Methodological issues of modeling the initial stages of Slavic ethnogenesis

Alekseev Konstantin Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0000-0001-9131-6331 PhD in Philosophy Assistant professor, Tver State Agricultural Academy 170094, Russia, Tver region, Tver, Marshal Vasilevsky str. (Sakharovo), 7 alekseev.k@mail.ru Other publications by this author

In modern Slavic studies, two opposing methodological approaches to the study of the early history of the Slavs have been quite clearly outlined. The first method can be conditionally called written, since the history of Slavs is based on written sources in which this ethnonym is reliably used (for example, Jordan). Here the problem of the Veneds arises in Tacitus, but in general the written method does not see the Slavs before the beginning of our era. Because of this, the systemic connection of Slavs with other groups of the Indo-European family is undoubtedly lost, whereas methodologically the problem of the ancestral homeland of the Slavs is most closely connected with the theories of dialect division of the Indo-European community ^{[1, p.116]}. This is O.N. Trubachev's methodological approach, with which we fully agree. Therefore, we must look for the ancestors of the Slavs in that area and at that moment in ancient history, when they stand out from a larger group of Indo-European tribes, which included at least the Balts and Germans. In particular, H. Birnbaum argues that the separation of the Proto-Slavic language from the Balto-Slavic took place in the VII-VI centuries BC ^{[2, p.321]}. Thus, in order to search for the origins of pre-written Slavism, we need other methods, in particular the one that V.V. Sedov proposed and demonstrated in his works, calling it a multi-stage retrospective method ^{[3, pp. 594-596]}. Sedov restored the history of the Slavs from archaeological cultures, reliably attributed precisely as Slavic (for example, Prague-Korczak), to the archaeological predecessors of these cultures.

At the same time, the retrospective method, being in systemic connection with the data of linguistics, in any case gives the invariance of the solution of the Slavic question. From the very beginning of Slavic studies (J. Shafarik, M. Fasmer) the retrospective method was captured by toponymy, which claimed that the Slavs were archaeologically attached to those places where the greatest concentration of Slavic toponyms (in particular, hydronyms) is observed. This variant of Slavic ethnogenesis placed the Slavs in the Carpathian region (Podolia and Galicia). On this basis, B.A. Rybakov saw the Slavs in the Scythian ploughmen (VIII-VI centuries BC) ^{[4, pp. 202-205]}, and M. Gimbutas associated with the Slavs the Subcarpathian culture of corded ceramics (Bronze Age, the first half of the II millennium BC) ^{[5, pp.31-32]}. Accordingly, other cultures of corded ceramics turned out to be archaeological equivalents of other dialect groups of Indo–Europeans - Balts and Germans.

This solution to the problem of Slavic ethnogenesis could well have explanatory power, if not for its contradiction with the data of written sources. The passage of Procopius of Caesarea is well known that the Slavs are very tall and of great strength. Their skin and hair color are not very white (Procop. Bell.Coth., VII:22-29). This is quite clearly a description of the Nordic anthropological type, which is correctly called Atlanto-Baltic, emphasizing its attraction specifically to the Baltic. On the contrary, the bearers of the Subcarpathian culture and their archaeological heirs - the bearers of the Trzyniec–Komar culture had a rather low height (the average for men was 168 cm, for women 160 cm ^{[6, p. 533]}) - these are clearly not the future Nordic giants of Procopius of Caesarea, but representatives of the Mediterranean anthropological type, which had a dark pigmentation of skin and hair, and widespread in the Paleolithic and Bronze Age in the area of the Tripoli and later archaeological cultures of Right-bank Ukraine. It is noteworthy that T. Ler-Splavinsky clearly saw in the bearers of the Komarov culture not Slavs, but presumably Thracians ^{[7, p.47]}.

In other words, the population living in the area of the greatest concentration of Slavic hydronyms differs sharply from the "written" Slavs in terms of anthropological type. This contradiction, firstly, forces us to assume the later migration of Slavic speakers to the Right–Bank Ukraine, which is quite consistent with the history of other dialect groups of Indo-Europeans (in particular, the Celts were not the indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles, and the Germans - the country that later received their name: only in the Laten period they appear in Germany and they are displacing the Celts). Secondly, we find ourselves forced to turn to the option of solving the problem of Slavic ethnogenesis, which has been defended by V.V. Sedov for many years. According to him, the archaeological equivalent of the Slavs is the Subclavian culture in central Poland (about 400 BC)^{[3, pp. 595-597]}.

In general, we recognize the correctness of both the retrospective method itself and the direction of the search for the origins of Slavs (on the Vistula). However, we cannot agree with the too late date, which is accepted as the beginning of the history of the Slavic dialect group. Therefore, we set ourselves the task, using the latest paleogenetic data, which had not previously been used in the Slavonic discourse, to analyze which of the models will allow us to restore much earlier stages of Slavic ethnogenesis before the separation of the Slavs from the Nordic group of Indo-Europeans.

It is quite clear why V.V. Sedov accepts the flared culture (400-100 BC) as the first indisputably Slavic one – since further back, deep into the centuries, historical uncertainty and extremes in judgments already begin. The first such uncertainty arises when trying to establish the origin of the flared culture itself – either as a result of migration to the Middle Vistula of the carriers of the East Pomeranian culture (VII-VI centuries BC) ^{[8, p.43]}, or on the basis of the local Vistula substrate, which absorbs and levels the Pomeranian influence ^{[9, p. 70]}.

Thus, we have two possible lines of development of Slavs – Pomeranian and Vistula.

Regarding the Pomeranian line of ethnogenesis of the Sedovs, it is quite definitely stated that the Pomeranian culture was not Slavic, but Baltic, similar to the culture of the Baltic mounds in East Prussia ^{[9, p.63]}. However, it is impossible to agree with this in any way, since a key difference in funeral rites is noticeable between the two cultures: the Pomeranian culture was unburied, whereas the Baltic culture, as follows from its full name, practiced the kurgan burial rite ^{[10, pp. 97, 98]}. In addition, the search for the origins of Slavs in the Baltic Pomerania is quite consistent with the Atlantean-Baltic anthropological type of Slavs recorded by later written sources. Finally, the indisputable fact of the Pomeranian invasion of the Vistula cannot be ignored as such.

Because of this, within the framework of the Pomeranian line of ethnogenesis, one can agree with T. Ler-Splavinsky, who pointed out that the oldest Slavs stably lived on the Baltic coast near the mouths of the Oder and Vistula for almost 800 years (1200-400 BC) within the framework of overlapping variants of the Lusatian culture (Pomeranian group, 1200-800 BC East Pomeranian group, 800-650 BC; East Pomeranian culture, 650-400 BC) ^{[7, p. 47]}. One can also agree with the ethnogenerating role of the Polish Pomerania, which G.S. Lebedev wrote about ^{[11, p.76]}.

However, a new uncertainty arises in determining the origin of the Lusatian culture itself in Pomerania. There are the most contradictory opinions regarding its ethnic status. G.S. Lebedev points to Illyro-Italian dialects ^{[11, p. 84]}, O.N. Trubachev denies the presence of Italians, but agrees with the Illyrian origin of the Luzhichans ^{[1, p. 114-115]}.

At the present stage of the development of knowledge, the opinion is well established that the Lusatian (pre-Lusatian, 1450-1200 BC) culture was formed on the territory of Poland and from here spread to the territory of modern Moravia, Slovakia and Saxony ^{[12, p. 391]}. However, its occurrence in Silesia and Greater Poland is the result of the influence of a more southern Kurgan culture ^{[13, p.366]}, or the result of an earlier migration of speakers of the Unetitian culture ^{[10, p. 69]}.

It should be noted that the Unetitian culture in the main area of its existence (Slovakia, Moravia, Bohemia) was borderless and elitist ^{[11, p.83]}. But when its carriers penetrated to other regions (for example, to Thuringia) they became the elite over the autochthonous population and the sign system denoting their dominance over the substrate became rich mounds (for example, in Leibingen, near Erfurt)^{[14, p. 54]}. The Leibingen mound is quite similar in its design characteristics (a wooden chamber like a house for the dead and a stone embankment) and a set of equipment (halberds and gold rings) to Kurgan IV in Leki-Male near Poznan ^{[12, p. 387]}. Paleogenetic and radiocarbon studies of bone remains showed that the leader lived 3762±27 BP (1812 BC according to traditional uncalibrated dating) and was a carrier of the mitochondrial haplogroup T2e ^{[15, sap.tab.1]}.

Thus, the Unetitian superstrate traveled from its main habitat in Slovakia and Moravia through Bohemia to Thuringia (Leibingen), and from there, around 1840 BC, it penetrated into the territory of Great Poland (Leki Male), bringing here as an iconic system of its domination the kurgan rite and the entire complex of Unetitian antiquities (1840-1450 BC), which later developed into the pre-Lusatian culture (1450-1200 BC), at the Lusatian stage proper (1200-400 BC), which included Pomerania in its distribution area.

However, no matter how harmonious the archaeological line of succession of cultures is, historical invariance is not removed from this, since it remains unclear whether the Unetitian culture was Slavic or Celtic. In our opinion, the differentiation of Celts and Slavs is a much more significant issue than the differentiation of Slavs and Balts from the Baltic-Slavic unity postulated by most researchers.

If we assume that the alien Unetitian elite, in addition to establishing dominance over the substrate of Great Poland and Pomerania, also instills in the local population its own language, its beliefs and kurgan rituals, then the Unetitian culture should be recognized as a Slavic retrospective method, since the archaeological heirs of the Unetitian culture – the Pomeranians – were Slavs who formed the bell culture. But if so, then an important question arises – where are the Celts? After all, most researchers in the West traditionally consider the Unetic culture to be Celtic ^{[13, p. 367],[16, p.134]}.

And there can be only one answer to this question, since for the Bronze Age period, Hans Kraye's concept of some ancient European linguistic unity, mechanically composed of Germans, Slavs, Celts, and Illyrians, should be rejected ^[17]. Currently, this concept has undergone significant modifications and, in general, should be attributed to the field of historiography ^{[16, pp. 117-118]}. Soviet and American researchers tend to agree that the Celts and Italians formed a separate branch of the Indo-European languages, whereas the Slavic-Balto-Germans are much closer not to these ancient Europeans, but to the Indo-Iranians ^{[18, pp.398-399],[19, p.57]}. Moreover, palatalization of velar consonants (satemization) is an individual phenomenon and occurs not at the level of macro-groups, but at the level of already isolated dialects.

Accordingly, in relation to the Bronze Age, any concepts in the spirit of G. Kray (including V.V. Sedov, his follower), suggesting that archaeological cultures (Unetitskaya, Luzhitskaya) were "ethnic conglomerates", are erroneous. Since the expansion of the corded ceramics culture, the existence of any linguistic macro-groups is no longer historically relevant - all the dialects of the Indo–Europeans have already separated from the family and existed quite independently within the framework of local archaeological groups and cultures.

Thus, if we want, while remaining within the Pomeranian line, not only to understand Slavic ethnogenesis, but also not to lose sight of the Celts, then we must admit that the Unetitian culture was still the archaeological equivalent of the Celtic dialect group, that it archaeologically shaped the Lusatian culture, but at the same time the Celtic superstrate did not change the linguistic the status of the Slavic substrate. This model is well known from the example of the Bulgarians: the arrival of the Turks in Moesia, where the Slavs lived, led to the Turks becoming the elite (Khans) the country that became known as Bulgaria, the local population adopted the Turkic self-name, but at the same time continued to speak the Slavic language.

And here it is appropriate to analyze the ethnonym of Veneda. Since Caesar mentions the Veneti tribe next to the Redones in Armorica (Caes. De bell. Gall. II:34), this ethnonym is undoubtedly Gaulish (= Celtic). The Unetitian elite brought it to Great Poland and Pomerania, and the autochthonous Slavs adopted it as a self-designation, preserving it until the time of Tacitus, without losing their ethnic identity throughout history. This is a very characteristic feature of early Slavic history – the preservation of identity within the framework of the cultural dominance of other peoples - Goths, Huns, Avars and Bulgarians.

So, the Pomeranian line of ethnogenesis leads us to the idea of autochthonous Slavs. In addition to the ethnonym Veneda, other lexical borrowings from Celtic also indicate the correctness of this model ^{[20, p. 147]}. On the other hand, a characteristic sign of the extinction of the Unetitian (Celtic) cultural impulse is a return to the unburied (soil) burial rite at the stage of the East Pomeranian group of the Lusatian culture (800-650 BC) ^{[10, p. 95]}. Thus, the kurgan sporadically existed for a narrow stratum of the elite during the period of the Unetitian culture (1840-1450 BC), became the dominant rite in the pre-Lusatian and early Lusatian times (1450-1200-800 BC), after which the Celtic elite was assimilated or expelled by the Slavs, and its customs and language ceased to dominate the spiritual life. Since 800 BC and throughout the Klesh culture (400-100 BC), the ancient (egalitarian) non–curan ritual and undoubtedly the Slavic language have dominated.

However, if we assume that the Unetitian culture did not change the linguistic status of the Slavic substrate in Pomerania, why do we deny a similar phenomenon with regard to the arrival of the Pomeranians on the Vistula during the formation of the Klesh culture? After all, ultimately, the basis of the Pomeranian line of ethnogenesis turns out to be the same idea of autochthonousness that V.V. Sedov assumes for the Vistula line of development. In this case, regardless of the ethnic status of the Pomorians, the original Slavs should be recognized as the inhabitants of other groups of the Lusatian culture on the Vistula – Kuyavian and Mazovian.

Because of this, during the development of the Vistula line, instead of invariance, a quite clear historical certainty arises – the entire Lusatian culture, with all its local groups, was Slavic. This is the opinion of I. Echedi, T. Kovacs ^{[13, p. 367]} and T. Ler-Splavinsky ^{[7, p. 47]}. During the formation of each of the Lusatian local groups, the Slavs retained their identity. Autochthonous, as a methodological principle, works not only in relation to the Pomeranian, but also to the Vistula line of ethnogenesis.

And if in both cases we exclude the Unetitian influence as insignificant for the history of Slavs, then the question arises what was the substrate for the development of the Lusatian culture?

Within the framework of the Vistula line of development, such a substrate turns out to be the Tshynets culture (1450-1200 BC), related to the Komarov culture of the Carpathian Ukraine ^{[6, pp. 429, 437]}. However, the inhabitants of the Tshinets culture (short Mediterranean) cannot be recognized as the original Nordic Slavs on an anthropological basis, as we already wrote at the beginning of the article.

If we remain systematically faithful to the autochthonous principle, then the emergence of the Trzyniec culture should not have changed either the linguistic or anthropological status of the inhabitants of the Middle Vistula. Before their appearance in the Vistula Region, there were antiquities of the Greater Poland-Mazowiecka group of the corded ceramics culture (the earliest monuments - Krusza Zamkowa-3 near Inovroclov in Kuyavia - date from 4395±70 BP ^{[21, s.37, taf.57]}), the defining feature of which is the lining of the inner walls of the grave pit with individual stones (not plates) ^{[10, p. 53]}. Such a constructive technique is not found in other groups of corded ceramics culture and is not found in cultures preceding in this area (funnel-shaped cups, spherical amphorae). We know a similar technique in relation to the pit (Budjak) burials in Thrace and to the Hittite burials in Alaje-Hyuk ^{[22, p. 104]}.

Thus, the Vistula line of ethnogenesis suggests that the original Slavs were those carriers of the cultures of corded ceramics, who around 2445 BC, having separated from the Nordic group of Indo-Europeans, came to Great Poland, Mazovia and Kuyavia. Similarly, the Germans stand out from the array of corded ceramics cultures, pass through Thuringia on their way (the earliest date is about 2440 BC) and reach Jutland around 2340-2320 BC ^{[21, taf.89, 221, 229]}.

The correctness of these conclusions is confirmed by the genetic relationship of two groups of corded ceramics culture: in Esperstadt (Anhalt) there is a very characteristic mitochondrial haplogroup (MtHg) H6a1a ^{[23, p. 158]}, a completely similar MtHg is found in Kuyavia (Pikutkovo near Wroclaw) ^{[24, sap.tab.1]}. Thus, we have two sister branches of the same tribe, having a common origin on the Middle Dnieper, synchronously going north, but in different historical ways. Their common origin is indicated by the occurrence in both branches of MtHg corded ceramics, previously discovered on the Dnieper (in the Neolithic Sedimentation): for the Thuringian branch, this is the U4a1 subclades ^{[23, pp.158, 163]}, for Kuyavia it is the U5a1b2 subclades ^{[24, sap.tab.1]}, the ancestral subclades – U5a1b – are found just in the Firmware ^{[15, sap.tab.1]}

The antiquities of the Greater Poland-Mazowiecka group of corded ceramics existed for 6 centuries (2445-1850 BC). The latest dates (Podgaj-32 near the same Inowrocław, 3800±60 BP ^{[21, taf.61]}) indicate that corded ceramics survived until the appearance of Unetic antiquities in Poland (Leki-Male In 1812 BC). For 6 centuries of their existence, the Great Polish-Masovian Slavs managed to include Pomerania in their area of settlement as well. Thus, the space from the Oder to the Vistula was the true cradle of the Slavic tribe, in which the Slavs developed for a long time and steadily as a completely independent dialect group.

The advent of the Unetitian Celts tore the Greater Poland-Masovian group into three micro-groups.

Nothing definite can be said about the fate of the Mazovian group, but in the future it turns out to be part of the Trzyniec culture (1450-1200 BC).

The Kuyavian-Pomeranian group becomes the basis (substrate?) for the formation of the Iven culture. In this article, we will refrain from determining the ethnic status of this transitional phase of the development of Pomerania.

In our opinion, the Greater Poland Slavic element is essential for future history. He was the first to fall under the Unetitian influence (Leki Male near Poznan, the center of Greater Poland), remaining the main population of both the Unetitian culture in Poland (1840-1450 BC) and the pre-Lusatian culture (1450-1200 BC). The population of both continued to speak the Slavic language and when the Lusatian culture began its expansion (about 1200 BC) from the Greater Poland hearth, the Slavic language was finally established in the space between the Oder and the Vistula, the Lusatian Slavs for the second time included Pomerania and Mazovia in their area of settlement, leveling any historical invariance created by the Ivno and Tshinets cultures.

Thus, the Vistula and Pomeranian lines of development converge twice: firstly, in the Lusatian culture (1200-400 BC), which was undoubtedly autochthonous Slavic (assuming that the Unetitskaya was Celtic); secondly, in the Greater Poland-Masovian group of corded ceramics (2445-1850 BC), which became the basis for the formation of the Lusatian culture and its local groups. At the same time, the Greater Poland substrate, despite the Celtic-Unetitian cultural dominance, unequivocally retained its Slavic identity, which cannot be said unequivocally about the Kuyavian and Mazovian micro-groups, but they did not participate in the formation of the core of the Unetitian, pre-Lusatian and Lusatian cultures proper.

This model is closest to the concept of Tadeusz Ler-Splavinsky, with the only difference that it was the cord substrate that was the original Slavs, and all the alien layers on it are insignificant for subsequent historical destinies.

The Greater Poland-Masovian group itself, in its early forms, shows typological similarities with the groups of corded ceramics in Lesser Poland, in particular with Lubachowska ^{[21, s.22, 39]}. According to I.K. Sveshnikov, Lyubachovskaya, along with the Upper Dniester group, are the oldest in the Subcarpathian culture of corded ceramics ^{[25, pp.44-45]}. Having come to the Carpathian region from the Middle Dnieper in the middle of the III millennium BC, the Proto-Slavs, after a short consolidation (2500-2450 BC), moved north, preserving the elements of material culture developed during the Lyubachev consolidation. Already in Greater Poland and Pomerania, the Slavs begin to develop independently as a separate dialect group. During it, the carriers of corded ceramics undoubtedly assimilate the population of the funnel cup culture (they continued their existence in the period 2450-1940 BC) ^{[21, s.41, 251-252]}. The latter, being a carrier of the Nordic anthropological type, begins to speak the Slavic language, which actually gives the Slavs the appearance described by Procopius. At the same time, it should be noted that an essential characteristic and principle of Slavic ethnogenesis is the preservation of linguistic identity despite any external cultural influences. The rejection of this principle deprives the entire constructed model of evidentiary force.