home-Dresses-Origin of tribes. Ethnic history of ancient peoples

Origin of tribes. Ethnic history of ancient peoples

History of the origin of the peoples of the world

For more than 40 years I have been researching the origins of all the peoples of the world. First, I researched this topic using historical materials that are recognized by modern historical science. And this history can be traced back to ancient historical records, which begin in Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assilia, Ancient China, Ancient India, i.e. The oldest written sources date back to the 3rd millennium BC. The largest historical monuments about ancient peoples were left by the ancient Greeks and Romans. In the Middle Ages, written sources about ancient peoples became more numerous. But I have researched this history from ancient times to 1648 (ancient world and middle ages). Based on all these sources, I compiled a table and drew maps of the settlement of the peoples of the world only from the 3rd millennium BC to 1648.
My knowledge about the most ancient peoples can be expressed by the following picture... Beyond the yellow line (this is the time of the 3rd millennium BC) there are no written sources about the history of the peoples of the world.

What happened before? After all, I am interested in the history of the emergence of the peoples of the world from the most ancient times (from the very first people on Earth). I began to explore all the archaeological materials. I began to conditionally accept that tribes of one archaeological culture are one people (or a group of related peoples).
Yes, in those ancient times we cannot call any people by any specific name. (no written sources survive). We know that the ancestors of all the ancient Germans were the tribes of the Jastorf culture, the ancestors of the Celts were the tribes of the La Tène culture, the ancestors of the ancient Slavs were the tribes of the Zarubinets, Dneprodvinsk, and Przeworsk cultures. This way you can trace the history of the origin of all ancient peoples. I began to draw new (more ancient) maps and tables of the origin, merger and disappearance of ancient peoples in a period older than the 3rd millennium BC. I compiled tables and maps up to about 30 thousand years BC. The results of my research can be expressed in this figure, where the blue stripe indicates a period of approximately 30 thousand years BC.

After all, even at that time there was a wide variety of archaeological cultures on Earth (and therefore there were many peoples). Further (ancient) archaeologists basically have no information, as if there were no peoples before 30 thousand years BC. This is consistent with modern historical science that people evolved from monkeys about 40 thousand years ago (I don’t believe in this scientific nonsense; at present there is even a large group of alternative historians who claim that man lived already in more ancient times ).
And what to do with numerous artifacts (archaeological finds, which official historical science does not recognize and hides them from the public. And what to do with ancient legends, which historical science also does not recognize. And all these materials say that man existed on Earth even 300-500 million years ago.
I began to study ancient legends, artifacts and articles by alternative historians (in Russia there are also such scientists - Demin, Chudinov, Gorbovsky and others). As a result, I got a harmonious table of the origin of all the peoples of the world, starting from the most ancient times (it includes the Asuras, Atlanteans, and Muans, whom most modern historians do not recognize).
The result of my research can be expressed in this picture

And if we consider that at the beginning of the 20th century in the east of Zaire (Africa) a small tribe of pygmies with cold blood was found (they could not be found after the 1st World War), then it is necessary to include ancient peoples who had cold blood among the ancient peoples (like dinosaurs), then the human history of ancient peoples can “grow older” for a significant period.
And if we take into account that (according to legends) in ancient times other intelligent creatures lived on Earth (completely different from people, perhaps similar to lizards, dinosaurs, large insects), then the history of civilizations on Earth will have to be even more ancient. And the picture of the origin of the peoples of the world can take the following form.
Modern scientific historians (apparently at the direction of the ruling circles) have simplified human history too much so that we do not know the facts that nuclear weapons have already been used on Earth more than once (for the sake of the profits of the ruling circles, for the sake of the complete domination of one people on Earth over others, more weak). History constantly repeats itself, in ever worse versions. Human civilization, with its ugly ideology of profit, constantly seeks to destroy itself for the sake of the wealth of a handful of ruling elites.
It is much easier to rule illiterate people.

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

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

Relatives of the Magyar

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

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

Neighbors of the Hungarians, their influence on culture

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

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

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

Expansion and migration of the Magyars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interpretation of the term

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

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

Characteristics of an established tribe

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

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

History of origin

What is a tribe and when was it formed?

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

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

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

Ancient tribes

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

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

Modern tribes

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

The most famous tribes

The most famous ancient tribes are:

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

Here are some modern tribes that exist today:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


| |

For many centuries, scientists have been breaking their spears, trying to understand the origin of the Russian people. And if research in the past was based on archaeological and linguistic data, today even geneticists have taken up the matter.

From the Danube

Of all the theories of Russian ethnogenesis, the most famous is the Danube theory. We owe its appearance to the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years”, or rather to the centuries-old love of domestic academics for this source.

The chronicler Nestor defined the initial territory of settlement of the Slavs as the territories along the lower reaches of the Danube and Vistula. The theory about the Danube “ancestral home” of the Slavs was developed by such historians as Sergei Solovyov and Vasily Klyuchevsky.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky believed that the Slavs moved from the Danube to the Carpathian region, where an extensive military alliance of tribes arose led by the Duleb-Volhynian tribe.

From the Carpathian region, according to Klyuchevsky, in the 7th-8th centuries the Eastern Slavs settled to the East and Northeast to Lake Ilmen. The Danube theory of Russian ethnogenesis is still adhered to by many historians and linguists. The Russian linguist Oleg Nikolaevich Trubachev made a great contribution to its development at the end of the 20th century.

Yes, we are Scythians!

One of the most vehement opponents of the Norman theory of the formation of Russian statehood, Mikhail Lomonosov, leaned toward the Scythian-Sarmatian theory of Russian ethnogenesis, which he wrote about in his “Ancient Russian History.” According to Lomonosov, the ethnogenesis of the Russians occurred as a result of the mixing of the Slavs and the “Chudi” tribe (Lomonosov’s term is Finno-Ugric), and he named the place of origin of the ethnic history of the Russians between the Vistula and Oder rivers.

Supporters of the Sarmatian theory rely on ancient sources, and Lomonosov did the same. He compared Russian history with the history of the Roman Empire and ancient beliefs with the pagan beliefs of the Eastern Slavs, finding a large number of similarities. The ardent struggle with the adherents of the Norman theory is quite understandable: the people-tribe of Rus', according to Lomonosov, could not have originated from Scandinavia under the influence of the expansion of the Norman Vikings. First of all, Lomonosov opposed the thesis about the backwardness of the Slavs and their inability to independently form a state.

Gellenthal's theory

The hypothesis about the origin of Russians, unveiled this year by Oxford scientist Garrett Gellenthal, seems interesting. Having done a lot of work studying the DNA of various peoples, he and a group of scientists compiled a genetic atlas of migration of peoples.
According to the scientist, two significant milestones can be distinguished in the ethnogenesis of the Russian people. In 2054 BC. e., according to Gellenthal, trans-Baltic peoples and peoples from the territories of modern Germany and Poland migrated to the northwestern regions of modern Russia. The second milestone is 1306, when the migration of Altai peoples began, who actively interbred with representatives of the Slavic branches.
Gellenthal's research is also interesting because genetic analysis proved that the time of the Mongol-Tatar invasion had virtually no effect on Russian ethnogenesis.

Two ancestral homelands

Another interesting migration theory was proposed at the end of the 19th century by Russian linguist Alexei Shakhmatov. His “two ancestral homelands” theory is also sometimes called the Baltic theory. The scientist believed that initially the Balto-Slavic community emerged from the Indo-European group, which became autochthonous in the Baltic region. After its collapse, the Slavs settled in the territory between the lower reaches of the Neman and Western Dvina. This territory became the so-called “first ancestral home”. Here, according to Shakhmatov, the Proto-Slavic language developed, from which all Slavic languages ​​originated.

Further migration of the Slavs was associated with the great migration of peoples, during which at the end of the second century AD the Germans went south, liberating the Vistula River basin, where the Slavs came. Here, in the lower Vistula basin, Shakhmatov defines the second ancestral home of the Slavs. From here, according to the scientist, the division of the Slavs into branches began. The western one went to the Elbe region, the southern one - divided into two groups, one of which settled the Balkans and the Danube, the other - the Dnieper and Dniester. The latter became the basis of the East Slavic peoples, which include the Russians.

We are locals ourselves

Finally, another theory different from migration theories is the autochthonous theory. According to it, the Slavs were an indigenous people inhabiting eastern, central and even part of southern Europe. According to the theory of Slavic autochthonism, Slavic tribes were the indigenous ethnic group of a vast territory - from the Urals to the Atlantic Ocean. This theory has quite ancient roots and many supporters and opponents. This theory was supported by the Soviet linguist Nikolai Marr. He believed that the Slavs did not come from anywhere, but were formed from tribal communities living in vast territories from the Middle Dnieper to Laba in the West and from the Baltic to the Carpathians in the south.
Polish scientists - Kleczewski, Potocki and Sestrentsevich - also adhered to the autochthonous theory. They even traced the ancestry of the Slavs from the Vandals, basing their hypothesis, among other things, on the similarity of the words “Vendals” and “Vandals”. Of the Russians, the autochthonous theory explained the origin of the Slavs Rybakov, Mavrodin and Greeks.



Related publications: