources. They mixed everything: real facts, customer requirements, fairy tales, legends, myths and the outright imagination of the authors. It was in such sources that the first mentions of the Germans and Slavs appeared.

There are no written sources of the existence of the Slavs before the 5th century. One has to very much doubt the objectivity of the existing ones. What is the result of the reasoning? Is the history of our ancestors lost forever and without a trace? There is no need to rush to conclusions. We already have enough information that the history of the Slavs does not begin and end with the 5th century. Every year more and more facts about their existence are collected.

Ancient artifacts appear with writings in which Slavic words are easily guessed. Archaeologists are excavating household items of the inhabitants of ancient cities, in which continuous continuity with the later life of the Slavic peoples can be traced. And finally, the history of a people is deeply intertwined with the history of language. Slavic languages ​​are alive, they contain enough information to learn about the origin, lifestyle, way of life, culture and even religion of the Slavs.

History in Russian

The Russian language is no exception. In order for history in the Russian language to reveal its deepest secrets, it is necessary to understand the code of the language, or, more simply, to calculate the key words or sounds with which the language began. Despite the apparent complexity of the task, figuring out these mysterious building blocks of word formation turned out to be not so difficult.

There are several reasons for this.

1. Primitive languages ​​are quite primitive and laconic. The language of our distant ancestors was no exception. With all the diversity and richness of the modern Russian language, only a few words-sounds lie at its foundation. You can count them on the fingers of your hands, but from them a core or skeleton is built, on which a huge trunk with many twigs, branches and leaves of a mighty tree is supported.

2. All key words-sounds have their roots in omanotopy, i.e. natural onomatopoeia. Initially, this sound denoted an object or phenomenon with which this sound was associated. For the most part, primitive people associated sounds with the animals that made them. An example from modern language. “Koo-Koo” - the cuckoo cuckoos.

3. Some keywords are present in other languages, albeit in a modified form, but denoting meanings that are close in meaning. One of them is the sound “MA”, like the variants “MI”, “ME”, “MO”, “MU”, “WE”. In Russian: “Cute”, “Melky”, “SMALLER”, “SMALL”, “BABY”, “MOM”, “Well done”, “MIGHTY”, “Husband”, “WE”. All these words denote either one of the hypostases of a person or denote a qualitative sign of the same person. Similar words meaning “person” are found in Finnish, Turkic, and Germanic languages.

Speaking about the qualitative attribute, it was not by chance that I arranged the words in a certain sequence. The sound “MA” occupies a neutral position. This sound was one of the first words to enter human use. This is what they called the crying child and the mother he called. If they wanted to say about something smaller, then the vowel “A” was replaced with “E” or “I”, and vice versa, “O”, “U”, “Y” went in increasing order. This technique is applicable not only to the sound “MA”, but also to other words of the Russian language.

Stages of Russian history

Knowing the key words and the basic rules by which our ancestors created the language, you need to mentally transport yourself to the historical era when these words were born. Like many developed ethnic groups of the world, the Russian people have experienced several main stages of their development. Here it should still be clarified that each ethnic group had its own history

1. Primitive hunting and gathering. (First people, mom)
2. Taming and domestication of animals. (Indo-Europeans, human)
3. Plowing. (Slavs, mob)
4. Commercial hunting and trade. (Rus, Russia)

The first stage is common to almost all Eurasian peoples. Not many words from it have been preserved in our language. But the same phoneme “MA”, and with it the words “mother”, “small”, “peace”, “darkness” and some others.

During the second stage, the “Caucasian race” or the “Nordic race” appeared, as you like. The Indo-European language family traces its ancestry back to this time. This period gave the Russian language the following words: “aries”, “faith”, “age”, “evening”, “city”, “genus”. The meanings of some of the above words differ from modern ones.

The third stage is the Slavic stage. Most of the words in modern Russian appeared at this time. At the same time, the everyday culture of the people was formed, which remained intact almost until the beginning of the twentieth century.

Actually, the last fourth stage is Russian. At this time, the terms “Rus”, “Russia”, “Russian language” appeared. A culture of oral speech was formed. Modern writing appeared.

Based on all of the above, I tried to present my version of events in a series of short articles under the general title “History in the Russian Language.” They do not contain a detailed description of the events. This is a kind of contour map. It will take a lot of time and effort to paint it.

Scientists disagree. On the one hand, tribes are a relic of the past, and modern ethnic associations are not considered tribes in the historical sense. However, in the modern world there are still a number of political unions that meet the basic criteria of a tribe.

Interpretation of the term

There is no common understanding of what a tribe is. Researchers give several definitions.

  1. A tribe is a community that is defined by common traits common to all members, such as language, origin, traditions, and customs.
  2. Tribe - political alliances with a belief in a common bond, an association of several groups of peoples of different origins. As a rule, they have their own history, a certain legend of the appearance of the tribe.
  3. A tribe is a type of ethnic community, a special social organization of society before division into classes. In their original form, tribes arise simultaneously with clans.

Characteristics of an established tribe

Understanding what a tribe is is largely helped by the criteria by which an ethnic association is considered such:

  • the presence of a separate territory, delimited from the territory of other tribes by a natural boundary;
  • certain economics;
  • mutual assistance of fellow tribesmen, community of actions, for example, collective hunting, gathering;
  • a single tribal language;
  • tribal self-name;
  • self-awareness of oneself as a collective unit;
  • the presence of common rituals and traditions observed by the tribe.

History of origin

What is a tribe and when was it formed?

Archaeologically, the emergence of tribes was recorded only in the Mesolithic, during the period of the end of their formation as social and ethnic communities.

Unlike the following types (such as nationality and nation), a tribe is based on the same origin of the clans included in it, on the ties of consanguinity between all its members. It is the bond of consanguinity that unites two or more clans that makes them a tribe.

Developed tribes at the end of the era of the primitive communal system already had tribal self-government, which consisted of a tribal council and two leaders - civil and military. Over time, stratification by property develops in the tribe, rich and poor clans and tribal nobility appear, and the role of military leaders grows. In later forms, tribal organizations are preserved in class society, where they are intertwined with slaveholding and sometimes capitalist relations (for example, the nomadic tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, the Bedouins of North Africa, etc.).

Ancient tribes

The concept of “ancient tribes” is very complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, they lived in the past, and on the other, peoples who preserved the way of life that was formed many centuries ago.

The way of life of the ancient tribes was formed gradually. In the early Neolithic period, crafts appeared, which became a prerequisite for the emergence of the city. The people who united the community were called priests. At the head of the tribe was a military leader. For a long time, the ancient tribe preserved its traditional way of life, defending it even in collisions with developed civilizations.

Modern tribes

In modern society there are still tribes that have preserved the ancient way of life. Most of them are located in Africa, South America, the Indonesian islands, as well as on the islands of the Philippine archipelago and in the Amazon jungle. Communication with such tribes requires special behavior in a certain culture. You should take into account the fact that among these nationalities you can pay with your life for any mistake in behavior. It is necessary to remember that in these cultures the following values ​​are paramount: decency in personal life, modesty, courage, fearlessness, the ability to endure physical suffering with dignity, chastity and modesty.

The most famous tribes

The most famous ancient tribes are:

  • Slavs;
  • Drevlyans;
  • anta;
  • Scythians;
  • Varangians;
  • Goths;
  • Hottentots;
  • Celts;
  • Teutons;
  • Khazars;
  • Pechenegs;
  • Cumans;
  • Huns;
  • nomads;
  • nomads;
  • romances;
  • Phoenicians;
  • Moors.

Here are some modern tribes that exist today:

  • Surma people.
  • Pervi tribe.
  • Ramapo.
  • Brazilian.
  • Tribes of New Hawaii.
  • Sentinelese.

As we see, the tribe (its definition is ambiguous) as an ancient form of existence has almost not survived. And those unions that tourists discover are more likely ethnic communities than tribes from a historical point of view.

The genealogy of Genesis 10 gives us the most important information about the origins of nations. Specialists in the disciplines mentioned above could benefit from these data in their research, rather than relying on deceptive evolutionist philosophy. It happened that the listing of Noah’s descendants was simply mocked, but high-class specialists, having studied the list, were amazed at how accurately it fit into the context of ancient history. For example, Dr. William F. Albright, almost universally recognized as the most eminent of modern archaeologists, gave this assessment of the genealogy:

“It occupies a very special place in ancient literature, and even among the Greeks No nothing even remotely similar... The Genealogy of Nations continues to be a surprisingly accurate document... It presents such an amazingly “modern” understanding of the ethnic and linguistic situation of the current world (for all its complexity) that scientists will never tire of being amazed at how knowledgeable its author was in this issue."

The most obvious conclusion from Genesis 10 is that civilization began in the East, in the region of Mount Ararat (modern Turkey) and Babylon (modern Iraq). The dispersion of nations that occurred after the Babylonian pandemonium can be traced to some extent by the names of the descendants of Noah. The estimated distribution of these first peoples is shown in Figure 32. The Japhetic tribes spread mainly throughout the north and west of Europe. The Hamitic tribes moved mainly to the south and west, to Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean regions. True, one of them, the Hittites, created a great kingdom in Turkey and the western part of Asia, while others could well have gone to the Far East. The Semites were mostly concentrated in the regions of the Middle East.


Figure 32. The first peoples of the world after the flood.

The three sons of Noah, after the Babylonian dispersion, became the progenitors of three branches of the human race. And although there are still ambiguities, in any case, the information given in the genealogy of peoples is quite correct, as is clear from the map placed here.

Here is a list of Japhetic peoples listed in the genealogy (Gen. 10:2-5), which can be relatively reliably identified: Javan (Greece); Magog, Meshech and Tubal (Russia); Homer (Cimmeria, Germany); Firas (Thrace, Etruria); Madai (Mussell); Askenas (Germany); Togarmah (Armenia) and Do-danim (Dardanians). Most of these peoples probably migrated to Europe, and from them came the so-called Caucasian and Aryan “races.” Then, of course, they spread throughout the Americas, South Africa and many sea islands,

The descendants of Shem (Gen. 10:21-31) are primarily Eber (Jews), Elam (Persia), Aram (Syria), Assur (Assyria); and later - through Ishmael, Esau and other descendants of Abraham (as well as Moab and Ammon, the sons of Lot) - and all the Arab nations.

Some of the Hamites (Gen. 10:6-20) are very clearly identified, especially Mizraim (Egypt), Cush (Ethiopia), Canaan (Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hittites) and Puth (Libya). Although the line of kinship of the Negro tribes is not easy to trace, it is possible that they also belong to the Hamites, since, apparently, only the Hamites moved to Africa. The first Babylonians and the Sumerians at the time of Nimrod were also Hamites.

It is more difficult to establish the ancestors of the Mongoloid race. However, some signs seem to indicate that her ancestors were also Hamitic. Firstly, by the method of elimination we can assume that if the descendants of Shem and Japheth are clearly defined, then all the rest are obviously Hamites. Secondly, the Sinites (Gen. 10:17) are mentioned as descendants of Canaan, and this name is ethnologically probably associated with China. Thirdly, the ancient name of China is Cathay, and there is evidence that it came from the name of the Hete tribe, which in turn may have come from the Hittites (children of Heth, the son of Canaan). Fourthly, the language and appearance of the Mongoloids reveal more similarities with the language and appearance of other known Hamites than with the language and appearance of the descendants of Shem and Japheth known to us.

The factual material here is very scarce, and, obviously, scope is open for ethnologists to do fruitful work in researching the origins of these and other ancient peoples. If they had been guided by chapters 10 and 11 of Genesis instead of the evolutionist fabrications of modern anthropologists and archaeologists, then, undoubtedly, many questions could have been clarified. One of the anthropologists who has seriously and substantively dealt with this topic is Dr. Arthur Kastens.

As for the individual qualities of peoples, the famous words of Noah from Genesis 9:25-27 are very interesting in this regard. Knowing that after the flood all the nations of the new world will come from his three sons. Noah was inspired to prophesy about the role they would play in the life of mankind.

Perhaps Noah prophesied, partly based on his own observations of the growth of his sons and knowing that their offspring (by genetic predisposition and upbringing) would manifest to some extent the characteristic traits of their parents. The nature of man is threefold: he has flesh, consciousness and spirit, and it seems that in every person one of these three predominates. In the case of the sons of Noah, it was already obvious that Ham was primarily interested in the physical, Japheth in the intellectual, and Shem in the religious. Thus, it was logical to conclude, on the basis of hereditary and social factors, which characteristic traits would prevail among the respective peoples.

Probably because Shem was deeply spiritual and inwardly focused. Noah said about him: “Blessed is the Lord God of Shem,” undoubtedly predicting that it was through Shem that the knowledge of the true God would be established and spread. Indeed, the great monotheistic religions - Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and Christianity - were spread by Semites (all other world religions were pantheistic and polytheistic). And it is extremely important that it was through the descendants of Shem through the human line that Christ appeared.

According to Noah's prophecy, God will “spread out Japheth,” who will “dwell in the tents of Shem.” This probably referred mainly to the sphere of intellect, so that the descendants of Japheth were destined to spread their culture, philosophy and science throughout the world. Intellectual influence, of course, had to be based, in turn, on political expansion and strength.

However, a long period of world history passed before this prophecy began to be realized. The Hamitic peoples of Sumer and Egypt determined the face of the world for centuries, then they were replaced by the Semitic peoples of Assyria, Babylon and Persia. And then, finally, under Alexander the Great, Greece conquered Persia, and from then on the Japhetic peoples began to dominate world politics.

The ancient Greeks recognized Iapetus (Japheth) as their ancestor, and it was they who created the archetype of Japhetic culture. It is a generally accepted fact that intellectually the West is based on the scientific and philosophical heritage of the Greeks. It was science, theoretical or applied - and not human power or material resources - that led the Greeks to flourish. And the same is true for their successors, Rome, France, Germany, England and America.

Moreover, Japheth was to “dwell in the tents of Shem.” This expression may mean that in some sense Japheth will join the family of Shem, while remaining, however, living in his own house. And such a union will not be a real, organic compound. Obviously, the meaning of the phrase is that Japheth was to share a spiritual life with Shem, despite the fact that his own contribution to human history would be primarily intellectual. This is exactly what happened when the Japhetic peoples accepted the God of Abraham and the Messiah of Israel.

The main characteristics and merits of Shem and Japheth were predominantly spiritual or, accordingly, intellectual. Ham's character and ministry were primarily physical. However, physical does not mean ordinary or slavish, and Ham's contribution is truly impressive. Among his descendants, we believe, were the Sumerians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hittites, Dravidians, Chinese, Japanese, Ethiopians, Incas, Aztecs and Mayans, as well as modern Negroes, American Indians, Eskimos and Pacific tribes.

These peoples did not become famous for either spiritual or scientific deeds, but achieved a lot in the field of technology and the “vital benefits” of civilization. For example, they were true pioneers in the exploration and settlement of areas very remote from Ararat and Babylon. Columbus and Leif Erikson did not discover America - the Indians did! It is very likely that many of the Indian tribes came there overland, which was what is now the Bering Strait during the Ice Age after the Flood, and are descendants of the Mongol tribes. There is growing evidence that other peoples arrived in America by sea, perhaps from Phenicia or Egypt. In any case, they all appear to be descendants of Ham.

The descendants of Ham are the first sailors, the first city planners, the creators of the first writing; They probably first developed agriculture, animal husbandry, and metal processing; them belongs to many other achievements in the field of practical activity. The invention of writing, be it Sumerian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs or Phoenician alphabetic writing, is apparently also a contribution of the Hamites (this is if we take into account only the “new” languages ​​that appeared after the Babylonian sweep; since it is known that Shem did not take part in Nimrod’s pandemonium in Babylon, the one language in which he spoke and could write probably survived from antediluvian times). We owe the art of printing patterns on fabrics, as well as the ability to determine the course of a ship using a magnetic compass, to the Chinese. So, providing all the basic material needs inherent in human society: land development, food, shelter, clothing, movement, communication, making metal tools, etc. - this is the sphere of activity of peoples of Hamitic origin.


| |

Related publications: