The origins of Slavic culture. The origins of ancient Russian culture

Location: hall of current periodicals of the RSL
Time spending: May 15 - June 15, 2013

In the Slavic states (in Russia since 1991), May 24 is widely celebrated - the Day of Slavic Writing and Culture. This is a special day. In Russia, it is timed to coincide with church celebrations - the day of remembrance of the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius, enlighteners and teachers of the Slavs. Thanks to the special alphabet compiled by Cyril for the Slavic language, as well as the translations of Cyril and Methodius from Greek into Slavic texts of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical texts, the pagan Slavs were able to establish themselves in the Christian faith.

By this date, in the hall of current periodicals of the RSL, an analytical exhibition "The Spiritual Origins of Slavic Cultures" has been prepared, which will be replenished with newly arrived issues of magazines on this topic. In No. 3 of the journal “History in Details” for 2012, in the article “1150 years of the spiritual meeting of Byzantium and Rus'”, Doctor of Philology V.P. Kazarin offers a new look at the origins of Slavic writing and the history of the creation of modern Slavic writing.

In No. 1 of the Moscow State University Bulletin, the Philology series for 2011, O. O. Leshkova talks about how the Day of Slavic Literature and Culture was celebrated at the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University by student groups from Serbia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. In the same issue journal, 5th year students of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov Aristova A. and Yushkina A. talk about the international youth conference "The history of the culture of the Slavs in the assessments of youth". with Slavic themes.

“Slavic languages ​​and cultures in the modern world” was the name of the II International Symposium, held at Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov March 21-24, 2012. This symposium is the subject of an article by O. E. Frolova, published in No. 5 of the Russian Speech magazine in 2012. The symposium was attended by 285 scientists from 31 countries. 415 reports were published in the collection "Proceedings and Materials".

M. M. Frolova writes about the conference “Russia and the Slavs”, held at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and dedicated to the 110th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Slavic scholar S. A. Nikitin, in No. 5 of the Slavonic Studies journal for 2012. The article tells about the most interesting reports made at the conference. In No. 1 of the journal "Humanitarian and socio-economic sciences" for 2012, D. B. Kazantseva and A. V. Belov in the article "Russian philosophy of the nineteenth - twentieth centuries. On the Basic Values ​​of Slavic Culture” consider the views of Russian philosophers on the spiritual world of the individual.

In No. 4 of the Journal "Russian Language at School" for 2011, N. I. Gorpinko and E. Yu. Polovnikova offer a scenario: "A holiday dedicated to the Day of Slavic Writing." The authors in an entertaining way expand the linguistic horizons of students, awakening interest in the history of the Russian language.

S. V. Rybakov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, in the article “The Spiritual Light of Hilarion of Kyiv’s “Word”” analyzes the merits of Metropolitan Hilarion’s outstanding work “The Word of Law and Grace”. Illarion put into practice the principles of Cyril and Methodius Orthodoxy, aimed at developing book culture and introducing the widest masses of people to it. “Cyril and Methodius not only created the Slavic alphabet, but for the first time systematized philosophical categories in the Slavic language, ensuring the spiritual rise of Slavic culture. The brothers-enlighteners believed that the one who is more enlightened is closer to God, ”the author writes in his article in the journal“ History in Details ”, in No. 6 for 2011.

Issue 5/6 of the Moscow Diocesan Gazette for 2012 describes how the Day of Slavic Literature and Culture was celebrated in Moscow. The message of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill to the participants of the holiday is given. It tells about the solemn service in honor of the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius, about the numerous guests who took part in the Divine Liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, as well as about the procession and cultural events in honor of the holiday. The same events are reflected in No. 6 of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate for 2012.

V. M. Kirillin in the article “Equal to the Apostles” in No. 5 of the Russian House magazine for 2012 writes about the Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius as the creators of “the foundation on which the beautiful building of the current Slavic culture has been built, which has taken its place of honor in the world culture of mankind ". Issue 2 of the World of the Russian Word magazine for 2012 tells about international scientific and practical symposiums dedicated to the Day of Slavic Literature and Culture and held in various cities of Russia. In No. 1 of the Living Antiquity magazine for 2012, candidates of philological sciences V. E. Dobrovolskaya and A. B. Ippolitova talk about the conference "Slavic traditional culture and the modern world." The conference was held from 24 to 26 May 2011 at the State Republican Center of Russian Folklore. Scientists from Russia and the CIS countries took part in it.

“To establish all the Slovenian languages ​​in Orthodoxy and unanimity” is the title of A. Khludentsov’s article in No. 4 of the journal “Toward Unity!” for 2012, published by the International Public Foundation for the Unity of Orthodox Peoples. The author tells about the tradition of celebrating the Days of Slavic Literature and Culture, about the celebration of these days in the cities of Russia.

Sunny source of Slavic culture

Nikolai Sergeev

According to modern research, evidence of historical sources and ethnographic data, the Slavs were worshipers of the Sun and Fire, which was directly reflected both in such a phenomenon as the Slavic pattern (ornamentation), and in the name itself - the Slavs, and the origins of this custom lie in the ancient Indo-European ( Aryan) community, which is fully confirmed by modern scientific research.

Considering the question of the origins of Slavic culture, it is impossible not to touch upon the already world-famous Arkaim located in the Southern Urals. This fortified settlement was opened in 1987 and immediately became the center of attention not only of the domestic, but also of the world scientific community. And this is not surprising. After all, the open “country of cities” (and subsequently almost two dozen such fortresses were found) was nothing more than one of the centers of the Aryan (Indo-European) civilization.

Expansion of the Aryans from 4000 to 1000 BC, according to the Lev Gumilyov Center.

And this was precisely a civilization, which, in particular, is evidenced by the careful thoughtfulness of the planning of the discovered ancient South Ural cities, which flourished about 3.8 - 4 thousand years ago. Arkaim (named after the mountain dominating the area) had the shape of a circle with a diameter of about 160 meters.

The settlement was surrounded by a two-meter bypass moat with water. The outer wall was quite massive. With a height of five and a half meters, it had a five-meter width (lined with stone). The city consisted of two circular walls, one surrounded by the other. The inner wall, with a thickness of three meters, had a height of seven meters. Rooms shaped like a circular sector are attached to both annular walls. Figuratively speaking, the city was a fortress, consisting of two "apartment" buildings. In total, from 2 to 3 thousand people lived in Arkaim.

At the same time, the city had pottery and metallurgical production (bronze casting). Between the walls there was a five-meter-wide circular street paved with logs, under which a two-meter ditch was dug along the entire length of the street, connected to a bypass ditch. Thus, the fortress had a storm sewer. During rain, water seeped through the log pavement, fell into the ditch and from there into the bypass ditch. Each room adjoined at one end to the outer or inner fortress wall and overlooked the ring street or the central square.

Fortress Arkaim according to modern researchers.

Interesting interior design. In the vestibule (hallway) a water drain was equipped, which went into a ditch under the main street. Each room had a well, a furnace, and a small domed vault.

In the center of the city there was a rectangular square measuring 25 x 27 meters , on which there are traces of fires arranged in a certain order. Apparently, it was used, including for carrying out certain ritual actions. It can be assumed that the appearance of Arkaim, especially for those times, was very impressive: a round city, with prominent gate towers and burning lights.

Archaeological finds made in Arkaim make it possible to determine the occupation and lifestyle of the inhabitants of this city. As a result of the excavations, human remains, the remains of domestic animals, including horses, remains of horse harness, saddlers' tools, potters' tools and pottery were found. At the same time, there is a pattern (ornament) on clay ceramics, which was later characteristic of Slavic culture. Also found were molds for casting metal products, anvils and weapons for warfare: arrowheads (stone), bows, battle axes, spears, clubs, daggers. During the excavations of burial grounds, archaeologists found prints of spoked wheels, and in one of the burials (Crooked Lake) of the South Ural "country of cities" a war chariot dated to the 21st century BC was discovered. These finds showed that it was in the Southern Urals that the wheel was invented in the form in which we know it today.

Aryan war chariot.

Who were the people of the Ural "country of cities" and what was the society in which they lived. Russian anthropologists A.I. Nechvolod (Ufa) and A.A. Khokhlov (Samara), working according to the method of the famous scientist M.M. Gerasimov, carried out a scientific reconstruction of the appearance of the inhabitants of Arkaim and the “country of cities” as a whole. They were fair-haired and light-eyed representatives of the white (Caucasoid) race, tall (170-180 cm) and strong build. If they got into our time, they could easily get lost among us, since the Arkaimians had an appearance that is inherent, including modern, Eastern Slavs.

Images of the inhabitants of Arkaim. Reconstruction.

However, we are related to the Aryans not only in appearance, but also in language. The remarkable Russian linguist, Doctor of Philology Tatyana Yakovlevna Elizarenkova (1929-2007) conducted a comparative analysis of the Russian language, including its dialects, and Sanskrit, the language of the high culture of ancient India, which arose on the basis of the language of the Aryans, who came from the north to the Hindustan peninsula. Moreover, the Aryans began their long journey to India from the territory of modern Russia, including the Southern Urals. According to T.Ya. Elizarenkova, Russia's largest specialist in Vedic (ancient Indian) culture, Vedic Sanskrit and Russian are very close to each other and have a common ancestor. To see this, let's compare, it would seem, languages ​​so far from each other. The first word is Russian, the second is its Sanskrit counterpart:

uncle - dada, mother - matri, wonder - wonder, deva - devi, light - shveta, snow - snow. The Russian meaning of the word gat is a road laid through a swamp. In Sanskrit, gati means passage, way, road. The Sanskrit word to fight - to go, to run - corresponds to the Russian analogue - to drape; in Sanskrit radalnya - tears, crying, in Russian - sobs.

Sometimes, without realizing it, we use a tautology, using words with the same meaning twice. We speak Russian tryn-grass, and in Sanskrit trin means grass. We pronounce dense forest, and 'drema' means forest in Sanskrit. In the Vologda and Arkhangelsk dialects, many pure Sanskrit words have been preserved. So the northern Russian bat means - maybe: "I, bat, will come to you tomorrow." In Sanskrit, baht - truly, maybe. Severusskoe bush - mold, soot, dirt. In Sanskrit, busa means garbage, sewage. Russian kulnut - fall into the water, in Sanskrit kula - channel, stream. And there are many such examples.

A well-thought-out ring system of defensive structures provided reliable defense of the fortress along the entire contour, but at the same time, no evidence was found that Arkaim and similar Aryan fortresses were attacked by enemies. Rather, on the contrary, the South Ural Aryans themselves raided for prey and waged offensive wars.

The Arkaim society was of a military nature, it was a community of equal people-warriors. There was no social stratification. At the same time, both men and women (loggers-archers) took part in the hostilities, which was directly reflected in Russian epics in the images of the remote warriors-loggers Nastasya Mikulishna (“The Marriage of Dobrynya”), Vasilisa Mikulishna (“Stavr Godinovich”) and Nastasya Korolevichny ("Danube Ivanovich and the princess").

The military society also had corresponding religious and ideological ideas. The conducted archaeological research gives full reason to believe that ritual actions were performed in Arkaim for the glory of Fire and the Sun, which formed the basis of the worldview of the original Aryans. This was not only reflected in the pantheon of Aryan deities, but also left a deep mark on Slavic and specifically Russian (East Slavic) folk culture.

So, the ancient Aryan name for the sun is Svar (Svar), Svara (Svara), the supreme god of the Slavs is Svarog. The Aryan God of Fire is Agni. Among the Slavs, the god of fire is Fire Svarozhich or Semargl (from "smag" - heat, ardor, fire). The very name Fire Svarozhich contains a direct indication that earthly fire is a product of solar fire.

In the center of the Aryan universe and worship was the great god of the Indo-Europeans Rudra, who, according to the description given in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, was associated with fire and the sun. It is interesting that in Russian one of the meanings of the word "ore" is hot red, i.e. fiery.

At the same time, Rudra, albeit in a modified form, is also present in Slavic mythology. Here is what an outstanding Russian scientist, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Indologist and ethnographer Natalya Romanovna Guseva (1914-2010) writes about this: “The ancient Slavs highly honored a god named Rod. He was a strong and angry lord of the sky, shed rain on the earth, impregnating all living beings. Such words as “ore” (blood), “ore”, “red” - red, red: brown and a number of others are also associated with his name. But here in the Vedas a certain god named Rudra is sung. Let's think, are the names of Rod and Rudra only consonant? No, they are brought together by other features. Rudra is also the god of the sky and thunder. He is powerful and angry. He is a warrior god with red-brown skin, and in Sanskrit the words "rudh", "rudhira" mean "to be red, bloody", which directly coincides with the given Slavic words comparable to Rod. Apparently, the god Rod-Rudra was coincidentally close in terms of commonality or close rapprochement between the tribes of Slavs and Aryans. It should be added to the above that such words as “motherland”, “people”, “relatives” are based on the root “genus”, i.e. Again same Fire and Sun.

In Slavic mythology, Rod acts as the All-God, the creator of everything that exists and is present in everything, its fiery essence is Perun. Here is what the outstanding researcher of Russian folk culture Alexander Nikolaevich Afanasyev says about Perun: “Perun is a formidable Slavic deity, the son of the great god of Heaven - Svarog. As the creator of the heavenly flame, born in thunders, Perun is also recognized as the god of earthly fire, brought by him from heaven as a gift to mortals. The word "perun" dates back to the ancient era of the Aryans, the ancestors of the Slavs. At the heart of this word is the name in Sanskrit of a lightning cloud. Lightning is still called thunderbolt in some places.

The original meaning of the root "yar / er" ("ger / her") is "fire". At least, this was the case in the days of the Aryan (Indo-European) community. The legitimacy of this conclusion is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that in a number of Indo-European languages ​​the words meaning fire contain the root "yar / er" (English: fire -fire, etc.) And the ancient Greek "pyr / per" - fire (hence pyrotechnics) allows you to understand the original meaning of the name of the Russian God Perun - the lord of Fire and the essence of Fire itself.

According to the views of the Aryans, who are the origins of the mythological ideas of all Indo-European peoples, the finest matter - Fire - is at the heart of everything that exists. Moreover, the natural fire known to every person is a special case of the universal Flame (“ethereal fire”), which, filling (piercing) matter, spiritualizes it and makes it alive, thus Perun is the All-fire that brings life.

The connection between the Universal Fire (the sun is its condensation) and man is carried out by the fiery (solar) Spirit-Falcon - Rarog, the spirit of Svarog, one of the gods of fire and light. Represented in the form of a swift fiery falcon , whose cult was widespread in the Slavic lands (cf. Czech raroh, Polish rarog - falcon). In Rus', the hunting falcon was called rerik and was a revered symbol of courage and invincibility. The name of Rurik, the ancestor of the Russian princely and royal dynasty, is derived from this common Slavic basis, which is confirmed, in particular, by the symbolism of ancient Russian coins, on which the personal signs of the first Ruriks are engraved, resembling the figure of a falcon falling on its victim.

Rurik sign.

According to the ideas of the Slavs, the place of accumulation of solar (fiery) power in a person is his soul. Man is made up of three parts: flesh, soul, spirit. The soul-spirit has a directly fiery nature, that is, the fabric of the soul is akin to a flame. Hence the expressions - a fiery soul, a fiery gaze, etc. Thus, the Heavenly Fire, the Earthly Fire and the Soul have one fiery nature. Therefore, fire was used in ceremonies both to address the heavenly world and to acquire (from pulling together) a spiritual fortress, and through it, bodily power. The acquisition of strength through fire was called “out of the fire and into the frying pan.”

Such a worldview was reflected in the self-name of the Slavs, whose name is directly connected with the sun. In ancient times they were known under the name of Venedi or Vienna. Until now, the Finns and Estonians still call Russians (vene and venaja), and the Germans - Slavs (Lusatian Serbs), who still live in Germany. The very word "vend" is rooted in the days of the Aryan (Indo-European) community and, according to the famous Soviet Slavic scholar, academician Nikolai Sevastyanovich Derzhavin, means "people, people" (compare the English "men" people). The modern word “Slavs” or, as they used to say in the old days, “Slovene” (word-vene) consists of two parts: “ven-e” - the people and “slo” (from the elephant - the sun), so its meaning can be defined as “ people of the sun. This interpretation is confirmed by numerous historical sources. So, in the great monument of ancient Russian literature, “The Tale of Igor's Campaign,” it is directly stated that the Russians (i.e., Russian Slavs) are Dazhdbog's grandchildren, but Dazhdbog is the Slavic deity of sunlight. His name is heard in the shortest prayer that has survived to this day: “Give, God!”. And it is no coincidence that the old Slavic pattern, which is depicted on the state flag of the Republic of Belarus, is called "Rising Sun".

Rising sun pattern.

And what does the name Rus and Russ mean? The roots and meaning of these words also lie in Aryan antiquity, in the language of the Aryans "Rus" means bright. Hence fair-haired, that is, blond hair, and Rus' is a bright country.

So, the available archaeological, ethnographic, linguistic, mythological, cultural and genetic data allow us to make an unambiguous conclusion that between the Aryans of the South Ural "country of cities" and the Russian (Eastern) Slavs, not only a certain connection can be traced, but that the former are the immediate ancestors (albeit very distant in time) Slavs, whose sunny worldview underlies the folk Slavic culture.

Chapter five.

The origins of Slavic culture.

Starting a cross-cutting review of one or another thematic section of the history of the Slavs for several millennia, each researcher must state his point of view on the origin and historical fate of the Slavs, outline the chronological and territorial framework of these processes in his understanding. The easiest way would be to refer to the works of certain researchers whose views seem acceptable, but, unfortunately, there is considerable discord in matters of Slavic ethnogenesis, and it is not possible to fully agree with one or another author unconditionally. One can only take the most substantiated, solidly argued elements as material for further reflection. Due to the lack of a unified, all-reconciling view of this complex problem and the difference in approaches to it, each new work will inevitably be subjective; this applies equally to this book.

After lengthy disputes about the forms and causes of the formation of peoples, it has now become clear that this process proceeded ambiguously: it is necessary to take into account the resettlement of some group, associated with natural reproduction, from one, relatively small center; migration and colonization must be taken into account. All these types of expansion are in some cases connected with questions of substratum and assimilation; the latter can be in two versions: the newcomers dissolve in the native environment or subjugate it to themselves, liken it to themselves.

Simultaneously with this, the process of cultural integration of the tribes can go along with the expansion. Approaching tribes may be closely related, they may be distantly related (this affects the development of cultural unity in different ways), or they may turn out to be completely alien to their neighbors.

In the process of integration at the stage of higher development of primitiveness, an important role is played by conquest or temporary subjugation, promotion for a short period of a hegemonic tribe, whose name can be illegally extended to subordinate tribes and thereby misunderstood by geographers from civilized countries.

With different nationalities, and especially with those occupying a vast area, their unity often split (temporary or final) due to their involvement in different spheres of influence, the emergence of two or more cultural areas outside the nationality itself, which influenced it in different ways. As a result, this created the appearance of disintegration or even the disappearance of the nationality.

The historical process is such that all the listed phenomena could occur simultaneously, and, moreover, with different intensity, in different areas inhabited by a single people, which extremely confused the ethnogenetic picture.

The conclusion from what has been said is this: the process of the formation of a nationality is so complex and diverse that, of course, it is impossible to expect complete certainty, the accuracy of ethnic boundaries, the clarity of ethnic characteristics.

The so-called ethnic characteristics are also very conditional. The language of this or that people, the most obvious ethnic feature, can be a means of communication for other peoples as well; often a long-term bilingualism is formed (especially with a striped settlement of peoples), stretching for centuries. Sometimes the language of great-grandfathers is forgotten, but ethnic identity remains.

Anthropology, which studies the diversity of human physical types, has shown that there is no complete coincidence with linguistic areas, that language and physical type may or may not coincide.

Anthropologists on their maps showed the complexity of the real historical process, the confusion and interweaving of tribes and peoples that were the result of settlement, colonization, integration, assimilation, etc. In matters of a small geographical range, anthropology can give very accurate and important answers for science, but in the question of the origin of the Slavs, the conclusions of anthropologists are secondary: if historians or linguists assume that Slavs lived in some territory at a certain time, then anthropologists can indicate the predominant physical type here, its similarity or difference with neighboring ones and secondary types that are present here .

With an increase in well-dated paleoanthropological material in the future, anthropology is likely to unravel many complex knots of Slavic ethnogenesis, but here there will always be a serious obstacle to the centuries-old custom of cremation, which left irreparable blank spots on paleoanthropological maps.

A reliable, but not unconditional source is the history of material culture, and primarily archeology. The main advantage of this science is the handling of concrete material, the real remains of ancient life. Especially important is the exact dating of things and comparability along chronological axes - horizontally for simultaneously existing cultures and vertically for earlier and later cultures.

However, monuments of material culture (including here archeology and ethnography) are fraught with some dangers: people with different economic systems and different ways of life can speak the same language; at the same time, a single ethnographic material culture can cover peoples belonging to the most alien linguistic groups. Let me explain this with an example. Estonians and Latvians developed a very similar culture during the thousand-year neighborhood; similarity is manifested in a number of features since the Middle Ages, and yet some belong to the Finno-Ugric language family (Estonians), while others belong to the Indo-European (Latvians). It is difficult to visually perceive the unity of the population of the Ryazan villages of the 19th century, with their Yesenin thatched roofs, cramped (in the past, smoke-filled) huts and poor agricultural life, with the rich estates of the Don Cossacks, built in a completely different technique, estates full of cattle, weapons and clothing of the Caucasian type. And meanwhile, both Ryazan and Don people are not only Russian people, but also people who speak the same South Great Russian dialect, moreover, the same variant of the dialect.

There is a lot in common in the rites, customs and songs of both.

But if you look at the Donets and Ryazans of the 18th - 19th centuries. through the eyes of a future archaeologist, it can be unmistakably predicted that he will confidently attribute them to different cultures. Our advantage is that we know the language, customs, songs of both the Ryazan peasants and the Don stanitsa and can establish ethnic identity. Moreover, thanks to written sources, we know when and why some separated from others: as early as the end of the 15th century. Ivan III forbade the Ryazan princess Agrafena to let people go to the Don; it means that already then the outflow of Ryazanians to the south began, already five hundred years ago the Don Cossacks began to form. When summing up archaeological data, in most cases we are deprived of such control over our seemingly accurate conclusions.

Delving into the silent archaeological antiquity in search of the roots of the later Slavs is not hopeless, as it may seem from the above examples, since the archaeological unity ("archaeological culture") in most cases, in all likelihood, reflects ethnic closeness, but be aware of exceptions (the frequency of which unknown to us) we must. It is quite natural that for such a deepening it is necessary to use all the sciences, despite the conventionality and incompleteness of some data.

With regard to the ancient Slavs, we would first of all like to know where the so-called ancestral home of the Slavs was located.

The ancestral home should not be understood as the original habitat of a single people with a single language. The ancestral home is a conditional territory with very blurred boundaries, where an unusually intricate and difficult-to-define ethnogenic process took place. The complexity of the ethnogenic process lies in the fact that it was not always directed in the same way: either closely related tribes gradually and inconspicuously approached each other, then neighboring unrelated tribes were absorbed and assimilated, then as a result of the conquest of some tribes by others or the invasion of conquerors, the absorption process accelerated, then suddenly appeared different historical centers of gravity, linguistically related tribes, as it were, were split, and different parts of the former common array were drawn into other, neighboring ethnogenic processes. The matter became more complicated with the transition of primitiveness to a higher, pre-state stage, when tribal unions were formed (which was not always done on the basis of their kinship), some kind of communication language was developed for the heterogeneous parts of the union. The emergence of statehood usually completes the ethnogenic process, expanding its scope, introducing a common state language, fixing it with writing and smoothing out local differences.

Based on this far from complete picture of the course of the ethnogenic process, it is unthinkable to look for any geographical certainty and rigidity of ethnic boundaries for its initial period.

The historiography of the question of the ancestral home of the Slavs is very extensive, it does not make sense to present it in detail here.

Historical and linguistic materials alone, on which the scientists of the 19th century relied, were not enough to solve the problem of ethnogenesis. Significantly more stable data were obtained by combining linguistic materials with anthropological and archaeological ones. The first such serious generalization was the work of L. G. Niederle. The ancestral home, according to Niederl (in relation to the first centuries AD), looked like this: in the west it covered the upper and middle Vistula, in the north the border went along the Pripyat, in the northeast and east the ancestral home included the lower reaches of the Berezina, Iput, Desna and along the Dnieper reached the mouth of the Sula. The southern border of the Slavic world went from the Dnieper and Ros to the west along the upper reaches of the Southern Bug, Dniester, Prut and San.

Subsequently, two trends emerged: some scientists saw the ancestral home of the Slavs, preferably in the eastern half of the space that Niederle outlined (east of the Western Bug or from the Vistula), while other researchers preferred its western half - west of the Bug and Vistula to the Oder, i.e. in the territory of modern Poland. The degree of persuasiveness of the arguments of the Vistula-Dnieper and Vistula-Oder hypotheses is approximately the same: both have their own reasons. Hence the idea arose of the possibility of convergence, more precisely, of combining both hypotheses with the fact that the entire space from the Dnieper to the Oder can be considered the ancestral home of the Slavs.

Chronologically, this was usually timed to coincide with the turn of our era, by the time when the first written information about the Wends, the ancestors of the Slavs, appears. Archaeologically, this coincided with the area of ​​two similar cultures - Zarubintsy and Przeworsk. The research of linguists showed that the separation of the Proto-Slavs from the common Indo-European array occurred much earlier, in the 2nd millennium BC. e., in the Bronze Age. Archaeologists began to try on certain cultures of the Bronze Age to the alleged ancestral home. A curious embarrassment occurred with supporters of the Western, Vistula-Oder hypothesis, which Polish archaeologists called "autochthonous".

The Polish scientist Stefan Nosek drew attention to the so-called Bronze Age Trzynetz culture (approximately XV - XII centuries BC), which in time very well corresponded to the new data of linguists about the time of the offshoot of the Slavs. The area of ​​this culture, determined by the pre-war excavations of Polish archaeologists, coincided with the Polish state territory and thus, as it were, confirmed the local, autochthonous origin of all Slavs.

Nosek even wrote an article in 1948 under such a triumphant title: "The Triumph of the Autochthonists." However, the Trzyniec culture let down the autochthonists, including Nosek himself: each new archaeological study expanded the area of ​​this culture in an easterly direction. Monuments of the Tshinets culture, thanks to the research of Alexander Gardavsky and S. S. Berezanskaya, came to light far in the east - not only beyond the Bug, but even east of the Dnieper.

In other words, the Trzyniec culture in its modern form confirmed the views not of the Polish autochthonists, but of Niederle, but adjusted for one and a half thousand years in the depths of centuries.

Vladimir Georgiev, based on linguistic data, defines such stages in the ancient history and prehistory of the Slavs: in the III millennium BC. e. - the stage of the Balto-Slavic community (this position is often disputed); the turn of the III - II millennia - the transition period. The second transitional period is the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. e. Thus, almost the entire II millennium BC. e., i.e. the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, Georgiev assigns the formation and development of the Proto-Slavs. B. V. Gornung speaks even more definitely about the isolation of the Proto-Slavs in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. e. and directly connects the Proto-Slavs with the Trzynec and Komarovo (a more developed version of the Trzynec) cultures.

The vast area of ​​Trzynec culture in its final form again revived the idea of ​​the Slavic massif from the Dnieper to the Oder in full agreement with the latest linguistic data on the time of the allocation of the Slavs.

The Polish archaeologist Witold Genzel fully accepted the new discoveries and built his map of the settlement of the Proto-Slavs and their neighbors at the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC on them. e. Nevertheless, the old autochthonic hypothesis still finds support, but this time not from Polish, but from Soviet researchers. I mean the book by VV Sedov.

V.V. Sedov considers his indisputable advantage to be the consistent and rigorous application of the retrospective method, which really gives the impression of a completely objective scientific character: the researcher, in his movement into the depths of centuries, proceeds from the well-known late to the semi-known early and, finally, goes to the most ancient, little or completely unknown. In principle, this method is indisputable, and it must be used in any historical research. But in archeology, it is often based on two assumptions: firstly, it is assumed that each people has its own stable ethnic features in the archaeological material, recognizable for many centuries, so to speak, its own “ethnic uniform”, and secondly, it is recognized (a priori) smoothness and continuity of evolution, ensuring the identification of this uniform.

VV Sedov insists on the identification of "genetic continuity". The word "genetic" when applied to earthenware, axes and burial structures cannot, of course, be understood in the literal sense. It would be better to introduce the concept of "prototype", excluding family ties of pots and clasps. The researcher’s thesis that “if complete continuity (genetic. - B.R.) is not found, the conclusion is inevitable about the change of one ethnic group by another or about the layering of one ethno-linguistic unit on another” leads to serious methodological reflections.

Such a formulation of the question forces us to exclude from the research process two essential factors in the life of primitive tribes: firstly, the influence of one group of tribes on another or a high civilization on barbarians, and secondly, the possibility of an internal leap associated with a change in economic form, the emergence of a new social structure or with a changed foreign policy environment. Archeology is a completely historical science, and it tells us not only about a calm, uninterrupted evolution, but also about abrupt changes, the sudden decline of a particular culture (which does not mean, however, that the whole people has died out) or, conversely, about the rapid birth of new economic and everyday forms, which is well reflected in the archaeological material and gives the impression of a change of cultures, a change of ethnos.

The transition to shepherding at the beginning of the Bronze Age led to the birth of new forms of material culture (utensils, battle axes) and to a strong mixing of slowly settled tribes.

The conquest of Dacia by the Romans in the II century. n. e., which led to the complete replacement of the Dacian dialects by the Latin language, had a strong influence on those peoples who, as a result of this conquest, turned out to be direct neighbors of the Roman Empire for several centuries - the Slavs of the Dnieper region and the Black Sea ready. Slavic culture began to develop in completely new, exceptionally favorable conditions, when Roman legionnaires did not enter Slavic lands, and Roman cities willingly bought Slavic bread. Hundreds of hoards of Roman silver coins and the presence of a large number of imported luxury items in the Dnieper forest-steppe are evidence of unprecedented prosperity in these "Trojan ages".

Therefore, the Chernyakhov archaeological culture of the II - IV centuries. n. e., the birth of a new favorable situation, incomparably higher in terms of general level, in richness of forms, than the Zarubinets one that preceded it, the historical existence of which proceeded in much less good conditions of the Sarmatian onslaught. Meanwhile, in the entire work of V. V. Sedov, including in the special section "Chernyakhov culture" (pp. 78 - 100), there is not a single word about the impact of Roman civilization on the life and life of the population of Eastern Europe, they are never mentioned Goths (see index, p. 148), who, in all likelihood, belonged to the Moldavian-seaside zone of the Chernyakhov culture. The method of "genetic" continuity applied in this way is hardly productive.

My concept or, more precisely, the outline scheme of the concept was published twice: in a report at the International Congress of Slavists and in a study on the geography of Herodotus Scythia, undertaken specifically for this book on paganism, in order to more accurately imagine the boundaries of what is permitted in the use of certain ancient materials.

The basis of the concept is elementary simple: there are three solid archaeological maps, carefully compiled by different researchers, which, according to a number of scientists, have one or another relation to the Slavic ethnogenesis. These are - in chronological order - maps of the Trzyniec-Komarovo culture of the 15th - 12th centuries. BC e., early Pshevorskaya and Za-Rubynets cultures (II century BC - II century AD) and a map of Slavic culture of the VI - VII centuries. n. e. Prague-Korczak type.

The literature reflects a lot of controversy over individual elements of these maps: some authors, for example, convincingly (but not convincingly) deny the Slavic affiliation of the Przeworsk culture, but recognize the Zarubintsy Slavs; others, on the contrary, defend the Przeworsk Slavdom, but deny the Zarubintsy Slavdom, etc.

These admissions and denials are directly related to which of the two mutually exclusive theories this or that researcher professes - the Vistula-Dnieper or the Vistula-Oder. On a number of issues the situation became so confused that it began to seem hopeless; authority opposed authority. But for all the liveliness of the debate, one thing was not done - the three cards were not compared with each other.

Let's make the imposition of all three cards one on another. Here it is appropriate to start acting retrospectively (see Fig. 54-56).

The first map should be a map of the Slavic archaeological culture of the 6th-7th centuries, which largely coincides with the map that retrospectively reconstructs the historical information of the chronicler Nestor about the settlement of the Slavs in Europe. The imposition of this map on the map of the Przeworsk-Aarubinets culture (that is, of the time when Pliny, Tacitus and Ptolemy wrote about the Wends) shows their complete coincidence, with the exception of individual languages ​​on the map of the 6th-7th centuries. Having superimposed on these two maps of the Slavs a map of the Trzynec-Komarov culture, synchronous with the separation of the Slavs from other Indo-Europeans, we will see a striking coincidence of all three maps; the coincidence of the Przeworsk-Zarubintsy with the Tshinetsk-Komarovskaya is especially complete.

Thus, we can recognize the region of the Tshinec-Komarovka culture as the primary place for the unification and formation of the first sprouts of the Proto-Slavs, who remained in this space after the grandiose settlement of the Indo-Europeans - "corders" subsided. This area can be designated by the somewhat vague word "ancestral home".

The identity of the three maps, the end chronological points of which are more than two thousand years apart from each other, is an important guiding thread in the search for that specific geographical foothold on which the history of the Slavs developed.

However, before we trust these cards, we must find out if they are not a reflection of some fleeting phenomena, a short-term accident.

Let's consider the duration of the historical life of each of the cultures reflected in three maps: Tshinetsko-Komarovskaya - About 400 years Przeworsko-Zarubinets - ~ 400 years Prague-Korchak culture - ~ 200 years these maps, was a historical reality. We willy-nilly must reckon with this and adjust our investigations in the field of Slavic ethnogenesis to this reality.

The second component of my concept is the clarification of the reasons for the discontinuity in the process of the uniform development of archaeological cultures. After all, there are intervals between the periods of unity reflected on the maps, and one of them is very significant.

As for the second (in chronological order) interval between the Zarubinets culture and the Korchak culture, it is small, and the reason for it is indicated above: the revival of Slavic ties with Rome, which began abruptly in the last years of the reign of Emperor Trajan (107 - 117), the impact of Rome, which immediately affected the number of coins of this emperor in the Eastern European treasure hoards and on the appearance of the forest-steppe zone of the East Slavic culture in the future.

The first interval between the Trzynec culture and the Zarubinets-Pshe-Vor culture is very long and filled with a large number of events both inside the Slavic world and outside it.

Strictly speaking, this abundance of changes and events was the reason for the disappearance of the initial monotonous unity of the newly formed Slavic tribes of the Bronze Age.

The discovery of iron, the transition of some tribes to arable farming, and others (non-Slavic) to a nomadic form of cattle breeding, the crystallization of tribal nobility and military squads, wars of conquest, a significant development of trade, communication with the Mediterranean civilization - this is an incomplete list of what dramatically affected the pace and on the progressive unevenness of historical development.

The degree of development of the Proto-Slavic tribes of the Trzynetz-Komarovo time, remote from the then southern cultural centers, little connected with intertribal exchange and essentially at the level of the Stone Age (stone axes and adzes, stone sickles and arrowheads, stone scrapers for skins), explains to us both the desire of the Proto-Slavs to accept the higher culture of their southern and western neighbors, and their weak resistance to the onslaught of these neighbors, better equipped and better organized socially.

For these reasons, the western half of the Proto-Slavic world was involved in the complex process of the formation of the Lusatian culture (XIII - V centuries BC), the leaven of which was, most likely, Celtic-Illyrian. The Lusatian circle covered the western half of the Trzynec culture, connecting it with the lands along the Elbe, the Baltic Pomerania and the mountainous regions in the south, up to the bend of the Danube. It was this absorption of half of the Proto-Slavic massif by a qualitatively new, incomparably higher Lusatian culture that was one of the reasons for the loss of the original and primitive unity of the Proto-Slavs.

Scientists often call the Lusatian unity Venetian (Venedian), after the name of an ancient group of tribes that once widely settled in Central Europe. The entry of the western part of the Proto-Slavs into this temporary unity and their significance within the Lusatian unity is clear from the fact that in the early Middle Ages the Venets were considered the ancestors of the Slavs and identified with those Slavs who remained in their place, not taking part in the migration flows to the south.

In the eastern half of the Slavic world, development proceeded more calmly and for some time without external influence, which had so strongly influenced the western relatives. This period is of particular interest to us. The pace of historical development accelerated here too: iron and agriculture also led to significant shifts. Archaeologically, this is expressed in the Belogrudovskaya and Chernolesskaya cultures, located on the site of the former Tshinetskaya culture.

In the IX - VIII centuries. BC e. The Chernoles tribes of the Dnieper Right Bank were attacked by the Cimmerian steppes, repelled their onslaught, built a number of mighty fortifications on the southern border, and in the 8th century. BC e. even went over to the offensive, starting to colonize the Vorskla valley on the left, steppe, bank of the Dnieper.

It is this geographical detail that contains a precious indication for the problem of Slavic ethnogenesis. Linguist O.N. Trubachev, studying the archaic Slavic hydronyms of the Middle Dnieper, compiled a map on which most of the points are located on the right bank of the Dnieper, coinciding with the main zone of the Chernolesskaya culture. The epithet "archaic" in itself does not give an idea of ​​the chronological depth, but in comparison with the archaeological maps of different eras, it can be dated to the exact date. It was just such a lucky chance that presented itself here: some of the archaic Slavic hydronyms ended up on the left bank of the Dnieper, and precisely in the Vorskla basin, which even more brings together the maps we compare - the Chernoles archaeological culture of the 8th century BC. BC e. and archaic Slavic hydronymy. Never, neither at an earlier time, nor later, did the distribution of the population on the banks of the Dnieper represent such a peculiar picture as in the 8th - 5th centuries. BC e., when the inhabitants of the Vorskla valley were in the Left Bank, as it were, an island of the right-bank population.

This gives us the right to assert that on the eve of the invasion of the Scythians, the Dnieper forest-steppe Right Bank, as well as the Vorskla valley, were inhabited by an agricultural population who spoke the Slavic (more precisely, Proto-Slavic) language. From this it is impossible to draw conclusions about the advantage of the Dnieper-Vistula theory in comparison with the Vistula-Oder one, since beyond the Vistula we simply do not have such clear material for that time.

The conclusion about the Slavic affiliation of the population of the Middle Dnieper at the beginning of the Iron Age is extremely important not only in itself, but mainly for understanding what happened here during the Scythian domination in the neighboring steppes, that is, in the 7th - 4th centuries. BC e.

The isolation of the Proto-Slavic zone from the vast area of ​​Scythian culture is the third link in my concept. It is based on the conclusion of a number of researchers that Proto-Slavic agricultural tribes lived in the forest-steppe part of Scythia. This idea, expressed by Lubor Niederle at the beginning of the 20th century, has recently been very convincingly substantiated by A.I. Terenozhkin, who wrote: west of the Dnieper, which are known to us from the genetically related monuments of the Belogrudovskaya, Chernolesskaya and Scythian-like cultures. And finally, in the latest work, he writes: “In the forest-steppe between the Dniester and the Dnieper, Scythian plowmen lived, who, as can already be considered proven, were Scythians only in name and due to the strong saturation of their culture with Scythian elements, while in reality, being autochthonous, were direct descendants of the Chernolesian tribes, most likely proto-Slavs.

It is on such conclusions of the largest Scythologist that I base the thesis about the entry of part of the Proto-Slavs into the zone of Scythian influence.

Since the whole book mentioned above is devoted to this issue, I will be brief. "Scythia" in the eyes of the ancient Greeks is a vast country (700 X 700 km), covering the Black Sea steppe zone, forest-steppe and partially forest zone and inhabited by a variety of tribes. Almost all of this space is covered with varying degrees of intensity by the Scythian archaeological culture: weapons, horse equipment, the funeral rite of inhumation and a peculiar animal style of applied art.

The tribes of "Scythia" are clearly divided into two groups on an economic basis: in the south, in the steppe - nomadic cattle breeding, in the north, in the forest-steppe - agriculture, and on the northern forest outskirts - a mixed economy.

With the eastern half of the Slavic ancestral homeland, the same thing happened that a few centuries earlier happened with the western one, which ended up in the zone of the Lusatian culture - it entered the vast circle of the conditional "Scythian culture", which by no means meant ethnic unity within it. It was this essential and very noticeable at first glance circumstance that determined the apparent (from our standpoint) disappearance of Slavic unity; in a material, archaeologically perceptible culture, it has really disappeared. According to a number of secondary features, the descendants of the Proto-Slavs of the Chernoles culture both on the Right Bank of the Dnieper and on the Vorskla differ from the other tribes of "Scythia", but only slightly.

The Scythians-Iranians influenced not only the external way of life, but also the language and religion of the Proto-Slavs. Influence, in all likelihood, went through the Slavic nobility, and it began quite early, when the Scythians had just returned from their many years of victorious campaigns in Asia Minor and replaced the Cimmerians in the steppes. Lush Scythian fashion equated Slavic horsemen and merchants with real Scythians and made them so similar in the eyes of the Greeks, with whom the Dnieper farmers traded in bread, that the Greeks also called them by the common name of the Scythians.

We do not know the relationship between the Scythians and the population of the forest-steppe. Here there could have been a conquest at the first meeting or the establishment of temporary tributary relations; there could be federative relationships, which comes through in the narrative of Herodotus. There could be no long-term domination of the royal Scythians over the forest-steppe farmers, since in addition to the old fortifications built to protect against the Cimmerians, the descendants of the Chernolesians erected in the 6th - 5th centuries. BC e. there were also a number of huge fortresses on the southern outskirts of their forest-steppe possessions, on the border with the Scythian steppe and on the high bank of the Dnieper, behind which there were semi-steppe saline spaces, convenient for fast horse raids. One of these fortresses guarded the Zarubinsky ford in the bend of the Dnieper. Such construction of fortifications, which protected the farmers from the steppe nomads, is incompatible with the incompleteness of the builders.

An analysis of the geographical information of Herodotus showed that it was precisely the descendants of the bearers of the Chernoles culture (i.e., the Proto-Slavs who lived on the Dnieper) that the Greek writer called “Borisfenites” on a geographical basis, and on an economic basis - “Scythian plowmen” or “Scythian farmers” .

Many archaeologists have long assumed, starting with Lubor Niederle, that the Slavs are hiding under these conditional descriptive names.

Especially precious for us is the story of Herodotus about the annual agricultural festival among the "Scythians", during which the sacred golden agricultural tools allegedly fallen from the sky - a plow and a yoke for bulls - and other objects were honored. Since Herodotus wrote eleven times that the real Scythian cattle breeders, nomadic in wagons, having no settled settlements, cooking meat in the treeless steppe on the bones of a killed animal, do not plow the land, do not engage in agriculture, it is clear to us that when describing the holiday in honor of the yoke and plow, he had in mind not the nomadic Scythians, but the people conventionally and erroneously called the Scythians. This is what Herodotus said in his own words: “All of them in the aggregate (admirers of the plow) have a name - they are chipped off by the name of their king. The Hellenes called them Scythians.

So, in the 5th c. BC e. during the stay of Herodotus in Scythia, the Dnieper farmers had a special name, different from the Scythians - chipped. The last letters of this name could be a plurality suffix ("veneti" in the presence of "vana"), and the initial "s" may have meant "jointly acting" (cf. " and etc.). The basis of the word - "kolo" means "circle", "association", a group of like-minded people, a people's council.

Skoloty could mean “united”, “rallying”, “allied”, belonging to the same district (“neighborhood”), etc.

I will return to the topic of chipping and their agricultural holiday, which is directly related to paganism, in one of the subsequent chapters.

The hypothesis of the Proto-Slavs in the composition of the Lusatian Venetian culture and in the conditional Scythia explains the long absence of manifestations of Slavic unity. With the withering away of the Lusatian community and the fall of the Scythian state, those external factors that separated the Slavs disappeared, and although it did not show complete identity in both parts that had lived different lives for a long time, it nevertheless began to look much more homogeneous. In the Przeworsk-Zarubinet time, there was much in common between both halves of the Slavic world; Greek and Roman authors, far from the Slavs, wrote about the "Wends" in general, not catching any differences between the western part and the eastern part, and not very accurately placing them in that part of Europe, which they rather vaguely imagined.

Further history of the Slavs in the 1st millennium AD. e. no longer relevant to the content of this book and I omitted.

In conclusion of these preliminary remarks about my understanding of the ancient history of the Slavs, necessary to justify the breadth of the involved material on paganism, it is necessary to give a map of the Slavic ancestral home in the form in which it is currently being formed on the basis of studies of the Trzynetsk-Komarovskaya culture of the 15th-12th centuries. BC e. (see maps on p. 222).

The ancestral home of the Slavs in the Bronze Age is described as follows: its western border reached the Oder and Warta, i.e., Brandebyrg-Branibor, which is etymologically described as a “defensive, border forest”. The northern border went from Varta to the bend of the Vistula and further almost straight to the east, leaving to the south (inside the ancestral home) the entire Western Bug and Pripyat. Pripyat could be an important main route from west to east to the Dnieper. The northeastern borders of the ancestral home captured the mouths of such rivers as the Berezina, Sozh, Seim; the lower course of the Desna turned out to be inside the ancestral home. Down the Dnieper, the border reached Ros, and sometimes up to Tyasmin (ancient Tismeni). The southern group went from the Dnieper to the Carpathians, crossing the Southern Bug, Dniester and Pryt in the upper reaches. Further, the border slides along the northern slope of the Carpathians and goes to the upper reaches of the Vistula and Oder.

The main area of ​​Slavic ethnogenesis marked by homogeneous archaeological cultures stretched in the latitudinal direction from east to west (for 1300 km) in a wide strip of 300–400 km.

The area of ​​the ancestral home is about 450,000 sq. km. This is a zone of deciduous forests, a large number of swamps, with soils suitable for agriculture, but not very fertile.

Now, when we have an idea about the placement of the Proto-Slavs and Slavs in almost any chronological period, we can consider the old (and outdated) question about the “Danubian ancestral home”.

Supporters of the ancestral home of the Slavs on the Danube (meaning the middle and lower reaches of the Danube) look back at the text of The Tale of Bygone Years

A solid southern border, which the Proto-Slavs did not cross until the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e., made up a large, almost continuous chain of European mountains, stretching from west to east: the Ore Mountains, the Giant Mountains, the Sydety, the Tatras, the Beskids and the Carpathians. This mountain barrier played an important role in the history of primitive Europeans, sharply dividing the fate of the tribes to the south and north of it.

The ancestral home in the form outlined above did not initially reach the Baltic Sea, but all the rivers of its western half flowed from south to north and emptied into the sea, which facilitated penetration to the shores of the Amber Sea. In the north and northeast, there were no natural lines, except for forests and swamps. Both for the Tshinetsk and for the Zapybinets time, we observe colonization aspirations to the northeast, in the interfluve of the Dnieper and the Desna, the border here is blurred and not clear enough.

In the south-east, the path of the ancestral home passed approximately along the southern outskirts of the forest-steppe, without going out into the steppe. The rivers here (Dniester, Bug, Dnepr) flowed into the Black Sea, which facilitated communications with more southern tribes; there was no mountain barrier here.

Such is the territory that we must keep in view when considering the issues of Slavic ethnogenesis and the primary history of Slavic culture. The ethnogenic process could also cover neighboring regions in various historical combinations, immigration to this region from neighboring regions could occur, just as a migration process from the ancestral home outside is also possible.

It is necessary to make two more significant notes: firstly, tribes could be related to the Slavic ethnogenesis, the appearance of the archaeological culture of which differed from that accepted by us for the conventional Slavic standard; it is very difficult for us in such cases to find the truth. The second note refers to the chronological framework: we should not begin our consideration only from the moment when unity over such a vast territory has already become a historical fact - we need to determine, to the best of our ability, from which more ancient elements, local or alien, it was created .

* This work is not a scientific work, is not a final qualifying work and is the result of processing, structuring and formatting the collected information, intended to be used as a source of material for self-preparation of educational work.

I. Introduction. The concept of culture.

II. The origins of Russian culture.

2.1. Slavic culture.

2.2. Slavic paganism.

2.3. Folklore.

2.4. Acceptance of Christianity.

III. Peculiarities and originality of Christian Russian culture.

3.1. Writing and education.

3.2. Socio-political thought and literature.

3.3. Architecture.

3.4. Painting.

IV. Conclusion.

Bibliography.

I. Introduction. The concept of culture.

The concept of culture is difficult to unambiguously define. It is no coincidence that in the philosophical literature there are many different formulations, each of which reveals separate aspects of this multifaceted phenomenon. It is advisable to single out three main aspects of the concept of culture. First, culture is the sphere of free self-realization of the individual, the sphere of creativity. Secondly, culture is a value attitude to reality. Thirdly, culture is an artificial world created by the thought, spirit and hands of man, different from "nature" (nature).

The first aspect implies that culture is a special sphere (sector) of social life in which the creative potential of a person is most fully realized. It is, first of all, art, science, education. However, the spheres of material production, or, say, trade, may not be devoid of a creative side, however, on condition that they provide a person with the opportunity not only to be a performer, but to think through and implement their own ideas.

The second aspect of culture means that it always contains something that is sacred, something that is recognized as an unconditional value. The concept of the ideal, in particular the moral and aesthetic, is closely connected with the value attitude. Culture as an idea of ​​values ​​and ideals is not limited to a separate sector of the life of an individual and society, but embraces all its aspects, giving them a certain value-oriented and ideological orientation and spiritualizing them.

Finally, the third aspect, emphasizing the opposition of "culture and nature", indicates that the existence of man and society is fundamentally different from purely natural existence, it is a special world in which the spiritual side is decisive.

In the interpretation of culture as a sphere of free self-realization of the individual (the first aspect), it is emphasized that culture provides a person with the opportunity to freely develop spiritually, to implement his ideas, projects, and creative ideas. Culture is not external to man. Its meaning is that a person should live the life of culture, perceive its achievements as part of his soul. According to I.A. Ilyin, culture is what requires "fullness of spiritual participation." The significance of culture lies in the preservation and development of those riches that are embedded in the human soul, for "the human soul is worth more than all the kingdoms of the world" (N. Berdyaev). In culture, man acts as a universal being. This means that it is in this area that he is fundamentally open to the whole world. In culture as a special sphere, a person reveals and realizes his unlimited possibilities of cognition and creativity, he discovers the ability to surpass all pre-established scales, he feels himself a creative being.

In the interpretation of culture as a separate sphere of being, it is simultaneously implied that not everything in society and a person can be attributed to the sphere of culture. There is also a realm outside of culture. In many cases, a person is forced to be not a creator, but a performer. Along with the sphere of freedom, i.e. culture, there is a sphere of necessity. Man submits to the need "by the sweat of his brow" to earn a livelihood. He is forced to submit to those natural and social orders that he cannot freely accept, but which he finds established when he enters into life (or at least reckon with them). Finally, a person does not have the right to evade the fulfillment of those duties that duty imposes on him, and this often requires self-coercion, self-restraint, not creativity, but simple diligence. In all societies known to history, including modern ones, the sphere of necessity quantitatively prevails. It is obvious that necessity cannot be excluded from the life of man and society. It is impossible to achieve that society as a whole becomes a sphere of freedom. Dreams about the creation of such a society are rather good wishes, although they express the ineradicable craving of a person for freedom and creativity.

Culture as a sphere of free creativity enables a person to realize his craving for self-realization, the manifestation of his individuality, the free "play" of creative forces. In this sense, culture acts as a sphere of super-utilitarianism. This means that in the sphere of culture, the development of a person and his creative abilities acts as an end in itself. Not a utilitarian result, not practical expediency, but inner interest, curiosity, inquisitiveness, the expression of one's own idea and the spirit of the author of the work are the driving forces of creativity in the field of culture. In fact, works of art, for example, if approached only from a utilitarian-practical point of view, will appear as something that is not justified, does not make sense, because their creation is not aimed at solving any practical problem. They are justified only from a different, higher point of view - as a form of development of the human spirit, as something that is called upon to elevate and ennoble a person, as something that awakens in a person a sense of beauty, that decorates a person’s life, raising it above the concern for daily bread and turning it into a truly human life. At one time, Aristotle said that philosophy is the most useless of the sciences, "but there is nothing better than philosophy." It is this approach, which puts the knowledge and creativity of a person above utilitarian and practical interests, that makes it possible to correctly assess the significance of culture in the life of a person and society.

The second of the above aspects of culture reveals it as a set of ideas about values ​​and ideals. Recognition of values ​​and ideals radically distinguishes culture from nihilism, i.e. from the denial of unconditional values ​​and ideals. According to the definition given in the explanatory dictionary by V. Dahl, "nihilism is an ugly and immoral doctrine that rejects everything that cannot be felt." Culture as a set of ideas about values ​​and ideals is not limited to a separate area of ​​public life, but is able to cover a wide variety of areas, to have a regulatory impact on various types of human activities.

An ideal is an idea of ​​what should be. Therefore, the ideal is the image of perfection. This image is conceivable, but not fully achievable. Nevertheless, the function of the ideal is, first of all, that a person strives for it, takes it as a guide. An ideal is a standard by which you can compare your life, your thoughts and actions, the results of your work.

In most cases, values ​​and ideals are of religious origin. Thus, in the cultures of the Christian area, including Russian culture, values ​​and ideals were largely formed under the influence of Christianity. The moral ideal is embodied in the image of Christ, in his deeds and sermons. Christianity, on the other hand, formed the image of the divine, i.e. unearthly, beauty, for many centuries inspiring artists, poets, writers.

With the secularization of culture, i.e. separating it from the church, values ​​and ideals of non-religious origin arise. Nevertheless, values ​​and ideals that are religious in their origins can retain their significance in secular culture as well. They lose their original religious form, but retain their original content. In addition, there is always a moment in values ​​and ideals that reveals their close connection with religion. This is the moment of faith, the inner conviction of people in the correctness and inviolability of the professed ideals and values. If they are perceived as something fragile and unstable, then both ideals and values ​​lose their main function - to be guidelines and inspiring models for human activity. A special feeling is based on the conviction of the correctness and inviolability of the ideal, which characterizes the attitude of a person to the ideal as the embodiment of perfection. This is a feeling of reverence (reverence). It expresses the attitude towards the ideal as something higher, which raises a person above ordinary earthly interests. The ideal creates a "vertical" of human existence: it forms the aspiration of a person to the highest, imperishable, eternal.

II. The origins of Russian culture.

2.1. Slavic culture.

The first mention of the Slavs in Greek, Roman, Arabic and Byzantine sources date back to the turn of the 1st millennium AD. By the VI century. there was a separation of the eastern branch of the Slavs. In the eighteenth century in the face of growing external danger, the process of political consolidation of the East Slavic (Polyane, Drevlyans, Severyans, Krivichi, Vyatichi, etc.) and some non-Slavic tribes (Ves, Merya, Muroma, Chud) proceeded, culminating in the formation of the Old Russian state - Kievan Rus (IX century) .

Being one of the largest states of medieval Europe, it stretched from north to south from the coast of the Arctic Ocean to the shores of the Black Sea, from west to east from the Baltic and the Carpathians to the Volga. Thus, Rus' historically was a contact zone between Scandinavia and Byzantium, Western Europe and the Arab East, but the interaction of cultures for Rus' was not limited to slavish imitation or mechanical combination of heterogeneous elements. Possessing its own cultural potential, pre-Christian Rus' creatively assimilated influence from outside, which ensured its organic entry into the pan-European historical and cultural landscape and gave rise to "universality" as a characteristic feature of Russian culture. As a result of the unification of the East Slavic tribes, the Old Russian nationality gradually took shape, which had a certain common territory, language, culture and was the cradle of the three fraternal peoples of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

2.2. Slavic paganism.

A high level of figurative-poetic, irrational worldview developed among the Eastern Slavs in the "pre-literate" period, in the era of paganism. Slavic paganism was an integral part of the complex of primitive views, beliefs and rituals of primitive man for many millennia. The term "paganism" is conditional, it is used to refer to the diverse range of phenomena (animism, magic, pandemonism, totemism, etc.) that are included in the concept of "early" forms of religion.

The specificity of paganism is the nature of its evolution, in which the new does not displace the old, but is layered on it. The unknown Russian author of The Lay on Idols (XII century) singled out three main stages in the development of Slavic paganism.

At the first stage, they "laid trebs (sacrifices) to ghouls and coastlines", i.e. worshiped the evil and good spirits that controlled the elements (water sources, forests, etc.). This is the dualistic animism of ancient times, when people believed that a deity in the form of a spirit lives in various objects and phenomena, and animals, plants and even rocks have an immortal soul.

At the second stage, the Slavs worshiped Rod and women in childbirth. According to B.A. Rybakova, Rod is an ancient agricultural deity of the Universe, and women in childbirth are deities of prosperity and fertility. According to the ideas of the ancients, Rod, being in heaven, controlled rain and thunderstorms, water sources on earth, as well as underground fire, are associated with it. The harvest depended on the Sort, not without reason in the East Slavic languages ​​the word freak was used in the meaning of the harvest. The holiday of the Family and women in childbirth is a harvest festival. According to the ideas of the Slavs, Rod gave life to all living things, hence a number of concepts: people, nature, relatives, etc. Noting the special significance of the cult of the Family, the author of the "Word of the Idols" compared it with the cults of Osiris and Artemis. Obviously, Rod personifies the actual Slavic trend of transition to monotheism. With the foundation in Kyiv of a single pantheon of pagan gods, as well as during the time of dual faith, the importance of the Family decreased, he became the patron of the family, at home.

At the third stage, the Slavs prayed to Perun, i.e. there was a state cult of the princely retinue god of war, who was originally revered as the god of thunder.

In addition to those mentioned, at different stages of paganism among the Slavs there were many other deities. The most important in pre-Perun times were Svarog (the god of heaven and heavenly fire), his sons Svarozhich (the god of earthly fire) and Dazhdbog (the god of the sun and light, the giver of all blessings), as well as other solar gods who had other names among different tribes - Yarilo , Chore. The names of some gods are associated with the veneration of the sun at different times of the year (Kolyada, Kupalo, Yarilo). Striborg was considered the god of the air elements (wind, storms, etc.). Veles (Volos) was the patron of cattle and the god of wealth, probably because in those days cattle was the main wealth. In the retinue environment, Veles was considered the god of music and songs, the patron of art, it is not for nothing that in the Tale of Igor's Campaign the legendary singer Boyan is called Veles' grandson. In general, the cult of Veles was unusually widespread in all Slavic lands, judging by the chronicle, all of Rus' swore by his name. According to folk beliefs, the goddess Mokosh (Makosh, Mokosha, Moksha), somehow connected with sheep breeding, and also being the goddess of fertility, the patroness of women, the hearth and the economy, was the companion of Veles. For a long time after the adoption of Christianity, Russian women revered their pagan patroness. This is evidenced by one of the questionnaires of the 16th century, according to which the priest at confession had to ask parishioners: "Have you not gone to Mokosha?"

The place of worship was temples, tremies, temples, in which the Magi priests of the pagan religion prayed, performed various rituals, made sacrifices to the gods (the first harvest, the first offspring of livestock, herbs and wreaths of fragrant flowers, and in some cases living people and even children) .

Realizing the importance of religion for strengthening princely power and statehood, Vladimir Svyatoslavich in 980 tried to reform paganism, giving it the features of a monotheistic religion. The most revered by different tribes gods were included in the single pantheon for all of Rus', including, in addition to the Slavic ones, the Persian Khore, the Finno-Ugric Mokosh. The primacy in the hierarchy of the gods was given, of course, to the princely retinue god of war Perun, to increase the authority of which Vladimir even ordered the resumption of human sacrifice.

The composition of the Kyiv pantheon reveals the goals of the reform: strengthening the central government, consolidating the ruling class, uniting the tribes, establishing new relations of social inequality. But the attempt to create a unified religious system, preserving the old pagan beliefs, was not successful. The reformed paganism retained the remnants of primitive equality, did not eliminate the possibility of traditional worship only of one's tribal deity, did not contribute to the formation of new norms of morality and law that corresponded to the changes taking place in the socio-political sphere.

2.3. Folklore

The pagan worldview found its artistic expression in folk art even in the pre-Christian era. Later, during the period of dual faith, the pagan tradition, persecuted in the sphere of official ideology and art, found refuge precisely in folklore, applied art, etc. Despite the official rejection of pre-Christian culture, it was precisely the mutual influence of pagan and Christian traditions in the pre-Mongol period that contributed to the "Russification" of Byzantine artistic norms and, thus, the creation of an original culture of medieval Rus'.

From time immemorial, oral folk poetry of the ancient Slavs developed. Conspiracies and spells (hunting, shepherd, agricultural); proverbs and sayings reflecting ancient life; riddles, often containing traces of ancient magical ideas; ritual songs associated with the pagan agricultural calendar; wedding songs and funeral laments, songs at feasts and feasts. The origin of fairy tales is also connected with the pagan past.

A special place in oral folk art was occupied by the "old" epic epic. Epics of the Kyiv cycle, associated with Kiev, with the Dnieper Slavutich, with Prince Vladimir Krasno Solnyshko, heroes, began to take shape in the 21st century. They expressed in their own way the social consciousness of an entire historical era, reflected the moral ideals of the people, preserved the features of ancient life, the events of everyday life. Oral folk art has been an inexhaustible source of images and plots that have nourished Russian literature, fine arts, and music for centuries.

2.4. Acceptance of Christianity.

Pre-Christian Rus' in the field of material culture, in the sphere of religious (pagan) ideas, the many-sided elements of folk art, undoubtedly reached a high stage of development and turned out to be basically ready to accept new ideas (in the form of the most complex concept of Christian doctrine) and figurative and artistic thinking inherent in Byzantine culture . Therefore, the second step of Vladimir Svyatoslavich in the field of religious reforms looks quite natural.

According to the chronicle, in 988989 the prince of Kiev, having seen the "delusion of paganism", faced a difficult choice, which of the monotheistic religions available in other countries to choose. Vladimir received and listened to the preachers of Islam from Volga Bulgaria, Judaism from the Khazar Khaganate, Catholicism "from the Germans" and Orthodoxy from Byzantium, and then sent his ambassadors to these countries so that they would be convinced on the spot of the advantages of one or another religion. Interestingly, the Russian ambassadors considered beauty to be the decisive proof of the truth of faith. “We don’t know whether we were in heaven or on earth, for there is no such kind and such beauty on earth, and we don’t know how to tell about it; we only know that God dwells with people there, and their worship is better than in all other countries. We cannot forget the beauty of that,” the envoys told Vladimir about their visit to the St. Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople. So, allegedly, the historical fate of Rus' was decided: she was baptized from Byzantium, and this determined her entry into the system of connections and interactions that had developed in the Orthodox East.

The legendary story of the chronicle, of course, needs commentary. It is quite obvious that the Christianization of Rus' could not be a one-time event. This complex process continued for centuries, and it began much earlier than the reform of Vladimir. Quite widely in the literature there is an opinion (largely based on the story of the Nikon Chronicle) that for the first time Christianity was adopted as a state religion in Kiev, at least in the 860s, and that the first Russian Christian princes were Dir and Askold. The invasion of the pagan Varangians led by Oleg temporarily led to the victory of paganism, while Christianity was pushed into the background, but did not disappear from the Russian land. Vivid evidence of this, for example, is the baptism of Princess Olga. In addition, at least a century before the second, Vladimir's, baptism, Rus had ties with Christian Bulgaria in the time of Simeon (864? 928) and, possibly, with the Great Moravian state, where the Bulgarian enlighteners and missionaries Cyril and Methodius in 869 (870?) organized a Slavic church. There is reason to believe that an earlier and, at the same time, quite significant, could be Bulgarian, and not direct Byzantine influence. On the eve of the second baptism, Rus' had already received a significant share of what Simeon's Bulgaria possessed - the texts of Holy Scripture in Church Slavonic, the theological writings of the "Thessalonica brothers" (Cyril and Methodius), etc. There is a mention of this in the Russian chronicle. The direct perception of Byzantine Christian culture as a result of Vladimir's reform was already secondary. In addition, it must be borne in mind that even after 988, the establishment of Christianity, especially in the remote lands of Kievan Rus, took place over a long time and not just sometimes by force, but often adapting to a pagan worldview. Paradoxically, the invasion of the Mongolotatars became important in strengthening the positions of Christianity. In the face of terrible danger, the Russian people realized their unity as Christians as opposed to the pagan conquerors.

With the introduction of a new religion, Rus' finally determined its entry into the pan-European historical and cultural landscape. Christianity with its monotheism, the hierarchy of saints, the developed doctrine of domination and submission, the preaching of non-resistance to evil and violence most fully corresponded to the feudal system and contributed to the strengthening of the monarchical statehood. Religion, which has a cosmopolitan character, and therefore suitable for any ethnic group that was part of the state, had a cementing effect on the process of formation of the ancient Russian people.

About the fact that Russia adopted Christianity not as a rite, not as a form, but essentially, deeply, in the fourth volume of the epic novel "March the Seventeenth", our contemporary A. I. Solzhenitsyn writes: she settled down to him with her soul, she poured out to him with all her best. She adopted it as the name of the inhabitants, into proverbs and signs, into the structure of thinking, into the obligatory corner of the hut, she took his symbol for universal protection, replaced all others with his personal calendar, the counting calendar, the whole plan of her working life, she gave the best to its temples. places of his surroundings, his services - their suburbs, his posts - his endurance, his holidays - his leisure, his wanderers - their shelter and "bread". Thus, the spiritual casts of Russian culture in different historical times are characterized by different axiological orientations. In the early stages of cultural development, it was paganism, which in a certain sense served as the basis for the perception of Orthodoxy. The synthesis of these spiritual essences was the basis for the existence of dual faith in Rus'. With the strengthening of the state, with the victory over the Tatar-Mongols, the influence of Orthodoxy also expanded. It was Orthodoxy, ultimately, that became the spiritual dominant of Russian culture, influencing the development of art, politics, morality, and literature.

III. Peculiarities and originality of Christian Russian culture.

The adoption of Christianity contributed to the fact that the cultural traditions developed by the Eastern Slavs were combined with the heritage of the high civilization of Byzantium, the countries of Western Asia and the Mediterranean. Thus, the historical self-consciousness of Ancient Rus' was raised to a higher level.

3.1. Writing and education.

The presence of writing among the Eastern Slavs of the pre-Christian period is confidently reported by Arabic and German sources of the 10th century. For example, they mention an inscription on a monument to a warrior, a prophecy on a stone in a Slavic pagan temple, and "Russian writings" received by one of the Caucasian kings. Archaeological data testify to the use of writing for everyday purposes: in the Gnezdovsky barrows near the village of Gnezdovo south of Smolensk, an earthenware vessel was found with an inscription dated at least to the middle of the 10th century. Chernorizet Khrabr in the legend "On Writings" (the turn of the 9th centuries) noted that while the Slavs were pagans, they used "features" and "cuts" (not preserved pictographic, i.e. pictorial writing), with the help of which "chtahu and gadahu" (read and wondered). Since the scope of such a letter is very limited (calendar signs, property signs, etc.), the Slavs used the so-called "proto-Cyrillic alphabet" (recording Slavic words using the Greek alphabet) to record complex texts.

It is believed that when creating the Slavic alphabet, the missionary brothers Cyril and Methodius could use ancient Russian scripts. Initially (in the 11th half of the 9th century), they created the Glagolitic alphabet, and at the turn of the 9th century. the Cyrillic alphabet appeared, resulting from the simplification of the Glagolitic alphabet. The Cyrillic alphabet has received the greatest distribution in Rus'. The adoption of Orthodoxy, which allowed worship in national languages, contributed to the spread of writing. Literacy was widespread not only among the feudal lords and clergy, but also among ordinary citizens. This is evidenced by numerous birch bark letters found in Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, as well as graffiti inscriptions on the walls, preserved in the churches of Kyiv, Novgorod and other cities. Under Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav the Wise, the "book teaching" of children of the "deliberate child", "headmen and priestly children" began, the first schools for girls were created.

3.2. Socio-political thought and literature.

The acute publicism of ancient Russian literature allows us to consider many literary works simultaneously as monuments of socio-political thought. Most of them are characterized by monumentalism of form and historicism of content. The leading genre of emerging Russian literature was chronicle writing. The most significant monument in this genre is The Tale of Bygone Years, compiled no earlier than 1113 by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor. The main task of the essay is formulated by the author in the first lines of the chronicle: "this is the story of bygone years, where did the Russian land come from, who in Kiev began before the princes, and where did the Russian land come from." The "Tale" was based on chronicles of the 11th century that have not come down to us, documents from princely archives, Russian-Byzantine treaties of the 10th century, fragments of Byzantine chronicles, etc. The chronicle, along with weather records of information about major political events, contains many poetic legends and legends: about the calling of the Varangians, about Oleg’s campaigns against Constantinople and against the Khazars, about revenge on the Drevlyans by Princess Olga for the death of Igor, etc. The origin of the Old Russian state and the princely dynasty is given against the backdrop of world history.

Of course, the baptism of Rus' and the perception of the literary Byzantine-Slavic heritage were the most important prerequisites for the emergence of an interest in history among our ancestors, and hence the formation of the literary-historical genre of the chronicle, which was an original form of a literary work that arose on Russian soil, in specific conditions, and has no direct analogues in Byzantine and Bulgarian cultures.

The oldest of the works of Russian literature known to us is the "Sermon on Law and Grace", written by the future Metropolitan Hilarion between 1037 and 1050. Hilarion's work is a story about how the word of God spread among people, first through the Jewish "law" (the ten commandments received by Moses), then through the gospel, Christian "Grace and Truth" (given by Jesus Christ) and, finally, reaching the Russian land, dispelled the "darkness of idols", for which the author praises Vladimir Svyatoslavich and prays to God on behalf of the newly converted Russian Christians. The theological work created by the ancient Russian author differed from the old canon of John of Damascus in practicality and historicism. Using the form of a church sermon, Hilarion went beyond the framework of traditional theology and created a political treatise that raised the most important political problems related to the relations of Kievan Rus with the Khazar Khaganate and Byzantium, with the adoption of Christianity and with the flourishing of statehood in the reign of Yaroslav the Wise.

It is necessary to note another feature inherent in Russian theological thought - symbolism (the use of the method of symbolic interpretation of obscure passages in sacred texts).

From time immemorial, the favorite reading of our ancestors was the hagiographic literature of the lives of the saints. The life told about the life of people who have achieved holiness, presented examples of a righteous life, convincing that a person can come to such a Christian ideal only by verifying his deeds with the gospel commandments.

Princes Boris and Gleb, the younger sons of Grand Duke Vladimir Svyatoslavich, were the first Russian saints who were honored with popular veneration and were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church after their tragic death in 1015. Three hagiographic monuments dedicated to Boris and Gleb have come down to us:

1) chronicle story under 1015;

2) "Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed martyrs Boris and Gleb" by Nestor the Chronicler (end of the 11th century);

3) "The Tale, Passion and Praise of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb" by an unknown author of the same era.

Attention is drawn to the paradoxical nature of the canonization of princes who fell in the internecine struggle for power, and not for faith, and the question arises in what did the new church and the newly converted Russian people see the holiness and meaning of their Christian feat?

Of course, in the lives of the saints there is a moral and political idea of ​​asserting the right of tribal seniority and a practical model for imitation is given. However, upon closer acquaintance with the works, the idea of ​​voluntary suffering, sacrifice in the form of non-resistance, which is different from the heroic martyrdom so characteristic of the ancient Byzantine saints, comes to the fore with particular force. "The feat of non-resistance is a national Russian feat, a genuine religious discovery of the newly baptized Russian people" (G. Fedotov). The image of the suffering and meek Savior, as the greatest shrine adopted by Russia, and the reflection of the gospel light were seen by the Russian man through the faces of the Russian martyrs.

One of the oldest genuine Russian hagiographic works was "The Life of St. Theodosius of the Caves", written by Nestor (end of the 11th century). Theodosius (d. 1074) the third saint to be canonized by the Russian Church, but the first monk to represent the Russian type of ascetic holiness. "The Life of Theodosius" is one of the best works of the chronicler.

One of the lists of the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1096 contains "Instruction" by Vladimir Monomakh (1053-1125). In contrast to the traditional genre of teachings, which were of a religious and didactic nature, this work contains the features of a historical and political treatise, from the pages of which the image of an ideal statesman, a fighter for the unity of Rus', a wise politician and a brave commander, besides a talented writer appears. The "Instruction" contains Monomakh's autobiography, the oldest in Russian literature.

By the time of Monomakh's reign, the composition of Abbot Daniel in the genre of "walking" dates back. Daniel made a pilgrimage to Palestine, lived there for sixteen months and described his journey with great accuracy and expressiveness.

The literature of Kievan Rus is rich in literary monuments written in different genres. Unfortunately, our understanding of it is incomplete, because only a small part of its entire treasury survived, escaped destruction during fires, floods and other disasters. However, it also allows us to judge the appearance in ancient Russian literature of such traditional features of Russian literature that have survived to modern times, such as high citizenship and true patriotism, chaste purity of images and nobility of ideals. Old Russian literature as a whole has a life-affirming beginning: even in the most tragic works we will not find despair and despondency. Finally, since ancient times, Russian writers have deeply respected other peoples, their customs and religions. Old Russian literature did not know fictional plots and heroes, it always described historical events and real people. Even if the author introduced fantastic (from a modern point of view) details into the plot, this was not fiction, because both the author himself and the readers believed what was written. In addition, the characters of these works are either heroes who perform moral or military exploits, or unconditional villains.

Ancient Russian literature did not know rhymed poetry, but it is permeated with figurative thinking, poetic comparisons and hyperbole, and contains many examples of rhythmic speech. The originality and high professionalism of ancient Russian literature were nourished by two inexhaustible sources: oral folk art and translated literature of various genres and styles, the one that was created for thousands of years by the creative genius of the peoples of Greece and Egypt, Judea and Syria. Old Russian writers joined the best examples of world literature, i.e. drew from the same sources as the medieval writers of Western Europe.

3.3. Architecture.

The art of pre-Mongolian Rus' is characterized by such a feature as the monumentalism of forms. Architecture occupied a special place in ancient Russian art. Unfortunately, not all architectural structures of that time have come down to us, and many have been preserved in a distorted form.

The Byzantine school, which inherited the traditions of ancient Rome, played a major role in the development of stone construction techniques. For example, masonry with a hidden row, which had both constructive and aesthetic significance, was widely used, in which the rows of bricks on the facade of the building went out through one, and the intermediate row was pushed deep and covered with a layer of pinkish mortar with an admixture of tartar (crushed ceramics). From the point of view of modern science, such masonry is very functional, because with less building materials, the wall is more durable. In addition, masonry with a hidden row, often called "striped", (alternating, multi-colored stripes come out on the surface of the wall, alternating rows of raw stone and pinkish mortar of opium), has a peculiar decorative effect, when the "play" of light and shadow emphasizes the "play" of color . The exterior of the temple, built with such masonry, practically did not require additional finishing, with the exception of some elements made of plinth (flat brick), for example, in the form of simple ornamental friezes that adorned the facades.

The appearance of the first of the stone churches of Kievan Rus known to us, the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin (989996, destroyed by the Mongolotatars during the capture of Kiev in 1240), can only be judged by the remains of the foundation, decorative elements, and written sources. In 1031 1036 in Chernigov, Greek masters erected the Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Savior. This most "Byzantine" temple of Kievan Rus has survived to this day almost entirely. In 1037, Yaroslav the Wise founded the stone St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv with five apses and 13 domes. Like the Church of the Tithes, it was surrounded by internal two-story galleries with open spaces, outside they were adjoined by one-story, but wider galleries. Just like the Church of the Tithes and the Transfiguration Cathedral, Sofia has a pronounced pyramidal composition. Pyramidality, build-up of masses, traits alien to Byzantine architecture. Obviously, stepped pyramidality, as well as many-domed, was a primordially national feature of Russian architecture.

The main decorative elements of the facades are two-stage niches and windows, thin columns on the apses, meanders (geometric ornament) made of plinths and crosses. The picturesque structure of the masonry with a hidden row and stripes of raw stone reported the greatest decorative effect to the facades.

Although stone construction in Rus' in the X-XI centuries. It was carried out mainly by Byzantine architects, these buildings differed significantly from the Byzantine ones, since the visiting masters solved new problems in Rus' (they erected churches with very large choirs and baptismal rooms, and also used unusual building materials). They also had to take into account the tastes of customers, brought up in the traditions and aesthetic ideas of ancient wooden architecture. Thus, having arisen on the basis of Byzantine architecture, Russian stone architecture, even at the earliest stage, had a peculiar character, and already in the second half of the 11th century. developed its own traditions. It was on them that the builders of the next generation were guided.

3.4. Painting.

The art of Kievan Rus is connected with religion in terms of subject matter, content and form; it, like any medieval art, is characterized by following the canon (the use of a stable set of plots, image types and compositional schemes consecrated by centuries of tradition and approved by the church). A product of the medieval worldview and the cult purpose of art is its impersonality (the church assigned the role of the creator to itself, recognizing the artist only as a performer).

Among the visual arts of Kievan Rus, the first place belongs to monumental painting, mosaics and frescoes. Russian masters adopted the system of painting temples from the Byzantines, and folk art influenced ancient Russian painting. The murals of the temple were supposed to convey the main provisions of the Christian doctrine, to serve as a kind of "gospel for the illiterate." Mosaics and frescoes of St. Sophia of Kyiv allow us to imagine the system of painting of a medieval temple. The mosaics covered the most symbolically important and most illuminated part of the temple: the central dome, the domed space, the altar (Christ the Pantocrator in the central dome and Our Lady Oranta in the altar apse. The rest of the temple is decorated with frescoes (scenes from the life of Christ, the Mother of God, images of preachers, martyrs and Secular frescoes of St. Sophia of Kiev are unique: two group portraits of Yaroslav the Wise with his family and episodes of court life (competitions at the hippodrome, figures of buffoons, musicians, hunting scenes, etc.).

In the 11th century, undoubtedly, many works of easel painting of icons were created. Kievo-Pechersky patericon even preserved the name of the famous Russian icon painter of the 11th beginning. XII century, the monk of the Caves Alimpiy, who studied with the Greek masters and "paint icons cunningly," but most of the works of this period have not come down to us.

Long before the baptism of Rus', Christian theologians, justifying the cult of veneration of icons (the icon began to be regarded as a visible symbol of the invisible world, as "an image of secret and supernatural spectacles"), developed a rigid system for writing them (the iconographic canon). According to legend, the oldest Christian icons appeared either miraculously ("The Savior Not Made by Hands"), or were painted from life (the image of the Mother of God by the Evangelist Luke, the image of the first Christian saints by artists who personally knew and remembered their appearance). Therefore, the Orthodox Church never allowed icons to be painted from living people or according to the imagination of the artist and demanded strict adherence to the icon-painting canon, which fixed those features of icon-painting images that separated the “higher” (divine) world from the “downland” (earthly) world. The convention of the letter was to emphasize in the appearance of the faces depicted on the icon their unearthly essence, spirituality. For this, the figures were painted flat and motionless, a special system of depicting space (reverse perspective) and temporal relations (timeless image) was used. The conditional golden background of the icon symbolized the divine light. The entire image on the icon is permeated with this light, and the figures cast no shadows, for there are no shadows in the Kingdom of God. Orthodox theologians called icons "theology in colors" and saw in them a means to direct the thoughts and feelings of believers to the heavenly world. "The gospel calls us to life in Christ, the icon shows us this life" (LA Uspensky).

In order to strictly follow the canon, icon painters used as samples either ancient icons or icon-painting originals: sensible, which contained a verbal description of each icon-painting plot (“Prophet Daniel young curly, like George, in a hat, clothes under azure, top vermilion”, etc.). etc.), or facial, i.e. illustrative (draw a graphic image of the plot).

A special phenomenon of ancient Russian painting was the phenomenon of book miniatures. The oldest Russian manuscript "Ostromir Gospel" (10561057, GPB) is decorated with images of the evangelists, whose bright plane superimposed figures are similar to the figures of the apostles of St. Sophia of Kyiv. Screensavers are filled with fantastic floral ornaments. The miniatures of Svyatoslav's Izbornik (1703) contain portraits of the grand-ducal family.

A huge role in the life of Kievan Rus was played by applied decorative art, in which images of pagan mythology were especially tenacious. Early Kievan round sculpture was not developed due to the fact that the church fought against pagan idolatry, but played its role in the formation of national traditions of stone carving.

Having absorbed and creatively processed various artistic influences, Kievan Rus created a system of all-Russian values ​​that predetermined the development of the art of individual lands during the period of feudal fragmentation. The period of "monumental historicism" has ended. A new era began.

IV. Conclusion.

The cultural heritage of the past, accumulated by hundreds of previous generations, is acquired by a modern person in the form of an established system of knowledge, moral and aesthetic values, sustainable traditions and norms of behavior. The mechanisms of their transmission have been developed and fixed over the course of the millennium-long history of mankind. According to the concept of Alexei Alekseevich Ukhtomsky (1875-1942), the best dominants that contribute to the survival and progress of the human race as such are transmitted from generation to generation through words and everyday life. Without this, each new generation would have to start all over again. The products of material transformations (tools, cultivated lands, built cities, factories, technical products, etc.) are transferred or received during the change of generations practically intact. The situation is somewhat different with the achievements of spiritual culture. They are also adopted and assimilated. However, oral texts are forgotten or altered, written texts are lost. Cataclysms and wars can destroy everything overnight. So, twice - by the Romans and Muslims - the largest library of Alexandria in antiquity was burned, where all the knowledge of the ancient world had accumulated over the centuries.

The loss of centuries of accumulated knowledge and the mechanisms of its transmission from fathers to sons and from grandfathers to grandchildren can also occur as a result of artificial ideological interference, including religious expansion or the imposition of an alien ideological paradigm. In this sense, the ancient history of Rus' has suffered particularly tangible and irreparable losses. Natural disasters that destroyed the Hyperborean civilization, the adoption of Christianity, which uprooted paganism with fire and sword, countless invasions of foreigners trampling Russian culture with horse hooves and barbarian boots, and other social upheavals dealt more than one crushing blow to the spiritual heritage of the ancient ethnos.

The logic of the continuity of generations - this most important screed of biosocial evolution - is unique. It correlates, but does not coincide with the logic of history. Generations succeeding each other and actively interacting with each other have their own, so to speak, parallel history and their own patterns. In the prismatic mirror of generations, history seems to be compressed, broken, stretched or lost. The connection of times can break between any pair of generations at any point in history. It is usually accepted that the astronomical and historical age contains 3 generations. Therefore, a millennium is only 30 generations. 30 generations separate us from the introduction of Christianity in Rus' and about 100 from the Trojan War. It would seem how little - just a stone's throw away. But what has not happened during this time, expressed in such seemingly ridiculous figures!

If we impose on world history a chain of successive generations, then the real chronology will appear in the form of the following picture: 56 generations separate us from the invasion of the Napoleonic army into Russia and the Battle of Borodino, 8 generations from the Battle of Poltava, 19 from the Battle of Kulikovo, 23 - from Ice Battle. And further inward: 48 generations have passed since the fall of the Roman Empire (the capture of Rome by Alaric), a little more than 70 - from the heyday of Athens, 150 - from the beginning of the most ancient kingdom in Egypt and 1260 generations - from the alleged beginning of the process of splitting the proto-language and a single proto-people (40 thousand years BC). Less than 13 hundred generations - what a cascade of peoples, languages, cultures arose on Earth! How many civilizations and formations have changed on the planet! How many achievements and how many losses! But nothing disappears without a trace. The spirit is alive as long as the person is alive. It must be preserved, as our ancestors kept the fire in the hearth. And like them, he will certainly save and warm.

Bibliography:

1. Arnoldov A.I. Introduction to cultural studies. M.: 1994

2. Artamonov V.A. National character and history. Styles of thinking and behavior in the history of world culture. Moscow: Nauka, 1990

3. Bychkov V.V. Russian medieval aesthetics of the X-XIII century. M.: Thought, 1992

4.Demin V.N. Secrets of the Russian people. - M .: Publishing house "Veche", 1997.

5. Culture of Russia: meaning, symbols, values. - Tomsk: ed. Tomsk University, 1996.

6.World Art. Russia IX XIX century. Moscow: AZ Publishing Center, 1997.

7.Textbook for cultural studies. - M.: ed. Plekhanov Russian Academy of Economics, 1994.

In our community, due attention has not yet been paid to the history of the physical anthropology of the Slavs. The following article should fill this gap to some extent.

Below is a translation of the article "The most recent historical turns of slov'yanstva following anthropology data", the author is Sergiy Segeda. Published in the journal "FOLK CREATIVITY AND ETNOGRAPHY" No. 6 - 2005 // http://aratta-ukraine.com
Translation from Ukrainian - entirely on my conscience.
If somewhere I made a mistake with the translation of archaeological cultures, geographical names and other things, then, firstly, I apologize, and secondly, I ask you to correct it.

The oldest historical origins of the Slavs according to anthropology

Questions of ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Slavic peoples belong to a number of problems, the interest in which has not subsided in domestic and foreign historiography, at least since the time when Nestor the chronicler tried to answer at least one of them, substantiating in "The Tale of the Time" years" his Danubian theory of the origin of the Slavs.

At the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century. representatives of the then young science, anthropology, joined in their coverage, the data of which make it possible to reconstruct important aspects of ethnogenetic processes, namely: to find out the ways of migration of primitive human groups; highlight the role of individual components that took part in the formation of ancient and modern peoples; outline the direction of their genetic links. It has been proven that anthropological data retain their information capabilities even when it comes to very distant historical epochs. A particularly valuable source of information is odontological* characters, which make it possible to directly compare ancient and modern populations: no other system of morphological markers that is used in modern anthropology provides such opportunities.

*Odontology is a branch of anthropology that studies the intergroup variability of racial diagnostic features of teeth.

It is known that modern Slavic peoples differ significantly from each other in their physical characteristics. According to many experts, at least five anthropological complexes, or groups of populations, are distinguished in the range of the Western, Eastern and Southern Slavs, namely: the White Sea-Baltic, which includes northern Russians, most Belarusians, and some Poles; Eastern European, characteristic of most Russians and some Belarusians; Dnieper-Carpathian, common among Ukrainians, Slovaks, part of the Czechs; the Pontic, whose typical representatives are the Bulgarians, and the Dinaric, represented among the Slavs by the population of the Balkans, especially the Montenegrins. The White Sea-Baltic and Eastern European group of populations belong to the circle of the northern, and the Pontic and Dinaric groups belong to the southern Caucasoids. As for the Dnieper-Carpathian complex, it is an intermediate link between the northern and southern Caucasoids, to a greater extent gravitating towards the latter.

The fact that the modern Slavic peoples belong to different branches of Caucasians does not contradict the fact that the medieval Slavs of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe had many common features, namely: dolichomesocrania, the average width of the face (mostly sharply profiled) and the average or significant protrusion of the nose. . The similarity of some of the leading characteristics characteristic of most of the Slavic craniological series of the 10th–13th centuries gives grounds for searching for the ancestral home and the "original" morphological type of the Slavic peoples. They can be managed using a retrospective method, the use of which is justified by the conservatism of most of the hereditary physical traits of people, which themselves change little over time. The latter makes it possible to determine the degree of genetic relationship of generations separated by millennia, and the line of heredity can be reconstructed even when there are "blank spots" in the anthropological study of individual historical eras, determined by the lack of output data.

The foundations of modern ideas about the anthropological origins of the Slavic peoples were laid by the outstanding Czech Slavic scholar, a prominent representative of the French anthropological school, Lubomir Niederle. Summarizing a wide range of archaeological and anthropological data, he abandoned his own previous conclusion about the long-headedness and light pigmentation of the "Proto-Slavs", pointing out that the ancestors of modern Slavic peoples could not be anthropologically homogeneous. "Undoubtedly, - the researcher noted in this regard, - that they were not marked either by the purity of the race, or by the unity of the physical type ...". The diversity of the physical characteristics of the Slavic tribes is explained by the fact that in their "ancestral homeland", which, according to L. Niederl, covers Eastern Poland, Polissya, Podolia, Volhynia and the Kiev region, the areas of the north-European dolichocephalic light-pigmented and south-European brachycephalic dark-pigmented small races, or groups of populations, collided. For a long time, carriers of various anthropological variants have lived here, none of which can be considered "proper Slavic". Nevertheless, their long contacts, which preceded the emergence of the Proto-Slavic community, contributed to the formation of some common features, due to which the ancestors of the Slavs differed from the ancestors of the Germans, Finns, Thracians or Illyrians.

According to the modern Russian researcher T. I. Alekseeva, they, first of all, belong to the relative broad-facedness - a sign that during the Neolithic-Eneolithic was widespread in Central, Eastern and Northern Europe. In the north, the range of broad-faced was limited by the upper and middle reaches of the Western Dvina, in the south by the left tributaries of the middle reaches of the Danube, to the west by the upper and middle reaches of the Vistula, and to the east by the lower reaches of the Dnieper (Fig. 1). In its northern part, the broad face was for the most part combined with an elongated (dolichocranial), in the southern part, both with the dolichocranic and mesocranial forms of the skull.

Broad-faced and dolicho-cranial features are features characteristic of the early Neolithic Narva culture, the Eneolithic Corded Ware tribes in the southern Baltic, and some of the Bronze Age Fatyanovo culture carriers. As for the mesocranial broad-faced forms, during the Eneolithic they were common in the northwestern Black Sea region and in the Danube region, where they bordered on the mesocranial narrow-faced variants of the Balkan Peninsula.

Commenting on these conclusions by T. I. Alekseeva, the Russian archaeologist V. V. Sedov, who mastered the methodology of craniological research, noted that the appeal to paleoanthropological materials of distant historical eras, the purpose of which is to search for the genetic origins of the Slavic peoples, is illegal. “A comparison of anthropological materials torn apart by a three thousand-year period of domination of the rite of cremation,” he wrote in a monograph published in the late seventies of the last century, “is hypothetical in nature and cannot be used for serious conclusions. In particular, it does absolutely nothing."

This statement was too categorical. Subsequently, T. I. Alekseeva showed that according to the specific proportions of the main dimensions of the skull and facial skeleton (the ratio of the height of the skull to half the longitudinal and transverse diameters, the height of the face to the height of the skull, the width of the nose to the width of the face), the medieval Slavs quite clearly differed from the medieval Germans, revealing kinship with the Balts. This differentiation is based on the heterogeneity of the population of previous historical epochs, in particular the tribes of the Corded Ware cultures, which were widely settled in the territory of Northern and Central Europe. In their anthropological composition, two components are distinguished, namely: relatively high-headed, with low orbits and a fairly wide nose, and relatively low-headed, with high orbits and a narrow nose. The first of them, subsequently presented among the Slavs and Balts, was common in the southeastern Baltic, the second, characteristic of the medieval Germans, in the north of Western Europe. From this, contrary to the assertions of V.V. Sedov, at least two important ethnogenetic conclusions can be drawn, namely: firstly, already during the Eneolithic-Bronze Age, the ancestors of the Germans, Balts and Slavs occupied different areas; secondly, anthropological data, at least indirectly, testify in favor of the thesis of a long-standing Balto-Slavic community, which is defended by linguists.

Considering the question of the oldest morphological origins of the Slavs, T. I. Alekseeva for some reason did not draw on data from the anthropology of the Neolithic tribes of the comb-pricked ceramics of the Dnieper region, which left cultural monuments of the Dnieper-Donetsk community. According to radiocarbon analysis, they date back to the middle of the 7th - the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. .

According to the well-known domestic archaeologist Dmitry Telegin, the immediate ancestors of the Dnieper-Donetsk tribes were the carriers of the Dnepropryat and Donetsk Mesolithic cultures, who lived in Volyn, Polesie, and in the forest-steppe zone between the Dnieper and Siversky Donets rivers. In the early Neolithic, they actively moved into the steppe Dnieper region, assimilating the local population. It is in this zone of Ukraine, especially in the Nadporozhye and Azov regions, that most of the Neolithic large collective necropolises have been explored: Mariupol, Vilnyansky, Vovnyzsky, Nikopolsky, Yasinuvatsky, Lisogirsky and others. Drought and the like) and in the north of Crimea (Dolinka). The mentioned monuments, which were excavated from the burial grounds of the Mariupol type, were left by people of three related cultures of the Dnieper-Donetsk community - Nadporizhzhya, Kiev-Cherkassy and Donetsk. During the excavations of these unique monuments, more than a thousand skeletons were found, which are characterized by a straight position on the back.

An analysis of anthropological materials from the Neolithic necropolises of Ukraine showed that the people of the Dnieper-Donets community belonged to a peculiar variant of the Proto-European (Late Cro-Magnon) type, which Soviet anthropologists called differently: V.V. - "Cro-Magnon in the broad sense", I. I. Gokhman - "above-Porozhye-Azov". According to their conclusions, he was of northern origin. "The bone remains of people of the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eastern Europe," G. F. Debets wrote on this score, "belong, at least in their majority, to people of southern origin, while people of the Dnieper culture are immigrants from the northern regions or their direct descendants" . According to their craniological characteristics (general massiveness, strong development of the relief, high and wide face, very low orbits, moderate width of the nose, etc.), the population of the Dnieper-Donetsk community is generally close to the carriers of the Neolithic cultures of comb and comb-pricked ceramics of the northern zone of Eurasia .

According to the results of modern research, two components are clearly traced in the anthropological composition of the Dnieper-Donetsk tribes. The first of them is characterized by dolichocrania, a medium-tall, well-profile face, developed on a local basis, inheriting the features of that part of the Mesolithic population of Ukraine, which is represented by crouched burials in the cemeteries of Vasylivka I and Vasylivka III. The second component, which is characterized by mesocrania and weakened horizontal profiling of the face, is associated with the arriving tribes. The carriers of both components were characterized by low orbits, a medium-wide nose with a high bridge of the nose, and most importantly, a wide (among the carriers of the first variant - 143.5-147.5 mm) and exceptionally wide (among the representatives of the second variant - 149-159 mm) face. (fig. above).

Indirect evidence of the complex ethno-cultural situation that developed in the Lower Dnieper region after the appearance of new tribes here are numerous injuries found on the skeletons of the Dnieper community buried in the burial grounds. So, on skull No. 16 from Vasilivka II, a trace of a spear or arrow was preserved; on skull no. 18 - a rounded dent from a blow with a blunt object; on skull No. 64 from Yasinuvatka, there is an oval-shaped fracture that caused death.

An analysis of craniological materials shows that the features of the first - local - component, which can be traced in the anthropological composition of the Dnieper-Donetsk tribes, prevailed in the north of the range of the Dnieper-Donets community - in the Middle Dnieper and, possibly, in Volhynia, in the basins of the Pripyat and Neman and in the upper Dnieper. These regions of Ukraine and Belarus cover the areas of the Kiev-Cherkasy, Volyn, Neman cultures and the Pripyat-Polesye variant of the Dnieper-Donets community. In terms of their ceramic complexes, tools and traditional forms of farming - hunting and fishing - they find analogues with chronologically close monuments of southern and southeastern Poland, known as the "culture of lobular-Grzebek ceramics" . Pointing out the common features of these formations, Dmitry Telegin combined them into one "Vislodneprovsky block".

It is noteworthy that it is in the area of ​​the Vistula-Dnieper block of cultures of comb-pricked ceramics that very archaic Slavic hydronyms are concentrated, some of which are derivatives from the Indo-European pra-foundation. The most archaic, according to the findings of the well-known Russian linguist O.N. Trubachev, are localized in the Dniester region (Sopot, Mochats, Stebnik and the like), in Volhynia (Stir, Stublo, Zherev but others) and the Middle Dnieper region (Trubizh, Govtva, Supoi and the like). A fairly large group of Old Slavic hydronyms has been studied in Porossi (Tupcha, Gobezha, Rosava, Gonchis) and Irpin (Irpin, Dragonfly). A significant number of autochthonous Slavic hydronyms (Vizhva, Viliya, Ikva, Klyazma, Nebel, Pripyat, Utora) were recorded in the interfluve of the Western Bug and Sluch - tributaries of the Gorini.

The totality of archaeological and linguistic data, according to Dmitry Telegin, gives reason to consider the broad-faced carriers of the Vistula-Dnieper block of comb-pricked ceramic cultures of the 4th - 3rd millennium BC. e. as the ancient ancestors of the Slavs. Applying a retrospective method of analysis, he came to the conclusion about the continuity of ethnogenetic processes in South-Eastern Poland, in Volhynia, Polissya and Podolia, from Neolithic times up to the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD. e., when early Slavic archaeological cultures of the Prague-Korchak-Penkovskaya type were formed in the outlined area.

Similar processes took place in the northern zone of distribution of the Neolithic cultures of comb-pricked ceramics, where the Proto-Baltic tribes were formed. There is an idea that at the initial stage of their linguistic and cultural development they were related to the Proto-Slavs. According to the conclusions of the Russian archaeologist and historian A. Ya. Bryusov, the Balto-Slavic linguistic and cultural community developed in the 4th millennium BC. e. . The Bulgarian linguist V. I. Georgiev believed that it was formed a little later, highlighting such stages of the Balto-Slavic language relationships: Balto-Slavic (3rd millennium BC), transitional (border of the 3rd - 2nd millennium BC) .), isolation of the Slavs (mid-II millennium BC).

An indirect argument in favor of the conclusions about the Balto-Slavic community that took place in the past are the results of anthropological and odontological studies of the ancient population of Eastern Europe, conducted by the author of this report.

An analysis of odontological features of craniological series from Neolithic necropolises near the settlements of Yasinuvatka and Nikolsk, located in Nadporozhye, showed that they are characterized by the absence of four-cusp forms of the first lower molar - the main indicator of tooth reduction, spatulate upper medial incisors, distal trigonid ridge and metaconid knee fold, on lower first molar. In addition, they are characterized by a low level of reduction of the hypocone of the second lower molar (10.5 - 14.3%) and an increased frequency of six-cusp first lower molar (9.1%). In both series, which are very close to each other, the features of the archaic version of the so-called. of the Central European type, a characteristic feature of which is a low level of reduction of the dental system and a low "specific weight" of signs of "eastern", that is, Mongoloid orientation, strongly spatulate shape of incisors, distal trigonid ridge, metaconid knee fold, - the leading odontological characteristics that quite clearly differentiate carriers of different anthropological variants of Eurasia.

The "Middle European" line in the structure of the teeth of the ancient population of Ukraine, founded by people of Neolithic times, is further traced among the tribes of the Yamnaya culture of the Bronze Age (mid-3rd - early 2nd millennium BC) of the forest-steppe zone of the Middle Dnieper region; separate Scythian groups (I millennium BC) of the same region; part of the bearers of the Chernyakhov culture (ІV century AD), in the creation of which the most ancient Slavic tribes also took part; individual groups of the ancient Russian population of the Dnieper Right Bank.

As for the Southern Baltic and adjacent regions of Eastern Europe, the carriers of Central European odontological variants here were the carriers of the Fatyanovo culture of the Bronze Age (XVIII - XIV centuries BC), and later - the medieval Baltic tribes of the South Baltic.

Today, the range of the Central European complex, where there are also "interspersed" other Caucasoid odontological variants (northern gracile, northern relic and southern gracile), covers almost the entire territory of Lithuania, southern Latvia, central, and, especially, the southern territory of the European part of the Russian Federation, some central and southern regions of Belarus, almost the entire territory of Ukraine.

According to the observations of the Latvian researcher Rita Gravere, slightly reduced varieties of the Central European type are currently represented in those regions of the Southern Baltic, Belarus and Russia, where massive broad-faced Baltic and Slavic tribes were localized in the 1st - early 2nd millennium: Yotvingians, Samogitians, Latgalians, Polotsk and Smolensk krivichi and so on. This pattern can be traced to a certain extent on the territory of modern Ukraine: similar odontological variants are common in those regions of the Right-bank Polissya and Volyn, where in princely times the descendants of the annalistic Volynians and Drevlyans lived - representatives of relatively massive, broad-faced craniological types.

In general, the analysis of data concerning the epochal dynamics of the odontological characteristics of the Balts and Slavs gives reason to agree with the opinion of the Russian scientist A. A. Zubov that the Central European odontological type "displays the properties of a single substrate, on the basis of which the physical features of the Baltic and Slavic peoples were formed. ".

Therefore, from the above, we can conclude that the most ancient anthropological origins of the Slavs should be sought among the broad-faced tribes of the Vistula-Dnieper block of cultures of comb-pricked ceramics of the Neolithic - carriers of massive Central European odontological variants. As a result of the limited sources, where there are many "blank spots", this thesis still has the character of a hypothesis, for the justification of which additional data should be drawn both from anthropology and from other areas of knowledge.

List of used literature:

1. Roginsky Ya. Ya., Levin M. G. Fundamentals of Anthropology. - M., 1955. - S. 331.
2. Alekseeva T. I., Alekseev V. P. Anthropology about the origin of the Slavs // Priroda. - 1989. - No. 1. – S. 65.
3. Segeda S. Anthropological warehouse of the Ukrainian people: ethnogenetic aspect. - K., 2001. - S. 143.
4. Eastern Slavs. Anthropology and ethnic history (responsible editor - T. I. Alekseeva). - M., 1999. - S. 310.
5. Niderle L. Slavic Antiquities. - M., 1956. - S. 26.
6. Alekseeva T. I. Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs according to anthropology data. - M., 1973. - S. 271-272.
7. Denisova R. Ya. Anthropology of the ancient Balts. – Riga, 1975.
8. Velikanova M. S. Paleoanthropology of the Prut-Dniester interfluve. - M., 1973. - S. 11-31.
9. Sedov VV Origin and early history of the Slavs. - M., 1979. - S. 35.
10. Alekseeva T. I., Makarov N. A., Balueva T. S., Segeda S. P., Fedosova V. N., Kozlovskaya M. V. Early stages of development of the Russian North: history, anthropology, ecology // Ecological problems in the studies of the medieval population of Eastern Europe. - M., 1983. - S. 30.
11. Potekhina ID The population of Ukraine in the Neolithic and early Eneolithic periods according to anthropological data. - K., 1999. - S. 8.
12. Telegin D. Ya. Neolithic burial grounds of the Mariupol type. - K., 1991. - S. 33-44.
13. Bunak VV The human skull and the stages of its formation in fossil people and modern races // Proceedings of the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. N. N. Miklukho-Maclay. - T. XLIX. - M., 1959. - No. 49.
14. Debets G. F. On the physical type of the population of the Dneprodonets culture // Soviet archeology. - 1966. - No. 1. - S. 14-24.
15. Gokhman II The population of Ukraine in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras (an anthropological essay). - M., 1966.
16. Debets G. F. Citation. Job. – S. 19.
17. Potekhina I. D. Cit. Job. - S. 162.
18. There itself. – P.159-160.
19. There itself. – S. 36.
20. Prahistoria Ziem Polskich. II. Neolit, W., 1979.
21. Telegin D. Ya. Praslovians and their ethno-cultural environment in the Neo-Eneolithic period (IV-III millennium BC) // Lavrsky almanakh. - 2003 - No. 9. - S. 184-198.
22. Toporov V. M., Trubachev O. N. Linguistic analysis of the hydronyms of the Upper Dnieper region. - M., 1962; Trubachev O. N. The name of the rivers of the Right-Bank Ukraine. Word formation, etymology, ethnic interpretation. - M., 1968; Zheleznyak I. M. Ros and ethnolinguistic processes of the Middle Dnieper Right Bank. - K., 1987.
23. Trubachev O. N. Cit. Job.
24. Zheleznyak I. M. Cit. pratsya. - P.153.
25. Shulgach V.P. Praslov’yansky Hydronomic Fund (fragment of reconstruction). - K., 1998. - S. 333.
26. Telegin D. Ya. About the role of the neolithic cultures of the Dniprodvinsk region in the ethnogenetic processes of the Balts and Slavs // Archeology. - 1996. - No. 2. - S. 32-45.
27. Bryusov A. Ya. Essays on the history of the tribes of the European part of the USSR in the Neolithic era. - M., 1952.
28. Georgiev V. I. Studies in comparative historical linguistics // Family relations of Indo-European languages. - M., 1958.
29. Szegeda S. Cited. pratsya. - P.150.
30. Zubov A. A., Khaldeeva N. I. Odontology in modern anthropology. - M., 1989.
31. Segeda S. P. Anthropological features of the population of the Ukrainian Polis // Drevlyani. Vip. 1. Collection of articles and materials from the history and culture of the Polish region. - Lviv, 1996. - S. 83-96; Segeda S.P. Scythian population of the Northern Black Sea region according to ethnic odontology // Chobruch archaeological complex and issues of mutual influence of ancient and barbarian cultures (IV century BC - IV century AD). Materials of the field seminar. - Tiraspol, 1997. - S. 66-68; Segeda S.P. Anthropological warehouse of the population of Chernyakhiv culture: odontological aspect // Magisterium. Archaeological studios.). - K., 2001. - VIP. 6. - S. 30-36.
32. Gravere R.U. Ethnic odontology of Latvians. – Riga, 1987.
33. Papreckiene I. Anthropological and dental characteristics of Lithuanians // Problems of evolutionary morphology of man and his races. - M., 1986. - S. 165-171.
34. Engraver R. W. Cited. Job.
35. Zubov A. A., Khaldeeva N. I. Tsit. Job.
36. Szegeda S. Cited. pratsya.
37. Engraver R. W. Cited. Job. – S. 201.
38. Segeda S. P. Anthropological studies in the Pivnichno-Skhidniy part of the Zhytomyr region // Policy of Ukraine. Materials of historical and ethnographic research. - Vip. 2. Ovruch. 1995. - Lviv, 1999. - P.7-18.
39. Zubov A. A. Foreword // Gravere R. U. Ethnic odontology of Latvians. - Riga, 1987. - C. 4.