More and more migrants and refugees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East continue to arrive in Europe. This flow will later go down in history as the largest mass migration of people in the era of globalization.
As one person noted: "History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes"The current migration process is unique in its own way, but at the same time it has features that were inherent in large-scale migrations of the past.
Fleeing from poverty and wars in the hope of a better life pits newcomer peoples against the indigenous ones, and in this collision, as always, many things are born: the shock of the invasion, the joy of finding a new home, the relief after long journey, deep-seated hatred of foreigners and their customs, escalation of conflicts and a whole range of other human emotions, as well as long-term political and socio-economic consequences and changes.
Great Migration
"I would rather say that these are two-legged animals, and not people, or stone pillars, roughly hewn in the image of a person, which are displayed on bridges. This disgusting appearance corresponds to their habits, characteristic of cattle: they eat food uncooked and unseasoned; instead of ordinary food supplies, they are content with wild roots and the meat of the first animal they come across, which they put under their seat on the horse and soften it that way.
They live roaming among forests and mountains, hardened by cold and hunger. They wear clothing like a tunic made of linen or fur and, once they have put their head through it, they do not let it fall from their shoulders until it falls off in rags. They cover their heads with fur hats with edges and wrap their hairy legs in goatskin.
All of them, without shelter, without a homeland, without any habit of a sedentary life, wander in space, as if everyone were running further, carrying their carts behind them, where their wives work for them, give birth to and raise their children... "
Attila and his hordes invade Italy. Eugene Delacroix
This is how the ancient Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus (who, by the way, was a Syrian Greek by origin) described the Huns in his work “Acts” (Res Gestae, also known as “History” or “Roman History”), commenting on the invasion of barbarian tribes into Europe in the middle of IV century AD e.
Experts are still arguing about the reasons for the mass migration of nomads. Some talk about “global climate change”: severe droughts have led to the depletion of lands controlled by nomadic tribes. The increase in population also played a role. As a result, the barbarians began to increasingly visit the inhabitants of the European part of the Roman Empire.
The expansion of the living space of the Huns, Goths, Vandals and other tribes and their penetration deep into Europe lasted for several centuries. Increasing cultural, linguistic and religious conflicts between the Germanic tribes and the sedentary population ultimately led to the collapse of Rome and the destruction of the empire.
The newcomers arriving in Europe today do not wear goatskins or fur tunics. However, in many other respects, their invasion of modern Europe looks as stunning as the barbarian invasion looked to the citizens of the Roman Empire 15 centuries ago.
What is driving people from different parts of Africa and Eurasia today? In this crisis, it is quite difficult to distinguish between refugees and migrants. Many truly lost everything they had in the bloody chaos of the wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other conflicts. Others flocked to the Old World in search of new opportunities, escaping poverty in their native lands.
Intercontinental migrations
In search of new opportunities, many migrants of the past traveled even further than those fleeing to Europe today. The European and African ancestors of today's Americans, Canadians, and residents of South America followed the discoverers of new continents, from the Old World to the New.
At the same time, according to many estimates, the number of slaves imported from Africa until the beginning of the 19th century. exceeded the number of free people. A number of historians note that in the period 1492–1776. Of the 6.5 million immigrants who crossed the Atlantic and settled in the Western Hemisphere, only 1 million were Europeans. The remaining 5.5 million were slaves brought from Africa by force.
During the nineteenth century. The scale of intercontinental migration is growing - due to relative overpopulation in some countries and labor shortages in others. In addition to the main migration destinations - the USA, Canada, as well as a number of South American countries - following the exiled prisoners, people went to Australia and New Zealand in search of a better life.
At the same time, as during the Great Migration of Peoples in the IV-VII centuries. in Europe, conquistadors and adventurers of all stripes and the waves of migrants that followed them crushed the old order of life in those parts of the world where they came to plunder and settle their new world.
The new beginning and expansion of living space for the Old World colonists and their slaves became an apocalypse for the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Many tribes and peoples were completely exterminated, their cultures and value systems were erased from the face of the Earth.
The genocide of the Aborigines of Australia and Tasmania by British colonists also went down in history and was described by a number of contemporaries, in particular Charles Darwin, as well as military historian and correspondent Alan Moorehead.
Intercontinental migration to the Americas reached its maximum at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1900–1914 About 20 million people left Europe, approximately 3/5 of this number settled in the United States. The subsequent world wars had a serious impact on the destinies and lives of many people and migration flows.
Immediately after the First World War, the intensity of intercontinental migration fell sharply. A number of countries, in particular the USA and Australia, introduced restrictive measures for migrants at the legislative level, and after a surge in the early 1920s. Subsequently, the number of overseas migrants began to decline again.
World Wars I and II
First World War led to massive displacement of the peoples of Europe. People were forced to flee from war zones both to other areas of their countries and to neutral countries. However, a much more serious factor was the conclusion of peace treaties and the establishment of new state borders following the war. National minority groups were forced to leave their former places of residence, often involving forced deportations. In particular, over 500 thousand Germans were resettled from the territory that was transferred from Germany to Poland, and more than 200 thousand Hungarians were forced to leave the territory of Czechoslovakia. Groups of the German-Austrian population moved to Austria from areas that previously belonged to Austria-Hungary.
The Second World War further accelerated the movement of population groups of one nationality from one country to another. Before the start of the war in the countries of Eastern and South of Eastern Europe, more than 12 million Germans lived in Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
Those who did not return to Germany with the retreating German troops were resettled in Germany in the years after World War II under the decisions of the Potsdam Conference of 1945. Many countries in Eastern Europe also exchanged national minorities, again due to changes in state borders following the war.
At the same time, the Second World War led to a new intensification of intercontinental migrations. In particular, during the repatriation of the Japanese from areas of China, Korea, and other areas of Asia, about 6.3 million people were resettled to Japan.
Great Depression in the USA
An example of large-scale flight from poverty was migration within the United States during the Great Depression and a series of dust storms in the 1930s.
By some estimates, more than 1 million Americans, impoverished by the economic and environmental crises, have traveled across the continent in search of work.
The reality of poverty and desperation, as well as the contempt with which desperate migrants in the western states were met, was described by John Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath:
"And in the eyes of people there is a feeling of powerlessness and despair, in the eyes of the hungry anger is brewing. In the souls of people, grapes of anger are pouring and ripening - heavy grapes, and now they will not ripen for long".
Populations in some rural counties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas have dropped by more than 25%. At the same time, in a number of districts in western states (California, Nevada), the population has almost doubled. Los Angeles County's population grew by more than 500,000 people, the largest increase of any county in any U.S. state between 1930 and 1940.
From all over the world to Israel
The very emergence of Israel as a separate state after a long period of time from quite ancient times, the resettlement of Jews throughout the world and the persecution to which they were subjected in various countries, - this issue will most likely be the subject of all sorts of controversy and conspiracy theories for a very long time.
One way or another, the migration of Jews in a series of so-called “aliyahs” to the territory of the future state of Israel and their repatriation after the official creation of the country in 1948 became a finding of home (perhaps the most long-awaited in history) for some and a disaster for others. According to some estimates, after the division of Palestine in 1947, more than 700 thousand Palestinian Arabs were forced to flee the territories occupied by Israel.
Since the founding of the State of Israel, surrounded Arab countries, is fighting for existence and capturing more and more new territories. The ongoing practice of demolishing Palestinian settlements in territories captured after the Six Day War in 1967 is just one example of what giving one ethnic group a home has meant to others.
Resettlement 2.0: changing the face of Europe
What conclusions can be drawn from these and many other similar migration processes?
Firstly, migrants are fleeing to Europe not only from the countries of the Middle East or specifically from Syria, as a number of political figures are trying to present.
Migrants from African countries, as well as Central Asia (in particular, Afghanistan) also represent a fairly significant share of those eager to enter the EU.
Data: EU External Border Security Agency, graphics: BBC
Secondly, the migration crisis did not begin in this year. The flow of migrants, measured in tens of thousands in 2012, has grown significantly over the past few years. The late reaction of the authorities indicates their low ability to analyze further migration trends.
Thirdly, the statements of the Prime Ministers of Britain and France David Cameron and Manuel Valls about the need to “remove Assad using military force” - in 2015, after since 2011 the authorities of these countries did virtually nothing to destroy the Islamists , tearing Syria and Iraq apart, speak of their inability to understand the cause-and-effect relationships in the current crisis.
After the “humanitarian” bombing of Libya during NATO’s Operation Unified Protector and the subsequent virtual political and economic collapse of Libya, the flow of migrants to Europe only intensified. Will it become smaller after the complete destruction of the remnants of statehood in Syria?..
In addition, statements by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker that another 160 thousand migrants planned for resettlement in EU countries represent "only 0.11% of Europe's population", also call into question the EU authorities' ability to resolve the current crisis.
Data: UN Refugee Agency, Graphics: BBC
If Brussels could predict the social stability of a society by calculating the growing share of migrants in Europe, then it is possible that European Commissioners might see some connection between the ethnic unrest that occurred in Sweden in 2014 and the increase in migrant arrivals.
Europe is on the verge of a new round of worsening social tension. At the same time, the growth of nationalist sentiments is most likely inevitable, which will strengthen the positions of parties that openly criticize the continuation of European integration and the loss of national sovereignty and control of individual countries over their borders.
There are already open questions about what will happen to the Schengen agreements on free movement within the EU. But what will happen to the very future appearance of Europe? Will the future face of the average European become a little more Syrian-Iraqi? Or will the Malian-Somali features emerge more strongly?..
There is a certain non-zero risk that is growing over time that while Brussels is calculating interest and distributing quotas for the resettlement of migrants, not everyone will want to wear masks of tolerance.
Individual law-abiding citizens of Europe may in the future decide to stop being such and, without waiting for the moment when Messrs. Cameron, Waltz, Juncker and others deign to “find a solution,” they themselves will begin to “solve problems” - and with exactly the same methods that the European authorities propose for Syria and other countries.
THE GREAT MISSION OF PEOPLES, a designation accepted in historical science for mass migrations in Europe at the end of the 4th-7th centuries, which were one of the main reasons for the fall of the Western Roman Empire (see Ancient Rome) and the basis for the formation of the modern ethnocultural map of Europe. The term “Great Migration of Peoples” (French les Grandes invasions, German Völkerwanderung) entered scientific circulation in the 1st half of the 19th century, primarily thanks to French and German researchers searching for historical roots their nations. Since then, various scientific schools of historians, archaeologists, linguists, ethnologists and scientists of other specialties have been studying the Great Migration of Peoples. But many problems associated with the study of the Great Migration phenomenon remain controversial.
The reasons for the Great Migration of Peoples usually include socio-economic and socio-psychological changes in the Eurasian barbarian world, which was no longer able to meet the needs of the growing population and distinguished elite, affected by the influence of civilization and striving for quick enrichment through robbery. Also important are the processes that took place within the Roman Empire and made it increasingly vulnerable to barbarians. Specific explanations for the causes of the Great Migration of Peoples are also offered, such as the impact on the socio-ethnic sphere of climate change, solar activity cycles, or outbursts of passionarity.
One of the most controversial remains the problem of the space-time continuum of the Great Migration of Peoples. The main tradition was laid down in the works of Western European historians of the 19th century, who studied the circumstances of the collapse of Rome and the origins of modern European peoples and states. Many of them considered the starting point of the Great Migration of Nations to be the year 375; Around this time, the Huns defeated the Ostrogoths (Ostrogoths), causing the Visigoths (Visigoths) and other barbarians to migrate into the provinces of the Roman Empire. They attributed the completion of the Great Migration to the middle of the 6th century, when the formation of the Frankish state was completed. Later, some historians began to include in the Great Migration of Peoples the migrations of the Slavs and Turks, which ended by the end of the 7th century with the formation of the Khazar Khaganate and the First Bulgarian Kingdom. In modern historiography, there is a tendency to expand chronological boundaries both into the depths of centuries and to more recent times. Some researchers attribute the beginning of the Great Migration to the 2nd half of the 2nd century (see Marcomannic Wars, Wielbark culture, Alemanni, Goths). Some historiographical schools consider the migration of Hungarians to the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 10th century and the last period of the Viking era to be the end of the Great Migration. Attempts have also been made to consider the Great Migration in a global context, including, in addition to Europe, Central Asia, the Asia-Pacific region, North Africa and the Middle East and covering a huge time period from the 3rd millennium BC to the 1st millennium AD.
Based on the composition of the most important participants and the nature of their actions, the direction of migrations (see maps) and their results in the Great Migration, several periods can be distinguished: “prologue” (2nd half of the 2nd - mid-3rd century), “Hunno-East Germanic” (end of the 4th century) - mid-5th century), “Ostgothic-West Germanic” (2nd half of the 5th - 1st third of the 6th century) and “Slavic Turkic” (6th-7th centuries). In turn, within these periods there are stages associated with the key events of European history of the 1st millennium AD
The “prologue” of the Great Migration, not included by all historians in the Great Migration itself, was the Marcomannic wars, when the Germans (Marcomanni, Quadi, Lombards, etc.), representatives of the Sarmatian and other tribes invaded the territory of Pannonia, Raetia, Noricum and other Roman provincial The barbarians were repulsed, but they received the right to settle on the land of the Roman Empire along its borders. These wars provoked migration waves of tribal alliances of the Alamanni and Franks who lived between the Rhine and the Elbe. In the middle of the 3rd century, tribal alliances of Borans, Costoboks, Goths, Gepids allied with them, and other tribes moved to the Balkan and Asia Minor provinces. Rome had to cede a small part of its lands to the barbarians (Dacia and some others), but on the whole it managed to stop the threat with the help of military force and skillful diplomacy.
The established system of the Roman Empire - the barbarian world - remained for decades in a situation of fluid equilibrium, from which it was brought out by a powerful external factor. Around 375, the Huns appeared in the Northern Black Sea region from the east. They defeated the Goths led by Ermanaric, which prompted some other Gothic and related groups to move to the territory of the Roman Empire, which granted the newcomers the rights of federates (see also Untersiebenbrunn). Soon a conflict broke out between the Romans and the Visigoths, ending with the defeat of the Roman army and the death of Emperor Valens in the battle of Adrianople on 9.8.378.
At the end of the 4th - beginning of the 5th century, the tribes of the Sarmatians, Saxons, Burgundians, Vandals, Suevi, Gepids, etc. began to move. In 404-406, their hordes, led by Radagais, invaded Italy, but were defeated by Stilicho. In 406, the Vandals, Alans and Sueves, breaking the resistance of the Frankish federates, broke into Gaul, but by 409 they were driven out to Spain, where they captured most of the country. A huge moral shock for ancient world came the capture (August 24, 410) and plunder of Rome by the Visigoths of Alaric I. After a series of agreements and clashes in 416, the Visigoths again became federates and received the southwestern part of modern France for settlement.
In the 420-450s there was a consolidation of the barbarians of Eastern and Central Europe under the leadership of the Huns. The formation of their power from the Volga to the Danube was completed under Bled and Attila. However, the onslaught of the Huns and their allies to the west was stopped by Aetius in the “Battle of the Nations” on the Catalaunian fields in 451. After the campaign in Italy (452) and the death of Attila (453), the Huns and their allies were defeated by tribal factions that rebelled against them in the “Battle of the Tribes” on the Nedao River; their power collapsed. After the Battle of the Nedao River and a number of other clashes, the Gepids, who led the uprising against the Huns, founded a kingdom in Potisje (see Apachida), the Ostrogoths began to control Pannonia, the Rugi - Coastal Norik, the Heruls - lands in modern South Moravia and Western Slovakia. Groups with a significant East German component in the 2nd half of the 5th century are known in the Eastern Carpathian region, Upper Potisie, Central Poland, and the lower Vistula (vidivaria).
During the 1st half of the 5th century, new migration waves reached the Atlantic. In Britain, abandoned by Roman troops (late 4th - early 5th centuries), subjected to attacks by the Picts and Scots, detachments of the Saxons (see Anglo-Saxons) appeared around the 420s. From the middle of the 5th century, new waves of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians began to arrive here. Seeking salvation from this invasion, some of the Britons moved to Brittany (in 441 and others).
In 422, having defeated the Romans, the Vandals and Alans captured coastal cities and fleets in Spain, which allowed them to cross to North-West Africa in 429 under the leadership of Geiseric (428-477). By the treaty of 442, the kingdom of the Vandals and Alans became the first legally recognized independent state on the territory of the Roman Empire.
In the 2nd half of the 5th century, the weakening of Rome and the expansion of the Germanic tribes reached their culmination. In 455, the Vandals broke the treaty with the Western Roman Empire and sacked Rome again. The Western Roman Empire (in fact, Italy), relying on squads of barbarians, was actually ruled by Ricimer (half Suevian and Visigoth) in 456-472, from 474 by Orestes (former secretary of Attila), from 476 by Scir Odoacer, who deposed the last Western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus.
In 489, the Ostrogoths and other factions led by Theodoric the Great invaded Italy and captured it by 493. Founded by Theodoric the Great, the Ostrogothic kingdom became the most powerful force in Western and Central Europe for several decades. Thus, at the end of the 5th - mid-6th century, the transition from the stage of resettlement of Germanic tribes to the stage of their establishment in new lands and the formation of “barbarian kingdoms” was completed. As a result, on the territory of the former Western Roman Empire, the state of the Burgundians was formed in South-Eastern Gaul (see Burgundy, Arelat), the Toledo kingdom of the Visigoths - in Spain (see Visigothic Kingdom), the Ostrogoths, and then the Lombards - in Italy (see Lombard Kingdom), Franks in Gaul. “Barbarian kingdoms” also formed in Britain after its conquest in the mid-5th century by the Anglo-Saxons (see Anglo-Saxon conquest). A new ethnopolitical map of Western Europe is emerging.
However, the idea of restoring the Roman Empire also persisted, which the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire Justinian I tried to implement. Having conquered the Vandal state in Africa by 534, Byzantine troops began a war with the Ostrogoths, broken in 552. By 555, Constantinople had achieved complete control over Italy and Dalmatia. A year earlier, the Byzantines landed in Spain, beginning to capture its southeastern part, where they held out until 626.
In the 6th century, a new wave of migration of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe gained momentum. By the end of the 5th century, the Lombards mastered the upper reaches of the Elbe, in 526/527 they occupied the lands from Vienna to Aquincus, and from 546 - the territory of modern southwestern Hungary. In 558, Avars appeared in the steppes of South-Eastern Europe. In 568, having defeated the Gepids in alliance with the Lombards and after the latter left for Italy (in its northern and central parts a new kingdom of the Lombards was formed with its center in Pavia), they became masters of the entire Middle Danube, founding the Avar Khaganate here. In the steppes of Eastern Europe, following the Avars, the Turks appeared, who included the lands east of the Don into the Turkic Khaganate before 630.
The process of the Great Migration of Peoples was completed by the migration of Slavic and Turkic tribes, including to part of the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire. Already in the 5th century, the Slavs themselves (Sclavins according to Latin and Greek sources) mastered the territory from the Dnieper to the Oder and from Polesie to the Eastern Carpathian region (see Prague culture). Groups close to them (see Zaozerie) from the Upper Dnieper region settled to the territory of modern southeastern Estonia, the Pskov region and the Upper Volga (long mound culture). Other groups of Slavs occupied the Desna and Seim basin (Kolochin culture), and also spread across the Ukrainian forest-steppe to modern central Moldova (Antas). Until the middle of the 6th century, the Sklavins advanced beyond the Oder (then gradually reclaiming the lands up to the Elbe) and into Pomerania (see Sukov - Dziedzitsy), to the northeast of the Carpathian Basin (probably in agreement with the Lombards), the Lower Danube (see Ipotesti - Kindesti - Churel ). Since the 520s, raids by the Sklavins and Antes on the Balkans have been known. The campaigns of the Sklavin groups were especially massive in 540-542, 548-551, and in the late 570s - 580s. Together with them or separately, raids on the Balkans were also carried out by Eastern European nomads, among whom Western Turkic groups dominated from the 5th century (see Proto-Bulgarians). No later than the 580s, groups of Slavs already lived in Thessaly, by the 1st third of the 7th century - in the Western Balkans, in the Southern and Eastern Alps (see Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, etc.). The Byzantine counter-offensive against the Slavs and Avars, which began after the conclusion of peace with the Persians (591), ended with the uprising of Phocas (602) and the fall of the border of the Eastern Roman Empire on the Danube.
In the 7th century, the Slavs settled throughout the Balkan Peninsula up to the Peloponnese, forming tribal principalities - “sclavinia”; some groups moved to Asia Minor, raiding as far as Crete and Southern Italy. Although the huge forces of Byzantium were taken away by the confrontation Arab conquests, already in the 2nd half of the 7th century, the restoration of the power of Constantinople in the southern Balkans began.
From the middle of the 7th century, new early political formations emerged in the steppes of Eastern Europe (see Great Bulgaria, Pereshchepinsky treasure, Voznesenka). The result of the expansion of the Khazars in the 660-680s was the departure of part of the Bulgars to the Balkans, where the First Bulgarian Kingdom was formed and the Khazar Khaganate was formed in the south of Eastern Europe.
With the completion of the Great Migration of Peoples, migration processes in Europe, Asia, North Africa, the Near and Middle East did not stop, but their role in world history was already different.
The Great Migration of Peoples had enormous historical consequences. The civilization associated with the Roman Empire experienced enormous upheaval and destruction. The main bearer of ancient traditions was now the Eastern Roman Empire, in which they underwent a profound transformation (see Byzantium). In place of the Western Roman Empire, new political formations arose, absorbing elements of its culture - “barbarian kingdoms”, which were destined to become the prototype of the European states of the Middle Ages and Modern times. The ethnolinguistic map of Europe began to be largely determined by the Germanic and Slavic peoples. The habitats and the ratio of the Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Iranian, Celtic and other peoples of Eurasia have changed significantly. European civilization was leaving the era of antiquity to enter the era of the Middle Ages.
Lit.: Diesner N. J. Die Völkerwanderung. Lpz., 1976; Die Germanen. V., 1976. Bd 2; Goffart W. Barbarians and Romans. Princeton, 1980; Korsunsky A.R., Gunther R. Decline and death of the Western Roman Empire and the emergence of the German kingdoms (until the middle of the 6th century). M., 1984; Wolfram N. Das Reich und die Germanen: zwischen Antike und Mittelalter. V., 1990; Bona I. Das Hunnenreich. Bdpst; Stuttg., 1991; A collection of the most ancient written information about the Slavs. M., 1991-1995. T. 1-2; Zasetskaya I.P. Culture of nomads of the South Russian steppes in the Hunnic era (late IV-V centuries). St. Petersburg, 1994; Machatschke R. Volkerwanderung. Von der Antike zum Mittelalter. Die Wandlung des Römischen Reichs und das Werden Europas. W., 1994; Martin J. Spätantike und Volkerwanderung. Münch., 1995; Maczyriska M. Wçdrôwki ludow. Warsz.; Krakow, 1996; Shuvalov P.V. Penetration of the Slavs into the Balkans // Fundamentals of Balkan linguistics, languages of the Balkan region. St. Petersburg, 1998. Part 2; Budanova V.P., Gorsky A.A., Ermolova I.E. The Great Migration of Peoples. Ethnopolitical and social aspects. M., 1999; L'occident romain et l'Europe centrale au début de l'époque des Grandes Migrations. Brno, 1999; Budanova V.P. The barbaric world of the era of the Great Migration of Peoples. M., 2000; Gavritukhin I. O. The beginning of the great Slavic settlement to the south and west // Apxeological studies. Kiev; Chernivtsi, 2000.T. 1; Tyszkiewicz L. A. Hunowie w Europie. Wroclaw, 2004; Sedov V.V. Slavs. Old Russian people. M., 2005; Shchukin M. B. Gothic Way. St. Petersburg, 2005.
For weeks now, Europe has been literally stormed by hundreds of thousands of migrants from the Middle East. Through Italy, Greece, Serbia, Macedonia and Hungary they are trying to reach Germany, France and Britain in order to settle there permanently. A considerable number of people are fleeing war in Syria, where about half the population(!) was forced to leave her permanent place of residence. About two million Syrian refugees have moved to neighboring Turkey alone and are now seeking to reach European countries.
They are also joined by migrants from other countries of the Near and Middle East, as well as South Asia - Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. According to experts, Europe has not faced such a flow of refugees since World War II...
It is obvious that the leaders of the European Union are in a real stupor, because they do not know what to do about this problem. This can be seen from their own statements, which literally contradict each other.
Thus, German Chancellor Angela Merkel talks about the need for an even distribution of arriving people across a variety of EU countries. In response, voices of protest against Merkel’s proposals are heard from states such as Poland or Slovakia - this is not surprising, since the weak economies of these states are unlikely to withstand the additional burden of migrants.
The Italians are generally threatening to sink ships with refugees, and Britain is ready to leave the EU if the problem is not resolved in the very near future...
In general, Europe is confused and it does not seem that this confusion has somehow passed.
A conspiracy here, a conspiracy there
What caused such a large-scale migration? There are a great many theories about this. Right down to the most exotic ones.
For example, the leader of the National Front of France, Marine Le Pen, sees in what is happening a conspiracy of the ruling circles of Germany. According to her, the Germans today are very seriously concerned about their increasingly expensive products, which can no longer compete with the products of other countries - especially China. And in order to make their export goods cheaper, German rulers want to reduce their cost. First of all, due to a sharp reduction in wages for workers and employees.
It is clear that the native Germans will never agree to this. Therefore, I will replace them with foreigners from Asian and African countries. First in less qualified areas of the German economy, and then in more complex areas. That is why, says Marine Le Pen, Angela Merkel is so calm on issues of migration and calls not to drive away newcomers, but, on the contrary, to accept them almost with open arms.
In this regard, Merkel’s idea of creating special camps for refugees is interesting. The Germans there will filter people - Germany will take the most literate and in demand for itself, but all the remaining “foam” will be sent to the vastness of some Romania, Poland or even Ukraine, which, in pursuit of the European dream, has already expressed its readiness to host eastern migrants ...
But there is a more fascinating conspiracy theory. An article is very popular on the Internet today, which claims that in fact, through the invasion of migrants, we see the invisible struggle of two all-powerful global financial clans, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. The first are European oligarchs, and the second are American.
Allegedly, the Rothschilds were already tired of the omnipotence of the Americans and therefore set out to create their own global financial system, an alternative to the US Federal Reserve System. To do this, they organized flows of migrants in order to scare the most important US ally in Europe - Britain. Therefore, it is not for nothing that today the British authorities are constantly talking about their possible withdrawal from the EU. And every day this prospect becomes more and more real.
“The referendum on UK membership of the EU is an appropriate occasion. And the influx of migrants from continental Europe is intended to cause maximum irritation among the kingdom’s citizens and encourage them to vote for leaving the EU.”
And as soon as Britain leaves the EU, the Rothschilds will have a free hand. Moreover, they will even agree to an alliance with the most important geopolitical opponents of the United States:
“Their main wallet and ally is China. It is associated with hopes for the creation of a new world center challenging the old American hegemon. For the sake of an alliance with Beijing, the Rothschilds are ready to enter into temporary cooperation with Russia - due to its obvious geopolitical necessity for China - to integrate Russia, and more broadly, the Eurasian space, into their global plans.”
The author believes that the Rothschilds will succeed, especially against the backdrop of today’s obvious degradation of the American political and business elite, which has sowed such chaos in the world that it can no longer control it...
Well, and finally, the third version of the global conspiracy, which is especially popular among Russian propagandists, is purely American game. As political scientist Elena Ponomareva, close to the Kremlin, writes about this:
“NATO has specifically created certain problems for the Russian Federation, because the so-called arc of instability, which stretches from the Balkans through North Africa and the Middle East, is a direct threat to Russia’s southern border.
The Western bloc deliberately initiated the destabilization of these regions. The United States understood perfectly well that there would certainly be a flow of refugees, and in which direction it would also move. First of all to Europe.
Thus, Washington intended to weaken the EU and wreak havoc in Europe, which, as a national structure, had become a fairly serious competitor to the United States in an economic and political sense. In addition, in the longer term, the US plans included disrupting the alliance between Moscow and Berlin, because the establishment of partnerships between Russia and Germany is a nightmare for the United States.”
Honestly, the argument is very weak. The United States has no need to destabilize Europe through refugees, because Europe, from a geopolitical point of view, is a complete zero. She and her elite have long been tightly controlled by the Americans - the events in Ukraine showed this most clearly. Therefore, by definition, there is no “strategic partnership” between Moscow and Berlin and there could not be any.
I think that the situation in reality is much more prosaic and worse than any global conspiracy theories...
How do you live without Gaddafi?
In my opinion, this situation was best defined by former employee of the Hungarian Foreign Ministry Sandor Csikos. Here's what he said in an interview with Free Press:
“The first reason for what is happening is the syndrome of the crisis of capitalism, when life for billions of people has become unbearable: abject poverty, hopelessness, and more specifically, there is nothing to live on.
The second reason is, of course, the aggressive policy of the United States - the same policy of “controlled chaos.” The insatiable greed of TNCs. The desire of the United States to rule over the whole world has reached the point of madness, crushing at any cost everyone and everything who and what is trying to stand in their way in defiance. All these endless wars, conspiracies to eliminate unwanted regimes (Gaddafi, now Assad). The recently quite prosperous, flourishing countries of Libya and Syria have now been turned into ruins.”
Let's show this with specific examples. It all started with the US attack on Iraq under the slogan of “fighting global terrorism.” In fact, America - in pursuance of its well-known strategy of establishing complete control over world energy resources - has begun to forcefully seize the richest sources of raw materials, primarily oil and gas, which are located in the Middle East.
This strategy continued during the so-called Arab Spring, which led to the overthrow of secular dictatorships from Tunisia to Egypt. The only thing that didn’t work out was in Syria, where a fairly smart and tough ruler, Bashar al-Assad, was in power and did not want to “bend under the changing world.”
The result of this American policy was the emergence of ISIS, the ongoing war in Syria and complete chaos in countries such as Libya...
Just a year and a half ago, John Ging, a representative of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said that it would take decades to resume normal life in Syria and rebuild everything destroyed:
“Streets and areas of cities have been destroyed. There was heavy fire in residential areas military equipment: tanks, artillery. In many cases, houses cannot be repaired, only demolished and rebuilt.”
As Ging further noted, the most difficult situation developed in the city of Daraa, from which anti-government protests began in 2011, and in Aleppo, which before the war was considered the economic capital of Syria. According to him, almost the entire infrastructure of these cities has been destroyed, factories and offices have been looted, schools and hospitals are not working. The country has been set back decades in development!
According to the Al-Watan newspaper, as a result of the war, the Syrian economy lost almost its entire oil industry— oil exports fell by 95% relative to the pre-war level. The volume of supplies of imported goods decreased by 88%. The Syrian pound has been sharply devalued. The population is panic-buying food and essential goods. From 2011 to mid-2013, prices increased by 212%! It is not surprising that today more than half of the population lives below the poverty line, and by hook or by crook they are trying to leave their devastated country...
The situation in Libya is no better. This is how our regular author Yulia Chmelenko described it:
“The system of social protection of the population has been completely destroyed - in this once rich country, where everyone had guaranteed medical care and free education, today healthcare has been destroyed, unemployment and devastation reign in the country. The damage from NATO bombing is estimated at $14 billion, which is seven times higher than the similar losses of European countries from German bombing during the Second World War in comparable prices.
In addition, enormous damage has been caused to the country’s economy, which will take decades to recover. According to a study by the international consulting company Geopolicity, Libya's budget losses alone amounted to about $14 billion.
The state's oil infrastructure has collapsed. If before the start of the conflict, daily oil production was 1.6 million barrels per day, then by the end of the conflict, production fell as much as eight times! The new Libyan authorities are constantly trying to raise oil production to pre-war levels. However, even by the beginning of 2013, this level was no more than 1.4 million barrels per day. Difficulties in restoring the oil industry are also associated with constant armed clashes in Cyrenaica, the main oil-producing region of the country, and the lack of necessary investment resources.
Before the war, many of the world's largest oil and gas companies operated in the country, including Italy's ENI, Austria's OMV, Spain's Repsol, France's Total and Germany's Wintershall. Many of them are returning to the Libyan market today. However, ongoing armed conflicts and security problems bring all these attempts to naught...
And as a result of the conflict, Libya, in fact, turned into an eternal debtor to those countries where the rebels who fought against Gaddafi were trained and treated. Thus, the debt to Greece alone in this regard amounted to about €150 million.
In addition, foreign banks, with the beginning of the revolution, froze Libyan accounts worth more than $150 billion. According to the chief researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences Anatoly Yegorin, these funds are actually lost for Libya itself...”
But the worst thing is the actual disintegration of the state into separate, independent territories:
“The former central authority that existed under Gaddafi does not exist in Libya today. At one time, it was this man who managed to unite under his leadership individual Libyan clans and tribes, who abandoned mutual claims and were able to coexist peacefully within one state. And now the ruling General National Council is not able to control even 30% of the Libyan territory, where armed conflicts break out every now and then between individual Libyan tribes and militant groups.
Thus, two thirds of all Libyan hydrocarbon reserves are located in Cyrenaica, which no longer wants to “feed” the entire country. In 2013, the capital of Cyrenaica created its own government, the goal of which is to “share resources in a better way and destroy the centralized system inherited by the authorities in Tripoli”...
Following Cyrenaica, the Fezzan region also declared its autonomy. The region's authorities even elected their own president. The official reason for separation from the center was the latter’s inability to solve the region’s primary problems...”
In a word, the Libyans, like the Syrians, no longer expect anything good from the future and therefore today rushed in droves to prosperous Europe.
And all this was superimposed on the world economic crisis, with no end in sight. The crisis hit the underdeveloped countries of the third world the hardest - Western investors left, who now prefer to keep funds in strong economies, and various international financial organizations such as the IMF ran out of free funds - also due to crisis phenomena in the main donors, Western countries. For the same reason, many humanitarian and social programs through the UN, which at least somehow supported poor people in Asian and African countries.
That is, capitalism today is not just in crisis. He, due to the existing globalization, where everyone is connected to everyone, generally questioned the existence of entire states and peoples!
All hope is for Russia
Thus, the picture that emerges is not at all cheerful. We may be witnessing not just another wave of migration, but a real migration of peoples, which humanity has not seen for almost two thousand years. And it was not I who said this, but Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, one of the smartest and most sober leaders of modern Europe.
He also outlined the prospects for such a great migration - the ethnic “washing out” of indigenous Europeans, the elimination of Christian values and ultimately the destruction of Europe in its current cultural and political understanding...
Let me remind you about the previous Great Migration. This happened around the 3rd-8th centuries AD during the decline of the ancient ancient world. Then on vast expanses On our continent, global climate changes occurred - there was a sharp cooling, which made it simply impossible to live in many areas of Europe and Asia.
Entire tribes and peoples moved from their places of habitual habitat and went to look for a better life in more prosperous regions. It is clear that the eyes of the barbarians of that time turned primarily to the prosperous and civilized countries of that time. As a result, barbarian invasions almost completely destroyed ancient cultures both in the East and in the West - the barbarians swept like a terrible tornado across vast territories stretching from the Atlantic to China.
But the most powerful blow fell on the Roman Empire, which was hit by powerful human flows of the ancient Germans, Slavs, Finno-Ugrians, Arabs, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. And the empire ceased to exist...
The result was a real regression, the world descended into the darkness of the Middle Ages, many purely technical skills were lost, education became the lot of only a very select few, and culture sank to the most primitive level. According to historians, Europe managed to reach the level of the Roman Empire - in a variety of areas of life - only after... almost a thousand years!
So is it really worth hoping that the current Great Migration will be less cruel and destructive? I think it's unlikely.
In this regard, speculation has even appeared in the European media that very soon the inhabitants of the continent will soon have to seek salvation not just anywhere, but in Russia, which is hostile to the West.
In particular, the Polish publication Observator Polityczny writes about this:
“As the fall of the West intensifies, Russia will turn every year into the only strong and stable state in an unstable environment.
Already today, many people from countries governed by soft-spoken politicians who are unable to cope with the banal problem of illegal immigration look with admiration and hope at Russia, about which much can be said, but one thing is for sure - Russians can be confident in their leaders. They won't leave them and hide under the table, waiting for the situation to change enough for them to go in front of the cameras and lie.
Today there is no doubt that the Russian model of state organization is more effective and, in principle, completely resistant to crises, and Europeans may envy the Russians. Peaceful sleep in some regions of Hungary today is already a memory. People are afraid of illegal migrants who, without respecting their rights and customs, often behave at night in ways that people perceive as a threat. Neighbors are organizing patrols in villages and small towns, because the Hungarian government is clearly afraid to intervene, lest it be declared fascist under pressure from the European print media...
There are fewer and fewer states in the world where you can go to bed peacefully, without fear that someone else will come home at night and cause harm. A year ago we didn’t notice this, but today many in Europe would like to see a few “polite people” standing at the nearest crossroads. green uniform and ensure stability, peace and security. But where to get them from?
And if we take this issue seriously, then in Europe, if nothing changes, in some five years Russia will be the only strong and stable state in an unstable environment. Most likely, the only one to which you can run while asking for asylum. Better Siberia or Sakhalin, than the fall of Western civilization, which may not survive.”
Of course, the scenario described here looks incredible today. But this is only for now. After all, the ancient Romans also probably thought that everything would work out somehow. But alas, when the disaster came, they did not have their own reserve “airfield”, similar to today’s Russia...
Vadim Andryukhin, editor-in-chief
The era of migration of peoples also represents a period of searching for land. The end of the Middle Ages and almost all of the new centuries are devoted, at least in Europe, mainly to the creation of people's states and laws suitable for economic and industrial development.
Having touched on the past migration of peoples, which so changed the picture of the whole world, with the exception, perhaps, of only China, I cannot help but dwell at least for a moment on the current and future situation of this subject, because its significance, without a doubt, is higher than many other things considered very important.
Of course, the resettlement of peoples is the fault of Stalin and his political circle. At the same time, it should be recognized that among the deported peoples there were renegades. So, in 1943, dozens of armed groups, hundreds of fascist collaborators, thousands of deserters were neutralized (Bugai N.F. Why people were resettled.
In the USSR, the forced resettlement of peoples to the east. In 1941-42, 13 thousand Germans arrived in Bashkortostan.
Strangely wedged into the panorama of the migration of peoples, the story of Slavic literacy continues. And its chronicle dates back to the time when the Slavs lived already baptized.
There is no doubt that the Germans, right up to the migration of peoples, were organized into clans. They seem to have occupied the territory between the Danube, Rhinenot, Vistula and the northern seas only a few centuries before our era; the migration of the Cimbri and Teutons was then still in full swing, and the Suevi settled firmly only during the time of Caesar. Of the latter, Caesar definitely says that they settled in clans and related groups (gentibus cognationibusque) 141, and in the mouth of the Roman from gens Julia this word gen-tibus has a very definite and indisputable meaning.
There is no doubt that the Germans, right up to the migration of peoples, were organized into clans. They apparently occupied the territory between the Danube, Rhine, Vistula and the northern seas only a few centuries before our time; the migration of the Cimbri and Teutons was then still in full swing, and the Suevi settled firmly only during the time of Caesar.
News of Byzantine historians explaining Russian history ancient times and migration of peoples.
This ancient so-called tribal nobility for the most part perished during the migration of peoples or shortly after it. Military leaders were elected regardless of origin, solely on the basis of ability. Their power was small, and they had to influence by example; Tacitus definitely attributes the actual disciplinary power in the army to the priests.
Interregional migration is also characterized by forced migration from Chechnya (200 thousand people), resettlement of repressed peoples and ethnic migration (mainly Russians) from national republics Russian Federation.
The Federal Migration Service was created in June 1992. Its main tasks are: formation of the migration policy of the Russian Federation; forecasting migration processes; protecting the rights of migrants; development of migration programs; organization of external labor migration and migration control; providing information to migrants (through state authorities and local governments) about settlements recommended for permanent residence, about employment opportunities in them; finalization and adjustment of the long-term Migration program aimed at solving the problems of refugees, internally displaced persons, resettlement of repressed peoples, migrants from third countries; conclusion of annual agreements with the former union republics on quotas for entry into the Russian Federation, on the rights of national minorities, principles for determining citizenship, and property rights of migrants. In its activities, the Federal Migration Service is guided by the laws of the Russian Federation on refugees and forced migrants.
They are home to about 1 billion people and produce almost a third of the harvest of many agricultural crops. Forced migrations of peoples to the interior of continents are fraught with military conflicts and social upheavals.
Forced migration is associated with tragic, in most cases military, events. In these cases, there is a massive resettlement of people. Displaced people are forced to leave their once inhabited places and become refugees. The problem of forced migration leads to acute, difficult to resolve socio-economic and political conflicts. The reasons for this kind of migration are events in Chechnya, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan and other places.
During the Middle Ages, the foundations of Western European civilization were laid, which, as most researchers believe, is the fruit of a synthesis of ancient and barbarian societies. They began to actively interact during the so-called great migration of peoples in the 4th-6th centuries.
Having sketched general scheme movements of Indo-European peoples in Eastern Europe at the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. (see section), let's try to recreate the picture of the migration processes of the peoples living here in more detail. While the development of livestock farming and the increase in livestock numbers among the Turkic settlers between the Dnieper and Don rivers necessitated the development of new pastures (see section), one of the reasons for the movement of the Indo-Europeans was the relative overpopulation of the territory they occupied between the Vistula and the upper reaches of the Oka. Fishing as the basis of economic management ensured stable and reliable source The food supply of the local population and its numbers gradually increased, leading to a certain demographic tension. The natural conditions of Europe also contributed to the migration that began:
Although at that time the vast spaces, which today have been turned into cultural countries and densely populated, were covered with primeval forests and impassable swamps, this circumstance was not a significant obstacle. An extensive system of rivers, along which it was possible to move at any time of the year on canoes and rafts, everywhere provided the opportunity to develop new space. Water was available everywhere and there were no waterless lands or deserts anywhere. There were no summers with killer heat in Europe, and even the winters here were not so severe as to be an obstacle to living ( Kramer Walter. 1971, 22).
It should be especially emphasized that during the migrations of ancient peoples, not the entire population left their inhabited places. For the Indo-Europeans, for the reason stated above, there was no great need for this; Porzig also believed the same, but for other reasons ( Portzig V., 1964, 97-98). Usually, the surplus population left to search for new places to settle, but a fairly large part of it, especially in isolated places, remained. When this territory was populated by new people, the remnants of the previous inhabitants were assimilated by them, but to a certain extent influenced the language and culture of the newcomers, i.e. The principle of superposition came into play. The examples of several languages are considered separately. On the other hand, along the route of resettlement, for various reasons, in convenient places, from time to time some of the migrants remained for permanent residence, while the majority moved on.
Thus, the movement of peoples of those times was not a resettlement in the full sense of the word. It would be more correct to call it resettlement. Obviously, this was not without military conflicts, but cultural contacts between the newcomers and the autochthonous population were also inevitable. In particular, close cultural exchange took place during the settlement of the Turks in the area of Trypillian culture, when they began to move to the right bank of the Dnieper in search of free lands. The movement of the Turkic tribes in a western direction is discussed in more detail in the section.
Natural conditions not only contributed to population migrations but also determined their directions. It is clear that forest spaces still made it difficult for people to settle and the most convenient way was through river systems ( Golubovsky P. 1884, 13). River navigation was mostly carried out on single-tree boats, which were hollowed out from tree trunks (see photo of the Slavic single-tree boat on the left). In the steppe zone, where rivers flow more in a meridian direction, the need for resettlement pushed people to look for other means of transportation. This is how the Turks who inhabited the steppe came to the invention of the wheel.
Turkic languages have a common word for sleigh Cana. The Türks were the first to domesticate the horse and used it as a draft force for transporting things on sleighs. Since sleighs are ineffective in summer, the Turks probably made their migrations in winter, until the wheel was invented. The discovery of rotational motion (rollers, ramps, etc.) and its use for transportation occurred among different peoples at different times ( Zvorykin A.A. et al. 1962, 55). The idea of using the wheel also arose among the Yamna culture, regardless of external cultural influences ( Novozhenov V.A.. 2012. 123). This is evidenced by carts with disc-shaped wheels found in burials.
Wooden carts from the Yamnaya period.
1. – art. Novotitarovskaya (Dinsky district, Krasnodar region). 2. – Remaining burial mound. 3. – Chernishevsky burial mound (Steppe Trans-Kuban region).
(Kulbaka V., Kachur V. 2000, 54)
On right: Map of finds of wooden carts in Yamnaya burials(32-30 centuries BC) Southern Ukraine and adjacent territories ( there, 58)
Apparently the wheel and cart were a further improvement on the skating rink. In this regard, the first carts were too clumsy, because the wheels rotated at the same speed, being rigidly mounted on an axle that rotated along with the wheels. Such primitive carts could only move along a straight road over short distances. However, over time, the axle and wheels were separated. The wheels were mounted on a fixed axle, which gave them the ability to rotate independently of each other at different speeds.
Left: Reconstruction of a cart from the Novotitarovskaya culture.
The reconstruction was made using materials from burials 150 and 160 I of the Ostanniy burial ground ( Gay A.N. 1991, 64).
As can be seen in the figure on the left, carts of this type were already distinguished by a complex design with standard dimensions of parts.
The three-part wheels, 7 cm thick and about 70 cm in diameter, had hubs protruding from both sides. The quadrangular axles were built into the frame, and the wheels at the rounded ends were secured to them with a pin and rotated freely. The method of fastening the axles excludes the presence of a turning device, that is, the cart could not provide a sharp turn. Draft animals (bulls or oxen) were harnessed to both sides of a drawbar with a forked end, which was attached to the frame ( there, 64-65). This design already made it possible to travel long distances. During this movement in various directions, based on the Yamnaya culture and under the influence of local characteristics, various options Corded Ware cultures and in Asia there are cultures of a different type. The difference in the types of cultures can also be explained by the time difference in the beginning of migrations.
The settlement of Eastern Europe by the Turks took place in several streams, bypassing the settlements of the Indo-Europeans and Finno-Ugric peoples (see map on the left).
Only part of those Turks who inhabited its left bank could cross to the right bank of the Dnieper, that is, the linguistic ancestors of the Bulgars, modern Turkmens, Turks, Gagauzes, whose areas were determined.
From the steppes the Turks moved further along the left bank of the Dniester and the northern spurs of the Carpathians, leaving their settlements in Right Bank Ukraine and Eastern Poland. Their languages for a long time retained the archaic features of the Proto-Turkic language, because they lost connections with the rest of the Turkic languages, which continued to develop in close contact with each other in the old settlement sites. Most of the migrants to Central Europe and the Baltic states eventually assimilated among the Indo-Europeans and pre-Indo-European aborigines, but due to historical circumstances, one of the descendants of the Bulgars, namely the Chuvash, retained their ethnic identity and, with it, the archaism of the Proto-Turkic language. Thanks to this, the material of the Chuvash language helps us trace the travel routes of the Turks over a very wide area.
A small part of the Turks, moving along the banks of the Desna, reached the interfluve of the Volga and Oka and settled this territory, partially evicting and partially assimilating the local population. Here they created the Fatyanovo culture as one of the variants of the Corded Ware culture. Another version of this culture, the so-called Balanovskaya, was created by that part of the Turks who, having crossed the Don, moved along the right bank of the Volga to the mouth of the Oka. The migration of the Turks towards the Upper Volga led to the movement of a significant part of the local Finno-Ugric population (for more information, see section "")
At the same time, some groups of Turks were also moving towards the Balkans along the banks of the lower Danube. As Kuzmina points out, in the 3rd millennium BC. There is a gradual penetration of the Yamnaya tribes from steppe zone to the area of ancient agricultural cultures - to Moldova, Romania, Hungary ( Kuzmina E.E., 1986, 186 1989, 23). Moving up along the left bank of the Danube, the Turks reached the mouth of the Tisza and then turned north. They gradually settled on the left bank of the Tisza basin up to the Carpathians, i.e. the territory of the Cucuteni culture. The swampy area between the Danube and Tisza rivers remained uninhabited. Small groups of Turks settled on the right bank of the Danube.
Left: A cluster of Yamnaya culture mounds in the Carpathian region and in the Danube basin.. The map was compiled based on data from Piotr Wlodarczak ( Wŀodarczak Piotr. 2010. Fig. 1)
European scientists, recognizing the great role of the ancient Yamnaya cultural-historical region in the further history of Europe, clearly link the population of this region with the Indo-Europeans. In particular, the following considerations characterize the settlement of the Yamniki in the Danube basin:
The Western Black Sea region was the territory through which, starting from the Eneolithic, mobile groups of Indo-European pastoralists moved in the southern and western directions. Basically, these routes passed through the Danube Valley (to the west) and the western coast of the Black Sea (to the Balkans). In geographical (landscape) terms, these territories were a continuation of the Azov-Black Sea steppes, which stretched from the Danube region south of the Carpathians to the lowlands of Central Europe (modern Hungary, Northern Yugoslavia, western Romania and the southern part of Slovakia). That is, the territories that were previously occupied by agricultural tribes of the Balkan Peninsula and Central Europe. The penetration of steppe pastoralists of the Northern Black Sea region - the Azov region into these regions largely determined the specificity of the formation and further development of agricultural and pastoral tribes, which is reflected by the term “Indo-Europeanization” ( Kulbaka V., Kachur V. 2000, 27
Considering the Turkic ethnicity of the Yamnaya cultures, the meaning of the above quote can rightly be attributed specifically to the Turks. Moreover, it contains a significant error. The settlement of Indo-Europeans across Europe is associated with the spread of Corded Ware cultures (CWC), which developed on the basis of the Yamnaya culture. But KShK monuments have not been recorded in the Balkans.
According to many researchers, the genetic roots of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture are hidden in the cultures of the Balkans, the lower Danube and the Carpathian Basin, and not in the Bug-Dniester Neolithic; their ethnicity is considered unknown ( Zbenovich V.G., 1989, 172; Archeology of the Ukrainian SSR, 1985, 202-203). We assumed that the Trypillians could be Semites, which is quite possible if their ancestors came to the Balkans from Asia Minor. There are some unclear connections between the Balkan cultures and Asia Minor.
If the Trypillians were Semites, then traces of the influence of their language on the Turkic ones should remain, since they were neighbors of the Turks. The Dnieper could not be an insurmountable barrier, especially in winter, so primitive trade and cultural exchange between the Turks and Trypillians must have taken place. Searches for traces of Trypillian influences in the field of trade, i.e. among words meaning “product”, “payment”, gave certain results. A similar word is present in the Chuvash language kěměl and has the meaning “silver”, and in other Turkic languages, in full accordance with the phonology of these languages, the word corresponds to it kumüš"Same". Of course, silver in those ancient times could serve as money, and the change in the meaning of the word is due to the fact that trading parties did without a translator and therefore could give different meanings to the same object. What for some was simply payment, for others took on a specific meaning of silver. Further searches brought rich material, which gives reason to consider the Semitic origin of the Trypillians seriously. This issue is discussed in detail in the "" section.
Apparently, the Trypillians did not have tribal leaders, but the standards of life had to be established by someone, but by whom exactly remains unclear. Initially they also did not have a priestly class, and the appearance of priests and priestesses in Late Tripoli is explained by the influence of the cult of ancestors, borrowed from the tribes of the Yamnaya culture ( Alekseeva, I.L.. 1991, 21). Nevertheless, there must have been some spiritual authorities in Trypillian society in the general professing of the cult of fertility, which was reflected in the image of a woman-mother, as evidenced by the finds of figurines with emphasized female forms. Previously, there was even a prevailing point of view about the matriarchal organization of Trypillian society, but such a view contradicts the fact that “the cult of the female ancestor is almost never recorded” ( there,18). One might think that the sacred attitude towards women in society came into conflict with the role that, thanks to physical superiority, a person played in the household. Probably, this internal crisis of Trypillian society predetermined its decline and made it easier for warlike nomads from the east to take a dominant position in these lands without much strain. However, the Trypillian cultural heritage left traces on later cultures of this region, so it can be assumed that most of the population remained in their places. And this is quite probable, because the invaders could not recklessly destroy civilians. Apparently they limited themselves to looting and destroying settlements ( Bryusov A.Ya.., 1952).
Along with the cult of the female mother, the Trypillians also had a cult of the bull as a masculine principle, and these two cults were somehow intertwined ( Zbenovich V.G., 1989, 165). There is an opinion that the image of a bull and the phallic cult as symbols of male power were brought with them by the Yamniki, as well as the patriarchal clan system, the cult of ancestors and the funeral rite ( Alekseeva, I.L.. 1991, 20-21).
It is possible that in the field of Trypillian culture, with the beginning of its late stage of development WITH(3000 - 2400 BC) Indo-European tribes also began to gradually settle, having already adopted the Trypillian culture, which in the middle period IN(3600 – 3000 BC) spread to the upper reaches of the Southern Bug, Ros and the middle Dnieper ( Archeology of the Ukrainian SSR, 1985, 211). Thus, the spread of culture went in the direction from the southwest to the northeast, but archaeologists do not note invasions of the agricultural population from the Trypillian culture ( Kuzmina E. E., 1986, 186).
Ancient Greek toponymy on the territory of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, most of the Greeks continued sailing to the mouth of the Dnieper. Having gained experience in the construction of watercraft and navigation, they continued their movement along the shores of the Black Sea. In Greek, the sea is called the word ποντοσ, akin to the Slavic path. Navigation skills later contributed to the settlement of the islands of the Aegean Sea by the Greeks. Having reached the arm of the Danube, the Greeks upstream climbed to the Iron Gate, which made further navigation impossible, so they then moved to the Peloponnese by land, previously inhabited by tribes apparently related to Asia Minor. In any case, the most ancient place names of Greece reveal features that are unusual for Indo-European languages.
The Greeks settled the Aegean and Pelloponnese in several waves. The first wave, which consisted of the later Achaeans, Ionians and Aeolians, sailed from the Balkans and reached the Aegean Islands around 1900. AD The conquerors reduced the settlements of the previous settlers, whom they called Pelasgians, Carians or Leleges, to ruins. Dark memories of the mysterious Pelasgian tribe remained among the Greeks until classical times ( Hoffmann O., Scherer A., 1969, 19). With this Greek invasion began the Middle Helladic era, which is characterized by the fusion of local cultural traditions with new Indo-European elements. This era lasted more than three centuries, and at the end of the cultural synthesis came the Mycenaean period (1600 - 1050 BC). In the XIV-XIII centuries. BC. The Achaeans began their expansion into Asia Minor, Egypt, Sicily and the south of the Apennine Peninsula. This expansion is associated with reports from Egyptian sources about the invasion of the “sea peoples.” The Greek attack on Troy dates back to this time. Shortly after the end of the Trojan War, around 1200 BC. According to archaeological data, some destructive phenomena took place in continental Greece, which are associated with a new invasion of Greek tribes - the Dorians, more primitive relatives of the Achaeans, who also came from the north.
The second stream of Indo-European expansion passed inland to the southwest to the shores of the Adriatic. It included Italics and Illyrians. At the turn of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, great changes occurred in the composition of the population of Transdanubia and Alfold ( Shusharin V.P., 1971, 15). There is reason to connect these changes with the arrival of the Italics and Illyrians. The latter, in their movement to the Balkans, stopped in Saxony, Moravia, Bohemia, where their traces can be found in toponymy ( Pokorny J., 1936, 193), then settled in the north-west of the Balkan Peninsula, and later occupied Epirus and, possibly, larger territories of Greece ( Hoffmann O., Scherer A.1969., 10). But the first to move were the Italic tribes (Sabines, Osci, Umbrians, Latins), since they moved somewhat further in their wanderings, to the Apennine Peninsula. The settlement of the peninsula took place in several waves; apparently the Latins and Falisci stayed in Pannonia for a long time
On right: The peoples of Italy at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.
The numbers on the map indicate:
1. – Veneti.
2. – Ligurs.
3. – Etruscans.
4. – Sabines (Picenes).
5. – Umbra.
6. – Latins.
7. – Messapians (Yapygi).
8. – Oski.
9. – Sicans.
10. – Sardis.
11. – Corsas.
All this movement of Indo-European tribes to the south could last for several centuries, because in general process The resettlement later included Phrygians and Armenians. The fact of the penetration of the Phrygians into Asia Minor through the Balkans is confirmed in Greek legends. The Phrygians and the mysterious “flies” came to the shores of the Sea of Marmara approximately at the same time as the Dorians ( Bartonek Antonýn, 1976, 60-65). These "flies" could have been a tribe related to the Phrygians, or one of their tribes, it could also be another name for the Phrygians, but the fact that the "flies" later advanced to the upper reaches of the Tigris and settled there suggests that they were the ancestors of modern Armenians True, Tumanyan, citing data from Hittite and Assyro-Babylonian sources, claims that the ancestors of the Armenians, together with the “sea peoples,” appeared in the valley of the Chalis River in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, ( Tumanyan E.G., 1971). The issue of the special closeness of the Armenian and Phrygian languages is discussed in the section "". Since the Phrygians and Proto-Armenians appeared in Asia Minor in the middle (or at the end) of the 2nd millennium BC, before that time (not counting the time of resettlement) they should have populated the Right Bank of the Dnieper, since they remained for some time in the Indo-European linguistic space , south of the Thracians.
The Tocharians were supposed to remain in their ancestral homeland for some time, as evidenced by some linguistic data, in particular the lexical correspondences of the Tocharian and Ossetian languages. IN AND. Abaev gives the following examples in his works:
toh. witsako"root" – oset. widag"Same",
toh. porat"axe" - Osset. färät- "Same",
toh. eksinek"dove" - Osset. äxinäg"Same",
toh. aca-karm"boa constrictor" - Osset. kalm"snake",
toh. kats"belly" - oset. qästa"Same",
toh. kwaš"village" – Osset. qwä"Same",
toh. menki“smaller” – Osset. mingi"small, not enough."
The Indo-Aryans moved towards Central Asia, crossing the Volga and the Urals. However, some part of them remained in Eastern Europe forever, and clear traces of their language were preserved in some Finno-Ugric languages for thousands of years. Examples of Indian-Finno-Ugric lexical convergences are provided by T.T. Kambolov:
Hungarian tehen"cow" - Old Indian dhenu"cow",
Mansi śiś"child" – Old Indian śiśu-"child".
muzzle saras"kura" - Old Indian śāras"variegated" ( Kambolov T.T.. 2006, 32).
To these pairs we can add the lonely one among the Finno-Ugric Mokas. vrygaz almost completely phonetically identical to Old Indian. vrgas"wolf" (in Erzya language vergiz). Referring to E.A. Grantovsky, Kambolov also talks about reverse Finno-Ugric borrowings in Indian, separate from Iranian ones ( there)
In addition, there is reason to believe that the languages of the Sindo-Meotian tribes that inhabited the Taman Peninsula and adjacent territories are genetically related to Indian ones:
Thanks to the works of O.N. Trubachev etymologized hundreds of ancient linguistic forms, and in the Northern Black Sea region three vast areas of Indo-Aryan language relics were identified: Sindo-Meotian (Azov region), Tauro-Scythian (Great Scythia) and Sigino-Getic (Scythia Minor). The vast majority of Meotian linguistic relics are comparable to the linguistic materials of the Indo-Dardo-Kafir group of the Indo-European family. The linguistic material already described and previously studied is sufficient to conclude that the Sindo-Meotian and Indian languages are genetically related. ( Shaposhnikov A.K. 2005, 32).
According to Zograf, the division of the Indo-Aryan languages into two branches occurred outside Europe, although, obviously, outside India ( Zograf G. A., 1982, 112). Such division could have occurred somewhere during the first long stop of the Indo-Aryans, possibly in Central Asia. Linguistic analysis shows that the creation of the Rig Veda occurred no later than the 2nd millennium BC, therefore, the movement of the Indo-Aryans from Central Asia or Northern Iran occurred earlier than this time ( Lal B.B., 1978, 47). On the other hand, the presence of the Indo-Aryans in Iran may be evidenced by the fact that not far from it a special “Western Indo-Iranian language” appeared, represented by a relatively small number of names of people and gods:
The area of such names coincides with the area of distribution of the Hurrian language (from the foothills of Iran to Palestine) ( Dyakonov I.M. 1968, 29).
From Dyakonov’s reasoning about the use by speakers of this language of the art of mass use of war chariots, it follows that they arrived from the regions “north of the Caucasus” ( Dyakonov I.M.. 1968, 30). Here it must be said that the problem of migration of the ancient Indo-Aryans is confused by the generally accepted idea of the existence of a special Indo-Iranian (Aryan) linguistic community. According to Harmatta, the advance of the “Indo-Iranian” peoples from the steppes of Eastern Europe to Asia up to Hindustan and China occurred in two waves. The first wave took place at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, and the second - at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. ( Harmatta J., 1981, 75). In our opinion, only the Iranian tribes should be considered with the second wave, and the first should have followed that part of the Turks who moved to Central Asia (see below for more on this).
On right: Migration of Iranian tribes
The deserted areas of settlements of the Indo-Aryans, Thracians (Proto-Albanians), Phrygians and Armenians are inhabited by Iranians (see map on the right). After the departure of the Tochars, their area was populated by the Balts. Following the Phrygians, the Thracians crossed the Dnieper and settled for a long time on the Right Bank, and from here in pre-Scythian times they advanced to the Balkans. The Celts, perhaps under pressure from the Germans, began to move west, where in Central Europe they became the creators of the urn field cultures (1300-750 BC), the northeastern border of which seems to have passed along the Neman, beyond which there were already lands Slavs The Germans spread into the area of the Celts, and also occupied the area of the Greeks and the southern areas of the Italics and Illyrians. In the process of these migrations, the Slavs also expanded their territory to Baltic Sea, moving on the right bank of the Neman and thus established direct linguistic contact with the Celts.
A.A. has been studying Slavic-Celtic linguistic connections for a long time. Shakhmatov, who located the ancestral home of the Slavs in the Baltic states somewhere near the Celts. Some linguists, among whom were such authorities as M. Vasmer and K. Buga, were very critical of his statements about the special closeness of the Celts and Slavs, ( Martynov V.V.., 1983), but later his opinion was listened to more carefully:
A.A. Shakhmatov provides a significant list of alleged lexical borrowings in the Slavic language from Celtic, in which a prominent place belongs to social, military and economic terms. The researcher also assumed that some Germanisms penetrated into the Slavic language through the Celts. Close Celto-Slavic relations contributed to the spread of the ethnonym “Venedi” to the Slavs. ( Sedov V.V., 1983, 98).
Examples of Celtic borrowings in Slavic are given by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov: * sluga, *braga, *ljutь, *gunja, *dǫgъ, *tĕsto(Gamkrelidze T. V., Ivanov V. V., 1984). In phonetics, the result of Celtic-Slavic contacts was the nasalization of vowels in Slavic languages, which developed in line with the general Slavic process of monophthongization of diphthongs * en , *em , *on , *om etc. with a tendency for sonority to increase in the structure of a syllable, which led to the dominance of the law of the open syllable ( Vinogradov V. A., 1982, 303,Khaburgaev G. A., 1986, 94). Since nasals already existed in Celtic, under its influence monophthongization in this case went in the direction of nasalization of the indicated diphthongs into closed syllables. This phonetic influence can be explained by the Celts and Slavs living in the same phonetic area. According to Bernstein, Lehr-Splawiński tried to explain the emergence of the Masurian dialect by Celtic influence. Bernstein himself also believed that “the ancient Celtic influences on the Proto-Slavic language were deeper than had hitherto appeared” ( Bernstein S. B., 1961, 95).
V.V. Sedov believed that intense Slavic-Celtic interaction took place during the reverse migration of the Celts from west to east, which began around 400 BC. As the creators of the La Tène culture, they made a great contribution to European culture, in particular to the development of metallurgy and metalworking ( Sedov V.V. 2003, 4-5). Traces of this influence are noticeable in the Przeworsk culture, the creators of which Sedov considered the Slavs, but in fact they were the Germans, and the Celtic influence on the culture and especially on the metallurgy of the Slavs is not visible at all. This is understandable - at that time there could not have been Slavic-Celtic contacts; they took place at a much earlier time, even before the Goths arrived in the Vistula basin, forever separating the Slavs from the Celts. The ancestral home of the Goths was located in the area between the upper reaches of the Pripyat and Neman from Yaselda to Sluch, where they stayed until the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. After this, they began to move westward to the lands of the Slavs, extending to the Vistula. And only a few centuries later, a new wave of Slavic settlers forced the Goths to leave these lands and move along the right bank of the Vistula to Volyn and further to the Black Sea steppes (see map below).
Wielbark culture in late Roman times (Birbrauer F. 1995, 37. Fig. 6, by: Kokowski. Problematyka kultury wielbarskiej w młodszym okresie rzymskim).
On the original map, the ancestral home of the Goths (number I) and the ancestral home of the Slavs (number II) are additionally indicated.
Since the time of Pliny the Elder (23? AD – 79 AD), ancient scholars (Tacitus, Ptolemy) placed the Wends on the right bank of the Vistula. Usually this name refers to the Slavs:
... starting from the birthplace of the Vistula River, a populous tribe of Veneti settled across vast spaces. Although their names now change according to different clans and localities, they are still predominantly called Sclaveni and Antes ( Jordan III. 35).
Whether the Wends and Venets were one people or whether this is a consonant name for different or related tribes has not yet been established. In this regard, the history of Slavic migrations in prehistoric times remains vague. It can be assumed that the Slavs were not completely assimilated by the Goths and some of them were forced out to the left bank of the Vistula, after which they continued their migration together with the Celts and reached the area where Venice is now located.
Compared to the migrations of the Indo-Europeans, the Turkic expansion over a wide area of Eurasia lasted much longer and covered the Yamnaya and Catacomb periods. On the territory of Ukraine and the North Caucasus, in burials of the Yamnaya and Catacomb times, remains of wooden carts and clay models of wheels, carts and tent-carts were found in about 250 burials ( Kulbaka V., Kachur V.. 2000, 27). At the same time, research shows that during the Catacomb period the number of finds of carts and their models in Right Bank Ukraine and the Kuban decreased significantly, but in the area of the Kuma-Manych depression it increased, which may indicate a cessation of migration to Central Europe and an increase in the outflow of population in an easterly direction ( see map below and compare with map 32-30 art. above).
On right: Map of finds of wooden carts, wheels and their clay models from the Catacomb period(29-22 centuries BC) Southern Ukraine and adjacent territories ( Kulbaka V., Kochur V. 2000, 60)
Burials with characteristic chariot paraphernalia in the Don-Volga forest-steppe indicate that the second wave of Turks followed the same path that the Fatyanovo and Balanovo people had previously taken. On the territory of the Upper and Middle Volga region from the upper Oka to the Urals in the second millennium BC. they became the creators of a new culture, which was called Abashevo. Archaeological finds, in particular non-Abashevo type ceramics in cultural complexes of that time, are evidence that only military detachments moved through this territory from the south and that " not mutual assimilation of full-fledged cultures, but rather replenishment of the deficit of one’s own “unicultural” women at the expense of local" (Matveev Yu.P. 2005, 11).
The bulk of the Turks, in search of new pastures, moved across the Volga to the steppes of Kazakhstan, and another part of them settled in the Ciscaucasia, displacing from there the population of the Maykop culture, which also had to move to the left bank of the Volga and move further to the east.
On right: Settlement of the ancient Turks in the Ciscaucasia.
In the present, the population of the North Caucasus is multinational, but among it there are the Turkic peoples of Kumyks, Balkars, Karachais and Nogais.
Moreover, only the Nogais have pronounced Mongoloid features, and other Caucasian Turks, just like the Turks, Azerbaijanis, Turkmen, Gagauz, belong to the Caucasian type. Mongoloid characteristics clearly make themselves felt at the slightest crossbreeding, so there is great doubt that the ancestors of these peoples were once located in the territory where the main population belonged to the Mongoloid race. According to the location of the areas of formation of the Turkic languages, the ancestors of the Caucasoid Turks had an ancestral home between the Seversky Donets and the Dnieper. And the linguistic ancestors of the Yakuts, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Khakassians, and Tuvinians lived at the same time between the Seversky Donets and the Don. It was precisely they who were supposed to move across the Volga to the east.
In principle, the Chuvash and Kazan Tatars also should not have Mongoloid characteristics, but they appeared as a result of crossbreeding with the Finno-Ugric peoples, who have laponoid features, or after the arrival of the Tatar-Mongols in Eastern Europe. The mixing of the Chuvash and Tatars with the Mongols could not have occurred on a large scale, however, the Mongoloid characteristics of some of the Chuvash and Tatars are quite noticeable. This once again demonstrates how difficult it is to get rid of them. If the ancestors of modern Turks ever lived in Altai, then their appearance this is clearly evidenced. Thus, we can confidently say that not only the Chuvash and Tatars, but also the Turkmens, Kipchaks (ancestors of modern Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Karachevites, Kumyks), Oguzes (ancestors of the Gagauz), ancestors of modern Turks and Azerbaijanis, either always remained in Eastern Europe, or did not go far from the Caspian region.
There are facts that indicate that the Kipchaks have inhabited the Ciscaucasia since prehistoric times. First of all, this is evidenced by Turkic toponymy (Terek, Beshtau, Ersakon, Kyzyl-Togai, Uchkeken, for example). On the territory of North Ossetia alone, “there are more than one hundred and fifty geographical names explained from Turkic and Mongolian languages” ( Tsagaeva A.Dz. 2010, 97). And Tsagaeva suggests that these toponyms were left by the Hunnic and Tatar-Mongol tribes, but this statement can only be partially true. Conquerors usually do not change the names of settlements. When the Ossetians came from the Don basin to the Caucasus, displacing or assimilating the local Turks, they also either did not change the Turkic names or translated them into Ossetian, as shown, for example, by the name of the Ursdon River, which is a translation of the Turkic Aksu “White Water” ( there, 18). According to Abaev’s calculations, the number of common words in the Ossetian and Karachay-Balkar languages reaches two hundred. At the same time, their possible structuring is logical:
Three main categories of lexical convergences are distinguished: elements borrowed from Ossetian into Balkar-Karachay, elements adopted from Balkar-Karachay into Ossetian, and elements adopted by both from a common local Japhetic substrate ( Kambolov T.T. 2006, 277).
Kambolov points out that when determining the direction of borrowing, morphological, etymological, phonetic and other criteria can be used, but he does not offer a criterion for the stratigraphy of convergence. He does this by sharply polemicizing with V.I. Abaev, M. Dzhurtubaev. He analyzes a huge amount of data on the mutual linguistic borrowings of the North Caucasian peoples and, in particular, on borrowings in the Ossetian language from Turkic and other languages. Using figures and facts, he proves that the Karachais and Balkars lived in the Caucasus long before the Ossetians came here ( Dzhurtubaev M. 2010, 265-413). There is no opportunity here to dwell on his arguments in more detail, this is a separate big topic, but it should be pointed out that Dzhurtubaev was mistaken in believing that the Ossetians came to the Caucasus not from the Great Steppe, but from Transcaucasia. Just like the Turks, they came from the steppes, but one and a half thousand years later.
Already in historical times, the Balkars and Karachais were pushed back by the Kabardins and Circassians into the mountainous regions, but the Kumyks continue to live on the plain, although at some time they advanced into the valleys of Dagestan, evidence of which is the names of the Sulak and other rivers with the Turkic component Koysu. Having settled in close proximity to peoples of different origins, the Turks not only adopted the customs and way of life of the local population, but also enriched the common cultural fund of the peoples of the Caucasus. For example, they gave rise to the wide custom of “milk brotherhood”, based on the temporary transfer of a newborn child to another family. This custom is called emjack, emcheg, but the same words can mean “foster brother”, “pupil”. That the custom is of Turkic origin is proven by its name, which is based on a word that in Turkic languages means “mother’s breast” (kum. ämcäk, karach., balk emček).
The fact that the Kipchaks, or Cumans, have never been to Central Asia is confirmed by the study of the genetic structure of the population of the Western Caucasus:
As for the East Eurasian component, in the studied populations it turned out to be represented to approximately the same extent according to both mtDNA and Y chromosome data. At the same time, the Turkic-speaking Karachays do not demonstrate a significant share of this component, which is especially true for mtDNA. Moreover, some Abkhaz-Adyghe populations contain it to a greater extent. Data on the Y chromosome, in general, confirm these data... ( Litvinov Sergey Sergeevich, 2010, 20).
Balkars (Karachai?). Photo from the site "Forgotten Stories."
The photo on the left clearly shows that the Balkars and Karachais do not have signs of the Mongoloid race. It is believed that the Polovtsy came from beyond the Volga to the Black Sea steppes at the beginning of the 11th century, displacing the Pechenegs from there.
However, there is absolutely no historical evidence confirming such an assumption, although in ancient Russian and Byzantine sources the invasion of a large people into a neighboring country could not go unnoticed.
In the Tale of Bygone Years, the first mention of the Polovtsians is under 1055 and it is very everyday: “In the same year Bolush came with the Polovtsians, and Vsevolod made peace with them, and the Polovtsians returned back from where they came.” For the chronicler, there is nothing new in the presence of the Polovtsians in the immediate neighborhood.
Before the arrival of the Turks in the Ciscaucasia, there lived bearers of the Maikop culture of unknown ethnicity, which there is no reason to identify with any modern Caucasian peoples. Therefore, assumptions may be different, and one of them may be that the Maikopians were forced out by a separate branch of the Turks beyond the Volga and then migrated somewhat south of the main body of the Turks in the direction of Altai. Many scientists associate the arrival of migrants from Eastern Europe with the emergence in Asia of the Afanasiev culture, which could not develop on local soil:
In the archeology of Southern Siberia and Central Asia, the Afanasyev culture has long and rightfully occupied a special place for a number of reasons. The most significant of them are the fundamental cultural transformations that are taking place for the first time at this time in the designated area. The key components of the “Afanasiev phenomenon” were formulated by M.P. Gryaznov... This is the transition to a producing cattle-breeding type of economy, the beginning of copper metallurgy, a number of indirect data indicating the process of the emergence of a complex system of social relations, suggesting the emergence of social stratification, special ideological ideas and other innovations pointing to a completely new, but, nevertheless, a recognizable matrix that will finally take shape in the steppe world somewhat later ( Fribus. A.V, 2012, 199).
Monuments of the Afanasiev culture are recorded over a wide area - in the Upper and Middle Yenisei, in the Altai Mountains and Mongolia. Their study was carried out by various groups of researchers independently of each other without generalizing conclusions ( Stepanova N.F., Polyakov A.V. 2010, 4). However, anthropological studies show that the craniological types of the Afanasevo people do not differ from the skulls of the Sredny Stog people and the Yamniki of the Zaporozhye region or Kalmykia, who are either descendants of the Sredny Stog people, or a mestizo group with a mixture of the same components as the population of the Sredny Stog culture ( Solodovnikov K.N. 2003). This conclusion is confirmed by archaeological data:
A number of features that can be considered ethnocultural indicate regions where the proto-Afanasyevsky complex could have formed - these are the territories of the Lower Dnieper region and the steppe Crimea to the Azov region and Ciscaucasia. Only here can we see analogies to the Afanasyev funeral rite, in particular, to specific funeral structures. As for the remaining elements of burial practice, the entire set of features in the most general form would be more accurately compared with the early common Yamnaya standard, which was an integrating element at the early stage of the formation of the ancient Yamnaya cultural-historical region ( Fribus A.V. 2012, 200).
Thus, there is evidence that suggests that the creators of the Afanasevo culture were Turkic tribes who came from the steppes of the Northern Black Sea and Azov regions. The chronological framework of the migration of the Turks to Altai is difficult to establish. The similarity of the monuments of the Afanasyevsky and Yamnaya cultures allows us to consider them synchronous, but between them there is a distance of several thousand kilometers, so a chronological shift is inevitable. On the other hand, determining the age of the Yamnaya cultural-historical community was calculated using the radiocarbon method, so there is no other way than to use the same method when determining the age of the Afanasyevsky culture. According to calculations, the upper limit of the range of radiocarbon dates for funerary monuments in the Middle Yenisei and Altai coincides with an accuracy of one year (2289 and 2290 BC). Moreover, the Altai dates are distributed relatively evenly over 1500 years, which clearly contradicts the number of monuments left behind , and in the Middle Altai - on a chronological interval of 700 years (3200-2500 BC). The question is why in Altai the Afanasyevsky monuments could have appeared earlier than in the Middle Yenisei it is proposed to be considered open ( Polyakov A.V.. 2010. 161).
However, while agreeing that the creators of the Afanasyev culture came from the west, as evidenced, among other things, by the spread of wheeled transport (see map below), we must agree that the Afanasyev monuments in the Middle Yenisei could not have appeared earlier than Altai.
Distribution of chariot transport in the Ural-Kazakh steppes.
Based on materials (I.V. Chechushkov, A.V. Epimakhov, p. 207)
In their movement to the east, the Turkic tribes observed a sequence determined by the location of settlements in their ancestral homeland. The Yakuts, who occupied the extreme eastern area, were the first to move north of Balkhash in the direction of Lake Baikal. Later they climbed up the Lena to their current habitats. Following them moved the ancestors of the Tuvans, whom we conventionally call Tuba. They reached the upper reaches of the Yenisei and live there now. The ancestors of their modern neighbors in the Altai Mountains were the same neighbors in their ancestral home. To the north of both of them now live the Khakassians, Kamasins, Shors, and Chulym Tatars. They all speak similar languages, descending from the same language, which we conventionally call Khakass, whose area occupied the northernmost part of the Turkic territory in their ancestral homeland. Obviously, they were moving in a more northern stream, and their southern neighbors, the Kyrgyz, were moving behind them. Specific time they were supposed to occupy neighboring territories in Siberia, but later the Kirghiz moved to Central Asia, where they now live. In order of priority, the common ancestors of modern Kazakhs and Nogais followed the Kirghiz. The Kazakhs gradually populated a large territory from the Lower Volga to Altai, and the Nogais have recently returned to Europe. The last of those Turks who crossed the Volga were the ancestors of the Uzbeks and modern Uyghurs, whom we collectively call Karluks (see map below).
The Karluks along the right bank of the Syr Darya reached the lower reaches of the Zeravshan, where Uzbeks still live there and in nearby territories. The Uighurs inhabit the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China in close proximity to the Uzbeks. The Sary-Uighurs, who speak a language close to Khakass, should not be confused with them. They live in Gansu province in northern China, east of Xinjiang. It’s hard to say how they got there, but the path of the Karluks can be reconstructed from archaeological finds:
The advance of steppe tribes to the borders of Central Asia is evidenced by the discovery of the Zamanbaba burial ground in the lower reaches of Zeravshan and other monuments, now united in the Zamanbaba culture ( Masson V.M., Merpert N.Y., 1982, 329).
Monuments of the Zamanbaba culture, currently discovered in the region of Khorezm, Tashkent, Samarkand, and Bukhara, are close to the Andronovo culture in a number of ways. At the same time, her funeral rite bears the features of the cultures of the Catacomb period. All this gives reason to believe that the steppe tribes of the Yamnaya appearance took part in its formation ( Masson V.M.. 1989, 64).
Presumably the advance of the Turks south to Afghanistan was stopped by the large local population. Fortified settlements in Margiana with traces of fires and steppe-style ceramics found in them can confirm this assumption. Apparently, after the first meetings with warlike nomads, local farmers began to build fortifications to protect their settlements and temples. The first appearance of regular fortresses in the south of Central Asia dates back to the turn of the 3rd - 2nd millennium BC ( Shchetenko A.Ya. 2005, 124-131). This time precisely corresponds to the ongoing migration of the Turks to the steppes of Kazakhstan and Central Asia.
The Turkic expansion to the east continued for several centuries, and with the beginning of the Bronze Age, a new wave of Turks advanced to Altai, becoming the creators of the Andronovo culture and their Caucasoid morphological characteristics can confirm the data of anthropological studies:
The population, Caucasoid in its morphological characteristics, made up the overwhelming majority of the Altai-Sayan Highlands in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages, and partially in the Early Iron Age. The Mongoloid admixture is recorded at this time only in isolated cases, but is constantly increasing, starting from the Early Iron Age, and reaches its full advantage in the modern era ( Alekseev V.P., 1989, 417).
The morphological similarity of part of the Caucasoid skulls of the Andronovo series of the Preobrazhenka-3 burial ground with series of steppe cultures of the Bronze Age indicates the possibility of population migration from the western regions of the spread of the Andronovo culture, in the physical appearance of which the Mediterranean racial type is manifested ( Molodin V.I., Chikisheva T.A., 1988, 204).
On right: Bronze Age Man. Kazakhstan and Southern Siberia. Andronovo culture.
Reconstruction of M.M. Gerasimova.
(World History. 1955. Vol. 1, p. 457).
At the same time, attention is also drawn to the fact that “in Andronovo times, the population of the Barabinsk forest-steppe was exceptionally mixed” ( Molodin V.I., Chikisheva T.A., 1988, 204), but specialists definitely associate people of Caucasian appearance with the migration of Indo-Europeans to Siberia and Central Asia:
The origin of the Andronovo community is one of the central problems in the history of the Indo-European peoples. The Indo-Iranian or Iranian affiliation of this community can be considered proven ( Kozintsev A.G., 2009, 126).
How fair and on what this bold statement is based can be concluded from the following fact:
In 1960, archaeologist S.S. Chernikov published in Moscow an interesting book “Eastern Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age”, in which, based on the archaeological material he obtained, he expressed “seditious” thoughts: the bearers of the Andronovo culture, who were considered to be Iranian-speaking, he rightly called the ancestors of the Turkic peoples. S.S. Chernikov was immediately attacked with harsh criticism by some archaeologists, captivated by the idea that the Andronovo people were Iranian-speaking. ( Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 2010, 6).
A question arises for the convinced supporters of the Iranian-speaking Andronovo people: How could it happen that a fairly large mass of Indo-Europeans completely disappeared from the face of the earth, without even leaving noticeable traces in the languages of the local population? Even if they gradually dissolved in it, then, as the Tochar experience shows, this should have taken hundreds of years. During this time, migrants from Europe had to assimilate at least part of the local population and impose their language on them, since they were carriers of a higher culture than the inhabitants of Siberia. This is exactly what we see if we recognize the migrants as Turks. In the process of joint coexistence and natural crossbreeding of the Turks with the local population, over time, a homogeneous anthropological type took shape with obvious Mongoloid characteristics of many ethnic groups that retained either their Turkic (Yakuts, Tuvans, Khakass, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, etc.) or Mongolian language.
It is difficult to say anything definite about the migrations of the ancestors of the Bashkirs, because their Mongoloid element is quite strongly expressed, and in language they are close to the Tatars. It is also difficult to speak definitely about the time of the appearance of the Oguzes, Seljuks and Turkmens in the Trans-Caspian steppes.