Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. Analysis of modern versions of the ancestral home

Size: px

Start showing from the page:

Transcript

1 L. S. Klein Ancient migrations and the origin of Indo-European peoples St. Petersburg 2007

2 Contents Preface Introduction. Ethnogenesis and the family tree model: the problem of cooperation between archeology and linguistics. Chapter I. Iranians 1. Historical legend 2. Cattle breeders or farmers? 3. Bronze Age: Srubnaya and Andronovo cultures 4. BMAC 5. Archeology in identifying the Iranian ethnic group 6. Andronovo cultures Iranians or Indo-Iranians? 7. Problems and searches 8. Archaeological correspondence to the division of Iranian languages ​​9. Hypothesis testing 10. Conclusion Discussion APPENDIX: A. A. Kovalev. Scythian-Iranians from Dzungaria and the Chemurchek culture. Chapter II. Indo-Aryans 1. Indo-Aryans as aliens in India 2. Rig Veda and archeology 3. Indo-Aryans in Western Asia 4. Proto-urban and Andronovo hypotheses 5. Catacomb cultures and their Indo-Aryan features 6. Contact with the Finno-Ugrians in language and archeology 7. Evaluation of evidence 8. Territorial coincidences 9. Indo-Aryan heritage among the Scythians 10. Consequences for the analysis of contact situations Discussion Chapter III. Aryans and Proto-Aryans 1. Linguistic grouping and archaeological communities of the Bronze Age 2. The path to the original unity from the Srubnaya-Andronovo cultures 3. The path to the original unity from the Catacomb cultures 4. Linguistic situation 5. The problem of archaeological correspondence 6. The Yamnaya culture is the culture of the Aryans? 7. Horse and Chariot 8. Burials with ocher in the West 9. Sphere of Yamnaya influence Discussion Chapter IV. The problem of Greco-Aryan unity 1. Linguistic kinship of the Aryans with the Greeks 2. Roots of the Yamnaya culture 3. Megalithic background 4. Maykop and its surroundings 5. European character of the Novosvobodnaya culture 6. Unexpected parallels to the Indo-Aryans and Greeks 7. Aryans in Maykop and Tripoli? APPENDIX: Yu. E. Berezkin. On the ethnogenesis of the Indo-Europeans: some motives of comparative mythology Chapter V. Grecoarias and their origin 1. Anthropomorphic steles 2. Dancing men and the Nalchik tomb (excursion to the Caucasus) 3. Chalcolithic sanctuaries 4. Sredny Stog

3 5. Khvalynsk culture 6. Kurgan cultures of the early Chalcolithic 7. Roots of the Yamnaya (Repinsk) culture and Western contribution 8. The problem of combining cultural filiation with linguistic 9. Implications for linguists 10. Grecoarian unity in mythologies: centaurs 11. Gandharvas and Kinnars 12. “Kernosov Idol” Chapter VI. Migrations of the Phrygians and the origin of the Armenians 1. Origin of the Armenians 2. Historical tradition 3. Phrygians bhrigi mushk 4. Chronology of the invasion of Asia Minor 5. Archaeological identification of migrants 6. Nosed vessels and Nasatya 7. Middle Danubian Bronze Age cultures in India 8. Source source in the Middle Danube 9. Ethnic identification in India Bhrigu 10. Linking the Phrygians of Asia Minor with the Danube 11. The place of Phrygian migration in history Chapter VII. Greeks and Thracians 1. The arrival of the Greeks? 2. Argumentation of autochthonists 3. Choice of migration 4. Aliens in Mycenaean culture 5. Substrate or superstrate? Question about the Thracians 6. Thracian destinies 7. Archaeological correspondences 8. Identification of the Proto-Thracians 9. Ethnogenesis of the Thracians 10. Heritage of the Proto-Thracians Chapter VIII. Greeks and Hittites 1. The desired change of culture 2. The problem of the original focus of migration 3. The problem of the true substrate 4. Once again about the original focus: the Baden culture 5. The Hittites and others 6. Catastrophes in Asia Minor 7. Hittite-Luvian expansion in Europe 8. The problem of the Hittite-Luvian heritage among the Greeks 9. Hittites and Aryans 10. Summary Chapter IX. Elusive Proto-Greeks 1. Problem and range of possible solutions 2. Invisible migrations 3. The closest analogy is the arrival of the Dorians 4. Traces of the Proto-Greeks 5. Who were the Greeks? 6. Fan of hypotheses Chapter X. Migration of the Tocharians in the light of archeology 1. Under the name of the Tocharians 2. Sers on the Silk Road 3. Europeoid neighbors of China 4. Indo-European contribution to Chinese language and culture 5. The choice of archaeological culture for the Tocharians in Asia - Karasuk 6. Forest past of the Tocharians and Fatyanovo culture

4 7. Criticism of my hypothesis and my objections Conclusion: concepts and implications 1. Results and three concepts 2. Three ancestral homes 3. Esoteric archeology 4. Methods of overcoming temptations 5. Politicized archeology 6. Fan of hypotheses 7. Some perspectives Literature List of discussion participants Indexes nominal and subject List of drawings

5 Preface This book was written by me in 2006 and was discussed chapter by chapter from November 2006 to June 2007 in a series of reports at meetings of the School of Indo-European Studies chaired by Corresponding Member. RAS prof. N. N. Kazansky and prof. L. G. Herzenberg at the Institute of Linguistic Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Employees of the Institute of Linguistic Research and the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Hermitage and the State University took part in the meetings and discussions. Museum of the History of Religions, teachers and students of St. Petersburg University. I am grateful to the leadership of the School and the director of the Institute of Linguistic Research for their support, and to the participants in the discussions for their valuable advice and comments. I must especially thank the constant help of student of the Department of Archeology S.V. Voronyatov in preparing illustrations for reports and the book. A discussion of the chapters is published here (in abbreviation), after each chapter. Colleagues generously suggested that I omit their private criticisms, with which I agree, and simply introduce amendments to the text. This would certainly improve my writing and perhaps make it easier to read, but I would consider such a quiet appropriation of others' contributions to be dishonest. In addition, I know from myself that not only knowledge of truths is useful, but the path to it is also very interesting for the reader. Therefore, I decided not to change the original text of my reports (with the exception of minor amendments that are not related to the essence), so that the presentations of my colleagues do not lose their motivation, and the discussion does not lose its liveliness. The reader, having the fullness of the discussion, will figure out for himself which version of the decisions should be considered the last word.

6 Introduction Ethnogenesis and the family tree model: the problem of cooperation between archeology and linguistics 1. Archeology: illusions and reality. Linguists have one illusion about archaeology that many archaeologists share. Having built a beautiful family tree of the origin of languages ​​(from the proto-language to the daughter and “grandchildren”), linguists expect to find an exact correspondence to this tree in archeology in the family tree of the origin of archaeological cultures. This is so that, by superimposing one on top of the other, you can obtain for your tree the missing coordinates of place and time. If modern archeology cannot provide linguistics with such a tree, then this is seen as an unfortunate but temporary delay, due to the underdevelopment of archeology, the lack of collected materials or imperfection of methods, lack of effort or ill will (adherence to a priori concepts in favor of national ambitions of various kinds). It is assumed that with the further accumulation of materials and their more advanced processing, with an increase in objectivity, archaeologists will definitely build such a tree. That this is about to happen. And archaeologists are trying to justify these hopes. But they come up with dozens of mutually exclusive variants of the tree (there are a lot of hypotheses about the origin of the Indo-Europeans), and there are no objective criteria for establishing one variant that corresponds to reality. This situation has no prospects for a positive solution. On the contrary, there is no single tree of cultures, built on independent foundations and corresponding to the tree of languages, and will never be built. This is fundamentally impossible. Ethnogenesis and cultural genesis do not coincide. The fact is that language is inherited mainly as a whole and changes only very gradually, otherwise it cannot function. In all situations of interaction and mixing of languages, one remains the basis, and the other gives admixtures, more significant in phonetics, less in vocabulary (weakly affecting the main fund), and even less in morphology. Culture can be transmitted in parts, can be assembled from components of different origins, taken from different sources, in any combinations and proportions, and can change quickly and radically. Every few hundred years it undergoes sudden and radical transformations. At each stage, essentially new cultures are formed, each with not one root, but several; they go in different directions, and it is impossible to choose an ethnically “main” one. This is impossible because neither quantitative nor qualitative criteria can be taken as a basis: ceramics, burial methods, housing arrangement, etc. d. are unable to determine which of the contributions is associated with linguistic continuity. In each case this happens differently. Therefore, the threads of cultural continuity form not a tree, but a network from which archaeologists cut their trees at will, mainly to please linguists. Linguists do not have disputes about the origin of any Indo-European language if it is sufficiently fully represented. There is no dispute whether the Polish language belongs to the Iranian branch or to the Slavic or Germanic branch. Disputes about the origins of cultures are not the exception, but the rule. There are several hypotheses about the origin of each archaeological culture. For the most part, they are all correct; it is impossible to choose “the most correct one.” In fact, archaeologists, moving retrospectively along the lines of cultural continuity and trying to find the correspondence of linguistic continuity, are forced every few steps to stop at a fork and wonder which of several roads to take (Klein 1955: 271; 1969: 30). For selection, they can only use extra-archaeological criteria, because there are no such criteria within archeology. Only in exceptional cases, under particularly favorable circumstances (long-term isolation, or sudden and complex relocation, etc.), can archaeologists, on their own, using their own data, make a reliable judgment about continuity. Usually, consciously or unconsciously, they turn to linguistics for Ariadne's thread.

7 There is another illusion associated with archeology that linguists should take into account. Linguists know that in linguistics they have only a very weak ability to organize material according to absolute chronology - this is Suodesh glottochronology. But archeology, linguists believe, has the true opportunity to build an absolute chronology and offers linguistics reliable support in this. In fact, in archeology there is no support for absolute chronology at all. Archeology has within itself only the ability to construct relative chronology. It is impossible to construct something analogous to the Suodesh glottochronology in archeology. After all, if a language has a stable grammatical system and even in vocabulary cannot change either too quickly or too slowly, then material culture is not a system and is capable of changing at any rate, changing rates and changing at different rates in its different parts. Therefore, archeology takes all its absolute supports from the outside in written sources, paleontology, geology, radiochemistry, dendrochronology, etc. Another thing is that it has become skilled in this search for external supports, in ordering its relative dates and reducing them into complex systems, and then in putting these systems on the outer supports of absolute chronology. But these are not her own supports, and she changes her chronology when these external supports change. Such cases are the two radiocarbon revolutions: the first occurred in the 1950s, when the radiocarbon method deepened many dating by hundreds of years, and the second in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when dendrochronology columns stretching ten thousand years were built, and radiocarbon dates dates have become verified (calibrated) according to dendrochronology. This deepened the dates even further, for the Chalcolithic - by a good thousand years. And for the fourth decade now, archaeologists have been building chronology in this new way. 2. Linguistics: overcoming illusions. Just as linguists rely on archeology, archaeologists, in turn, harbor naive hopes that linguists are doing well. That the family tree of the Indo-European languages, having undergone a hundred years of processing, took on an optimal form and could not grow to others. And this is also an illusion. Disagreements remain on the issue of the number of branches, and their relative position (which is higher on the trunk, which is lower), and about the juices that are transferred to the leaves along them, and about the grafts where and from what they were made. It seems that these are not accidental and easily removable disagreements, but inevitable disagreements, rooted in the contradiction between the living variability of linguistic material and the rigidity of the family tree model. The family tree ideally presupposes a classification of languages ​​that corresponds to the Aristotelian principles of consistent division of the scope of concepts: everything is sorted into boxes based on a single criterion, without remainder, without overlap. The scheme more or less corresponds to the results of biological evolution. In fact, in linguistic material we have rather not a classification, but a typology in the Goethean sense: the material swarms in a multidimensional field of features, clusters are identified, and they can be delimited in different ways, depending on the selected criteria. This is a consequence of the complexity and intertwined history of human groups - ethnic groups. In nature, species do not interbreed or exchange characteristics. Human collectives and their languages ​​are a different matter. Yes, languages ​​interact as systems, but when closely related dialects collide, systems become open. The history of the Indo-Europeans, as shown by K. Brugman and A. Meillet, was for a long time a history of interacting dialects. Hence the confusion of isoglosses. The areal school of linguistics, which discovered this confusion, began to study individual phenomena, behind which languages ​​and families disappeared altogether for it. Attempts were also made to change the model of the genesis of language families: the theory of geographical variation of G. Schuchardt, the theory of waves of I. Schmidt, the pyramid of N. Ya. Marr, the model of N. S. Trubetskoy, which is close to it, the linguistic union of the Prague School, the linguistic continuity of Bubrikh Tolstov. They did not stay in science. For the most part, linguists remain committed to the traditional concept and continue to believe that the model of the proto-language from which the family tree grows retains its significance and its appearance, albeit with adjustments for the blurred boundaries and the original division of the proto-language into dialects. This is in theory.

8 In practice, when reconstructing the early history of the Indo-European massif at the level of dialects and closely related languages, linguists of recent decades adhere to a completely different model. In their studies we find dialects changing their connections. First they form one community, then, having regrouped, others, and isoglosses settle in the linguistic material from these groupings: media passive in -r versus media passive in -oi/moi, relative pronoun k ho is versus ios, etc. These are the works of B Georgieva, V.V. Martynova, O.N. Trubacheva. Instead of the dynamics of a family tree, these studies present something that could be called a country dance model: everyone interacts in a slow dance, forming pairs, threes and fours, and every few steps, almost without moving, the gentlemen change ladies. But it happens that they run over to completely different formations. This corresponds well to what archeology finds in its materials. It insists less and less on the fundamental coincidence of culture and ethnicity (as in Bryusov 1956) and increasingly talks about the ambiguity of the concept of “archaeological culture.” They talk about the possibility of interpreting archaeological cultures differently (ethnicity, political unity, religious community, etc.), about multi-ethnic cultures (meaning multilingual), about population regroupings in a new way in new cultures (Knabe 1959; Mongait 1967; Klein 1991 :). Of course, culture reflects a certain community of the population at a certain stage, but how strong it is difficult to judge. Of course, this community probably left an imprint in the language, a certain bunch of isoglosses, but it is difficult to say whether a single special dialect or language has developed within this framework. Thus, in the country dance model, archaeological culture in principle corresponds not to a dialect or language, but to a bundle of isoglosses. I am not saying here with V. Pisani that “only isoglosses are real for us” (Pisani 1947: 62). There were undoubtedly languages ​​and language families. But what corresponds to archaeological culture is not a language from a specific language family, not a cut from one of the branches of the family tree, but, so to speak, a bunch of threads that in further history can be tied differently, in a different combination, into different bundles. The task of linguists is to determine the relative chronology of such connectives (through the diachrony of sound laws, trends in grammatical development, etc.). The task of archaeologists is to clarify the territory and the relative, and, if possible, absolute chronology of the formation of these isogloss bundles, taking into account the fact that subsequent migrations may have changed the environment in which these isogloss bundles were imprinted. To apply the family tree model, only the later stages of glottogenesis remain, when it was no longer dialects that interacted, but related languages. But here, too, significant caveats are required. 3. Migrations. Migrations not only change the subsequent environment, not only expand (or narrow) the field of events. They can make drastic changes in the very arrangement of participants, shuffle them and separate neighbors to distant edges and, conversely, close dialects that were previously very distant from each other. Reconstruction of migrations by archeology is a very difficult, but rewarding task. It is difficult because the criteria for archaeological recognition of migrations are shaky, archaeological markers (signs, traces) of migrations are unstable and varied. The American Hugh Henken, in his review of linguistic and archaeological research on the Indo-Europeans, came to a pessimistic conclusion: “In short, no rules can be made in advance, because each case has to be judged by its own criteria, depending on what facts are presented, and they often very meager" (Hencken 1955: 2). But the signs of migration are diversified by type of migration. Taking this circumstance into account also conceals the possibility of objective recognition and reconstruction of migrations (Klein 1973, 1999). The benefits of identifying migrations are very great. Firstly, the identified migrations make it possible to trace the true development of society, figuratively speaking, to read history that is not glued together from different books.

9 After all, development did not take place within a certain locality, but within the framework of a certain human society where this society lived. If it has moved, then development has moved too. Blindly following developments in one area, we will imperceptibly switch from one development to another. True, usually when the population changes, some part of the old one always remains, but still it will be a different development, which has a different logic behind it. To avoid this failure, I introduced the concept of sequences into archeology (Klein 1973). I called a sequence a sequence of cultures. The essence of the concept is to distinguish between two types of sequences: I distinguish column ones from trace ones. By columnar I mean rows of cultures successively replacing each other in one area. In this form the material appears before us, and there is a temptation to interpret it as the sequential development of one population, although this is not always the case. By route sequence I mean a chain of cultures of one specific society unfolded in time, regardless of the territory occupied by it at different stages of its existence. These cultures are linked by continuity, although not always on the same territory. Development must be traced in a trace sequence, and not in a column. This axiom is very difficult to inculcate in archeology, although it is still instilled (Shchukin 1979; Manzura 2002: 245). And to identify trace sequences, you need to recognize migrations. Secondly, in a static existence, ethnic groups are often difficult to distinguish for an archaeologist due to the diffuseness of borders and the possibility of spreading culture to neighbors. It is long-distance migrations that allow archaeologists to better recognize such ethnic groups. In long-distance migrations, ethnic groups that are obviously alien to each other collide, and their demarcation and opposition appears very clearly (Klein 1988). Another thing is that the connection of the migrated ethnic group with the original territory and culture is not as easy as it seemed until recently. Gradually, archaeologists began to get rid of the illusion that the entire old culture moves with an ethnos in an unchanged form. And associated with this belief were super-strict criteria for identifying migrations: it was absolutely necessary to find and show an exact and complete similarity of the aliens’ culture to their culture in their old place, and such places are usually not found. A people rarely migrates in its entirety and with its entire culture; more often it is, say, only young male warriors or (with contacts of neighboring peoples) only women entering into marriage, or some kind of religious sect. And migration is such a shake-up that culture changes greatly and quickly during migration. 4. Family tree and river delta. A significant flaw in the family tree model was that this model included the unconscious idea of ​​a uniform expansion of the Indo-European territory by ray-shaped, radially diverging and non-intersecting migrations, like spilled sour cream spreading. Back in 1911, Kosinna painted 14 campaigns of the Indo-Germans in the Neolithic, carrying the Indo-Germanic culture and language to all corners of Europe, and he was imitated by Bryusov (1957), only he moved the original focus from Germany to our steppe. And before him this was done by Ernst Vale, G. Child and T. Sulimirsky, after him by M. Gimbutas. This centrifugal migrationism did not stray very far from autochthonism, no matter how distant the migrations it postulated may seem. Firstly, the core in the original focus remained unchanged (Kosinna in Germany was called an autochthonist, not a migrationist), and secondly, the movement seemed very correct; it was not a transfer, it was an expansion of the area. Already Meillet (1938: 420) said: “the grouping of languages ​​closest to each other indicates their original location: the spread of these languages ​​took place, not their movement.” This picture was consistent with the prevailing ideas in archeology about the unreality of long-distance one-time migrations, about the reliability of only a slow, “creeping” spread (brought to the ideal in Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1979; cf. Neustupny 1982). This commitment was abandoned by many Russian archaeologists three or four decades ago (Klein 1968; 1971; 1973; Merpert 1978, etc.), and now the fear of long-distance migrations has begun to disappear in foreign archeology (Anthony 1990;

10 Champion 1990; Chapman 1997; Harke 1998). It becomes clear that the Indo-Europeans have always been a very mobile population, that in fact they also had unexpected transfers from one end of the Indo-European area to the other, opposite. It is enough just to recall the Tocharians, Galatians, Goths and Vandals. What significant contribution does this neglected possibility make to the interpretation of linguistic facts? Firstly, when determining borrowings, long-distance coincidences are usually excluded as obviously unrealistic; they are classified as random. It is not right. No contacts can be ruled out, everything is possible. Secondly, when thinking about the prevalence of certain local phenomena, linguists naturally consider only those located in adjacent territories as interconnected entities. But those peoples who are now separated could have been neighbors in the past. For example, the movement of consonants that unites the Germanic languages ​​with Thracian, Phrygian and Armenian suggests that all their ancestral dialects were located in the center of Europe. Including Armenians. Like the Tocharians. Thirdly, how is the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary carried out? Forming its principles, Meillet understood that the preservation of one lexeme in all groups of Indo-European languages ​​is rare, “therefore,” he wrote, “we have to understand by IE words words that are common to several IE dialects, provided that they represent all the phonetic and morphological changes that characterize those dialects to which they belong, and so that historical evidence does not indicate their later appearance” (Meye 1938: 382). But these conditions cannot always be guaranteed. Therefore, in practice, in determining the antiquity of lexemes and rare phenomena in general, their distant scattering is considered evidence of ascent to the general fund. It is enough for only a few of the Indo-European languages, but scattered at opposite ends of the Indo-European area, to have similar forms for these forms to be declared as going back to the Indo-European proto-language. But this territorial distance of similar forms from each other may be the result of later migrations, which transferred these forms from a position of isolation of peoples to a position of contact. That is, these forms can be local. And from here there may be very important adjustments in the picture of Indo-European glottogenesis: what is usually attributed to the common Indo-European fund and what, in the eyes of linguists, characterizes Proto-Indo-European culture and environment, may in fact belong to a later time. To be the result of long journeys, so to speak, flights from one end of Europe to the other. Added to this is the fact that the same projection of later phenomena onto Proto-Indo-European times also occurs in the history of culture, but usually those phenomena that are common to all Indo-Europeans at a later time are projected there. Thus, cremation as the main method of burial and war chariots are attributed to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Meanwhile, both phenomena arose too late to be Proto-Indo-European. They arose when separate Indo-European languages ​​already existed. A good example is the Ashvamedha ritual of the king's sacrifice of a white horse. It is recorded among the Indo-Aryans, Italics and Celts (Dumont 1927; Dumézil 1070). It reconstructs the participation of the right horse from the harness, and the pairing itself is associated with the twin cult through the Ashvins, Dioscuri and the German Khorsu and Hengist. But, as Mallory noted, the use of horses in paired teams dates back no earlier than the mid-3rd millennium BC. e., and the division of the Indo-Europeans is now attributed to a much earlier time. He finds a contradiction in this (Mallory 1989: 136). This contradiction can be resolved only by separating the contacts in which this ritual took shape from the common Indo-European past and by assuming a close proximity of peoples now separated by large territories. Therefore, it would be better to imagine the origin of Indo-European languages, even at later stages, not in the form of a tree, but in the form of a river delta, the branches of which divide and merge in a new way (Fig. 1). A visual image is sketched in my popular essay on the Indo-Europeans (Klein 1984, but the specification of development paths there is arbitrary). And the image of the delta is not enough; one must also imagine that these branches can

11 be transferred from one edge of the delta to the other via tunnels or aqueducts. And if we imagine a tree, then with very intertwined and merging branches, such things do not happen in nature. David Clarke (1968, fig. 20) illustrated this distinction between natural and cultural development in a visual table, comparing the diagrams of the anthropologist A. Kroeber and the biologists R. R. Sokal and P. H. E. Sneath and adding his own diagram (Fig. 2). There is no need to imagine history as a diligent worker, obediently following the laws prescribed to it by Marx, Jaspers, Toynbee, or, at worst, Gumilyov. History is a capricious lady, sometimes observing the laws, but often doing such tricks that you are amazed. 5. Combination method and retrospective method. These are the difficulties that arise when trying to reconcile the data of archeology and linguistics on the basis of a family tree model. Therefore, there remain two possibilities for reconstruction, one of which is risky: to immediately go back to the origins and identify the environment and time of habitation of the Indo-Europeans, based on their vocabulary and glottochronology. E. E. Kuzmina (1994: 265) calls this the “combination method.” This is a jump straight to the ancestral people, ancestral people and ancestral homeland. I would call this the pole vault method, because when using it (and the pole is linguistics), you have to fly through a series of eras from modern times directly to the era of the Indo-European ancestral people. Because of this, and also because of the inherent errors of linguistic reconstruction, the method has its limitations. The risk of this leap is that glottochronology does not guarantee the accuracy of its definitions; the names of plants and animals passed from one to another and became taboo; cultural vocabulary has been borrowed, and borrowings cannot always be distinguished from their own fund; finally, several completely different cultures existed in one environment. It is very difficult to reconstruct a pure proto-language, and it never existed in such a clear form. It is difficult to determine its territory and area, because since then the geographical characteristics have changed (climate, nature, sometimes the outlines of rivers and seas), and the meanings of words have changed. Recently, Kiev researcher S.V. Koncha (1998; 2002; 2004a) has rehabilitated some important foundations of linguistic paleontology, but even in his interpretation the result remains probabilistic. It is even more difficult to associate a language and this people on such vague grounds with a specific archaeological culture, because there is no certainty about the ethnic character of the existing cultures, and often there are several of them in the area. As a result, today we have not just one reconstruction, but a number of linguistic hypotheses about the origin of the Indo-Europeans, and each has its own advantages and weaknesses. Which one should archaeologists take? Concha reasonably chose this method to determine the origin of the Indo-Europeans, but his result can be disputed. In my opinion, the placement of this center in Central Europe sounds solid, but the time of the spread of Indo-European speech to the steppes of Eastern Europe (early Neolithic or even Mesolithic) cannot be proven by this method and seems too early. The second opportunity is to retrospectively advance from each historically attested Indo-European people , as far as the materials allow, back centuries, taking into account prehistoric migrations. Thus, the method of direct combination is opposed to the retrospective method of moving from historically known languages ​​and peoples back into the centuries, tracing continuity gradually, step by step, until somewhere in ancient times the roots of related languages ​​unite into one proto-language. Many consider this method to be the main one and put it in first place (Kuzmina 1994: 264). At one time, Soviet archaeologists exclusively used a variant of this method, called “localist” by L. A. Gindin and N. Ya. Merpert (1984: 7) - they limited the action of the method to the territory of the current location of the people whose ancestors were being sought. As Kuzmina (1994: 63) gently puts it, the essence of the option “is to prove the continuous sequence and continuity of archaeological cultures in a certain territory with the preservation of the main complex to known historical ethnic groups.” Kuzmina herself (1994: 64) insists on the need to combine this method with the “method of ethnicizing characteristics”, which are not functionally determined, but recognizes the “retrospective method” as the main one.

12 Rejecting the hypothesis about the Indo-Iranian affiliation of the carriers of the Catacomb and Abashevo cultures, Kuzmina (1994: 222) argues her position as follows: the hypotheses are rejected, “firstly, because the retrospective method, which we recognize as decisive, cannot be used, since their direct descendants have not been established and their tongues." It is possible to move retrospectively into the depths of centuries only as long as peoples are traced by historical evidence. Linguists can penetrate further with this method, bringing together linguistic branches into one family tree and moving from the branches along the trunk to the roots. The catch is that this is only possible in linguistics, and linguistics provides very little opportunity to establish the time and, most importantly, the place of existence of the ancestral people. In culture, it is completely impossible to trace continuity in this way, because, unlike a language, which is united by a grammatical system and is forced to change very gradually, culture is capable of undergoing radical and rapid changes, it accepts different contributions and it has many roots, there is no main root. Each of the roots left some trace in the language, but which of the roots is associated with the main linguistic continuity is unknown. Therefore, if there is usually no debate about the kinship of a particular Indo-European language, the origin of each culture is always controversial, and the archaeologist is forced at every step to stop at a fork in the road and guess which of the roots to prefer. In this fortune-telling, the determining factor is often a look at national pride and political needs. For archaeologists, the retrospective method as applied is useless. As I already explained at the beginning, each culture has many roots, which one to choose? If linguists have at their disposal many branches and must (often by touch) move towards the trunk, then archaeologists have in their hands the trunk of one culture, and they need to move to the roots, always by touch, and find the one on which the desired tuber is not clear how, but only by eating him, you will see the language tree. The trunk is in their hands, but there are many roots and they diverge in different directions; which of them was associated with the transmission of the main language is not clear. Theoretically, anyone could be paired. There is no correlation between the intensity of linguistic and cultural contributions. Here both archeology and linguistics are insufficient. The Normans dominated all Russian cities, their contribution to culture is very noticeable, the self-name of the people comes from them, and a handful of words entered the language. The Volga Bulgars captured the lands of the Danube Slavs, and only three words entered the language, including their self-name. On the other hand, Dorian dialects invaded at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. all of Greece, historians talk about the Dorian invasion, but in archeology migration from the north is not traced for this time. Nevertheless, archaeologists still have no desire to work using the retrospective method, and only this method. The basis for this is, on the one hand, the illusion that one can act according to the example of linguistics, and on the other, the realistic idea that close cultures are easier to recognize than distant ones, and it is easier to go deeper gradually. I have more than once criticized the retrospective method of archaeological research, showing its futility for archeology in the form in which it is applied (Klein 1955; 1969). At the same time, I understood that in ethnogenesis archaeologists should undoubtedly begin their journey using a retrospective method while they move along with historians relying on written sources. In India up to the period illuminated by the Rig Veda, in Iran by the Avesta and the reports of cuneiform tablets, in Greece up to the limits of the Kritomycenaean writing. In each of these areas it is necessary to find archaeological cultures that correspond to the picture painted by written sources. Only by creating this base - so to speak, by moving the springboard forward as far as possible - can you take the leap. Already without the support of written sources. Or more precisely, several jumps to successive articulations of the branches of the tree, increasingly close to the pan-Indo-European trunk. But isn't it still the same retrospective method? And he has the indicated vices. I thought for a long time about how to avoid this contradiction. And I came to the conclusion that the only way would be to replace written sources with some other support for archeology. And such support can be, first of all, linguistics. Not only her. There is also anthropology, which has now acquired paleogenetic methods and has become an extremely powerful educational tool. Her already made contribution to the study of the Neolithization of Europe is invaluable. Now we can confidently say that with

With the onset of the Neolithic, a significant part of Mesolithic Europe was repopulated from Western Asia. And it is possible to find out which areas of Europe were inhabited by newcomers from Western Asia, and which were neolithized in the order of influences and assimilation (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Renfrew and Boyle 2000; Zvelebil ans Lilley 2000; Novak 2001; Bentley et al. 2002; Gkiasta et al. 2003). But since we are talking about the fate of languages, we cannot do without linguistics. Here I explore only the cooperation of archeology with it. When moving backwards, it is important to recognize that at each step several paths are possible and the choice is not determined by the archaeological data themselves. Therefore, the principle of “regressive purism” in the synthesis of different sources, put forward by German archaeologists (in particular G.-J. Eggers and R. Hachmann) and expressed in the phrase of German strategists getrennt marschieren, zusammen kämpfen (Eggers 1959: ; Hachmann 1970: 10-11, 473). According to this strict methodological principle, each discipline must work through the material independently, and only compare the result with the result of another discipline so that there is no self-deception or involuntary adjustment of the results. I have criticized this principle separately (Klejn 1974; Klein 1974), but here I must once again emphasize its unrealism. In order not to be blind in groping for the right root, the archaeologist needs to know in which direction to look, that is, take into account the linguistic relationship suggested by linguists. And do this at every step. This is also a promotion that is, in general, retrospective in nature. But in such an advance, all the articulations of the language tree ahead are simultaneously visible, so that archaeologists, stopping at each fork of their oppositely oriented tree, will have the entire language tree before their eyes and will be able to choose on their tree the path leading to the Indo-European trunk. This is no longer the same retrospective method. This is, so to speak, a retrospective method with an eye. One can expect that he will narrow the circle in which to look for the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans, and this will facilitate the work by combining the ancestral language constructed by linguists with archaeological data. Moreover, he may also correct the construction of the proto-language itself. 6. Southeastern Indo-Europeans on tree diagrams. Here I set out to explore this possibility, taking as starting points several Indo-European languages ​​of one large branch, called either central or southeastern. The task is very difficult. This branch began to form from the very beginning of the history of identifying Indo-European kinship and the model of proto-languages ​​and family trees. Already in Schleicher (1863) in his family tree, the Iranian and Indian languages ​​stand side by side and, growing from a large branch, form one branch, and next to the same large branch there is a branch with Greek and Italo-Celtic; Slavic, Baltic and Germanic on the opposite flank (Fig. 3-4). But back in 1853, Max Müller, and in 1858, E. Lottner and in 1871, A. Fick, built the tree differently, putting Iranian and Indian as a separate branch, and all the rest - another, from which Greek and Latin are next separated (Fig. 5 7). Fick's Greek and Latin became closer to Germanic because he discovered the division of languages ​​into groups later called "centum" and "satem". F. Müller (1873) uses the result of this division even more in his tree of languages, the trunk of which is divided in two, and Greek with Italic and Celtic grow on one branch, and Iranian with Indian on the second, together with Germanic, Slavic and Baltic, only separately from them (Fig. 8). Still, Schleicher’s scheme remained the most authoritative for a long time. Young grammarians switched to another model of kinship, best represented by the wave theory of J. Schmidt (1872) and expressed in formal linguistic terms by bundles of isoglosses (in fact, graphically, Schmidt’s model represents bundles of isoglosses). In these bundles we find the Indo-Iranian languages ​​in one circle of isoglosses, covered by a wider circle in which Armenian, Thracian and Phrygian languages ​​are located next to them, and on the other side nearby Balto-Slavic and Albanian. The languages ​​Germanic, Celtic and Greek are in the center of other circles, only slightly touching the Indo-Iranian circle (Fig. 9 10).

14 B. Delbrück in 1880 even questioned all groupings of Indo-European languages ​​into families, except Indo-Iranian. K. Brugman in 1886 recognized some others, but considered the main one to be the division of languages ​​according to the fate of their palatals, whether they turn into hissing and whistling ones or not. This divided the Indo-European languages ​​into Eastern and Western. P. von Bradtke in 1888 called these groups according to the sound of the word one hundred languages ​​“satem” and “centum”. At the beginning of the twentieth century, A. Meillet built a scheme for the division of Indo-European languages ​​based on the analysis of isoglosses as a scheme for territorial expansion. For him, the entire totality is divided in two - into eastern and western languages ​​- vertically precisely according to the principle of “satem” - “centum”. But dividing this totality in half and the diagonal in this case, on one side there will be just the languages ​​that interest us: Greek, Armenian, Iranian and Indian (though also Albanian). For him, Armenian and Albanian are in the center of the entire totality (Fig. 11). In 1921, B. Terracini introduced the division into center and periphery as the basic principle of division. He proceeded from the fact that all innovations spread from the center, and conservatism dominates on the periphery. Therefore, the languages ​​that developed from the central dialects are more advanced in their departure from Proto-Indo-European norms, while the peripheral ones are closer to Proto-Indo-European (a principle opposite to the nationalist view of the German ultra-patriots). This principle was supported by Bonfante, Devoto and others. Bonfante still attaches more importance to the east/west division, but the emphasis on the center is also noticeable (Fig. 12). I.A. Kearns and B. Schwartz (Fig. 13) placed Germanic with Balto-Slavic and Greek with Aryan in the center, the rest were located on the periphery (with Bonfante it’s the other way around). By this time the tree had grown. The Indo-European languages ​​of Asia Minor were discovered and identified: Hittite, Luwian, Palayan, which, according to almost all linguists, separated from the Indo-European tree very early and ended up quite far to the southeast in Asia Minor. Then, by analyzing the substrate vocabulary of the Balkans, toponymy, onomastics and a few inscriptions, ideas about the Paleo-Balkan languages ​​Thracian, Phrygian, and Carian were obtained. These languages ​​turned out to be, on the one hand, close to Greek (“centum”), and on the other to Indo-Iranian (“satem”). Then the Tocharian languages ​​were discovered and studied, which were close in vocabulary and morphemes to Central European ones, but inexplicably turned out to be much further than Hittite far to the east of Indian. The division according to the criterion “satem” - “centum” turned out to be uncorrelated with other differences and was recognized as a late local innovation, although widespread. He and the division into center and periphery were rejected in 1933 in Pisani. It was he who first rejected the genealogical meaning of the division into the groups “centum” and “satem”. According to him, the Proto-Indo-European language was not originally divided into these two groups. The transformation of palatals into sibilants arose in one place and spread through dialects from there. The transformation into whistling was in another place and spread from there independently. In general, many correspondences considered as Indo-European heritage are not such, but originate from later contacts. This is a very important point, but it was not consistently implemented by Pisani himself. In his diagram, he places the dialects in Proto-Indo-European according to their current geographical location (Fig. 14). As can be seen from further variants of the division of the Indo-European family (i.e., models of branching of the tree of languages), this division, since the time of the neogrammarians, has increasingly acquired the character of geographical stability. That is, the branches diverged in such a way as to transform into the modern geographical distribution of languages ​​with a minimum of changes. It was accepted that since the time of the Indo-European proto-language the territory of the Indo-Europeans had greatly expanded, but it expanded gradually, and in the narrow original area immediately after the division the individual branches occupied approximately the same sectors that the languages ​​of these branches occupy in the present large area of ​​\u200b\u200bfinal settlement. That is, the Proto-Germans sat in the north of the area, the Proto-Slavs in the northeast, the Proto-Celts in the west, the Proto-Greeks in the south, the Proto-Iranians in the east, the Proto-Indians even further to the east. This is the methodological principle of simple centrifugality, simple radial divergence. This is how it all looks in the diagrams of Porzig and Krahe, created closer to modern times and distinguishing “ancient European unity” from the central or, rather, western

15 languages ​​(Krahe 1954; 1959; Porzig 1954; Porzig 2002). (Curiously, both avoided the need to display their concepts graphically in any way.) Porzig (2003: 81) asks the question: “does the historical placement of Indo-European languages ​​reflect, as it were, a magnified view of the position of the Indo-European tribal dialects in their ancestral home?” And the answer to this question is positive: the division into two groups, eastern and western, has been preserved, and those languages ​​that were eastern remained in the east, and those that were western remained in the west. Anthropologist B. Lundman (Lundman 1961) depicted this principle of settlement very clearly in a radial diagram (Fig. 15). Porzig emphasized that the peripheral languages ​​(Indo-Aryan, Baltoslavic and Lithuanian) retained very archaic features not only in grammar, but also in vocabulary (2003;). But others proceeded from the opposite principle: the central ones are the purest. In 1978, Wolfgang Schmid (Schmid 1978: 5, diagram) even built a theoretical model of the kinship (respectively, settlement) of the Indo-Europeans in the form of concentric circles, suggesting the Baltic proto-language in the center as the closest to the original one (Fig. 16). Exactly one hundred years after I. Schmidt, a book by R. Antilla (Antilla 1972) was published in America, the author of which restored the theory of waves and built relationships between families of Indo-European languages ​​on the basis of 24 isoglosses (Fig. 17). The densest clusters of isoglosses separate Greek from Italo-Celtic and Hittite from Tocharian, but not so many isoglosses connect it with Indo-Iranian and Armenian. In 1982, Francesco Adrados (1982a) practically returned to the Schleicher family tree, integrating into it the Hittite and Tocharian languages, which had separated early. Simultaneously with the separation of Tocharian, the rest of the population at Adrados split into two blocks: the northern (uniting the future Western languages ​​with the Baltic and Slavic) and the southern Greco-Thracian-Armenian-Aryan (Fig. 18). Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984, 1: 415, diagram 3) repeated this scheme, and, like Adrados, “Aryan-Greek-Armenian” they have one branch (fig). Renfrew in 1987 proposed a similar concept (an ancestral home in Anatolia), but he also assumed a model of gradual spreading of languages, so he needed Greek to split off early from the rest soon after Hittite, and Indo-Iranian languages ​​much later and from the same branch with Proto-Slavic . He did not give a diagram of the tree, but this is the only way to understand his map of the distribution of languages ​​from Anatolia (look at the arrows and read the explanations in the text, see below). rice. 21). Marek Zvelebil published an extremely interesting article in 1995 with a modification of Renfrew's theory based on Trubetskoy's ideas that there was no Indo-European language, and the process of Indo-Europeanization proceeded in parallel with the process of neolithization of Europe and was carried out in large part through fusion upon contact (creolization). Basically, his concept is directed against the ubiquity of migration. But the spread of language from one original source (Anatolia) is not rejected, only the division of the ancestral people is rejected. The final diagram still very much resembles a tree (Fig. 22). On this tree, the branch of the Indo-Iranians is far removed from the branch of the Greeks (and naturally: having recognized the Anatolian ancestral home, one cannot do without such a scatter). Invented in the mid-twentieth century, Morris Swadesh's glottochronology initially placed the division of the northern branches of the Indo-European tree in the 18th century BC. e. ± 4 centuries, which closely coincided with the then fashionable Gimbutas scheme (Suodesh happily reported this). And working with a similar method, but measuring according to the historically earliest states of languages, Ifreim Cross obtained a date 5 centuries deeper (Swadesh 1953). Meanwhile, the measurements were carried out on the same languages. And in those cases where it can be verified, for example, in the collapse of the Romance and Germanic proto-languages, Suodesh's glottochronology was greatly mistaken. After the first fascination with objectivity and absolute chronology of its versions of the tree, glottochronology was actually removed from solving this problem. But even after going through a period of testing and improvement, it began to produce solutions that were also not always possible to agree with. So in 2003, New Zealand biologists Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson (Gray and Atkinson 2003) published their version of the tree, calculated with all possible corrections and using the latest statistical techniques. They examined 87 Indo-European languages ​​using Isadora Dayen's improved database. Based on the calculations, millions of potential trees were generated and

16 of them were selected by random criterion for analysis, and they were checked for compliance with the conditions of the real existence of the tree. For them, the collapse of the Indo-European proto-language did not happen in the 6th millennium BC. e., as happened with most of their predecessors, and approximately between the years and BC. e. (Fig. 23). The first language to separate from the common trunk was Hittite, the second (approx.) Tocharian, third (approx.) Greco-Armenian, fourth (approx.) Indo-Aryan. Balto-Slavic separated from the remaining community (c.). Etc. The innovations are not only the deepening of the age of the entire tree, but also the fact that instead of Greek and Armenian, Albanian was placed on the same branch with the Aryans. The scheme looks more realistic than the previous ones, but a number of doubts still remain. What confuses the substantiation of this scheme is precisely the abundance of corrective factors that are difficult for me to control, and the qualifications of the linguists on whom the authors relied are unknown to me. Let's say they previously removed borrowed words from the database. But I’m not sure that the diagnosis of borrowing was correct, and the deletion affects the calculation of percentages and, accordingly, chronology. They establish how the rate of change changed during evolution by analyzing the topology of the tree of languages ​​(Markov chains are mentioned). A relationship smoothing algorithm is also used to correct these changes. It is desirable that the legality and correctness of the use of all these means be verified by qualified linguists and statisticians. The authors were captivated by the closeness of their dating scheme to the Renfrew scheme, and they announced that their conclusions indirectly confirm the Anatolian ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans, although nothing directly says this. After all, high dates and the first separation of the Hittite language are also present in some schemes with a different localization of the ancestral home. They simply took to check for compliance only two linguistic concepts of the origin of the Indo-Europeans - the two most fashionable: the “Kurgan” concept of Gimbutas and the Anatolian concept of Renfrew. All others were not affected by the check. Perhaps, in addition, Gray and Atkinson believed in the idea that the first branch to separate should remain in the original hearth (as in the case of the African ancestral home of humanity). But this is not an immutable law, but only a probability. For example, we can consider the second step of the same division scheme (the separation of the Tocharian languages) as the first. After all, Sturtevant proposed to consider the first step as a division of the Indo-Hittite proto-language, and only the second step to be interpreted as a division of Indo-European (Sturtevant 1942). And what? The separated branch went far, but the tree remained in its old place. Of course, the structure of the presented diagram and dating deserve attention. It is important, however, that glottochronology makes all calculations for an ideal decay model, without taking into account spatial transfers. 7. Alternative. Meanwhile, real prehistory was far from being so regular and schematic. The Goths from their northern dwellings penetrated to the southeast and created their own state on the Dnieper, and even in the Middle Ages the Gothic language was spoken in the Crimea, and the Visigoths ended up in Spain. Vandals have entered North Africa. The idea of ​​dolmens was brought to the North Caucasus from the far west (from the Iberian Peninsula and Central Europe), as well as to Jordan and, perhaps, to Bulgaria. The culture of bell-shaped beakers from the extreme west of Europe reaches Ukraine. With the invasion of the “Sea Peoples” into Palestine and Egypt, it was not the neighboring Hittites who arrived there, but much more northern Europeans. The phenomenon of Tocharian languages ​​is also very important because it finally discredits the principle of simple radial divergence accepted in the construction of areal schemes. This principle was accepted tacitly and naturally at a time of struggle against migrationism, at a time of rejection of any long-distance migrations if there is no direct and indisputable historical information about them. It was forbidden to reconstruct long-distance migrations. V. Milojčić ironically called this “Siebenmeilenstifeltypologie” - “typology of seven-league boots.” The undoubted long-distance migration of the Tocharians to the east from an area that was by no means the easternmost in the area of ​​Proto-Indo-Europeans, throws off all constructions based on the principle of simple centrifugality, and many reliable analogies of this

Genealogical classification of world languages ​​Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Russian Language and Literature M.K. Abaeva Plan 1. Stages of formation and background of the comparative historical method 2. Sources of information about

Trip-point Travel Lifestyle Inspiration DNA studies have shown that Europeans are descendants of the peoples who inhabited the territory of Russia On Monday, the journal Nature published the latest data from research on samples

Klein L. S. Ethnogenesis and archeology. Volume 1: Theoretical studies. SPb.: EURASIA, 2013. 528 p.: ill. ISBN 978-5-91852-063-5(general) ISBN 978-5-91852-064-2 The two-volume book “Ethnogenesis and Archeology” presents

KAZAKH NATIONAL PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER ABAY INSTITUTE OF PHILOLOGY AND MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION “I approve” Director of the Institute of Philology and Multilingual Education B. Abdigaziuly 2017 PLAN

The educational and scientific literature known to us on the historical phonology of Slavic languages ​​predominantly states as a fact the results of linguistic phenomena that occurred in the development of the phonological system

KLIN ID00044 Haplogroup/snips: G1-M458 Haplotype: 13 23 13 11 13-17 13 14 12 29 15 16 22 8 16 18 19 10 23 12 10 20 11 Region: Kazakhstan, Middle Zhuz, Argyn tribe. This may disappoint you, but the presented

Genetics of the first farmers and their influence on the population of Europe and Asia Analysis of ancient DNA from the Middle East showed that an ancient lineage made a large contribution to the gene pool of the first Middle Eastern farmers

117036, Moscow, st. Dm. Ulyanova, 19. Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences Review of the abstract of Natalia Mikhailovna Chairkiia’s dissertation “Peat bog

Introduction to linguistics Lecture 1 Linguistics as a science Questions for discussion Definition of science and language Sections of linguistics The connection of linguistics with other sciences The concept of language and speech The concept of synchrony and diachrony

ID00007 Personal interpretation for the carrier of the 37-marker haplotype: 13 23 14 11 11-13 11 11 14 13 13 30 16-9 11 12 24 14 19 30 15-15-16-16 11 18-20 14 20 20 20 35 -35 13 10 It should be noted that

Rig Veda. Indo-Aryans. Indo-Europeans. By the way, here is an interesting fact that characterizes the “DNA geneticist” A.A. Klyosov. Both in his monograph posted online three years ago, and recently in a speech at the Moscow

Contents Reviews of the book “Liminal Thinking” 10 Detailed content 15 Preface 19 From the author. How this book came about 21 Introduction. What is liminal thinking? 24 Part I. How beliefs are created

The idea of ​​the method Recently, a new technique for performing ABC analysis has appeared - the loop method. The method was proposed by A.M. Gadzhinsky and published in his textbook on logistics. As stated, the method is more

Nikolay Nikolaevich Khomenko, 1997-1999, 2004 Axioms of strong thinking: early editions (1997-1999, 2004) AXIOMS ​​OF STRONG THINKING 1. AXIOM OF MODELS In the process of solving a problem, we think in terms of models of elements,

UDC 630*284 V. N. Deneko (Ural State Forestry Academy) INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN RESEARCH ON FOREST TAPING USING THE TREE METHOD Characteristics are given

Are the Argyn Kazakhs descendants of a single ancestor or a union of tribes? The study of Y-chromosomal portraits of the largest tribal group of Kazakhs in comparison with data from traditional genealogy allows us to put forward a hypothesis:

State budgetary educational institution of the city of Moscow "School 118" REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED at the pedagogical council, protocol 1 dated August 29, 2018. APPROVED by Director of GBOU School 118 I.L. Tuychieva

Review of the dissertation of Utubaev Zhanbolat “Sedentary agricultural culture of the Eastern Aral Sea region (second half of the 1st millennium BC)”, submitted for the degree of candidate of historical sciences in

ID00029 Personal interpretation for the carrier of the 67-marker haplotype: 14 24 14 11 11 13 11 12 10 14 14 30 17 10 10 11 12 25 14 19 30 13 13 14 14 11 10 18 20 14 15 18 17 37 37 13 10 11 8 15 17 8 8 10

Dear Guys! This year you begin to study the history of our multinational Motherland of Russia. The textbook you are holding in your hands covers the period from ancient times to the end of the 16th century. It tells

Leaders 2020: leaders of the new generation The importance of leadership for SMB companies What are the main features of an ideal company in the era of the digital economy? She is distinguished by flexibility. Its employees are motivated and

KLIN ID00038 Haplogroup/snips: R1a-Y2910 Haplotype: 14 23 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 29 15 9 9 11 11 25 14 20 33 15 15 15 15 11 11 19 23 15 16 1 8 19 37 37 12 11 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 10 10 12 22 22 16 10

I. LIFE EXPECTANCY AND MORTALITY BY AGE AND GENDER. Since the late thirties, the structure of mortality by age has undergone significant changes in Russia 1. Comparison with Western countries

Ìàãíèòîãîðñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé óíèâåðñèòåò ÏÐÎßÂËÅÍÈÅ ÎÑÍÎÂÍÛÕ ÇÀÊÎÍΠÄÈÀËÅÊÒÈÊÈ Â ÍÀÓ ÍÎÌ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈÈ Â ñòàòüå ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ ðîëü îñíîâíûõ çàêîíîâ äèàëåêòèêè (åäèíñòâà è áîðüáû ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòåé, ïåðåõîäà

Processing of expert assessments and interpretation of results. 1.Introduction The purpose of processing assessments is to obtain a generalized opinion based on multiple expert judgments. Joint processing is usually

Work by FLB-22 student Elena Shamova Ancient Greek (ancient Greek ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ γλῶσσα) is a stage in the development of the Greek language, covering the period from approximately the 9th century. BC. until the 5th century AD Ancient Greek

On the question of interpreting the results of a sociological study. Recently, the Levada Center presented the results of its study analyzing Russians’ ideas about themselves. results

V.I. Moiseev, 2010 Lecture 13. Logic of antinomies Plan 1. Criterion of logical demarcation 2. Antinomy of the Absolute 3. Species differentiation of the subject in the antinomy of the Absolute 4. Resolution of the contradiction through

The book presents lectures by academician. A. A. Shakhmatov on Russian dialectology, which he read in 1909-1915, 1919. students of the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. The lectures were

KLIN ID00037 Personal interpretation for the carrier of the 67-marker haplotype 13 25 15 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 11 29 17 9 10 11 11 23 14 20 32 12 12 15 15 11 10 19 23 17 16 19 20 34 42 15 11 11 8 17 17 8 11

30. “Peace Factory”: a traveling interactive exhibition dedicated to issues of peace, conflict, freedom, prejudice and the scapegoat phenomenon Name of the organization: Foundation for Education Projects

The use of such techniques is especially relevant for those who are directly involved in the process of generating documents that require a detailed description of the process and results of resolving certain problems.

N B Rogov How to learn to solve task B15 of the Unified State Exam in computer science (systems of logical equations) in 180+ minutes Materials for classes Online section: http://basicschoolru/?page=eam_info_b15 Theoretical introduction:

World History Subject Test Specification for the Unified National Testing and Comprehensive Testing (Approved for use in the Unified National Testing and Comprehensive Testing

AFTERWORD Every scientific work must contain new knowledge, otherwise it is not truly scientific. Based on this, we would like to explain what is new in this monograph. Brief instructions

2 by the author and previous researchers, that is, this is the first complete study of Kapova Cave. This circumstance gives the work of V.S. Zhitenev’s undoubted scientific novelty and makes it especially relevant.

Identity and opposition of grammatical and logical forms 1 Kant's works led to a clear awareness of ANTINOMY. Kant tried to build an “axiomatic theory of the Universe”, special cases of which

I. V. Yakovlev Materials on mathematics MathUs.ru Quadratic equations and inequalities with parameters. This article is devoted to the location of the roots of a square trinomial depending on the parameter.

SOUTH. Zakharova HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE TRAINING GUIDE FOR PRACTICAL LESSONS Approved by the UMO on classical university education for students of higher educational institutions as a teaching aid

Annotations of work programs in the specialty 02/35/08 Electrification and automation of agriculture ODB.00 General education cycle “History” 1. The purpose of the academic discipline: the formation of historical

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NOVOSIBIRSK STATE UNIVERSITY SPECIALIZED EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTER Mathematics grade 0 SEQUENCE LIMITS Novosibirsk Intuitive

The role of science and technology in economic development Esko Aho, Prime Minister of Finland in 1991 1995, President of the Finnish National Foundation for Research and Development (SITRA) There is one rule,

R. Torstendahl DIALOGUE WITH ACADEMICIAN I.D. KOVALCHENKO ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE Academician I.D. Kovalchenko made a deep impression on me. This was a man who clearly saw the goals of history.

The oldest human sites, 42-45 years old, have been discovered near Voronezh. years We are amazed at historical finds in foreign lands, but we pay little attention to the land on which we live. Scientists are sent

The cosmic microwave background - the day when it goes out. CMB radiation is the day it goes out. Putenikhin P.V. [email protected] Abstract The universe is expanding and someday relict photons become

Indo-European languages ​​(aka Aryan) are divided into groups (from east to west)
- Indian: the actual language of the Aryans who came to India in the 15-12 centuries BC, main. monument - hymns of the Rig Veda, also known as the Book of Hymns. Later, the Vedic language was transformed into Sanskrit (a language that was always literary! and not colloquial), and even later a bunch of different Indian dialects and languages ​​developed, of which you are most interested - Gypsy. Yes, it is an Indo-European language of the Indian group.
- Iranian. Persia, "Avesta" and this is exactly what Zarathushtra said, and not as Nietzsche wrote. From the republics of the Soviet Union, the language of the Iranian group is Tajik, in the Caucasus the language of the Iranian group is Ossetian. The Iranian people were Scythians(but not any other nomads!)
- Armenian. What language it is presented in - guess for yourself ;-)
- Slavic. Let's talk about it separately. You can read about the division into Eastern, Southern and Western Slavs on Wikipedia.
- Baltic. Very close to the Slavic, of all the Indo-European groups, these two separated most recently. Baltic languages ​​- Lithuanian And Latvian(but not Estonian - it is from the Finnish group), several more have become extinct.
- Albanian. Presented in one language. Perhaps it would be useful to clarify that Albanians do not live in the Belarusian city of Bobruisk, but in the west of the Balkan Peninsula, bordering the Montenegrin Slavs and other fragments of Yugoslavia.
- Greek. It is represented by two main languages: Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. In fact, there were more of them, but that’s for linguists.
- Romanesque. This Italy, from Latin to the present day, Spain with the one joining her Portugal, France, Romania, Moldova(sorry, Moldova).
- Germanic. Well, what is the most common language of the Germanic group? No, not German. Who said "English"? Student, let's take your record book, your grade is excellent. Everyone also belongs to the German group Scandinavian(for the list - again on Wiki). Let us remember separately that the language of the Germanic group is Yiddish(and that is precisely why Hebrew was revived in Israel, because it is indecent for them to actually chat in German).
- Celtic, dear to the heart of every lover of the Middle Ages. If you love The Romance of Tristan and Isolde as much as I do, the list of Celtic languages ​​is very easy to remember: it only takes place in Celtic lands. That is, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall (the Cornish language is extinct) plus the Brittany peninsula in France.
That's it, there's an ocean next :-)
I haven't mentioned a few extinct groups that aren't particularly relevant to non-philologists.

Now about the resettlement. There are several hypotheses about where the Indo-Europeans began to settle around the world, but one way or another this is the territory of southern Russia, Ukraine and the surrounding area. It happened quite a long time ago - 7000 years ago. Therefore, although the ancestral home is located in modern Slavic lands, to say that “everyone descended from the Slavs” is a little frivolous. At this time, all these groups do not yet exist, there are only Proto-Indo-Europeans.
Gradually they begin to spread out and after a couple of thousand years the Indo-Iranians are already beyond the Caspian Sea, the ancestors of the Greeks are in the Balkans, and in Central Europe too - either the ancestors of the Celts or the Italians...
In the historical year 2000 (BC, of ​​course), a great event happened - the chariot was invented. As for the date - you know, I’m joking, but this is really the period. And then the settlement of the Indo-Europeans became more fun. The Indo-Iranians quickly divided into Iranians themselves and those who rode off to India in chariots, becoming, logically, Indians. In the west, the Celts also gave the autochthons a light - there is such a colorful Celtic text “War chariot with sickles.” It is, of course, much later, but terribly impressive. As a result, some swallowed almost the entire Hindustan, while others swallowed all of Europe right up to Ireland.
A noble thing is the chariot.
But you also asked me about the Slavs.
A logical question: after all, someone lived in the same Dnieper-Black Sea region - were they Slavs? Or at least the ancestors of the Slavs?
The answer is something like this. Herodotus in the 5th century BC wrote about neuroses (they turn into wolves and all that), and many consider this information about the ancestors of the Slavs. Your humble servant also wrote that the testimony of Herodotus should be understood as a ritual dressing up in skins, and the wolf is the ancestor of the Slavs (for me, but also for wolves, Slavs and... mat).
But this is a hypothesis. There is something about the Slavs in the 1st-2nd centuries AD, but I am not familiar with these texts. But everything really begins in the fifth century, when the Slavs clearly act as a people with their own language and culture.

On the similarities between the Slavs and Indian Aryans. Yes, it's big. Yes, “An Indian is a brother to a Russian,” as they bawled during the time of Khrushchev. But. We must understand that the “similarity between Sanskrit and Russian” is a dozen roots that appeared in newspaper publications about 30 years ago, and other similarities are understandable only to a philologist. Well, for example, what Russian word is related to the name of the Indian goddess of sacred speech Vach? Answer: the verb “to blather”, that is to say “to speak”. Will you see this similarity at first sight? Well, that's all there is to it...

, Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek languages ​​had already separated and developed as independent languages, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Illyrian, Slavic and Baltic languages ​​existed only as dialects of a single Indo-European language. The ancient Europeans, who lived in central Europe north of the Alps, developed a common terminology in the fields of agriculture, social relations and religion.

Various linguists date the beginning of the formation of the Proto-Slavic language within a wide range from the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. until the first centuries of our era; many are inclined to the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. According to glottochronology, Slavic was a separate language in the mid-late 2nd millennium BC. e., some linguists claim earlier dates.

Early Slavic vocabulary and habitats of the Proto-Slavs

Attempts were made to establish the Slavic ancestral home by analyzing early Slavic vocabulary. According to F.P. Filin, the Slavs as a people developed in a forest belt with an abundance of lakes and swamps, far from the sea, mountains and steppes:

“The abundance in the lexicon of the common Slavic language of names for varieties of lakes, swamps, and forests speaks for itself. The presence in the Common Slavic language of various names for animals and birds living in forests and swamps, trees and plants of the temperate forest-steppe zone, fish typical for reservoirs of this zone, and at the same time the absence of Common Slavic names for the specific features of the mountains, steppes and sea - all this gives unambiguous materials for a definite conclusion about the ancestral home of the Slavs... The ancestral home of the Slavs, at least in the last centuries of their history as a single historical unit, was located away from the seas, mountains and steppes, in a forest belt of the temperate zone, rich in lakes and swamps ... ".

From the point of view of linguists, in terms of grammatical structure and other indicators, the Old Slavic language was closest to the Baltic languages. In particular, many words not found in other Indo-European languages ​​are common, including: *rǫka(hand), *golva(head), *lipa(Linden), *gvězda(star), etc. (non-exclusively close are up to 1600 words). V.N. Toporov believed that the Baltic languages ​​are closest to the original Indo-European language, while all other Indo-European languages ​​moved away from their original state in the process of development. In his opinion, the Proto-Slavic language was a Proto-Baltic southern peripheral dialect, which became Proto-Slavic around the 5th century. BC e. and then developed independently into the Old Slavic language.

Archaeological data

The appearance of archaeological cultures, recognized by most archaeologists as Slavic, dates back only to the 6th century. The Prague-Korchak, Penkov and Kolochin cultures are structurally close and separated geographically. It is proposed to distinguish the earlier so-called post-Zarubinets monuments (-IV century) into a separate Kyiv culture, on the basis of which, according to some archaeologists, the above-mentioned cultures developed. Other archaeologists note the Baltic character of the Kievan culture and the lack of continuity in ceramics between the authentically Slavic cultures and the Kievan one.

The study of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs with the help of archeology encounters the following problem: modern science is unable to trace back to the beginning of our era the change and continuity of archaeological cultures, the bearers of which could confidently be attributed to the Slavs or their ancestors. Some archaeologists accept some archaeological cultures at the turn of our era and earlier as Slavic, a priori recognizing the autochthony of the Slavs in a given territory, even if it was inhabited in the corresponding era by other peoples according to synchronous historical evidence.

• Prague-Korczak archaeological culture: the range stretches in a strip from the upper Elbe to the middle Dnieper, touching the Danube in the south and capturing the upper reaches of the Vistula. The area of ​​the early culture of the 5th century is limited to the southern Pripyat basin and the upper reaches of the Dniester, Southern Bug and Prut (Western Ukraine). Corresponds to the habitats of the Sklavins of Byzantine authors.

• Penkovskaya archaeological culture: range from the middle Dniester to the Seversky Donets (western tributary of the Don), capturing the right bank and left bank of the middle part of the Dnieper (territory of Ukraine). Corresponds to the probable habitats of the antes of Byzantine authors.

• Kolochin archaeological culture: habitat in the Desna basin and the upper reaches of the Dnieper (Gomel region of Belarus and Bryansk region of Russia). It adjoins the Prague and Penkovo ​​cultures in the south. Mixing zone of Baltic and Slavic tribes.

• Ipoteshti-Kindeshti culture on the lower and middle left bank of the Danube arose as a result of the expansion of the bearers of the early Penkov culture to the west and the bearers of the Prague-Korchak culture to the south into the modern region. Romania.

• Sukowo-Dziedzicka culture in the area between the Oder and Elbe rivers it adjoins in the south the area of ​​the Prague-Korchak culture. Slavic tribes occupied lands that were depopulated by the 6th century, and apparently assimilated the local population that remained in some places. The Slavs reached the Baltic coast in the lower reaches of the Elbe sometime around the beginning of the 7th century. The northern area of ​​the Sukovo-Dziedzicka culture and the craft and household traditions of the local population caused noticeable differences in the nature of the monuments from the Prague-Korczak culture. The Germans and Scandinavians called the Slavic population of this culture Wends.

There is no consensus among historians and archaeologists on the earlier history and geography of the Proto-Slavs; views evolve as new archaeological material accumulates.

Paleoanthropological data

Thus, anthropological data allow us to conclude that there was an initial anthropological unity of the Slavs and their ancestral homeland.

Within the Slavic anthropological type, subtypes are classified that are associated with the participation of tribes of various origins in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. The most general classification indicates the participation in the formation of the Slavic ethnos of two branches of the Caucasian race: southern (relatively broad-faced mesocranial type, descendants: Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians) and northern (relatively broad-faced dolichocrane type, descendants: Belarusians and Russians). In the north, participation in the ethnogenesis of Finnish tribes was recorded (mainly through the assimilation of Finno-Ugric peoples in the process of expansion of the Slavs to the east); in the south there was a Scythian substrate, noted in the craniometric data of the Polyan tribe. However, it was not the Polyans, but the Drevlyans who determined the anthropological type of future Ukrainians.

Genetic history

The genetic history of an individual and entire ethnic groups is reflected in the diversity of the male sex Y chromosome, namely its non-recombining part. Y-chromosome groups (outdated designation: HG - from the English haplogroup) carry information about a common ancestor, but as a result of mutations they are modified, due to which the stages of development can be traced by haplogroups, or, in other words, by the accumulation of a particular mutation in a chromosome humanity. A person’s genotype, like his anthropological structure, does not coincide with his ethnic identification, but rather reflects the migration processes of large groups of the population during the Late Paleolithic era, which makes it possible to make probable assumptions about the ethnogenesis of peoples at their earliest stage of formation.

Written evidence

Slavic tribes first appear in Byzantine written sources of the 6th century under the name Sklavini and Antes. Retrospectively, in these sources the Antes are mentioned when describing the events of the 4th century. Presumably the Slavs (or ancestors of the Slavs) include the Wends, who, without defining their ethnic characteristics, were reported by the authors of the late Roman period (-II centuries). Earlier tribes noted by contemporaries in the supposed area of ​​formation of the Slavic ethnos (middle and upper Dnieper region, southern Belarus) could have contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, but the extent of this contribution remains unknown due to the lack of information on both the ethnicity of the tribes mentioned in the sources, and along the exact boundaries of the habitat of these tribes and the Proto-Slavs themselves.

Neuroi and Scythian farmers of Herodotus. 5th century BC e.

For the first time, the tribes inhabiting the lands north of the Black Sea were described in his fundamental work by the Greek historian of the mid-5th century. BC e. Herodotus. It is not known whether the Slavic ethnos had formed by this time, but assuming the autochthony of the Slavs in the area between the Dniester and Dnieper rivers, Herodotus’s information is the earliest and only written source over the next 500 years about the possible ancestors of the Slavs.

Archaeologists find a geographical and temporal correspondence to the neurons in the Milograd archaeological culture of the 7th-3rd centuries. BC e., whose range extends to Volyn and the Pripyat River basin (northwestern Ukraine and southern Belarus). On the issue of the ethnicity of the Milogradians (Herodotus's Neuros), the opinions of scientists were divided: V.V. Sedov classified them as Balts, B.A. Rybakov saw them as Proto-Slavs. There are also versions about the participation of Scythian farmers in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, based on the assumption that their name is not ethnic (belonging to Iranian-speaking tribes), but generalizing (belonging to barbarians).

Strabo's Bastarnae. 1st century BC e.

While the expeditions of the Roman legions revealed Germany from the Rhine to the Elbe and the barbarian lands from the middle Danube to the Carpathians to the civilized world, Strabo, in describing Eastern Europe north of the Black Sea region, uses legends collected by Herodotus. Strabo, who critically interpreted the available information, directly stated that there was a white spot on the map of Europe east of the Elbe, between the Baltic and the Western Carpathians mountain range. However, he reported important ethnographic information related to the appearance of bastarns in the western regions of Ukraine.

Whoever ethnically the bearers of the Zarubintsy culture were, their influence can be traced in the early monuments of the Kyiv culture (at first classified as late Zarubintsy), early Slavic according to most archaeologists. According to the assumption of archaeologist M. B. Shchukin, it was the Bastarns, assimilating with the local population, who could play a noticeable role in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, allowing the latter to stand out from the so-called Balto-Slavic community:

“Part of [the Bastarns] probably remained in place and, along with representatives of other “post-Zarubinets” groups, could then take part in the complex process of Slavic ethnogenesis, introducing into the formation of the “common Slavic” language certain “centum” elements, which separate the Slavs from their Baltic or Balto-Slavic ancestors."

It should be noted that linguistics does not support Shchukin’s assumption about the influence of the Bastarns on the separation of the Proto-Slavic language from the Balto-Slavic, since most linguists conventionally date this process to the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e., although some scientists admit the first centuries of our era.

Wends of Roman authors. -II centuries

“Whether the Pevkins, Wends and Fennes should be classified as Germans or Sarmatians, I really don’t know […] The Wends adopted many of their customs, for for the sake of robbery they scour the forests and mountains that exist between the Pevkins [Bastarns] and the Fennes. However, they can rather be classified as Germans, because they build houses for themselves, carry shields and move on foot, and with great speed; all this separates them from the Sarmatians, who spend their entire lives in a cart and on horseback.”

Some historians make hypothetical assumptions that perhaps Ptolemy mentioned among the tribes of Sarmatia and the Slavs under distorted stavan(south of the ships) and sulons(on the right bank of the middle Vistula). The assumption is justified by the consonance of words and intersecting areas.

Slavs and Huns. 5th century

L. A. Gindin and F. V. Shelov-Kovedyaev consider the Slavic etymology of the word to be the most justified strava, pointing to its meaning in Czech "pagan funeral feast" and Polish "funeral feast, wake", while allowing the possibility of Gothic and Hunnic etymology. German historians are trying to derive the word strava from Gothic sûtrava, meaning a pile of wood and possibly a funeral pyre.

Making boats using the hollowing method is not a method unique to the Slavs. Term monoxyl found in Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, Strabo. Strabo points to gouging as a method of making boats in ancient times.

Slavic tribes of the 6th century

Veneds, Sklavins, Antes

For the first time, epigraphic sources report on the Slavic tribes of the Wends ( Venethae), Sklavins (Σκλαβηνοί) and Antes (Άνται) in the middle of the 6th century. Of these tribes, the last two appeared by the beginning of the 6th century on the northern borders of the Byzantine Empire along the left bank of the middle and lower Danube, which chronologically agrees well with archaeological data. The eastern border of the habitat of the Ant Slavs was called the Dnieper (Jordan) or the Northern Azov region (Procopius), the western border of the area ran from the interfluve of the Elbe and Oder (Procopius) or the sources of the Vistula (Jordan) in the north to the present-day. Slovenia in the south.

Noting the close kinship of the Sklavins and Antes, Byzantine authors did not provide any signs of their ethnic division, except for different habitats:

“Both of these barbarian tribes have the same life and laws [...] They both have the same language, which is quite barbaric. And in appearance they do not differ from each other […] And once upon a time even the name of the Sklavens and Ants was the same. In ancient times, both these tribes were called spores [Greek. scattered], I think because they lived, occupying the country “sporadic,” “scattered,” in separate villages.”
“Starting from the birthplace of the Vistula [Vistula] river, a populous tribe of Veneti settled across immeasurable spaces. Although their names now change according to different clans and localities, they are still predominantly called Sclaveni and Antes.”

The Strategikon, whose authorship is attributed to Emperor Mauritius (582-602), contains information about the habitats of the Slavs, consistent with the ideas of archaeologists on early Slavic archaeological cultures:

“They settle in forests or near rivers, swamps and lakes - generally in places that are difficult to access […] Their rivers flow into the Danube […] The possessions of the Slavs and Antes are located along the rivers and touch each other, so that there is no sharp border between them. Due to the fact that they are covered with forests, or swamps, or places overgrown with reeds, it often happens that those who undertake expeditions against them are immediately forced to stop at the border of their possessions, because the entire space in front of them is impassable and covered with dense forests.”

Slavic Slavs

The Slavs first appear on the pages of history in the work of Procopius of Caesarea “War with the Goths”. Part of the Germanic Heruli tribe, after being defeated around 510 (under the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I) by the Lombards, decided to return to their ancestral homeland on the semi-mythical island of Fule via Jutland. The defeat of the Heruls took place somewhere north of the Danube in the area of ​​modern. Slovakia, from where " Led by many leaders of royal blood, they first of all successively passed through all the Slavic tribes, and then, passing through a huge desert region, reached the country of the so-called Varni. After them they passed through the Danish tribes.“Thus, by the 6th century, Slavic tribes inhabited the lower and middle interfluves of the Elbe and Oder (the area of ​​the Prague-Korchak archaeological culture), and the Baltic coast, where, according to archaeological searches, the Western Slavs had lived since the 7th century, was still occupied by the Germans.

The war between the Goths and the Antes took place somewhere in the Northern Black Sea region at the end of the 4th century, if we relate to the death of Germanarich in 376. The question of the Ants in the Black Sea region is complicated by the point of view of some historians, who saw in these Ants the Caucasian Alans or the ancestors of the Circassians. However, Procopius expands the range of the Antes to places north of the Sea of ​​Azov, although without an exact geographical reference:

“The peoples who live here [Northern Azov Sea] in ancient times were called Cimmerians, but now they are called Utigurs. Further, to the north of them, countless tribes of Ants occupy the lands.”

Procopius reported the first known Ant raid on Byzantine Thrace in 527 (the first year of the reign of Emperor Justinian I).

In the ancient German epic “Widside” (the content of which dates back to the 5th century), the list of tribes of northern Europe mentions the Winedum, but there are no other names of Slavic peoples. The Germans knew the Slavs under the ethnonym Veneda(Winedos, Venetiorum) at least from the 7th century, although it cannot be ruled out that the name of one of the Baltic tribes bordering the Germans was transferred by them to the Slavic ethnic group during the era of the Great Migration (as happened in Byzantium with the Rus and the ethnonym Scythians).

Written sources about the origin of the Slavs

The rest of the world learned about the Slavs, who had previously been cut off by the warlike nomads of Eastern Europe when they reached the borders of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines, who consistently fought off waves of barbarian invasions, may not have immediately identified the Slavs as a separate ethnic group and did not report legends about its occurrence. The historian of the 1st half of the 7th century Theophylact Simocatta called the Slavs getae (“ that's what these barbarians were called in the old days"), apparently mixing the Thracian tribe of the Getae with the Slavs who occupied their lands on the lower Danube.

The Old Russian chronicle of the early 12th century “The Tale of Bygone Years” finds the homeland of the Slavs on the Danube, where they were first recorded by Byzantine written sources:

“A long time later [after the biblical Pandemonium of Babylon], the Slavs settled along the Danube, where now the land is Hungarian and Bulgarian. From those Slavs the Slavs spread throughout the land and were called by their names from the places where they sat. So some, having come, sat down on the river in the name of Morava and were called Moravians, while others called themselves Czechs. And here are the same Slavs: white Croats, and Serbs, and Horutans. When the Volochs attacked the Danube Slavs, and settled among them, and oppressed them, these Slavs came and sat on the Vistula and were called Poles, and from those Poles came the Poles, other Poles - Luticians, others - Mazovshans, others - Pomeranians. Likewise, these Slavs came and settled along the Dnieper and were called Polyans, and others - Drevlyans, because they sat in the forests, and others sat between Pripyat and Dvina and were called Dregovichs, others sat along the Dvina and were called Polochans, after the river flowing into the Dvina , called Polota, from which the Polotsk people took their name. The same Slavs who settled near Lake Ilmen were called by their own name - Slavs."

The Polish chronicle “Greater Poland Chronicle” follows this pattern independently, reporting on Pannonia (the Roman province adjacent to the middle Danube) as the homeland of the Slavs. Before the development of archeology and linguistics, historians agreed with the Danube lands as the place of origin of the Slavic ethnic group, but now they recognize the legendary nature of this version.

Review and synthesis of data

In the past (Soviet era), two main versions of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs were widespread: 1) the so-called Polish, which places the ancestral home of the Slavs in the area between the Vistula and Oder rivers; 2) autochthonous, influenced by the theoretical views of the Soviet academician Marr. Both reconstructions a priori recognized the Slavic nature of the early archaeological cultures in the territories inhabited by the Slavs in the early Middle Ages, and some original antiquity of the Slavic language, which independently developed from Proto-Indo-European. The accumulation of data in archeology and the departure from patriotic motivation in research led to the development of new versions based on the identification of a relatively localized core of the formation of the Slavic ethnic group and its spread through migrations to neighboring lands. Academic science has not developed a single point of view on exactly where and when the ethnogenesis of the Slavs took place.

The contribution of the Balts to the ethnogenesis of the Slavs

It was not possible to build a convincing version of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs based on the data of any one scientific discipline; modern theories are trying to combine the data of all historical sciences. In general, it is recognized that the Slavic ethnos was formed from the mixing of ethnically different Indo-European tribes on the border between the Balts and Scythian-Sarmatians with the participation of Celtic, Finnish and other substrates. The most significant contribution was made by the Baltic tribes according to:

Scientists do not confirm (with the exception of contradictory assumptions by linguists) the existence of the Slavic ethnic group in the era BC. e. Determining the ethnic nature of the tribes that later became the people of the Slavs is quite difficult due to the lack of clearly defined ethno-defining features in the archaeological materials of Eastern Europe at the beginning of our era. Most often, previous archaeological cultures in the habitats of the Slavs in Eastern Europe are attributed to the Balts or the ancestors of the Balts, or hypotheses are put forward about a Baltic-Slavic community of that era. There is no reason to say that the Slavs descended from the Balts. Both peoples were formed on the basis of close autochthonous tribes of the Paleolithic era, and the use of the term Balts to the early population of Eastern Europe is due rather to the development and traditions of terminology in archaeology.

Place of ethnogenesis of the Slavs

Archaeological and linguistic data, according to one hypothesis, indicate the formation of the early Slavs in the area between the upper Dniester and the basin of the left tributaries of the middle Dnieper. In the basin of the left tributaries of the middle Dnieper, the earliest monuments (III-IV centuries) of the Kyiv culture were found, the close connection of which with later Slavic cultures is practically beyond doubt. The region is confirmed by the presence of topographical features (forest edges with an abundance of rivers and swamps, the range of some plants), derived for the ancestral home of the Slavs according to versions of linguistics. An auxiliary feature can be the accumulation of hydronyms (names of tributaries) of archaic early Slavic etymology in the southern Pripyat basin, identified by V.I. Toporov and O.N. Trubachev. According to archaeologist M.B. Shchukin, the Proto-Slavic tribes concentrated in those places as a result of external pressure from the migrating peoples of the 3rd century, the Goths from the west and the Sarmatians from the south.

How the expansion of the early Slavs from the region of ethnogenesis occurred, the directions of migration and settlement in central Europe can be traced through the chronological development of archaeological cultures. Typically, the beginning of expansion is associated with the advance of the Huns to the west and the resettlement of Germanic peoples towards the south, associated, among other things, with climate change in the 5th century and the conditions of agricultural activity. By the beginning of the 6th century, the Slavs reached the Danube, where their further history is described in written sources of the 6th century.

The contribution of other tribes to the ethnogenesis of the Slavs

The Scythian-Sarmatians had some influence on the formation of the Slavs due to their long geographical proximity, but their influence, according to archaeology, anthropology, genetics and linguistics, was mainly limited to vocabulary borrowings and the use of horses in the household. According to genetic data, common distant ancestors of some nomadic peoples, collectively called Sarmatians, and the Slavs within the Indo-European community, but in historical times these peoples evolved independently of each other.

According to genetics, the Finno-Ugric peoples, as well as the Eastern Baltic peoples, who were strongly mixed with them, did not take part in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs.

The contribution of the Germans to the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, according to anthropology, archeology and genetics, is insignificant. At the turn of the era, the region of ethnogenesis of the Slavs (Sarmatia) was separated from the places of residence of the Germans by a certain zone of “mutual fear,” according to Tacitus. The existence of an uninhabited area between the Germans and the Proto-Slavs of Eastern Europe is confirmed by the absence of noticeable archaeological sites from the Western Bug to the Neman in the first centuries AD. e. The presence of similar words in both languages ​​is explained by a common origin from the Indo-European community of the Bronze Age and close contacts in the 4th century after the start of the migration of the Goths from the Vistula to the south and east.

Notes

1. The Wends are associated with the Pomeranian culture, which was widespread on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea at the confluence of the Vistula before the invasion of the Goths.
2. From the report of V.V. Sedov “Ethnogenesis of the early Slavs” (2002)
3. O. N. Trubachev, ETHNOGENESIS OF THE SLAVS AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN PROBLEM, (Etymology. 1988-1990. - M., 1992. - P. 12-28
4. O. N. Trubachev. Linguistics and ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Questions of linguistics. - M., 1982, No. 4.
5. The dates of linguists are given in the book by V.V. Sedov “Slavs” (chapter Linguistics and the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs). G. Shevelev, Z. Golomb: approx. 1000 BC e.; T. Lehr-Splawiński, M. Vasmer, P. Arumaa, A. Lemprecht, V. Georgiev: 500–400. BC e.; S. B. Bernstein: the end of repeated contact of the 3rd–2nd centuries. BC e.; G. Birnbaum, Φ. P. Filin: at the turn of eras; Z. Stieber and G. Lant: the first centuries of our era.
6. S. A. Starostin, V. Blazhek, J. Navotna, V. Porzig coincides with them.
7. A. Meie, S. B. Bernshtein, O. N. Trubachev, G. A. Khaburgaev, Y. Rozvadovsky and others.
8. However, the Slavs do not know the types of swamps; there is only one word for swamp, unlike the Balts. Therefore, swampy terrain is questionable.
9. F. P. Filin (1962). From the report of M. B. Shchukin “The Birth of the Slavs”
10. Rostafinski (1908). From the report of M. B. Shchukin “The Birth of the Slavs”
11. Turubanova S. A., Ecological scenario of the history of the formation of living cover in European Russia, dissertation for the degree of candidate of biological sciences, 2002:
12. Toporov V. N., Trubachev O. N. Linguistic analysis of hydronyms of the Upper Dnieper region. M., 1962.
13. Ivanov, Toporov, 1958. From the report of M. B. Shchukin “The Birth of the Slavs”
14. V. N. Toporov, collection “Baltic languages”, -M., 2006
15. V. V. Martynov. Slavs. Ethnogenesis and ethnic history. Interuniversity collection of articles. Ed. Leningrad State University, 1989
16. Ethogenesis and ethnic history of the Eastern Slavs. 2nd ed. // East Slavs. Anthropology. - M.: Scientific world, 2002. - P. 310. - ISBN 5-89176-164-5
17. From the article by Academician T. I. Alekseeva “Anthropological composition of East Slavic peoples and the problem of their origin.”
18. Ethogenesis and ethnic history of the Eastern Slavs // Eastern Slavs. Anthropology. - 2nd ed. - M.: Scientific world, 2002. - P. 315. - ISBN 5-89176-164-5
19. Academician V.P. Alekseev, “In search of ancestors. Anthropology and history": Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs. “Soviet Russia”, M., 1972
20. Academicians V. P. Alekseev, T. I. Alekseeva
21. V. P. Alekseev, “In search of ancestors. Anthropology and history": Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs. “Soviet Russia”, M., 1972
22. I. N. Danilevsky: Ancient Rus' through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries) Lecture 3.
23. According to one version, the people of Rus', who gave their name to the first state of the Eastern Slavs, came to the Novgorod lands (see Calling of the Varangians) from the island of Rügen. See article Rus' (people)
24. See the table and links in the article Gene pool of the Slavs
25. : Am. J.Hum. Genet., Vol. 82, Is. 1, 236-250, 10 January 2008
26. K. Rebala et. al., Y-STR variation among Slavs: evidence for the Slavic homeland in the middle Dnieper basin: J. of Hum. Gen., Vol. 52, No. 5. (May 2007), pp. 406-414.
27. Y-STR variation
28. Map of monuments of Prague-Korczak culture from the book: Sedov V.V., "Slavs in the Early Middle Ages". - M., 1995
29. The local Greeks called the Scythian farmers Borysthenes after Borysthenes, the Greek name for the Dnieper.
30. Herodotus, 4.105
31. Borysphenites lived along the right bank of the Dnieper for 11 days of sailing from the sea (Herodotus, 4.18), which approximately corresponds to the area of ​​residence up to the Dnieper rapids.

To the origins of Rus' [People and language] Trubachev Oleg Nikolaevich

Ethnogenesis of the Slavs and the Indo-European problem