Russian genes: what science says Where did the Russians come from? Who was our ancestor? What do Russians and Ukrainians have in common? For a long time, the answers to these questions could only be speculative. Until genetics got down to business.
Adam and Eve
Population genetics is the study of genetic roots. It is based on indicators of heredity and variability. Geneticists have discovered that all of modern humanity goes back to one woman, whom scientists call Mitochondrial Eve. She lived in Africa more than 200 thousand years ago. We all have the same mitochondria in our genome - a set of 25 genes that any person has. And they are transmitted only through the maternal line. At the same time, the Y-chromosome in all current men is also raised to one man, nicknamed Adam, in honor of the biblical first man. It is clear that we are talking only about the closest common ancestors of all living people, their genes have come down to us as a result of genetic drift. It is worth noting that they lived at different times - Adam, from whom all modern males received their Y chromosome, was 150 thousand years younger than Eve. Of course, these people can hardly be called our "ancestors", since out of the thirty thousand genes that a person possesses, we have only 25 genes and a Y chromosome from them. The population increased, the rest of the people mixed with the genes of their contemporaries, changed, mutated during migrations and the conditions in which people lived. As a result, we received different genomes of different subsequently formed peoples.
Haplogroups
It is thanks to genetic mutations that we can determine the process of human settlement, as well as genetic haplogroups (these are communities of people with similar haplotypes that have a common ancestor, in which the same mutation took place in both haplotypes), characteristic of a particular nation. Each nation has its own set of haplogroups, which are sometimes similar. Thanks to this, we can determine whose blood flows in us, and who are our closest genetic relatives. According to a 2008 study conducted by Russian and Estonian geneticists, the Russian ethnic group genetically consists of two main parts: the inhabitants of South and Central Russia are closer to other peoples who speak Slavic languages, and the native northerners are closer to the Finno-Ugric peoples. Of course, we are talking about representatives of the Russian people. But, what is most surprising, there is practically no gene inherent in Asians, including Mongol-Tatars, in us. So, the famous saying: "Scratch a Russian, you will find a Tatar" - turned out to be fundamentally wrong. Moreover, the Asian gene also did not particularly affect the Tatar people, the gene pool of modern Tatars turned out to be mostly European. In general, based on the results of the study, in the blood of the Russian people there is practically no trace of Asia, because of the Urals, but within Europe, our ancestors experienced numerous genetic influences of their neighbors, whether they were Poles, Finno-Ugric peoples, peoples of the North Caucasus or ethnic group Tatars (not Mongols). By the way, the haplogroup R1a, characteristic of the Slavs, according to some versions, was born thousands of years ago and was frequent among the ancestors of the Scythians. Some of these Pra-Scythians lived in Central Asia, some migrated to the Black Sea region. From there, these genes reached the Slavs.
Ancestral home
Once the Slavic peoples came out of the same territory. From there, they already dispersed around the world, fighting and mixing with their indigenous population. Therefore, the population of the current states, which are based on the Slavic ethnic group, differ not only in cultural and linguistic characteristics, but also genetically. The further they are geographically apart, the greater the differences. So the Western Slavs found common genes with the Celtic population (haplogroup R1b), the Balkans - with the Greeks (haplogroup I2) and the ancient Thracians (I2a2), the eastern ones - with the Balts and Finno-Ugric peoples (haplogroup N). Moreover, the interethnic contact of the latter occurred at the expense of Slavic men who married aborigines. And yet, despite the many differences and heterogeneity of the gene pool, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Belarusians clearly correspond to one group on the so-called MDS diagram, which reflects the genetic distance. Of all nations, we are closest to each other. Genetic analysis allows us to find the "ancestral home" mentioned above, where it all began. This is possible due to the fact that each migration of tribes is accompanied by genetic mutations, which more and more distorted the original set of genes. So, based on genetic proximity, it is possible to determine the original territorial. For example, according to the genome, Poles are closer to Ukrainians than to Russians. Russians are close to southern Belarusians and eastern Ukrainians, but far from Slovaks and Poles. And so on. This allowed scientists to conclude that the original territory of the Slavs was approximately in the middle of the current area of settlement of their descendants. Conditionally, the territory of the subsequently formed Kievan Rus. Archaeologically, this is confirmed by the development of the Prague-Korchak archaeological culture of the 5th-6th centuries. From there, the southern, western and northern waves of the settlement of the Slavs have already gone.
Genetics and mentality
It would seem that since the gene pool is known, now you can understand where the people's mentality comes from. Not really. According to Oleg Balanovsky, an employee of the Laboratory of Population Genetics of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, there is no connection between the national character and the gene pool. These are already “historical circumstances” and cultural influence. Roughly speaking, if a newborn baby from a Russian village with a Slavic gene pool is taken immediately to China and brought up in Chinese customs, culturally he will be a typical Chinese. But, as for appearance, immunity to local diseases, everything will remain Slavic.
DNA genealogy
Along with population genealogy, private directions for the study of the genome of peoples and their origin are emerging and developing today. Some of them are classified as pseudo-sciences. So, for example, the Russian-American biochemist Anatoly Klesov invented the so-called DNA genealogy, which, according to its creator, is “an almost historical science, created on the basis of the mathematical apparatus of chemical and biological kinetics.” Simply put, this new direction is trying to study the history and time frame of the existence of certain clans and tribes based on mutations in the male Y-chromosomes. The main postulates of DNA genealogy were: the hypothesis of the non-African origin of Homo sapiens, which contradicts the conclusions of population genetics, criticism of the Norman theory, as well as the lengthening of the history of the Slavic tribes, which Anatoly Klesov considers the descendants of the ancient Aryans. Where are such conclusions from? Everything from the already mentioned haplogroup R1A, which is the most common among the Slavs. Naturally, this approach has generated a sea of criticism, both from historians and geneticists. In historical science, it is not customary to talk about Aryan Slavs, since material culture, the main source in this matter, does not allow determining the continuity of Slavic culture from the peoples of Ancient India and Iran. Geneticists even object to the association of haplogroups with ethnic characteristics. Doctor of Historical Sciences Lev Klein emphasizes that “Haplogroups are not peoples or languages, and giving them ethnic nicknames is a dangerous and unworthy game. No matter how patriotic intentions and exclamations she hides behind. According to Klein, Anatoly Klesov's conclusions about the Aryan Slavs made him an outcast in the scientific world. So far, one can only guess how the discussion around the newly declared science of Klesov and the question of the ancient origin of the Slavs will develop.
0,1%
Despite the fact that the DNA of all people and nations is different, and in nature there is not a single person identical to another, from a genetic point of view, we are all extremely similar. All the differences in our genes that gave us a different skin color and eye shape, according to Russian geneticist Lev Zhitovsky, make up only 0.1% of our DNA. For the other 99.9%, we are genetically the same. Paradoxically, if we compare the various representatives of the human races and our closest relatives of chimpanzees, it turns out that all people differ much less than chimpanzees in one herd. So, to some extent, we are all one big genetic family.
Tatyana Shingurova
Slavs are one of the indigenous inhabitants of Eastern Europe, but they are divided into three large groups: eastern, western and southern, each of these communities has similar features of culture and language.
And the Russian people - part of this large community - came from along with the Ukrainians and Belarusians. So why the Russians were called Russians, how and under what conditions this happened. We will try to find answers to these questions in this article.
Primary ethnogenesis
So, let's make a journey into the depths of history, or rather, at the moment when this IV-III millennium BC begins to take shape.
It was then that the ethnic demarcation of the European peoples took place. The Slavic mass stands out from the general environment. It was also not homogeneous, despite the similarity of languages, otherwise the Slavic peoples are quite different, this applies even to the anthropological type.
This is not surprising, since they mixed with different tribes, such a result was obtained with a common origin.
Initially, the Slavs and their language occupied a very limited territory. According to scientists, it was localized in the region of the middle reaches of the Danube, only later did the Slavs settle in the regions of modern Poland and Ukraine. Belarus and southern Russia.
Range expansion
The further expansion of the Slavs gives us an answer to the origin of the Russian people. In the IV-III centuries BC, the Slavic masses shifted to central Europe and occupied the Oder and Elbe basins.
At this stage, it is still impossible to speak of any clear distinction within the Slavic population. The greatest changes in the ethnic and territorial demarcation are made by the Hun invasion. Already by the fifth century AD, the Slavs appeared in the forest-steppes of modern Ukraine and to the south in the Don region.
Here they successfully assimilate the few Iranian tribes and found settlements, one of which is Kyiv. However, numerous toponyms and hydronyms remain from the former owners of the lands, which led to the conclusion that the Slavs appeared in these places around the above period.
At this moment, there is a rapid growth of the Slavic population, which led to the emergence of a large inter-tribal association - the Antsky Union, it is from its midst that the Russians appear. The history of the origin of this people is closely connected with the first prototype of the state.
The first mention of Russian
From the fifth to the eighth century, there is a continuous struggle between the Eastern Slavs and nomadic tribes, however, despite the enmity, these peoples will be forced to coexist in the future.
By this period, the Slavs had formed 15 large inter-tribal unions, the most developed of which were the glade and the Slavs who lived in the area of Lake Ilmen. The strengthening of the Slavs led to the fact that they appear in the possessions of Byzantium, it is from there that the first information about the Russians and dews comes.
That is why the Russians were called Russians, this is a derivative of the ethnonym that the Byzantines and other peoples around them gave them. There were other names close in transcription - Rusyns, Rus.
During this chronological period, an active process of formation of statehood was going on, moreover, there were two centers of this process - one in Kyiv, the other in Novgorod. But both bore the same name - Rus'.
Why are Russians called Russians
So why did the ethnonym "Russians" appear both in the Dnieper region and in the northwest? After the great migration of peoples, the Slavs occupied vast areas of the Center and East of Europe.
Among these numerous tribes there are the names of Russ, Ruthenians, Rutens, Rugs. Suffice it to recall that Rusyn has survived to our time. But why this particular word?
The answer is very simple, in the language of the Slavs the word "fair-haired" meant fair-haired or just light-haired, and the Slavs, according to the anthropological type, looked exactly like that. A group of Slavs who originally lived on the Danube, when moving to the Dnieper banks, also brought this name.
From there the terminology and the origin of "Russian" originate, the Russians turn into Russians over time. This part of the Eastern Slavs settles in the area of modern Kyiv and adjacent territories. And they bring this name here, and since they have settled here, the ethnonym has also settled down, over time it has only slightly changed.
The emergence of Russian statehood
Another part of the Russians occupied the lands along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, here they drove the Germans and the Balts to the west, and they themselves gradually moved to the northwest, this group of Eastern Slavs already had princes and a squad.
And practically stood one step away from the creation of the state. Although there is a version about the northern European origin of the term "Rus" and it is connected with the Norman theory, according to which the Varangians brought statehood to the Slavs, this term denoted the inhabitants of Scandinavia, but there is no evidence for this.
The Baltic Slavs moved to the area of Lake Ilmen, and from there to the east. Therefore, by the ninth century, two Slavic centers bear the name of Rus, and they are destined to become rivals in the struggle for dominance, this is what gives the new people their origin. A Russian person is a concept that originally denoted all the Eastern Slavs who occupied the territories of modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
The history of the Russian people at its very beginning
As mentioned above, a sharp rivalry arises between Kiev and Novgorod at the end of the ninth century. The reason for this was the acceleration of socio-economic development and the need to create a single state.
In this battle, the northerners won. In 882, Prince Oleg of Novgorod gathered a large army and went on a campaign against Kyiv, but he failed to take the city by force. Then he went to the trick and passed off his boats as a merchant caravan, taking advantage of the effect of surprise, he killed the Kyiv princes and took the Kiev throne, declaring himself the Grand Duke.
This is how the ancient Russian state appears with a single supreme ruler, taxes, a squad and a judicial system. And Oleg becomes the founder of those who ruled in Rus'-Russia until the 16th century.
It was then that the history of our country and its largest people began. The fact is that the Russians, the history of the origin of this people, are inextricably linked with the Ukrainians and Belarusians, who are the closest ethnic relatives. And only in the post-Mongolian period, the fragmentation of a single basis was indicated, as a result of which new ethnonyms (Ukrainians and Belarusians) appeared, characterizing the new state of affairs. Now it is clear why the Russians were called Russians.
Russian blood in global politics
Recently, the “Russian theme”, actively used in the political plane, has become very relevant. The press and television are full of speeches on this subject, as a rule, muddy and contradictory. Who says that the Russian people does not exist at all, who considers only the Orthodox to be Russian, who includes in this concept all those who speak Russian, and so on. Meanwhile, science has already given completely definite answer to this question.
The scientific data below is a terrible secret. Formally, these data are not classified, since they were obtained by American scientists outside the field of defense research, and even published in some places, but organized around them. conspiracy of silence is unprecedented. The nuclear project at its initial stage cannot even be compared, then something still leaked into the press, and in this case - nothing at all.
What is this terrible secret, the mention of which is a worldwide taboo?
This the mystery of the origin and historical path of the Russian people.
Why information is hidden, more on that later. First, briefly about the essence of the discovery of American geneticists. There are 46 chromosomes in human DNA, half inherited from the father and half from the mother. Of the 23 chromosomes received from the father, the only one - the male Y chromosome - contains a set of nucleotides that has been passed from generation to generation without any changes for thousands of years. Geneticists call this set haplogroup. Every man living now has exactly the same haplogroup in his DNA as his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather, and so on for many generations.
Our ancestors migrated from the ethnic home not only to the east, to the Urals, and to the south, to India and Iran, but also to the west, where European countries are now located. In the western direction, geneticists have complete statistics: in Poland, the owners of the Russian (Aryan) haplogroup R1a1 constitute 57% the male population, in Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia - 40% , in Germany, Norway and Sweden - 18% , In Bulgaria - 12% , and in England the least - 3% .
Unfortunately, there is no ethnogenetic information on the European tribal aristocracy yet, and therefore it is impossible to determine whether the share of ethnic Russians is evenly distributed over all social strata of the population or, as in India and, presumably, in Iran, the Aryans were nobility in those lands where they came . The only reliable evidence in favor of the latest version was a side result of a genetic examination to establish the authenticity of the remains of the family of Nicholas II. The Y-chromosomes of the tsar and heir Alexei were identical to samples taken from their relatives from the English royal family. And this means that at least one royal house of Europe, namely the house of the German Hohenzollern, of which the English Windsors are a branch, has Aryan roots.
However, Western Europeans (haplogroup R1b) in any case are our closest relatives, oddly enough, much closer than the northern Slavs (haplogroup N) and southern Slavs (haplogroup I1b). Our common ancestor with Western Europeans lived about 13 thousand years ago, at the end of the ice age, thousands of five years before the gathering began to develop into crop production, and hunting into cattle breeding. That is, in a very gray-haired Kamennovoe antiquity. And the Slavs by blood are even further away from us.
The settlement of Russian-Aryans to the east, south and west (there was simply nowhere to go further north, and so, according to the Indian Vedas, before coming to India they lived near the Arctic Circle) became the biological prerequisite for the formation of a special language group, Indo-European. These are almost all European languages, some languages of modern Iran and India, and, of course, the Russian language and ancient Sanskrit, which are closest to each other for an obvious reason - in time (Sanskrit) and in space (Russian) they are next to the original source, the Aryan parent language from which all other Indo-European languages grew.
The foregoing is irrefutable natural-science facts, moreover, obtained by independent American scientists. Challenging them is like disagreeing with the results of a blood test in a clinic. They are not disputed. They are just hushed up. They are hushing up together and stubbornly, they are hushing up, one might say, totally. And there are reasons for that.
The first such reason is quite trivial and comes down to scientific pseudo-solidarity. Too many theories, concepts and scientific reputations will have to be refuted if they are revised in the light of the latest discoveries of ethnogenetics.
For example, you will have to rethink everything that is known about the Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus'. The armed conquest of peoples and lands was always and everywhere accompanied at that time by the mass rape of local women. Traces in the form of Mongolian and Turkic haplogroups should have remained in the blood of the male part of the Russian population. But they are not! Solid R1a1 and nothing else amazing purity of blood. This means that the Horde that came to Rus' was not at all what it is customary to think about it, if the Mongols were present there, then in a statistically insignificant number, and who was called "Tatars" is not at all clear. Well, which of the scientists will refute the scientific foundations, supported by mountains of literature and great authorities?!
No one wants to spoil relations with colleagues and be branded as an extremist, destroying established myths. In academia, this happens all the time - if the facts do not match the theory, so much the worse for the facts.
The second reason, which is incomparably more weighty, belongs to the sphere of geopolitics. The history of human civilization appears in a new and completely unexpected light, and this cannot but have serious political consequences.
Throughout modern history, the pillars of European scientific and political thought proceeded from the idea of Russians as barbarians who had recently climbed down from the Christmas trees, backward by nature and incapable of constructive work. And suddenly it turns out that Russians are the same arias, which had a decisive influence on the formation of great civilizations in India, Iran and in Europe itself. What exactly Europeans owe Russians very many in their prosperous life, starting with the languages they speak. It is no coincidence that in recent history, a third of the most important discoveries and inventions belong to ethnic Russians in Russia itself and abroad. It is no coincidence that the Russian people were able to repel the invasions of the united forces of continental Europe led by Napoleon and then Hitler. And so on.
It is no coincidence that behind all this there is a great historical tradition, thoroughly forgotten over many centuries, but remaining in the collective subconscious of the Russian people and manifesting itself whenever the nation faces new challenges. Manifested with iron inevitability due to the fact that it has grown on a material, biological basis in the form Russian blood, which has remained unchanged for four and a half millennia.
Western politicians and ideologists have something to think about in order to make their policy towards Russia more adequate in the light of the historical circumstances discovered by geneticists. But they do not want to think and change anything, hence the conspiracy of silence around the Russian-Aryan theme. However, the Lord is with them and with their ostrich policy. Much more important for us is the fact that ethnogenetics brings a lot of new things to the Russian situation proper.
In this regard, the main thing lies in the very statement of the existence of the Russian people as a biologically integral and genetically homogeneous entity. The main thesis of the Russophobic propaganda of the Bolsheviks and the current liberals lies precisely in the denial of this fact. The scientific community is dominated by the idea formulated Lev Gumilyov in his theory of ethnogenesis: "from a mixture of Alans, Ugrians, Slavs and Turks, the Great Russian nationality developed". The "national leader" repeats the commonplace "scratch a Russian - you will find a Tatar." And so on.
Why do the enemies of the Russian nation need this?
The answer is obvious. If the Russian people as such do not exist, but there is some kind of amorphous "mixture", then anyone can manage this "mixture" - even the Germans, even the African pygmies, even the Martians. The denial of the biological existence of the Russian people is an ideological substantiation of the domination of the non-Russian "elite" in Russia, earlier Soviet, now liberal.
But here the Americans intervene with their genetics, and it turns out that there is no “mixture”, that the Russian people have existed unchanged for four and a half thousand years, that the Alans with the Turks and many others also live in Russia, but these are separate original peoples and etc. And the question immediately arises: why, then, have non-Russians ruled Russia for almost a century? Illogical and wrong Russians should be ruled by Russians.
Similarly, the Czech Jan Hus, a professor at the University of Prague, argued six hundred years ago: "... Czechs in the Kingdom of Bohemia, by law and by the demand of nature, should be the first in positions, just like the French in France and the Germans in their lands". His statement was considered politically incorrect, intolerant, inciting ethnic hatred, and the professor was burned at the stake.
Now morals have softened, professors are not burned, but so that people do not have the temptation to succumb to the Hussite logic, in Russia non-Russian authorities simply “cancelled” the Russian people- a mixture, they say. And everything would be fine, but the Americans jumped out from somewhere with their analyzes and ruined the whole thing. There is nothing to cover them with, it remains only to hush up the scientific results, which is done to the hoarse sounds of an old and hackneyed Russophobic propaganda record.
The collapse of the myth about the Russian people as an ethnic "mixture" automatically destroys another myth - the myth of Russia's "multinationality". Until now, they tried to present the ethno-demographic structure of our country as a vinaigrette from a Russian “mixture”, you won’t understand why, and many indigenous peoples and alien diasporas. With such a structure, all its components are approximately equal in size, so Russia is allegedly "multinational".
But genetic studies paint a very different picture. If you believe the Americans (and there are no reasons not to believe them, they are authoritative scientists, they tremble in reputation, and they have no reason to lie - in such a pro-Russian way), then it turns out that 70% of the entire male population of Russia are purebred Russians. According to the penultimate census (the results of the latter are not yet known), Russians include themselves 80% of those surveyed, that is, 10% more, are Russified representatives of other peoples (it is precisely among these 10% , if you "scrape", you will find non-Russian roots). AND 20% accounts for the remaining 170-odd peoples, nationalities and tribes living on the territory of the Russian Federation. In summary, Russia is a mono-ethnic, albeit multi-ethnic, country with an overwhelming demographic majority of natural Russians. It is here that the logic of Jan Hus begins to work.
More about backwardness. Churchmen thoroughly had a hand in this myth - they say, before the baptism of Rus', people lived in it in complete savagery. Wow wildness! They mastered half the world, built great civilizations, taught the natives their language, and all this long before the birth of Christ ... It doesn’t fit, in any way the real story does not fit with its church version. There is in the Russian people something primordial, natural, which cannot be reduced to religious life.
Of course, one cannot put an equal sign between biology and the social sphere. Between them, of course, there are points of contact, but how one goes into another, how the material becomes ideal, science does not know. In any case, it is obvious that under the same conditions, different peoples have a different character of life activity.
In the north-east of Europe, in addition to Russians, many peoples lived and now live. But none of them created anything even remotely similar to great Russian civilization. The same applies to other places of civilizational activity of Russian-Aryans in antiquity. Natural conditions are different everywhere, and the ethnic environment is different, therefore the civilizations built by our ancestors are not the same, but there is something in common for all of them - they are great in terms of the historical scale of values and far exceed the achievements of their neighbors.
The father of dialectics, the ancient Greek Heraclitus, is known as the author of the saying "everything flows, everything changes." Less well known is the continuation of this phrase of his: "except the human soul". As long as a person is alive, his soul remains unchanged (what happens to it in the afterlife is not for us to judge). The same is true for a more complex form of organization of living matter than man is for the people. The people's soul is unchanged as long as the people's body is alive. The Russian folk body is marked by nature by a special sequence of nucleotides in the DNA that controls this body. This means that as long as people with a haplogroup exist on earth R1a1 in the Y-chromosome, their people keep their soul intact.
Language evolves, culture develops, religious beliefs change, and Russian soul remains the same that all four and a half millennia of the existence of the people in its current genetic form. And together, the body and soul, which make up a single biosocial entity under the name "Russian people", have a natural ability to great accomplishments of a civilizational scale. The Russian people have repeatedly demonstrated this in the past, this potential is preserved in the present and will always exist as long as the people are alive.
It is very important to know this and, through the prism of knowledge, evaluate current events, words and actions of people, determine one’s own place in the history of the great biosocial phenomenon called "Russian nation". Knowledge of the history of the people obliges a person to try to be at the level of the great achievements of his ancestors, and this is the most terrible thing for the enemies of the Russian nation. That is why they try to hide this knowledge. And we're trying to make it public.
Now there are a huge number of versions and hypotheses about the origin of the Russian people and the first centuries of our history. Which one is true is impossible to say. It is only clear that Russian history is much more ancient than the Norman historians believed. Even in pre-revolutionary times, they paid attention to the fact that the term Rus was mentioned much earlier than the beginning of Rurik's reign in Novgorod. In the same way, the question remains unclear who the Rus were and what they had to do with the Slavic tribes known from the first century of our era. After all, even in the relatively late times of the Prophetic Oleg, the difference between the Slavs and the Rus is emphasized by the chroniclers. Option one: the Rus are Slavs. Then the question is, is the Rus a separate genus, tribe or the name of people of a certain profession, like, for example, the later ushkuiniki?
Option two: the Rus are not Slavs. Then who? Germans? Perhaps, but not a fact.
Historians have counted in historical materials at least four direct and eight indirect indications that before Kievan Rus there was a certain state called Russian, headed by a kagan. This Turkic title denotes the sole head of a large state and corresponds to the European title of emperor. This emphasizes that the Russian Khaganate was an independent and rather powerful entity, capable of independently determining its policy. However, its exact location is still unknown. Some researchers believe that he was in the north of the East European Plain, some scientists believe that this state was located in the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov.
According to E.S. Galkina (book "Secrets of the Russian Khaganate"), the center of this state was in the upper reaches of the Os-Kol, Seversky Donets and Don rivers. The Russian historian and philosopher Sergei Perevezentsev calls this state Alanian Russia and sees its origins in the Don. Donetsk historian and publicist Aleksey Ivanov calls it the Russian Khaganate and outlines the borders of this state along the line Seversky Donets - Don - Sea of Azov in the southeast and the Dnieper in the west. The modern capital of Ukraine was also part of this civilization.
For a long time, the version dominated that it was not a separate state, but part of the Khazar Khaganate. This assumption played a fatal role in the study of this civilization. In Soviet times, historical science practically did not study the Khazar Khaganate. Naturally, no one has studied the history associated with our territory. The Russian Khaganate is not studied in independent Ukraine either. But in Russia, articles and whole books are devoted to this state. Even in pre-revolutionary times, they paid attention to the fact that the term "Rus" was mentioned much earlier than the beginning of Rurik's reign in Novgorod.
Comparing all the available historical data with archaeological finds, we come to the conclusion that only the Saltov-Mayatsky archaeological culture can be the Russian Khaganate.
It was one of the most urbanized states of the early Middle Ages. Now 25 cities have been excavated, in some of which up to a hundred thousand people lived. For that time, this was a huge population, because Paris at that time had only twenty thousand inhabitants, and Kyiv, even in the 11th century, had no more than forty thousand people. The cities of the Russian Khaganate were centers of trade and crafts. Pottery, jewelry and metallurgy were especially developed. The Russian Khaganate was a commercial and military state through which important trade routes from northern Europe to Byzantium and Asian countries passed. For example, one of them started on the southern coast of the Baltic, then went along the Dnieper, Seversky Donets, Don and ended in the North Caucasus. Another important trade artery controlled by the Rus is the well-known route “From the Varangians to the Greeks”. In addition, the Russian Khaganate had access to the sea and was active in maritime trade. The main export commodities were weapons, jewelry and slaves. Such activity could not but irritate the Khazar Khaganate, another military-trading state that sought to control trade routes. Apparently, relations between the two Khaganates were very tense. Apparently, parity was maintained for a certain time, and the border passed along the Don.
According to archeology, this culture of the kaganate was mixed Alano-Slavic-Turkic. At first (from the VI to the beginning of the VIII century), the Alanian component dominated. The Alans are an Indo-Aryan Iranian-speaking people, descendants of the Sarmatians and ancestors of modern Ossetians. It should be noted that for a long time our region was in the area of settlement of Iranian tribes. At first it was the Scythians, then the Sarmatians, Roxolans, Yases, Alans. It was from those times that the root “don”, meaning “river”, remained in our language in the names of water sources. So the names Don, Sevsrsky Donets came to us from time immemorial. Then the territory of the forest-steppe strip (now the northern part of the Donbass) began to be populated by the Slavs. At the same time, the Iranians were moving deep into the Slavic lands. There is a symbiosis of Iranians and Slavs, and the Khaganate can be called a Slavic-Iranian state. In addition, the Khaganate was inhabited by Bulgars, Ases and even people from Scandinavia. By the end of the existence of the Russian Khaganate, the Slavs constituted the dominant part of its population. And most importantly - they had a high social status. This can be judged by the fact that the found Slavic burials are, as a rule, rich graves.
Now, perhaps, it is worth considering the origin of the term Rus, Russian. The root "rus" is of Indo-European origin and means "light, white." It retained this meaning in the language to this day. For example, in the words "fairy-haired", "fair-haired", "hare-hare" and so on. In addition, this term denoted a noble or dominant family. It is quite natural that two branches of the Indo-Europeans, the Iranians and the Slavs, equally used this word. Perhaps the spread of the self-name of "Saltovtsy" as "Rus", "Rus" is associated with the name of the current Seversky Donets, which, according to the Arabic source "Khudua-al-Alam", was called the river Rus, that is, a bright or clean river. Perhaps, from the name of the river, the inhabitants of the kaganate began to call themselves that. There is a version that the kaganate got its name from the Alanian people of the Rukhs, descendants of the Sarmatian tribe of Roxalans (Light Alans) and Ases.
Probably, the Rus were not originally Slavs, but were assimilated by the Slavs, leaving them their name. This is not the only such case in history. Let us recall at least the Bulgarians, the Slavic people, who received their name from the tribe of nomadic Turks.
The Russian Khaganate perished in the thirties of the ninth century, when its territory was captured by the Magyars (Hungarians), who roamed here until the end of the ninth century, and then went west. After the defeat of the kaganate, part of the remaining population moved north into the forests and assimilated among the Slavic tribe of the northerners. Perhaps, thanks to this, the toponymy of our region has been preserved. Part of the fugitives moved to the Dnieper region under the protection of the surviving Kyiv.
But the fate of the third group of immigrants from the kaganate is especially interesting. They were probably the remnants of a professional squad. They ended their campaign in the Baltic. Some researchers believe that the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea became their new homeland, some historians argue that the Rus settled in Prussia, where they, together with local tribes, form a tribal union, which is called Rusia. In addition, there is a version about the island of Saaremaa as a new haven for the Rus. Be that as it may, all researchers agree that the new state was in the Baltics. At this time, there is an active development of these territories by the Slavs. They needed an ally in the new lands. Naturally, they drew attention to the tribal formation, close to them in language and culture. So, perhaps, Rus Rurik, invited with his retinue to Novgorod, was not a Scandinavian, but a native of the Russian Khaganate.
If our reconstruction of the history of the Russian Khaganate is based on archeology, hypotheses and scattered historical information, then Rurik is a historical figure. His closest associate was Prophetic Oleg. In our country, this name is usually derived from the Scandinavian name Heleg, although it is more logical to derive it from the Iranian Khaleg (creator, creator, prince). Oleg, having become regent in 879 under the young son of Rurik Igor, organizes a campaign to the south along the Dnieper. In 882, Oleg actually captured Kyiv without a fight. It was then that the words “Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities” were uttered. Agree, it sounds more than strange if, following the Norman historians, Oleg is considered a Scandinavian. But if Oleg, like the people of Kiev, comes from the Russian Khaganate, then his act is logical. The prophetic prince proclaimed the beginning of the revival of his ancient state, but with the capital in Kyiv. By the way, the Kiev people perceive the arrival of Oleg without much indignation. There were no riots or unrest. But when Rurik began to reign in Novgorod, there was an uprising of Vadim the Brave.
After being approved in Kyiv, Oleg established his control over the tribes of the northerners and Radimichi, who had previously paid tribute to the Khazars. That is, Oleg gathered around Kyiv just those Slavic tribes that were most closely in contact with the Russian Khaganate. Through the efforts of the Prophetic Oleg, at the beginning of the tenth century, a new state is formed, which unites the lands of the Russian Khaganate and receives the former name of Rus, and its ruler calls himself a Khagan. This title ceased to be used only under Yaroslav the Wise.
Prince Svyatoslav completed what Oleg had started by making a victorious campaign against Khazaria in 965. He not only destroyed this state, but also began to revive the Russian Khaganate through a new Slavic colonization of lands along the Don and Donets, the center of which was the former Khazar city of Sar-Kel, renamed by Svyatoslav into Belaya Vezha (vezha - tower). He is trying to resettle the Slavs there, but the situation was already different. Pecheneg nomads come to our steppes from the Trans-Volga region. After they were defeated in the thirties of the eleventh century, the Polovtsy came to their place. By the way, Vladimir Monomakh made two dozen campaigns in the steppes, where the Russian Khaganate was located, literally clearing them of nomads. So the princes of Kievan Rus did not forget about their ancestral home. But Kievan Rus had already entered a period of fragmentation, and the great princes did not have the strength to keep their southern possessions. Most of the Slavs during the time of Vladimir Monomakh moved back to Kievan Rus. The rest were partially slaughtered by the Polovtsy, who took Belaya Vezha by storm in 1117, and partially moved to Tmutarakan. A small part of the Slavs, having united with representatives of neighboring peoples (Alans and Turks), became the founders of wanderers - free warriors who led the same lifestyle as the Cossacks four hundred years later.
So, let's sum up. The Russian Khaganate was the first proto-state in relation to which the term "Russian" was used. The legacy of this state subsequently had a serious impact on both Rus' and the states formed on its territory. A lot of elements from the Russian Khaganate passed into the Russian state. This is the title of rulers, and the gods of Iranian origin in the pantheon of Slavic gods, and numerous words with an Iranian root in our language.
Russian Khaganate and Yarova Rus
Fascinating lectures by V. Chudinov about recent expeditions and new discoveries… Demonstration and decoding of inscriptions on objects found by archaeologists in the Russian Khaganate, on the territory of Wagria, Scandia and Russia Slavyans… Chudinov Valery Alekseevich Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of the State University of Management, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Chairman of the Commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the culture of ancient and medieval Russia, director of the Center for Ancient Slavic Literature and Culture, writer ...
The Russian people at the beginning of the 21st century are all people who speak Russian and consider themselves Russians.
The ancestors of the Russian people are the ancestors of modern Russians who inhabited Eurasia in past centuries and millennia.
Relatives of the Russian people are peoples who have common ancestors with Russians. Relatives are not chosen... Our "relatives" are Belarusians, Rusyns and Ukrainians (regardless of how they treat us), Western and Southern Slavs, peoples of the Baltic and Scandinavia, Finno-Ugric and Turkic peoples...
The above definitions can be criticized for a long time and with arguments, but they have the right to exist...
I am skeptical about "sensational discoveries that turn all our ideas around", "secret knowledge that was hidden from us" and the usefulness for historical science of "the latest advances in DNA analysis."
The knowledge presented in the works of historians and linguists, and common sense - these are all the sources from which the article brought to your attention arose ...
*****
Russians, like other Slavs, are quite young people. No written mention of our ancestors who lived before the birth of Christ has survived ...
Of course, each person has ancestors who lived both 2000 years ago and 20000 years ago... But people in distant times did not sit in one place for tens of thousands of years, but constantly migrated. In the ancient burial grounds, which are found “on our ancestral land”, there are the remains of people whom we have the right to call the respectful word “countrymen” ... And the ancestors and ancient countrymen are different concepts ...
You can often hear statements that we are the descendants of the Scythians. Kinship, of course, is very flattering. The "father of history" Herodotus spoke about the Scythians with great respect. Scythian treasures kept in the museums of St. Petersburg and Kyiv will enchant with their beauty and originality... But what about the Slavs?
Numerous Iranian-speaking tribes of the Scythians and peoples close to them lived on a vast territory from Altai to the Northern Black Sea region from about the 7th century BC. to 3rd century AD Then they were forced out of the Northern Black Sea region by the German-speaking tribes of the Goths. The descendants and heirs of the Scythians in the first place can be considered modern Alans-Ossets. They inherited a language belonging to the Iranian group of languages. But most of the descendants of the Scythians joined other tribal unions: Germanic, Turkic, it is quite possible that Slavic ones too ... But the Slavicized descendants of the Scythians did not preserve their former ethnic identity, they did not teach the Slavs anything ...
Pliny the Elder, Publius Cornelius Tacitus and other respected ancient Roman authors of the first centuries of the new era briefly mention the tribes of the Wends or Venets in their writings. Later authors of the 6th-7th centuries, the Byzantines Procopius of Caesarea and Pseudo-Mauritius, the Gothic historian Jordanes, mention the Antes tribes. There are good reasons to consider the Veneti and Antes as ancient Slavs... But most likely, the Veneti are the ancestors of the Western Slavs, and the Antes are the ancestors of the South Slavs. With our ancestors, they were divided before they got on the pages of the manuscripts. (There are other “more patriotic” hypotheses on this issue, but I do not consider it “patriotic” to prove statements that other peoples can laugh at.)
For history, not only the preserved written information is important, but also the excavations of archaeologists. But in a particular case, the results of the work of archaeologists do not agree well with the evidence of the ancients. Some archaeologists generally deny that the Antes were Slavs ...
*****
The most important evidence of the early history of our people is the "Tale of Bygone Years" (hereinafter - "The Tale").
The Tale lists 12 tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs. If we compare the territories that, according to historical research, these tribal unions occupied with the borders of modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, it turns out that the ancients and Volynians lived in Belarus and Ukraine, the Krivichi - in Belarus and Russia, the northerners - in Russia and Ukraine ... And most of the lands of Russia and Ukraine were inhabited by other peoples ...
The most "cultural" of these tribal unions are considered to be the glades, the center of which was the city of Kyiv ... I love this city very much, but some events in its history cause a feeling of embarrassment. For example, in 1982, the "1500th anniversary" of Kyiv was solemnly celebrated. Archaeological finds, and even more so written sources, the foundation of Kyiv in 482 from the Nativity of Christ is not confirmed ... Who and when founded the first settlement on the site of Kyiv is unknown. (There are several hypotheses, according to one of which the Khazars did it.) In the Tale, a man named Kyi, who had three brothers and one sister, is named as the founder of the city. In what century it was - is unknown ... And in 862, the noble Varangians Askold and Dir “set off along the Dnieper, and when they sailed past, they saw a small city on the mountain. And they asked: "Whose town is this?". They answered: "There were three brothers, Kyi, Shchek and Khoriv, who built this town and disappeared, and we are sitting here, their descendants, and pay tribute to the Khazars." Askold and Dir remained in this city, gathered many Varangians and began to own the land of the glades ... "Some modern historians argue that Askold was actually a Slav, and Dir did not exist at all ... But this is not so important, more important is something else: Kiev at that time was a small town, and its inhabitants were quite ordinary people. Yes, and the total number of glades was small ... But in the "Tale" there are very flattering reviews about the glades! .. Let's think about these laudatory lines:
“The meadows have the custom of their fathers meek and quiet, bashful in front of their daughters-in-law and sisters, mothers and parents; before mothers-in-law and brothers-in-law they have great modesty; they also have a marriage custom: the son-in-law does not go for the bride, but brings her the day before, and the next day they bring for her - what they give. And the Drevlyans lived as an animal custom, lived like a beast: they killed each other, ate everything unclean, and they did not have marriages, but they kidnapped the girls by the water. And the Radimichi, Vyatichi and Northerners had a common custom: they lived in the forest, like all animals, ate everything unclean and shamed with their fathers and daughters-in-law, and they did not have marriages, but games were arranged between villages, and converged on these games, on dances and all sorts of demonic songs, and here they kidnapped their wives in collusion with them; And they had two and three wives...
Very convincing?
Who cares... For some reason I'm sure that in fact the meadows were not very different from their neighbors: Drevlyans, Radimichis, Vyatichi and Northerners. It's just that the chronicler used the information received from the meadows. (Perhaps he himself was a descendant of the glades ...) And if the Drevlyans and Radimichis, Vyatichi and Northerners had the opportunity to maintain their opinion about the glades, we would “learn this about shameless glades” ...
Based on this passage, it can be assumed that the Polans were arrogant and boastful people, they did not get along very well with their neighbors ... Such people could not be “the core of the formation of Kievan Rus”, as historians say. And if they really were “meek and quiet”, then ... all the more they could not unite other tribal unions around themselves ...
And what was there to unite?
The outstanding Russian-Ukrainian historian Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov in his biography of Saint Vladimir characterized these tribes as follows:
“There were no establishments connecting the tribes with each other. We do not notice signs of state life. The Slavic-Russian tribes were ruled by their princelings, waged petty wars among themselves and were not able to protect themselves mutually and by common forces against foreigners, and therefore were often conquered ... "
*****
There is information in the Tale that historians are still arguing about:
“In the year 6370 (862). They expelled the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began to rule themselves, and there was no truth among them, and clan stood against clan, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: "Let's look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right." And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus'. (...) The Russians said Chud, Slovenes, Krivichi and all: "Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." And three brothers with their clans were elected, and they took all of Rus' with them, and they came, and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, on Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. (...) Two years later, Sineus and his brother Truvor died. And one Rurik took all the power, and began to distribute cities to his men - Polotsk to that, Rostov to that, Beloozero to another. The Varangians in these cities are nakhodniki, and the indigenous population in Novgorod is Slovene, in Polotsk - Krivichi, in Rostov - Merya, in Beloozero - all, in Murom - Murom, and Rurik ruled over all of them ... "
Historians assume that this news got into the Tale two hundred and fifty years after the events described, and even accuse the editor of the Tale of deliberate falsification for the sake of the authorities... I consider such accusations stupid, but you also don’t need to thoughtlessly trust what you read, either. especially since not everything in the text can be understood unambiguously ...
“Clan against clan stood up, and they had civil strife, and they began to fight with each other.”
Who fought with whom and why? Chud, Slovene, Krivichi and all were “every man for himself”, “two in two” or “three for one”? What did they want?
I will try to answer these questions.
*****
The youngest and, most likely, the smallest of the associations of East Slavic tribes were the Slavs who settled on the Volkhov River and Lake Ilmen. They did not even have time to get their own name, they were simply called “Slovene”. (Historians call them “Slovenes (Ilmen)”.) These Slovenes founded their small town, Novgorod, on the Volkhov River. The Ilmen Slovenes were supported by the Krivichi. The environs of Novgorod were not deserted, the Finnish tribes Merya and Chud lived there. The Finns didn’t really like the aliens, so “family to family” went. (So far, “everything is like with people.”) The Finnish peoples were more numerous and the Slovenians did not have the opportunity to keep Novgorod even with the help of the Krivichi. The Varangians settled in Staraya Ladoga, north of Novgorod. It would be possible to hire a Varangian squad, but the Slovenes had no money. (Their town was new, which is clear from the name, and did not have time to get rich.) It was then that the Slovenes, with the consent of the Krivichi, invited Rurik to Novgorod. In addition to the Finnish tribes, the Krivichi had other serious enemies - the tribes of the Balts ... And the whole and the Chud did not need to "calling the Varangians" ...
*****
All, Merya, Muroma, Chud are Finnish tribes.
The Vikings of Rurik are German-speaking Scandinavians, Vikings.
Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes are Slavic tribes.
Which of them are the ancestors of the Russian people?
The answer is simple: "Everything".
Eleven and a half centuries ago, not all of our ancestors were Slavs. In the "power of Rurik" the Slavs were an "ethnic minority". The Russian people did not yet exist, but there were ancestors. How could it be without them?
And almost all of our ancestors connect us with kinship with other peoples.
For example, the descendants of Finnish tribes, in addition to Russians, are Finns and Estonians, Karelians and Vepsians, Mordovians and Mari, Udmurts and Komi ...
*****
Not all relatives and not all ancestors of the Russian people are named by me. You can try to tell about everyone in a big book, and not in a small article ...
But at least a brief mention of the Turkic ancestors is necessary. We even have some kind of home-grown "Slavic chauvinism" even in the scientific community. If they try not to notice the kinship with the Finnish peoples, then it is “almost indecent” to remember the Turks. Unless in encyclopedic dictionaries and small print notes to ancient texts ...
The Eastern Slavs not only fought, but also related with the Pechenegs, and with the Polovtsians, and with the Volga Bulgars. (True, the consent of brides and even their parents was often not asked, but it was a “common human custom” of those times.) Turkic tribes of Berendey, Torkov, Kovuev lived in Kievan Rus ... The collective name of the Turkic tribes that lived in Rus' was “Black Hoods ". Most of them were glorified, so the black hoods are also the ancestors of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples...
*****
Our distant ancestors were not ideal people. But without them, there would be neither Russia nor Russian culture. And for this they deserve our memory and respect. And what we will leave to our descendants is still unknown. But we must try to have someone to remember us with a kind word ...
BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus'. The Beginning of Russian Literature. XI - the beginning of the XII century. - M.: Fiction, 1978. - 413 p.
Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus': XII century. - M.: Fiction, 1980. - 704 p.
Kostomarov N.I. The history of Russia in the biographies of its main figures. – M.: Eksmo Publishing House, 2006. – 1024 p.
Plungyan V.A. Why are the languages so different. - M.: AST-PRESS KNIGA, 2015. - 272 p.
