Slavic Ethnogenesis

“Polish Aryans”. Between the Scientific Foundations of the Myth and the Mythological Roots of Science in the 19th-Century Slavic Discourse
The article is devoted to reflection on the role of the Aryan discourse in the research of Slavophiles of the 19th century. Traditional studies on the ethnogenesis of the Slavs conducted by historians on the basis of ancient “scraps” and incomplete sources did not give the answer that would satisfy the political ambitions of the Poles. The inclusion of ethnographic and linguistic methods into the Slavic studies helped create the narrative in which the journey, made by the early Slavs from the Land of Aryans, became a full history of the people’s origin. The conviction about the Indo-Iranian origin of the Slavs shaped the mythical thinking and attempts to create a story legitimizing the right to self-determination and the historical significance of this group. The belief in ancient Aryan heritage considerably changed political orientation and the pursuit of a new identity – free of inferiority complex with respect to the West and ready to dictate its own conditions. Discussing the issues related to race and racial differences between particular peoples, including the ones belonging to the Slavic family, showed the authors’ political views and the future of the nation they envisaged. It also deepened the split within the Slavic studies. The sources available and studied by the Slavic history researchers did not provide clear answers to the question whether the Slavs are direct descendants of the Aryans, therefore the research and texts that are examined in the article have creational and commentary nature and serve the function of creating narratives shaping the community. The aim of this approach will be to reflect on how scientific discourse creates the foundations for identity myths.

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.

Celem niniejszej pracy jest omówienie powstania oraz okoliczności zmierzchu koncepcji wandalskiej na ziemiach polskich, w świetle polskiej historiografii średniowiecznej i wczesnorenesansowej. Idea Polski-Wandalii w skali milenijnych dziejów polskich zaistniała w rodzimej oraz zagranicznej historiografii w sposób dość znaczący, a jej wpływy widoczne będą aż po czasy zaborów.
Przeświadczenie o pochodzeniu Polaków od plemion wandalskich panowało już w średniowieczu. Kiedy jednak powstała owa koncepcja i co wpłynęło na jej niesłychaną popularność? Dlaczego nastąpił jej zmierzch? Czy teza o sarmackim rodowodzie okazała się zwyczajnie atrakcyjniejsza od dawnej wandalskiej? Co leżało u źródeł zawrotnej „kariery” nowej koncepcji? Pytań jest wiele, a proste tłumaczenia o ślepym naśladownictwie tradycji Zachodu mało zadowalające. Intrygująca jest także kwestia etniczna. Czy w średniowieczu przedługoszowym można w ogóle posługiwać się kryteriami etnicznymi w dzisiejszym rozumieniu? Czy dopiero od Longinusa możemy mówić o decydującym zwrocie w tym aspekcie? Świadomość „germańskości” bądź „słowiańskości” domniemanych antenatów zostanie zatem osobno omówiona.

Дисертаційне дослідження присвячене вивченню системи влади у політичних утвореннях Слов’янського Полаб’я і реконструкції причин та характеру її трансформацій від кінця VIII до перших десятиліть X ст. Основною суттю цих змін було раннє державотворення, яке розглянуто в контексті моделі формування та ієрархізації ранньої держави дружинного типу. Робота побудована на основі співставлення інформації писемних джерел з сучасними опрацюваннями археологічного матеріалу, яке спорадично супроводжується залученням напрацювань історичної географії та лінгвістики. Розглянуті політичні утворення білих сербів, велетів та ободритів. Стосовно кожної з груп пошукова робота була спрямована на те, щоб з’ясувати питання політичної єдності і наявності центральної влади, локалізувати князівства тогочасних слов’янських володарів, що згадані у франкських наративах, охарактеризувати їхнє внутрішньополітичне становище, механізми влади і засади взаємин з локальними очільниками та суспільством, реконструювати характер владних інституцій на нижчих щаблях територіально-політичної структури і визначити ступінь її загальної ієрархізації, відстежити зміни політичної системи впродовж заданого часового проміжку.

The analysis of the Polish chronicles of the Old Polish Period (around 1200-1795) leads to the conclusion that Polish scholars, far from being the creators of the theory of Sarmatian ethnogenesis of Poles, used it in a very creative way. Their analysis of ancient sources was very insightful and their contribution to the problem was extremely innovative. Whilst the Sarmatian theory was already known in the Middle Ages West (alongside with the Vandalian theory) it was spread first time broadly, throughout whole Europe, by works of Polish scholars. Familiarizing well with the legacy of Greek and Latin authors who described the future Polish lands, and comparing it with the achievements of the Old Polish Period historiography, we will see how it was thoroughly known to Polish scholars. As for the pre-Darwinian , pre-archaeological knowledge, their erudition and research methodology is really impressive. Unfortunately, in further, turbulent centuries Polish science just wandered off from their earlier standard, which was truly at the global level. Searching for the roots of the Sarmatian theory, we should look back in the late Middle Ages (Długosz). Even in the Renaissance it was still functioning along with the older theory of Germanic origin of Poles (especially from the Vandals and Goths). Therefore, it is wrongly attributed to the 16th-century scholar, Miechowita. He was also of plebeian origin and is thought to have developed an ideology supporting the privileged layer of the Polish gentry, which was not in his interest, as he was not one of them. Apart from geographical references to the great ancient geographer Claudius Ptolemy, there is no allusion or even hint about Sarmatian provenance of gentry or Poles/Slavs in his tractate (he opted for origin from Vandals). The dispute over the Sarmatian and Vandalian concept lasted for most of the sixteenth century, and the final result was not so obvious until the end of the Renaissance period. Scientists who created the Sarmatian theory, originated mostly from the outside of the circles of nobility, and the only Blue Bloods (Długosz is omitted here, as he was a medieval scholar) – Bielski and his son, were particularly skeptical of the orthodox version of the new theory. Supporting a moderate version, which combines the old and new concepts in a very careful way, they gave a great testimony of erudition and proficiency of their scientific methods. Marcin and Joachim Bielski argued with Kromer – the main supporter of the new theory. In the heat of this dispute developed a new version of it, which in the future would evolve into a highly original cultural formation, known as Sarmatism, combining elements of the East and West. The genesis of the victory of the Sarmatian theory is complex and goes far beyond the framework of contemporary science, touching on geopolitics, socio-economic factors and the culture in a broad sense. Contrary to the common beliefs, continuations in the late Renaissance and Baroque periods were not always so uncritical. However, providing research was not much essential in developing the thesis of the oldest Sarmatian theory, and authors were not able to create and try to prove other alternative versions of it. This gullibility therefore, refers to the continuous of the former theory, except a few, maybe more creative examples. It is impossible to estimate the invaluable contribution of the Sarmatian theory to the formation of the Polish national culture. Its genesis lies, paradoxically, in the completely innocent pursuits of the sixteenth-century scholars (of different social class provenances), which – contrary to their intentions (which were academic in a pure sense) – were used in the next century by the growing in strength nobility. At the same time it should be considered that, contrary to former beliefs, this theory was not in the Renaissance something entirely new, and one can even talk about uninterrupted continuation since the ancient times (but in Western Europe only – in medieval Poland it was not adopted). It is also amazing that today, in the light of the multitudinous, often completely contradictory, theories about the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, one cannot completely reject the ancient Sarmatian claims, which are even partially confirmed in heraldry, linguistics and even... genetics!

The article deals with the emergence of the Slavic ethnic identity in the territory of Ancient Rus’. While seeking for a (hypothetical) answer to this question, the author focuses on contacts that existed during the 10th century between Kiev and the empire of the Přemyslids, in which the Slavic identity was inherited from Great Moravia. According to the author, the Slavic identity could penetrate into Kiev (from which it later came to Novgorod) from the Přemyslid realm via the well-known trade route that in the 10th century connected centres of Western and Central Europe with Kiev, Volga Bulgaria, and Khazaria. In doing so, the author attributes the leading role in the contacts of Kiev with Central Europe to the tribe of Lendians (Lendzaninoi / Lędzianie) mentioned in the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s treatise “De administrando imperio” (mid-10th century). In the author’s opinion, the Lendians were not only closely connected with the realm the Přemyslids, but also controlled Plisněsk, an important political and trade center, through which contacts between Slavic-speaking communities of Central Europe and the Middle Dnieper region were made. According to the author, of all the Slavic-speaking communities that had close contacts with the Russes, the Lendians were most capable for embracing the group name Slověne due to the supralocal nature of their group identity and the possible influence of the Moravian (Olomouc) bishopric. While stressing that the emergence in Kiev and Novgorod of new non-tribal group names, including that of Slověne, was conditioned by changes in the social and cultural habitus of the Slavic-speaking population, which concentrated in the corresponding loci, the author expresses the idea that it was the Lendians who were the key link in the spread from west to east of the the Přemyslid realm’s (“Prague empire”’s) “social knowledge”, which contributed to the adoption of the Slavic identity in Eastern Europe.

In this paper, we introduce a novel method for map registration and apply it to transformation of the river Ister from {\it Strabo's map of the World} to the current map in the World Geodetic System. This transformation leads to the surprising but convincing result that Strabo's river Ister best coincides with the nowadays Tauernbach-Isel-Drava-Danube course and not with the Danube river what is commonly assumed. Such a result is supported by carefully designed mathematical measurements and it resolves all related controversies otherwise appearing in understanding and translation of Strabo's original text. Based on this result we also show that {\it Strabo's Suevi in the Hercynian Forest} corresponds to the Slavic people in the Carpathian-Alpine basin and thus that the compact Slavic settlement was there already at the beginning of the first millennium AD.

On the author`s page:
https://www.academia.edu/34865801/The_name_of_the_Slavs_Etymology_and_Meaning._In_Studia_Slavica_et_Balcanica_Petropolitana_nr._1_2017_pp._3-20
The name is the main constitutive element and the most important identification sign of a barbaric community. The fixation of the name Σκλαβηνοί in the 6th century by Procopius of Caesarea and Jordanes as a designation of one of the groups of the trans-Danubian Barbaricum is the chronological boundary that separates the Slavs of prehistoric times from the historic Slavs. For a long time it was believed in historiography that the Slavs as a «people» or «cultural community» existed long before the 6th century, thus hiding in sources under other names. Of these names, the most important was the name Venethi / Venedi. However, the Slavs became Venethi, as well as the Venethi became Slavs, only thanks to Jordanes. The author of the article tends to the opinion that the name Σκλαβηνοί was originally a designation of only one barbaric
group, and then, due to various intellectual and ideological factors, it was transferred to other communities until it acquired the meaning in which it is understood today. Linguists, as well as historians, based on linguistic
facts, a priori interpreted the self-name of the Slavs as based on the common language — on the word *slovo. It followed from this that this ethnic community arose on the basis of the language community. The thesis about the Slavs as «clearly speaking», that is, about the existence of an ethnic group, whose members determined themeselves through a common language already in the 6th century or even earlier, still occupies a strong position in Slavic studies. However, according to the author of the article, the picture according to which the formation of the group name «Slavs» was a result of the members of this group rational awareness that they use the unique «Slavic language» is not convincing. The connection between the name of the Slavonic community and the (Slavonic language) basis *slovo as well as the perception of the Slavs as the «people of the word» emerged much later: the linguistic interpretation of the ethnonym Slavs is the core of the intellectual and religious concept that took shape in the second half of the 9th century, being connected with the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Moravia and Pannonia. For this reason, the author of the article prefers the etymology of the name «Slavs» proposed by the Polish linguist Zbigniew Babik because, in the author’s opinion, it is Babik’s etymology, and not the traditional linguistic view that reflects the reality of the Barbaric world of the early Middle Ages in more adequate way. ***** Название является основным конституирующим элементом и важнейшим идентификационным признаком варварской общности. Фиксация в VI в. в трудах Прокопия Кесарийского и Иордана названия Σκλαβηνοί в качестве обозначения одной из групп задунайского барбарикума является тем хронологическим рубежом, который отделяет славян доисторического времени от славян, зафиксированных историками. Долгое время в историографии считалось, что славяне как «народ» или «культурная общность» существовали задолго до VI в., скрываясь в источниках под другими именами. Из этих имен самым важным считалось название венетов / венедов. Однако славяне стали венетами, а венеты славянами лишь благодаря Иордану. Автор статьи склоняется к мнению, что название Σκλαβηνοί первоначально было обозначением лишь одной варварской группы, а затем в силу различных интеллектуальных и идеологических факторов стало переноситься на другие общности, пока не обрело то значение, в котором оно понимается сегодня. Лингвистами, а также историками, опиравшимися на лингвистические факты, самоназвание славян было априорно интерпретировано как основывающееся на общности языка — на понятии «слово», из чего следовало, что данная этническая общность возникла на основе языковой общности. Тезис о словенах как «ясно говорящих», то есть о существовании этнической группы, представители которой уже в VI в. или даже еще раньше самоопределялись через общий язык, до сих пор занимает прочные позиции в научной литературе. Однако, на взгляд автора статьи, картина, согласно которой к появлению группового названия «славяне» привело рациональное осознание членами данной группы того, что они используют уникальный
«славянский язык», не является убедительной. Выведение названия общности славян от (славянской языковой) основы *slovo и восприятие славян как «народа слова» возникли гораздо позже: языковое прочтение этнонима «славяне» является стержнем интеллектуально-религиозной концепции, которая оформилась во второй половине IX в. в связи с миссией свв. Кирилла и Мефодия в Моравии и ПанCommentarii/Статьи
нонии. По этой причине автор статьи считает первоначальной этимологией названия «славяне» ту
этимологию, которую разработал польский лингвист Збигнев Бабик. На взгляд автора, этимология
З. Бабика более адекватно отражает реальность варварского мира раннего Средневековья

The article presents a comprehensive critique of the argument in favour of the discovery of the remains of Nicolaus Copernicus. It analyses the arguments based on genealogical, historical and most of all genetic considerations, including the mathematical fundamentals of estimation a random match of mtDNA profi les.
The following assertion results from the presented criticism: Based on the results provided by the team of Jerzy Gąssowski, it is not possible to reasonably claim that the grave of Nicolaus Copernicus was discovered. Therefore, this research should be continued in order to increase the strength of the argument and obtain new evidence.

The author tries to summarize the recent results in various fields of investigation—linguistics, history, archaeology, DNA analysis—referring to southeast Europe, mainly regarding the Romanian-Slavic relations. He also briefly resumes the discussions referring to the so-called ‘earliest Slavic borrowings in Romanian’, with a brief look at another interesting term, *tъrgъ, but also at the not-at-all clear relation between Rom. oraș and Hung. város. The hypotheses regarding the origins of the Albanians are also briefly considered as the conventionally called ‘ethnogenesis’ of the Romanians, Slavs and Albanians is one problem with various facets, not different problems.
The conclusion is that the years to come should witness a radical change in analyzing the past, specifically the period of migrations, from 4th to 10th centuries C.E., during which the social and cultural realities were more complex than currently acknowledged.

The study aims to present some comments to an age-old issue of “original settlements of the Slavs”, or the “homeland of Slavs”. The primary goal is to highlight several paradoxes that emerge within the interpretation of existing information of the sources of 6. century, mainly Prokopios, Jordanes or John of Ephesus. These details were and still are surprisingly often neglected in the literature focused on the ethnogenesis of Slavs. In particular the article deal with 1) the “triplication” of the border of Scythia, the Gepids and the Slavs in Jordanes account, 2) the geography of the settlements of the Slavs and chronology of the attacks into Byzantine territory in Prokopios De bello gothico (the connection with the stay of Hildigis, actions of Chilbuldius, the wandering of Heruli), 3) the neglected information of John of Ephesus Ecclesiastical history (the Slavs as “Western people”). The whole picture is amended with the information of Menander Protector, Theophylact Simocatta and so-called Pseudo-Kaisarios. Author of the article proposes an opinion that if the sources constantly describe the region of Dacia, later Gepidia and nowadays Wallachia (Oltenia and Muntenia), we have to take these territories for the “homeland of Slavs”, the space where the name of the Slavs was “created” in the 6. century.

The paper deals with the meaning of the term «Moravians» used in written sources of the 9th century. Short research review reveals various interpretations of the origin and fundaments of the Moravian society. Some of them have their roots in the medieval period, others reflect contemporary conceptions of ethnogenesis present in modern social sciences. Aside from it is the use of the term «Moravians» in medieval Slavic and Latin sources, where the term denotes both an ethnic community and a political unit. From the
analysis of these sources follows that the term «Moravians» was used in the sense of a military unit, an object of Christianization, and also had a geographical aspect and/or used to denote the ethnic affiliation of Slavic elites. However, the term «Moravians» was also relevant when referring to people assemblies. In this case a special expression «all the Moravians» was used. This expression was also known in later
period when Moravia was under the Přemyslid rule. Despite this fact, there is no reason to assume ethnical continuity between Moravia of the 9th century and that from the period after 1029.

The paper represented a first attempt to sketch a history of the earliest relations between the Slavs, Romanians and Albanians in the so-called ‘ethnogenetic period’ of the great migrations. The topic was later developed in two ample volumes, one interdisciplinary, written with an archaeologist.

У статті здійснено спробу дослідження можливості впливу етнокультур-них факторів на перебіг державотворчих процесів на землях полабських слов'ян у VIII-ІX ст. З цією метою комплексно проаналізовано найбільш дискусійні аспекти етнокультурних процесів у Слов'янському Полаб'ї, ви-ходячи зі співставлення писемних джерел з актуальним масивом археоло-гічної інформації та результатами лінгвістичних досліджень запропонова-но уточнену етнокультурну картину регіону, визначено первинні внутрішні фронтири і проаналізовано їх на предмет кореляції з осередками ранньої державності.

The Primary Chronicle (The Tale of Bygone Years) is believed to have incorporated and preserved the very archaic West Slavic segments from the unknown historical source belonging to the Great Moravian or Pannonian literary tradition of the late 9th and early 10th centuries. These parts bear the precious testimony about the archetypal motherland of the Slavs on the Danube River, from where they gradually spread out over the extensive parts of Europe, preserving, however, solidly the consciousness of their initial unity. This motherland on the Danube, which they called Slovyenskaya zeml’ya [Slavic land/country], was later then occupied by the Hungarian tribes and consequently renamed into Hungary. Acknowledging this West Slavic tradition as their own, the East Slavs became the apparent successors of the Great Moravian and
Cyrillo-Methodian ideological concept of the Slavic world. The analogical case of an adoption of the Great Moravian tradition into the particular, this time, the South Slavic tradition can be detected in the Chronicle of Pop Dukljanin. Here we have witnessed how the interjection of the (Great Moravian) Svatopulk’s tradition with the tradition of the Slavonic-Croatian statehood laid the basis for the South Slavic tradition of Sclavinia as the powerful and archaic Balkan country of the Slavs. A very similar message is brought forward by the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle, where Sclavonia as Great Moravia is explicitly considered to be a predecessor of the Kingdom of Hungary. The last discussed concept of Sclavinia, as the vast country of many Slavic tribes, arises when dealing with the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymus. Within this widest portrayal and territorial depiction of Sclavinia we have witnessed the gradual evolution of an idea of the ethnic unity of the Slavs, which was gradually extended into the geo-political dimensions (e. g. references to St. Adalberts’s plan of Sclavinia as the political union of the West and possibly the South Slavs; also to Otto’s III plan of Renovation Imperii Romanorum). Again here, we come to a touch with the Great Moravian legacy and its genius loci, which was influencing the ideological movements in this region for many centuries.Summarizing the outcomes from the analysed historical sources, we presume to identify the three basic Slavic traditions, which trace their roots back to Great Moravia of Svatopluk and its ideological and territorial legacy: 1) Old-Russian tradition; 2) South Slavic tradition; and 3) Latin West Slavic tradition. All these traditions, as it was shown, are alleged to have fixed the historical memory of the Slavs themselves about their first statehood on the Danube — the river, which as a result acquired a «totemic», sacral character both in oral and written traditions of almost all Slavic peoples. Great Moravia, which served as the model of the powerful and in all aspects important Slavic state, stamped the evolution and history of the majority of its Slavic descendants. These, in order to receive a hallmark of their own legitimacy, preserved, modified and spread further the memory on the common Slavic country (motherland), called Sclavinia.
Keywords: Sclavinia, Sclavonia,regnum Sclavorum, Great Moravia, Svatopluk.

The topic of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, both in the Middle Ages and in the 19th and 20th cen-tury, often concentrated around a few classic moments. The concept of Christian history and Biblical wandering was followed up by a concept of a great nation or even civilization united mainly by language consanguinity. This nation or people originally came from a particular Homeland and its derivatives got to their present settlements during a gradual and suspiciously silent migration. Urhei-mat described in linguistic science as an area on which the oldest language tracks are documentable (in hydronomy, toponomy, in linguistic borrowings) of the reconstructed Proto-Slavic language. In archeology, the migration from the homeland is displayed by a geographical spread of the corpus of material culture (burial method, type of dwelling, forms of produced pottery and other reflections of various spheres of human life preserved in material) connected with the Slavs. For more than 50 years, the historical science has been analyzing the names in ancient and medieval sources in a diffe-rent way. Barbarian groups that appeared on the map of Europe are being understood as social con-structions that are built upon a rational work with memory and irrational elements. It is believed that the identity (ethnic identity which we project onto these groups) of these groups, that “who they really were”, was not created by an automatic inscription into their blood but rather by an idea and belief in their common origin – common blood. The main role in the maintaining, representation or abandoning of a brand – name – identity was carried out by a part of the tribe responsible for the military successes and spiritual sphere of life. Military-sacred myth-symbol concept is in the case of Slavs replaced by a concept of an automatic linguistic identity and migration of masses of peasants.The absence of an origo gentis that celebrates the ancient roots of Roman-Gothic-Slavic dynasty and the subsequent transformation of the semantic content of name Slavs until its present form does not allow the historians to consider the Slavs of the 6th century Wallachia as a gens equivalent to its neighbors, the Gepids or Lombards. The aim of this article is to point out some of the details of the discussion and to propose an entrance to a hypothesis about the role of the first known leaders of the Slavs and their “naked warriors” in the process of identity formation of an early medieval barbarian group.

Ivangorodsky K. Balts component in the Concept of East Slavic ethnogenesis by Valentin Sedov.
The ethnic specific of East Slav associations never lost the scientific actuality, without regard to the enormous studios devoted to this problem. It must be noticed their quality is not always proper. Speed evolution of modern post-soviet national historiography has outlined practically complete ignoring each other’s ideological field. Absence of such approach is undoubted, that is why there is the necessity of more attentive analysis of modern authors looks, among them - Russian. In modern Russian historiography there are researchers that try to modernize the soviet version of ethnogenesis of east slavs, although the new facts and approaches attracted by them certify complete methodological inadequacy of «Old-russian nationality» theory. Conception of the known Russian archaeologist Valentine Sedov (1924–2004) belongs to them.
In the article the brought analysis over of conception of Slavic етногенезу of V. Sedov in that her part that is sanctified to influence on this process of балтів. In particular and on forming of ethnos of Belaruss, and also reception of this hypothesis by modern Russian historiography.
To the factor of balts a researcher in all labours gave primary value, as considered justly, that problem of ethnogenesis of slavs and them early history can not be got to know it is isolated from historical processes that took place in the nearby regions of Europe, but initial history of slavs of closely is casebound with history of Celt, Germans, Scythians, Sarmats and balts. In one of the last interviews of V. Sedov said, that dreamed to write large research from ethnic history of balts, but, unfortunately, through death, already it did not go to court him to do it. However, he had time to publish as early as 1992 small labour by Latvian in Riga, sanctified to old balts. Mainly this range of problems is analysed to them in great numbers scientific studios. On ethnologic interpretation in the east slavs environment of medieval twenty-four hours there was the built and doctoral dissertation of V. Sedov (1967) a balts component. he first tried to distinguish balts substrat in medieval Slavic artifacts. Essentially a scientist analysed forming of specific of east slavs on territory of modern Belarus and North-west of Russia, as a result of assimilation of local балтських tribes by slavs that moved here westerly.
The looks of V. Sedov are analysed in relation to participating of balts in forming of ethnos of Belaruss. Territory of Belarussian ethnogenesis from ancient times was sufficiently densely populated by associations that belonged to balts of ethnic language array and, as data of archaeology, hydronimic and anthropology testify, assimilated east slavs. The archaeological and linguistic sources brought over to the Moscow scientists to the study of Belarussian ethnogenesis on the whole brought him over to the appropriate conclusion about powerful influence of balts on this process. However in modern historiography far not all accede to the chart of early ethnic history of east slavs offered by him.
Key words: Valentine Sedov, balts, slavs, east slavs, Belaruss, ethnogenesis, historiography.

The following study paper discusses the topic of the medieval Slavic country, Sclavinia, as described in the first Polish Chronicle of Gallus Anonymus from the beginning of the 12 th century. We trace the development phases and changes comprised in the toponym of Sclavinia throughout the centuries, focusing on the significant period at the twilight of the 10 th ‒11 th centuries and its further continuation in the Gallus' concept of Sclavinia.

The aim of the article is to discuss the origins and circumstances of the decline of the Vandalian Concept on Polish lands, in the light of Polish medieval historiography. The idea of Poland-Vandalia was highly influential for creation of future Polish national identity. It was dominant Polish theory of ethnogenesis until the end of 16th c. when was replaced by the Sarmatian theory. The most important issues of analysis of Vandalian concept include: accurate time of origins, reasons of popularity, final falls of the Vandalian and rises of the Sarmatian theory. Finally, the ways of understanding of ethnicity of alleged ancestors by Polish scholars.

Стаття присвячена дослідженню етногенезу слов’янського населення Верхньої Лужиці та уточненню північно-західних кордонів Білої Хорватії. Виходячи з аналізу писемних джерел, зокрема, уривків з твору Константина Багрянородного “Про управління імперією” та “Орозія короля Альфреда”, показано, що земля ранньосередньовічних мільчан розглядалася, як північно-західна периферія Білої Хорватії. Здійснено спробу верифікації висунутої гіпотези шляхом аналізу результатів археологічних та лінгвістичних студій, який підтвердив можливість участі у формуванні сучасного верхньолужицького етносу хорватського населення з Північно-Східної Богемії.

A map of Slovienia and an Italian novel: two useful starting points in order to understand the ethnogenesis of a people and the link between language and cultural identity, as much as the one between cultural phenomena and the individual processes of subjectification. The essay uses semiotic tools, in particular the models developed by Lotman and Greimas, and proposes to introduce (1) the distinction between central and peripheral in the topology of culture and (2) the concept of entanglement between subjects.

Ivangorodsky K. The problem of Urheimat Slavs localization in modern Belarusian historiography.
Historians have always perfectly understood: solving the problem of the Slavs ethnogenesis foremost depends on establishing the place of their formation / appearance – the so-called «Urheimat». But until now there isn’t the only reasonable view of such localization. Therefore, discussions and «searches» are continuing. Belarusian scientists do not overlook the problem. For them, this discourse offers not only a general historical search for truth, but also aims to clarify the «Slavic identity» of present Belarusians.
To analyses the contemporary Belarusian scholars point’s of view on the problem of Slavs Urheimat and to find out the level of their concepts’ theoretical and methodological authenticity in the marked area.
In modern Belarusian historiography are not enough specialists, that’s why – doesn’t exist serious discussions. Among the authors, we can determine the views of such scientists: E. Zaharulsky, S. Rassadin, G. Shtyhaw, M. Pilipenko, V. Titov, A. Rohaliev, I. Chakvin and others. The dominant view is that the Urheimat Slavs had a western localization, in the Vistula-Oder region. Some scholars tend to define it more patriotically – in the Polissya region. There are also speculative versions of the ultra-patriotic character.
The problem of the Slavs Urheimat localization occupies the prominent place in modern Belarusian historiography. For many specialists in various humanitarian fields, it remains very relevant. Despite the disease of contemporary national historiography growth, its tangible ideologizability, false scientific stereotypes, inherent for Slavic studies in general, Belarusian researchers still try to formulate their own vision of the given problem.
Key words: modern Belarusian historiography, Indo-Europeans, the Urheimat, Slavs, ethnogenesis.

Ivangorodsky K. The neoeurasism in perception of modern historiography and views of А. Dugin on ethnogenesis of East Slavs.
After the communist ideological dictate in historiographic sphere of modern post-soviet countries failed, have been developed the new doctrines that are aimed to be the only correct in the whole humanitarian space. One of them is the concept of neoeurasism by Russian historiography. For Ukrainians this concept is only political idea, that’s why it is not perceived as the ethnohistoriographic concept in which Ukraine and Ukrainians have negative roles. Majority of critically thinking researches mark that the concept is antiscientific and it’s population among the Russians must be deep analyzed.
The ideologize scientific model of the historical past, proposed by neoeuroasism apologists (besides A. Dugin) through the connection with the Russian classic science (for the first with the “ethnological concept” by L. Gumilyov), is based on the ethnic original and ethnohistorical evolution of East Slav’s association. From here is lined up the geopolitical model of difficult today’s relations between Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. That’s why the article aim is the analyses of modern Russian science, ideology and ethnopolitical practices cross-coupling in the context of the neoeurasism concept influence.
The neoeurasism was formed in Russia in the 1990ths One of the most important tasks for classic and modern neoeurasism’ apologists is permanent “translation of empire”. Today the neoeurasism doctrine became the unfinished theoretical model of new empire construction or restoration of the Soviet empire. The most substantial foundation of their theory the neoeurasism’ apologists concider the so-called “Russian eurasis civilization”. So the Russian self-identification process leaves unfinished and obscure.
The doctrinal level and ideological construction of modern Russian neoeurasism are connected with the A. Dugin person, who till the June of the 2014th held the position of the Moscow state university international relations sociology department manager but was fared because of appeals to kill the Ukrainians. That’s why the very important problem, which is marked by modern researches, is the neoeurasism (especially by A. Dugin) sloping to neo-fascist rhetoric and ideological content. Connection between the A.Dugin ideas and fascist tendency became the subject of many discussions in Russia and Europe.
The purpose of neoeurasism researches is the attempt to prove the Eurasia mythical monolithic nature and to deny the East Slavs ethno-differentiation. This is necessary for the only Russian ethnos empire domination. Taking into account insolvency of this theory, we have to notice that modern neoeurasism do not worry about making their model heuristic valuable and vigorous.
The modern Russian neoeurasism is pretended to be the scientifically-reasonable doctrine, directed to explain the Russian past and contemporaneity originality, but must be defined as pseudo-scientific, primitive creation. A. Dugin attempts to explain the ethno-historical development of Russians as the prevailed community in Eurasia region and to induce the neighbour nations to live in Russia empire are especially bright. But without any doubt this hypothesis is unscientific and not able to analyze the East Slavs historical past.
Key words: neoeurasism, Eurasia, doctrine, historiography, А. Dugin, ethnogenesis, East Slavs.

Landscape & Ethnos: Reading Gumilev-Introduction the 3rd installation of a revision in progress further & deeper contextualisation in the first comprehensive English language study of Gumilev's work and its implications across sciences & geopolitics

Ivangorodsky K. Ethnic interpretations of «Slavic» Archaeological Cultures in contemporary Belarusian historiography.
Introduction. Modern Belarusian researchers analyze the problem of ancient Slavs, primarily as a component of Belarusian ethnogenesis. At the same time, the conceptual and terminological uncertainty of the ethnic content and essence of the «Slavs» concept is still present in such Belarusian specialists’ studios. This situation forces some authors to deny the Belarusian ethnic group Slavic identity and to construct the Baltic ethnicity for them. Most researchers consider the problem of settling the Slavs in the Belarusian territories more considerably. There is a rather broad chronological range of this process from the Bronze Age till the 10 century AD.
The purpose of this article is to analyze ethnic interpretations of several archaeological cultures in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. Concepts are controversial in the research space of contemporary Belarusian historiography. Archeological cultures are defined by specialists and as Slavic, Baltic, and as symbiotic communities, which specifics have already defined the modern Belarusian ethnic identity in the future.
Results. We are talking about the archaeological cultures such as Zarubyntsi, Postzarubinetska, Kolochyn, Bantserovshchyna-Tushemlya, Kyiv and Prague. Only the Prague culture population is clearly defined as purely Slavic by all researchers. Other cultures in the middle 1st millennium on the Belarus territory, in particular Kolochyn and Bantserovshchyna-Tushemlya, have three variants of ethnic interpretation – Slavic, Baltic, Balto-Slavic. It is complicated to define the «ethnic identity» of earlier cultures of the region – Mylograd, Zarubyntsi, Postzarubinetska, Kyiv, Penkiv.
Most of archaeological monuments on the Belarus territory, related to «Slavic question», is still at the initial stage of studying. In Belarusian historiography is still present the inertia to connect all the monuments from the 1st millennium with the Slavic ethnos. The insufficiency of a particular material is often replaced by artificial ethno-historical constructions. The most problematic component in this perspective is no linguistic provenness of relation to the Slavic archeological cultures. Ethnic interpretations of the «Slavic» archaeological cultures in modern Belarus historiography are presented by such scholars as E. Zagarulsky, A. Medvedev, L. Pobol, S. Rassadin, V. Viarhei, G. Shtykhow, A. Egoreychenko, O. Levko, V. Belyavets, O. Makushnikov and others concepts.
Conclusion. Thus has developed the rather difficult situation in regard to the ethnic interpretation of most archeological cultures that took place in the territory of Belarus during the first half of the 1st millennium AD. Some of them are estimated by archaeologists exclusively monoethnically – purely Slavic or Baltic. But some of these interpretations make us to see in such antiquities forms of the Balto-Slavic ethnocultural (sometimes only ethnically) symbiosis, which have created the Belarusian ethnic specificity at the level of modern ethnos.
Key words: modern Belarusian historiography, archeological culture, ethnic interpretations, Slavs, ethnogenesis.

Artykuł jest próbą podsumowania ostatnich badań dotyczących problemu pochodzenia Słowian, przede wszystkim na polu trzech dyscyplin: historii, archeologii i językoznawstwa. Brak podejmowania badań interdyscyplinarnych oraz głęboko zakorzeniony w polskiej tradycji badawczej podział na allo- i autochtonistów wydaje się uniemożliwiać wypracowanie wspólnego stanowiska, co więcej tezy stawiane przez badaczy z różnych dziedzin wydają się sprzeczne.
Opierając się na konfrontacji osiągnięć różnych dyscyplin badawczych, autorka stara się także wymienić kroki, które warto w najbliższym czasie podjąć w badaniach nad pochodzeniem Słowian, a także udowodnić, że podejmowane w nowszej literaturze postulaty przeformułowania tematu badań są w pełni uzasadnione.


The canon of knowledge about the so-called ethnogenesis of the Slavs: The time of a breakthrough
(SUMMARY)
The paper attempts to demonstrate the nature of the latest groundbreaking research into the origin of the Slavs, comparing research results from different disciplines (mainly archaeology, history, and linguistics). The lack of interdisciplinary research and the division to allo- and autochtonists, deeply rooted in Polish scholarship, makes it impossible to establish a common position; the theses put forward by researchers in various fields are contradictory. The paper tries to map out the steps that should be taken in the near future to address this problematic situation, including the rejection of the migration paradigm. The aim is also to prove that the individual voices suggesting the need of reformulate the research topic – appearing in the literature – are fully justified.