East Slavic union of tribes living in the basin of the upper and middle reaches of the Oka and along the Moscow River. The settlement of the Vyatichi occurred from the territory of the Dnieper left bank or from the upper reaches of the Dniester. The substrate of the Vyatichi was the local Baltic population. The Vyatichi preserved pagan beliefs longer than other Slavic tribes and resisted the influence of the Kyiv princes. Disobedience and belligerence are the calling card of the Vyatichi tribe.
Tribal union of the Eastern Slavs of the 6th-11th centuries. They lived in the territories of what are now Vitebsk, Mogilev, Pskov, Bryansk and Smolensk regions, as well as eastern Latvia. They were formed on the basis of the incoming Slavic and local Baltic population - Tushemlinskaya culture. The ethnogenesis of the Krivichi involved the remnants of local Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes - Estonians, Livs, Latgalians - who mixed with the numerous newcomer Slavic population. The Krivichi are divided into two large groups: Pskov and Polotsk-Smolensk. In the culture of the Polotsk-Smolensk Krivichi, along with Slavic elements of decoration, there are elements of the Baltic type.
Slovenian Ilmenskie- a tribal union of Eastern Slavs on the territory of the Novgorod land, mainly in the lands near Lake Ilmen, adjacent to the Krivichi. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Ilmen Slovenes, together with the Krivichi, Chud and Meri, participated in the calling of the Varangians, who were related to the Slovenes - immigrants from the Baltic Pomerania. A number of historians consider the ancestral home of the Slovenes to be the Dnieper region, others trace the ancestors of the Ilmen Slovenes from the Baltic Pomerania, since the legends, beliefs and customs, the type of dwellings of the Novgorodians and Polabian Slavs are very similar.
Duleby- tribal union of the Eastern Slavs. They inhabited the territories of the Bug River basin and the right tributaries of the Pripyat. In the 10th century The association of Dulebs disintegrated, and their lands became part of Kievan Rus.
Volynians- an East Slavic union of tribes that lived on the territory on both banks of the Western Bug and at the source of the river. Pripyat. In Russian chronicles, Volynians were first mentioned in 907. In the 10th century, the Vladimir-Volyn principality was formed on the lands of the Volynians.
Drevlyans- East Slavic tribal union, which occupied in the 6th-10th centuries. the territory of Polesie, the Right Bank of the Dnieper, west of the glades, along the rivers Teterev, Uzh, Ubort, Stviga. The area of residence of the Drevlyans corresponds to the area of the Luka-Raykovets culture. The name Drevlyans was given to them because they lived in forests.
Dregovichi- tribal union of the Eastern Slavs. The exact boundaries of the habitat of Dregovichi have not yet been established. According to a number of researchers, in the 6th-9th centuries the Dregovichi occupied territory in the middle part of the Pripyat River basin, in the 11th - 12th centuries the southern border of their settlement ran south of Pripyat, the northwestern - in the watershed of the Drut and Berezina rivers, the western - in the upper reaches of the Neman River . When settling Belarus, the Dregovichi moved from south to north to the Neman River, which indicates their southern origin.
Polotsk residents- a Slavic tribe, part of the tribal union of the Krivichi, who lived along the banks of the Dvina River and its tributary Polota, from which they got their name.
The center of Polotsk land was the city of Polotsk.
Glade- a tribal union of Eastern Slavs who lived on the Dnieper, in the area of modern Kyiv. The very origin of the glades remains unclear, since the territory of their settlement was at the junction of several archaeological cultures.
Radimichi- an East Slavic union of tribes that lived in the eastern part of the Upper Dnieper region, along the Sozh River and its tributaries in the 8th-9th centuries. Convenient river routes passed through the lands of the Radimichi, connecting them with Kiev. The Radimichi and Vyatichi had a similar burial rite - the ashes were buried in a log house - and similar female temple jewelry (temporal rings) - seven-rayed (among the Vyatichi - seven-paste). Archaeologists and linguists suggest that the Balt tribes living in the upper reaches of the Dnieper also participated in the creation of the material culture of the Radimichi.
Northerners- an East Slavic union of tribes that lived in the 9th-10th centuries along the Desna, Seim and Sula rivers. The origin of the name northerners is of Scythian-Sarmatian origin and is traced back to the Iranian word “black”, which is confirmed by the name of the city of northerners - Chernigov. The main occupation of the northerners was agriculture.
Tivertsy- an East Slavic tribe that settled in the 9th century in the area between the Dniester and Prut rivers, as well as the Danube, including along the Budjak coast of the Black Sea in the territory of modern Moldova and Ukraine.
Ulichi- East Slavic tribal union that existed in the 9th - 10th centuries. The Ulichi lived in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, Bug and on the shores of the Black Sea. The center of the tribal union was the city of Peresechen. The Ulichi for a long time resisted the attempts of the Kyiv princes to subjugate them to their power.
The most important arguments of the Norman theory are the following:
Additional arguments are archaeological evidence documenting the presence of Scandinavians in the north of East Slavic territory, including finds from the 9th-11th centuries at the excavations of the Rurik settlement, burials in Staraya Ladoga (from the mid-8th century) and Gnezdovo. In settlements founded before the 10th century, Scandinavian artifacts date specifically to the period of the “calling of the Varangians,” while in the most ancient cultural layers the artifacts are almost exclusively of Slavic origin.
In historiography, the Norman hypothesis was first formulated in the 18th century by German scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences G. Z. Bayer, G. F. Miller and A. L. Schlözer. This theory was also adhered to by N.M. Karamzin and, after him, almost all major Russian historians of the 19th century.
Disputes around the Norman version at times took on an ideological character in the context of the question of whether the Slavs could have created a state on their own, without the Norman Varangians. During Stalin's time, Normanism in the USSR was rejected at the state level, but in the 1960s, Soviet historiography returned to the moderate Norman hypothesis while simultaneously exploring alternative versions of the origins of Rus'. Foreign historians for the most part consider the Norman version as the main one.
Slavic theory
The Slavic theory was formulated by V.N. Tatishchev and M.V. Lomonosov as a criticism of the Norman theory. It comes from the interpretation of another fragment of The Tale of Bygone Years:
Judging by the words of Photius, the Byzantines were aware of the existence of Rus'. In 867, Photius, in a letter to the Eastern patriarchs, speaks about Rus', mentioning the so-called first baptism of Rus':
Photius did not name names Russians leaders, according to the chronicler Nestor, the raid was carried out by the Varangians Askold and Dir. As historians suggest, these same Varangians adopted Christianity soon after their successful campaign against Byzantium. When Rus led by Prince Igor again besieged Constantinople in 941, the Byzantines had already identified a warlike people. Feofan’s successor reports: “ On ten thousand ships the Dews, who are also called Dromites, came from the Frankish tribe and sailed to Constantinople.» The Byzantines considered all inhabitants of northwestern Europe to be Franks. In the description of the raid on Constantinople in 860, the same successor of Theophanes called the Rus " Scythian tribe, unbridled and cruel". In Byzantine writings from the 10th century the name Scythians or Tauro-Scythians firmly established among the Russians as some equivalent to the concept - barbarians from the northern shores of the Black Sea. The most detailed information about the Rus and the structure of their state was left in his essay “On the Administration of the Empire,” written around 950, by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
In June, dews with goods and slaves are rafted down the Dnieper to the Black Sea, and the names of the Dnieper rapids are listed by Konstantin in two languages: “ in Russian and Slavic“, and the “Russian” names have a fairly clear Old Scandinavian etymology (see table in the article Normanism). Another etymology, based on Iranian dialects, was proposed in 1985 by M. Yu. Braichevsky, based on the fact of long residence of the Iranian-speaking population in the region. At the mouth of the Dnieper, on the island, the dews rest before going out to sea: “they perform their sacrifices, since there is a huge oak tree there: they sacrifice live roosters, they strengthen arrows around [the oak], and others - pieces of bread, meat and what everyone has, as their custom dictates.” Western European sourcesThe first dated news of Rus' contained in the Bertin Annals and dates back to 839, that is, to a period earlier than described in the Old Russian chronicles. The annals report the embassy of the Byzantine Emperor Theophilus to Emperor Louis the Pious on May 18, 839. Certain people were sent with the Byzantine embassy, to whom Theophilus asked for assistance in returning to their homeland:
The existence of the Rus in the 1st half of the 9th century is also noted by another synchronous source - the list of tribes of the “Bavarian Geographer”. In this list, among the peoples who do not border the Frankish Empire and are located to the east of it, the Ruzzi are mentioned. Next to the Ruzzi tribe stands the Caziri tribe, from which historians identify the Rus-Khazar couple. According to the list, Rus' lived east of the Prussians and did not belong to the inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula, who were listed as located north of the borders of the Frankish empire. Arab-Persian sourcesRetrospectively, the Rus are mentioned by the Islamic historian At-Tabari in the “History of Prophets and Kings” (completed in 914) when describing the events of 644, when the ruler of Derbent Shahriyar reported to the ruler of the Arabs:
Historians are critical of this document, since Tabari’s information has come to us in the Persian translation of Balami. The orientalist Harkavi directly notes that it is almost impossible to separate the layers of the Persian translator from the information of Tabari himself, who lived during the Rus’ raids on his native land in Tabaristan (part of modern Iran). As-Salibi, a contemporary of Balami (10th century), also argued that the double wall of Derbent, built by the Persian Shah Khosrow I Anushirvan (-), was intended to protect against the Khazars and Rus.
The Arab geographer of Persian origin Ibn Ruste compiled a compilation of information from various authors in the 930s. There he also spoke about the Russians:
Khazar sourcesSources originating from Rus'’s closest southern neighbor, the Khazar Khaganate, also contain modern information reflecting the difficult relations between the two countries.
In the same document, the Slavs are mentioned among the tributaries of the Khazar king. Archaeological evidenceArchaeological research confirms the fact of large socio-economic changes in the lands of the Eastern Slavs and records the penetration of the inhabitants of the Baltic basin into their environment in the 9th century (see Rus'). In the north (Novgorod lands), the Baltic influence is noted earlier and is much more noticeable than in the south (Kyiv). In general, the results of archaeological research do not contradict the legend of the “Tale of Bygone Years” about the calling of the Varangians in 862, however, difficulties in the exact dating and ethnic identification of archaeological material do not allow us to draw definite conclusions about the origin, geographical localization and historical role of Rus' in the formation of the East Slavic state - Rus' . Scandinavian presenceThe appearance of Western Slavs in the Ilmen regionA comparison of archaeological, anthropological and numismatic materials indicates the most ancient connections of North-Western Rus' with the South Baltic (compared to Scandinavia) and the widest presence of South Baltic Slavs within its borders. At early settlements and ancient settlements of the 8th-9th centuries (Ladoga, Gorodishche, Gnezdovo, Timerevo, Pskov, Gorodok on Lovati, Gorodets pod Luga, the villages of Zolotoye Koleno and New Duboviki, hills on Srednyaya Meta, Beloozero, etc.) in the earliest layers in Molded ceramics of the South Baltic type are present in abundance, indicating an incoming population. In the Ladoga region and in Ladoga itself (from the earliest period) in the 8th-9th centuries, molded ceramics of the so-called “Ladoga type”, which also has a South Baltic origin, spread. In the 9th century, pottery of the “Ladoga type” spread to the Ilmen region. In Scandinavia, this type of ceramics appears later (in the middle period of the “Viking Age”) than in the Ladoga region and is rare. Moreover, similar ceramics were found in Central Sweden only in Birka and on the Åland Islands, and in burials they were found only during corpse burnings, that is, they are associated with settlers from the South Baltic. In a number of modern genogeographic studies of the haplotypes of men belonging to the Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a, a separate branch can be traced, common among individuals originating from Northern Poland, East Prussia, the Baltic states, the northwestern regions of Russia, Southern Finland, which can be compared with the descendants of the Baltic Slavs . Anthropological data also indicate some migrations of the Baltic Slavs in the 8th-9th centuries. Genetic researchGenetic research affected only the descendants of the Rurik dynasty. These studies, carried out since 2006, showed a stable division of the descendants of Rurik into haplogroups: Monomakhovichs showed haplogroup N1c1, common in Northern Europe and Siberia. In particular, its frequency reaches 60% among Finns and about 40% among Latvians and Lithuanians. In northern Russian populations, the occurrence of this haplogroup is also quite high (about 30%), the maximum value was found in the population of Mezen. The descendants of the Olegovichs showed the Slavic R1a. The Normanists declared this to be proof of their theory, but their opponents drew the opposite conclusions. Be that as it may, the Monomakhovichs managed to push the Olegovichs away from the great reign during internecine wars, one of the pretexts for which was the accusation of the Olegovichs of illegitimacy. According to S. S. Aleksashin, it is haplogroup R1a1 that is the original haplogroup of the Rurikovichs, while haplogroup N1c1 appeared as a result of infidelity to Yaroslav the Wise by his wife Ingegerda (Irina), whose “secret love” for St. Olaf is spoken of in the Scandinavian sagas - precisely as a result of this love, presumably, Vsevolod Yaroslavich, the father of Vladimir Monomakh, appeared (Ingegerda and Olaf met in 1029, during Olaf’s trip to Rus'; Vsevolod was born in 1030) see also
Notes
|
The Slavs were not the only people who inhabited Ancient Rus'. Other, more ancient tribes were also “cooked” in her cauldron: Chud, Merya, Muroma. They left early, but left a deep mark on Russian ethnicity, language and folklore.
Chud
“Whatever you call the boat, that’s how it will float.” The mysterious Chud people fully justify their name. The popular version says that the Slavs dubbed some tribes Chudya, because their language seemed strange and unusual to them. In ancient Russian sources and folklore, there are many references to the “chud”, which “the Varangians from overseas imposed tribute on.” They took part in Prince Oleg’s campaign against Smolensk, Yaroslav the Wise fought against them: “and defeated them and established the city of Yuryev,” legends were made about them as about the white-eyed miracle - an ancient people akin to European “fairies.” They left a huge mark on the toponymy of Russia; Lake Peipus, the Peipsi shore, and the villages: “Front Chudi”, “Middle Chudi”, “Back Chudi” are named after them. From the north-west of present-day Russia to the Altai mountains, their mysterious “wonderful” trace can still be traced.
For a long time it was customary to associate them with the Finno-Ugric peoples, since they were mentioned in places where representatives of the Finno-Ugric peoples lived or still live. But the folklore of the latter also preserves legends about the mysterious ancient Chud people, whose representatives left their lands and went somewhere, not wanting to accept Christianity. There is especially a lot of talk about them in the Komi Republic. So they say that the ancient tract Vazhgort “Old Village” in the Udora region was once a Chud settlement. From there they were allegedly driven out by Slavic newcomers.
In the Kama region you can learn a lot about the Chud: local residents describe their appearance (dark-haired and dark-skinned), language, and customs. They say that they lived in dugouts in the middle of the forests, where they buried themselves, refusing to submit to more successful invaders. There is even a legend that “the Chud went underground”: they dug a large hole with an earthen roof on pillars, and then collapsed it, preferring death to captivity. But not a single popular belief or chronicle mention can answer the questions: what kind of tribes were they, where did they go and whether their descendants are still alive. Some ethnographers attribute them to the Mansi peoples, others to representatives of the Komi people who chose to remain pagans. The boldest version, which appeared after the discovery of Arkaim and the “Land of Cities” of Sintashta, claims that the Chud are ancient arias. But for now one thing is clear, the Chud are one of the aborigines of ancient Rus' whom we have lost.
Merya
“Chud made a mistake, but Merya intended gates, roads and mileposts...” - these lines from a poem by Alexander Blok reflect the confusion of scientists of his time about two tribes that once lived next door to the Slavs. But, unlike the first, Mary had a “more transparent story.” This ancient Finno-Ugric tribe once lived in the territories of modern Moscow, Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, Tver, Vladimir and Kostroma regions of Russia. That is, in the very center of our country.
There are many references to them; merins are found in the Gothic historian Jordan, who in the 6th century called them tributaries of the Gothic king Germanaric. Like the Chud, they were in the troops of Prince Oleg when he went on campaigns against Smolensk, Kyiv and Lyubech, as recorded in the Tale of Bygone Years. True, according to some scientists, in particular Valentin Sedov, by that time ethnically they were no longer a Volga-Finnish tribe, but “half Slavs.” Final assimilation apparently occurred by the 16th century.
One of the largest peasant uprisings of Ancient Rus' in 1024 is associated with the name of Merya. The reason was the great famine that gripped the Suzdal land. Moreover, according to the chronicles, it was preceded by “immeasurable rains,” drought, premature frosts, and dry winds. For the Marys, most of whose representatives opposed Christianization, this obviously looked like “divine punishment.” The rebellion was led by the priests of the “old faith” - the Magi, who tried to use the chance to return to pre-Christian cults. However, it was unsuccessful. The rebellion was defeated by Yaroslav the Wise, the instigators were executed or sent into exile.
Despite the meager data that we know about the Merya people, scientists managed to restore their ancient language, which in Russian linguistics was called “Meryan”. It was reconstructed on the basis of the dialect of the Yaroslavl-Kostroma Volga region and the Finno-Ugric languages. A number of words were recovered thanks to geographical names. It turned out that the endings “-gda” in Central Russian toponymy: Vologda, Sudogda, Shogda are the heritage of the Meryan people.
Despite the fact that mentions of the Merya completely disappeared in sources back in the pre-Petrine era, today there are people who consider themselves to be their descendants. These are mainly residents of the Upper Volga region. They claim that the Meryans did not dissolve over the centuries, but formed the substrate (substratum) of the northern Great Russian people, switched to the Russian language, and their descendants call themselves Russians. However, there is no evidence of this.
Muroma
As the Tale of Bygone Years says: in 862 the Slovenes lived in Novgorod, the Krivichi in Polotsk, the Merya in Rostov, and the Murom in Murom. The chronicle, like the Merians, classifies the latter as non-Slavic peoples. Their name translates as “an elevated place by the water,” which corresponds to the position of the city of Murom, which for a long time was their center.
Today, based on archaeological finds discovered in large burial grounds of the tribe (located between the left tributaries of the Oka, the Ushna, the Unzha and the right, the Tesha), it is almost impossible to determine which ethnic group they belonged to. According to domestic archaeologists, they could be either another Finno-Ugric tribe or part of the Meri, or the Mordovians. Only one thing is known, they were friendly neighbors with a highly developed culture. Their weapons were of the best quality in the surrounding areas, and their jewelry, which was found in abundance in the burials, is distinguished by its inventiveness of form and careful workmanship. Murom was characterized by arched head decorations woven from horsehair and strips of leather, which were spirally braided with bronze wire. Interestingly, there are no analogues among other Finno-Ugric tribes.
Sources show that the Slavic colonization of Murom was peaceful and occurred mainly through strong and economic trade ties. However, the result of this peaceful coexistence was that the Muroma were one of the very first assimilated tribes to disappear from the pages of history. By the 12th century they were no longer mentioned in chronicles.
The question of what the East Slavic tribes of the Tale of Bygone Years were has been raised more than once in historical literature. In Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, there was a widespread idea that the Slavic population in Eastern Europe appeared literally on the eve of the formation of the Kyiv state as a result of migration from their ancestral home in relatively small groups. Such settlement over a vast territory disrupted their previous tribal ties. In new places of residence, new territorial ties were formed between disparate Slavic groups, which, due to the constant mobility of the Slavs, were not strong and could be lost again. Consequently, the chronicle tribes of the Eastern Slavs were exclusively territorial associations. “From local names of the 11th century. the chronicle was made by the “tribes” of the Eastern Slavs,” wrote S. M. Seredonin, one of the consistent supporters of this point of view (S. M. Seredonin, 1916, p. 152). A similar opinion was developed in their studies by V. O. Klyuchevsky, M. K. Lyubavsky and others (Klyuchevsky V. O., 1956, pp. 110-150; Lyubavsky M. K., 1909).
Another group of researchers, including the majority of linguists and archaeologists, considered the chronicled tribes of the Eastern Slavs as ethnic groups (Sobolevsky A.I., 1884; Shakhmatov A.A., 1899, pp. 324-384; 1916; Spitsyn A.A. ., 1899c, pp. 301-340). Certain passages in the Tale of Bygone Years definitely support this opinion. Thus, the chronicler reports about the tribes that “everyone lives with his family and in his own place, each owning his family” (PVL, I, p. 12), and further: “I have my own customs, and my father’s law and traditions, each has its own character” (PVL, I, p. 14). The same impression is formed when reading other places in the chronicle. So, for example, it is reported that the first settlers in Novgorod were Slovenes, in Polotsk - Krivichi, in Rostov - Merya, in Beloozero - all, in Murom - Muroma (PVL, I, p. 18). Here it is obvious that the Krivichi and Slovenes are equated to such undeniably ethnic entities as the whole, Merya, Muroma. Based on this, many representatives of linguistics (A. A. Shakhmatov, A. I. Sobolevsky, E. F. Karsky, D. N. Ushakov, N. N. Durnovo) tried to find a correspondence between the modern and early medieval dialect division of the Eastern Slavs, believing that the origins of the present division go back to the tribal era.
There is a third point of view about the essence of the East Slavic tribes. The founder of Russian historical geography, N.P. Barsov, saw political and geographical formations in the chronicle tribes (Barsov N.P., 1885). This opinion was analyzed by B. A. Rybakov (Rybakov B. A., 1947, p. 97; 1952, p. 40-62). B. A. Rybakov believes that the Polyans, Drevlyans, Radimichi, etc., named in the chronicle, were alliances that united several separate tribes. During the crisis of tribal society, “tribal communities united around churchyards into “worlds” (maybe vervi); the totality of several “worlds” represented a tribe, and tribes were increasingly united into temporary or permanent unions... The cultural community within stable tribal unions was sometimes felt quite long after such a union became part of the Russian state and can be traced from the kurgan materials of the 12th-13th centuries. and according to even later data from dialectology” (Rybakov B. A., 1964, p. 23). On the initiative of B.A. Rybakov, an attempt was made to identify, based on archaeological data, the primary tribes, from which large tribal unions were formed, called the chronicle (Solovieva G.F., 1956, pp. 138-170).
The materials discussed above do not allow us to resolve the issue raised unambiguously by joining one of the three points of view. However, B. A. Rybakov is undoubtedly right that the tribes of the Tale of Bygone Years, before the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state, were also political entities, i.e., tribal unions.
It seems obvious that the Volynians, Drevlyans, Dregovichi and Polyanians in the process of their formation were primarily territorial neoplasms (Map 38). As a result of the collapse of the Proto-Slavic Duleb tribal union during the resettlement, the territorial isolation of individual groups of Dulebs occurs. Over time, each local group develops its own way of life, and some ethnographic features begin to form, which is reflected in the details of funeral rituals. This is how the Volynians, Drevlyans, Polyans and Dregovichi appeared, named according to geographical characteristics. The formation of these tribal groups was undoubtedly facilitated by the political unification of each of them. The chronicle reports: “And to this day the brothers [Kiya, Shcheka and Khoriv] often kept their reign in the fields, and in the trees theirs, and the Dregovichi theirs...” (PVL, I, p. 13). It is obvious that the Slavic population of each of the territorial groups, similar in economic system and living in similar conditions, gradually united for a number of joint activities - they organized a common meeting, general meetings of governors, and created a common tribal squad. Tribal unions of the Drevlyans, Polyans, Dregovichs and, obviously, Volynians were formed, preparing future feudal states.
It is possible that the formation of the northerners was to some extent due to the interaction of the remnants of the local population with the Slavs who settled in their area. The name of the tribe apparently remained from the aborigines. It is difficult to say whether the northerners created their own tribal organization. In any case, the chronicles say nothing about such a thing.
Similar conditions existed during the formation of the Krivichi. The Slavic population, which initially settled in the river basins. Velikaya and Lake Pskovskoe, did not stand out with any specific features. The formation of the Krivichi and their ethnographic features began in the conditions of stationary life already in the chronicle area. The custom of building long mounds arose already in the Pskov region, some of the details of the Krivichi funeral rite were inherited by the Krivichi from the local population, bracelet-shaped tied rings are distributed exclusively in the area of the Dnieper-Dvina Balts, etc.
Apparently, the formation of the Krivichi as a separate ethnographic unit of the Slavs began in the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD. e. in the Pskov region. In addition to the Slavs, they also included the local Finnish population. The subsequent settlement of the Krivichi in the Vitebsk-Polotsk Podvinia and the Smolensk Dnieper region, on the territory of the Dnieper-Dvina Balts, led to their division into the Pskov Krivichi and the Smolensk-Polotsk Krivichi. As a result, on the eve of the formation of the ancient Russian state, the Krivichi did not form a single tribal union. The chronicle reports on separate reigns among Polotsk and Smolensk Krivichi. The Pskov Krivichi apparently had their own tribal organization. Judging by the chronicle's message about the calling of the princes, it is likely that the Novgorod Slovenes, Pskov Krivichi and all united into a single political union. Its centers were Slovenian Novgorod, Krivichsky Izborsk and Vessky Beloozero.
It is likely that the formation of Vyatichi is largely determined by the substrate. The group of Slavs led by Vyatka, who came to the upper Oka, did not stand out with their own ethnographic characteristics. They formed locally and partly as a result of the influence of the local population. The area of the early Vyatichi basically coincides with the territory of the Moshchin culture. The Slavicized descendants of the bearers of this culture, together with the newcomer Slavs, formed a separate ethnographic group of the Vyatichi.
The Radimichi region does not correspond to any substrate territory. Apparently, the descendants of that group of Slavs who settled on Sozh were called Radimichi. It is quite clear that these Slavs included the local population as a result of miscegenation and assimilation. The Radimichi, like the Vyatichi, had their own tribal organization. Thus, both of them were at the same time ethnographic communities and tribal unions.
The formation of the ethnographic characteristics of the Novgorod Slovenes began only after the settlement of their ancestors in the Ilmen region. This is evidenced not only by archaeological materials, but also by the absence of their own ethnonym for this group of Slavs. Here, in the Ilmen region, the Slovenians created a political organization - a tribal union.
Scarce materials about the Croats, Tiverts and Ulichs do not make it possible to identify the essence of these tribes. The East Slavic Croats were apparently part of a large Proto-Slavic tribe. By the beginning of the ancient Russian state, all these tribes were obviously tribal unions.
In 1132, Kievan Rus broke up into one and a half dozen principalities. This was prepared by historical conditions - the growth and strengthening of urban centers, the development of crafts and trade activities, the strengthening of the political power of townspeople and local boyars. There was a need to create strong local authorities that would take into account all aspects of the internal life of individual regions of ancient Rus'. Boyars of the 12th century local authorities were needed that could quickly implement the norms of feudal relations.
Territorial fragmentation of the Old Russian state in the 12th century. largely corresponds to the areas of the chronicle tribes. B. A. Rybakov notes that “the capitals of many of the largest principalities were at one time centers of tribal unions: Kiev among the Polyans, Smolensk among the Krivichs, Polotsk among the Polochan, Novgorod the Great among the Slovenians, Novgorod Seversky among the Severians (Rybakov B. A., 1964 , pp. 148, 149). As evidenced by archaeological materials, chronicle tribes in the XI-XII centuries. were still stable ethnographic units. Their clan and tribal nobility in the process of the emergence of feudal relations turned into boyars. It is obvious that the geographical boundaries of the individual principalities that were formed in the 12th century were determined by the life itself and the former tribal structure of the Eastern Slavs. In some cases, tribal areas have proven to be quite resilient. Thus, the territory of the Smolensk Krivichi during the XII-XIII centuries. was the core of the Smolensk land, the boundaries of which largely coincide with the boundaries of the indigenous region of settlement of this group of Krivichi (Sedov V.V., 1975c, pp. 256, 257, Fig. 2).
The Slavic tribes, which occupied vast territories of Eastern Europe, were experiencing a process of consolidation in the 8th-9th centuries. form the Old Russian (or East Slavic) nationality. Modern East Slavic languages, i.e. Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian, have retained a number of common features in their phonetics, grammatical structure and vocabulary, indicating that after the collapse of the common Slavic language they constituted one language - the language of the Old Russian people. Such monuments as the Tale of Bygone Years, the ancient code of laws Russian Pravda, the poetic work The Lay of Igor's Campaign, numerous charters, etc. were written in the Old Russian (East Slavic) language. The beginning of the formation of the Old Russian language, as noted above, was determined by linguists of the 8th-9th centuries. Over the following centuries, a number of processes occur in the Old Russian language that are characteristic only of the East Slavic territory (Filin F.P., 1962, pp. 226-290).
The problem of the formation of the Old Russian language and nationality was considered in the works of A. A. Shakhmatov (Shakhmatov A. A., 1899, pp. 324-384; 1916; 1919a). According to the ideas of this researcher, all-Russian unity presupposes the presence of a limited territory in which the ethnographic and linguistic community of the Eastern Slavs could develop. A. A. Shakhmatov assumed that the Ants were part of the Proto-Slavs, fleeing from the Avars in the 6th century. settled in Volyn and Kiev region. This region became “the cradle of the Russian tribe, the Russian ancestral home.” From here the Eastern Slavs began to settle other Eastern European lands. The settlement of the Eastern Slavs over a vast territory led to their fragmentation into three branches - northern, eastern and southern. In the first decades of our century, the research of A. A. Shakhmatov enjoyed wide recognition, and at present it is of purely historiographical interest.
Later, many Soviet linguists studied the history of the Old Russian language. The last generalizing work on this topic remains F. P. Filin’s book “Education of the Language of the Eastern Slavs,” which focuses on the analysis of individual linguistic phenomena (F. P. Filin, 1962). The researcher comes to the conclusion that the formation of the East Slavic language occurred in the 8th-9th centuries. over a large area of Eastern Europe. The historical conditions for the formation of a separate Slavic nation remained unclear in this book, since they are largely connected not with the history of linguistic phenomena, but with the history of native speakers.
Soviet historians were also interested in questions about the origin of the Old Russian people, in particular B. A. Rybakov (Rybakov V. A., 1952, pp. 40-62; 1953a, pp. 23-104), M. N. Tikhomirov (Tikhomirov M. N., 1947, pp. 60-80; 1954, pp. 3-18) and A. N. Nasonov (Nasonov A. N., 1951a; 19516, pp. 69, 70). Based on historical materials, B. A. Rybakov showed, first of all, that the consciousness of the unity of the Russian land was preserved both during the era of the Kyiv state and during the period of feudal fragmentation. The concept of “Russian land” covered all East Slavic regions from Ladoga in the north to the Black Sea in the south and from the Bug in the west to the Volga-Oka interfluve inclusive in the east. This “Russian land” was the territory of the East Slavic people. At the same time, B. A. Rybakov notes that there was still a narrow meaning of the term “Rus”, corresponding to the Middle Dnieper region (Kiev, Chernigov and Seversk lands). This narrow meaning of “Rus” was preserved from the era of the 6th - 7th centuries, when in the Middle Dnieper region there was a tribal union under the leadership of one of the Slavic tribes - the Russes. Population of the Russian tribal union in the 9th-10th centuries. served as the nucleus for the formation of the Old Russian people, which included the Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe and part of the Slavic Finnish tribes.
A new original hypothesis about the prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian people was presented by P. N. Tretyakov (Tretyakov P. N., 1970). According to this researcher, the eastern, in a geographical sense, groupings of Slavs have long occupied the forest-steppe areas between the upper Dniester and middle Dnieper rivers. At the turn and at the beginning of our era, they settled north, into the areas belonging to the Eastern Baltic tribes. The miscegenation of the Slavs with the Eastern Balts led to the formation of the Eastern Slavs. “During the subsequent settlement of the Eastern Slavs, which culminated in the creation of the ethnogeographical picture known from the Tale of Bygone Years, from the Upper Dnieper in the northern, northeastern and southern directions, in particular to the river of the middle Dnieper, it was not “pure” Slavs who moved, but a population that had in its composition are assimilated East Baltic groups” (Tretyakov P.N., 1970, p. 153).
P. N. Tretyakov’s constructions about the formation of the Old Russian people under the influence of the Baltic substrate on the Eastern Slavic group do not find justification either in archaeological or linguistic materials. The East Slavic language does not display any common Baltic substratum elements. What united all the Eastern Slavs linguistically and at the same time separated them from other Slavic groups cannot be a product of Baltic influence.
How do the materials discussed in this book allow us to solve the question of the prerequisites for the formation of the East Slavic people?
The widespread settlement of Slavs in Eastern Europe occurred mainly in the 6th-8th centuries. This was still the pre-Slavic period, and the settling Slavs were linguistically united. The migration took place not from one region, but from different dialect areas of the Proto-Slavic area. Consequently, any assumptions about the “Russian ancestral home” or about the beginnings of the East Slavic people within the Proto-Slavic world are not justified in any way. The Old Russian nationality was formed over vast areas and was based on the Slavic population, united not on ethno-dialectal, but on territorial grounds.
The linguistic expression of at least two sources of Slavic settlement in Eastern Europe is the opposition g~K (h). Of all the East Slavic dialect differences, this feature is the most ancient, and it differentiates the Slavs of Eastern Europe into two zones - northern and southern (Khaburgaev G. A., 1979, pp. 104-108; 1980, pp. 70-115).
Settlement of Slavic tribes in the VI-VII centuries. in the vast expanses of Central and Eastern Europe led to the disunity in the evolution of various linguistic trends. This evolution began to be local rather than universal. As a result, “in the VIII-IX centuries. and later, reflexes of combinations such as *tort, *tbrt, *tj, *dj and *kt', denasalization of o and g and a number of other changes in the phonetic system, some grammatical innovations, shifts in the field of vocabulary formed a special zone in the east of the Slavic world with more or less matching boundaries. This zone formed the language of the Eastern Slavs, or Old Russian” (Filin F.P., 1972, p. 29).
The leading role in the formation of this nation apparently belonged to the ancient Russian state. It is not without reason that the beginning of the formation of the ancient Russian nationality coincides in time with the process of the formation of the Russian state. The territory of the Old Russian state also coincides with the area of the East Slavic people.
The emergence of an early feudal state with a center in Kyiv actively contributed to the consolidation of the Slavic tribes that made up the Old Russian people. The territory of the ancient Russian state began to be called Russian land, or Russia. In this meaning, the term Rus' is mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years already in the 10th century. There was a need for a common self-name for the entire East Slavic population. Previously, this population called themselves Slavs. Now Rus' has become the self-name of the Eastern Slavs. When listing the peoples, the Tale of Bygone Years notes: “In the Afetov part, there are Rus', Chud and all languages: Merya, Muroma, All, Mordva” (PVL, I, p. 10). Under 852, the same source reports: “...Rus came to Tsargorod” (PVL, I, p. 17). Here, Russia means the entire Eastern Slavs - the population of the ancient Russian state.
Rus - the ancient Russian people are gaining fame in other countries of Europe and Asia. Byzantine authors write about Rus' and mention Western European sources. In the IX-XII centuries. the term “Rus”, both in Slavic and other sources, is used in a double sense - in the ethnic sense and in the sense of the state. This can only be explained by the fact that the Old Russian people developed in close connection with the emerging state territory. The term “Rus” was initially used only for the Kyiv glades, but in the process of creating ancient Russian statehood it quickly spread to the entire territory of ancient Rus'.
The Old Russian state united all the Eastern Slavs into a single organism, connected them with a common political life, and, of course, contributed to strengthening the concept of the unity of Rus'. State power organizing campaigns of the population from various lands or resettlement, the spread of princely and patrimonial administration, the development of new spaces, the expansion of tribute collection and judicial power contributed to closer ties and intercourse between the population of various Russian lands.
The formation of ancient Russian statehood and nationality was accompanied by rapid development of culture and economy. The construction of ancient Russian cities, the rise of handicraft production, and the development of trade relations favored the consolidation of the Slavs of Eastern Europe into a single nation.
As a result, a single material and spiritual culture is emerging, which is manifested in almost everything - from women’s jewelry to architecture.
In the formation of the Old Russian language and nationalities, a significant role belonged to the spread of Christianity and writing. Very soon the concepts of “Russian” and “Christian” began to be identified. The church played a multifaceted role in the history of Rus'. It was an organization that contributed to the strengthening of Russian statehood and played a positive role in the formation and development of the culture of the Eastern Slavs, in the development of education and in the creation of the most important literary values and works of art.
“The relative unity of the Old Russian language... was supported by various kinds of extralinguistic circumstances: the absence of territorial disunity among the East Slavic tribes, and later the absence of stable boundaries between feudal possessions; the development of a supra-tribal language of oral folk poetry, closely related to the language of religious cults widespread throughout the East Slavic territory; the emergence of the beginnings of public speech, which sounded during the conclusion of intertribal treaties and legal proceedings according to the laws of customary law (which were partially reflected in Russian Pravda), etc.” (Filin F.P., 1970, p. 3).
Linguistic materials do not contradict the proposed conclusions. Linguistics testifies, as G. A. Khaburgaev recently showed, that the East Slavic linguistic unity took shape from components of heterogeneous origin. The heterogeneity of tribal associations in Eastern Europe is due to both their settlement from different Proto-Slavic groups and interaction with various tribes of the autochthonous population. Thus, the formation of Old Russian linguistic unity is the result of leveling and integration of the dialects of East Slavic tribal groups (Khaburgaev G. A., 1980, pp. 70-115). This was due to the process of formation of the ancient Russian nationality. Archeology and history know many cases of the formation of medieval nationalities in the conditions of the formation and strengthening of statehood.
The Russians were not the only people inhabiting Kievan Rus. Other, more ancient tribes also “cooked” in the cauldron of the ancient Russian state: Chud, Merya, Muroma. They left early, but left a deep mark on Russian ethnicity, language and folklore.
Chud
“Whatever you call the boat, that’s how it will float.” The mysterious Chud people fully justify their name. The popular version says that the Slavs dubbed some tribes Chudya, because their language seemed strange and unusual to them. In ancient Russian sources and folklore, there are many references to the “chud”, which “the Varangians from overseas imposed tribute on.” They took part in Prince Oleg’s campaign against Smolensk, Yaroslav the Wise fought against them: “and defeated them and established the city of Yuriev,” legends were made about them as about the white-eyed miracle - an ancient people akin to European “fairies.” They left a huge mark on the toponymy of Russia; Lake Peipus, the Peipsi shore, and the villages: “Front Chudi”, “Middle Chudi”, “Back Chudi” are named after them. From the north-west of present-day Russia to the Altai mountains, their mysterious “wonderful” trace can still be traced.
For a long time it was customary to associate them with the Finno-Ugric peoples, since they were mentioned in places where representatives of the Finno-Ugric peoples lived or still live. But the folklore of the latter also preserves legends about the mysterious ancient Chud people, whose representatives left their lands and went somewhere, not wanting to accept Christianity. There is especially a lot of talk about them in the Komi Republic. So they say that the ancient tract Vazhgort “Old Village” in the Udora region was once a Chud settlement. From there they were allegedly driven out by Slavic newcomers.
In the Kama region you can learn a lot about the Chud: local residents describe their appearance (dark-haired and dark-skinned), language, and customs. They say that they lived in dugouts in the middle of the forests, where they buried themselves, refusing to submit to more successful invaders. There is even a legend that “the Chud went underground”: they dug a large hole with an earthen roof on pillars, and then collapsed it, preferring death to captivity. But not a single popular belief or chronicle mention can answer the questions: what kind of tribes were they, where did they go and whether their descendants are still alive.
Some ethnographers attribute them to the Mansi peoples, others to representatives of the Komi people who chose to remain pagans. The boldest version, which appeared after the discovery of Arkaim and the “Land of Cities” of Sintashta, claims that the Chud are ancient arias. But for now one thing is clear, the Chud are one of the aborigines of ancient Rus' whom we have lost.
Merya
“Chud made a mistake, but Merya intended gates, roads and mileposts...” - these lines from a poem by Alexander Blok reflect the confusion of scientists of his time about two tribes that once lived next door to the Slavs. But, unlike the first, Mary had a “more transparent story.” This ancient Finno-Ugric tribe once lived in the territories of modern Moscow, Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, Tver, Vladimir and Kostroma regions of Russia. That is, in the very center of our country.
There are many references to them; merins are found in the Gothic historian Jordan, who in the 6th century called them tributaries of the Gothic king Germanaric. Like the Chud, they were in the troops of Prince Oleg when he went on campaigns against Smolensk, Kyiv and Lyubech, as recorded in the Tale of Bygone Years. True, according to some scientists, in particular Valentin Sedov, by that time ethnically they were no longer a Volga-Finnish tribe, but “half Slavs.” Final assimilation apparently occurred by the 16th century.
One of the largest peasant uprisings of Kievan Rus in 1024 is associated with the name of Merya. The reason was the great famine that gripped the Suzdal land. Moreover, according to the chronicles, it was preceded by “immeasurable rains,” drought, premature frosts, and dry winds. For the Marys, most of whose representatives opposed Christianization, this obviously looked like “divine punishment.” The rebellion was led by the priests of the “old faith” - the Magi, who tried to use the chance to return to pre-Christian cults. However, it was unsuccessful. The rebellion was defeated by Yaroslav the Wise, the instigators were executed or sent into exile.
Despite the meager data that we know about the Merya people, scientists managed to restore their ancient language, which in Russian linguistics was called “Meryan”. It was reconstructed on the basis of the dialect of the Yaroslavl-Kostroma Volga region and the Finno-Ugric languages. A number of words were recovered thanks to geographical names. It turned out that the endings “-gda” in Central Russian toponymy: Vologda, Sudogda, Shogda are the heritage of the Meryan people.
Despite the fact that mentions of the Merya completely disappeared in sources back in the pre-Petrine era, today there are people who consider themselves to be their descendants. These are mainly residents of the Upper Volga region. They claim that the Meryans did not dissolve over the centuries, but formed the substrate (substratum) of the northern Great Russian people, switched to the Russian language, and their descendants call themselves Russians. However, there is no evidence of this.
Muroma
As the Tale of Bygone Years says: in 862 the Slovenes lived in Novgorod, the Krivichi in Polotsk, the Merya in Rostov, and the Murom in Murom. The chronicle, like the Merians, classifies the latter as non-Slavic peoples. Their name translates as “an elevated place by the water,” which corresponds to the position of the city of Murom, which for a long time was their center. Today, based on archaeological finds discovered in large burial grounds of the tribe (located between the left tributaries of the Oka, the Ushna, the Unzha and the right, the Tesha), it is almost impossible to determine which ethnic group they belonged to.
According to domestic archaeologists, they could be either another Finno-Ugric tribe or part of the Meri, or the Mordovians. Only one thing is known, they were friendly neighbors with a highly developed culture. Their weapons were of the best quality in the surrounding areas, and their jewelry, which was found in abundance in the burials, is distinguished by its inventiveness of form and careful workmanship.
Murom was characterized by arched head decorations woven from horsehair and strips of leather, which were spirally braided with bronze wire. Interestingly, there are no analogues among other Finno-Ugric tribes.
Sources show that the Slavic colonization of Murom was peaceful and occurred mainly through strong and economic trade ties. However, the result of this peaceful coexistence was that the Muroma were one of the very first assimilated tribes to disappear from the pages of history. By the 12th century they were no longer mentioned in chronicles.
Polishchuki
Polesia - a region located today on the territory of as many as four states: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Poland - has a special role in the history of the Slavs. If you look at the map, Polesie will be right in the center of the Slavic world. Hence the idea of it as the ancestral home of the Slavs, as well as the hypothesis of the “Polesie Lake” - an impassable swampy barrier that separated the Slavs and the Balts, which allegedly violated their original unity.
Today, the idea of Polesie as the place where the Proto-Slavic ethnic group first arose is very popular. At least this may be true of its western regions. Soviet archaeologist Yuri Kukharenko called them a “bridge” along which the ancient migration of the Slavs took place from west to east, from Povislenye to the Dnieper region.
Today, these territories are inhabited by a completely unique East Slavic people, who are neither Russians, nor Ukrainians, nor Belarusians. Western Polishchuks or Tuteishes are a distinctive Slavic ethnic group: they differ from their neighbors not only in language and culture, but also in physical features.
According to researchers, they may be descendants of groups of Duleb tribes, known as "Buzhans" and "Volynians", who lived in this territory in the first millennium AD. Today they are divided conditionally into three groups, depending on the territory they inhabit: forest people living in villages on the outskirts of forests, bolotyuki - the most significant group occupying swamp territories and field workers living on the plains.
Despite the fact that today the number of Western Polishchuks has exceeded three million, no one has yet recognized their official status as a separate ethnic group.