Belarusians: the formation of an ethnos and the national idea. Ethnogenesis of Belarusians

Basic concepts of ethnogenesis

There are several fundamentally different concepts of the ethnogenesis of Belarusians.

“Polish” and “Great Russian” concepts

Chronologically, the first to arise "Polish"(L. Galembovsky, A. Rypinsky) and "Great Russian"(A. Sobolevsky, I. Sreznevsky) concepts according to which the ethnic territory of the Belarusians was considered as primordially Polish or primordially Great Russian, respectively, the argument for which was the absence of a separate language among the Belarusians. Meanwhile, already at the beginning of the 20th century, Evfim Karsky, in his fundamental work “Belarusians,” proved the independence of the Belarusian dialect from both the Polish language and the Great Russian dialect of the Russian language, thereby refuting the main argument of the supporters of these concepts. Nowadays, the point of view that considers Belarusians and the Belarusian language to be an independent ethnic group and language within the East Slavic group absolutely prevails in academic science.

"Tribal" concepts

At the beginning of the 20th century, a concept was formed among the Belarusian national intelligentsia, according to which Belarusians descended from the chronicled Krivichi tribe. By "Krivichi" concept was Vaclav Lastovsky. Even earlier, similar ideas, conventionally called the “tribal” concept, were voiced by Nikolai Kostomarov and Mikhail Pogodin. The concept was not widely adopted, but served as the ideological basis for the formation of the so-called "Krivichi-Dregovichi-Radimich" concepts. Its authors were famous historians and linguists Evfim Karsky, Moses Greenblat, Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky and Vladimir Picheta. The concept is based on the idea of ​​the formation of the Belarusian ethnic group as a result of the ethnic consolidation of the tribes inhabiting the ethnic territory of the Belarusians. The popularity of this concept is quite high, although it does not take into account the chronological gap between the disappearance of the chronicled tribes in the middle of the 12th century and the formation of the all-Belarusian ethnic complex.

"Old Russian" concept

After World War II, the dominant role in Soviet science was taken by "Old Russian" the concept according to which Belarusians, along with Ukrainians and Russians, were formed as a result of the collapse of a single ancient Russian nation in the 12th-13th centuries. Theoretically, this concept was substantiated by S. Tokarev, and archaeologists Pyotr Tretyakov and Boris Rybakov also took part in its development. Certain provisions of the Old Russian concept were seriously criticized by archaeologists Valentin Sedov and Eduard Zagorulsky. Archaeologist Georgy Shtykhov actively opposes the hypothesis of a single Old Russian nationality as such, as a result of which the largest textbook ever created on the history of Belarus included a subsection “On the problem of Old Russian nationality,” containing criticism of this concept. Despite the existence of very serious scientific criticism, the “Old Russian” concept remains the most widespread at the beginning of the 21st century.

"Baltic" concept

In the 1960s - early 70s of the 20th century, Moscow archaeologist Valentin Sedov formed a new concept that did not fundamentally reject the hypothesis of the existence of a single ancient Russian nation. According to this concept, called "Baltic", the Belarusian ethnos was formed as a result of the mixing and mutual assimilation of local Balts with the alien Slavs, while the Balts played the role of a substrate (underground) in the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians. The concept is based on the classification of archaeological cultures of the late Iron Age on the territory of Belarus as Baltic, which is now practically not disputed by anyone. During numerous excavations, Valentin Sedov found a number of jewelry, tools, and weapons that were characteristic of the Baltic culture and did not belong to the Slavs. In his opinion, the migration of the Slavs to these territories began in the middle of the 1st millennium AD, and during this period the Slavs settled only the territories south of Pripyat. The settlement of the main part of the territory of Belarus by the Slavs, according to Sedov, dates back only to the 8th-10th centuries. As an argument in favor of the “Baltic” concept, the fact of the presence of Baltic roots in many elements of the language and culture of the Belarusians is also cited, for example, the worship of snakes and stones in the traditional religion of the Belarusians, straight-woven bast shoes, housing construction techniques, a number of sounds of Belarusian phonetics (hard “ r", "akanie"). Despite the fact that most modern researchers generally accept the “Baltic” concept, such a significant influence of the Balts on the formation of the Belarusian people, their culture, and language is often questioned. Also, the hypothesis is sometimes blamed on the desire to tear Belarusians away from Russians and Ukrainians. According to the opinion of ethnologist Mikhail Pilipenko, the Balts acted as a substrate not for the formation of Belarusians directly, but as the basis of the Slavic communities of Krivichi, Dregovich and Radimichi. However, according to Nosevich, the “new concept” of Mikhail Pilipenko is essentially an attempt to smooth out the contradictions between the “Baltic”, “Krivichi-Dregovich-Radimich” and “Old Russian” concepts and in itself does not bring anything new.

"Finnish" concept

There is also "Finnish" a concept put forward by writer Ivan Laskov. According to it, the ancestors of the Belarusians were the Finno-Ugrians. The concept was formed on the basis of the presence of a significant number of ancient Finno-Ugric hydronyms on the territory of Belarus (for example, Dvina, Svir). However, the Finnish-speaking population on the territory of Belarus lived in ancient times and was assimilated not by the Slavs, but by the ancient Balts, who settled in Ponemania, Podvinia and the Dnieper region in the Bronze Age. The Finns on the territory of Belarus were the substrate not of the Belarusians, but of the ancient Balts.

Genome research

Frequency distribution of R1a1a, also known as R-M17 and R-M198, adapted from Underhill et al (2009). This haplogroup is found with approximately equal frequency among the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, and northern and central India, among the peoples of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, as well as among the Altaians. Its high content is characteristic of some Indo-European peoples (but with the exception of the peoples of Western Europe and Iranians), the Turkic aboriginal population of Altai and the eastern Sayan Mountains.

Autosomal DNA Research

A comparative analysis of the gene pools of Western Eurasia showed that “according to autosomal DNA markers, all Eastern Slavs are included in one cluster of Eastern Europe. However, Russian and Ukrainian populations are located closer to each other than to Belarusians... Russians and Ukrainians are closer to the populations of Western and Southern Europe than Belarusians. Unfortunately, the closest western and northern neighbors of the Belarusians, and in particular the Baltic peoples, have not been studied using these markers. It can be assumed that some of the uniqueness of the gene pool of Belarusians is associated with the contribution of the Baltic substrate."

Research findings

The authors concluded that “differences between Belarusian populations are smaller than differences between Ukrainian populations and much smaller than differences between Russian populations. That is, different populations of Belarusians are genetically very similar to each other.” At the same time, regarding the question of the similarity of the gene pool of Belarusians to the Balts and Slavs, the authors note that “on the paternal line, the differences between Belarusians and the Balts are very clearly expressed - according to haplogroup Y, Belarusians belong to the circle of Eastern and Western Slavs. On the maternal side (mtDNA haplogroups), Belarusians are equally similar to the Balts and the Slavs - both Western and Eastern."

Anthropological analysis

Notes

Literature

• Grinblat M. Ya. Belarusians. - Mn. , 1968.
• Derzhavin N. S. Origin of the Russian people. - M., 1944.
• Dovnar-Zapolsky M. V. Essay on the history of the Krivichi and Dregovichi lands until the end of the 12th century. - K., 1891.
• Ermalovich M. In the wake of this myth. - Mn. , 1989.
• Ermalovich M. Old Belarus: Polish and New Grodno periods. - Mn. , 1990.
• Zagarulski E. M. Western Rus': IX-XIII century. - Mn. , 1998.
• Kanstantsina F. Abbess of the Belarusian people. - Mn. , 1948.
• Karsky E. F. Belarusians. Introduction to the study of language and folk literature. - Vilna, 1904.
• Mikulich A. Belarus at the genetic prastors. - Mn. : Tekhnalogiya, 2005.
• Pilipenko M. F. The emergence of Belarus: A new concept. Mn. , 1991.
• Picheta V. Education of the Belarusian people // Questions of history. - 1946. - No. 5-6.
• Rybakov B. A. Radzimichy. Practitioners of the section of archaeology of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences. - M., 1932.
• Sedov V.V. Archeology and the problem of the formation of Belarusians // Ethnogenesis of Belarusians. Abstracts of reports at a scientific conference on the problem of “Ethnogenesis of Belarusians”. - Mn. , 1973. - pp. 7-10.
• Sedov V.V. On the origin of Belarusians // Antiquities of Belarus. Proceedings of the conference on the archeology of Belarus and adjacent territories. Mn. , 1966. - pp. 301-309.
• Sedov V.V. Slavs of the Upper Dnieper and Podvinia. - M., 1970.
• Sedov V.V.. On the origin of Belarusians (The problem of the Baltic substrate in the ethnogenesis of Belarusians) // “Soviet ethnography”. - 1967. - No. 2. - P. 112-129.
• Sobolevsky A. I. Essays on the history of the Russian language. - K., 1884.
• Tikhomirov A. N. The significance of Ancient Rus' in the development of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples // Questions of history. - 1954. - No. 6.
• Toporov V. N. On the problem of Baltic-Slavic relations // Current problems of Slavic studies. - M., 1961.
• Tretyakov P. N. At the origins of the ancient Russian people. - L., 1970.
• Filin F. P. Formation of the language of the Eastern Slavs. - M.-L. , 1962.
• Filin F. P. The origin of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages: Historical and dialectological essay. - L., 1972.
• Khaburgaev G. A. Ethnonymy of "The Tale of Bygone Years". - M., 1979.
• Cherepnin L.V. Historical conditions for the formation of the Russian nationality until the end of the 15th century. // Issues of formation of the Russian nationality and nation. - M.-L. , 1958. - pp. 7-105.
• Shtykhav G. V. Kryvichy. - Mn. , 1992.

Studying the history of Slavic populations is of considerable interest. It is believed that the Slavs appeared on the lands they now occupy in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. Where they came from, where their ancestors lived until the middle of the 1st millennium, what languages ​​they spoke - academic science answers these questions
I haven’t formulated it yet.
Fundamentally important information can be obtained using the methodology of a new science - DNA genealogy. The methodology of the new science is the translation of the dynamic picture of mutations in non-recombinant sections of the male sex chromosome into chronological indicators, during the lifetime of the common ancestors of populations, and in fact, the common ancestors of ancient clans and tribes. That is, in fact, a calculation is made of the times when these clans and tribes lived in ancient times. In turn, constructing a “map” of these times by region, continent, allows us to understand the migration routes of our ancestors.
An analysis of a vast array of samples of ethnic Belarusians (more than a thousand haplotypes) has been carried out, which makes it possible to make fairly deep generalizations regarding the knowledge of not so much the modern structure of the Belarusian people (population genetics deals with this), but rather its ethnogenesis and connections with other Slavic peoples from the angle of DNA genealogy . There is no information of this kind regarding ethnic Belarusians in modern scientific literature.
The material for the research was arrays of biological samples from the male population of Belarus, compiled by scientists from the Institute of Ethnography and Folklore and the Institute of Genetics and Cytology of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (aliquots of the collection were transferred to the Center as a practical implementation of dissertation research). We studied samples of male origin whose donors, during a voluntary survey for themselves and their ancestors in two generations, indicated the ethnicity of “Belarusian”. Information about collection sites is given on the map of the settlement of the Belarusian ethnic group (Fig. 1).
Distribution of Y-DNA samples by collection sites (the assignment to zones on the map and the number of samples is indicated in brackets): Ponemanye - Volkovysk (A, n=16), Ivye (B, 27), Molodechno (B, 19), Novogrudok (B , 56), Smorgon (B, 37), Baranovichi (C, 31); Poozerie - Gorodok (C, 24), Luzhesno and Gorodok (C, 76), Polotsk (C, 22), Ulla (C, 56), Myadel (B, 39);
Center – Krupki (C, 21), Mir (C, 48), Slutsk (C, 44), Cherven (C, 29); Podneprovye – Vetka (D, 15), Klimovichi (D, 50), Krichev (D, 34), Slavgorod (D, 32), Chechersk (D, 28); Eastern Polesie – Zhitkovichi (D, 55), Lelchitsy (D, 22), Mozyr (D, 50), Svetlogorsk (D, 28); Western Polesie - Pinsk (D, 35), Luninets (D, 51), Ivanovo (D, 35), Bereza (A, 31), Kobrin (A, 55).
Haplotypes are given in the order of markers adopted in the FTDNA standard: DYS393, DYS390, DYS19, DYS391, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS426, DYS388, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS392, DYS389II, DYS458, DYS337, D YS448, DYS460, GATAH4, DYS456, DYS438, DYS635 . GATAH4 marker values ​​are specified in the FTDNA convention. For 312 haplotypes out of 1086, SNPs were known; for the rest, assignment to haplogroups and subclades was carried out by constructing trees that included both haplotypes assigned by SNP and those for which such assignment was not carried out, identifying stable branches and assessing their convergence to one ancestor.
The trees were calculated using the PHYLIP software package, with optimization by Neighbor Joining and Fitch-Margoliash and graphical processing in the MEGA 5 program. Times to common ancestors and errors were calculated in accordance with the published methodology.
The conversion of the number of mutations in the haplotype series was carried out for 17-marker haplotypes, in the Y-Filer format, using a mutation rate constant equal to 0.034 per haplotype per conditional generation of 25 years.
Haplogroup R1a1 (SRY10831.2)
Haplogroup R1a1 is represented in the present sample by 551 haplotypes (50.7%), which generally coincides with the statistics for neighboring Slavic peoples - Russians, Ukrainians and Poles. Calculation based on 545 haplotypes in the YFiler format, which do not have gaps in alleles, gave a total of 3143 mutations from the following basic haplotype:
13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 11 15 11 23.
This corresponds to 5100±520 years before the common ancestor, which, within the limits of error, coincides with the value of 4550±475 years ago, obtained by the same method for 258 17-marker haplotypes of Russians from the sample, with the base haplotype:
13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 11 15 11 23.
The difference of one mutation (DYS390 10?11) on 17 markers corresponds to 750 years between the basic haplotypes. However, a more rigorous examination by DNA genealogy methods gives the same common ancestor for Russian and Belarusian R1a1 carriers. This is the ancestor of the Eurasian subclade R1a1a1b1 (Z283), who lived about 5500 years ago, to which the two main branches found among all Slavs go back - the European subclade M458 and the Central Eurasian Z280. The ratio of these noticeably different lines in Russians and Belarusians does not coincide (Russians have less M458), and counting across branches in heterogeneous samples gives the impression of different ages.
It would be more correct to analyze the Belarusian sample with division into branches, but due to the low resolution of the tree of 20-marker haplotypes, such a task can only be partially solved. On the tree (Fig. 2) it is possible to identify only 4 branches out of a potential 10–12 found among the Eastern Slavs when analyzing extended haplotypes from commercial databases. Of these, the Central European branch of the M458 subclade stands out noticeably, which is located at the top left and marked in blue. It has 131 haplotypes and converges to the base haplotype:
13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 11 29 16 14 20 11 11 17 11 23.
Based on the available markers, it exactly coincides with the basic haplotype of the Central European branch, known in an extended format. The times to the common ancestor also coincide within the error – 2625±300 and 2900±400 years, respectively.
The second branch of the M458 subclade, West Slavic (top right, labeled crimson), has 36 haplotypes and gives a common ancestor 2150 ± 320 years ago. The base haplotype coincides with the base haplotype of the West Slavic branch, known in greater resolution:
13 25 17 10 10 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 16 14 20 11 11 16 11 23.
However, the time to the common ancestor of the branch, calculated for 67-marker haplotypes, turns out to be noticeably longer - 2700±300 years ago. A special study showed that the calculation using a smaller number of markers in comparison with the calibrated 67-marker standard leads to an underestimation of the value, and the carriers of the West Slavic branch among Belarusians are in no way distinguished from the West Slavic branch R1a-M458 in Europe.
The absolute majority of the remaining 384 R1a1 haplotypes (about 35% of the entire sample) belong to the Eurasian subclade R1a1a1b1a2 (Z280), as can be concluded from an analysis of about 2000 extended Slavic haplotypes from commercial databases. Other fundamental subclades - “eastern” R1a1a1b2 (Z93), Scandinavian R1a1a1b1a3 (Z284) and northwestern R1a1a1a (L664) - are present among all Slavic peoples at the level of fractions of a percent, and it is extremely unlikely that Belarusians are an exception.
The Z280 subclade consists of a large number of branches of different “ages” and numbers, which can be identified by analyzing extended haplotypes and SNPs. However, on a tree of 20-marker haplotypes, as a rule, they overlap, so the assignment can be judged only by indirect signs. For example, from statistical data on the extensive haplotypes of neighboring peoples. A similar approach made it possible to identify 2 more branches. The first, occupying the sector at the bottom right of the tree (highlighted in green), consists of 128 haplotypes and converges to the following basic haplotype:
13 25 16 11 11 15 12 12 10 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 12 15 11 24.
It coincides with the corresponding fragment of the basic haplotype of the northern Eurasian branch (Z92), its younger subbranch, which is represented in commercial databases mainly by Russians, Belarusians and Lithuanians. The time to the common ancestor of 128 Belarusians from this list also coincides, within error, with the time to the ancestor of the corresponding branch of 67-marker haplotypes – 2675±300 and 2350±250 years, respectively. Without a doubt, this is the same genealogical line.
The second branch, of 88 haplotypes, is located on the tree next to the Central European one (highlighted in orange) and has the following basic haplotype:
13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 11 16 11 23.
It coincides with the basic haplotype of the Balto-Carpathian branch, identity with which is also indicated by the times before the common ancestors - 3750±450 and about 4300 years ago, respectively. In commercial databases, this branch is typical for the Baltic states, as well as Polish Pomerania, and its presence among Belarusians is quite natural.
The remaining 168 haplotypes cannot be divided into stable branches in the available 20-marker format. Together they give a basic haplotype very close to the Balto-Carpathian one given above:
13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 11 16 11 23.
In this format, it coincides with the basic haplotypes of the Eastern Carpathian and Western Eurasian branches, as well as with the basic haplotype of the entire Z280 subclade, which began to diverge about 4900 years ago. The time to the common ancestor of the Belarusians from this list (4200±450 years) testifies more in favor of the latter option, which is also consistent with statistical data on the extended haplotypes of the Slavs. This haplotype diverges from the basic haplotypes of the Central European and West Slavic branches of the M458 subclade by 5 and 4 mutations, respectively. This gives 4300 and 3325 years between them or, taking into account the "age" of the branches themselves, (2600 + 4200 + 4300)/2 = 5550 and (2150 + 4200 + 3325)/2 = 4800 years before the common ancestor of the M458 and Z280 subclades. Calculation using 67 marker haplotypes gave a dating for this point of 5500±600 years ago, which is the same (within the error). Thus, the previously stated position about the same common ancestor of R1a1 carriers among Russians and Belarusians can be considered proven. Naturally, five thousand years ago he was neither Russian nor Belarusian. Soon his family will move east, populate the territories of modern Belarus and Russia, as well as adjacent territories, and his descendants will eventually become modern Belarusians and Russians of haplogroup R1a1.

Haplogroup I (M170)
Combined haplogroup I ranks second among Belarusians after R1a1, covering 24% of the entire sample. The tree has a fairly simple structure and splits into two homogeneous branches with relatively recent common ancestors, as well as a small (< 1% от выборки) группу гаплотипов из других ветвей I2 (рис. 3).
The sample of haplogroup I1 among Belarusians converges on a common ancestor who lived 3700±450 years ago and on the base haplotype:
13 23 14 10 14 14 11 14 11 12 11 28 15 16 20 10 10 14 10 22.
This coincides with the data for the entire haplogroup when calculated using extended haplotypes. In the 20-marker format, the branch cannot be resolved into daughter branches, and therefore, in this approximation, Belarusian I1 can be considered indistinguishable from the rest, which are distributed mainly in the northern part of Europe.
Even more homogeneous is the I2a1b branch (formerly known as I2a2), represented by 194 haplotypes. Basic haplotype of the branch:
13 24 16 11 14 15 11 15 13 13 11 31 17 15 20 10 10 15 10 23.
It coincides with the basic haplotype of the “Dinaric” branch, found everywhere among the Slavs and reaching its peak in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the time to the common ancestor, calculated from the Belarusian sample, turned out to be noticeably longer than that given by calculations based on extended haplotypes - 3200 ± 350 and 2200 ± 250 years, respectively. To find out the reason for the discrepancy, a model calculation of a reference sample of 67 marker haplotypes I2a1b was again carried out using the same method as for the West Slavic branch. As expected, the score on the 17-marker panel gave an inflated result, exactly matching the figures for Belarusians. The reason for this is the same as already discussed above. Consequently, the common ancestor of all carriers of the “Dinaric” branch I2a1b, regardless of the region, is the same, with a lifetime of 2200 ± 250 years ago.
Disparate haplotypes, presumably from subclade I2a2 (formerly known as I2b1), do not form separate branches and can currently be considered as a minor admixture in the total mass.

Haplogroup N1c1 (Tat)
Like the branches of haplogroup I, the Belarusian sample of 109 N1c1 haplotypes gives a fairly homogeneous tree in which it is difficult to distinguish daughter subbranches (Fig. 4). Its base haplotype is:
14 23 15 11 11 13 11 12 10 14 14 30 17 14 19 11 11 14 10 21.
This is the South Baltic branch (N1c1a1a1-L550 in the current ISOGG notation), which in full 67-marker format has the following basic haplotype (matching alleles are marked):
14 23 14 11 11 13 11 12 10 14 14 30 – 17 9 9 11 12 25 14 19 28 14 14 15 15 – 11 11 18 20 14 15 17 19 36 36 13 10 – 11 8 15 1 7 8 8 10 8 11 10 12 21 22 14 10 12 12 17 7 13 20 21 16 12 11 10 11 11 12 11 (South Baltic base haplotype).
The life span of the common ancestor of Belarusians was 3825±400 years ago, which, however, is approximately 1000 years earlier than the calculation based on 67 marker haplotypes. A model calculation with a sample of the South Baltic branch gave the same result as for 67-marker haplotypes - about 2700 years ago. In numerical terms, the share of haplogroup N1c1 among Belarusians is 10%, which is noticeably less than among ethnic Russians (14%), but larger if we take into account only its South Baltic branch (40–50% of N1c1 among Russians, that is 6–7%).

Haplogroup R1b1a2 (M269)
The most common haplogroup in Western Europe, R1b1a2, includes 58 haplotypes from the Belarusian sample (5.3%), which practically coincides with the statistics for Russians (4.8%). The tree splits into two branches, each with 29 haplotypes. The first converges to a common ancestor who lived 3725±520 years ago. Its base haplotype is:
12 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 16 15 19 11 11 15 12 23.
The second branch has almost the same “age” – 3825±520 years, but its basic haplotype differs by 5 mutations:
13 23 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 15 19 11 11 16 12 23.
The first basic haplotype coincides with the corresponding fragment of the 67-marker basic haplotype of the R1b1a2a1 branch (L150+, L51-) with an ancestor who lived about 6000 years ago. It is extremely rare in Western Europe, but is typical for a number of peoples of the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia (Armenians, Georgians, Assyrians, Ossetians, Dagestanis), Eastern Europe (Bashkirs, Tatars, Czechs, Greeks) and Central Asia (Turkmen, Kazakhs, Uighurs) , as well as Ashkenazi Jews. The second basic haplotype is one of the variants of the European branches of the R1b1a2a1a (L51+) subclade, of which there are 155 in the current ISOGG classification. The difference of 5 mutations between the “western” and “eastern” basic haplotypes corresponds to 4300 years between them and their common ancestor, who lived ( 3725 + 3825 + 4300)/2 ? 5900 years ago, which, within the limits of error, coincides with the lifetime of the ancestor of the parent subclade R1b1a2a1 (L150). The relatively recent life of the ancestor of the “eastern” branch among the Belarusians may indicate that among them, representatives of one of the daughter branches of this subclade, which has not yet been sufficiently studied in comparison with the Western European branches, predominate.

Haplogroup E1b1b1 (M35.1)
The percentage of carriers of haplogroup E1b1b1 among Belarusians is relatively small (4%), approximately at the same level as among other European peoples not belonging to the Mediterranean area. Basic haplotype –
13 24 13 10 16 18 11 12 12 13 11 30 15 14 20 9 11 16 10 21 –
coincides with the base haplotype of the E1b1b1a1b (V13) branch, most represented in Europe, but, in contrast to the 3600 years before the common ancestor, which gives the calculation of the extended V13 haplotypes, the Belarusian sample shows an ancestor 5750 ± 700 years ago. The calculation using 17 marker fragments of the V13 reference sample gave 4250 ± 450 years before the common ancestor. The obvious reason for the discrepancy is the same as in the case discussed above with haplogroup N1c1, that is, the overlap of several distant branches. Insufficient resolution does not allow for reliable division into branches, which leads to an “overestimation” of the time to the common ancestor due to haplotypes that do not belong to the E1b1b1a1b subclade.

Haplogroup J (P209)
Haplogroup J in the sample includes 33 haplotypes (3% of all). A branch of 13 haplotypes is distinguished with an ancestor who lived 3100±600 years ago and a base haplotype:
12 24 15 10 13 17 11 15 12 12 11 28 16 16 19 11 10 13 9 21.
It differs by only one mutation (isolated) from the basic haplotype of the J2b2a branch (L283), which has an “age” of 4000 ± 450 years and is scattered with low frequency throughout Europe, but is almost never found in the Middle East. Apparently, 13 Belarusians belong to the same rather rare European branch of haplogroup J2.
Traces of another rare genealogical line are found among carriers of haplogroup J1, who form a fairly compact branch with the basic haplotype:
13 24 14 10 13 19 11 13 12 13 11 29 19.2 14 21 11 11 15 10 21.
The common ancestor falls at a time of 3000±650 years ago, and the base haplotype of this small branch is 5 mutations (highlighted) away from the base haplotype of the branch J1*(DYS388=13), which has an “age” of about 5000 years and is characteristic of the peoples of the North Caucasus. For the latter branch, SNP Z1842, not yet indexed in ISOGG, was recently identified. A difference of 5 mutations in this format corresponds to 4300 years between haplotypes, and the common ancestor of the Belarusian and North Caucasian samples dates back to (3000 + 5000 + 4300)/2 = 6150 years ago. Consequently, carriers of haplogroup J1 in the sample from Belarus represent a branch related or subsidiary to the “Caucasian” subclade. Contrary to the cliched definition of haplogroup J1 as Semitic, the early separated branch Z1842 practically contains neither Arabs nor Jews, and therefore it is extremely unlikely that the 8 haplotypes under consideration are a trace of Ashkenazi Jews, who before the First World War made up up to 20% of the population of Belarus. She has a different origin, still unknown.
The remaining haplotypes, which apparently belong to different branches of the J2a subclade, are grouped in groups of 2–3, without forming distinct branches. Their detailed analysis was not carried out due to the small sample size and low resolution.

Haplogroups C3, G1, G2a, N, Q, R1b1a1, R2, T
All other haplogroups account for 32 haplotypes, or 3% of the entire sample. Of these, 15 belong to haplogroup G2a. Their basic haplotype can be written as follows:
14 22 15 10 14 15 11 12 11 12 11 29 17 16 21 11 11 15 10 21.
It coincides with the base haplotype of the parent branch of the G2a1c2a subclade (P303, formerly known as G2a3b), characteristic of the North Caucasus, but scattered at low frequency throughout Europe and, judging by fossil DNA finds, representing one of the main genealogical lineages of Neolithic Europe. The time to the common ancestor of the Belarusian haplotypes (7200±1100 years) coincides within the error with the estimate for the P303 subclade (about 6300 years ago). Obviously, if not all, then a significant part of the carriers of this haplogroup in Belarus belongs to the G2a1c2a subclade.
Single haplotypes from other branches are collected on the right side of the tree. Their assignment was made using a search for similar haplotypes in commercial databases and the Whit Athey program. Of these, at least 9 haplotypes can be attributed to lineages of Central and East Asian origin. These are haplogroups C3 (M217), G1 (M342), N1b (P43, N1c2b in the current notation), Q1a2 (M25) and R1b1a1 (M73). There are very few of them, at the level of fractions of a percent, just like the Russians. And those that exist may have been inherited in part from the Lithuanian Tatars, whose resettlement from Crimea to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th century. well documented. The Tatars lost their language early, switching to Old Belarusian, and some of them were baptized, thereby merging with the Belarusians.
The analysis showed that Belarusians have the same Y-chromosomal lines as Russians, with the same common ancient ancestors. Consequently, both East Slavic peoples are close in origin, since they go back to the same groups of ancient ethnic groups. The differences relate mainly to the percentage of these lines, as well as the geographical distribution for some of them. It should be understood that although the haplotypes identified in the genetic structure of ethnic Belarusians and Russians are reduced in time to common ancient ancestors (with the given basic haplotypes), this does not mean that these ancestors lived (and did they live?) in the territories occupied by modern ethnic groups. The question of which specific descendants of ancient genealogical lines ultimately settled in a particular territory is more complex. Analysis of the geographic distribution of Y chromosome lineages illustrates this problem more clearly.
Statistically significant results of such an analysis can be obtained from Table. 1, which contains data on the Slavic peoples, as well as the closest neighbors of the Belarusians, the Lithuanians.
An important feature of the studied array of ethnic Belarusians is that DNA samples were collected primarily in agricultural areas. Regional capital cities, as a rule, accumulate the local population, which, despite numerous wars, remained stable and did not experience external migration in historical times. With a relatively even representation of historical and ethnographic regions (Fig. 1), this gives reason to believe that the geographical distribution of the genealogical lines of Belarusians can provide additional information about their ethnogenesis.
Since the distribution of some genealogical lines on the territory of Belarus has a pronounced gradient (I2a1b, R1a-Z280, Table 1), the use of average values ​​in the analysis will obviously be incorrect. For this reason and taking into account the identified features of the haplotype pool, the data on the sampling sites were divided into 3 zones: B – northwestern territory, directly adjacent to Lithuania; C – center of Belarus and part of Poozerie; D – Polesie and the southern part of the Dnieper region. In addition to them, the 3 westernmost collection sites - Volkovysk, Kobrin and Bereza (part of Western Polesie and the southern part of Ponemanya) - were allocated to zone A, since there is no factual basis for their classification in zones B, C or D.
The distribution of branches by zone clearly shows the special position of zone B, bordering Lithuania. There, the percentage of carriers of the I2a1b branch is noticeably reduced (8% versus 18% on average in Belarus) and the representation of N1c1 is increased (15 and 10%, respectively). As you move away from Lithuania (C and D), the percentage of N1c1 carriers naturally decreases, while I2a1b carriers increase. If we compare these data with the statistics for Lithuanians (4% I2a1b and 47% N1c1), it is obvious that this trend can be explained by the contribution of the ancient Baltic ethnic groups to the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians. An additional argument in favor of this assignment is that in commercial databases, carriers of haplogroup N1c1 among both Lithuanians and Belarusians are represented exclusively by the South Baltic branch (L550+), while among Russians, which include descendants of assimilated Finnish Ugric peoples, this branch makes up no more than 40–50% of all N1c1 carriers. These data also suggest that the contribution of the Finno-Ugric peoples of the Russian Plain to the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians was minimal, if not absent altogether.
The branches of haplogroup R1a1 do not show statistically significant correlations with geography - they are distributed quite evenly across the territory of Belarus. The northern Eurasian branch (Z92) occupies a somewhat special position - one of the main genealogical lines of Belarusians, Russians and Lithuanians, but rarely found among the Western and Southern Slavs. In zone A, bordering Poland, one can also note a higher proportion of carriers of haplogroups I1 and R1b1a2 – 10 and 8% versus 6 and 5% on average in Belarus, respectively. The remaining genealogical lines, which together cover 10% of Belarusians, are too small to make such estimates.
The Belarusians occupy a “strategically” important region between the Balts in the north and the Ukrainians in the south, between the Poles and Russians in the west and east, respectively, and north of the Carpathians, along which numerous migrations of Slavic tribes took place in ancient times. From the point of view of interaction and mutual influence of ethnic groups, it is interesting to analyze the distribution of genealogical lines in the territories adjacent to neighboring ethnic groups (Table 1).
This analysis shows that between Belarusians from zone A and the Poles, significant differences are revealed in the North Eurasian and West Slavic branches of haplogroup R1a, as well as between haplogroups R1b1a2 and I2a1b (the same trend when compared with zone B). There is a significant difference between Belarusians from zone B and neighboring Lithuanians (R1a-Z280, R1a-CE, R1a-NEA2, R1a-WS). When comparing the territories neighboring Russia (zones C and D), attention is drawn to the difference in haplogroup R1a (R1a-Z280, R1a-CE, R1a-BC), as well as between haplogroups I2a1b and I1.
Thus, the differences revealed with neighboring ethnic groups may indicate that, despite the origin from common ancient ancestors (the presence of common ancient genealogical lines), the historical development of the modern Belarusian ethnic group had its own characteristics, inherent only to this territory.
A joint analysis of the dating and distribution of genealogical lines among Belarusians and neighboring peoples makes it possible to outline several waves of settlement that contributed to the ethnogenesis of modern Belarusians. The earliest dates can be traced to approximately 4300 years ago, when the growth of the Balto-Carpathian branch R1a1, as well as the parent branches of the western and central Eurasian branches of the same subclade Z280, began to grow. The majority most likely belong to the same wave
carriers of haplogroup I1 among Belarusians and Russians. This wave can be conditionally called autochthonous, since the genealogical lines of those who previously lived in this territory were cut short, and their Y-chromosomal haplogroups are unknown to us.
The next wave is associated with the growth of the South Baltic branch N1c1, which began 2700±300 years ago. Currently, the peak prevalence of this branch is in Lithuania and Latvia, but this does not necessarily mean that its ancestor lived there. Haplogroup N1c1 is of Asian origin, and therefore it is no less likely that its South Baltic branch formed somewhere to the east and its carriers came to the shores of the Baltic Sea a little later. Since the routes and dates of migration of the corresponding ethnic groups are still unknown, it is difficult to correlate this wave with any of the archaeological cultures contemporary to it.
Finally, the third key dating falls in the middle - the end of the 1st millennium BC. It corresponds to the rapid growth of the “Dinaric” branch I2a1b (2200±250 years ago), the northern Eurasian branch R1a1 (2350±250 years ago), as well as several daughter branches of the Z280 subclade, which are not distinguished on the tree of 20-marker haplotypes (Fig. 2 ), but were characterized by extended haplotypes. Judging by the geographical distribution of these lines, their growth came from different centers. Rather, these were counter migrations from the south or southwest (I2a1b and part of the Z280 branches) and from the Baltic (northern Eurasian branch R1a1). It is very possible that the latter originated in Belarus. The picture with the M458 subclade, whose branches began to separate earlier (3000–2700 years ago), is not entirely clear, but judging by the peak in the Czech Republic and Poland, and then the decline in their numbers eastward, the carriers of this subclade, noticeably distant from Z280, could have appeared on territory of Belarus later. Perhaps with the same wave of settlement as the branches mentioned above. Representatives of these genealogical lines now form the basis of all Slavic peoples without exception - both modern and those who underwent assimilation and joined the Germans, Hungarians, Romanians, Greeks, and Turks. There is every reason to connect this chain of demographic events with the migrations of the Slavs and the spread of Slavic languages. As can be seen from the analysis of dating and geography, it is doubtful that all these related, but still different peoples fell under the same archaeological culture. This, apparently, explains the unsuccessful attempts to tie the ancestral home of the Slavs to a specific place and date. Their formation was extended in time and space, as can be judged by the amount of evidence. The details of this process have yet to be clarified, but there is no doubt that the territory of Belarus played a key role in it.
Thus, the studies have shown that the main genera-haplogroups of Belarusians are R1a1 (51% of all considered haplotypes, the common ancestor lived about 5500 years ago), I2 (18%, the common ancestor lived 2200±250 years), I1 (6% , common ancestor lived 3700±450 years ago), N1с1 (10%, common ancestor lived 2700±400 years ago). Haplogroup genera are distributed unevenly across the territory of Belarus.
Ethnic Belarusians have the same Y-chromosomal lineages as Russians, with the same common ancient ancestors. Consequently, both East Slavic peoples are close in origin, since they go back to the same groups of ancient ethnic groups.
At the same time, the contribution of the ancient Baltic ethnic groups clearly stands out in the ethnogenesis of Belarusians: carriers of haplogroup N1c1 among Belarusians are represented exclusively by the South Baltic branch (L550+).
The contribution of the Finno-Ugric peoples of the Russian Plain to the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians was minimal, if not absent altogether, which distinguishes the ethnic groups of the Belarusians and Russians: among the Russians, which include the descendants of the assimilated Finno-Ugric peoples, the South Baltic branch makes up no more than 40–50% from all N1c1 carriers.
The presence of minor haplogroups of Central and East Asian origin indicates a certain degree of assimilation into the gene pool of Belarusians of the gene pool of the “Lithuanian” (Crimean) Tatars. At the same time, the analysis did not reveal in the gene pool of Belarusians the lines found among Ashkenazi Jews. Thus, the Belarusian and Jewish ethnic groups, despite their long coexistence, did not interact from a genetic point of view.
The differences revealed with neighboring ethnic groups may indicate that, despite their origin from common ancient ancestors (the presence of common ancient genealogical lines), the historical development of the modern Belarusian ethnic group had its own characteristics, unique only to this territory.
In general, Belarus forms a single Slavic zone with the Slavs of Eastern Europe according to DNA genealogy from the point of view of the history of migrations and the times of life of the common ancestors of DNA genealogical lines.

Ethnos - is a historically established stable community of people in a certain territory who have similar, relatively stable characteristics of culture (including language) and psyche, as well as self-awareness, that is, awareness of their unity and difference from all other similar communities, which is expressed in the name of the ethnos (ethnonym) . It is advisable to distinguish between the objective factors that determine the very origin of an ethnos and the characteristics that arise in the process of the formation of ethnic communities. Ethnic-forming factors include: unity of territory, natural conditions, economic connections, etc., but these are not ethnic categories. Ethnic characteristics in the narrow sense of the word, reflecting real differences between ethnic communities, include features in the field of ethnic identity and culture of an ethnos. The most important ethnic feature is ethnic self-awareness. It represents a system containing elements of two types - stable formations (attitudes to values ​​and ideals), as well as moving, socio-psychological aspects (feelings, emotions, mood, tastes, sympathies). Ethnic self-awareness includes the judgment of members of an ethnos about the nature of the actions of their community, its properties and achievements. In the self-awareness of an ethnic group we will find ideas about the historical past of our people, about its territory, language, culture, universe, and necessarily judgments about other ethnic groups. The basic conditions for the emergence of an ethnos - common territory and language - subsequently act as its main features. At the same time, an ethnos can be formed from multilingual elements, formed and consolidated in different territories in the process of migration (gypsies, etc.). Additional conditions for the formation of an ethnic community can be a common religion, racial proximity of the components of an ethnic group, or the presence of significant mestizo (transitional) groups. In the course of ethnogenesis, under the influence of the characteristics of economic activity in certain natural conditions and other reasons, features of material and spiritual culture, everyday life, and group psychological characteristics specific to a given ethnic group are formed. Members of an ethnos develop a common self-awareness, in which the idea of ​​their common origin occupies a prominent place. The external manifestation of this self-awareness is the presence of a common self-name - an ethnonym. The formed ethnic community acts as a social organism, self-reproducing through predominantly ethnically homogeneous marriages and the transfer of language, culture, traditions, ethnic orientation, etc. to the new generation. d.

Ethnogenesis (from the Greek “tribe, people” and “origin”), ethnic history is the process of formation of an ethnic community (ethnos) on the basis of various ethnic components. Ethnogenesis represents the initial stage of ethnic history. Upon its completion, other groups assimilated by it may be included in the existing ethnic group, fragmentation and the identification of new ethnic groups. The problem of the origin of the Belarusian people is very complex and insufficiently studied. Its complexity is due to the fact that it is studied by analyzing many sources of different nature - written monuments, ethnographic data, archeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc. It is quite difficult to study all these sources in depth and compare the information contained in them. In addition, ethnogenesis is a very rich historical process in content. To reach the truth, it is necessary to cover all its sides. There is also a difference in the methods of analysis of factual material by researchers of this problem." All this determines the existence of different views on the origin of the Belarusian people. Among them we can distinguish the "Finnish", "Baltic", "Kriviche-Dregovich-Radimich", "Old Russian" concepts of the Belarusian ethnogenesis. In accordance with the "Finnish" concept (I. Laskov), the ancestors of the Belarusian people were Slavs and Finns. As evidence, he refers to the fact that some names of Belarusian rivers and lakes, for example Dvina, Mordva, Svir, are of Finnish origin. Supporters of this The so-called "Baltic" concept (V. Sedov, G. Shtykhov and others) believe that the ancestors of Belarusians are the Slavs and Balts. They refer to the names of Belarusian rivers and lakes of Baltic origin (Oresa, Kleva, Resta, etc.), they claim that the Balts as the ancestors of the Belarusians are evidenced by some elements of traditional Belarusian culture and language (the cult of the snake, the female headdress warrior, the hard sound “r”, etc.) The authors of the “Krivichi-Dregovichi-Radimich” concept (E. Karsky, M. Dovnar -Zapolsky, V. Picheta and others) believed that the main ancestors of the Belarusian ethnic group were the Krivichi, Dregovichi, and Radimichi. Their arguments include continuity of material culture and linguistic borrowing. Thus, they believed that the plow with a crossbar and “akanye” were originally characteristic of the Krivichi, and the Polesie plow and the diphthongs uo, ie in the south were originally elements of the culture and language of the Dregovichi. Those who adhere to the “Old Russian” concept of the origin of the Belarusian people (E. Korneychik and others) argue that the ancestors of the Belarusians were one of the parts of the so-called Old Russian people. At the same time, they are confident in the existence of a single ancient state - Rus', in which there existed a single ancient Russian language and culture (for example, epics). In order to determine the attitude towards different concepts, it is necessary to first find out what place the facts on which these views are based occupy in the ethnic (cultural) history of the region. Are the names of some Belarusian rivers of Finnish origin proof that the ancestors of the Belarusians were also Finnish-speaking population groups? It's safe to say that they are not. The Finnish-speaking population on the territory of Belarus lived in ancient times, at the end of the Stone Age, and was assimilated here not by the Slavs, but by the ancient Balts, who settled in Ponemania, Podvinia and the Upper Dnieper in the Bronze Age. The Finns on the territory of Belarus were the substrate (substratum) not of the Belarusians, but of the ancient Balts. The Finnish names of rivers and lakes in our region were first adopted by the Balts, and then from the Balts they passed into the vocabulary of the Slavic population, which appeared in Ponemanya, Podvinia and the Upper Dnieper region after the Balts. There is also a lot of controversy in the evidence of the “Baltic” concept. The facts that its supporters refer to are characteristic not only of Balts and Belarusians. The hard “r”, for example, in addition to the Balts and Belarusians, is also inherent in the language of the Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Czechs, and Slovaks, on whom the Balts did not have cultural influence. The women's headdress, the warrior, was characteristic not only of the Balts and Belarusians, but also of other Slavic peoples, in particular Ukrainians, Bulgarians, and Poles. And such a phenomenon as the snake cult was even more widespread. It is inherent in the religion of not only the Balts and Slavs, but also the Greeks and Albanians. The names of Belarusian rivers and lakes of Baltic origin cannot be considered evidence of the Baltic substrate (underlying basis) of the Belarusians. They only indicate that in the past, after the Finns, the ancient Balts lived on the territory of Belarus. As a result of the widespread settlement of the Slavs in the territory of our region and their mixing with the eastern Balts, not Belarusians, but the primary East Slavic ethnic communities - Krivichi, Dregovichi and Radimichi - were formed. The view, widespread until this time, that from the very beginning they were purely Slavic ethnic communities, and not of mixed origin, has no solid evidence. There are significantly more arguments in favor of the view that the Dregovichi, Krivichi and Radimichi were formed on the territory of Belarus. Part of the Slavs was only one of the ancestral groups of each ethnic community, and the other was part of the Balts. In comparison with the ancient Finnish-speaking and Baltic-speaking population, the East Slavic ethnic communities of Krivichi, Dregovichi and Radimichi are historically closer to the Belarusians. But there are also controversial points in the argumentation of the view that the immediate ancestors of the Belarusians are the Krivichi, Dregovichi and Radimichi. Elements of the culture and language of the Belarusians (different types of plow - Polesie and with a crossbar, features of the dialects of individual regions - "akanie", diphthongs uo, ie), considered integral elements of the culture and language of the Dregovichi or Krivichi, arose later than the existence of the Krivichi, Dregovichi and Radimichi , no earlier than the 12th century, and spread over wider areas than their territories. There is a lot of schematics in the ideas of the “Old Russian” concept of the origin of the Belarusians. The idea of ​​considering Ancient Rus' to be the common cradle of the Belarusian, Ukrainian and Great Russian communities is also controversial, since it disintegrated and disappeared before the Belarusian and Great Russian peoples arose. The regional features of the culture and language of the Eastern Slavs, both early and late, do not correspond to the East Slavic ethnic groups - Belarusians, Ukrainians and Great Russians. The western part of the territory of the Eastern Slavs, which became the area for the formation of the Belarusian ethnic group, was not separated into a separate linguistic and ethnographic zone during the existence of Ancient Rus'. The statement that Ancient Rus' is the cradle of three East Slavic ethnic communities is a simplified approach to a complex historical process. Probably, the main ancestors of modern Belarusians were population groups that lived on modern Belarusian lands after the Krivichi, Dregovichi and Radimichi disappeared. They were, first of all, the inhabitants who occupied the north of the Podvina-Dnieper and Popripyat regions. The first community was formed as a result of the transformation of the Krivichi, Vyatichi and the northern part of the Radimichi, the second - the Dregovichi, Drevlyans and southern Rodimichs. Both also had the common name “Rusyns”, “Russians”, i.e. East Slavs. They differed from the Krivichi, Dregovich and Radimichi by new features of culture and language. Among the inhabitants of the Podvina-Dnieper region, a plow with a crossbar, a rectangular threshing floor, straight-cut outerwear, an initial wedding song (pillar song), etc. were common. “Akanye” appeared in their speech (the pronunciation of the vowel sound “o” without stress as “a” ), as well as “dzekanye” (the consonant sound “d” began to be pronounced more softly). Characteristic elements of the culture of the inhabitants of the Pripyat basin were the Polesie plow, polygonal threshing floors, a developed form of caravan ritual, and the winter New Year holiday Kolyada. In speech, the sounds “r” and “ch” began to be pronounced firmly, the diphthongs uo, lie appeared. Another very important aspect of Belarusian ethnogenesis was the diffusion (penetration) of cultural and linguistic phenomena. Diffusion had a noticeable impact on the formation of the Belarusian language, in particular its phonetics. The phonetics of the Belarusian language arose by combining some features of the spoken language of the Popripyat population, on the one hand, and the Podvinsk population, on the other. First it occurred in the central region of the Poneman and Dnieper lands, and then through the central region it expanded further into the southern and northern parts of the region. From the south (Popripyatye) to the north (Podvinye) hard “r” and “ch” were widespread, and from north to south - soft “d” (“dzekanye”), as well as “akanie”. The diffusion of cultural and linguistic phenomena was facilitated by the resettlement of both East Slavic and non-East Slavic groups, their mixing with local residents and the assimilation of West Slavic (Polish), Baltic, and Turkic (Tatar) by the East Slavic population. Belarusian ethnogenesis is closely connected with the political history of the region. It took place both during the existence of the ancient principalities - Polotsk, Turov, etc., and during the creation of a new state - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia and Zhemoit.

— the process of formation of the Belarusian ethnic group.

The Belarusian people are one of the branches (subgroups) of the Eastern Slavs within the Slavic group of the Indo-European family of peoples. It was formed as a result of long and complex ethnic processes that took place at different times on the territory of Belarus, absorbed and processed a diverse genetic fund over several millennia.

Genome of the Belarusian people

In terms of the concentration of the “M” and “N” genes, the Belarusian ethnos occupies an intermediate position between the central and Eastern European zones (three main ones:

• western,
• central and
• eastern).

Local options on the territory of Belarus give two main zones:

• southwestern with the frequency of the “M” gene more than 60% and
• northeastern with a frequency of less than 60%.

In the populations of Western Polesie, homozygotes are statistically more common, which indicates their relative isolation in the past. Data from studies of the Rh factor indicate the autochthony of Belarusian rural populations. In terms of sensitivity to phenylthiocarbamide, Belarusians, Lithuanians and Ukrainians are almost the same. But there is a difference between them and the Poles and Russians. The studied haplotypes give grounds to assert that the Belarusian population, more than others, corresponds to the East Slavic ancestral community. The term “East Slavic” is used conditionally by Belarusians, leaving the more accurate use of the term “East European” in relation to the people of Belarus.

In 2005-2010 at the Institute of Genetics and Cytology of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus was A study of the gene pool of Belarusians was carried out using data from three types of genetic markers - autosomal, mitochondrial and Y-chromosome.

Research findings

“The differences between Belarusian populations are smaller than the differences between Ukrainian populations, and much smaller than the differences within Russian populations. That is, different populations of Belarusians are genetically very similar to each other.” At the same time, on the issue of the similarity of the gene pool of Belarusians to the Balts and Slavs, it was determined that “in the paternal line, the differences between Belarusians and the Balts are very clearly expressed - in haplogroup “Y” Belarusians belong to the circle of Eastern and Western Slavs. In the maternal line (mtDNA haplogroups), Belarusians are equally similar to the Balts and the Slavs - both Western, so and eastern ».

Y chromosome studies

According to this study, most of the studied genomes of Belarusians contained haplogroups “R1a” (60%) and “I1b” (17%). Based on the frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups (transmitted from the father to male descendants), the gene pool of Belarusians can be characterized as European (as indicated by the haplogroup “R1b3”), Eastern European (by the predominance of the haplogroup “R1a”) and northeastern (due to the presence of the haplogroup "N3"). The presence of haplogroup “I1b” in a significant part of the Belarusian population indicates the presence of genetic ties with the peoples of Southern Europe. So the comparison results with the genome of other European peoples show that, according to Y-chromosome markers, Belarusians “show high similarity with the Eastern Slavs and most Western Slavs, but are genetically far from the Balts.” Besides, a genetic community was discovered that “forms a single dense cluster, including Belarusians, Poles, southwestern residents of the territories of modern Russia associated with the ethnic history of Belarus and Ukraine (Belgorod, Voronezh, Kursk, Oryol regions), as well as Russians of the Tver region.” In addition, the differences between northern and southern Belarusians on this marker turned out to be minimal. The third largest haplogroup among Belarusians is “N1c”, and on average its frequency varies from 8% on south up to 15% on north. This Y chromosome marks the migration flow With north, probably associated with the Finno-Ugric component.

Mitochondrial DNA Research

Studies of mitochondrial DNA, which is transmitted from the mother to offspring of both sexes, have shown that most of the gene pool of Belarusians is represented by haplogroup H (38%), and the rest of the haplogroup “J”, “U5a”, “T” (7-10%) . There are significant differences between southern And northern Belarusians. They are achieved through expressed originality northern Belarusians, which is not related to the Baltic substrate in the maternal lines of inheritance - northern Belarusians are equally genetically distant from the Balts and from the Western Slavs (including the Poles), and from the Finno-Ugric peoples, from almost all populations of the Eastern Slavs.” It is noted that in mitochondrial DNA there is “very high similarity southern Belarusians with southern And Western Russian populations: to them southern Belarusians are 3-5 times genetically closer than To northern Belarusians."

Autosomal DNA Research

A comparative analysis of the gene pools of Western Eurasia showed that “in autosomal DNA markers, all Eastern Slavs are included in one cluster of Eastern Europe. However, Ukrainian and Russian populations are located closer to each other than to Belarusians... Ukrainians and Russians are closer to the populations of Western and Southern Europe than Belarusians. Unfortunately, the closest western and northern neighbors of the Belarusians, and in particular the Baltic peoples, have not been studied using these markers. It can be assumed that some of the uniqueness of the gene pool of Belarusians is associated with the contribution of the Baltic substrate.”

Concepts of ethnogenesis

• "Tribal" concept

At the beginning of the 20th century, a concept was formed among the Belarusian national intelligentsia, according to which Belarusians descended from the chronicled Krivichi tribe. The author of the “Krivicka” concept was Vaclav Lastovsky. Previously, such ideas were conventionally called “tribal” concepts, voiced by Nikolai Kostomarov and Mikhail Pogodin. The concept was not widely adopted, but served as the ideological basis for the formation "Krivitsky-Dregovichskoe-Radimitskoi" concepts. Its authors were famous historians and linguists Efim Karsky, Moses Greenblat, Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky and Vladimir Picheta. The concept is based on the idea of ​​the formation of the Belarusian ethnic group as a result of the ethnic consolidation of the tribes inhabiting the ethnic territory of the Belarusians. The popularity of this concept is quite high, although it does not take into account the chronological gap between the disappearance of chronicled tribes in the middle of the 12th century and the formation of a common Belarusian ethnic complex.

• "Baltic" concept

In the 1960s - early 1970s, Moscow archaeologist Valentin Sedov formed a new concept. According to her, the Belarusian ethnos was formed from the mixing and mutual assimilation of the local Balts with the visiting Slavs, moreover, the Balts played the role of a substrate in the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians. The concept was based on the attribution of archaeological cultures of the late Iron Age on the territory of Belarus to the Baltic, which now practically no one disputes it. During numerous excavations, Valentin Sedov found a number of jewelry, tools, and weapons that were characteristic of the Baltic culture and did not belong to the Slavs. In his opinion, the migration of the Slavs to these territories began in the middle of the 1st millennium AD, moreover, during this period the Slavs settled only the territories south of the city of Pripyat. The settlement of the main part of the territory of Belarus by the Slavs, according to V. Sedov, dates back only to the 8th-10th centuries. As an argument in favor of the “Baltic” concept, the fact of the presence of Baltic roots in many elements of the language and culture of Belarusians is cited. Eg, worship of snakes and stones in the traditional religion of Belarusians, straight-woven bast shoes, housing construction techniques, a number of sounds of Belarusian phonetics (hard sound “r”, akanye). On the other hand, Ukrainian bast shoes are the same as Belarusian ones, and the veneration of stones is found among all Eastern Slavs. Although most modern researchers generally accept the “Baltic” concept, often question the “great” influence of the Balts on the formation of the Belarusian people, their culture and language. According to the statements of ethnologist Mikhail Pilipenko, the Balts acted as a substrate not for the formation of Belarusians directly, but as a background to the Slavic communities of Krivichi, Dregovich and Radimichi. However, according to Vyacheslav Nosevich, the “new concept” of Mikhail Pilipenko is an attempt to smooth out the contradictions between the “Baltic”, “Krivitsky-Dregovichskoe-Radimitsky” and “Old Russian” concepts, and it does not bring anything new.

• "Finnish" concept

Nominated by the writer Ivan affectionately. According to it, the ancestors of the Belarusians were the Finno-Ugrians. Formed on the basis of the presence of a significant number of ancient Finno-Ugric hydronyms on the territory of Belarus (For example, Dvina, Svir). However, the Finnish-speaking population on the territory of Belarus lived in ancient times, and was assimilated NOT by the Slavs, but by the ancient Balts, who settled in Ponemanya, Podvinia and the Dnieper region in the Bronze Age. The Finns on the territory of Belarus became the substrate not of Belarus, but of the ancient Balts.

• "Old Russian" concept

After World War II, in the KGB-controlled science of the USSR under the leadership of the CPSU, the dominant role was taken by the “Old Russian” concept, according to which Belarusians, along with Ukrainians and Russians, were formed as a result of the collapse of a single Old Russian nation in the 12th-13th centuries. Along with this, Belarusians were prohibited from conducting scientific research that would contradict the pro-Russian imperial ideology of the CPSU of the USSR. Theoretically, this concept was substantiated by Sergei Tokarev, and archaeologists Pyotr Tretyakov and Boris Rybakov also took part in its development. Certain provisions of the “Old Russian concept” were subjected to serious scientific criticism by archaeologists Valentin Sedov and Eduard Zagorulsky. Archaeologist Georgy Shtykhov actively opposed the hypothesis of a “single” Old Russian nationality, after which the section “On the Problem of Old Russian Nationality” containing criticism of this concept was included in textbooks on the history of Belarus. Despite criticism, the “Old Russian” concept remains widespread at the beginning of the 21st century.

• "Polish" and "Russian" concepts

Theories justifying the stay of Belarus as part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Russian Empire. The “Polish” concept (represented by L. Galembovsky, A.F. Ripinsky) and the “Russian” concept (represented by A. I. Sobolevsky, I. I. Sreznevsky) have a common position, according to which the ethnic territory of the Belarusians considered by them as “originally Polish territory” or “originally Russian”, to explain this they put forward the idea of ​​“absence” among Belarusians of a Belarusian language separate from them (which, in parallel to these theories, experienced discrimination by the authorities of both of these state entities). But already at the beginning of the 20th century, the scientist Yu. F. Karsky, in his fundamental work “Belarusians,” proved the independence of the Belarusian language from the Polish language and from the Russian language, thereby refuting the main “argument” of the supporters of these concepts. Now the point of view regarding Belarusians and the Belarusian language as an independent ethnic group and language within the East Slavic group absolutely prevails in academic science.

Reasons, ethnic basis and time of appearance of Belarusians

The emergence of the Belarusian people is a natural result of the past ethnic development of the population of Belarus, determined by the laws of ethnogenesis. In historical literature, the emergence of the Belarusian people is not always covered correctly, without connection with the laws of ethnogenesis and real historical circumstances. Often, instead of fundamental, theoretically based developments based on broad source material, assumptions made at different times are proposed that are far from scientific. It is difficult to call some considerations of non-professionals and amateurs scientific concepts. For example, an idea about the emergence of Belarusians on the basis of the Finnish ethnic group. She was offered affectionately I.A., far from the humanities. For him it was enough to point out that individual Finno-Ugric place names are found on the territory of Belarus. A small number of Finno-Ugric hydronyms actually exist, but in the north-east of Belarus. In general, Baltic river names predominate in the hydronyms of Belarus. However, the advantage of non-Slavic hydronymy here can only indicate that the Slavs were preceded here by the Finno-Ugric population and the Baltic population. In addition, Finno-Hungarian hydronymics appeared in the Neolithic before the arrival of the Balts, and partially began to be used by the latter. But the Slavs later found in this territory not the Finno-Ugrians themselves, but the Balts. Thus, The Finno-Ugrians could not provide any influence on the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians.

There is no doubt that the Slavs spread to the territory previously occupied by the Balts, which explains their use of river names used by the local Baltic population, including Finno-Ugric hydronyms. Considered to be an erroneous proposal Sedov V.V. thesis about the decisive role of the Baltic substratum in the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians. According to this idea, Ermolovich M. I. directly calls Belarusians “Slavicized Balts.”

The substrate can never be the ethnic base of the ethnos that is being formed. The Slavs, as carriers of the Prague-type culture, began to mix with the Balts back in the 6th-7th centuries. AD, soon after their settlement in the area between the Bug and Dnieper rivers, where part of the Balts lived with them. The Baltic substrate at that time played a well-known role in the formation of the eastern group of Slavs, which became the core of the Old Russian people. Therefore, a share of the Baltic component is present in all Eastern Slavs who later settled in Eastern Europe. But the Slavs did not become Belarusians, Ukrainians, or modern Russians.

Slavs who came later to the territory average And northern Belarus, again assimilated some of the Balts. But not every mixture can lead to ethnic transformation and the emergence of an ethnos. The inclusion of other ethnic groups may be noticeable and considered as an influence of the substrate, but it does not lead to the loss of the superstrate's basic ethnic characteristics. The superstrate can undergo only minor changes, acquire, under the influence of the substrate, some new features in language, culture or anthropological type, but the degree of influence of the ethnic substrate in ethnogenesis varies and depends on many factors. It is more significant when the carrier of the substrate is large in quantity and level of cultural development. It is generally accepted that in ethnic interactions, the victory goes to the ethnic group with a high level of economic, cultural and social development. However, it should be recalled that the development of an ethnos is determined not only by one substrate.

Everything indicates that the interaction of the Slavic and Baltic populations on the territory of Belarus was precisely assimilative in nature and did not lead to a noticeable transformation of the Slavic ethnic group. Slavic culture, the Old Russian language and, most importantly, Russian ethnic identity have been preserved. According to sources, the Slavicization of the Balts took place quickly and was completed by the beginning of the 11th century. In subsequent centuries after the completion of the assimilation of the Balts, the Slavs of this region continued to consider themselves and call themselves Russians. Even the first Russian chroniclers, who knew and wrote down that the Slavs were the indigenous population of the territory of Ancient Rus' and came here in the process of Slavic settlement, were silent about the inclusion of the Balts in the Slavic population.

It is difficult to imagine that the Baltic substrate could manifest itself several centuries after the disappearance of the Baltic population on the territory of Western Rus', and, moreover, still become the main reason for the appearance of Belarusians.

In the problem of the origin of Belarusians, it is important to determine the dates. The erroneous position of some authors, observing the provisions on the decisive role of the Baltic substratum in the emergence of the Belarusians, takes the matter to the point of absurdity, believing that the mixing of the Balts with the Slavs, regardless of time and circumstances, automatically led to the birth of the Belarusian ethnos. This hypothesis logically coincides with the point of opponents of the existence of the Old Russian nationality, which is why, in their view, the formation of the Belarusian ethnic group should occur in the second half of the 1st millennium AD. Thus, in some textbooks on the history of Belarus, a section on the emergence of the Belarusians began to be placed immediately after the “Iron Age” section before the era of Ancient Rus'. Following the erroneous thesis about the appearance of Belarusians by mixing the Balts and Slavs, Shtykhov G.V. Belarusians or “proto-Russian” called the carriers of the Bantser and Kolochin cultures (mid-second half of the 1st millennium AD), in which there was nothing Slavic. And Belarusians are an organic part of the Slavic world. There could be no other ethnic basis other than Slavic in the formation of Belarusians.

The second common mistake is to deduce the origin of Belarusians directly from the so-called East Slavic tribes: Krivichi, Dregovich and Radimichi. When the Eastern Slavs began to populate the territory of Belarus north of Pripyat, they no longer represented tribes, but a higher type of ethnic community - the Old Russian people. It became the basis on which the Belarusians were formed, as well as the Ukrainians and later the Russians. Thus, the emergence These peoples belong to the Old Russian period.

The Belarusian ethnic group was formed not on the entire territory of Ancient Rus', but on the basis of that part of the Old Russian people that inhabited the main territory of modern Belarus. And if the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” sometimes also called this part of the Old Russian people Krivichi, Radimichi and Dregovichi, then it must be borne in mind that we are not talking about tribes, but O territorial groups of the Old Russian population did not differ ethnically from each other. The works of M. Ya. Grinblat and M. F. Pilipenko, devoted to the problem of the origin of Belarusians, lack precision in determining these ethnonyms. Such uncertainty in concepts may raise the question of the place of the so-called “Old Russian people” in the ethnogenesis of Belarusians. Also erroneous is the hypothesis about the emergence of Belarusians based only on the lone “Krivitsky tribe”.

The emergence of the Belarusian ethnos among other Slavic peoples was due to all those factors that manifest themselves in ethnogenesis: this is the ethnic past, and the spatial factor (the large territory occupied by the Eastern Slavs), and the action of ethnic substrates, and the role of the political division of the Eastern Slavs, which began in the 13th century, a different political environment in which the various East Slavic regions developed. All this should be taken into account when explaining the reasons for the emergence of the Belarusian people.

When exploring the problem of the origin of Belarusians, it is necessary to highlight the main characteristic features of Belarusians in language, material and spiritual culture; trace when, how and why they arose. It is very important to find out the formation and introduction of Belarusian ethnic identification.

Gene pool and anthropological type

Doctor of Biological Sciences, anthropologist and geneticist Alexey Mikulich (in 1976-1978), taking into account anthropological characteristics, as well as the prevalence of certain blood groups, claims a single racial type of Belarusians, Aukstaites, Latgalians, residents of the Chernigov region, Smolensk region, Bryansk region , the so-called “New Mazovia” and brings this type back to the Neolithic population of Eastern Europe. Belarusians are anthropologically and genetically unchanged, at least 3500, at least 140 tribes in the pedigree of the Belarusian ethnic group (and the Slavs appeared only in the 4th-6th centuries AD), that is, the Belarusians are autochthonous and it is wrong to associate the origin of the Belarusians only with the Slavs.

Anthropologist Efim Chepurkovsky in 1913 identified two main types among Belarusians:

1. population with a predominance of darkly pigmented skin, round heads and short stature in Polesie, and
2. more fair-haired, light-eyed populations, long-headed in the Neman and Western Dvina river basins.

Due to a combination of factors, the population of Polesie was most often isolated from other populations on the territory of Belarus, which makes it possible to assume that it is anthropologically closer to the aboriginal population.

The emergence of Belarusians should be considered as a result of their past ethnic history. Very distant events are reflected in some ethnic and anthropological characteristics of modern Belarusians.

There are several periods in the ethnic history of Belarus:

• Indo-European, which coincides with the Stone Age (XXV-III millennium BC);
• Baltic, which coincides with the bronze and iron days (2nd millennium BC - mid-1st millennium AD);
• Slavic(from the second half of the 1st millennium to the present day).

• Old Russian (until the 13th century)
• Belarusian (from the XIV-XVI centuries to the present day).

These dates and boundaries between ethnic periods are arbitrary, since ethnic processes occur very slowly, and the transition from one period to another can take a long time. The center of gravity of the “ethnic clouds (areas)” of Belarusians and Ukrainians in space are close, but the indicated “clouds” overlap only half, almost moving away from the “cloud” of Russians. Moreover, if the Ukrainian ethnic group does not border with Finno-Ugric component, and Belarusian - just touches then the Russian population is in one cluster with Finno-Ugric, and not with Slavic ethnic groups. The geographical structure of the Belarusian gene pool corresponds to the areas of ancient archaeological cultures. For example, The Dvina genogeographical area overlaps the territory of the expansion of the Neolithic Narva culture (IV-III millennium BC). According to the weighted average of effectively reproducible demographic sizes and according to data on eight anthroposystems of genetic traits, Belarus was inhabited by the ancestors of modern Belarusians approximately 10,000 years ago - given the genetic continuity of the local population, modern Belarusians can with a high degree of confidence be considered the descendants of the local ancient population. The Belarusian subareas are united into one, and the main Russian space is not consolidated and is distinguished by a significant degree of mosaic, that is, the gene pool of Belarusians significantly different from Russian.

Genogeographic analysis allows us to identify regions from the point of view of anthropogenetic typology:

• northern,
• Northwestern,
• southwestern and
• northeastern.

They preserved the substrate characteristics of the pre-Slavic aborigines in Belarus. These regions fit well into the developed scheme of cultural and geographical zoning of Belarus. As a result of not only environmental dependence, but also the possibility of interethnic influence of ancient layers of the autochthonous population of Belarus, the signs of three genetically anthropological complexes with a corresponding concentration of genes on the territory of Belarus:

• PriDvinnya,
• Central Belarus and
• Polesie.

First ethnic formations

The first human settlements on the territory of Belarus appeared in the Late Paleolithic 27 thousand years ago. In the south of the country, in the Gomel region, two sites have been identified and studied since then: Berdizhska in the Chechersk region (appeared 23 thousand years ago) and Yurovichska - in Kalinkovichi (existed 26 thousand years ago). Unfavorable climatic conditions due to the long-term location of the glacier prevented human development of this territory. Increasing cold weather often forced people to leave it and go south. It is possible that the entire population on the territory of Belarus during this period did not exceed one hundred people which merged into several early tribal communities.

After the end of the Ice Age (about 10 thousand years ago during the Mesolithic), active settlement of the territory of Belarus began during the 9th-5th millennium BC. Various Mesolithic tribes of hunters penetrated here from neighboring regions and formed 3-4 ethnocultural regions, which differed little from each other in the elements of material culture. Later (IV-III millennium BC) Neolithic cultures developed on their basis.

Different territories of initial settlement immediately determined differences in the ethnic composition of the population of Belarus throughout the Stone Age. On its territory lived several tribal groups of hunters and fishermen, who were direct descendants of the ancient population of Eastern Europe.

The boundaries that took shape in the Mesolithic between individual tribal groups turned out to be quite stable and persisted for several millennia. The stability of ethnic groups and the territories they occupy in conditions of the same way of life with the same level of economic and social development of these tribes indicates complex interethnic relations that excluded significant mixing and penetration of some tribes into the territory of others.

The language of the mostly Neolithic tribes of Belarus cannot be determined, but there is no doubt that the tribes of that time did not belong to the Indo-European group of peoples. Therefore, they can be conditionally called “pre-Indo-Europeans”.

At the end of the Neolithic (3rd millennium BC), new tribes came to the northern regions of Belarus with a characteristic culture of pit-comb ceramics, which archaeologists associate with the ancient Finno-Ugric peoples. This conclusion is also confirmed by the results of anthropological and linguistic research.

Thus, The initial period of the ethnic history of Belarus coincides with the Stone Age and the dominance of the appropriating form of economy, which can be called the most ancient period or Indo-European. It was the longest, covering the time from the moment the first people appeared on the territory of Belarus until the end of the 3rd millennium BC. e. Their main occupation was hunting, fishing and gathering. Forests rich in game and a developed system of rivers and lakes created favorable conditions for such activities. The entire population of Belarus by the end of the Stone Age did not amount to more than 5 thousand people.

Baltic period

The most important changes in the historical fate of the population of Belarus occurred at the end of the 3rd - beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e.. New Indo-European tribes of cattle breeders and farmers began to settle on its territory. The large migration of Indo-European tribes, which covered vast areas of Asia and Europe, was caused by the transition of the Indo-Europeans to cattle breeding and agriculture, which created completely new opportunities for human existence. Animal husbandry reliably provided people with meat, milk, fats, and wool. This quickly affected the standard of living of the Indo-Europeans: infant mortality decreased significantly and human life expectancy increased. All this led to a sharp increase in the number and density of the population. At that time, their own territory was no longer enough for the Indo-Europeans. They went beyond the boundaries of their “ancestral home” and began to gradually develop neighboring territories.

The migration of Indo-Europeans from the area of ​​their original location (ancestral home) was carried out in different directions and took several thousand years. At the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. That is, one of their groups, having passed through the Iranian plateau and Central Asia, settled in the southern steppes of Eastern Europe between the Volga and Dnieper. Here a large center of further advance of the Indo-Europeans to the northern and western regions of Europe, including the territory of Belarus, arose.

During the settlement of the Indo-Europeans, the main features of culture were preserved, the cultural achievements of the Ancient World (productive forms of economy, metallurgy, wheeled transport, etc.) were spread. The advantage of the new economy and culture became the decisive reason, because they not only managed to gain a foothold in new places, but also became winners in the process of ethnic interactions with local tribes of hunters and fishermen. The local population perceived the higher economy of the newcomers and gradually switched to the Indo-European way of life.

Going beyond the initial small territory of residence and settlement over large spaces, which were accompanied by mixing with various peoples, led to the disintegration of the Indo-Europeans into many related peoples, languages ​​and cultures.

Around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. That is, part of the Indo-European tribes moved from the southern steppes to the north and settled in the Middle Dnieper region. Where vigorous mixing began with the tribes of the local Neolithic culture (Dnieper-Donetsk), as a result of which a new archaeological culture of the Early Bronze Age arose - the Middle Dnieper.

At the turn of the 3rd-2nd millennium BC. That is, the tribes of the Middle Dnieper culture began to quickly settle in the territory of Belarus. This marked the beginning of a new Indo-European period in the ethnic history of Belarus.

With the settlement of the Indo-Europeans, not only the ethnic composition of the population changed, but also the whole era changed: the Stone Age gave way to the Bronze Age. The ancient economy, based on hunting, fishing and harvesting, was gradually replaced by production - cattle breeding and agriculture. Social changes were also significant. The Indo-Europeans were dominated by parental order and patriarchal relations. New forms of religion spread, characterized by the veneration of the heavenly bodies, especially the sun.

The pastoral and agricultural tribes that settled on the territory of Belarus and further in the Baltic States represented one of the new branches of the Indo-Europeans - the ancient Balts, who occupied this territory before the Slavs arrived here. Archaeological and anthropological studies indicate that the ancient pre-Indo-European population remained in its place and was gradually assimilated by the newcomers. But this took more than a thousand years.

At the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. the Baltic tribes learned to obtain iron from local swamp and meadow ores, which marked the beginning iron age(1st millennium BC - mid-1st millennium AD). If earlier the tribes had a shortage of metal, which came to the territory of Belarus from the Caucasus and the Carpathians mainly in the form of finished products, weapons and jewelry, now the population began to own their own metal. Metal was increasingly being introduced into the economic life of people. With the help of an iron ax, people freed plots of land from forests and began farming on them. This period is associated with the emergence of numerous fortified settlements, which served as places of residence for large patriarchal families. Such a family was both the main economic and social unit. There are approximately a thousand such settlements in Belarus. If we assume that on average 50 to 70 people lived on the site, then we can calculate that the entire population of Belarus in the Iron Age was from 50 thousand to 70 thousand people. During the 7th century. BC e. - VIII centuries. n. e. most of the modern territories of Belarus were inhabited by Baltic tribes Lithuania And Yatvingians; just on south And southwest Slavs lived.

Patriarchal families were united into clans, and clans into tribes. Several unique archaeological cultures have formed on the territory of Belarus, reflecting the tribal division of the population. The most important of them are Milograd, Zarubinets, Hatched ceramics, Dnieper-Dvina. All of them were quite developed, despite the fact that the forest zone and relatively poor soils did not contribute to economic development.

By the middle of the 1st millennium AD, noticeable changes took place in the life of the tribes of ancient Belarus. Ordinary settlements gave way to unfortified settlements, where not only related, but also unrelated families settled, which together made up the neighboring (territorial) community. Fortified settlements were preserved for a time near settlements, as a place where the population hid in case of military danger.

In the second half of the 1st millennium AD, three or four new archaeological cultures (long mounds, Kalochinska and Bantserovska-Tushemlinska) were formed on the basis of the cultures of the early Iron Age. The Baltic population of these cultures survived until the Slavs arrived and settled in these areas.

Thus, The Baltic period of the ethnic history of Belarus conventionally lasted from the 2nd millennium BC. e. to the middle 1st millennium AD e., and in center And north Belarus — almost to end I millennium AD. The emergence of Baltic names for Belarusian rivers is associated with this period.

Old Russian period

TO in the middle of the 1st millennium AD, Eastern Europe had a complex ethnic structure. Linguistic evidence suggests that there were several different linguistic zones. TO north of the Western Dvina there was an ancient Finno-Ugric massif. TO south of it to the Middle Dnieper region was the Baltic massif. To the south, Speakers of ancient Iranian languages ​​lived in the steppes. Although there are various hypotheses about the “place of the Slavic ancestral home,” linguistic and archaeological data tend to localize it in the area between the river. Elbe and the Vistula River, the Carpathian Mountains and the Baltic Sea. The exit of the Slavs beyond the borders of their ancestral home and their settlement of South-Eastern and Eastern Europe occurred relatively late, around middle I thousand AD. The first most accurate information about the Slavs in written sources dates back to that time, in which they appear under their ethnic name (“Slavins” - Slavs). A long stay within their ancestral homeland and relatively later settlement were the reasons for the similarity of languages ​​and cultures in different Slavic groups of the early Middle Ages. The Slavs were able to retain their own common self-name - “Slavs”.

As the population grew, the Slavs began to notice more and more the lack of territory, and when favorable geopolitical conditions developed, they took part in the Great Migration of Peoples: they began to settle in neighboring territories outside their ancestral homeland. One part of the Slavs populated the Balkan Peninsula. The other one went east and settled on south Belarus and north Ukraine. Where in the 6th century. The first accurate pan-Slavic cultural monuments of the Prague type appeared. The exit of the Slavs beyond the borders of their ancestral home and their mixing with local tribes led to the division of the Slavs into three branches:

• Western,
• eastern And
• southern Slavs.

South Belarus and northern Ukraine became the ancestral home of the Eastern Slavs. This marked the beginning of the Slavic period in the ethnic history of Belarus.

The period of stay of some of the Slavs in the territory of southern Belarus and northern Ukraine turned out to be very important in their history. Chronologically, it occupies a shade of time from the 6th century. to the second half of the 9th century. In the 5th-8th centuries. Belarusian lands were inhabited by Slavs, who are genetically related to the early feudal ethnopolitical formation of the 9th-10th centuries. Polotsk Krivichi, Dregovich, Radimichi, privately Volinyan, privately Drevlyans, privately northerners; and the local Baltic tribes were assimilated by them. In the process of mixing various Slavic groups with each other and the local Baltic population, in this part of the Slavs new, unique characteristics arose and took hold:

• East Slavic type of language,
• the only culture
• general ethnic identity.

There is reason to assert that it was during this period that they, like the Western and Southern Slavs, first formed statehood. All this became a manifestation of general historical patterns. By the beginning of the settlement, the Slavs were at the last stage of primitiveness, at the stage that is called the system of “military democracy”.

The development of new territories accelerated the process of the final destruction of the primitive communal system and led to the emergence of the first state formations among the Slavs. From written sources it is known about the emergence in the 7th century. Samo's state among the Western Slavs successfully fought against the Avars. Among the Eastern Slavs, Kyiv is destined to become the first political center. Kiy and his two brothers Shchek and Khoreb - the chronicler calls the heads of clans on the land of the glades. After their death, their descendants reigned in Polyan. Hereditary power remained in the Kiya family. This was the first local Slavic dynasty known to us. According to the chronicles, the Drevlyans had the same reigns. Some other regions north of the city of Pripyat are also named, but they cannot be associated with the Slavs, since the Slavs had not yet penetrated there at that time. The chronicle's reference to the struggle of the glades with the streets and the Drevlyans obviously represents a memory of the struggle of Kyiv to unite certain tribes around it. The tribal union disintegrates after the death of the head or a struggle for supremacy begins between individual clans or tribes. During this period, the Eastern Slavs began to use the common self-name “Rus”, “Russians”.

Thus, on south Belarus and north In Ukraine, the Slavs have formed all the characteristics that allow us to talk about the emergence of a new type of East Slavic ethnic community - a nationality that is commonly called Old Russian. It is characterized by a common East Slavic (Old Russian) language, a common culture, a common self-awareness and self-name for all. Archaeological evidence indicates that the Eastern Slavs crossed the river. Pripyat and began their further settlement in the vast expanses of Eastern Europe only in the second half of the 9th-10th centuries. Until now, the main population average And northern parts of Belarus remained the Balts, and on north and northeast Finno-Ugrians lived from them. Taking into account this situation, one should consider the chronicle story about the “calling of the Varangians to Rus'.” This story is based on a legend written down almost 200 years after the events in question, which could lead to significant distortions. Until the 60s of the 9th century. A difficult situation has developed in Eastern Europe. According to the chronicle, its northern regions became the object of frequent and devastating raids from the Varangians. Where it is reported about local tribes (Chud, Ves, etc.), who had to pay them tribute. According to some researchers, this should not mean their constant dependence on the Varangians. By analogy with other countries where the Normans (Varangians) operated, this was a ransom or one-time payments during their raids. Most likely, the power of the Varangians over the Slavs living south of the river. Pripyat, was not distributed then.

Some other tribes of Eastern Europe who lived on the Oka River and the city of Posozhzhya, as well as part of the Slavs (northerners in the city of Disney and glades on the Dnieper River), judging by the chronicle, paid tribute to the Khazar Khaganate, whose capital was located in the lower reaches R. Volga. Thus, Eastern Europe in the 9th century. was divided into two spheres of influence. In her northern half the Varangians periodically appeared with extortions, on south the Khazars did the same.

In 882, the Varangian king Oleg captured Kyiv and made it his capital. Having established himself in the land of the Eastern Slavs (Polyans) and becoming the Grand Duke of the state, which received the name “Kievan Rus,” Oleg quite quickly subjugated the Slavic and non-Slavic lands. The chronicle successively lists Oleg's campaigns on the land of the Drevlyans (883), the Northerners (884), and the Radimichi (885). For the period between 885-907. Oleg managed to significantly expand the borders of Rus' and turn it into multi-ethnic state, which inhabited

• Slavs (Rus - “Russians”),
• Balts and
• Finno-Ugrians.

Fortified fortress-cities became strongholds of state power. A significant part of their population were warriors. By the 10th century According to archaeological data, more than 90% of the professional warriors of the Kyiv princes were Slavs. Wide territory and multi-ethnic composition of the population of Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries. did not yet have a strong state. Regional separatist tendencies were strong. The Kyiv princes more than once had to suppress the attempts of individual peoples to leave the power of Kyiv. B 966 G.. For example, there was a campaign by Prince Svyatoslav against the Vyatichi who lived on the river. Eyes. As a result, he managed to subdue them and impose tribute. However, after the death of Svyatoslav, the Vyatichi again came out of submission, and the new Kyiv prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich had to pacify them twice. In 984, Vladimir opposed the Radimichi, and his governor named Wolf Tail defeated them on the river. Sandy. The strengthening of the local power of the Kyiv princes depended on the success of Slavic settlement to the north. Pripyat, and it was probably encouraged in every possible way. Along with the development of cities, intensive settlement of the territory of the great power by the Slavs began. It was towards the end of the 9th-10th centuries. include the most ancient Slavic burial mounds north Pripyat. The emergence of the early Slavic cities that arose in that territory dates back to the tenth century. The settlement of Slavic warriors in new places could not by itself lead to the Slavicization of the local population; only the rapid Slavicization of the local nobility took place. General Slavicization took place in conditions of ethnic contacts between the ethnic groups. Taking into account the final result of ethnic processes, it should be assumed that not only warriors, but also the Slavic agricultural population moved to new areas. Residents of the southern regions of Russia, who were subject to constant raids and destruction by nomads, took part in the settlement (colonization) of more northern lands. The arrival of Slavic settlers from the south to the territory of Belarus is confirmed in archaeological materials.

According to the chronicler, in new places of residence, the Slavs received new names. Some of them probably passed on to the Slavs from the names of local peoples. So the Slavs, as they mixed with the local residents, acquired other names - Krivichi, Radimichi and Dregovichi. The Eastern Slavs acted as one people, the bearer of a single archaeological culture, as convincingly evidenced by material sources of the 9th-10th centuries. Judging by linguistic information, the process of assimilation by the Slavs of the local population on the territory of Belarus lasted for a long time, until the 12th century. What did not pass without a trace for the Slavs themselves, who experienced the effects of local ethnic substrates.

The era of Ancient Rus' is one of the brightest in the history of the East Slavic peoples, which has preserved its memory not only in chronicles, in fiction, in various historical and cultural monuments, but also in oral folk art. Most of the Belarusian lands became part of Rus'. The Kyiv princes annually collected tribute from all over the country and carried out well-organized overseas trade. One of the most important trade routes, known in the chronicles as the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” passed through the territory of Belarus, the city of Dnieper. On which there was trade with the Byzantine Empire. The Western Dvina and Pripyat rivers connected Rus' with Western Europe. Tributary of the river Dnieper and r. The Volgas are close to each other, which made it possible to transport merchant ships to the Volga trade route, which led to the countries of the Middle East and the Near East. On the territory of Belarus, many buried treasures (evidence of the then lively trade) containing silver eastern coins and jewelry, as well as glassware. During the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, Rus' acquired the features of an early feudal monarchy. In 988, Christianity was adopted, which was of great importance for strengthening state power and affected ethnic processes.

The spiritual image, folk customs, as well as the everyday culture of Belarusians, were formed historically in Ancient Rus'. The territory of Belarus constituted an organic part of Rus', its western lands. By the middle of the 13th century. they achieved high cultural development. Literacy spread, as evidenced by inscriptions on household items: combs, spindle whorls, dishes, and letters on birch bark. Chronicle writing was carried out in Polotsk, Turov and Novogrudok. At gatherings and monasteries there were collections of handwritten books. The works of Cyril of Turov (12th century) gained wide popularity in church literature. The Slavic population of the then Rus' with its western regions constituted a single ancient Russian nation. Which was characterized by a single language, one culture, one religion and a common ethnic identification. The population of Rus' considered themselves one people and called themselves “Russians” (Rusyns). The unity of the language and culture of the Slavic population of Rus' is beyond doubt among either linguists or archaeologists. Among the signs of nationality, ethnic consciousness was of particular importance, which manifested itself primarily in self-designation, the idea of ​​a single Motherland, and its geographical spaces. The Slavic population of all Rus' perceived itself as a single people living within the framework of its common and unified state. Awareness of a common origin, strengthening economic and cultural ties between different regions of Russia, the structure of state power, a joint struggle against external danger, a single religion and the spread of literacy - all these factors contributed to the integration processes in the development of the ancient Russian people. At the same time, the East Slavic ethnos, which settled over large areas, was also influenced by factors that led to the gradual division of the ancient Russian people on three individual peoples:

• Belarusians,
• Ukrainian and
• Russians.

Physical type

The historical past determined the physical type of Belarusians. Its anthropological features were inherited from the past as a result of ethnic processes, migrations and mixing of various ethnic groups. The presence of various anthropological types in the modern Belarusian population should be associated with them. Events of ancient ethnic history, marked by the mixing of Slavs with non-Slavic tribes directly or through intermediate ethnic groups, formed the anthropological type of Belarusians. According to their anthropological characteristics, the Slavic population of Belarus is represented by three main groups.

On south countries in Polesie, Belarusians are represented by the Polesie variant of the Eastern European anthropological type, which is characterized by dark pigmentation of hair and eyes, a relatively narrow face, an average nasal index (the ratio of the width and height of the nose) with indentations of the nasal dorsum, moderate brachycephaly (the ratio of the width of the head to the length). In all these characteristics the type is close to the population north Ukraine, where the Slavs spread from their ancestral home in the V-VI centuries. n. e.. Compared to the population northern In parts of Belarus, residents of the Polesie region are of short stature.

The population of the Dvina and the Upper Dnieper, where the Slavs penetrated in the 10th century, has light hair pigmentation, a wider face, a more concave bridge of the nose and a smaller head shape indicator.

These anthropological features and differences between southern And northern regions of Belarus can be explained by the circumstances of the settlement of the territory of Belarus by the Slavs and their interaction with the local pre-Slavic population. Thus, broad-facedness, short-headedness and a low nose were characteristic of the Finno-Ugric population, which settled in these places in the Neolithic era, in the 3rd millennium BC. e.. In the II-I millennium BC. That is, the Finno-Ugric tribes were assimilated by the Balts who came here, and most likely adopted these characteristics, transferring some of them to the Slavs of the northern part of Belarus. It is interesting that these traits passed on to the Slavs not directly from the Finno-Ugric peoples who inhabited these areas in the Neolithic period, but from the Balts.

It is not entirely clear what the anthropological type of the Neolithic population was average And southern part of Belarus, but it differed from the Finno-Ugric and did not become noticeable on the physical type of the Slavs. It is believed that more significant dolichochronism was adopted from the Baltic Indo-Europeans who settled here in the Bronze Age. However, the Slavs themselves, when they left their ancestral home, had the same Indo-European type. In any case, the first Slavs, bearers of the archaeological culture of “globular amphorae,” were typical Indo-Europeans according to anthropological indicators.

However, the population average part of Belarus has intermediate anthropological indicators between Polesie and northern population groups. Ethnologist M.F. Pilipenko explains this by processes of diffusion, later movements of the population to the middle part of Belarus from the northern and southern regions, and their assimilation. But we cannot exclude the possibility that in the Neolithic there lived a population other than the Finno-Ugrians north Belarus, then it is little closer to the Indo-European anthropological characteristics, even before the Balts arrived here. This explains the presence of anthropological traits in the population of this zone that are intermediate between the Polesie and North Belarusian types. Since, in general, it is typical for Belarusians to be relatively light coloring of hair and eyes, then it can be argued that they got this sign from the ancient pre-Indo-European population Belarusian region, so classic Indo-European migrants belonged to the Asia Minor-Mediterranean anthropological type, who had dark hair color and a high nose.

The formation of the Belarusian ethnic group

The collapse of the Old Russian people

The Belarusian nationality, like the Ukrainian and Russian, was formed on a common basis - the Old Russian nationality. This process was gradual. Over the course of several centuries, the main features inherent in the Belarusian ethnos appeared:

• territory,
• mutual language,
• economic structure, manifests itself in folk culture,
• ethnic identity.

Various reasons determined this process. The characteristics characteristic of the Belarusian ethnic group began to mature in the depths of the ancient Russian state. The peculiarity of the Belarusian language is captured already in documents of the first half of the 13th century. And in the text of a birch bark letter from the Vitebskaya metro station, which dates back to the end of the 13th century. — Beginning of the 14th century. The “clack” characteristic of the Belarusian language is noticeable. But the Belarusian language had not yet been formed, and we can only talk about the emergence of dialects within the framework of the Old Russian language, on the basis of which the Belarusian language was developed in the subsequent period. Evolution manifests itself even more convincingly in material culture. Attempts to look for another basis for the development of the Belarusian ethnic group, to transfer this process to more distant times, bypassing the Old Russian period and the Old Russian people, have no historical basis and contradict the theory of ethnogenesis.

The settlement of the Slavs in the main territory of Belarus north of the city of Pripyat occurs during the period when the ancient Russian state arose with its center in the city of Kiev, and the East Slavic ethnic group acquired qualitatively different features inherent in the nationality. In the era of Rus', in the then new historical conditions, the process of strengthening the unified economic and cultural characteristics of its population continued, considering itself one “Russian” people. Therefore, the Belarusian ethnic group could not have arisen on the basis of tribal East Slavic groups; it simply did not exist here then. The Belarusian ethnic group was formed on the basis of that part of the ancient Russian people who historically inhabited the main territory of modern Belarus. Thus, the emergence Belarusians, like Ukrainians and Russians, are already To a new period that replaced Old Russian period.

In the 13th century - XIV centuries In the history of the Eastern Slavs, important political changes occurred that determined their further development for a long time. Part of Rus' came under the rule of the Golden Horde, and Western And southern The lands of Rus' gradually became part of the new state formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Some historians believed that it was these events that became the decisive reason for the division of the East Slavic (Old Russian) ethnic group and the emergence of Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians. This fact undoubtedly played a certain role in the process of dividing the Eastern Slavs, but it cannot be considered decisive, because the presence of part of the Eastern Slavs in the state common to them (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) did not prevent their division into Belarusians and Ukrainians.

The collapse of the East Slavic community, the emergence on its basis three close peoples should be considered as a natural historical process, a manifestation of the general laws of ethnogenesis. Under the conditions of the dominance of a subsistence economy, relatively weak internal economic ties, rare migrations of large groups of people who are tied to their land, home, city, it was impossible to maintain the unity of language and culture throughout the then large territory in which the East Slavic (Old Russian) population lived . Language and culture do not stand still in a preserved form. But it develops and changes. And these changes could not occur in exactly the same way on the territory from the Black to the White Sea. When a single ethnic group found itself under the influence of a number of factors that led to disunity. Already in the day of Ancient Rus', the prerequisites for differentiation were formed. Large expanses of land made regular internal ethnic contacts difficult. Feudal fragmentation and then political demarcation further intensified the processes of differentiation. Ethnic substrates have become a well-known factor of separation. The gradual Slavicization of non-Slavic indigenous tribes could not pass without leaving a trace. The Slavs increasingly noticed the opposite influence from various ethnic substrates. On the territory of Belarus (White Rus') it was a Baltic substrate, on northeast Rus - Finno-Ugric, in south Rus - Iranian and Turkic.

Scientists have noticed that Belarusian people arose in that part of Rus' where the Baltic tribes lived before the settlement of the Slavs. The process of their assimilation by the Slavs took several centuries. The inclusion of a significant part of the Baltic people with their unique linguistic and cultural characteristics in the Eastern Slavs could contribute to the emergence and consolidation of certain features in this part of the Slavs that became characteristic only of the Belarusians. This was reflected in the phonetic structure of the Belarusian language and the anthropological type of Belarusians. But there is no point in absolutizing the role of the Baltic substrate in the formation of Belarusians. Not only Belarusians, but also a significant part of the Russian people have a Baltic substrate, since the Baltic tribes, before the arrival of the Slavs, settled in the east to Tver, Moscow and Kursk. To this it should be added that neither in the written sources of that time, nor in the people's memory the process of mixing, and that is, its influence on the ethnic characteristics of the Belarusians, is not traced. Belarusians remained Slavs. Enriched with new vocabulary and having undergone some changes in phonetics, the Belarusian language has retained many Old Russian figures. Spatial and substrate factors acted differently, with different intensities on individual ethnocultural characteristics, but the end result is known: in place ancient Russian people, inhabited in the 9th century. — XIII centuries. Rus', in the 16th century. - XVII centuries three new ones have matured peoples: Belorussian, Ukrainian And Russian.

Which of the factors was decisive in the formation of the Belarusian people must be considered comprehensively, taking into account all the factors and tracing the gradual establishment among the population of Belarus of those features in language, culture and ethnic identity that are inherent specifically to Belarusians and distinguish them from other peoples. This does not exclude the possibility that some of these signs may exist in other ethnic groups.

Formation of the territory of Belarus

Territory is one of the essential components of an ethnic group. The modern territory of the Republic of Belarus almost completely coincides with the area of ​​settlement of Belarusians. Some ethnic Belarusians live in neighboring countries, but even in the nearest regions they do not constitute the majority of the population. That is why the Government of the Republic of Belarus officially stated that it has no territorial claims to any neighboring state.

The territory of Belarus was formed in the process of formation and development of the Belarusian ethnic group. During this entire period, Belarus did not have a large influx of non-Belorussian population, which determined the monolithic ethnic composition of Belarus. But the country was divided more than once, and its individual parts were part of different states, then united again.

TO mid-13th century The Belarusian lands, on the territory of which the Belarusian nationality was formed, constituted an organic part of Ancient Rus', inhabited by the only ancient Russian nationality. As part of Rus', on the future modern Belarusian lands, two large ancient Russian principalities were located almost entirely - Polotsk and Turov. Part of Belarusian lands on in the west was part of the Volyn principality, on in the east - Smolensk, on southeast - Chernigov and Kyiv. And these large regions were divided into specific principalities. The foundations of the future territorial and administrative division of Belarus were laid in the era of Ancient Rus'. “Western Rus'” formed the prototype of the future Belarus.

In the middle of the 13th century. the entire territory of Belarus became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Samogit and Russia. Under the general name of “Russian lands” they made up 9/10 of its entire historical territory. Former allotments and principalities retained their borders for a long time. This period marks the formation of the Belarusian ethnic group.

In 1569, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, together with the Belarusian lands, became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

In the 1770-1790s, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth became easy prey for its neighbors, and as a result of three partitions, its territory was divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria. According to the first section of 1772, the eastern part of Belarus with the cities of Vitebsk, Mogilev, Gomel, Polotsk. In the second in 1793. — Central Belarus with Minsk and in the third section in 1795. — Western part from Grodno and birch bark. As a result of these divisions, all Belarusian lands became part of the Russian Empire.

Under the leadership of Russia in the October Bolshevik coup d'etat in 1917, the territory of Belarus was divided into 5 provinces - Vilna, Grodno, Vitebsk, Minsk and Mogilev. A small part of the Belarusian population lived in the Smolensk, Chernigov and Volyn provinces.

After the coup d'etat in October 1917, the Belarusian People's Republic was proclaimed in 1918, and in January 1919 the creation of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed. However, as a result of the unsuccessful war with Poland for Soviet Russia in 1920, according to the Treaty of Riga in 1921, Western Belarus went to Poland.

On December 30, 1922, after the end of the Russian Civil War and military intervention against Soviet Russia, four Soviet republics were formed - the BSSR, the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the ZSFSR; which were united into one state - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

In May 1923, at the request of the then leadership of Belarus, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) decided to transfer Belarusian ethnic territories to adjacent counties of the RSFSR, in which the Belarusian population predominated. To implement the decision, a mixed commission was created, which included representatives of the BSSR, Vitebsk, Gomel and Smolensk provinces of the RSFSR. The territory of Belarus was only 55.2 thousand km, with a population of 1 million 555 thousand people.

In March 1924, on the basis of a decree of the RSFSR from the composition Vitebsk province The following counties were transferred to the BSSR: Vitebsk, Gorodok, Drisensky, Lepelsky, Orsha, Polotsk, Sennensky and Surazky. From the composition Gomel province— Mogilevsky, Rogachovsky, Bykhovsky, Klimovichsky, Cherikovsky, Chausky districts, and volosts (Dyarnovichska, Mukhoidivska, Narovlyanskogo, Krukovitska, Karpovitska, etc.). From the composition Smolensk province The entire Goretsky district and the volosts of the Mstislavsky district (Shamovska, Staroselskaya, Kazimir-Slobodskaya) with the city of Mstislavl were transferred to Belarus. As a result of this enlargement of the BSSR, its territory increased to 110.5 thousand km, and the population to 4 million 171 thousand people. In the same year the administrative division was changed. Counties and volosts were abolished. The territory of the BSSR was divided into 10 districts (Minsk, Vitebsk, Bobruisk, Orsha, Polotsk, Mogilev, Mozyr, Kalinin with a center in Klimovichi, Borisov, Slutsk) and 100 districts.

In 1926... Held second consolidation of the BSSR. Gomel and Rechitsa counties were annexed to Belarus, which increased its territory by 120 thousand km, and its population to 5 million people. Belarusian territory, population and economic opportunities were part THE USSR.

Western Belarus remained part of Poland in September 1939, when, as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Belarusian ethnic lands were attracted from Poland at the beginning of World War II to the BSSR (USSR). However, The Bialystok region is populated largely by Belarusians and became part of Poland. During the Second World War, there was also a German occupation administrative division called “Biloruthenia” in the Belarusian expanses.

Despite the fact that the territory with the Belarusian population was successively part of various states (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire, the USSR) and for some time was divided by state borders, it was able to maintain its integrity, which created the conditions for the formation of the Belarusian people. Thus, the formation of the territory of modern Belarus, which numbered about 10 million people, was completed.

Formation of Belarusian culture

The formation of the Belarusian ethnic group occurred mainly during the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and continued afterwards, since ethnic processes have no interruptions.

On the territory of Belarus, ethnographic features in material culture characteristic of Belarusians took shape and were consolidated. The agricultural system was established almost everywhere. The same types of devices for cultivating soil and harvesting crops proliferated. The main arable device was the two-toothed plow. To loosen the soil, plant seeds in it and care for crops, a wooden, often wicker harrow began to be used.

Household culture became homogeneous. The most common was the log house with a sustainable internal layout. On the basis of ancient Russian men's and women's costumes, characteristic types of folk clothing of Belarus were formed. Features common to all Belarusian regions are noted in food, rituals and customs, and folk art.

Subsequently, the revival of economic activity in cities formed a strong urban state with its characteristic way of life.

Activities related to the organization of government administration and the introduction of unified legislation dealt a significant blow to the appanage system, which divided the country into many small estates. Strong supreme power established at the end of the 14th century. - At the beginning of the 15th century, it contributed greatly to unification processes and closer economic and ethnic ties between different regions. This created the preconditions for the formation of the ethnic territory of Belarusians.

Formation of the Belarusian language

Significant transformations took place in the language of the East Slavic population of this territory. Gradually it acquired new features inherent in the language of the new ethnic group. These changes affected phonetics, vocabulary and syntax. Among the phonetic changes, especially noticeable were “dzekanie” and “tsekanie” (“dzed” instead of the Old Russian “grandfather”, “tsen” instead of “shadow”), a firm pronunciation of the sound “r”, “akanie” and “yakanem” (Bel. Byaroza), the use of prefixed consonants and vowels at the beginning of a word (white. Vozera instead of "white" lakes", white Ilnyany instead of "white" linen", that is, “linen” from “flax”).

The position of the East Slavic language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the official language of state documents, legislation and legal proceedings contributed to its enrichment with new vocabulary reflecting various aspects of socio-political life. Terminology associated with the system of feudal relations emerged. The names of duties and taxes, officials and government bodies became common.

In 1569, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania united with the Kingdom of Poland as part of a new state entity - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The period when the Belarusian lands were part of this state turned out to be unfavorable for the development of the Belarusian language. Most of the Belarusian feudal lords abandoned their native language and became Polish; the influence of Belarusian culture in the state became ill, and the development of the Belarusian literary language slowed down. In official writing, the Belarusian language was inferior to the pressure of the Polish language. The Cyrillic alphabet began to be replaced by Latin script (Latin alphabet).

In 1697, the Polish Sejm banned the use of the Belarusian language in court, government institutions and in printing. Many words and terms borrowed from Polish and medieval Latin have entered the Belarusian vocabulary. The masses of the peasantry, which made up the absolute majority of the population of the Belarusian lands, were able to preserve the language and national culture. The Belarusian language continued to develop as a folk dialect.

At the end of the 18th century. Belarusian lands became part of the Russian Empire. This saved the Belarusian people from final polonization, but problems with Russification arose. Belarusians were considered by Russia as a branch of the Russian people, and the Belarusian language in the works of Russian linguists was classified as a “special southern Russian pronunciation” along with the Ukrainian language (for example, A. A. Shakhmatova and others). Therefore, the Russian state practically did not take any measures to preserve and develop the Belarusian language. Moreover, everything was done in order to replace the Belarusian language with the Russian language in Belarus. Education in the Belarusian language was considered a “local dialect” and was recommended only in primary schools. The Belarusian language was not used in official Russian documents on the territory of Belarus under the rule of the Russian Empire. A rather paradoxical situation arose when, especially in the large provincial cities of Belarus, where Russian state administrative institutions and educational institutions were concentrated, the language of communication and official documents was implanted Russian language. And in the rural areas of Belarus, where mostly illiterate people lived, there was a Belarusian language (similar to the situation with the Ukrainian language in Ukraine).

According to the results of the All-Russian Population Census of 1897, within the ethnic territory of the Belarusians, where about 4,800,000 people lived (these are residents of 35 districts of five Belarusian provinces with 47), the Belarusian language was called their native language. It was mainly the rural population that prevailed numerically. And by the end of the 19th century. The urban population increased from 350 thousand to 650 thousand, where the proportion of Belarusians was 14.5%. In the process of capitalist development, Belarusian cities turned into industrial, commercial and cultural centers, which played a unifying role in the formation of the Belarusian nation. The role of bourgeois social groups also increased, and the formation of the working class and national intelligentsia took place. Merchants who called the Belarusian language their native language during the aforementioned census lived in 23 of the mentioned 35 counties, as well as in less than half of the Belarusian cities. The Belarusian language was called the native language by about 52% of the hereditary nobles of the indicated 35 counties, and in rural areas this figure should be 60.3%. Belarusian was considered their native language by 60% of then teachers, 40% of imperial officials, 29% of postal and telegraph employees, 20% of doctors, 10% of lawyers of the Russian Empire. They formed the basis of the Belarusian national intelligentsia, the Belarusian elite. It should also include writers and other creative personalities associated with Belarusian culture.

In the 20th century The Belarusian language was recognized as the national language for Belarus. After the Bolshevik coup d'etat in 1917 and the proclamation of the BSSR, the Belarusian language was recognized for the first time in the Constitution as the state language. In the 1920-1930s, a lot was done to improve the Belarusian language, a grammar was developed, and dictionaries were compiled. The Belarusian language was introduced into public life. During the years of Soviet power, outstanding works were written and published in the Belarusian literary language, which enriched the Belarusian language.

Formation of ethnic self-awareness of Belarusians

One of the most important features of an ethnic group is ethnic identification. Ethnic self-awareness develops more slowly than other signs of an ethnic group. However, only with its approval is the formation of a new ethnic group completed.

Lithuanians have a long-standing traditional name for Belarusians - guda, which arose from the name of the Goths of the II-III century.

One of the well-known names of the Belarusian people is “Lithuania” within the territories of modern Belarus, which arose from the word “Lyutva”. Which in turn came from the name of the people of migrant Lutich warriors from the Polabian Slavs; whose migration took place from Pomerania to western And central Belarus, where Black Rus' is, through the basin of the Neman and Viliya rivers - due to the German “crusade” against the Slavs. Where more than 55 settlements were founded. It was the wife of the warrior-beasts of the Lutich tribe that was called “casting,” and the core of their society was formed in the area between Novogrudok, Minsk, Slonim and Krevo. This is the territory of Ancient Lithuania, the land of Lithuania with its capital Novogrudok (this is the city of Novgorod of the chronicle Rurik, Novgorod-Lithuania), which was not by chance the first capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The ethnonym “Belarusians” until the end of the 19th century. supplanted all other names, although in some areas the local ethnic names “Polishchuks” and “Polesyans” were previously used; and residents of remote areas could not determine their national-ethnic identity and called themselves “local”, “natives”.

So The ethnonym “Belarusian”, the name “Belarusian”, “Belaya Rus”, “Belarus” were not immediately fixed by the indicated population and their country. The term "White Rus'" is in Latin form as "lat. Alba Russia"in the Polish chronicle for 1382," lat. Alba Russia"in German chronicles of the 14th century. At the end of the 16th century. - XVII centuries the name “Belaya Rus” was also used in Russian documents. According to sources, residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and then the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, who came to Muscovy called themselves “Be Belarusians”, “Rusyns”, “Bilorusyns” or “Litvins”, sometimes “Litvins-Belarusians”. In addition, residents of more than Western Slavic regions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For comparison, the Lithuanian-Belarusians called the population of Muscovy Muscovites, and their language was Moscow, while theirs was called Russian (including in written documents). Residents of the Moscow State, and then the Russian Empire, most often called the ancestors of the Belarusians “Lithuanians,” which should not be confused with the modern concept of “Lithuanians,” and this situation persisted until the beginning of the 19th century. Such a long-term ancient name is evidenced by the events of August 5, 1772 (the first partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). When Catherine II appointed her favorite Count Zakhar Chernyshev as governor-general of the Belarusian lands captured by Russia. He received the highest order:

At the same time, a new ethnonym appeared - “Belarusians” (“Beloruske”). At first he belonged only to the population of the Smolensk province, the Mogilev province and partly the Vitebsk province. This was all most clearly depicted on Guillaume de Beauplan’s map “Magnus Ducate Lithuaniæ & Russia Alba” of the 17th century.

Residents of the Upper Dnieper region, the city of Polotsk and the city of Vitebsk called themselves, as a rule, “Belarusian”. The reason for such differences in the name of the population was because Western The lands of Belarus became part of the Russian-Lithuanian state (VDL) earlier than those of the Dnieper region. Therefore, in some documents of that time, that part of Belarus was called “Lithuanian Rus”. Eastern the regions, on the contrary, retained the name Rus for a long time. The word "white" has several meanings. It means more than just color. Its synonyms are the words “free”, “light” - pure from slavery and “Western” in the Slavic worldview. The idea proposed by academician Efim Karsky that the national name of Belarusians is associated only with their "light traditional folk clothes" and "light color eyes and hair." In the era of Ancient Rus', its population Western lands had the same anthropological characteristics, but did not have the same self-names. At that time, the concept and word “white” was also used over a “large territory” on west or north by the sea, or by “the pagan people not yet baptized into the new Christian religion,” that is, the ancient peoples of the pre-Christian era. And in the Lithuanian language “Baltai” (Baltic) is the color white, lit. Baltas- white, lit. Baltarusiai- Belarusians. The assumption that the name of the country with the Belarusian people is connected with the word “free” (with the non-random name of the city of Svobodno within the ethnic history of Belarusians) in the meaning of “freedom” seems very convincing. After all, the history of the Belarusian lands provides grounds for such explanations. Since the Belarusians had a freedom-loving mentality in the traditions of the Veche in Rus' (the election of princes to reign), they were subject to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and under the influence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Where the Lithuanian Charter was a model for the civilization of European countries, and the then state formation with the Belarusians was the cradle of modern European democracy: the King was chosen by the nobility (electors of the noble electorate, deputies from the sejmiks of the nobility, there was rokosh, there was golden liberty, etc.). Therefore, the Russian occupation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the repressive “analysis of the gentry” became a national tragedy of Belarus, accidentally resulting in the uprising of Tadeusz Kosciuszko against Russia, Reitan’s legal assessment of the illegality of the then historical events, etc.

During their long stay as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Belarusians did not separate themselves as an ethnic group from the population of other regions of the former Rus' and still called themselves Russians (Rusyns). This is how the great Belarusian educator of the 16th century called himself in his books. Francis Skaryna. He also called the language of his books Russian. This identification was also supported by the fact that the inhabitants of the Belarusian lands (White Rus') and the Ukrainian lands (Red Rus') understood each other when communicating, as well as with the residents of Muscovy, although the latter were not considered part of Rus'. They professed the Christian religion, which in those days had a very strong influence on the consciousness, lifestyle and behavior of people. For a long time ethnicity was often replaced by religion. The concept of “Orthodox” could be identified with the concept of “Russian”. Therefore, almost everyone who professed Orthodoxy could stereotypically consider themselves Russian. Although the formation of the Belarusian identity itself was influenced for 250 years by the Greek Catholic Church, which was opposed by the aggressive Russian regime in the Belarusian lands. The awareness of the unity of the Eastern Slavs was made by some thinkers. In the Gustinsky chronicle of the late 16th century. — Beginning of the 17th century. it was written:

The simple and illiterate people did not know about the gradual loss of East Slavic ethnic unity; the emergence and consolidation in various areas of social life of new elements in language and traditional culture violated the previous ethnic homogeneity, increasingly alienating the inhabitants of the East Slavic regions from each other.

At the same time, in relations with Lithuanians, Germans or Poles, the inhabitants of the Belarusian lands were clearly aware of their differences, and above all - in language and religion. The advance of Roman Catholicism and the spread of the Polish language and culture among the dominant layer of feudal lords, which began after the conclusion of the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with Poland, further strengthened part of the people in the consciousness of their difference from the Roman Catholic feudal lord, who spoke a language foreign to them, I didn’t go to church, but to church. All this emphasized ethnic difference and contributed to the growth of national self-awareness.

Also, regular negative historical events on the part of Muscovy, from century to century, strengthened the separateness of the Belarusian people in the self-awareness, strengthened the desire for national identity, for a Belarusian state life independent of Muscovy. Belarusians were subjected to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, contemporaries of that historical period left evidence of their worldview in documents where you can find that everything outside the city of Smolensk east of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is “not Rus'”, but “Russian Outskirts”. The then consciousness of the White Rus' ethnic group witnessed a form of genocide caused by the Russian army in 1654-1667. In Belarus (ethnic cleansing), the participation in this of Ukrainian Cossacks, hired for money and given under the leadership of the Moscow Tsar (with the consequences of the death of half of the Belarusian people). When the civilians of the Belarusian provinces were completely slaughtered (county by county), 50% of the peaceful people of White Rus' were lost forever. For example, in... In Mstislavl in 1654, 15,000 Belarusians died at the hands of Russian troops, and about 700 residents remained alive. The Belarusians of that time did not want to join the ranks of the Ukrainian Cossacks under the rule of the Tsar of Muscovy. This is why one can still find disgust for the Cossacks among patriots of Belarus.

Russian repressions against Belarusians and the Russian destruction of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, repressions against the Greek Catholic Church of Belarus (which had existed by that time for 250 years) and the establishment of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which had absolutely no place in those territories) already at the beginning of the 20th century. led To distortion national identity of Belarusians: forcibly becoming Russian Orthodox The population of Belarus often called themselves Russians, and the forced imposition of the Russian language and the Russian interpretation of Belarusian history consolidated the Russification of Belarusians in the Russian Empire and continued in the USSR. A major role in the formation of Belarusian ethnic identity belongs to national literature and literary language. A powerful factor in the affirmation of national identity and national pride was the proclamation of the first national Belarusian state (BNR) in 1918 and the independent Republic of Belarus in 1991. Consolidation of the Belarusian people within their own sovereign state and the establishment of ethnic identity completed formation the Belarusian nation, its common information and economic space.

At all times, Belarusians have been characterized by attachment to the land-nurse, in their native land, adaptation of work and rest to natural and seasonal cycles, patriotism and humanity. Their consciousness evolved from piety to atheism, from magical mythological ideas to materialism.

Modern Belarusians Due to the experience of their ancestors settling in communities in swampy-wooded areas, they have developed courage in overcoming difficulties and natural individualism. As adaptive mechanisms due to the frequent aggression of neighboring peoples, the mentality of Belarusians showed features of religious tolerance, calmness, endurance, but not aggressiveness, balance, frugality (economical), lack of conflict (phlegmatic), and restlessness. The feeling of being close to the West-East of Europe stimulated the search for their own national path of development for Belarusians. In general, Belarusians lack an imperial sense of superiority over other peoples. They are law-abiding, taciturn, restrained, they have no tendency to violently express emotions, they experience their problems internally without exposing them to the public. At the same time, from the experience of the settlement of their ancestors on the plain, they inherited the established openness, not cunning, good nature, or naivety; they are peace-loving, have good humor, self-criticism and recognition of the dignity of other peoples of the world. The Russian authorities with the Russian language prevented the restoration of the position of the historical development of the language of the Belarusians during the period of the Belarusians' stay in the USSR and in the Russian Empire. And the Belarusian language still has forcibly limited functions, and the position of the Belarusian language is now critical due to the harmful influence of the Russian Federation. Even Due to the foreign influence on Belarus of the contemporaries of the Belarusian people, the mechanism of national-cultural identification is weakened.

Identification

As for the self-name “Belarusian,” it was rare for a long time and was formed gradually:

1. Western Balts, Wends, Castings (Lyutichs), Yatvingians (Dainov), Prussians: Yatvingia, Sudovia.
2. Slavs of Black Rus' and White Rus' (Kievan Rus): Dregovichi, Radimichi, Krivichi.
3. Bilorusyns, Litvins (Grand Duchy of Lithuania): Rusyns, Russians, Russians, Polishchuks.
4. Belarusians (BPR, BSSR, Republic of Belarus).

Video on the topic

Research by Russian and Belarusian scientists has shown that Belarusians and Russians are completely different genetically and anthropologically ethnic groups. And the closest relatives of Belarusians are not Russians and Ukrainians, but Masurians and Lusatian Serbs.

Many Russian politicians and political scientists repeat the Soviet myth that supposedly “Belarusians and Russians are almost the same people,” and on this basis they consider it necessary for Belarus to become part of Russia. However, experts know very well that Belarusians and Russians have different ethnic origins, different anthropology, different languages, different ways of life, different traditions, different religions (Belarusians have Uniate and Catholic), different national characters. And recent studies by geneticists in Russia and Belarus have shown that the peoples have completely different genes.

ABOUT THE RUSSIAN GENE POOL

Who are ethnic Russians? This question was recently posed by the Russian Academy of Sciences - and received a clear answer (we talked about this in more detail in our publication “Face of Russian Nationality”, No. 15, 2006). The Russian magazine “Vlast” (supplement to the publication “Kommersant”) published an article by Daria Laane and Sergei Petukhov “The Face of Russian Nationality” (No. 38, September 26, 2005, pp. 54-60), which reports: “Russian scientists have completed and are preparing for publication the first large-scale study of the gene pool of the Russian people. The publication of the results could have unpredictable consequences for Russia and the world order.” (Another story about these studies in NEWSWEEK magazine, 2005, No. 27 (57).)

It was said that in 2000, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research awarded a grant to scientists from the laboratory of human population genetics of the Medical Genetics Center of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. For the first time in Russian history, scientists were able to fully concentrate on studying the gene pool of the Russian people for several years. The molecular genetic results of the first Russian study of the gene pool of the titular nationality are being prepared for publication in the form of a monograph “Russian Gene Pool”.

The magazine “Vlast” provides some research data. So, it turned out that the Russians are not “Eastern Slavs” at all, but Finns. Thus, according to the Y chromosome, the genetic distance between Russians and Finns in Finland is only 30 conventional units (close relationship). And the genetic distance between a Russian person and the so-called Finno-Ugric peoples (Mari, Vepsians, Mordovians, etc.) living on the territory of the Russian Federation is 2-3 units. Simply put, genetically they are IDENTICAL.

The results of mitochondrial DNA analysis showed that another closest relative of Russians, besides the Finns of Finland, are the Tatars: Russians from the Tatars are at the same genetic distance of 30 conventional units that separates them from the Finns.

An analysis of the gene pool of Belarusians showed that they are very far genetically from Russians and are actually identical to the northeastern Poles - that is, the Masurians of Mazova. That is, the study of the gene pool only confirmed historical realities: Belarusians are Western Balts (with some admixture of Slavic blood), and Russians are Finns.

Head of the study E.V. Balanovskaya points out that it was necessary to “consider data from many systems - anthropology (somatology, dermatoglyphics, odontology), classical genetics (blood groups, blood proteins), thousands of surnames, data on different systems of DNA markers (autosomal, Y-chromosome, mitochondrial DNA).

...We have brought together two huge amounts of information about the Russian people, accumulated over many decades by anthropology and genetics. We conducted two new studies - DNA and surnames. And they came up with a way to compare these four very different systems of traits - anthropology, classical genetics, molecular genetics, surnames. We built computer genogeographic maps for each trait. For example, for anthropology - a map of beard growth; for classical genetics - maps of the occurrence of blood group genes; for molecular genetics - a map of the AIDS resistance gene; for surnames - a map of the occurrence of Ivanovs in all parts of the Russian range. Four such different systems, and each has many signs. A map has been created for everyone. And then we got “generalized” maps for each feature system. And after that, for the first time, they could compare all the data on the Russian gene pool.”

She also noted: “Our “discovery” is that completely different sciences and characteristics - anthropology, genetics, surnames - completely agree with each other and, complementing each other, paint a general portrait of the Russian gene pool. Moreover, the Russian gene pool, fortunately, is not alone here. Even before studying the Russian gene pool, we made a similar sketch of the portrait of the gene pool of the peoples of Eastern Europe, including the peoples of the “near abroad” (from the Black Sea to the Baltic), the Caucasus, and the Urals. And we found again the unanimity of the witnesses! Although the portrait of the gene pool of the peoples of Eastern Europe turned out to be completely different - the waves of the gene pool in Eastern Europe followed not along the “north-south” axis, as in the Russian gene pool, but along the “west-east” axis. Therefore, for the Russian gene pool - which occupies a huge part of Eastern Europe - we expected to see the same Eastern European pattern. But no! The Russian gene pool has discovered its own structure, connected to its own history. However, all gene pools are equally important and interesting. For us, the Russian gene pool is not important in itself. This is an extremely complex, but remarkably interesting model object for population geneticists, which we are. For us, the Russian gene pool is a gene pool with a Russian face and in Russian clothes. It is important for us to discern in it the common features of gene pools and to find tools for studying them.”

THE END OF THE MYTH ABOUT THE “EASTERN SLAVS”

The results of the research really shocked many in Russia - after all, the Russians turned out to be genetically and anthropologically Finns, not Slavs. To reassure indignant and dissenting fellow citizens (mainly ideologists, historians and publicists), E.V. Balanovskaya explains that we should not engage in myths, but remember that these territories used to be originally Finnish:

“We always put the term “original” Russian area in quotation marks, remembering that the history of the pre-Slavic population in this territory is an order of magnitude longer than the Slavic one. Genetic memory permeates all layers of the gene pool, all layers that came from different inhabitants of Eastern Europe. Therefore, when analyzing the “original” area, we never talk about the “original” Russian gene pool, about “original” Russian genes. The authors believe that they simply do not exist. There is a gene pool that is spread out in this area and has absorbed (like all other gene pools) the genes of many populations that have left their genetic trace over many millennia. And any linking of a gene to a people is incorrect - these are different coordinate systems. Belonging to a people is determined by a person’s self-awareness. The gene pool is determined by the concentration of genes in a historically defined area. Therefore, when we say “Russian gene pool,” we mean all the genes collected by the course of history in the “original” Russian area and imprinted in it.”

Yes, we can agree that “Belonging to a people is determined by a person’s self-awareness.” And if the Finnish peoples of Russia consider themselves Russians, this is their full right. But the problem is not this at all, but the fact that diplomatically E.V. Balanovskaya leaves out of discussion: that the concept of “one origin of the Eastern Slavs Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians” is an exposed myth. There are no “Eastern Slavs”, because they are “Slavs” only because they are Slavic-speaking. And in terms of genes and anthropology, Russians are pure Finns (even if they are Slavic-speaking Orthodox). On the research maps, the influence of the Russian gene pool is still noticeable in the Vitebsk and Mogilev regions, but further in Central and Western Belarus (the historical Lithuania of the Litvins) it is NO LONGER, where the genetically closest neighbor is Mazovia of Poland.

This puts an end to the lie invented by tsarism about the “single origin of Belarusians and Russians.” As it turned out, these are genetically and anthropologically two completely different ethnic groups - and even different ethnic groups, because Belarusians are Indo-Europeans, and Russians are not.

STABILITY OF THE GENE POOL

As E.V. admits Balanovskaya, what surprised Russian scientists most of all was the STABILITY of the gene pool: they expected to see a mixture of local Finns with Turks and Slavs in Central Russia. However, they did not find any significant Slavic or Turkic influence.

In my opinion, there is nothing strange about this. With a population ratio of 80% of the local ethnic group and 20% of migrants, over several generations, due to marriages with the local majority, newcomer ethnic groups dissolve in it like sugar in boiling water, losing their language, surnames, genes, culture, and mentality . That is, they COMPLETELY disappear, and no traces of the original non-local traits can be found in their descendants. So, for example, in the descendants of the Arab Pushkin, no signs of Ethiopian genes are detected today by any research - they have completely disappeared.

In Central Russia (historical Muscovy), this stability manifested itself in the fact that the entire rural population (70-80% of the total until the second half of the twentieth century) were genetically Finns (Moksha, Mordovians, Erzya, Murom, Meshchera, etc.). This absolute majority of the population dissolved all the newcomers (who, at most, only had noble, non-local surnames remaining). In Lithuania-Belarus, similarly, throughout history, Lithuanian-Belarusians made up about 80% of the population and easily, for several generations, ethnically and genetically “digested” all migrants (except for Jews who resisted this dissolution).

A typical example: the family of a Russian officer with two children comes to Belarus in 1946, in the 1960s, two children with an 80% probability should marry Belarusians, and their children (half-Russian-half-Belarussian) with an 80% probability will marry in exactly the same way with Belarusians, giving birth to offspring who will already be three-quarters ethnically Belarusian. In this way, over several generations, newcomers completely dissolve into the Belarusian ethnic group and, during marriages, lose their surnames, acquiring Belarusian ones. The same is true in Central Russia. Russian scientists were surprised by this STABILITY of primordial ethnic groups, but, as we see, there is nothing surprising in it.

This stability proves that Belarus (historical Lithuania) and Central Russia (historical Muscovy) for many centuries have been and remain, figuratively speaking, MACHINES for assimilation of migrants into their ethnic groups. Where their original content is preserved: Slavic-Baltic in Belarus and Finnish in Central Russia.

To call these gene pool reproduction MACHINES, which are completely different in content, “similar to the degree of brotherhood” is simply ridiculous.

BELARUSIAN GENE POOL

The picture is also complemented by modern research by Belarusian scientists who have studied the anthropology of Belarusians. It is Western Baltic, and not Finnish, like the Russians. I refer readers, for example, to the most interesting work by Victor Veras “At the Origins of Historical Truth,” which shows that anthropologically modern Belarusians are the Yatvingians (the original inhabitants of all Western and Central Belarus).

The question, therefore, is seen retrospectively and genetically in the following content: the people of the Western Balts, the Yatvingians, are supposedly the “brother” of the Mordovian people Moksha - this is the original population of the Moscow region (Moscow: Moks moksha + Va Finnish “water”).

That is, this is complete absurdity, if we abstract from the mythical, seemingly “similar” names “Belarusians” and “Russians”. For the Belarusians have the gene pool and anthropology of the Yatvingians (more broadly, a mixture of Western Balts and Slavs), and the Russians have the gene pool and anthropology of the Finns (more broadly, a mixture of Finns and Slavs).

In 2005 (that is, simultaneously with the completion of work by Russian scientists on the Russian gene pool), the results of similar studies were published in Belarus. The publishing house “Tehnalogiya” published A. Mikulich’s book “Belarusians in the genetic space. Anthropology of ethnos" (Mikulich A.I. Belarusians are geneticists: Antrapology of ethnicity. - Mn.: Tekhnalogiya, 2005.). Here are excerpts from Z. Sanko’s successful, in my opinion, review of this book (in my translation into Russian):

“As rightly noted in the introduction to the book by the Ukrainian anthropologist S.P. Szeged, there have never been such publications in Belarusian anthropological literature. The monograph summarizes the results of more than thirty years of expeditionary research conducted by the famous anthropogeneticist Alexei Mikulich in the Republic of Belarus and in the adjacent territories of neighboring countries - the Russian Federation, the Republic of Lietuva, Ukraine. Their object was primarily the rural population as the bearer of the most characteristic genetic and constitutional characteristics of populations. The study covered about 120 selected groups. They were formed from representatives who had ancestors of local origin up to the 4th-5th generation. The study of the gene pool of indigenous local populations showed the integrity of the Belarusian ethnic group, its homeostasis in time and space, as well as the obviousness of the genogeographical component in ethnic history.

The map of genetic distance from the average Belarusian gene frequencies in the population of Eastern Europe, created on the basis of DNA marker values, clearly shows the peculiarity of the gene pool of Belarusians, who are adjacent to the indigenous inhabitants of the Pskov region, Novgorod region, Smolensk region, Bryansk region, Vilna region and Ukrainian Polesie. The compact area of ​​the Belarusian gene pool on this map in general terms corresponds to the area of ​​settlement of Belarusians in historical retrospect. The author draws attention to the evidence of the multi-vector divergence of this area, which shows further directions of migration. It is known that the “Europeanization” of the Russian population stopped under the Tatar-Mongol invasion. The study of the gene pool of Belarusians showed practically no presence of signs of the Mongolian race in it. This confirms historical evidence that Belarus did not know the Tatar-Mongol yoke. It is also interesting to note that the general trend of variability within the boundaries of the Belarusian area has a meridional direction, while for the Russian area its direction is perpendicular – latitudinal.

Each of the three East Slavic ethnic groups, according to anthropological data, has its own uniqueness. They were formed in different geographical spaces, on special substrate foundations. The graphic interpretation of the generalized characteristics of their gene pools included in the book allows you to clearly see the degree of similarity and difference. The “ethnic clouds” of Belarusians and Ukrainians are quite compact and partially overlap in the attached diagram. The Russian “cloud” is very blurry, and only a small part of it overlaps with the first two. While the Ukrainian “ethnic cloud” does not border the Finno-Ugric ones at all, and the Belarusian one only touches them, the center of the “ethnic cloud” of Russian populations is in the same cluster with the Finno-Ugric, and not Slavic, ethnic groups.

Alexey Mikulich reasonably refutes the judgments of his Moscow colleagues that the core of the Russian gene pool has been located in the north-west of the Russian ethnic area (Pskov region, Novgorod region) with the involvement of part of the lands that today are part of the Republic of Belarus. He notes that the indigenous inhabitants of the Pskov and Novgorod, as well as the Smolensk regions are genetically very close to the Belarusians of the Dvina region (and there is a historical explanation for this fact - this is ethnically the territory of the Krivichi). But this does not at all give a reason to exclude them from the Belarusian ethnic area.

Comparison of genetic geography data with archaeological materials gives very interesting results. The geographical structure of the modern Belarusian gene pool largely corresponds to ancient archaeological cultures. ...This is an important argument in favor of genetic continuity of generations. Analysis of anthropogenetic and genodemographic material leads the author to conclusions about the extreme antiquity of the Belarusian ethnic group. The modern picture of the Belarusian gene pool was formed both through long-term adaptation as a result of natural selection, and in the process of ethnic consolidation.

Using the “genetic calendar,” the author established that the populations of the indigenous inhabitants of Belarus trace their ancestry continuously for at least 130-140 generations, which means at the latest from the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. According to the author, the origin, peculiarities of language, material and spiritual culture, the existence for many centuries of their own state - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the preponderance of emigration processes over immigration - contributed to the consolidation and formation of the ethnic content of Belarusians.”

BELARUSIAN ETHNOS

“In the process of formation and development, the Belarusian people went through stages from the unification of tribal unions through nationality to the nation, many stages of the social structure of society,” writes the Encyclopedia “Belarus”, Minsk, 1995, p. 517. “In the 13th-16th centuries, the Belarusian ethnic group was formed "(p. 107).

That is, it was formed even before the aggressions of Tsars Ivan the Terrible and Alexei Mikhailovich - and therefore even those attempts by the Muscovites to convert their western neighbor into “their ethnic group” were pure violence. And by the time of the Russian occupation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1795, it was a long-established ethnic group with its own centuries-old history of national statehood. For in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had all the attributes of a state: its power (chancellors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not a single Zhemoit - almost all Belarusians, several Poles), its national Belarusian army, its laws of the country (the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - in the language of Belarusians, have not yet been translated into the language of the Zhemoits and Aukshtaits), its national currency (this is the Belarusian thaler, minted for several centuries until 1794, when the last Belarusian thaler was minted by the Grodno Mint), etc.

At the same time, speaking today about the Belarusian ethnic group, we must first of all understand what we are talking about. Belarusians (as an ethnic group with this name) appeared only in 1840, when they were renamed by tsarism from Litvins to “Belarusians” after the uprising of 1830-1831. After the uprising of 1863-1864, when the Litvins were already “Belarusians,” Governor-General Muravyov banned the very idea “Belarus” invented by the ideologists of tsarism and the Secret Chancellery, introducing instead the “Western Russian Territory.” Therefore, the term “Belarus” and “Belarusians” is extremely conditional; it is a product of tsarism, which is prohibited by it. And, for example, all the villagers of the Minsk region continued to call themselves Litvins or Tuteish (locals) even in the early 1950s, according to surveys of ethnographers.

By 1840, a whole series of repressions by tsarism followed against the captured people who dared to rebel a second time. By decree of the tsar, the Uniate Church in Belarus was destroyed, worship in the Belarusian language and book publishing were prohibited, the Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was abolished (which, by the way, was valid only in Belarus, not in Zhemoitia - now the Republic of Lietuva), and the word “Lithuania” itself was prohibited. Although earlier Pushkin wrote specifically about the Belarusians in his poems about the uprising of 1830-1831. “To the slanderers of Russia”: “Who should Lithuania be with – the eternal dispute of the Slavs.”

Encyclopedia “Belarus” (p. 529): “The processes of consolidation of the Belarusian people into the Belarusian Nation began in the 16th – early 17th centuries, intensified in the 19th century and reached their highest rise in 1910-20.”

That is, from the point of view of science, when speaking about Belarusians and Russians, we are no longer talking about peoples and ethnic groups, but about the NATIONS of our neighbors. This is a completely different category, where thoughts about the “merger of peoples” allegedly under the pretext of some kind of “ethnic community” are no longer inappropriate. NATIONS can never merge with each other, because by definition they are not capable of this.

The final point in this issue was put by gene pool research: for Belarusians, Russians turned out to be genetically and anthropologically not a related people at all, but rather a very distant one. But the only blood-related peoples for Belarusians are the Poles of Northern Poland (Masurians) and the Lusatian Serbs of present-day Germany. And the history of the creation of ON fully confirms this.

A huge “forgotten” layer of the history of the Slavs and Balts is that in Polabian Rus' and Pomerania the peoples fled from German expansion, moving further and further to the east, the Slavs and Western Balts fought together against the Germans, and won - as on June 15, 1243 at Lake Reizen under the leadership of the Pomeranian prince Svyatopolk, the governor of the Prussian king Mindaugas. As a result, everyone gathered under the crown of the father of Mindaugas, the Prussian king Ringold, as the Great Polish Chronicle writes, and went to the east, creating the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there. And Ringold's son Mindovg, the king of Prussia, tried to recapture it from the territory of present-day Belarus many times and even reconquered it for a while, executing all the collaborators there. But the occupiers still prevailed.

This chronicle history shows that the Slavic content and cultural influence came to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania historically during its creation not at all from distant Kiev or, especially, from the still non-existent Finnish Moscow, but was a huge civilizational influence from the Slavs of Polabian Russia and Pomerania (Obodrits, Lutich- Lutvins, Rusyns of the island of Rusin-Rügen and Starogorod (now Oldenburg), Lusatians of Lusatian Serbia, etc., Pomeranian Western Balts, among whom the main ones were the Porussians (Prussians), as well as the Mazurs Mazovs). It is clear that the ethnic groups of now Western and Central Belarus, and then the Yatvingians and Dainova - like brothers, gave them all a place to hide from German expansion, like the Promised Land. This is what created the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a country of migrated peoples of Central Europe.

They brought here not only their surnames with “-ich”, which fundamentally could not have arisen in the languages ​​of Poles, Ukrainians and Russians (and did not exist in the Polotsk State), but also brought their European mentality and Slavic-Baltic technological modernization. Yuri Brezan, a writer of the Lusatian Serb ethnic group, winner of two State Prizes of the GDR, in the book “Favorites” (M., Raduga, 1987) calls his Lusatian characters with the “Belarusian” names Jakub (Jakub Kushk) or Jan (Jan Serbin), etc. d. But are these “Belarusian” names and surnames? Who should be considered Yakub Kolas and Yanka Kupala? Or are these the historical and original names of the Lusatians? That is, the Lusatian Serbs.

It is obvious that the Belarusian language and the ethnic group itself are generated by the language and ethnic group of the Polabian and Pomeranian Slavs and the Balts - and have no fundamental relation to the language and ethnic groups of Kyiv and Moscow. And the ancient cultural origins of the Belarusians must be sought among the Lusatian Serbs. There have been no serious studies in this direction, although it is here that there is complete similarity and complete ethnic coincidence in detail, and not something “remotely similar” to other neighbors.

I draw attention to this for the reason that in Russia there is a different and absolutely unsubstantiated version of the ethnocultural origin of Belarusians (moreover, now refuted by genetics as false). They say that Belarusians are Eastern Slavs who originally lived on the territory of the Dnieper (and the Russians allegedly “came from there”). This concept allowed tsarism to present the Belarusians as a “younger” and “originally related” ethnic group to Russians, and tsarism explained its actual dissimilarity with Russians as a result of “Polonization.” In fact, we see that Belarusians in their ethnic and cultural content are not so much similar to the Poles, but rather to the Masurians and Lusatian Serbs and other Slavs and Western Balts of Polabia. Which is not surprising, because the Belarusians did not arise at all on the “island of the Eastern Slavs” - the “Slavic Triangle”, as Russian historians absurdly depict, but were open to powerful influence from Polabye - which (look at the map) is many times closer geographically to Central and Western Belarus, than Kiev and Moscow, which are very far from it.

Artem Denikin, based on materials from the analytical newspaper “Secret Research”