The origin of the Indo-Europeans and their settlement in the light of archaeological data. Ethnogenesis and mythogenesis of the Indo-Europeans

The stories of all peoples go back to ancient times. People often traveled long distances in search of suitable conditions for their homes. You can learn more about who the Indo-Europeans are and how they are related to the Slavs from this article.

Who is this?

Speakers of an Indo-European language are called Indo-Europeans. Currently this ethnic group includes:

• Slavs
• Germans.
• Armenians
• Hindus.
• Celts.
• Grekov.

Why are these peoples called Indo-European? Almost two centuries ago, great similarities were discovered between European languages ​​and Sanskrit, the dialect spoken by Indians. The group of Indo-European languages ​​includes almost all European languages. The exceptions are Finnish, Turkic and Basque.

The original habitat of the Indo-Europeans was Europe, but due to the nomadic lifestyle of most peoples, it spread far beyond the original territory. Now representatives of the Indo-European group can be found on all continents of the world. The historical roots of the Indo-Europeans go far into the past.

Homeland and ancestors

You may ask, how is it that Sanskrit and European languages ​​have similar sounds? There are many theories about who the Indo-Europeans were. Some scientists suggest that the ancestor of all peoples with similar languages ​​were the Aryans, who, as a result of migrations, formed different peoples with different dialects, which remained similar in the main. Opinions also differ about the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans. According to the Kurgan theory, widespread in Europe, the territories of the Northern Black Sea region, as well as the lands between the Volga and Dnieper, can be considered the homeland of this group of peoples. Why then does the population of different European countries differ so much? Everything is determined by differences in climatic conditions. After mastering the technologies of domesticating horses and making bronze, the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans began to actively migrate in different directions. The difference in territories explains the differences in Europeans, which took many years to form.

Historical roots

• The first option is Western Asia or Western Azerbaijan.
• The second option, which we have already described above, is certain lands of Ukraine and Russia, on which the so-called Kurgan culture was located.
• And the last option is eastern or central Europe, or more precisely the Danube Valley, the Balkans or the Alps.

Each of these theories has its opponents and supporters. But this question has still not been resolved by scientists, although research has been ongoing for more than 200 years. And since the homeland of the Indo-Europeans is not known, it is also not possible to determine the territory of the origin of the Slavic culture. After all, this will require accurate data about the ancestral homeland of the main ethnic group. The tangled tangle of history, which contains more mysteries than answers, is beyond the power of modern humanity to unravel. And the time of the birth of the Indo-European language is also shrouded in darkness: some call the date 8 centuries BC, others - 4.5 centuries. BC.

Traces of a former community

Despite the isolation of peoples, traces of commonality can be easily traced among the various descendants of the Indo-Europeans. What traces of the former community of Indo-Europeans can be cited as evidence?

• Firstly, this is the language. He is the thread that still connects people on different parts of the planet. For example, Slavic people have such general concepts as “god”, “hut”, “axe”, “dog” and many others.
• The commonality can also be seen in the applied arts. The embroidery patterns of many European nations are strikingly similar to each other.
• The common homeland of the Indo-European peoples can also be traced by “animal” traces. Many of them still have a cult of the deer, and some countries hold annual holidays in honor of the awakening of the bear in the spring. As you know, these animals are found only in Europe, and not in India or Iran.
• In religion one can also find confirmation of the theory of community. The Slavs had a pagan god Perun, and the Lithuanians had Perkunas. In India, the Thunderer was called Parjanye, the Celts called him Perkunia. And the image of the ancient god is very similar to the main deity of Ancient Greece - Zeus.

Genetic markers of Indo-Europeans

The main distinguishing feature of the Indo-Europeans is their linguistic community. Despite some similarities, different peoples of Indo-European origin are very different from each other. But there is other evidence of their commonality. Although genetic markers do not 100% prove the common origin of these peoples, they still add more common characteristics.

The most common haplogroup among Indo-Europeans is R1. It can be found among the peoples who inhabited the territories of Central and Western Asia, India and Eastern Europe. But this gene was not found in some Indo-Europeans. Scientists believe that the language and culture of the Proto-Indo-Europeans were transmitted to these people not through marriage, but through trade and socio-cultural communications.

Who applies

Many modern peoples are descendants of Indo-Europeans. These include the Indo-Iranian peoples, Slavs, Balts, Romanesque peoples, Celts, Armenians, Greeks and Germanic peoples. Each group, in turn, is divided into other, smaller groups. The Slavic branch is divided into several branches:

• South;
• Eastern;
• Western.

The South, in turn, is divided into such famous peoples as Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Slovenes. Among the Indo-Europeans there are also completely extinct groups: the Tocharians and Anatolian peoples. The Hittites and Luwians are considered to have appeared in the Middle East two thousand years BC. Among the Indo-European group there is also one people who do not speak the Indo-European language: the Basque language is considered isolated and it has not yet been precisely established where it originates.

Problems

The term "Indo-European problem" appeared in the 19th century. It is connected with the still unclear early ethnogenesis of the Indo-Europeans. What was the population of Europe like during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages? Scientists have not yet come to a consensus. The fact is that in the Indo-European languages ​​that can be found on the territory of Europe, sometimes elements of non-Indo-European origin are found. Scientists, studying the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans, combine their efforts and use all possible methods: archaeological, linguistic and anthropological. After all, in each of them lies a possible clue to the origin of the Indo-Europeans. But so far these attempts have led nowhere. More or less studied areas are the territories of the Middle East, Africa and Western Europe. The remaining parts remain a huge blank spot on the archaeological map of the world.

Studying the language of Proto-Indo-Europeans also cannot provide scientists with much information. Yes, it is possible to trace the substrate in it - the “traces” of languages ​​supplanted by Indo-European ones. But it is so weak and chaotic that scientists have never come to a consensus about who the Indo-Europeans are.

Settlement

The Indo-Europeans were originally sedentary peoples, and their main occupation was arable farming. But with climate change and the coming cold, they had to begin to develop neighboring lands, which were more favorable for life. From the beginning of the third millennium BC it became the norm for the Indo-Europeans. During the resettlement, they often entered into military conflicts with the tribes living on the lands. Numerous skirmishes are reflected in the legends and myths of many European peoples: Iranians, Greeks, Indians. After the peoples inhabiting Europe were able to domesticate horses and make bronze items, the resettlement gained even greater momentum.

How are Indo-Europeans and Slavs related? You can understand this if you follow their spread. Their spread began from the southeast of Eurasia, which then moved to the southwest. As a result, the Indo-Europeans settled all of Europe as far as the Atlantic. Some of the settlements were located on the territory of the Finno-Ugric peoples, but they did not go further than them. The Ural Mountains, which were a serious obstacle, stopped Indo-European settlement. In the south they advanced much further and settled in Iran, Iraq, India and the Caucasus. After the Indo-Europeans settled across Eurasia and began to lead again, their community began to disintegrate. Under the influence of climatic conditions, peoples became more and more different from each other. Now we can see how strongly anthropology was influenced by the living conditions of the Indo-Europeans.

Results

Modern descendants of Indo-Europeans inhabit many countries of the world. They speak different languages, eat different foods, but still share common distant ancestors. Scientists still have many questions about the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans and their settlement. We can only hope that, over time, comprehensive answers will be received. As well as the main question: “Who are the Indo-Europeans?”

Ethnogenesis - the moment of origin and the subsequent process of development of any people, leading to a certain state, type, phenomenon. Includes both the initial stages of the emergence of a nation and the further formation of its ethnographic, linguistic and anthropological characteristics.

The East Slavic peoples include Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, as well as sub-ethnic groups of small numbers: Pomors, Don Cossacks, Zaporozhye Cossacks, Nekrasov Cossacks, Russian Ustyintsy, Markovtsy and some others. The territory of residence of these peoples is compact, limited from the west by Poland, the Baltic countries, the Scandinavian countries, from the north - the Arctic Ocean, then from the east by the Dvina and Volga rivers and from the south - the Black Sea. The main part falls on the East European Plain, which dictates the main landscape of the territory (plains, deciduous forest zone). The climate is moderate.

The Eastern Slavs are characterized by two anthropological types: Atlanto-Baltic and Central European.

Atlanto-Baltic minor race characterized by light skin pigmentation, light shades of eyes and hair. The hair is wide-wavy and soft, beard growth is average to above average, tertiary hair growth is average to weak. The face and head are quite large. The cephalic pointer points to the boundaries of dolicho and mesocephaly, the height of the face somewhat prevails over the width. The height of the lower part of the face is significant. The nose is usually straight and narrow, with a high bridge. Characteristic of Russian and Belarusian populations.

Central European small race is close to the Atlanto-Baltic, but is distinguished by stronger hair pigmentation (“brown-haired belt”). The cephalic index is usually brachycephalic. Most facial proportions are average. Beard growth is average and above average, tertiary hair growth is moderate. The nose has a straight back and a high bridge, its length varies. The eastern variants of this race are lighter. Typical for Russians and Ukrainians.

In addition, several complexes are distinguished (according to T.I. Alekseeva), which are based on features inherent in the population of a particular territory: Baltic, Belozersk-Kama, Valdai-Upper Dnieper, Central-Eastern European, Dnieper, steppe, Volga-Kama and Priuralsky Of the listed anthropological complexes, three are most widespread among the East Slavic population: Valdai-Verkhnednaprovsky(widely distributed throughout the Dvina-Pripyat interfluve, in the middle reaches of the Western Dvina) - among the Belarusians and Russian population of the upper reaches of the Dnieper and the sources of the Volga, Central-Eastern European(localized along the Oka and its tributaries, in the upper reaches of the Don, along the Klyazma, in the upper and middle reaches of the Volga) - among most Russian groups and Dnieper(distributed in the middle reaches of the Dnieper and its tributaries) - among Ukrainians. The remaining complexes noted on the territory of Eastern Europe are found in the Slavic population mainly in contact zones. Consideration of territorial options in the anthropological composition of the modern East Slavic population showed that, across the entire complex of racial diagnostic traits, Russians and Belarusians gravitate towards the northwestern groups, Ukrainians towards the southern ones.

The most important result of anthropological research on the territory of Eastern Europe to the problems of ethnogenesis of the East Slavic peoples is the identification of the East European type as a special independent branch within the Caucasoid race. This type is characteristic of the population of the central regions of the area of ​​the Russian people.

In the central regions of Ukraine V.D. Dyachenko identifies the Central Ukrainian type (the same type, called Dnieper, is identified by T.I. Alekseev). This reflected the well-known uniqueness of Ukrainians in anthropological features in comparison with Russians and Belarusians. In general, the characteristics of the southern Mediterranean small race are more pronounced among Ukrainians than among their neighbors.

The people who inhabited the north and center of the East European Plain spoke Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages. East Slavic peoples speak Slavic languages ​​of the Indo-European group. These languages ​​are close to the Baltic languages ​​spoken by Lithuanians and Latvians. The branch of Slavic languages ​​emerged in the 5th - 6th centuries AD. Both at that time and in subsequent centuries there was no clear connection and demarcation of tribes along linguistic lines; tribes fought or maintained good neighborly relations without giving primary importance to ethnic differences or similarities.

Almost all sources very expressively, with reference to a specific territory, record the Slavs only from the middle of the 1st millennium AD. (most often with IV), i.e. when they appear on the historical stage of Europe as a large ethnic community.

The prehistory of the Eastern Slavs begins with the 3rd millennium BC. The tribes of the Proto-Slavs already knew hoe farming And cattle breeding. It has been established that within the 4th millennium BC. pastoral and agricultural tribes, carriers of the Balkan-Danube archaeological culture, occupied the region of the lower reaches of the Dniester and the Southern Bug. The next stage was the settlement of the “Trypillian” tribes - 3rd millennium BC. These were tribes with a developed cattle-breeding and agricultural economy for their time, inhabitants of huge settlements.

During the Middle Ages, the following tribes of the Eastern Slavs stood out: Krivichi, Slovenians of Novgorod, Vyatichi, Radimichi, Dregovichi, Northerners, Polyans, Tivertsy, Ulichs, Drevlyans.

More or less definitely we can talk about significant anthropological similarities between the East Slavic tribes that took part in the formation of the Russian population. A common complex for all Slavic groups can be considered a low, highly profiled face, a fairly wide, medium-to-strongly protruding nose. The magnitude of the angles of horizontal profiling and protrusion of the nose allows us to classify the East Slavic population as a group of Caucasoid forms, with the exception of the Krivichi of the northeastern regions (Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir-Ryazan groups), in which Caucasoid features are somewhat weakened.

Despite the noticeable homogeneity of the physical appearance of the Eastern Slavs, differences are noted between their individual groups. These are differences in the cranial index and zygomatic diameter. The combination of these sizes allows us to identify several anthropological complexes in the territory of interest to us: dolichocranial narrow-faced among the Vyatichi, dolichocranial with an average facial width among the Smolensk and Tver Krivichi and northerners.

How can the genesis of Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians be outlined in general terms?

The settlement of the Slavs in Eastern Europe was carried out from Central Europe. Dolichocrane, relatively broad-faced southern forms were represented here. The former are more manifested in tribes associated with the genesis of Belarusians and Russians, the latter - with Ukrainians. As they advanced, they included the indigenous Finno-, Balto- and Iranian-speaking populations. In the southeastern areas of settlement, the Slavs also came into contact with nomadic Turkic-speaking groups. The anthropological composition of the Eastern Slavs of the Middle Ages reflects the participation of local groups to a greater extent than in subsequent centuries. Apparently, some Slavic groups of the Middle Ages, for example, the Vyatichi and the Eastern Krivichi, were not so much Slavs as the Finnish population assimilated by the Slavs. Approximately the same can be said in relation to the Polyans, who there is reason to consider as assimilated Chernyakhovites.

In subsequent centuries, there was an influx of Slavic population, to some extent leveling out the anthropological differences between individual East Slavic groups. However, the anthropological heterogeneity of the substrate, some differences in the original forms, and the specifics of ethnic history could not but affect the physical appearance of the East Slavic peoples.

Russians currently turn out to be a more or less anthropologically homogeneous people, genetically related to the northwestern and western populations, and having absorbed the features of the local Finno-Ugric substrate. The anthropological variants identified in it, except for contact zones, are apparently associated with the size of the circle of marriage connections, and not with different genetic origins.

As for the Finno-Ugric substrate in the Eastern Slavs, in the Middle Ages it manifests itself among the Vyatichi and northeastern Krivichi - tribes that took part in the formation of the Russian people. The Vyatichi, reflecting the features of the Finno-Ugric population of the East European Plain, through the Dyakontsy go back to the Neolithic population of this territory, known from single, albeit gracile, Caucasoid skulls from the Volodarskaya and Panfilovskaya sites. The northeastern Krivichi exhibit features characteristic of the Neolithic population of the Pit-Comb Ware culture of the forest belt of Eastern Europe. The features of the Finno-Ugric substrate can be traced in the anthropological appearance of the Russian people, but their proportion in the modern population is less than in the Middle Ages. This is explained by the spread of the Slavic population from the western and northwestern territories, apparently in the late Middle Ages.

The Ukrainians, being associated in their genesis with the medieval Tivertsy, Ulichs and Drevlyans, included in their anthropological composition the features of the Central European substrate - relatively broad-faced, mesocranial, known from the Neolithic tribes of the Bell-Beaker culture and the population of the 1st millennium BC. left bank of the Danube.

At the same time, taking into account their anthropological similarity with the glades, we can conclude that, along with Slavic elements, elements of a pre-Slavic substrate, apparently Iranian-speaking, took part in the formation of the physical appearance of the Ukrainian people. As already noted, the Polyans are the direct descendants of the Chernyakhovites, who, in turn, show anthropological continuity with the Scythians of the forest belt (Alekseeva, 1971).

The Belarusians, judging by the similarity of their physical appearance with the Dregovichi, Radimichi and Polotsk Krivichi, were formed on the basis of that branch of Slavic tribes that is associated with the northern part of the Slavic ancestral home. At the same time, the territorial differentiation of the anthropological composition of Belarusians allows for the assumption of the participation in their genesis of the Balts, on the one hand, and the East Slavic tribes of more southern territories, in particular Volyn, on the other.

The formation of the Russian population took place on a relatively homogeneous anthropological basis; its composition largely included not only morphologically, but also genetically heterogeneous elements.

Issues of the ethnic history of the Russian population are inextricably linked with the ethnic history of the Letto-Lithuanian and Finno-Ugric populations; ethnic ties were formed during the period of Slavic colonization of the East European Plain and are clearly evident to this day. It is possible that the origins of these connections go back to more ancient times.

Sections 2 – 3

Old Russian state (X century - first half of the 12th century)

♦ The chronicler Nestor was the founder of the theory of ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs:

A. Autochthonous

B. Balkan-Danube

G. Central European

D. Asian migration.

♦ Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky was a supporter of the theory of ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs:

A. Autochthonous

B . Western migration

IN. Norman

G. Asian migration.

♦ The concept of ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs, dominant in Soviet historical science:

A.Autochthonous

B. Scythian-Sarmatian

IN. Norman

G. Western migration.

♦ The historian L. Gumilyov was a supporter of the theory of ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs:

A. Central European

B. Western migration

IN. Norman

G. Autochthonous

D . Asian migration .

♦ Terms not related to the ethnonym “Normans”:

A. Vikings

B. b Ulgars

IN. Danes

G.Scythians

D. Varangians.

♦ The Slavs were called Varangians:

A. Scandinavians

B. Celts

IN. Angles and Saxons

G. francs

♦ Paganism is characterized:

A. strict monotheism

B. hierarchy of clergy

IN. refusal to deify the forces of nature

G. the presence of a cult of tribal gods.

♦ The path "from the Varangians to the Greeks":

A. Volkhovsko-Volzhsky;

B. Volkhovsko-Dneprovsky;

IN."Saracens" way;

G. Balkan-Danube.

♦ The oldest chronicle, which contains a story about the calling of the Varangians:

A. Russian truth;

B. The Tale of Bygone Years;

IN. The tale of the destruction of the Russian land.

♦ A trend in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters consider the Varangians to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus':

A. migration theory

B.Norman theory

IN. natural theory

G. autochthonous theory.

♦ Scientists who formulated the Norman theory:

A. V. Tatishchev and N. Karamzin

B. G. Bayer, G. Miller and A. Schlözer

IN. S. Soloviev and V. Klyuchevsky.

♦ Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky was a supporter of the concept of the origin of the Old Russian state:

A. autochthonous

B. migration

IN. Norman

G. anti-Norman.

♦ Nestor on the origin of the ethnonym “Rus” (“Russian”):

A. from the Varangian tribe "Rus" from Scandinavia

B. from the Slavic tribe "Ros", living on the river. Ros

IN. from the Baltic tribe "Prussians"

G. from the Slavic word “blond” (light).

♦ Two theories about the Scandinavian (Norman) origin of the ethnonym “Rus”:

A. from the hydronym "Ros" (tributary of the Dnieper)

B. ethnonym "Rugi" (Varangian tribe from the island of Rügen)

IN. from the word “blond” (light)

G. ethnonym "ruotsi"

D. from the Proto-Slavic word “rusa” (river).

♦ Autochthonous theories of the origin of the ethnonym “Rus”:

A. from the Proto-Slavic word “blond” (light)

B. from the Proto-Slavic word “rusa” (river)

IN. ethnonym "ruotsi".

G.from the hydronym "Ros" (tributary of the Dnieper)

♦ Along which trade route were the main political centers of the East Slavic state located in the 9th–11th centuries?

A. IN Olkhov-Dnieper Mainline – the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”

B. Great Volga Way – "from the Varangians to the Persians"

IN. Northern trade route.

♦ Terms of the agreement between the Grand Duke of Kyiv and the allied (tribal) princes at the end of the 9th - 10th centuries. provided:

A. the duty of the allied princes to annually bring tribute to Kyiv

B. the duty of the allied princes to receive the governors of the Grand Duke of Kyiv

IN. the duty of the allied princes to supply military militia to Kyiv in the event of major

national campaigns.

♦ During the reign of which prince the local tribal kingdoms were abolished:

A. Rurik

B. Vladimir Saint

IN. Yaroslav the Wise

G. Vladimir Monomakh.

♦ The first Russian chronicle was called:

A."The Tale of Igor's Campaign"

B. "The Tale of Bygone Years"

IN. "Lesson for Children" by Vladimir Monomakh

G."A Word on Law and Grace."

♦ The chronicler Nestor was a monk... of the monastery:

A. Chudova

B. Kiev-Pechersk

IN. Trinity–Sergiev

G. Solovetsky.

♦ Collection of tribute from the subject population in the Old Russian state in the 9th-10th centuries. took the form….

A. cash rent

B. sharecropping

IN. poll tax

G. polyudya

D. working rent.

♦ The Drevlyan uprising in 945 was caused by:

A. reluctance of the Drevlyans to accept Christianity

B. the reluctance of the Drevlyans to take part in the campaigns of Prince Svyatoslav

IN. Prince Igor's attempt to take tribute from the Drevlyans a second time

G. intertribal strife between the Drevlyans and Vyatichi

♦ Indicate which prince ruled in the Old Russian state in:

A. 879–912 Oleg

B. 912–945 Igor Rurikovich

IN. 980–1015 Vladimir Svyatoslavich

♦ Indicate which prince ruled in:

A. 872–879 Rurik

B. 879–912 Oleg

IN. 1019–1054 Yaroslav the Wise

♦ Indicate which prince:

A. united Novgorod and Kyiv (North and South) Oleg

B. laid the foundation for the compilation of “Russian Truth” by Yaroslav the Wise

IN. defeated the Khazar Khaganate. Svyatoslav Igorevich

♦ Reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich:

A. 882–912

B. 980–1015

IN. 1113–1125

G. 1125–1132

♦ The names of Cyril and Methodius are associated with:

A. the emergence of Slavic writing

B. translation of church books into Russian

IN. creation of libraries at princely courts

♦ Vladimir I was recognized as a "Saint" because:

A. adopted Christianity and made this religion the state

B. began the construction of serif lines (notched)

IN. introduced human sacrifices to Perun in Kyiv

G. carried out punitive campaigns against Slavic tribes.

♦ What is the main reason for Russia's adoption of Christianity?:

A. Prince Vladimir liked Christian worship when choosing a faith

B. this faith was imposed on Rus' by the more developed Byzantium

IN . Christianity responded to the idea of ​​unifying Rus', strengthening the power of the prince

G. Orthodoxy turned out to be closer than any other faith to Russian society.

♦ Rus' adopted Christianity from:

A. Lithuania

B. Poland

WITH. Byzantium

D. Livonian Order.

♦ The consequences of the adoption of Christianity in the Old Russian state include:

A. weakening of the power of the Grand Duke

B. worsening relations between Rus' and neighbors who adhered to a different faith

IN. worsening strife between Russian princes

G.the introduction of Rus' to Greek and Byzantine culture.

♦ Head of the Orthodox Church in the 11th century. was:

A. Patriarch of Constantinople

B. Pope

IN. Patriarch of All Rus'

G. Kyiv Patriarch.

♦ During the reign of Princess Olga there was

A. weakening of central power

B. the emergence of civil strife

IN. introduction of a new set of laws

G. streamlining the collection of tribute

♦ In 964-965 Svyatoslav marched on the Volga and defeated

A. Volga Bulgaria

B. Byzantium

IN. Hungary

G. Khazar Khaganate

♦ The heyday of Kievan Rus occurred during the reign of

A. Vsevolod's Big Nest

B. Andrey Bogolyubsky

IN. Ivan Kalita

G. Yaroslav the Wise

♦ The legislation "Russian Truth" is associated with the name:

A. Ivan Kalita

B. Yaroslav the Wise

IN. Vladimir Monomakh

G. Alexander Nevsky.

♦ Hereditary land property:

A. estate

B. fief

IN. fiefdom

G. black lands.

♦ According to "Russian Truth" in the era of Kievan Rus there were….

A.serfs

B. nobles

IN. Sagittarius

G. commoners

D. state peasants.

A. Greedy

B. tiuns

IN. procurement and rank and file

G. servants.

♦ The purchasers in Rus' were peasants:

A. who received a loan of money or grain from the boyar and worked it off

B. bequeathed their plot of land to the master

IN. bought their plot of land from the boyar

G. rented land from the boyar.

♦ In Kievan Rus they called ryadovich:

A. ordinary vigilante

B. servant

IN. contract employee

G. a captive forced into slavery.

♦ Armed detachments under the prince in Ancient Rus', participating in campaigns and administration are:

A. army

B. squad

IN. princely youths

G. older men.

♦ The senior squad of the Kyiv prince consisted of...

A. boyars

B. heads of the prince's household

IN. youths

G. elders of the city.

♦ The terms of the agreement concluded between the prince and the squad in the 10th–11th centuries provided for the obligations (choose the correct judgments):

A. The prince took upon himself the fair distribution of funds obtained jointly with the squad

B. The prince took upon himself the obligation to provide the warrior-vassal with patrimony land

IN. The squad was supposed to support and protect the prince

G. The warrior was obliged to pay the prince a tithe from the income from the exploitation of the estates.

♦ The terms of the agreement concluded between the prince and the squad in the 10th–11th centuries provided for:

A. The prince's right to collect tribute

B. The right of the squad to collect tribute

WITH. Mutual obligations of the prince and warriors

D. The prince's obligation to provide the warrior-vassal with a fiefdom.

♦ If the ancient Russian prince violates the terms of the agreement with the squad:

A. The warrior had the right to stop serving the former prince (“the right to leave”);

B. The prince expelled the squad, inviting squads of boyars to serve;

WITH. The squad had the right to expel an unwanted prince and invite a new one;

D. The prince relieved himself of the obligation to allocate part of the tribute received and to protect the former warrior.

♦ The veche interfered in the government activities of the prince in the Old Russian state (choose the correct judgments):

A. In peacetime, upon the accession to the throne of a prince by right of inheritance, a prince pleasing to the townspeople

B. In peacetime, when a strong and popular prince was in power

IN. In emergency situations (inter-princely strife, a change on the princely throne or resolving issues of war and peace)

G . When a weak, unpopular prince is in power.

♦ The Old Russian veche decided the issue of “accepting” the prince in the event of:

A. Seizure of power in the city by the prince and his squad

B. Accession to the throne of a prince by right of inheritance, a prince pleasing to the townspeople

IN. Accession to the throne of a prince in violation of the right of inheritance (“illegal” prince)

G. Accession to the throne of the prince by right of inheritance.

♦ Dynastic rule in the Russian principalities was introduced:
A. Testament of Yaroslav the Wise
B. Russian truth

IN. The decision of the Lyubechsky Congress.

♦ The Princely Congress in Lyubech decided:

A. on organizing a campaign against the Polovtsians

B. on the procedure for replacing the Kyiv throne

IN. “Each one to own his own fatherland”

G. about organizing a campaign to Byzantium (“to Tsar-grad”).

♦ The natural process of economic strengthening and political isolation of feudal possessions is called

A. feeding

B. political fragmentation

IN. centralization

G. localism

♦ Establish a correspondence between a term related to the history of Kievan Rus and its definition

1. metropolitan
2. fiefdom
3. vira

Answer options.

The True History of the Russian People

Yu. D. Petukhov

BY THE ROADS OF THE GODS

Ethnogenesis and mythogenesis of the Indo-Europeans. Resolution of the main problem of Indo-European studies.

Metagalaxy 1998

UD K 931 "The True History of the Russian BBK 63.3(0)3 People." Index 45898

Compiled by Dm. Andreev Photos by N. I. Tsepeleva and Yu. D. Petukhov

P31 Petukhov Yu. D. On the roads of the Gods: Ethnogenesis and mythogenesis of the Indo-Europeans. Resolution of the main problem of Indo-European studies: Monograph. - M.: Publishing house "Metagalaktika", 1998. - 256 p., ill., photo, incl. - (series "The True History of the Russian People", issue 1).

The monograph of the famous historian Yu. D. Petukhov sets out the essence of his discovery in the field of Indo-European studies and the entire ancient history of mankind: the ancestral group of Indo-Europeans, who gave birth to almost all the peoples of Europe and many peoples of Asia, were the Proto-Slavs-Russians who lived in the 15th-2000s BC . e. in Asia Minor, in the Balkans, the Apennines, in Central Europe, throughout the Mediterranean, in the Northern Black Sea region... All, without exception, the languages ​​of the Indo-European language family, including “ancient Greek” and Sanskrit, developed from the single language of the Proto-Russians. There are also the origins of all mythologies, including “ancient”, Indo-Aryan, Germanic, Celtic, etc.

The monograph is written vividly, imaginatively, captivatingly, and is supplied with many illustrations and photographs. It is of undoubted interest not only for specialists - linguists, historians, ethnologists - but also for the widest layers of readers interested in the secrets and mysteries of History.

"On the Roads of the Gods" is an intellectual bestseller of the late 20th century.

ISBN 5-85141-022-1 UDC 931

BBK 63.3(0)3 (c) Yu. D. Petukhov, 1998 (c) Design "Metagalaxy", 1998

Index 45896

Preface

You are holding in your hands not just a book, not just another scientific treatise, which presents yet another version of another author on the most complex problem of historical science. No! Before you is a Discovery that has no analogues in world practice in terms of its significance. None of the discoveries in physics, chemistry, astronomy and many other sciences can have the same significance as the solution to the origin and formation of humanity itself, since for us, the bearers of reason, man, homo sapiens, and his race are primary. Everything else is secondary: the Universe exists outside of us and without us. But we make discoveries in Him and we make them for ourselves. A person has not yet fully figured out who he is, where his roots are... many “links” are missing, the research apparatus and search methodology are imperfect... And the more significant is the contribution of the author of the monograph, the author of this discovery to modern science: now we can We can safely say that the genesis of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, moreover, the Boreals, that is, the process of human formation in the last thirty thousand years is known to us. Yes, we have every reason to talk about this, because in his research the author used material that cannot be falsified or varied. And therefore, its discovery gives us a picture of the True History of Mankind, it allows us to connect together and arrange into a logical diagram thousands of previously unconnected facts of the history of antiquity and the Middle Ages. Along the way, this discovery resolves hundreds of other problems that currently exist in history, archeology, anthropology, linguistics and related disciplines - problems generated by the absence of a basic historical doctrine, based not on the conclusions of historians and not on subjective chronicles, but on the real course of History. Now such a base exists. World science has received not only a fulcrum and a reference point, but also a lever with the help of which much can be turned around in our worldview, bringing it closer to the objective, the real.

Yu. D. Petukhov devoted about twenty years to the study of the Proto-Indo-European community and the ethnic groups that emerged from it. And not in vain. The results are more than impressive. You will see this for yourself after reading the monograph. Unlike the overwhelming majority of domestic and foreign scientists, he managed to conduct his scientific research not only in the quiet of offices and libraries, but also directly on the ground, in the centers of the origin and existence of Proto-Indo-Europeans - in Jericho, Catal-Uyuk, Alache, Khirokitiya, Hattussa , Yazylykae, etc. He walked, rode, sailed along the paths, roads, paths of ancient settlers who scattered all over the world, taking away from their distant ancestral home the roots of their language, their mythology... taking away their gods. That's why the book is called "Roads of the Gods." Linguistic and mythological analysis made it possible to penetrate into depths inaccessible to any chronicles and annals - language cannot be falsified, just like the very archaism of the original ethnicity, preserved by its direct descendants.

The irrefutability of Yu. D. Petukhov’s conclusions in his scientific work allows us, even before widespread discussion in the world academic press, to assert that he made a discovery of a global nature. The problem of Proto-Indo-Europeans and Bo-Reals, the main problem of Indo-European studies, has been resolved. Only one question remains - is the scientific community of the world ready to accept the perfect discovery.

Editorial

Our path leads to the goddesses of Persephone, To the blind springs, under the canopies of mournful groves of Rain and willows, where ferns, horsetails and black yew clothed the forest slopes... There we go, to the sunsets of dark days In the meeting of yearning shadows.

Maximilian Voloshin

For almost two centuries, the scientific world of the planet has been struggling with an “unsolvable” riddle: the ancient Indo-Europeans - who are they, where are they from? In scientific, pseudo-scientific and pseudoscientific discussions, tens of thousands of crossed copies have been broken, hundreds of hypothetical buildings have been built and destroyed, dozens of the most authoritative opinions have been trampled upon, and countless works of varying importance have been published. But with all this, it would be wrong to say that “academic science” is confidently approaching the solution to one of the most complex and confusing questions in history. Almost two centuries of Indo-European studies! And the “academics” are still trampling at the very foot of the mysterious and incomprehensible Sphinx.

During all this time, the scientific sieve has eliminated about two dozen of the most reliable hypotheses about the origin of the Indo-Europeans and their future paths. And although some of these hypotheses have now acquired the right of almost immutable dogmas and wander from publication to publication, accompanied by more and more new comments, it must be admitted that at this stage they remain just assumptions. And to be more precise, some hypothetical schemes built by the authors using, of course, completely reliable factual material that fits within the framework of these schemes and does not destroy the structure. And no matter how attractive such schemes may be, we must be aware of the fact that, say, even the most carefully drawn plan of a city is not yet the city itself, or - an example from another area - no matter how satisfied we are with the Bohr-Rutherford model of the atom , it is very far from the atom itself, it is only an extremely simplified diagram of this incomprehensible microscopic object. But if we take a plan or a map of the city, draw it up, having the city itself as a completely real object in front of us, and study the properties of the atom with the help of instruments that again mark phenomena that actually exist today, then, taking on the construction of an “Indo-European” hypothetical tower, even The author, burdened with scientific titles, should probably remember that many of the stones laid in the foundation may turn out to be only ghosts or diagrams built in turn. Scheme multiplied by scheme! Schematics squared. And it is difficult to do anything, because not every day science brings us new and completely reliable discoveries - the door of history is open only in one direction.

Schematicism leads us to one-sidedness and a black and white vision of the world: either this way or that way! either only according to scheme number one, or only according to scheme number two! either Normanism or anti-Normanism! etc. ad infinitum. Schools and schemes are fighting each other, not wanting to give an inch. And thus they lose! In life there is no “only this way” or “only that way”. In life there is “this way and that,” to put it simply. “The homeland of the Indo-Europeans is in Asia Minor!” states one researcher. "No, only in the Balkans, and nowhere else!" - the other one repeats. “It’s not like that,” says a third, “in Central Europe!” And everyone finds an innumerable number of arguments to prove their particular scheme.

For us, who have undertaken to summarize some data on Indo-European studies and the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, and also trying, in turn, to express some thoughts and assumptions, it would be good to adhere to the wise advice of F. M. Dostoevsky, who once said that life is much more complicated than even the smartest of schemes , into which we are trying to squeeze it.

But this does not mean at all that we will push away the time-tested models of human history, no. Without taking into account the accumulated experience of generations, without the knowledge that our predecessors gave us, there is no way forward. Another thing is to separate genuine knowledge from naked, purely mental constructions and false stereotypes. This is not an easy matter! For example, how can one prove to a contemporary that primitive man never lived in caves, that these caves were temples, storage facilities, temporary shelters, but in no case housing? How to do this if the false stereotype about the “caveman” has been hammered into the brains of generations for decades and continues to be hammered to this day?! And false generalizing schemes are built on such false stereotypes. Serious researchers from time to time try to protest against such profanation. But how can they compete with the media and textbooks, which present ideas from a hundred years ago year after year!

Let's not talk about organizing history education in our country; this is a hopeless undertaking. It is not from textbooks or lectures that our contemporary learns about discoveries and discoveries, not just new, recent ones, but ten, twenty, forty and sixty years ago, but from small-circulation scientific and popular science books and brochures, from rare historical periodicals. And therefore, he, a contemporary, is to this day not just in the dark, but for the most part in captivity of erroneous or outdated ideas, which, of course, facilitate the perception of some historical processes, but are infinitely far from the true events of history.

Here is the basic scheme, familiar to us from an early age, from high school. Stages of development of human society: primitive darkness and ignorance - Ancient Egypt - Ancient East - Ancient Greece - Rome - barbarians, mainly Gauls and Germans, and barbarian kingdoms - the European Middle Ages, etc. We will not go far to the East or to the South, and within the framework of the problem that interests us, let’s take a closer look at the places of settlement of the peoples of the Indo-European language family and their closest neighbors. So, what do we have from the textbooks? Yes, almost a periodic system similar to the system of D.I. Mendeleev, where each nation-element is assigned a strictly indicated place in a certain tablet - temporal and geographical. Well, everything is so clear and strict that you are amazed! And naturally, in Ancient Egypt - the Egyptians, in the Ancient East - Sumerians, Assyrians, Phoenicians and Jews, in Greece - the Greeks, in Rome - the Romans, between the last two ethnic groups, in a half-line, the Etruscans were generally incomprehensible and unexplained for a schoolchild, by the way, completely erased from the latest edition, then in Europe the Franks, Alemanni, Angles... Somewhere from the very edge the Slavs loom slightly, and even then the southern ones, appearing only in the 5th-6th centuries. n. e. only with their resettlement to the Balkans, and then the Avars, Huns, Hungarians... And all - in groups, groups, periods, classes and subgroups. May the reader forgive me for the involuntary comparison, but it feels like you are walking along some kind of time axis through a schematically built zoo, or rather an anthropological park, in which everyone sits strictly in their own cages and enclosures without the right to go outside and in each such cage-enclosure sign: such and such, from such and such a time to such a time! At best, the same sign indicates: then and then he repelled (or did not repulse) the attack of the inhabitants of the neighboring cell. I don’t argue, perhaps it is precisely this simplified breakdown that contributes to a better assimilation of the material by schoolchildren, as well as by students, but it is precisely this that makes it impossible to see historical reality as a complex and multi-ethnic process.

At the final stage of the formation of ancient Greek culture, we see the “classical” Greeks and somehow spontaneously attribute priority to them, the Greeks, in all previous stages. It’s the same with the Romans and other “classical” peoples. Instead of multidimensionality (tm) and polyphony in textbooks there are continuous planes, sometimes intersecting, but this does not cease to be planes.

Everything is classified in the scheme, everything is distributed and delimited, each people is assigned a sort of serial number, each is assigned its own not only ecological, but also historical “niche.”

Somewhere at the end of the 8th, or even the 10th century. It is unclear from where the figure of a wild and bestial Eastern Slav appears, as if he had fallen from the sky onto his land. So we see in the picture from the textbook a certain creature in a long shirt, picking the ground with a rough wooden stick, and in appearance it does not even look like a plow. This creature also collects mushrooms, hangs tubs and beats fish in the river with a pointed twig. This is the idea a young man gets about his ancestors - an idea that is not ten or sixty years old, but turns two hundred years old at lunchtime, which was suitable for Miller-Schletzer times and which is stubbornly dragged from textbook to textbook to this day. Truly an immortal scheme!

We will not go into details now and refute those false stereotypes that do not stand up to the slightest criticism. Let’s just say that beings who appeared out of nowhere in one or two centuries could simply not, under any circumstances, have created Gardarika - a “country of cities” - on a vast area and the most ancient literature in Europe, second in antiquity only to the literature of ancient times *, but superior in the same respect to English, French, German, etc. literature. And all these are immutable facts. But the scheme lives! It is replicated, imposed. But within the framework of this very scheme there is no life!

And you can fight inside the cage-scheme, like an animal beats and rushes in its enclosure, like a fish in a cage, and still not understand, not see, not comprehend anything. What to do, what to do? Yes, it’s very simple - you need to get out of the cage-scheme, move away from it and, without losing sight of well-known models and schemes, take a closer look at life in all its diversity.

* Currently, more and more serious researchers are coming to the conclusion that “ancient” works were written in the Middle Ages. And therefore, Russian literature in antiquity is not inferior to them (editor's note).

That's what we'll try to do. And to begin with, let us remind the reader a little of the basics of Indo-European studies, that little that is quite reliable and practically beyond doubt.

Most researchers agree that the Indo-Europeans, as a single linguistic and ethnic community, existed within the chronological boundaries of the V-IV millennia BC. e. Sometimes the borders are expanded in one direction or the other for a whole thousand years. But if the search towards the ancientization of the problem gives results at least in terms of elucidating the roots of the Indo-Europeans themselves (that is, in the question of the origin of the Proto-Indo-Europeans), then rejuvenation, as a rule, does not bring the desired fruits, because already in the 3rd millennium BC. e. we come across a divergence of Indo-European dialect groups, and consequently, a divergence of the ethnic groups themselves, which stood out from the general Indo-European one.

One mighty root gave rise to many branches and even more shoots. We obviously do not now touch on an important detail of our “plant” - the trunk, which will be discussed below.

But we must pay tribute to the linguists who, perhaps, have achieved the greatest success in Indo-European studies. Thanks to them, we can quite clearly navigate this spreading tree, or at least not get too lost, because we have proven and clear milestones. But let us immediately add that we are talking about the Indo-European language family. And therefore, one should not always unambiguously identify language and people, since it happens that these concepts do not correspond: a non-Indo-European ethnic group that fell under the influence of Indo-Europeans can be a native speaker of their language, and vice versa. In each specific case, you need to remember this.

So, over the five to seven thousand years of existence of the peoples of this family, it has grown extraordinary. Let's name the main branch groups. From the Italic branch came Latin, Ocian and Umbrian languages. The first of them served as the basis for French, Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian, Catalan, and Italian. From the Celtic branch came Breton and Welsh, Irish and Scottish shoots. The Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian branches limited themselves to the languages ​​contained in the names of the branches themselves. The same can, perhaps, be said about the Armenian, Albanian and ancient Greek branches - lush shoots did not come out of them. But the Indian branch blossomed with all its might - Sanskrit, Bengali, Nepali, Hindi, Punjabi, Assamese, Gypsy and other languages. The Iranian branch gave almost the same flowering - it is decorated with Avestan, Kurdish, Persian, Ossetian, Pashto, Tajik, Scythian languages. There are three shoots on the Baltic branch - Latvian, Lithuanian and Prussian. Two more mighty branches that could rightfully be called trunks now. This is the Germanic one, which gave the languages ​​English, German, Spanish, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Faroese. And the Slavic branch with its Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian languages. Just listing not all the languages ​​of the family took up quite a lot of space. The territory occupied by their carriers is completely vast, even if you do not include the New World and Australia in it, but limit yourself only to the ancestral lands occupied by Indo-European peoples at the beginning of our era.

But they did not occupy these territories immediately, because the process of settlement lasted for thousands of years, and there was some starting point, if not a point, then a very real and tangible place where the original community was formed. That is, the question arises about the ancestral home, one of the key questions of Indo-European studies and all historical science in general. Where is this promised land for most of the current European nations?! There is no answer, at least not a sufficiently convincing and unambiguous one. The mysterious and mysterious ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans - will we ever find it?

And then there are riddles that are no less complex and impossible to solve, stretching in a whole chain. How did they settle? In what directions and in what order? How? And what traces did you leave on your way? Which peoples were swallowed up during their unstoppable movement? What part of themselves, where and when, was absorbed? And the main question is - who were they, after all, these mysterious ancestors of ours - the Indo-Europeans?

Initially, the ancestral home was sought in the East and Central Asia; researchers were attracted to those places for some reason, mainly by their proximity to Iran and India. It was assumed that it was located in the Caspian Sea region or in ancient Bactria, on its land. There were absolutely fantastic theories about a snow-covered and high-mountain ancestral home somewhere in the Himalayas. All these assumptions disappeared by themselves when linguists got down to business more thoroughly and established that in the Proto-Indo-European language there were no designations for Central Asian animals and plants, much less for the Himalayan or other equally exotic ones. And the search immediately moved to South-Eastern Europe: from the Danube to the Caspian Sea. There were, however, searches in the far west of Europe and in its north. But the presence there of fairly thick substrate layers, layers of pre-Indo-European languages, as well as traces of the late penetration of the Indo-Europeans themselves, made such searches fruitless:

Spain and Iceland with all adjacent regions immediately fell out of the sphere of interest of Indo-Europeans. The northeast of Europe was densely populated by Finno-Ugric peoples, this was evidenced by hydronyms - the names of rivers, lakes, swamps, streams, and tributaries. The central and eastern parts of Europe, as well as its entire vast South, remained. Since ancient times, the Balkan-Carpathian region, together with Asia Minor, has been an area distinguished by numerous cultural connections. Most researchers have focused their attention on it. But neither Western Asia, nor the Aegean, nor the Northern Black Sea region, which is part of the larger Circumpontic zone and also covered by research, were left without attention.

There is no need to retell the contents of countless volumes compiled by search engines. We can only say one thing: Central Europe and Western Asia somehow gradually faded into the background, without disappearing from view, however. And the main efforts of researchers turned to the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions. At this point the matter stalled. The debate continues. No answer.

But, despite this, research was carried out in parallel on another problem: how did the Indo-Europeans settle? The times of overly self-confident German scientists who declared their land to be the navel of the Universe, from which culture-trader civilizers spread to all corners of the earth, are long gone. The fables about the warlike proto-Teutons, who, under the name of the archaeological culture of “battle axes,” allegedly brought civilization to the Proto-Slavic peoples by force, have been forgotten. It turned out that this completely genuine culture had nothing to do with the “Teutons”, and many even believe that it spread in the opposite direction. But German historians, archaeologists, and linguists have also done something to solve the problem, despite the obvious nationalist approach. And in particular, they were able to find the strength in themselves to recognize the existence of the Proto-Slavs in those days, which our textbook compilers simply cannot decide to do. In other words, the theory of German culture-trade has not justified itself over the past decades.

Yes, the days of romanticism are gone! The romantic theories of “Aryan conquests” have also sunk into oblivion. They looked too beautiful - armadas of conquerors, armed to the teeth and united not only by extraordinary discipline, but also by some incredible national spirit for those times - in the language of L.N. Gumilyov, some frantic super-passionaries - conquered one unknown with fire and sword and exotic country after another, everywhere they established their own strict but fair order, simultaneously introducing the natives to culture. Sheer romance of feat and achievements! All this was best suited for novels and films, tickled the nerves of enthusiastic dreamers, but had nothing to do with life. Life was much simpler. No romance, no sentimentality! Only the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth poured into it a stream of the romantic genre, which reached the twentieth century and subsided under the pressure of practicality.

There were no warlike beasts. This has been established quite accurately. And there were nomadic pastoralists who moved from place to place, if not at a snail’s pace, then in any case not at the speed of military formations or the nomadic Turks of the Middle Ages with their rapid raids. These same cattle breeders, who raised cows, bulls, pigs, and also, which is extremely important, horses, moved from pasture to pasture in families, clans, tribes, moving away from some center in different directions. Of course, they also had clashes with the local population of the regions that they developed. There was everything: skirmishes, battles, and protracted strife. But there was one thing that was missing - the systematic and purposeful conquest of lands with the aim of subjugating the tribes and peoples living on them. That is why, from the most ancient Proto-Indo-European terminology, not the names of weapons came down to us, but words denoting harness, livestock, vegetation of pastures and surrounding areas, names of fish caught in rivers, animals living in forests. This resettlement took very long periods of time, during which languages ​​managed to change beyond recognition and the appearance of people changed - the latter due to mixing with the aborigines.

There is, however, another theory about the spread of Indo-European languages ​​not through the settlement of the speakers themselves, but through the transfer of languages ​​and dialects from neighbor to neighbor, that is, as a result of peaceful convergence, the infusion of individual speakers into neighboring peoples. Of course, such a method of transmission existed. And we have no right to exclude him. But here we need to remember the dangers of schematism and that there is no “either this or nothing!” We can say with a huge degree of confidence: languages ​​were spread by all existing methods, and those who, wittingly or unwittingly, insist only on the “only correct” theory of theirs are simply misleading us. After all, it is quite difficult to imagine that a language on its own, without a native speaker, would spread from, say, the Balkans to the Hindustan Peninsula - the likelihood of such an “independent journey” is negligible. Of course, the Indo-Europeans moved around. There is no subject for dispute here. Another thing is - did they all move, maybe some of them remained in place, at least not too far from this place? Let us remember this point in our reasoning; we will have to return to it more than once. As, indeed, with many other key provisions contained in this introduction.

How many Indo-Europeans were there, at least approximately? We can’t even name the order! Everything is hidden by the veil of centuries and millennia. But time is not the only thing to blame here. The fact is that this question was faced at the dawn of Indo-European studies. Researchers who asked this question immediately came to the conclusion that it was impossible to determine this number without anthropological data. And in order to identify the anthropological type of the Indo-European, it is necessary to find its ancestral home. The ring was closing. Through long comparisons and accumulation of statistics in the places of the most dense settlement of Indo-European peoples, studying the remains found there, comparisons with the main European races living today, it was possible to clarify only one thing: no special Indo-European anthropological type existed. It could be distinguished by comparison with neighboring large races, for example, Western Asian, Ethiopian, Laponoid. But it was not possible to isolate him from the European races. The legend about some special pranation crumbled into the smallest pieces, leaving no hope for any one of the modern peoples, or rather, a group of explorers representing this people, for the priority of their tribe, their nation in terms of direct inheritance. Except for one people...

Apparently, the ancient Indo-Europeans were already there, in the V-IV millennia BC. e., a mixed people, consisting of representatives of many European, and perhaps not only European, ethnic groups. And the single core around which a community, new at that time, took shape, was probably not only consanguinity, but primarily language and culture. There is also no doubt that the primary mixedness, if it can be called that, was, as settlement progressed, overlapped by the secondary mixedness, which came from the infusion of other ethnic groups into the community. It was this ability to assimilate and assimilate that was, perhaps, the most characteristic feature inherent in the Indo-Europeans. This ability served them well, since unlike closed, closed ethnic groups, sooner or later doomed to extinction, they were unusually resilient and had a social antidote to any cataclysms. This ability, one must think, is largely due to the current representatives of the world's largest language family. And what is especially important for us who have undertaken this research is that it is this feature, precisely this property that will help us understand a lot in the European history of the last five to seven thousand years. There is something to think about: after all, this is a considerable period of time, and it was not a separate ethnic group that arose in that distant time that made its way through the thickness of millennia and preserved itself to some extent - no, they have long since disappeared from the face of the earth, but made its way to us, in modernity, so to speak, is a human alloy. An alloy baked in the crucible of time.

Copies: total - 1 Petukhov Yu.D. Roads of the Gods: Ethnogenesis And mythogenesisIndo-Europeans. Resolution of the main problem of Indo-European studies: Monograph...

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 would like to thank the leadership of the School and the director of the Institute of Linguistic Research for their support, and 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 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 stock; 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 populations of Europe and Asia Analysis of ancient DNA from the Middle East showed that an ancient lineage made a major 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 12 11 14 13 30 16 9-9 11 12 24 14 19 30 15-15-16-16 11 11 18-20 14 15 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 1 7 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 18 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 a 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