East Slavs

Ivangorodsky K. Sourcing aspects of the reconstruction of the East-Slavs ethnic history in the contemporary Ukrainian historiography.
Introduction. The reconstruction of Eastern Slavs’ communities’ ethnic history before the Mongol era is so difficult and complex because of extremely narrow source base. That’s why modern Ukrainian historiography representatives are compelled to offer their own versions either in relation to the Slavs community formation, or directly speaking about the Ukrainians ethnogenesis. However, neither archaeological nor written sources, nor their complex application, yet assist to decide that question, although Ukrainian specialists devote considerable attention and methodological efforts to this.
The purpose of the article is to analyze the validity of the source base at the present stage, which should provide the ethno-historical reconstruction of the East Slavs communities’ formation and development at the pre-Mongol era in the modern Ukrainian historiography framework.
Results. In the process of studying the «East Slavic» medieval ethnological history, Ukrainian scholars traditionally turn to the chronicle tradition, although they realize importance of the other types of sources. Demystification of falsified sources by modern scholars is also very important. Certain skepticism about non-written sources of medieval ethno-history exists in this problem historiography. However, quite often historians are limited by sources’ fragments, while neglecting the establishment of their origin and semantics.
Involvement of archaeological sources in ethno-historical reconstructions requires consideration of the theoretical and methodological specifics of their interpretation. Most Ukrainian archaeologists rightly emphasize that real breakthrough in the expansion of the so-called «early Slavic archeology» source base, as well as its scientific interpretation, took place in the last third of the twentieth century. On the other hand, in recent decades the process of active fieldwork in Ukraine has practically ceased. Unfortunately, anthropology has a lesser source base than archeology. There are no materials for craniology, due to the ritual of fervidation, common for Slavs in the pre-modern period. The main attention of Ukrainian historians regarding the source base of ethno-historical reconstructions is traditionally devoted to the Old-Rusian chronicle and, in the first place, to the «Tale of Bygone Years» However, in contemporary Ukrainian historiography researchers are skeptical in estimation of this work as the historical source.
Conclusion. In contemporary Ukrainian historiography, devoted to the ethno-historical reconstructions of the Eastern Slavs communities’ past, major attention is paid to the problem of ethnological purity of the source base, in particular, in terms of its rethinking. On the other hand, it has to be noted number of theoretical and methodological weaknesses in this perspective, which are related to the strength of ethno-historiographic stereotypes that have developed in relation to this branch at the earlier stages of historical science development in Ukraine.
Key words: historiography, source study, historical source, archaeological sources, chronicles, ethno-historical reconstruction, East Slavs.

The aim of the article consists in the research of transformations of ethnic identity in descendants of Belarusian peasantsmigrants
of Siberia and the Far East. The source basis of the research includes field data collected by the author in ethnographic expeditions
on the territory of 12 regions of Siberia and the Far East during the period from 2009 to 2017, the national structure of the
explored regions reflected in population censuses from 1897 to 2010 and also publications about local history of different years. Results
of the research indicate that at the time of mass agrarian migrations of the second half of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th
centuries the ethnic identity of most Belarusians was not created yet. Due to the internal nature of migrations, peasants identified
their homeland with Russia. Their identity had regional rather than ethnic differentiation. In Siberia Belarusian migrants began to live
near the Russian old resident population and received a new social and cultural status which found reflection in the wide use of the
name “samokhod” (lit. “self-movers”). After the establishment of the Soviet power, administrative and political factors initiated the
process of belarusization. Results of the All-Union population census of 1926 showed that most migrants already identified themselves
with Belarusians. In the 1930s–1940s the socio-political and economic factors of collectivization and industrialization as well
as the consequences of World War II led to serious demographic changes in places of compact accommodation of Belarusian peasants-
migrants. As a result of urbanization and modernization of the way of life of the Soviet village in the second half of the 20th
century, most descendants of Belarusian peasants-migrants began to identify themselves with Russians or just did not think about
their ethnic origin. Since the 1990s, the author observes a growth of interest of professional researchers and amateur enthusiasts in
the history and traditional culture of Belarusian peasants-migrants as in historical and cultural heritage. On this background, the Belarusian
ethnic identity begins to develop again among people who are interested in traditions of their ancestors. Today, mediated information
dominates in its formation rather than intergenerational historical memory. The author comes to a conclusion that during
different periods of time a number of demographic, political, social and cultural factors had impact on features of ethnic identity of
descendants of Belarusian peasants-migrants. Therefore, today it is considered more suitable to use the concept “descendants of Belarusian
peasants-migrants” rather than the ethnonym “Belarusian” when referring to offsprings of people who moved from Belarus to
Siberia and the Far East in the second half of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Ivangorodsky Kostiantyn. The Ethnic History of East Slavs in the contemporary historiography (Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian discourses).
In the study are analyzed modern historiographic discourses of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, devoted to the ethnic history of Eastern Slavs communities during the pre-Mongol era.  Exactly scientific analysis of that problem is of great importance on the background of the great pressure of ideologies and political engagement, including the absence of such a historiographic study (especially based on a broad comparative approach) until now. We have established that for now in all the historiography, mentioned above, are dominated the models of the Slavs’ ethnic history, constructed in the Soviet era.
In the study have been found out the state of that topic scientific development, its factual priorities, has been formed representative base of sources, have been developed the conceptual and methodological foundations of the research, has been determined the theoretical specificity of ethno-historical reconstruction, taking into account the main trends in the development of modern ethnological science.
Also have been characterized the source study approaches in the newest Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian historiographies, and have been traced the potential of the corresponding verification of sources by historians in the course of «east-slavic» ethnic history study. Described theoretical and methodological models and the difficulties of their application in the ethnohistorical reconstructions of Eastern Slavic communities offered by modern researchers, are convinced us in the urgent need for a radical improvement in this segment of the entire post-Soviet humanities.
A detailed analysis of available sources, as well as outlining the weaknesses in theory, methodology and terminology that are involved in solving the problem, allowed us to reveal more deeply the essence of the latest concepts of the Eastern Slavic communities ethnic history  proposed by modern Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian scholars, to identify the main research strategy in this area, synchronously comparing the development of the corresponding historical thought in the designated national historiography areas.
According to Soviet tradition, archaeologists pay most attention to the Eastern Slavs communities ethnic history in modern post-Soviet historiographs. Although in the Belarusian discourse this problem is covered rather fragmentary and often depends on the specific scientific explored object of one or another archaeologist – usually from a certain archaeological culture associated with ethnogenesis and early East Slavic ethnic history. In general, modern Belarusian historiography cannot yet boast of any conceptual achievements in the field of Eastern Slavs ethnic history reconstruction, including the Belarusians ethnogenesis.
The most developed and popular, but at the same time extremely debatable, schematized and biased in modern Russian historiography is the V. Sedov concept. His controversial hypotheses receive many criticisms and refutations in the framework of «east-slavic» historiography. It does not stand up to criticism his apologeticism regarding the so-called «Old-Rus’ nationality», which the scientist seeks to prove (completely arbitrarily) solely on archaeological materials.
Most of the modern Ukrainian historiography versions of this problem study are also represented primarily by archaeologists. But it is worth to note, that within the framework of historical and ethnological reconstructions  of Eastern Slavs ethnic history, represented by Ukrainian experts, there are more variability of concepts and hypotheses, compared with similar discourses in Belarus and Russia. Although, as in the last two, the “nationalized” approach is also dominant in Ukrainian.

The paper deals with the origin and development of the scientific discourse about the Belarusian language in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. The following topics are discussed:
1. The identification of Belarusian after the acquaintance of Russian scholars with Belarusian and Ukrainian literary monuments. M. Kachenovsky, V. Sopikov, E. Bolkhovitinov, S. -B. Linde,  K. Kalajdovich, N. Grech, N. Bakhtin. The language of some Belarusian and Ukrainian monuments was called Belarusian in the Moscow state even back in the 17th century; employees of the Posolsky prikaz in Moscow widely used the term “Belarusian writing”. The use of the term ‘the Belarusian language’ in the early 19th century as a common name for the language used in medieval Belarusian and Ukrainian monuments had serious consequences. On the one hand, the attention of Russian scholars was drawn to the old nature of Belarusian. On the other hand, the written Belarusian was qualified as based on linguistically varied sources at that time. In the first quarter of the 19th century indications on “mixed” character of Belarusian were a part of philological reflection about layers of borrowings in Belarusian rather than had estimating nature.
2. The oral Belarusian language learning. K. Kalajdovich, Z. Dalenha-Chadakoŭski (Dolega-Chodakowski).
3. Attempts to refuse the term ‘Belarusian’. P. Keppen, J. Lelewel, M. Kachenovsky, E. Bolkhovitinov. Reasons of disapproval of the term ‘Belarusian’. The prevalence of terms like ‘Lithuanian-Ruthenian’, ‘Polish-Ruthenian’.
4. The use of glottonyms: руский, руський (руськой), język ruski, белорусский (белорусской), кривичский, руско-кривицкий, литовско-руский, польско-руский, польско-славянский, литовский, rusko-litewski, rusko-polski etc.
5. The fixing of the term ‘русский язык’ meaning. F. Bulgarin (Bułharyn).
6. Glorification tendencies of Belarusian. K. Kalajdovich, O. Senkovsky, D. Yazykov, P. Špileŭski (Shpilevsky). The qualification of Belarusian as some stage in the development of proto-Slavic language or some previous stage in the development of Russian. The corresponding mythology was based on poor knowledge of that time in the area of comparative and historic linguistics and the written heritage of the Eastern Slavs. It was also due to the awareness that the standard Russian was formed comparatively late.
7. The understanding of the Belarusian language as a “mixed” one. N. Polevoj, F. Bulgarin (Bułharyn), N. Grech, O. Bodyansky. The indications on the “mixed” nature of the Old Belarusian language were shifted gradually from the level of historic and linguistic reflections to the level of sociolinguistic generalizations and later turned into the general scornful evaluation of Belarusian.

The article provides an overview of Old-Russian, Byzantine, Latin, Arabic and Jewish-Khazar
texts of the 10th – the beginning of the 12th century, in which there are mentions of ethnonyms, which can be
considered as the names of Slavic «tribal» communities. These historical evidences («Bavarian Geographer»,
the letter of the Khazar king Joseph, a treatise «De Administrando Imperio», Primary Chronicle and some
others) are researched with the help of text’s critics to define their historical authenticity. Special attention
is paid to the coincidences of these texts, which are a key argument for the reality of denotation-societies
behind these designation-ethnonyms. Particular attention is focused on verifying and assessing the reliability
of the historical and geographical information about Slavic «tribes» in the early Old Russian Chronicles.
The paper collects and examines historical and linguistic data about the key Slavic communities of Eastern
Europe (Polyane, Ulichi, Drevljane, Krivichi, Sloveni and some others). Separately the archaeological information
about the areas for which they were located in the 10th–11th centuries is reviewed. It is concluded that
behind the equal ethnonyms in terms of language and literary context of earlier chronicles can be «hidden»
different types of communities (political, territorial or others). In some cases it is impossible to determine
the type of community-denotation even hypothetically (for example, Dregovichi). There is no reason to date
the emergence of any community much earlier fixing its name, the names of its leaders or other onomastic
markers in the written sources.

ПОЛНОЕ НАЗВАНИЕ
О грубом нарушении правил академической коммуникации российскими журналами «Российская археология», «Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики» и «Российская история». Ответ на неадекватные отзывы из трех журналов.
FULL TITLE
On the violation of the rules of academic communication by Russian journals “Russian Archaeology”, “Drevnyaya Rus’. Voprosy Medievistiki”, and “Rossijskaya Istoriya”. Reply to inadequate reviews from three journals (in Russian)

РЕЗЮМЕ / ABSTRACT
В статье подробно рассматриваются вопиюще безграмотные отзывы из журналов «Российская археология» и «Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики», а также отказ редакции журнала «Российская история» выполнять собственные правила после моей критики монографии А.С.Щавелева.
Редакции журналов «Российская археология», «Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики» и «Российская история» декларируют, что предложенные материалы направляются на рецензирование специалистам в соответствующих научных областях, однако реальность не соответствует декларациям. Редакции грубо нарушают правила академической коммуникации.
Чтобы показать, как нарушение правил академической коммуникации приводит к псевдонаучным и/или ошибочным результатам, использованы работы В.С.Кулешова (Вяч.С.Кулешова).

The article discusses in detail with a cribly illiterate reviews from the journals “Russian Archaeology”, “Drevnyaya Rus’. Voprosy Medievistiki”, as well as the refusal of the Editorial Boards of “Rossijskaya Istoriya” to fulfill its own rules after my criticism of the A.S.Shchavelev monograph.
Editorial Boards of "Russian Archeology", "Drevnyaya Rus’. Voprosy Medievistiki" and “Rossijskaya Istoriya” declare the submitted papers are sent to reviewing specialists in the relevant scientific fields, but reality does not correspond to declarations. The Editorial Boards are rudely violated the rules of academic communication.
To show how the violation of the rules of academic communication leads to pseudo-scientific and / or erroneous results, the works of V.S. Kuleshov (Vyach.S. Kuleshov) were used.


Ключевые слова / Key-words:
History, Archaeology, Research Methodology, Typology, Transparency, Ethos of Science, Universalism, Medieval Studies, Textology, Viking Age, Historical Studies, Central and Eastern Europe, East Slavs, History of Ancient Russia, archaeology of Ancient Rus, Baltic archaeology, Dating, Coin Hoards, Kufic dirhams, Russian historians (personalities).


СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
Раздел 1. Введение
Раздел 2. Переписка с Е.Л.Конявской (в хронологическом порядке)
Раздел 3. Полные тексты рецензии №2 из журнала «Российская археология»  и рецензии из журнала «Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики»
Раздел 4. Комментарий к рецензиям и предварительные выводы о нарушении ответственными лицами правил академической коммуникации
Раздел 5. Общие выводы о нарушении правил академической коммуникации редакциями журналов «Российская археология», «Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики» и «Российская история»
Раздел 6. Последствия игнорирования правил академической коммуникации: несколько примеров псевдонаучных результатов из практики В.С.Кулешова
Раздел 7. Вместо заключения
ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ. Обращение в Минобрнауки «О грубом нарушении правил академической коммуникации редакциями журналов «Российская археология», «Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики» и «Российская история»

CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction
Section 2. Correspondence with E.L. Konyavskaya (in chronological order)
Section 3. Full texts of review No. 2 from the journal "Russian Archeology" and review from the journal "Ancient Russia. Questions of Medieval Studies»
Section 4. Commentary on reviews and preliminary conclusions about the violation of the rules of academic communication by responsible persons
Section 5. General conclusions about the violation of the rules of academic communication by the editors of the journals "Russian Archeology", " Drevnyaya Rus’. Voprosy Medievistiki” and “Rossijskaya Istoriya”
Section 6. Consequences of ignoring the rules of academic communication: some examples of pseudoscientific results from the V.S. Kuleshov’s practice
Section 7. Instead of a Conclusion
APPENDIX. Statement to the Ministry of Education and Science “On gross violation of the rules of academic communication by the editors of the journals “Russian Archeology”, “Ancient Russia. Questions of Medieval Studies” and “Russian History”

In 2015 a research was carried out in the southern (excavation 8) and central (excavation 9) parts of the settlement (fig. 1). By the excavation 8 a complex of dwelling 1 and household building 2 were investigated (fig. 2); by the excavation 9 — a household building 1 (fig. 4). The dwelling is represented by construction, characteristic for many early Slavic monuments. Household buildings with niche-like ovens as a characteristic feature, were of local distribution; apparently, they functioned as special buildings for cooking. The materials from the objects are represented by typical set of pottery dated to 10th century (fig. 3; 5).
Biological samples were obtained from a selective soil filtration, are represented by four species: charcoal (identified by M.S. Sergeyeva); palaeoethnobotanical materials; ichthyologic remnants and fragments of eggshell (identified by Ye.Yu Yanish). Analysis of these materials allows to characterize partially the palaeoenvironmental situation. The anthrakological data allow to suggest that in the Peresopnitsa district in ancient times mixed forests grew. The Stubla river, apparently, was a more full-flowing and enough oxygenated, but was not fast flowing.
Palaeoethnobotanical samples (fig. 6, table) represented by progressive data close to the early Slavic (Rayky, Volyntseve-Romny settlements); weeds represented by pronounced anthropochores.
Further complex researches will help to clarify the essential questions of palaeoecology of Peresopnitsa district and bio-economic activities of its inhabitants.
Keywords: Peresopnitsa, Pastivnyk, Slavs, archaeology, paleobotany, archaeozoology.

In der bisherigen Forschung wurde die Lage der frühmittelalterlichen slawischen Gräberfelder im Bezug zu ihrem naturräumlichen Kontext, zu einer archäo lo gisch nachweisbaren Siedlung sowie zu einem Heiligtum untersucht. Eine derartige Untersuchungs-weise erlaubt zwar, die Lage der Gräberfelder genau zu bestimmen und zu beschreiben, jedoch bleibt der Grund dieser Lokalisierung immer noch unbekannt. Die wenigen schriftlichen Quellen erlauben nicht, die ursprünglichen Gründe der Lokalisierung der Bestat-tungsplätze festzustellen. Trotz dieser unzureichenden Bestätigung in den zeitgenössischen Schriftquellen wird die Lage der slawischen Gräberfelder – besonders der-jenigen, die vor der Christianisierung entstanden sind – mit den Bestattungssitten in Zusammenhang gebracht und durch die slawischen Jenseitsvorstellungen erklärt. Aufgrund der archäologischen Nachweise kann man fest-stellen, dass die slawischen Gräberfelder, sowohl vor als auch nach der Christianisierung, sich in gewisser Entfer-nung von der Siedlung, meist jenseits eines Wasserlaufes oder tiefer Geländesenken und oft an schwer zugäng-lichen Geländeformationen, wie Anhöhen befinden. Eine derartige Lage kann kultische Konnotationen suggerieren. Betrachtet man jedoch den Bestattungsplatz ausschließ-lich als einen integralen Teil der Siedlungskammer, wird eine andere Interpretation dieses Phänomens möglich. Eine Analyse der Lage der slawischen Gräberfelder aus dem ost-und westslawischen Siedlungsgebiet, die mit Bezug auf die Bodeneigenschaften durchgeführt wurde, lässt erkennen, dass die slawischen Bestattungsplätze sich immer in schwer zugänglichen und wirtschaftlich un-attraktiven Bereichen einer Siedlungskammer befinden. Man darf daher vermuten, dass für ein Gräberfeld solche Gebiete einer Siedlungskammer ausgewählt wurden, die entweder von schlechter Bodenqualität waren, oder sich durch eine ungünstige Lage in Bezug zur Siedlung und zu den Transportwegen auszeichneten, sich z. B. hinter einem Geländehindernis befanden. Besonders bemer-kenswert ist auch die Tatsache, dass sich eine derartige Lage sowohl für die Gräberfelder mit Brand-als auch jene mit Körperbestattungen nachweisen lässt. Daher muss festgestellt werden, dass der mit dem Religionswandel verbundene Übergang vom Brand-zum Körperritus keine Änderungen der Lage der Gräberfelder verursachte, eine Verbindung zu traditionellen oder christlich beeinflussten Begräbnissitten kann daher ausgeschlossen werden. Die für die Platzwahl in der Forschung vermuteten kultischen Kriterien finden keine Bestätigung in den archäologischen und schriftlichen Quellen. Résumé: Les recherches antérieures ont tenu compte de la situation topographique qu'occupaient les nécropoles slaves du Haut Moyen Age par rapport à leur milieu naturel, ou en relation avec un habitat documenté archéologique-ment, ou encore envers un sanctuaire, mais une telle approche – bien qu'elle permette d'établir et de décrire précisément l'emplacement d'une nécropole – laisse inex-plorées les raisons qui ont mené au choix d'un site. Les rares sources écrites qui ont survécu ne permettent pas de mieux cerner quelles étaient les facteurs à l'origine du choix d'un site funéraire. Malgré les maigres indices que ces sources peuvent nous donner, le présent article tente d'exami-ner l'emplacement des nécropoles slaves – en particulier celles établies avant la conversion au Christianisme – par rapport aux rites funéraires pratiqués et de mieux comprendre comment les Slaves percevaient l'au-delà. Les données archéologiques indiquent que les nécropoles slaves, avant et après la Christianisation des régions slaves, se trouvaient à une certaine distance des lieux d'habitat, très souvent au-delà d'un cours d'eau ou d'une gorge, et