Gleb Lebedev' SLAVS and FINNS in NORTHWEST RUSSIA REVISITED
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fefl1lbSCandi ••rclweologic. XI (/994) Gleb Lebedev' SLAVS AND FINNS IN NORTHWEST RUSSIA REVISITED In his article, Dr Ligi underlines that with regard to as "one of the most interesting sopkas excavated by the problem of Slavic migration into Northwest G. Lebedev" (Sedov 1982, 61). Despite clear evi Russia his position is not far removed from certain dence to the contrary, E. Nosov stated that "it is not ideas expressed "by some Russian scholars 15 yeas a sopka but a long barrow" (Nosov 1982, 61). ago". He characterized. however, this conception However, neither Nosov, Konetski et aI. nor Ligi as a "softer" version of the theory of Slavic coloni himself take into account this ~'most interesting zation (Ligi 1993, 33). As one of these scholars sopka" with regard to its chronological and cultural (particularly the author of the chapter on the North connections. west wbich pertains to tbis problem), I would like I am aware of the difficulties arising from the in to make a few remarks. terpretation of these and similar facts. At the time, Our book (Bulkin et aI. 1978) was, and was to re I wrote (Lebedev 1981) of the crisis of this "ethno main, marginal in fonner Soviet archaeology as an cultural" (in Ligi's terms ' ~ national-romantic") attempt to find new approaches different from tbe paradigm not only in its dominant version but also I'national-romantic" paradigm of Slavic ethno in its "alternative" fonn. Neither one answers ques genesis. This work, however, had its own context of tions arising from the .ctual finds and assemblages research. The concrete results of recent excavations (Fig. 2). and hypotheses were also marginal. and were to re The "opposite hypothesis" is the "new para main so. This is one of the features of a paradigm digm" (this term was used in the title of a lecture crisis, and not only a "national-romantic" one. delivered by this author at a conference in 1979). A At the same time, I published materials (rom one more complex, but also more complete, scheme of the earliest known sopka barrows which had was proposed. This includes not only all the varie been excavated in 1972. It was a typical mound ties of burial monuments (groups of long barrows, near Rep'y on the Upper Luga River, i.e. on the pe sopkas and other burial grounds of the "transitional riphery of the tribal territory of the Slovenes west times", as well as the "Old Russian mounds", of Lake limen (Lebedev 1978). zhalniks and others). It also incorporates various Paradoxically, the earliest assemblages (in cre types of settlements (rustic, pre-urban and urban) malions) of this "typical sopka" contained rich sets (Fig. 3). of women's ornaments, which are typical of the Ligi is correct in referring to our view that ur "long barrows". The chronological position of all banization was the main factor contributing to these assemblages (not only of these but of the "Slavic colonization". But it is questionable sopkas in general) covered the periods from the 7th whether infiltration from these "pre-urban" centres to the 8th and from the 9th to the 10th centuries, into the agrarian surroundings was necessary for and a series of inhumation graves (ca. 20) shows the existence and rise of these centres. The Sur that this population also used their local cemetery rounding population was more or less "Slavoni from the 11th to the 14th century (near the sopka cized" by language, culture and economy. are typical zhalnik graves) (Fig. 1). The medieval culture of Northwest Russia is Five years later, V. Sedov described this barrow termed "Old Russian". It is both Slavic and Finnic, i.e. with Karelian, Ingrian and other components at the periphery of the Novgorod State in the period 1 Department of Arcbaeology. Faculty of History. Meodeleeyskaj. line V.O., 199034 51. Petersburg, from the 11th to the 15th century. I suggest that the Russia. beginning of this medieval culture was connected 89 .>'" leA b ~LY- ~ l·~' _,I" II ~"4" o IN ~~ j>V I I- K[3;~' z .. II' ~~--> . .Y ! ~ 1"< ~I" C_], 't' f ~ 'J :u I~ ::':::::': & - -1-- f- - - -Ii I.~ - :.:1:::.= I,; I- Ic> - r~::h) r r- r - ,- Is 1- _< '" , ,- 17 =.:w 1'11<-1 o~ ~ ~ II I" ~-l ~.r r\JM :01# ",*,?U I-~~ lil ~v. K ~ III G') K 1->1" ~ ~ II ~ ~ 1_,'. III E!) ", X'IC)( ,., If s" r /I £ :..w J 1/ K /I Xx L!fH ;.'(, "". _,r,.. .~:,;>i> ! lL ~ I"'. -~" I ' .. ~' ~'.' :~ '... I """ -,~. ~;y /' 1 j"<. ~ ~ Z . ·0 ~ .. .." I.. ~~~ /' jl! 'I "'IJ "1°. ~ ", .. ¥" It Jli 11 I~ " 17'~ f- f- --1- __ ~.JIL '-I-I- I--I.f 1-:-- ,- r9- lr r- - r - r -- I' r.-l ' I"~ 11 -'- 17 * ~~ ... I If I" 1'\ .. I~IP =l ~v< IJ' ~~ '> .::. " t 1;:) ~V' I.>\'-'I~ .... ~ t:w; Itl I I ..1I I 1lI . ~: :-:~. 1-'" I ' ,~ .u 0.::::::::::' ~ x Fig, 1, Sopka, Rep'y, Mound levels and finds assemblages (after Lebedev 1978). I .II p . /~N L-.-..:J .IT Fig. 1. Cont. Zh Zh t t I ORC I ORC I t I RS I r--- ---- ----- ---- ------ ---, cemeteries of transitional times : 1 ~dJ m 1 1 ck~ -- a) b) i----I OTHS 1 r I 1 '-------' I Fig. 2. Dominating (a) and "alternative" (b) versions of 1 1 1 the "ethnocultural paradigm". LB - long bar 1 1 rows, S - sopkas, RB - round barrows (with crc 1 1 1 1 mations). ORC - "Old Russian cullurc". ZH - --~ zhalniks (after Lebedev 1981). 1 : local centres with the last of tbe great cultural changes that can be observed archaeologically. Previous cbanges were no less considerable and were of great signi [mJ ficance for social and ethnic processes, particularly the process of language consolidation, mixing and replacement. In 1989 we published a collective Fig. 3. The "opposite hypothesis" of the peopling of work on the ethoogenesis of the Slavs (Slaviane Northwest Russia by the Slavs. The abbrevia 1989), in which I suggested a general scheme of tions are the same as in Fig. 2. oms - open trade-handicraft settlements - Ig - burial sites this cultural process with regard to archaeological with inhumations of the 11th-12th centuries cultures from the first millennium B.C. to the first (after Lebedev 1981) millennium AD (Fig. 4). The soptas, long barrows and other groups of archaeological remains in Northwest Russia belong in principle to the same scheme as a continuation of the same processes in the northern peripbery of the forest zone of tbe Russian Plain. Slav cubures of the 8tIl-1Oth centuries ~ Fig. 4. The general scheme of Slavic C. 3/4 t mill. Prag- ethoogenesis according to ar PIc. Ad.-G .• Be. Kol.-Tush. ~ Ko<chack chaeologica1 data. EIA - Early Kurgan-Azak c. IrOD Age cultures, MI - 0G Milograd, Sk - Strol:ed Ware t ~ culture, Youkh - Youkhonovo culture, DD.-Dv. - Dnieper Post-Zc Kiev-type c. ~ CC Dvina culture, U.O. - Upper Oka culture, v::. - Zarubincy culture, CC Cbemiakov culture, Post-ZC - post-Zarubinciao cul tures. C 3/4 1 mill - cuitures of the third quarter of the first mil lennium AD. : Pk - Pco 'kovu I I-G culture, All.-G. - Adarnenki Gaimanovo culture, Be - EIA cultures: MI. Sk. YotJkh. 00.-0.., U.O. Bancerovscbina culture, Kal. I I Tush. - Kolochin-Tushemlia culture (after Lebedev 1989) 92 The problem consists, however, in the associa tion between cultural (archaeological) and linguis I SLAVS I I BALTS I tic (ethnic) processes. We stressed the fundamental independence of these processes with respect to t t one another, although the main pbases of both (lin IProto-Slavs I I Proto-Baits I guistic and archaeological) can coincide (Fig. 5). We explored these processes in the connections +- between Slavs, Scandinavians, Finns, Balts and I Pre-Baits others during the Viking Age (Slaviane i Skandi p~-~+ 1 navy 1986). In 1992 I proposed a general model of 1 t these processes (Fig. 6). Proto-Slavo-Balts The problem remains, however, of how this I I "model" can be investigaed with the means of sepa rate disciplines: archaeology, linguistics, anthro Fig. 5. The scheme of the same process according to lin pology etc. Together with Professor A. Gerd, a lin guistic data (after Lebedev 1989). guist, we suggested a general solution to the prob lems (Gerd and Lebedev 1991). The first condition is the separate ordering of data in the individual disciplines (Table 1). I___ Early_Ages r---, .., RR • E • Scandinavians I.O(O(--";~~I Slavs u D R Baits Finns • 01 -IlIt8IactIoi i n p c 3 E poce Western Scandinavian states kingdoms Kiavan RUSSia Rome BYline. I Fig. 6. The common model of the for Mediterranean civilization mation of "early medieval Baltic civilization. RR - "Rurik's Rus", i.e. Northwest Russia in the 9th- 11th centuries (after Lebedev 1993). 93 Table I Model of data matrix for the interdisciplinary exposition of the Historical-Cultural Zone (HCZ): East Novgorodian HCZ. ORC - Old Russian culture, S - sopkas, LB -long barrows, TWC Textile Ware culture, DC Dyakovo culture ("Western variant"), Fe - Fatyanovo culture, PC Pitted Ware culture (after Gerd and Lebedev 1991). Chronology Structural types of material archaeological language antbro- etbno- geo- cultures of the pology grapby grapby population 1 mill. AD aRC Slavic 1 mill. AD S West-Finnic 1 mill. AD LB West-Finnic 1 mill. BC TWC(DC?) West-Finnic, Baltic 1-2 mill. BC -. -- West-Finnic, Baltic 2 mill. BC FC West-Finnic 2-3 mill. BC UVC West-Finnic 3 mill. BC Finno-Ugrian 3-4 mill. BC PC Finno-Ugrian 4 mill. BC Saami 4-5 mill. BC Proto-Saami? In the case of the "Slavs and Finns", the situation population, or to the absence of an "autochtho studied by Ligi, tbese disciplines, alongside ar nous" population in these regions and localities.