SLAVS I BALTS It goes without saying that the Masavs and the ever-growing Slavs on the other Balts could not help but achieve their own self-sustaining ethnic revolution. Menavita with the passage of the Slavs to the territory of Belarus and the beginning of their crazy life with the Balts and the beginning

It's no secret that history and culture of the Baltic Slavs for centuries it has attracted great interest not only among German historians, who often deal with it more out of professional duty, but no less among Russians. What is the reason for this ongoing interest? To a large extent, this is the “Varangian question,” but it is far from the only one. Not a single researcher or lover of Slavic antiquities can pass by the Baltic Slavs. Detailed Descriptions in medieval German chronicles, brave, proud and strong people, with their own special, original and unique culture, sometimes capture the imagination. Majestic pagan temples and rituals, multi-headed idols and sacred islands, never-ending wars, ancient cities and names of princes and gods that are unusual for modern ears - this list can be continued for a long time.

Those who discover North-West Slavic culture for the first time seem to find themselves in a completely new, largely mysterious, world. But what exactly is attractive about him - does he seem familiar and familiar, or, on the contrary, is he interesting because he is unique and unlike other Slavs? Having been studying the history of the Baltic Slavs for several years, as a personal opinion I would choose both options at once. The Baltic Slavs, of course, were Slavs, the closest relatives of all other Slavs, but at the same time they also had a number of original features. The history of the Baltic Slavs and the southern Baltic still holds many secrets, and one of the most poorly studied moments is the so-called Early Slavic period - from the late era of the Great Migration of Peoples to the end of the 8th-9th centuries. Who were the mysterious tribes of the Rugi, Varins, Vandals, Lugii and others, called “Germans” by Roman authors, and when did the Slavic language appear here? In this article, I tried to briefly give the available linguistic indications that before the Slavic language, some other, but not Germanic, but more similar to the Baltic, language and the history of its study were widespread here. For greater clarity, it makes sense to give several specific examples.

I. Baltic substrate?
In my previous article it was already mentioned that, according to archaeological data, in the south of the Baltic there is a continuity of material cultures of the Bronze, Iron and Roman periods. Despite the fact that this “pre-Slavic” culture is traditionally identified with the speakers of ancient Germanic languages, this assumption contradicts linguistic data. Indeed, if the ancient Germanic population left the south of the Baltic a century or two before the Slavs arrived here, then where did such a decent layer of “pre-Slavic toponymy” come from? If the ancient Germans were assimilated by the Slavs, then why are there no borrowings of ancient Germanic toponymy (if an attempt is made to isolate one, the situation becomes even more contradictory), and did they not borrow “Baltic” toponymy from them?

Moreover. During colonization and assimilation, it is inevitable not only to borrow the names of rivers and places, but also words from the language of the autochthonous population, the substrate, into the language of the colonizers. This always happens - where the Slavs had close contact with the non-Slavic population, borrowing words are known. One can point to borrowings from Turkic to South Slavic, from Iranian to East Slavic, or from German to West Slavic. By the 20th century, the vocabulary of the Kashubians living in the German environment included up to 10% borrowings from German. In turn, in the Saxon dialects of the regions of Germany surrounding Lusatia, linguists count up to several hundred not even borrowings, but Slavic relict words. If we assume that the Baltic Slavs assimilated the German-speaking population in the vast areas between the Elbe and the Vistula, one would expect many borrowings from ancient East Germanic in their language. However, this is not observed. If in the case of the Polabian Vends-Drewan this circumstance could still be explained by poor fixation of vocabulary and phonetics, then in the case of another famous North Lechitic language, Kashubian, which has survived to this day, it is much more difficult to explain. It is worth emphasizing that we are not talking about borrowings into Kashubian from German or common Slavic borrowings from East German.

According to the concept of the East Germanic substrate, it should have turned out that the Baltic Slavs assimilated the autochthonous population of the southern Baltic after the division of the Proto-Slavic into branches. In other words, in order to prove the foreign-language population of the southern Baltic, assimilated by the Slavs, it is necessary to identify a unique layer of borrowings from a non-Slavic language, characteristic only of the Baltic and unknown among other Slavs. Due to the fact that practically no medieval monuments language of the Slavs of northern Germany and Poland, except for a few mentions in writings written elsewhere language environment chronicles, for the modern regions of Holstein, Mecklenburg and northwestern Poland, the study of toponymy plays the greatest role. The layer of these “pre-Slavic” names is quite extensive throughout the southern Baltic and is usually associated by linguists with “ancient European hydronymy”. The results of the study of the Slavicization of the pre-Slavic hydronymy of Poland cited by Yu. Udolf in this regard may turn out to be very important.

Slavic and pre-Slavic hydronyms of Poland according to J. Udolf, 1990
It turns out that the situation with hydronymics in northern Poland is very different from its southern half. Pre-Slavic hydronymy is confirmed throughout the entire territory of this country, but significant differences are also noticeable. In the southern part of Poland, pre-Slavic hydronyms coexist with Slavic ones. In the north there is exclusively pre-Slavic hydronymy. The circumstance is quite strange, since it is reliably known that since at least the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, all these lands were already inhabited by speakers of the Slavic language itself, or various Slavic dialects. If we accept the presence of pre-Slavic hydronymy as an indicator of a pre-Slavic language or substrate, then this may indicate that part of the pre-Slavic population of southern Poland at some period left their lands, so that the speakers of the Slavic language that replaced them, having settled these areas, gave rise to rivers new Slavic names. The line south of which Slavic hydronymy begins in Poland generally corresponds to the medieval tribal division, so that the zone of exclusively pre-Slavic hydronymy approximately corresponds to the settlement of speakers of the Northern Lechitic dialects. Simply put, the areas inhabited in the Middle Ages by various Baltic-Slavic tribes, better known under the collective name Pomeranians, differ from the actual “Polish” ones by the absence of actual Slavic hydronymy.

In the eastern part of this exclusively “pre-Slavic” area, Mazovian dialects subsequently began to predominate, however, in the early Middle Ages, the Vistula River was still the border of the Pomeranians and Baltic-speaking tribes. In the Old English translation of Orosius, dating back to the 9th century, in the story of the traveler Wulfstan, the Vistula is indicated as the border of Vindland (that is, the country of the Wends) and the Estonians. It is not known exactly how far south the Baltic dialects east of the Vistula at this time extended. However, given that traces of Baltic settlements are also known west of the Vistula (see for example: Toporov V.N. New works on traces of the presence of the Prussians to the west of the Vistula // Balto-Slavic studies, M., 1984 and further references), it can be assumed that part of this region in the early Middle Ages or during the era of the Great Migration of Peoples could speak Baltic. No less indicative is another map of Yu. Udolf.

Slavicization of Indo-European hydronymy in Poland according to J. Udolf, 1990
The northern part of Poland, the southern coast of the Baltic, differs from other continental regions in that only here pre-Slavic hydronyms are known that were not influenced by Slavic phonetics. Both circumstances bring the “Indo-European” hydronymy from the Pomeranian region closer to the hydronymy from the Baltic lands. But if the fact that the words were not subject to Slavicization for a long time in the lands inhabited by the Balts is quite understandable, then the Pomeranian non-Slavic hydronyms seem to be of interest for the study of a possible pre-Slavic substrate. From the above maps, two conclusions can be drawn:

The language of the Pomeranians should have been closer to the neighboring Western Baltic than the continental West Slavic dialects and preserved some archaic Indo-European features or phonetics already forgotten in the Slavic languages ​​proper;

Linguistic processes in the Slavic and Baltic regions of the southern Baltic proceeded similarly, which was reflected both in a wide layer of “Balto-Slavic” and “Baltic toponymy” and in phonetics. “Slavicization” (that is, the transition to the actual Slavic dialects) of the south of the Baltic should have begun later than in southern Poland.

It is extremely significant that the data on the Slavicization of the phonetics of the hydronymy of northern Poland and the area of ​​the “Baltic” toponymy of eastern Germany receive additional confirmation when compared with the differences that already existed in the Middle Ages in West Slavic languages ​​and dialects. Linguistically and culturally, the West Slavic tribes of Germany and Poland are divided into two or three large groups, so that in the northern half of these lands there lived speakers of North Lechitic dialects, and in the southern half - South Lechitic and Lusatian-Serbian dialects. The southern limit of "Baltic toponymy" in eastern Germany is Lower Lusatia, a region south of modern Berlin. Researchers of Slavic toponymy in Germany E. Eichler and T. Witkowski ( Eichler E., Witkowski T. Das altpolabische Sprachgebiet unter Einschluß des Drawehnopolabischen // Slawen in Deutschland, Berlin, 1985) identified the approximate “border” of the distribution of the Northern Lechite and Lusatian-Serbian dialects in Germany. Despite all the conventionality of this “border” and the possibility of small deviations to the north or south, it is worth noting that it very accurately coincides with the border of Baltic toponymy.

Border of Northern Lechite and Lusatian-Serbian dialects in medieval Germany
In other words, the Northern Lechitic dialects, both in Germany and Poland, became widespread in the Middle Ages precisely in those territories where an extensive layer of “Baltic” toponymy is known. At the same time, the differences between Northern Lechitic and other West Slavic languages ​​are so great that in this case we are talking about an independent dialect of Proto-Slavic, and not a branch or dialect of Lechitic. The fact that at the same time the original Northern Lechite dialects also show a close connection with the Baltic dialects in phonetics, and in some cases much closer than with the neighboring Slavic dialects, seems no longer a “strange coincidence” but a completely natural pattern (cf. Northern Lechite . “karva” and Balt. “karva”, cow, or northern Lekh. “gard” and Balt. “gard”, etc.).

“Baltic” toponymy and North Lechitic dialects
The circumstances mentioned above contradict the generally accepted concept that speakers of ancient Germanic dialects lived here before the Slavs. If the Slavicization of the South Baltic substrate took a long time and slowly, then the absence of Germanic place names and exclusive East German borrowings into Kashubian can be said to speak for itself. Apart from the assumption about the possible East German etymology of Gdansk, it turns out to be very difficult with the Old German toponymy here - at a time when many river names not only go back to the pre-Slavic language, but are also preserved so well that they do not show any traces of the influence of Slavic phonetics. J. Udolf attributed the entire pre-Slavic hydronymy of Poland to the ancient Indo-European language, before the division into separate branches, and pointed to a possible Germanic influence for the two names of the Western Polish rivers Warta and Notecha, however, here we were not talking about the actual Germanic origin.

At the same time, in the Kashubian language, linguists see it possible to identify a layer of not just borrowings from Baltic, but also relic Baltic words. You can point to the article “Pomeranian-Baltic correspondences in vocabulary” by the famous researcher and expert on the Kashubian language F. Hinze ( Hinze F. Pomoranisch-baltische Entsprechungen im Wortschatz // Zeitschrift für Slavistik, 29, Heft 2, 1984) with exclusive Baltic-Pomeranian borrowings: 1 Pomeranian-Old Prussian, 4 Pomeranian-Lithuanian and 4 Pomeranian-Latvian. The author’s observation in conclusion deserves special attention:

“Among the examples given in both previous chapters there may well be ancient borrowings from Baltic and even Baltic relic words (for example, Pomeranian stabuna), however, it will often be difficult to prove this. Here I would like to give just one example demonstrating the close connections between Pomeranian and Baltic speech elements. We are talking about the Pomeranian word kuling - “curlew, sandpiper.” Although this word by its root is etymologically and inseparable from its Slavic relatives (kul-ik), however, by morphological characteristics, that is, by suffix, it goes back to the Balto-Slavic proto-form *koulinga - “bird”. The closest Baltic analogue is lit. koulinga - “curlew”, however, the Pomeranian kuling should be a borrowing not from Lithuanian, but from Old Prussian, in favor of which Buga has already spoken. Unfortunately, this word is not recorded in Old Prussian. In any case, we are talking about an ancient Baltic-Slavic borrowing" ( Hinze F, 1984, S. 195).

The linguistic formulation of relic words inevitably follows the historical conclusion about the assimilation of the Baltic substrate by the Kashubians. Unfortunately, it seems that in Poland, where the study of Kashubian was mainly carried out, this issue turned from a purely historical one into a political one. In her monograph on the Kashubian language, Hanna Popowska-Taborska ( Popowska-Taborska H. Szkice z kaszubszczynzny. Leksyka, Zabytki, Kontakty jezykowe, Gdansk, 1998) provides a bibliography of the issue, the opinions of various Polish historians “for” and “against” the Baltic substratum in the lands of the Kashubians, and criticizes F. Hinze, however, the controversy itself that the Kashubians were Slavs, and not Balts, seems more emotional than scientific , and the formulation of the question is incorrect. The Slavism of the Kashubians is undeniable, but one should not rush from one extreme to another. There are many indications of a greater similarity between the culture and language of the Baltic Slavs and the Balts, unknown among other Slavs, and this circumstance deserves the closest attention.

II. Slavs with a “Baltic accent”?
In the above quote, F. Hinze drew attention to the presence of the suffix –ing in the Pomeranian word kuling, considering it an ancient borrowing. But it seems no less probable that the speech in in this case may be more likely to be a relict word from a substrate language, since in the presence of its own in Slavic sandpiper from the same root common to the Balts and Slavs, all grounds for actual “borrowing” are lost. Obviously, the assumption of borrowing arose from the researcher due to the unknownness of the suffix –ing in Slavic. Perhaps, upon a broader consideration of the issue, such word formation will turn out to be not so unique, but on the contrary, it may turn out to be characteristic of the Northern Lechitic dialects that arose in the places where the “pre-Slavic” language was preserved for the longest time.

In Indo-European languages, the suffix –ing meant belonging to something and was most characteristic of Germanic and Baltic languages. Udolf notes the use of this suffix in the pre-Slavic toponymy of Poland (protoforms *Leut-ing-ia for the hydronym Lucaza, *Lüt-ing-ios for the toponym Lautensee and *L(o)up-ing-ia for Lupenze). The use of this suffix in hydronym names later became widely known for the Baltic-speaking regions of Prussia (for example: Dobr-ing-e, Erl-ing, Ew-ing-e, Is-ing, Elb-ing) and Lithuania (for example: Del-ing) ing-a, Dub-ing-a, Ned-ing-is). Also, the suffix –ing was widely used in the ethnonyms of the tribes of “ancient Germany” - one can recall the tribes listed by Tacitus, whose names contained such a suffix, or the Baltic jatv-ing-i, known in Old Russian pronunciation as the Yotvingians. In the ethnonyms of the Baltic-Slavic tribes, the suffix –ing is known among the Polabs (polab-ing-i) and Smeldings (smeld-ing-i). Since a connection is found between both tribes, it makes sense to dwell on this point in more detail.

Smeldingi are first mentioned in the Frankish Annals in 808. During the attack of the Danes and Wilts on the kingdom of the Obodrites, two tribes that had previously been subordinate to the Obodrites - the Smeldings and the Linones - rebelled and went over to the side of the Danes. Obviously, this required two circumstances:

The Smeldings were not initially “encouraged,” but were forced into submission by them;

We can assume direct contact between the Smeldings and the Danes in 808.

The latter is important for localizing smeldings. It is reported that in 808, after conquering two regions of the Obodrites, Godfried went to the Elbe. In response to this, Charlemagne sent troops under the leadership of his son to the Elbe, to help the Obodrites, who fought here with the Smeldings and Linones. Thus, both tribes must have lived somewhere near the Elbe, bordering on one side with the Obodrites and on the other with the Frankish Empire. Einhard, describing the events of those years, reports only about the “Linon War” of the Franks, but does not mention the Smeldings. The reason, as we see it, is that the Smeldings managed to survive in 808 - for the Franks this campaign ended unsuccessfully, which is why details about it have not been preserved. This is also confirmed by the Frankish annals - in the next 809, the king of the Obodrites, Drazhko, sets out on a retaliatory campaign against the Vilts and on the way back conquers the Smeldings after the siege of their capital. In the annals of Moissac the latter is recorded as Smeldinconoburg, a word containing the stem smeldin or smeldincon and the German word burg, meaning fortress.

Subsequently, the Smeldings are mentioned only once more, at the end of the 9th century by a Bavarian geographer, who reports that next to the Linaa tribe there are the Bethenici, Smeldingon and Morizani tribes. The Betenici lived in the Pringnitz region at the confluence of the Elbe and Gavola, in the area of ​​the city of Havelberg and were subsequently mentioned by Helmold as Brizani. The Linons also lived on the Elbe, west of the Betenichs - their capital was the city of Lenzen. Who exactly the Bavarian geographer calls the Morizani is not entirely clear, since two tribes with similar names are known nearby - the Moritsani, who lived on the Elbe south of the Betenichs, closer to Magdeburg, and the Muritsani, who lived on Lake Müritz or Moritz, east of Betenich. However, in both cases, the Moricans turn out to be neighbors of the Betenichs. Since the Linons lived on the southeastern border of the Obodrite kingdom, the place of settlement of the Smeldings can be determined with sufficient accuracy - in order to meet all the criteria, they had to be the western neighbors of the Linons. The south-eastern border of Saxon Nordalbingia (that is, the south-western border of the kingdom of Obodrite) is called by the imperial charters and Adam of Bremen the Delbend Forest, located between the river Delbend of the same name (a tributary of the Elbe) and Hamburg. It was here, between the Delbend forest and Lenzen, that the smeldings were supposed to live.

Estimated area of ​​settlement of smeldings
Mention of them mysteriously ceased at the end of the 9th century, although all their neighbors (Linones, Obodrites, Wiltsy, Morichans, Brizani) were often mentioned subsequently. At the same time, starting from the middle of the 11th century, a new large tribe of Polabs “appeared” on the Elbe. The first mention of the Polabians dates back to a charter of Emperor Henry in 1062 as the “region of Palobe”. Obviously, in this case there was a banal mistake from Polabe. A little later, the polabingi are described by Adam of Bremen as one of the most powerful Obodrite tribes, and the provinces subordinate to them are reported. Helmold called them polabi, however, as a toponym he also once called the “province of the Polabings”. Thus, it becomes obvious that the ethnonym polabingi comes from the Slavic toponym Polabie (polab-ing-i - “inhabitants of Polabe”) and the suffix –ing is used in it as expected as an indication of affiliation.

The capital of the Polabians was the city of Ratzeburg, located at the junction of three Obodrite provinces - Vagria, the “land of the Obodrites” and Polabia. The practice of establishing princely headquarters on the borders of regions was quite typical for the Baltic Slavs - one can recall the city of Ljubica, standing on the border of Vagria and “the land of the Obodrites in the narrow sense” (practically, next door to Ratzeburg) or the capital of the hijans, Kessin, located on the very border with the Obodrites , on the Varnov River. However, the area of ​​settlement of the Polabs, based on the very meaning of the word, should have been located in the Elbe region, regardless of how far their capital was located from the Elbe. The Polabings are mentioned simultaneously with the Linons, so in the east the border of their settlement could not be located east of Lenzen. This means that the entire region, bounded in the north-west by Ratzeburg, in the north-east by Zverin (modern Schwerin), in the south-west by the Delbend Forest, and in the south-east by the city of Lenzen, should be considered as a possible place of settlement of the Polabs. The eastern part of this range also includes areas previously inhabited by smeldings.

Estimated area of ​​settlement of the Polabs
Due to the fact that chronologically the Polabies begin to be mentioned later than the Smeldings and both tribes are never mentioned together, it can be assumed that by the 11th century Polabie had become a collective name for a number of small regions and the tribes that inhabited them between the Obodrites and the Elbe. Having been under the rule of the Obodrite kings since at least the beginning of the 9th century, in the 11th century these areas could be united into a single province of "Polabie", ruled by the Obodrite prince from Ratzeburg. Thus, over the course of two centuries, the Smeldings simply “dissolved” in the “polabs”, without having their own self-government since 809; by the 11th century they ceased to be perceived by their neighbors as a separate political force or tribe.

It seems all the more curious that the suffix –ing is found in the names of both tribes. It is worth paying attention to the name smeldings - the most ancient of both forms. Linguists R. Trautmann and O.N. Trubachev explained the ethnonym Smeldings from the Slavic “Smolyans”, however, Trubachev already admitted that methodologically such an etymology would be a stretch. The fact is that without the suffix –ing, the stem remains smeld-, and not smel-/smol-. At the root there is one more consonant, which is repeated in all mentions of smeldings in no less than three independent sources, so attributing this fact to a “distortion” would be avoiding the problem. The words of Udolf and Casemir come to mind that in Lower Saxony, neighboring the Obodrites, it would be impossible to explain dozens of toponyms and hydronyms based on Germanic or Slavic, and that such an explanation becomes possible only with the involvement of Baltic. In my personal opinion, smeldings are just such a case. Neither Slavic nor Germanic etymology is possible here without strong stretches. There was no suffix –ing in Slavic, and it is difficult to explain why the neighboring Germans suddenly needed to convey the word *smolаni through this Germanic particle, at a time when dozens of other Slavic tribes in Germany were written by Germans without problems with the Slavic suffixes –ani, -ini.

More likely than the “Germanization” of Slavic phonetics, there would be a purely Germanic word formation, and smeld-ingi would mean “inhabitants of Smeld” in the language of the neighboring Saxons. The problem here comes from the fact that the name of this hypothetical region, Smeld, is difficult to explain from Germanic or Slavic. At the same time, with the help of Baltic, this word acquires the appropriate meaning, so that neither semantics nor phonetics require any stretching. Unfortunately, linguists who sometimes compile etymological reference books for vast regions very rarely have a good idea of ​​the places they describe. We can assume that they themselves have never been to most of them and are not thoroughly familiar with the history of each specific toponym. Their approach is simple: are the Smeldings a Slavic tribe? This means that we will look for etymology in Slavic. Are similar ethnonyms still known in the Slavic world? Are Smolensk people famous in the Balkans? Great, that means there are Smolensk people on the Elbe too!

However, every place, every people, tribe and even person has its own history, without taking into account which you can go along the wrong way. If the name of the Smelding tribe was a distortion of the Slavic “Smolyans,” then the Smeldings should have been associated among their neighbors with burning and clearing forests. This was a very common type of activity in the Middle Ages, so in order to “stand out” from the mass of others involved in burning, smeldings probably had to do this more intensively than others. In other words, to live in some very wooded, difficult terrain, where a person had to win a place to live from the forest. Wooded areas are indeed known on the Elbe - just remember the region of Draven, adjacent to the Smeldings, located on the other bank of the Elbe, or Golzatia, neighboring Vagria - both names mean nothing more than “wooded areas”. Therefore, the “Smolyans” would look quite natural against the background of the neighboring Drevans and Golzats – “in theory”. “In practice” everything turns out differently. The lower reaches of the Elbe between Lenzen and Hamburg really stand out from other neighboring areas, however, not at all in terms of “forest” characteristics. This region is famous for its sands. Adam of Bremen already mentioned that the Elbe in the Saxony region is “becoming sandy.” Obviously, it was precisely the lower reaches of the Elbe that should have been meant, since its middle and upper reaches at the time of the chronicler were part of the marks, but not of “historical Saxony” itself, in the story about which he placed his remark. It is here, in the area of ​​​​the city of Dömitz, between the villages with the telling names Big and Small Schmölln (Gross Schmölln, Klein Schmölln) that the largest inland dune in Europe is located.

Sand dune on the Elbe near the village of Maly Schmölln
When the wind is strong, the sand flies from here for many kilometers, making the entire surrounding area infertile and therefore one of the most sparsely populated in Mecklenburg. The historical name of this area is Griese Gegend (German: “gray area”). Because of great content sand, the soil here actually takes on a gray color.

Land near Dömitz
Geologists attribute the appearance of the Elbe sand dunes to the end of the last ice age, when sand layers of 20-40 m were brought to the banks of the river with meltwater. The period of greatest “flourishing” of the dunes is dated at the same time “ Slavic period", when active deforestation greatly accelerated the spread of sand. Even now, in the Dömitz area, sand dunes reach many meters in height and are clearly visible among the surrounding plains, certainly being the most “bright” local landmark. Therefore, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in the Baltic languages ​​sand is called with very similar words: “smelis” (lit.) or “smiltis” (lat.). In a word Smeltine Balts designated large sand dunes (cf. the name of the large sand dune on the Curonian Spit Smeltine).

Because of this, the Baltic etymology in the case of smeldings would look convincing both from the point of view of semantics and from the point of view of phonetics, while also having direct parallels in Baltic toponymy. There are also historical grounds for “non-Slavic” etymology. Most of the names of the rivers in the lower reaches of the Elbe are of pre-Slavic origin, and the sand dunes near Dömitz and Boitzenburg are located precisely in the interfluve of three rivers with pre-Slavic names - Elbe, Elda and Delbenda. The latter can also become a clue to the question that interests us. Here it can be noted that the name of the neighboring tribe with the Smeldings - the Linons or Lins, who also lived in the area of ​​​​concentration of pre-Slavic hydronymics and were not part of either the union of the Obodrites or the union of the Lyutichs (i.e., perhaps also former of some other origin). The name Delbende is first mentioned in the Frankish Annals in 822:

By order of the emperor, the Saxons build a certain fortress beyond the Elbe, in a place called Delbende. And when the Slavs, who had occupied it before, were expelled from it, a Saxon garrison was stationed in it against the attacks [of the Slavs].

A city or fortress with this name is subsequently not mentioned anywhere else, although according to the annals, the city remained with the Franks and became the location of the garrison. It seems probable that archaeologist F. Laux suggests that Delbende of the Frankish annals is the future Hamburg. The German fortress of Hammaburg on the lower Elbe began to acquire importance precisely in the first half of the 9th century. There are no reliable documents about its foundation (the existing ones are recognized as fakes), and archaeologists define the lower layer of the Gammaburg fortress as Slavic and date back to the end of the 8th century. Thus, Hamburg really had the same fate as the city of Delbende - the German city was founded in the first half of the 9th century on the site of a Slavic settlement. The Delbende River itself, on which the city was previously searched for, flows east of Hamburg and is one of the tributaries of the Elbe. However, the name of the city could come not from the river itself, but from the Delbende Forest described by Adam of Bremen, located between the Delbende River and Hamburg. If Delbende is the name of a Slavic city, and after the transition to the Germans it was renamed Hammaburg, then we can assume that the name Delbende could be perceived by the Germans as alien. Considering that both Baltic and Germanic etymologies are assumed to be possible for the hydronym Delbende, this circumstance can be considered as an indirect argument in favor of the “Baltic version”.

The situation could be similar in the case of smeldings. If the name of the entire sandy area between Delbende and Lenzen came from the pre-Slavic, Baltic designation for sand, then the suffix –ing, as a designation of belonging, would be exactly in its place in the ethnonym “inhabitants of [the region] Smeld”, “inhabitants of the sandy area”.

Another, more eastern tributary of the Elbe with the pre-Slavic name Elda may also be associated with the long-term preservation of the pre-Slavic substrate. On this river is the city of Parchim, first mentioned in 1170 as Parhom. The Mecklenburg historian Nikolai Marschalk left the following message about this city at the beginning of the 16th century: “Among their [Slavic] lands there are many cities, among which is Alistos, mentioned by Claudius Ptolemy, now Parhun, named after the idol, the image of which, cast from pure gold, as they still believe, is hidden somewhere nearby" ( Mareschalci Nicolai Annalium Herulorum ac Vandalorum // Westphalen de E.J. Monumenta inedita rerum Germanicarum praecipue Cimbricarum et Megapolensium, Tomus I, 1739, S. 178).

Judging by the expression “they still believe,” the information conveyed by Marshal about the origin of the name of the city on behalf of the Slavic pagan deity was based on a tradition or idea that existed in Mecklenburg even in his time. At the beginning of the 16th century, as Marshall points out elsewhere, there was still a Slavic population in the south of Mecklenburg ( Ibid., S. 571). Such reports about the traces and memory of Slavic paganism preserved here are, indeed, far from isolated. Including the Marshal himself mentioned in his Rhymed Chronicle the preservation of a certain crown of the idol of Radegast in the church of the city of Gadebusch at the same time. The connection between the Slavic past of the city in popular memory and paganism resonates well with the discovery by archaeologists of the remains of a pagan temple in the fortress that accompanied Parchim or replaced it at a certain stage in Shartsin. This fortress was located just 3 km from Parchim and was a large one, protected by fortress walls shopping mall on the southeastern border of the kingdom of the Obodrites. Among the numerous artifacts found here were many luxury items, imports and indications of trade - such as slave shackles, dozens of scales and hundreds of weights ( Paddenberg D. Die Funde der jungslawischen Feuchtbodensiedlung von Parchim-Löddigsee, Kr. Parchim, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012).

Archaeologists interpret one of the buildings found in the fortress as a pagan temple, similar to the pagan temple in Gross Raden ( Keiling H. Eine wichtige slawische Marktsiedlung am ehemaligen Löddigsee bei Parchim // Archäologisches Freilichtmuseum Groß Raden, Museum für Ur- und Frügeschichte Schwerin, 1989). This practice of combining a cult place and trading is well known from written sources. Helmold describes a large fish market on Rügen, upon arriving at which merchants were supposed to make a donation to the Sventovit temple. From more distant examples, one can recall Ibn Fadlan’s descriptions of the Rus on the Volga, who began trading only after donating part of the goods to an anthropomorphic idol. At the same time, cult centers - significant temples and sanctuaries - show amazing “survivability” in people's memory and amid historical transformations. New churches were built on the sites of old sanctuaries, and idols themselves or parts of destroyed temples were often built into their walls. In other cases, former sanctuaries, not without the help of church propaganda, which sought to “dissuade” the flock from visiting them, were remembered as “devilish”, “devilish” or simply “bad” places.

Reconstruction of the Shartsin fortress and the pagan temple in the museum
Be that as it may, the form of the name of the pagan deity Parhun seems too similar to the name of the Baltic thunder god Perkun to be an arbitrary “folk” invention. The location of Parchim on the southern border of the Obodrite lands, in close proximity to the concentration of pre-Slavic hydronymics (the city itself stands on the Elda River, the name of which goes back to the pre-Slavic language) and the Smelding tribe, may be associated with the pre-Slavic Baltic substrate and indicate some resulting cultural or, rather, dialect differences between the northern and southern Obodrite lands.

Starting from the 16th century, the idea that the name Parchim originated from the name of the pagan god Parhun was popular in Latin-language German works. After Marshall in the 17th century, Bernard Lathom, Konrad Dieterik and Abraham Frenzel wrote about him, identifying the Parchim Parhun with the Prussian Perkunas and the Russian Perun. In the 18th century, Joachim von Westphalen also placed in his work an image of Parchim Parhun in the form of a statue standing on a pedestal, with one hand leaning on a bull standing behind it and holding a red-hot iron with lightning emanating from it in the other. The head of the Thunderer was surrounded by a halo in the form of some kind of petals, apparently symbolizing the sun's rays or fire, and at the pedestal there was a sheaf of ears of corn and a goat. It is curious that even at the beginning of the last century, the German residents of Parchim were very interested in the Slavic past of their city, and the image of the god Parhun, the patron of the city from the work of Westphalen, was solemnly carried through the streets of Parchim at the celebration of the 700th anniversary of the city.

Parkun - god of thunder and patron of Parchim at the celebration of the city's 700th anniversary
III. The Chezpenians and the “Veleti legend”
We have already briefly mentioned the connection of the ethnonym Chezpenyan with toponyms and ethnonyms characteristic of the Balts such as “through + the name of the river.” To put it simply, the argumentation of the supporters of the “Baltic” hypothesis boils down to the fact that ethnonyms of this type were characteristic of the Baltic-speaking peoples and there are direct analogues (circispene), and the argumentation of the supporters of the “Slavic” version is that such word formation is theoretically possible and among the Slavs. The question does not seem simple, and both sides are certainly right in their own way. It seems to me that the map of ethnonyms of this type given by A. Nepukupny is in itself sufficient reason to suspect a connection here. Since linguists very rarely bring archaeological and historical data into their research, it makes sense to fill this gap and see if there are any other differences in the culture and history of this region. But first you need to decide where to look.

It may not seem strange, but the Chezpenian tribe itself will not play a role in this matter. The meaning of the ethnonym is quite definite and means “living across the [river] Pena.” Already in scholium 16 (17) to the chronicle of Adam of Bremen it was reported that “the Khizhans and Kerezpenyans live on this side of the Pena River, and the Tollenians and Redarii live on the other side of this river.”

The ethnonym “living through Pena” was supposed to be an exoethnonym given to the Transpenians by their neighbors. Traditional thinking always puts itself in the “center” and not a single people identifies itself in a secondary role, putting its neighbors first, or “pretends to be” someone else’s neighbors. For the Chezpenians living north of Pena, the “Chrezpenians” had to be the Tollenians living on the other side of the river, and not themselves. Therefore, to search for other possible characteristics of native speakers of a language whose word formation shows close connections with the Balts, it is worth turning to the Tollensian and Redarii tribes. The capital of the Chezpenians was the city of Demin, located at the confluence of the Pena and Tollenza rivers (this confluence was incorrectly called “mouth” by Adam). The ethnonym of the Tollenians, repeating the name of the river, clearly indicates that they were the direct neighbors of the Chezpenians “across the Pena” and lived along the Tollenze River. The latter takes its source in Lake Tollenskoye. Somewhere here, obviously, the lands of the Redarii must have begun. Probably, all 4 tribes of the Khizhans, Chezpenians, Tollensians and Redarii were originally of the same origin, or came closer during the time of the great union of the Vilts or Velets, therefore, when examining the issue of the Chezpenians, it is impossible to ignore the “Velet legend”.

Settlement of the Khizhan, Chezpenyan, Tollenzyan and Redarii tribes
The Wiltsy were first mentioned in the Frankish annals in 789, during the campaign of Charlemagne against them. Charlemagne's biographer Einhard provides more detailed information about the Wiltsy:

After those unrest were settled, a war was started with the Slavs, whom we usually call Wilts, but in fact (that is, in their dialect) they are called Velatabs...

From the western ocean to the East stretches a certain bay, the length of which is unknown, and the width does not exceed one hundred thousand steps, although in many places it is narrower. Many peoples live around it: the Danes, as well as the Sueons, whom we call the Normans, own the northern coast and all its islands. On the eastern shore live the Slavs, the Estonians and various other peoples, among whom the main ones are the Velatabs, with whom Charles then waged war.

Both of Einhard's remarks seem very valuable, since they are reflected in other sources. The early medieval idea that the Slavs once had one “main” tribe with a single king, which later disintegrated, definitely must have come from the Slavs themselves and, obviously, had some historical basis. The same “legend” is conveyed by Arab sources completely unrelated to Einhard. Al-Bekri, who used for his description the lost story of the Jewish merchant Ibn-Yakub, who visited the southern Baltic, reported:

Slavic countries extend from the Syrian (Mediterranean) Sea to the ocean in the north... They form various tribes. In ancient times they were united by a single king, whom they called Maha. He was from a tribe called Velinbaba, and this tribe was noble among them.

Very similar to Al-Bekri and the message of another Arab source, Al-Masudi:

The Slavs are from the descendants of Madai, the son of Japhet, the son of Nuh; All the tribes of the Slavs belong to it and adjoin it in their genealogies... Their dwellings are in the north, from where they extend to the west. They constitute different tribes, between which there are wars, and they have kings. Some of them profess the Christian faith according to the Jacobite sense, some do not have scriptures, do not obey the laws; they are pagans and know nothing about the laws. Of these tribes, one formerly had power (over them) in ancient times; its king was called Majak, and the tribe itself was called Valinana.

There are different assumptions about which Slavic tribe “Velinbaba” and “Velinana” corresponded to, however, it is usually not associated with the Velets. Meanwhile, the similarity in all three descriptions is quite great: 1) phonetically similar name - velataby/velinbaba/velinana; 2) characterization as the most powerful Slavic tribe in ancient times; 3) the presence of a certain legendary ruler named Maha/Majak (another reading option - Mahak - brings both forms even closer together) in two of the three messages. In addition, “finding” the Slavic tribe of Velins in the Middle Ages is not difficult. The chronicle of Adam of Bremen, so little analyzed for Slavic ethnonyms and simply rewritten without hesitation from the time of Helmold to the present day, seems to be able to help find answers to many complex questions.

Even further away live the Khizhans and Kerezpenyans, wrote Adam, who are separated from the Tollenians and Redarii by the Pena River, and their city Demmin. Here is the border of the Hamburg parish. There are other Slavic tribes that live between Elbe and Oder, such as Gavolians, living along the Havel River, Doksans, Lyubushans, Vilins, stodoran and many others. The strongest among them are the Redarii living in the middle... (Adam, 2-18)

I have emphasized key words to make it clearer that Adam most definitely did not know that many Baltic-Slavic tribes had Germanic exo-ethnonyms and Slavic self-names. The Gavolians and Stodorians were one tribe - German and Slavic versions of the same name. The name Doxan corresponds to the name of the Doxa River, located south of the Redarium. The Lebouchans were supposed to live in the vicinity of the city of Lebush on the Odre. But other sources do not know the Vilins. Particularly indicative in this regard are the letters of the Saxon kings, the Magdeburg and Havelberg bishoprics of the 10th century, listing the conquered Slavic provinces - all the lands between Odra and Elbe, north to Pena and not knowing the “provinces of the Vilinians”, in contrast to the provinces and tribes of the Redarii, Chezpenians or Tollenians . A similar name for the Slavs who lived in the south of the Baltic somewhere between the Obodrites and the Poles is also known from the chronicle of Vidukind of Corvey, in the 69th chapter of the 3rd book, which tells how, after the ruin of Starigard, Vikhman “turned east, appeared again among the pagans and negotiated with the Slavs, who are called Vuloini, so that they would somehow involve Mieszko in the war.” The Veleti were indeed hostile to Mieszko and were located geographically just east of the Obodrites, however, in this case, the Pomeranian tribe of Volinians, like the prototype of Widukind’s Vuloini, would have been no less likely. Indirectly supporting this version are other forms of spelling of this word in Widukind’s manuscripts: uuloun, uulouuini, as well as Widukind’s knowledge of the veleti under the Germanic form of the name Wilti. Therefore, here we will limit ourselves to only mentioning such a message, without involving it in the reconstruction of the “Veleti legend”.

It can be assumed that the “Velins” Adam named among the Velet tribes were not the name of a separate tribe, but the same ancient self-name of the Vilts - Velets. If both names were Slavic, then the meaning of both, obviously, should have been “great, large, huge, main,” which both semantically and phonetically fits well with the Slavic legend about the “main tribe of the Slavs” Velatabi/Velinbaba/Velinana. At the same time, the hypothetical period of “supremacy” of the Velets over “all Slavs” could historically have occurred only before the 8th century. It seems even more appropriate to place this period at the time of the Great Migration of Peoples and the moment of the separation of the Slavic language. In this case, the preservation of legends about a certain period of greatness of the Wilts in the epic of the continental Germans also seems significant. The so-called Saga of Thidrek of Bern describes the story of King Wilkin.

There was a king named Vilkin, famous for his victories and courage. By force and devastation he took possession of the country that was called the country of the Vilkins, and is now called Svitjod and Gutaland, and the entire kingdom of the Swedish king, Scania, Skaland, Jutland, Vinland and all the kingdoms that belong to it. The kingdom of King Vilkin extended so far, like the country designated by his name. This is also the technique of the story in this saga, that on behalf of the first leader, his kingdom and the people ruled by him take the name. Thus, this kingdom was called the country of the Vilkins on behalf of King Vilkin, and the people living there were called the people of the Vilkins - all this until the new people took dominion over that country, which is why the names change again.

Further, the saga tells of the devastation by King Wilkin of the Polish (Pulinaland) lands and “all the kingdoms to the sea.” After which Vilkin defeats the Russian king Gertnit and imposes tribute on all his vast possessions - Russian lands, the land of Austria, most of Hungary and Greece. In other words, in addition to the Scandinavian countries, Vilkin becomes the king of almost all lands inhabited by the Slavs since the era of the Great Migration of Peoples.

In the people who received their name from King Vilkin - that is, the Vilkin - the Germanic pronunciation of the Slavic tribe of Velets - Viltsy is clearly recognizable. Similar legends about the origin of the name of the tribe on behalf of its legendary leader were indeed very widespread among the Slavs. Kozma of Prague in the 12th century described the legend about the origin of Russians, Czechs and Poles (Poles) from the names of their legendary kings: the brothers Rus, Czech and Lech. The legend about the origin of the names of the Radimichi and Vyatichi tribes from the names of their leaders Radim and Vyatko was also recorded by Nestor in the Tale of Bygone Years in the same century.

Leaving aside the question of how such legends corresponded to reality and noting only the specificity of such a tradition of explaining the names of tribes with the names of their legendary ancestors, we emphasize once again the obvious common features of the ideas of different peoples about the Velets: 1) supremacy over the “Slavs, Estonians and other peoples” on the shore Baltic according to Frankish sources; 2) supremacy over all Slavs during the reign of one of their kings, according to Arab sources; 3) possession of the Baltic-Slavic lands (Vinland), occupation of Poland, and “all lands to the sea,” including Russian, Central European and Balkan lands, as well as the conquest of Jutland, Gotland and Scandinavia under King Wilkin, according to the continental Germanic epic. The legend about King Vilkin was also known in Scandinavia. In the VI book of “The Acts of the Danes,” in the story of the hero Starkather, endowed by Thor with the power and body of giants, Saxo Grammaticus narrates how, after Starkather’s journey to Rus' and Byzantium, the hero goes to Poland and defeats there the noble warrior Vasze, “whom the Germans -others write it as Wilcze.”

Since the German epic about Thidrek, dating back to the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, already contains the “Veletic legend” and the form of “fork”, there is every reason to suspect a connection of this ethnonym with the previously mentioned ancient authors of the Wilts. This initial form could well have turned into “Wiltsi” in Germanic languages ​​(however, in some sources, like Vidukind quoted above, Wiltsi are written as Wilti), and in Slavic languages ​​as “Velety”. The ethnonym itself may not have originally meant “great”, but due to the subjugation of neighboring Slavic tribes by this tribe at some point and the phonetic similarity with the Slavic “great”, it began to be understood by them in precisely this sense. From this “folk etymology,” in turn, in later times, an even simpler Slavic form “velina” with the same meaning “great” could appear. Since legends place the period of the dominance of the Velins in the times immediately before the division of the Slavic tribes and attribute to them dominance over the Estonians as well, then comparing these data with the Balto-Slavic hypotheses of V.N. Toporov, it turns out that the Velins should have been the very “last Balto-Slavic tribe” before the division of the Balto-Slavic into branches and the separation of Slavic dialects “on the periphery”. Opponents of the version of the existence of a single Balto-Slavic language and supporters of the temporary convergence of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​could also find confirmation of their views in the ancient epic, accepting the time of the primacy of the Wilts as a time of “convergence.”

The name of the legendary ruler of “all Slavs” from the Velin tribe seems no less curious. Maha, Mahak/Majak - has many parallels in ancient Indo-European languages, starting from Sancrit. máh – “great” (cf. the identical title of the supreme ruler Maha in the ancient Indian tradition), Avestan maz- (cf. Ahura Mazda), Armenian mec, Middle Upper German. “mechel”, Middle Low German “mekel”, Old Sak. “mikel” – “big, great” (cf. Old Scand. Miklagard – “Great City”), before the Latin magnus/maior/maximus and the Greek μέγαζ. German chroniclers also translate the name of the capital of the Obodrites, Michelenburg, into Latin Magnopol, i.e. "great city" Perhaps the “strange” names of the noble Obodrites - princes Niklot and Nako, the priest Miko - go back to the same ancient Indo-European root *meg'a- with the meaning “great”. In the 13th century, the Polish chronicler Kadlubek wrote in his chronicle a similar “tale” about the legendary ruler of the Obodrits, Mikkol or Miklon, from whose name the name of the capital of the Obodrits came:

quod castrum quidam imperator, deuicto rege Slauorum nomine Mikkol, cuidam nobili viro de Dale[m]o, alias de Dalemburg, fertur donasse ipsum in comitm, Swerzyniensem specialem, quam idem imperator ibidem fundauerat, a filiis Miklonis protegi deberet. Iste etenim Mikkel castrum quoddam in palude circa villam, que Lubowo nominatur, prope Wysszemiriam edificauit, quod castrum Slaui olim Lubow nomine ville, Theutunici vero ab ipso Miklone Mikelborg nominabant. Vnde usque ad presens princeps, illius loci Mikelborg appellatur; latine vero Magnuspolensis nuncupatur, quasi ex latino et slawonico compositum, quia in slawonico pole, in latino campus dicitur

Kadlubek’s messages require critical analysis, since in addition to numerous early written and contemporary oral sources They also contain a considerable share of the chronicler’s imagination. “Folk etymologies” in his chronicle are completely commonplace; as a rule, they do not represent historical value. However, in this case, one can cautiously assume that the “folk etymology” of the name of Mecklenburg on behalf of King Mikkol Kadlubek could have been led by knowledge of the Slavic legend about the “great ruler” with a similar name, also recorded by Al-Bekri and Al-Masudi and included in the German epic in newer, German form "Wilkin".

Thus, the name of the legendary ruler of the Velins, Macha, could simply be a “title” of the supreme ruler, which originated from the “pre-Slavic language” and was preserved only in the early medieval Slavic epic and the names/titles of the Baltic-Slavic nobility. In this regard, it would be the same “pre-Slavic relic” as “pre-Slavic toponymy”, while the name of the tribe itself had already passed into the purely Slavic “velyny”, and a little later, as its descendants diverged into different branches and were gradually lost by the Veleti significance as a political force and the emergence of a new name “Lutici” for the union of four tribes, and completely fell out of use.

Perhaps, for greater clarity, it is worth dividing the toponymy of the southern Baltic not into 3 (German - Slavic - Pre-Slavic) layers, as was done previously, but into 4: German - Slavic - “Balto-Slavic / Baltic” - “Ancient Indo-European”. Due to the fact that supporters of “Baltic” etymologies have not been able to derive all pre-Slavic names from Baltic, such a scheme would currently be the least controversial.

Returning from the “Wielin legend” to the Chezpenians and Tollenians, it is worth pointing out that it is the lands of the Tollenians and Redarii that, in archaeological terms, stand out from others in two ways. In the area of ​​the Tollenza River, which, according to linguists, has a pre-Slavic name, there is a relatively large continuity of population between the Roman period, the era of the Great Migration and the early Slavic period (Sukowo-Dziedzica ceramics). The early Slavs lived in the same settlements or in close proximity to settlements that had existed there for hundreds of years.

Settlement of the Tollens region during the La Tène period

Settlement of the Tollens region in the early Roman period

Settlement of the Tollens region in the late Roman period


Settlement of the Tollens region during the era of the Great Migration


Places of late Germanic and early Slavic finds in the Neubrandenburg district:
1 – the era of the Great Migration of Peoples; 2 – early Slavic ceramics of the Sukov type;
3 – the era of the Great Migration of Peoples and Sukov type ceramics; 4 – Late Germanic finds and Sukov type ceramics
Already the Frankish chronicles report the numerousness of the Velets, and this circumstance is fully confirmed by archeology. The population density in the Tollens Lake area is astounding. Only in the period before 1981, in these places, archaeologists identified 379 settlements of the late Slavic period that existed simultaneously, which is approximately 10-15 settlements per 10-20 sq. km. However, the lands along the southern shore of Tollenskoe and neighboring Lake Lipetsk (the modern German name for the lake is Lips, but the earliest documents mention the form Lipiz) stand out strongly even in such a densely populated region. On an area of ​​17 sq. km, 29 Slavic settlements have been identified here, that is, more than 3 settlements per two sq. km. In the early Slavic period, the density was lower, but still sufficient to appear “very numerous” in the eyes of neighbors. Perhaps the “secret” of the population explosion lies precisely in the fact that the old population of the Tollenza basin was already considerable in the 6th century, when a wave of “Sukovo-Dziedzits” was added to it. This same circumstance could also determine the linguistic peculiarity of the Tollenians, which in some features is closer to the Balts than to the Slavs. The concentration of pre-Slavic place names in the Weleti areas seems to be the greatest in eastern Germany, especially if we take into account the Gavola region. Were these ancient inhabitants between the rivers Pena, Gawola, Elbe and Odra the same legendary Wilts, or were they the bearers of Sukowo-Dziedzicka pottery? Some questions obviously can no longer be answered.

In those days there was a great movement in the eastern part of the Slavic land, where the Slavs waged an internal war among themselves. There are four tribes of them, and they are called Lutichs, or Vilts; Of these, the Khizhans and Kerezpenyans, as is known, live on the other side of Pena, while the Redarii and Tollenians live on this side. A great dispute began between them about superiority in courage and power. For the Redarii and Tollenians wanted to dominate due to the fact that they have the most ancient city and the most famous temple in which the idol of Redegast is exhibited, and they ascribed only to themselves the only right to primacy because all the Slavic peoples often visit them for the sake of [receiving] answers and annual sacrifices.

The name of the Wilcian temple city of Rethra, as well as the name of the pagan god Radegast, put researchers in a difficult position. Thietmar of Merseburg was the first to mention the city, calling it Ridegost, and the god revered in it - Svarozhich. This information is quite consistent with what we know about Slavic antiquities. Toponymy in -gast, as well as identical toponyms “Radegast”, are well known in the Slavic world; their origin is associated with the personal male name Radegast, i.e. with quite ordinary people, whose name for one reason or another was associated with a place or settlement. So for the name of the god Svarozhich one can find direct parallels in the ancient Russian Svarog-Hephaestus and Svarozhich-fire.

The difficulties of interpretation begin with the chronicle of Adam of Bremen, who calls the temple city Retra, and the god revered there as Radegast. The last word, Radegast, is almost identical to Thietmar's Riedegost, so in this case it was more than once assumed that Adam was mistaken in mistaking the name of the city for the name of God. In this case, Adam had to take the name of the tribe for the name of the city, since Adam’s spellings Rethra and retheri are clearly too similar to each other for this to be explained by chance. The same is confirmed by other sources, for example, later letters calling the entire district with the word Raduir (cf. the name of the Riaduros tribe by Helmold) or similar forms. Due to the fact that the redarii were never part of Adam’s “native” Hamburg diocese, Thietmar’s message in this case actually looks more reliable. However, Helmold stands in the way of resolving the issue by accepting Adam’s mistake. Aware of internal affairs Obodrites and the chronicler, who devoted most of his life to the Christianization of their lands, quite unexpectedly calls Radegast the god of the “Obodritic land” (in the narrow sense). It is extremely difficult to attribute this to both confusion and lack of awareness - this message does not go back to the text of Adam, moreover, the very context of the remark points to a completely different source of information, perhaps even one’s own knowledge. In the same sentence, Helmold names the names of other gods - Zhivy among the Polabs and Prone in Starigard, also Chernobog and Sventovit. His other messages about Slavic mythology (about Chernobog, Sventovit, Pron, various rituals and customs) are quite reasonably recognized as reliable and fit well into what is known about Slavic paganism. Could Helmold make such a gross mistake in one case, while all the other information was conveyed to him reliably? And most importantly - why? After all, he should have known about the paganism of the Obodrites not from books, but from his own many years of experience.

But it is possible that all messages may turn out to be true at once. The use of several different names at once for one deity is a widespread phenomenon among pagans; in this case, there is a solid list of Indo-European parallels. So and the “strange” similarity of names pagan gods with personal male names can even be called characteristic of the Baltic Slavs (cf. Svantevit, Yarovit with Slavic names Svyat-, Yar-, and -vit). In our case, something else is more important. "Retra"/"Raduir" and other similar forms must have been a real place name on the border of the Redarii and Tollenians. It can be assumed that the name of the Redarii tribe goes back to this toponym, just as all other Lutich tribes bore toponymic names: hijans (in the city of “Khizhin”/Kessin/Kitsun), Cherzpenians (along the Pene River), Tollenzyans (along the river Tollense). The toponym Retra/Raduir itself, in this case, most likely, should also have been of “pre-Slavic” origin, which, in turn, would have brought the famous temple city of the Tollensians and Redarii closer to the no less famous temple city of the Rügen Slavs Arkona, whose name also obviously more ancient than the Slavic languages ​​themselves.

Upon a more detailed comparison of both sanctuaries, this state of affairs even seems natural. The exact location of Retra has never been established. Descriptions of the city-temple, which was owned simultaneously by the Redarii and the Tollenians, allow us to look for it on the border of the two tribes, in the area of ​​​​Lake Tollenz and to the south of it. Just where there is significant continuity between the Slavic and pre-Slavic archaeological cultures and later the highest population density per sq. km in eastern Germany. It is worth noting that the connection between the “main temple” and the idea of ​​the “main tribe” is also known for another significant Baltic-Slavic tribe - the Rügen Slavs. At first glance, it may even seem that Helmold’s descriptions of them contradict his descriptions of the Redarii and Retra:

Among the many Slavic deities, the main one is Svyatovit, the god of the heavenly land, since he is the most convincing in answers. Next to him, they consider everyone else as if they were demigods. Therefore, as a sign of special respect, they are in the habit of annually sacrificing to him a person - a Christian, whom the lot will indicate. From all Slavic lands, established donations are sent for sacrifices to Svyatovit (Helmold, 1-52).

In fact, both Arkona and Retra are simultaneously assigned the role of the main cult center of “all Slavs”. At the same time, the island of Rügen and the Tollensa basin also meet other criteria. Despite the insignificance of the “pre-Slavic” toponymic layer on the island, the name of the sanctuary, Arkona, belongs to the pre-Slavic relics here. Unlike the Redarii and Tollenians, the continuity between the Slavic population of the early Middle Ages and the “aboriginals” who lived here in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. here is poorly visible in archeology, but is very clearly manifested according to archaeobotany. Studies of soil samples taken simultaneously in many different places in Rügen in the GDR gave a completely unexpected result - 11 out of 17 diagrams showed continuity in agricultural activity and cattle breeding. Compared to other regions of eastern Germany, this is a lot, and Rügen shows in this regard the greatest degree of continuity between the population of the first and second half of the 1st millennium AD.

Map of succession to Rügen
Archeology: X – Sukov type ceramics;
circle – Feldberg type ceramics; square – possible or supposed fortresses of the VPN era
Palynology: black triangle – gap in agricultural activity;
black circle (large) – continuity in agricultural activity;
black circle (small) – continuity in pastoral activities

Map of succession in eastern Germany
At the same time, in Rügen, as in the south of Lake Tollens, an unusually high population density can be traced. In the Life of Otto of Bamberg (12th century) the island is called “very populous,” but archaeologically, slightly fewer ancient Slavic settlements are known here than on the continent. The latter circumstance may be explained simply by the fact that fewer excavations were carried out here, due to the characteristics of the island itself (predominantly rural population, lack of industry and large construction projects, while a considerable share of archaeological finds on the continent became known as a result of those carried out on the site construction work, construction of new roads, gas pipelines, etc.). At the same time, on Rügen there are indications of even greater population density than on the continent, but for different qualities. Conducted in the 1990-2000s. interdisciplinary studies of the medieval population of Rügen have revealed a large concentration of Slavic place names per sq. km ( Reimann H., Rüchhöft F., Willich C. Rügen im Mittelalter. Eine interdisziplinäre Studie zur mittelalterlichen Besiedlung auf Rügen, Stuttgart, 2011, S. 119).

Rügen


Comparison of population densities in different regions of northeastern Germany.
Area Plow-Goldberg (southern Mecklenburg)


Comparison of population densities in different regions of northeastern Germany.
Region Gadebusch (west Mecklenburg)
Returning to the connection between cult centers and pre-Slavic relics, it is worth noting that high degree the continuity of the “main tribes” with the more ancient population, the correspondence of their political centers to the “main temples” with possibly “pre-Slavic names” is not the only thing that connects Arkona and Retra or Rügen and the Tollensa basin. The functions of the “main temples” in the social and political life of the Baltic Slavs, the supreme role of the priesthood among the Redarii and Rügen Slavs with the subordinate position of the princes to the priests, as well as the descriptions of the cults and rituals themselves are almost identical. All the most important political decisions were made in the “main temple” by means of fortune telling based on the behavior of the white horse dedicated to the deity. Significance was attached to whether the horse would touch the barrier when leading it through rows of crossed spears stuck into the ground and with which leg. On the basis of this, the priest determined the will of the gods and transmitted it to the princes and people in the form of a decision on some issue or undertaking. It should be noted that in the Middle Ages, in addition to the Baltic Slavs, such rituals were also described among the Baltic tribes. Simon Grünau reports in his chronicle that the Prussians dedicated a white horse to their gods, which mere mortals were not allowed to ride, almost verbatim repeating the words of Saxo Grammaticus about the white horse dedicated to Sventovit. Also, the dominant position of the priesthood was characteristic of the Balts, in addition to the Baltic Slavs. One can recall the words of Peter of Duisburg about the Prussian High Priest Kriv, who was for the pagans what the Pope was for Catholics.

It is curious that the very names of the gods of the Baltic Slavs attract attention due to the complexity of their etymologies. If in some of them, such as Prone, Porenut, Tjarneglofe or Flinz, it is possible to accept a distortion in the German-speaking environment, then the explanation of the names Porevit, Rugivit, Pitsamar, Podagi or Radegast causes considerable difficulties. The problems of the last case have already been briefly mentioned above, to which we can only add that the explanation of the “strangeness” of these names by distortion alone looks unconvincing against the background of the fact that other names of the gods of the Baltic Slavs are conveyed phonetically by the same sources quite accurately and “recognizably” even in modern Slavic languages, for example, Svantevit, Chernebokh, Zhiva, Svarozhich. Perhaps the explanation for all these circumstances is that places of worship, sanctuaries, as well as traditions and rituals in general, were the most conservative aspect of pagan life. While material culture, technical innovations and fashion were everywhere borrowed from neighbors and changed, in terms of religion the situation was diametrically opposite.

The unknown of any written monuments Slavs before the adoption of Christianity, apparently, suggests that tradition and knowledge could be sacralized and transmitted in the priestly environment only orally. If the priestly class was the only carrier of knowledge, possessing a kind of “monopoly” in this area, then this state of affairs really should have ensured the dominant position of priests in society, making them simply irreplaceable. The oral transmission of knowledge, paradoxical as it may seem, through sacralization could contribute to the “conservation” of the ancient language. The closest and most well-known example of this kind can be called the Indian tradition, in which the priestly class preserved and “preserved” the ancient language of the Vedas precisely thanks to oral transmission and isolation. The preservation of “pre-Slavic relics” among the Baltic Slavs precisely in connection with the most important cult centers and priesthood in this case would look quite natural and logical. We can also mention the comparison by some researchers of the name Arkon with the Sanskrit “Arkati” - “to pray” and the Old Russian “arkati”, used in the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” in the sense of “to pray, to turn to higher power» ( Yaroslavna cries early in Putivl on her visor, muttering: “Oh the Wind, Vetrilo! What, sir, are you forcing?).

The preservation of this word in only one written source in this case can represent a very interesting case due to its source and specificity. “The Tale of Polku” is obviously the only literary source written by a pagan and therefore preserved a lot of “relics” and expressions unknown anywhere else. If we accept a single origin for Arkona, Skt. etc.-Russian “arkati”, known in Old Russian and used only by “experts of pagan antiquity”, then this could be considered as an indirect confirmation of my assumption of the connection of “pre-Slavic relics” with pagan cults and priesthood. In this case, it may turn out that much of the “non-Slavic” in the toponymy of the southern Baltic could also come from the language of the ancestors of those same Slavs, which had previously fallen out of use in other Slavic languages ​​due to the adoption of Christianity several centuries earlier and the significant “monopolization” of writing by Christians with this time. In other words, to present an analogy to the “conservation” of the language of the Rig Veda and Avesta by the castes of Indian and Iranian priests.

However, no matter how correct this guess turns out to be, in our case it is more important that the alleged “relics” of the Baltic Slavs in the religious and social sphere find the closest parallels, again in the traditions of the Baltic-speaking tribes, and any possible borrowings in this regard among the Germans it is not observed. While Germanic names quite often penetrated into the name books of the Baltic nobility, among the names of gods revered in the “centers of succession” in reliable sources in this regard (the only exception is the very specific and ambiguous message of Orderic Vitaly).

Perhaps another “relic” of the Baltic Slavs was the tradition of trepanation. Complex operations on the skull are known from several Slavic medieval cemeteries in eastern Germany from:

1) Lancken-Granitz, on the island of Rügen


2) Uzadel, in the south of Lake Tollens, on the border of the Redarii and Tollenians (supposed area of ​​Retra)

3) Zantskova on Piena (3 km from the Cerzpenian capital Demmin), symbolic trepanation

4) Alt Bukov, in the lands of the “Obodrits in the narrow sense”
The fifth example is from Sicksdorf, in the lands of the Lusatian Serbs. So, four of the five trepanations were found in the territories of speakers of the Northern Lechite dialects, however, a possible connection with the “pre-Slavic population” is shown by the find in Lusatia. Trepanation was found by Sicksdorf, and it is worth noting the fairly wide popularity of cranial trepanation among the “pre-Slavic” population of these areas of the era of the late Great Migration of Peoples: such finds from the 4th-6th centuries. known from Merseburg, Bad Sulze, Niederrossly, Stösen ( Schmidt B. Gräber mit trepanierten Schäden aus frühgeschichtlicher Zeit // Jschr. Mitteldt. Vorgesch., 47, Halle (Saale), 1963).

Map of craniotomy finds in eastern Germany
(white – Slavic period; black – the era of the Great Migration of Peoples)

Trepanation of the skull 4-6 centuries. from Merseburg, Bad Sulza and Stösen

Trepanation of the skull 4-6 centuries. from Stösen and Merseburg
Directions for social status The “owner” of trepanation is available only for trepanation from the Uzadel burial ground in the lands of the Redarii. The trepanned body of the deceased was buried in a spacious house along with the burial of a “warrior” - a man in whose grave a sword was placed. No weapons were found on the owner of the trepanation - only a knife, which was traditionally placed in both male and female burials of the Baltic Slavs late period. Obviously, the difference in funeral rites among the Baltic Slavs should have been associated with the social status of the deceased. For example, in the same Uzadel burial ground there is a known chamber burial with rich grave goods, a sword, dishes and, apparently, even a “princely scepter.”

Burial in the “house of the dead” of a man with a trepanation and a man with a sword
The arrangement of the domino and the investment of a sword in one of the deceased in this case could also indicate an “unusual” and elevated position in society of both deceased. The connection between them is not entirely clear, nor is it clear whether they were buried at the same time. The discovery of the cremation ashes of a child in the same house (both male burials were inhumations) may indicate its use as a “family crypt.” However, recognizing the complete speculative nature of such judgments as a possible interpretation, one could very cautiously assume the burial of the priest and his “bodyguard.” As parallels, one can cite reports about a special, selected army of 300 horsemen guarding Arkona, and numerous reports in medieval sources about the ritual following of noble dead to the other world by their servants.

Unfortunately, the problem of craniotomies among the Slavs has been studied extremely poorly. There is no clarity either about the source of the tradition or about the exact area of ​​its distribution. In the Slavic period, craniotomies were known in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, however, these cases require clarification due to the possibility of influence of “nomads” who also had similar customs. In the case of the Slavs of eastern Germany, however, a local origin of the tradition seems more likely. Successful craniotomies in the southern Baltic have been widely known since the times of the megalithic culture, and despite the fact that they are separated from the Slavic period by thousands of years, the possibilities of conservation should hardly be underestimated traditional culture. On the contrary, the emergence of such technologically complex operations “suddenly”, without any prerequisites, and even independently of each other in several places at once, seems unlikely. The obscurity of trepanations in some “links of the chain” between the Slavs and the ancient population of eastern Germany can be explained by the most for various reasons, for example, if trepanations were associated with classes - the custom of cremation of representatives of this social stratum in certain periods.

Finally, it only remains to note that the search for “pre-Slavic relics”, in whatever sense this expression is understood - “proto-Slavic”, “Balto-Slavic”, “Baltic”, “East Germanic”, “ancient Indo-European”, etc. – seems to be a very promising and important area of ​​research. Due to the fact that the Baltic Slavs have so far been studied practically only in Germany and almost all scientific literature about them in German and difficult to access in Eastern European countries, their cultural features remain little known to specialists, both Baltists and Slavists. Until now, comparisons of both language and archaeologists and ethnographies of the Baltic Slavs have been only sporadic, so further work in this direction and coordination between relevant specialists could provide, as it seems to us, very rich material and help clarify many “dark” questions of history ancient Europe.

I repeat an old article. Especially for Cute Bee.

If the Scythian-Sarmatians are far from the Slavs in language, does that mean there is someone closer? You can try to find the answer to the mystery of the birth of the Slavic tribes by finding their closest relatives by language.
We already know that the existence of a single Indo-European proto-language is beyond doubt. Around the third millennium BC. e. From this single proto-language, various groups of languages ​​gradually began to form, which in turn, over time, were divided into new branches. Naturally, the speakers of these new related languages ​​were various related ethnic groups (tribes, tribal unions, nationalities, etc.).
Research by Soviet linguists carried out in the 70-80s led to the discovery of the formation of the Proto-Slavic language from the Baltic language massif. There are very different opinions about the time at which the process of separation of the Proto-Slavic language from the Baltic language took place (from the 15th century BC to the 6th century AD).
In 1983, the II conference “Balto-Slavic ethnolinguistic relations in historical and areal terms” took place. It seems that this was the last such large-scale exchange of opinions between then Soviet, including Baltic, historians and linguists on the topic of the origin of the ancient Slavic language. The following conclusions can be drawn from the theses of this conference.

The geographic center of Balt settlement is the Vistula basin, and the territory occupied by the Balts extended to the east, south, and west of this center. It is important that these territories included the Oka basin and the Upper and Middle Dnieper to Pripyat. The Balts lived in northern Central Europe before the Wends and Celts! The mythology of the ancient Balts bore a clear Vedic connotation. Religion, the pantheon of gods almost coincided with the ancient Slavic ones. In the linguistic sense, the Baltic language space was heterogeneous and was divided into two large groups - Western and Eastern, within which there were also dialects. The Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages ​​contain signs of great influence from the so-called “Italic” and “Iranian” languages.
The most interesting mystery is the relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​with the so-called Indo-European proto-language, which we, may linguistic specialists forgive me, will henceforth call the Proto-language. The logical diagram of the evolution of the Proto-Slavic language seems approximately like this:

Proto-Baltic language - + Italic + Scythian-Sarsmatian = Old Slavic.

This diagram does not reflect one important and mysterious detail: the Proto-Baltic (aka “Balto-Slavic”) language, formed from the Proto-Language, did not stop contacts with it; these two languages ​​existed at the same time for some time! It turns out that the Proto-Baltic language is a contemporary of the Proto-Language!
This contradicts the idea of ​​continuity of the Proto-Baltic language from the Proto-Language. One of the most authoritative experts on the problems of the Proto-Baltic language V.N. Toporov put forward the assumption that “the Baltic area is a “reserve” of ancient Indo-European speech.” Moreover, the PROBALTIC LANGUAGE IS THE ANCIENT LANGUAGE OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS!
Taken together with the data of anthropologists and archaeologists, this may mean that the Proto-Balts were representatives of the “Catacomb” culture (beginning of the 2nd millennium BC).
Perhaps the ancient Slavs are some kind of southeastern version of the Proto-Balts? No. The Old Slavic language shows continuity precisely from the western group of Baltic languages ​​(west of the Vistula!), and not from the neighboring eastern one.
Does this mean that the Slavs are the descendants of the ancient Balts?
Who are the Balts?
First of all, “Balts” is a scientific term for the related ancient peoples of the Southern Baltic region, and not a self-name. Today the descendants of the Balts are represented by Latvians and Lithuanians. It is believed that the Lithuanian and Latvian tribes (Curonian, Letgola, Zimegola, Selo, Aukštaity, Samogit, Skalvy, Nadruv, Prussian, Yatvingian) were formed from more ancient Baltic tribal formations in the first centuries of the 1st millennium AD. But who were these more ancient Balts and where did they live? Until recently, it was believed that the ancient Balts were the descendants of the carriers of the Late Nealithic cultures of polished battle axes and corded ceramics (last quarter of the 3rd millennium BC). This opinion is contradicted by the results of research by anthropologists. Already in the Bronze Age, the ancient South Baltic tribes were absorbed by the “narrow-faced” Indo-Europeans who came from the south, who became the ancestors of the Balts. The Balts were engaged in primitive agriculture, hunting, fishing, and lived in weakly fortified villages in log or clay houses and half-dugouts. Militarily, the Balts were inactive and rarely attracted the attention of Mediterranean writers.
It turns out that we have to return to the initial, autochthonous version of the origin of the Slavs. But then where does the Italic and Scythian-Sarmatian component of the ancient Slavic language come from? Where do all those similarities with the Scythian-Sarmatians that we talked about in previous chapters come from?
Yes, if we proceed from the initial goal at all costs to establish the Slavs as the oldest and permanent population of Eastern Europe, or as the descendants of one of the tribes that moved to the land of future Rus', then we have to bypass numerous contradictions arising from anthropological, linguistic, archaeological and other facts of the history of the territory in which the Slavs lived reliably only from the 6th century AD, and only in the 9th century the state of Rus' was formed.
To try to more objectively answer the mysteries of the history of the emergence of the Slavs, let's try to look at the events that took place from the 5th millennium BC to the middle of the 1st millennium AD in a wider geographical area than the territory of Rus'.
So, in the V-VI millennia BC. e. in Asia Minor, Palestine, Egypt, and India, the cities of the first reliably known civilizations developed. At the same time, in the lower Danube basin, the “Vinchan” (“Terterian”) culture was formed, associated with the civilizations of Asia Minor. The marginal part of this culture was the “Bug-Dniester” and later the “Trypillian” culture on the territory of future Rus'. At that time, the space from the Dnieper to the Urals was inhabited by tribes of early cattle breeders who still spoke a common language. Together with the “Vinchan” farmers, these tribes were the ancestors of modern Indo-European peoples.
At the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, from the Volga region to the Yenisei, right up to the western borders of the settlement of the Mongoloids, the “Yamnaya” (“Afanasyevskaya”) culture of nomadic pastoralists appeared. By the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. e., the “Yamniki” spread to the lands where the Trypillians lived, and by the middle of the 3rd millennium BC they pushed them to the west. The “Vinceans” in the 3rd millennium BC gave rise to the civilizations of the Pelasgians and Minoans, and by the end of the 3rd millennium BC - the Mycenaeans.
To save your time, I omit the further development of the ethnogenesis of European peoples in the 3rd-2nd millennia BC.
What is more important for us is what XII century BC, the “Srubniki” Cimmerians, who formed part of the Aryans, or were their descendants and successors in Asia, came to Europe. Judging by the distribution during this period throughout the Eastern and Northern Europe South Ural bronze, a huge territory was exposed to the influence of the Cimmerians. Many European peoples of later times owe the Aryan part of their blood to the Cimmerians. Having conquered many tribes in Europe, the Cimmerians brought them their mythology, but they themselves changed and adopted local languages. Later, the Germans who conquered the Gauls and Romans began to speak Romance languages ​​in a similar way. After some time, the Cimmerians who conquered the Balts began to speak Baltic dialects and merged with the conquered tribes. The Balts, who settled in Europe with the previous wave of migration of peoples from the Urals and Volga, received from the Cimmerians the first portion of the “Iranian” component of their language and Aryan mythology.
Around the 8th century BC. The Wends came from the south to the areas inhabited by the western Proto-Balts. They brought a significant part of the “Italic” dialect into the language of the Proto-Balts, as well as their self-name - Wends. From the 8th to the 3rd century BC. e. waves of immigrants from the west passed one after another - representatives of the “Lusatian”, “Chernoleska” and “Zarubenetsky” cultures pressed by the Celts, that is, the Etruscans, Wends and, possibly, the Western Balts. So the “western” Balts became “southern”.
Both archaeologists and linguists distinguish two large tribal formations of the Balts on the territory of future Rus': one in the Oka basin, the other in the Middle Dnieper region. It was these that ancient writers could have had in mind when speaking about neurs, spores, stors, scolots, villages, gelons and budins. Where Herodotus placed the Gelons, other sources at different times named Galinds, Goldescythians, Golunets, Golyad. This means that the name of one of the Baltic tribes that lived in the Middle Dnieper region can be established with high probability.

So, the Balts lived on the Oka River and in the Middle Dnieper region. But these territories were under the rule of the Sarmatians (“between the Peucinni and the Fenni” according to Tacitus, that is, from the Danube to the lands of the Finno-Ugrians)! And Pevtinger’s tables assign these territories to the Wends and Venedo-Sarmatians. This may mean that the southern Baltic tribes long time were in a single tribal union with the Scythian-Sarmatians.

The Balts and Scythian-Sarmatians were united by a similar religion and increasingly general culture. The strength of the weapons of the Kshatriya warriors provided farmers, cattle breeders, fishermen and forest hunters from the Oka and the upper reaches of the Dnieper to the shores of the Black Sea and the foothills of the Caucasus with the opportunity for peaceful labor and, as they would say today, confidence in the future.
At the end of the 3rd century, the Goths invaded Eastern Europe. They managed to conquer many tribes of the Balts and Finno-Ugrians, capturing a gigantic territory from the shores of the Baltic to the Volga and the Black Sea, including Crimea.
The Scythian-Sarmatians fought for a long time and cruelly with the Goths, but still suffered defeat, such a heavy defeat that had never happened in their history. It’s not for nothing that the memory of the events of this war remains in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”!
If the Alans and Roxolans of the forest-steppe and steppe zone could escape from the Goths by retreating to the north and south, then the “royal Scythians” had nowhere to retreat from the Crimea. Most quickly, they were completely destroyed.
The Gothic possessions divided the Scythian-Sarmatians into southern and northern parts. The southern Scythian-Sarmatians (Yas, Alans), to which the leader Bus, known from the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” belonged, retreated to the North Caucasus and became vassals of the Goths. There was a tombstone monument for Bus, erected by his widow and known to historians of the 19th century.
The northern ones were forced to leave for the lands of the Balts and Finno-Ugrians (Ilmers), who also suffered from the Goths. Here, apparently, began a rapid merger of the Balts and Scythian-Sarmatians, who were possessed by a common will and necessity - liberation from Gothic rule.
It is logical to assume that the Balts were in the majority in the new community, so the Sarmatians who fell into their midst soon began speaking South Baltic with an admixture of “Iranian” dialect - the ancient Slavic language. For a long time, the military-princely part of the new tribes was mainly of Scythian-Sarmatian origin.
The process of formation of the Slavic tribes took about 100 years over the course of 3–4 generations. The new ethnic community received a new self-name - “Slavs”. Perhaps it was born from the phrase “sva-alans”. “Alans” is apparently the general self-name of a part of the Sarmatians, although there was also a tribe of Alans (this is not a rare phenomenon: later, among the Slavic tribes with different names there was a tribe proper “Sloven”). The word “sva” among the Aryans meant both glory and sacredness. In many Slavic languages, the sounds “l” and “v” easily transform into each other. And for the former Balts, this name in the sound “slo-vene” had its own meaning: Veneti, who know the word, who have common language, in contrast to the “Germans”-Goths.
The military confrontation with the Goths continued all this time. Probably, the struggle was carried out mainly by guerrilla methods, in conditions where cities and large towns and centers of the weapons industry were captured or destroyed by the enemy. This affected both the weapons (darts, light bows and shields woven from twigs, lack of armor) and the military tactics of the Slavs (attacks from ambushes and shelters, feigned retreats, luring into traps). But the very fact of continuing the struggle in such conditions suggests that the military traditions of our ancestors were preserved. It is difficult to imagine how long the struggle between the Slavs and the Goths could have lasted and how it could have ended, but hordes of Huns burst into the Northern Black Sea region. The Slavs had to choose between a vassal alliance with the Huns against the Goths and a fight on two fronts.
The need to submit to the Huns, who came to Europe as invaders, was probably met with ambiguity by the Slavs and caused not only inter-tribal, but also intra-tribal disagreements. Some tribes split into two or even three parts, fighting on the side of the Huns or Goths, or against both. The Huns and Slavs defeated the Goths, but the steppe Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region remained with the Huns. Together with the Huns, the Slavs, whom the Byzantines also called Scythians (according to the Byzantine author Priscus), came to the Danube. Following the Goths who retreated to the northwest, part of the Slavs went to the lands of the Veneti, Baltic-Lugians, and Celts, who also became participants in the emergence of a new ethnic community. This is how the final basis and territory for the formation of the Slavic tribes emerged. In the 6th century, the Slavs appeared on the historical stage under their new name.
Many scientists divide the Slavs of the 5th-6th centuries linguistically into three groups: Western - Wends, Southern - Sklavins and Eastern - Ants.
However, Byzantine historians of that time see in the Sklavins and Ants not ethnic entities, but political tribal unions of the Slavs, located from Lake Balaton to the Vistula (Sklavina) and from the mouth of the Danube to the Dnieper and the Black Sea coast (Antas). The Ants were considered “the strongest of both tribes.” It can be assumed that the existence of two alliances of Slavic tribes known to the Byzantines is a consequence of inter-tribal and intra-tribal discord on the “Gothic-Hunnic” issue (as well as the presence of Slavic tribes remote from each other with the same names).
Sklavins are probably those tribes (Milings, Eserites, Sever, Draguvites (Dregovichi?), Smolene, Sagudats, Velegesites (Volynians?), Vayunites, Berzites, Rynkhins, Kriveteins (Krivichi?), Timochans and others) who in In the 5th century they were allies of the Huns, went with them to the west and settled north of the Danube. Large parts of the Krivichi, Smolensk, Northerners, Dregovichi, Volynians, as well as the Dulebs, Tivertsy, Ulichs, Croats, Polyans, Drevlyans, Vyatichi, Polochans, Buzhans and others, who did not submit to the Huns, but did not side with the Goths, formed an Antic alliance, who also opposed the new Huns - the Avars. But in the north of the Sklavins, there lived also Western Slavs, little known to the Byzantines - the Veneti: other parts of the once united tribes of the Polans, Slovenians, as well as Serbs, Poles, Mazurs, Mazovshans, Czechs, Bodrichis, Lyutichs, Pomeranians, Radimichi - the descendants of those Slavs who once left parallel to the Hun invasion. From the beginning of the 8th century, probably under pressure from the Germans, the Western Slavs partially moved to the south (Serbs, Slovenes) and east (Slovenes, Radimichi).
Is there a time in history that can be considered the time of the absorption of the Baltic tribes by the Slavs, or the final merger of the southern Balts and Slavs? Eat. This time is the 6th-7th centuries, when, according to archaeologists, there was a completely peaceful and gradual settlement of the Baltic villages by the Slavs. This was probably due to the return of some of the Slavs to the homeland of their ancestors after the Avars captured the Danube lands of the Sklavins and Ants. Since that time, the “Vends” and Scythian-Sarmatians practically disappear from the sources, and the Slavs appear, and act exactly where the Scythian-Sarmatians and the disappeared Baltic tribes were “listed” until recently. According to V.V. Sedov, “it is possible that the tribal boundaries of the early ancient Russian tribes reflect the peculiarities of the ethnic division of this territory before the arrival of the Slavs.”
Thus, it turns out that the Slavs, having absorbed the blood of so many Indo-European tribes and nationalities, are still to a greater extent the descendants and spiritual heirs of the Balts and Scythian-Sarmatians. The ancestral home of the Indo-Aryans is Southwestern Siberia from Southern Urals to the Balkhash region and the Yenisei. The ancestral home of the Slavs is the Middle Dnieper region, the Northern Black Sea region, Crimea.
This version explains why it is so difficult to find one single ascending line of the Slavic family tree, and also explains the archaeological confusion of Slavic antiquities. And yet, this is just one version.
The search continues.

The beginning of Russian history. From ancient times to the reign of Oleg Tsvetkov Sergei Eduardovich

Balts

During their settlement on the ancient Russian lands, the Eastern Slavs also found some Baltic tribes here. The Tale of Bygone Years names among them the Zemgola, the Letgola, whose settlements were located in the Western Dvina basin, and the Golyad, who lived on the banks of the middle Oka. No ethnographic descriptions of these tribes from the period of late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages have been preserved.

Archaeological excavations show that the Balts, who settled on the lands of ancient Rus', were descendants of tribes who were carriers of the Corded Ware culture. In particular, this is indicated by copper bells from Baltic burials, similar to those that were discovered in the North Caucasus. In ancient times, the cultural development of the Balts and Slavs occurred more or less synchronously, so that by the 8th–9th centuries. they were at approximately the same level of material culture.

Finds in Baltic burials and settlements - iron bits, stirrups, copper bells and other parts of horse harness - suggest that the Balts were warlike riders. The famous Lithuanian cavalry later played an important role in the military history of Eastern Europe. According to surviving news, the Yatvingians, a tribe that lived in Western Polesie, Podlasie and partly in Mazovia, were particularly warlike. Believing in the transmigration of souls, the Yatvingians did not spare themselves in battle, did not flee or surrender, preferring to die along with their families. The Belarusians have preserved a proverb: “He looks like a Yatvingian,” that is, a robber.

The type of Baltic dwelling for the early Middle Ages is difficult to establish. Apparently it was a log cabin. Even in sources of the 17th century. a typical Lithuanian house is described as a structure made of spruce logs, with a large stone stove in the middle and no chimney. In winter, livestock were housed in it along with people. The social organization of the Baltic tribes was characterized by clan association. The head of the clan had absolute power over the rest of his clans; the woman was completely excluded from public life. Agriculture and animal husbandry were firmly rooted in economic life, but the main sectors of the economy were still hunting and fishing.

Close contacts between the Balts and Slavs were facilitated not only by significant linguistic proximity, but also by the similarity of religious ideas, explained by the Indo-European origin of both, as well as partly by Venetian influence. In addition to the cult of Perun, common to both peoples was the veneration of the forest spirit - the goblin (Lithuanian likshai) and the funeral rite - cremation. But Baltic paganism, unlike Slavic, was of a more archaic and gloomy nature, expressed, for example, in the worship of snakes and ants and the widespread use of witchcraft, divination and sorcery. The Late Kiev Chronicle reports that Lithuanian prince Mindovg (XIII century), even after the adoption of Christianity, secretly worshiped pagan deities, among whom was such an exotic figure as Diverkis - the god of the hare and snake.

The Balts’ much stronger commitment to paganism, compared to the Slavs, was apparently due to the existence of their influential priestly class - the Vaidelots, who kept secular power under their control and transferred the idea of ​​inter-tribal unity from political sphere into the spiritual, presenting it as loyalty to traditional deities. Thanks to the dominance of the Vaidelots, the customs of the Baltic tribes were thoroughly imbued with religious principles. For example, the custom according to which the father of a family had the right to kill his sick or crippled children was sanctified by the following theological maxim: “The servants of the Lithuanian gods should not groan, but laugh, because human misfortune causes grief to gods and people”; on the same basis, children with a clear conscience sent their elderly parents to the next world, and during famine, men got rid of women, girls and female infants. Adulterers were given to be devoured by dogs, since they outraged the gods, who knew only two states - marriage and virginity. Human sacrifices in general were not only allowed, but also encouraged: “Whoever in a healthy body wants to sacrifice himself, or his child, or a household member to the gods, can do this without hindrance, because, sanctified through fire and blessed, they will have fun with gods." The high priests themselves, for the most part, ended their lives by voluntary self-immolation in order to appease the gods.

According to anthropological data, the Western Krivichi are the closest to the Balts. However, direct mixing seems to have played a minor role in the Russification of the Baltic population. The main reason for its dissolution in the ancient Russian people was a higher military-political organization Eastern Slavs, expressed in the rapid development of their state structures (principalities) and cities.

This text is an introductory fragment.