Der heutige Spachgebrauch "Vandalismus" ist nicht gerechtfertigt. Der
besonders schlechte Ruf der Vandalen erklärt sich durch die Polemik
katholischer Chronisten gegen das rigorose arianische Bekenntnis der Wandalen.
La mauvaise réputation des Vandales s’explique par la polémique créée par les
chroniques catholiques contre l’attachement rigoureux des Vandales à
l’Arianisme.
Vandali Asdingi
Hasding-Wandalen
nahmen im 3./4. Jahrhundert von den benachbarten iranischen
Völkern deren Reiterkampf-Lebensstil an.(13) Die
namensgebenden Hasdinger waren die Erbkönige des Volkes. Zu Beginn des 5.
Jahrhunderts nahmen sie das arianisch-christliche
Bekenntnis an. Sie verließen um 400 ihre Siedlungsgebiete, drangen 406 in
Gallien und 409 in Spanien ein. Seit 418 nahmen sie die Reste der
Silling-Wandalen und der iranischen Alanen in
ihren Stammesverband auf. Die Hasdinger nannten sich seitdem "Könige der
Wandalen und Alanen" 429 eroberten die vereinten Wandalen und Alanen die
römische Provinz Africa. Die wandalische Flotte beherrschte für eine Generation
das westliche Mittelmeer und nutzte die Seeherrschaft zu Plünderfahrten. 455
eroberte ihr König Geiserich Rom - nicht um es zu erobern oder zu zerstören,
sondern um planmäßig Reichtümer zu rauben(14).
534/35 eroberte der byzantinische Feldherr Belisar das Wandalenreich für
Byzanz.
Vandali Silingi Silling-Wandalen
verließen um 400 Schlesien und überquerten 406 im Verbund mit den
stammverwandten Hasding-Wandalen und den iranischen Alanen
den Rhein, verwüsteten Gallien und beherrschten 411-418
"(W)Andalusien" Nach der Zerschlagung ihres Königreiches durch die
Westgoten schlossen sie sich den Hasding-Wandalen
an, deren weiteres Schicksal sie teilten. An die Sillinger erinnern noch heute
die Landesbezeichnungen Schlesien (deutsch) und Slask (polnisch).
Varini Warnen
Tacitus kannte sie auf Jütland, später lebten sie in Mecklenburg. Zumindest
Teile der Warnen gehörten im 5. Jahrhundert zum Reich der Thüringer.
Um 595 wurden die Warnen von den Franken unterworfen
und offenbar fast ausgerottet.(15)
An sie erinnert der Flußname Warnow in Mecklenburg.
Venedi Venedae
Wenden
die Vorfahren der großen indogermanischen Sprachgruppe, die von griechischen
Historikern des 6. Jahrhunderts erstmals als Slawen
bezeichnet werden. Ihre Wohnsitze zu Beginn der Völkerwanderung werden
zwischen unterer Weichsel
und oberem Don vermutet. Im 6. Jahrhundert besiedelten sie Böhmen und
Mähren und im 7. und 8. die Ostseeküste zwischen der Weichselmündung und der
Kieler Bucht sowie den Raum östlich von Elbe und Saale und den gesamten
Ost-Alpenraum. Die alt-slawische Kultur war eine Bauernkultur mit einer in
Ostmitteleuropa seinerzeit überlegenen angepaßten Anbautechnik(16).
Politisch standen die Slawen in unserem Raum unter der Herrschaft von Hunnen und
Goten,
später unter der der Awaren
und Franken.
Im 9. Jahrhundert bildete sich mit dem Groß-Mährischen Reich zum ersten Mal ein
unabhängiger slawischer Herrschaftsbereich, der 906 von den Ungarn erobert
wurde. Im Ostalpenraum und Kroatien seit dem 7. Jahrhundert und in Böhmen und
Mähren seit dem 9. Jahrhundert übernahmen die Westslawen das
römische Christentum. (Nach 966 auch Polen.) Ebenfalls im 10. Jahrhundert
wurden die Ostslawen griechisch missioniert, wie schon seit dem 8. Jahrhundert
die Balkanslawen.
The faith in Slavdom of venetov in the
scientific medium is transferred from one generation to the next. From P.
shafarik and L. niderle this relay race reached our contemporaries, which made
it possible into the 70's to establish the following: "the majority of
scientific specialists considers that venedy - this by the etnonim of Slavs... this position is at present
already barely caused disputes" (ram, 1974, s. 7). This position seemed
still more indisputable after 1945- GO, when the connected finally scientists
of the Slav countries gave for the place under the sun for these venetov-venedov present
battle for the "impudence of Germans" * (Artamonov, 1946, s. 71). In
the Slav history was isolated then the special "venedskiy period", which corresponds
TO I - TO THE IV of substances n. 3. (Tyminieski, 1949, s. 112 -113), and in
archaeology Polski ludowej- corresponding "kultura wenedzka", officially called
precisely so up to the recent time (Kostrzewski, Chmielewski, Ja?.d?.ewski,
1965, s. 242 - 254; Ja?.d?.ewski, 1981, s. 485).
This "venedskaya"
(pshevorskaya) culture in 1920-40- e yr. literally otvoyevyvalas' in the German
archaelogical science, in which it was traditionally considered German - Vandalic, lugiyskoy
(Kossina, 1914, s. 141; La baume, 1934, s. 108). Yu. kostshevskiy then
beginnings began to prove the age-old Slav belonging of the detached to Poland
territories of Silesia and Pomerania. According to his new point of view, praslavyanskoy in the
Polish earth appeared the already luzhitskaya culture of bronze - beginning of the Iron age, and
further development of autochthonic population led in I v. n. 3. to the
addition here of "venedskoy"
culture. The designation of its carriers, transmitted Tatsitom as ' lugios, in
reality sounded, according to Yu. kostshevskiy and T. ler-Splavinskiy,
precisely, on- they were Slav:: to "?.u?.ane, or even ' to?.uzychzane
(Kostrzewski, 1946, s. 71 - 76; Lehr-Sp?.awi?.ski, 1948, s. 266). By Soviet
archaeology thesis about the age-old
Slav belonging of "ancient Luzatsii" was supported by the most decisive means:
"... lugiyskiye
tribes, he wrote, for example, P.N. Of tret'yakov, which in the
bourgeois literature are usually considered Germans, were in actuality tribes,
related to venedam
"(Tret'yakov, 1953, s. 105). However, as the ancient Slavs then were
considered... even Tatsitovy ' suebi (daredevils, 1946, s. 65 - 89). However, the comparison of
different manifestations of pshevorskoy
culture precisely with venedami,
in particular the yuzhnopshevorskikh monuments of the Slovakias and
Podnestrov'ya - s ' venadae
to i'.venadaye sarmatae
Of pevtingerovykh tables, continued to be encountered and is much later
(Shchukin, 1976, s. 17 - 77).
|
|
|
|
By the way, Slavdom of venedov was
that unique thesis, which equally defended both the Soviet historical science
and "anti-Soviet" emigrant. Thus, in 4. Pasternak we read: "...
all Slav archaeologists unanimously consider venedov praslavyanami, ancestors of western Slavs "(Pasternak,
1961, s. 432). Thus, precisely, the national conditionality of this treatment
acknowledged completely frankly. However, by German scientists the Slav
attribution of venetov/venedov,
strictly, also never was denied. Even very unloved by our historiography the
"leader of German nationalistic archaeology" G. kossin considered
Tatsitovykh venedov
precisely Slavs (Kossina, 1924, s. 161).
By Schmidt and
By m. Ebert venety
of Jordan, conquered by Ermanarich, identified with the Upper Dnieper by Slavs.
Later about the same wrote still many, for example, 3. Schwarz (Schmidt, 1910,
s. 99; Ebert, 1921, s. 361; Schwarz, 1956, s. 88). Even in the transfer Of
tatsitova of composition "Germsnia" as the equivalent of Latin ' venethi, contains German
' die Wenden, with
the subsequent explanation: i.e. ' die Slawen (Tacitus, s 41, 61). This
coincides with the traditional designation of Slavs, in the form ' winden, ' wenden
preserved in the German language to the present in the form ' winden, ' wenden. There
is analogous Finnish, '
venl, ' vened, ' vend.jd, with the same value, and, furthermore, also ' Vend.dd -
"Russia". But Poland, in particular, medieval Scandinavian sources
name ' Weonodland (Blume, 1912, s. 207). The Earth to the east of elba and
Zaale, populated by before Slav tribes, and after their final onemechivaniya
for long continued to be named ' Vinedaland (Zeuss, 1925, s. 67). All this seemed by completely
reliable base for the interpretation, as the designations of the same Slavs,
only dpevnikh, also
etnonimov, transmitted by authors I - THE VI of substances in the form ' venethi - ' venedi - '
O of???????. Therefore it is completely natural that for the
"interpretation" of the latter were gathered data of precisely Slav
linguistics. And the following came out: "vend"? "anta"; ? "vyat(ich)"; "wenetowie" = "ludzi wielkie,
pot??.ny" (Mavrodin, 1945, s. 28; Tymieniecki, 1948, s. 251).
As is known,
whereas to connect similar by linguistic "bridge" with the reliable
Slavs not only of venedov,
but also stavanov attempted still itself OF M.T. Lomonosov. The most
authoritative guarantees the possibility of a similar transformation invariably
obtained also subsequently. Thus, according to P. shafarik, it was initially
written precisely '?????????, but then letter '? it was jumbled s '?, and
subsequently fell out generally (Shafarik, 1848, s. 345). According To G.
lovmyan'skiy, Ptolemeyevy ' Stauano?, - not that other as the damaged autonym
of Slavs, to transmit which more right there would be as ' Stlabano?, or even '
S?.labanoi (Lowmia?.ski, 1964, s. 197). the "completion" of this
"bridge" led to the identification, at least, territorial, these "stavanov" -
"stlaven" with Tatsitovymi venetami (Michinskiy, 1976, s. 90; Machinskiy, 1981,
s. 34).
The psychological
motivation of the Slav ethnic interpretation of information about stavanakh and venetakh, on
the whole, is clear; it was distinctly designated, in particular, in K.
godlovskiy. "in the antique sources I - THE IV of substances n. 3., he
wrote, between average Danube and Baltikoy are mentioned the peoples of Celtic,
German, and baltskogo origin (galindy,
sudiny); against this background the absence of the data about the Slavs
appears something improbable "(Godlowski, 1979, s. 7). Apparently, the a
priori Slav ethnic attribution of Eastern European venetov, mentioned in antique writers,
caused in many respects also summary approach itself to the information of the
latter. "venedskiy"
stage in the history of Slavdom is connected with the medieval, and
communications to Greco and the latinoyazychnykh authors about venedakh and stavanakh - with the information of the
authors of byzantine about the antae
and sklavenakh, because they, accordingly, to Jordan, occur of one root
and were known to its contemporaries hearth by three names (Slavs..., 1990, s.
5). In connection with this can seem by that by completely justified one of the
recent attempts at such "summing up of the information of the different
authors", when to topografizirovat' venetov/venedov in Povislen'e by the association of
the information Of pliniya, Tatsit, Ptolemy and Pevtingerovykh tables attempted
BY EXPLOSIVES Sedov (Sedov, 1996, s.eshch - 36). However, earlier a similar "cocktail"
was still more complexly, indeed here were
added even Gerodotovykh '?????? (Tret'yakov, 1953, s. 99)... Thus, "venedsko- Slav" episode
in the history of our science still by no means ended. Indeed, in particular,
idea about Slavdom Of tatsitovykh venetov precisely served, probably as one of the bases for the
advancement of the "qualitatively new concept of Slav ethnogeny",
which, however, again proclaims the old postulate of avtokhtonnosti of Slavdom
between Oder and Dnepr (Kozak, 1996, s. 54 - 56).
Meanwhile not to
doubt the faith in Slavdom of venetov
is impossible, if we consider very volumetric and objective information. Let us
begin from the fact that one of the "dogmas" of this faith was the
precisely Slav belonging, or, at least, polietnichnost', "venedskoy" pshevorskoy culture - but
with the obligation of the presence also Slav component in its composition
(Sedov, 1976, s. 62). The convincing refutation of data of ideas is one of
deceased K. godlovskiy's merits. To it conclusion about that belongs, the
culture of the Slavs of the epoch of their great expansion in THE VI - THE VII
of substances in its quite structure is principally outstanding from the Roman
influences - i.e. developed in the sphere, in this case, from the same pshevorskoy. According to K.
godlovskiy, any specific evidence about the inhabiting of Slavs in the
territory of Poland in first half I thousand of n. 3. in the appropriate
antique written sources cannot be revealed (Godlowski, 1979, s. S 7 - 16). C of
other side, the archaelogical information about the dynamics of development,
including about the expansion in the southern and southeastern direction of the
pshevorskoy culture,
certified in K. godlovskiy as the "sufficiently united cultural
generality", finds their convincing parallels in the antique information
about the German tribes of
lugiyev and Vandals
(Godlowski, 1984, s. 327 - 350). The cultural unity of lugiyev and vandiliyev of the boundary of our era
of the boundary of our era is considered as the archaelogical proved (Hachmann
and other, 1962, s. 56), but interpretation as the Vandalic pshevorskikh antiquities, including the territory of the Ukraine,
now no longer appears something uncommon (Koval ', 1993/1994, s. 31 - 56).
Specifically,
with the pshevorskoy culture confidently is connected, in the opinion Of r.
khakhmann, the origin of the ancient germanoyazychnogo population of average,
and partially also western Germany (Hachmann, 1970, s. 305). However, previous
thesis about Slav affiliation with that been "kultury winedskiej" I - II substances n. 3.
in Poland I could continue its existence only in the sufficiently whimsical
form. "even if one takes into account, that inside the basic massif of
pshevorskoy culture were preserved some Slav groups, we read in E of ram, then
nevertheless is necessary to recognize that not they determined the appearance
of the material culture of this period" (Slavs..., 1990, s. 326). It turns
out that these mysterious Slavs
of Roman time existed in Povislen'e among the pshevorskikh Germans not otherwise as incognito...
In the study of
the origin of Slavs very contradictory situation arose. For example, by Russian
archaeologist, who convincingly based the neslavyanskiy nature of the
dosrednevekovykh antiquities Of podneprov'ya, Podvin'ya and Ponemon'ya, for the
ranneslavyanskoy culture of the type Prague -Korcak are assumed precisely
pshevorskiye roots; pshevorskaya culture is compared in this case with "the venedami- Sarmatians" Of
pevtingerovykh tables (Sedov, 1976, s. 117; Sedov, 1996, s. 26). But it Polish
associate insists on the reverse, asserting that its sources this culture in
Povislen'e does not have, and, in turn, considers very probable Slav
attribution exactly Of kolochina and Bantserovshchiny (Parczewski, 1988, s. 90;
Parczewski, 1993, s. 124). However, Ukrainian researchers as before continue to
adhere to idea about the zarubinetskoy culture as about the certain nucleus of
Slav ethnogeny. However, in their opinion, "the scant and inaccurate
references about venedakh,
which are contained in the compositions Of pliniya of elder, Tatsita and
Ptolemy, do not give serious grounds for their correlation with the carriers of
Slav zarubinetskoy archaelogical culture" (Slavs..., 1990, s. 23).
Thus, the
archaelogical substantiation of Slavdom of Eastern European venetov is very problematic. The
appearance of comparisons with them of the antiquities, whose Slav nature is
problematic even more, appears therefore in no way random. For example,
according to M. kazanskiy, Iordanovy of venety - these are not only Kiev
culture, but also Dnepr -dvinska4 and shtrikhovannoy ceramics (Kazanski, 1992,
s. 122). However, this identification of venetov at least with one of the
undoubtedly ancient-Baltic cultures something completely new and unexpected is
not. Indeed about the fact that in the antique authors on the boundary and in
the beginning of our era venedami
could be named also balty,
wrote already P.N. Of tret'yakov (Tret'yakov, 1970, s. 17). True, R. venskuom the
same assumption, about the presence among these venedov not only of Slavs, but also baltov, spoke out still earlier (Wenskus, 1961, s. 45).
Subsequently, besides baltov, in the number of hypothetical venedov were included also
Finns, apparently, Baltic (Machinskiy, 1976, s. 89).
That this was
their not its own name, but the name of Slavs in neighbors, by the adherents of
their identity with venedami
was emphasized invariably (Mavrodin, 1945, s. 28; Machinskiy, Tikhanova, 1976,
s. 62 - 63; Sedov, 1996, c. 37): however, also following the German associates
(Much, 1900, s. 34; Much, 1937, s. 415; Hirt, 1905, s. 127; Zeuss, 1925, s.
68); however, always without any references on them. However, in the German
historiography the assumption about the direct contact of two ethnoses, venetskogo and Slav, was
encountered up to the recent time. "with the assimilation of northern venetov by Slavs their name,
in understanding of German neighbors, passes to the Slavs", we read in one
fundamental publication (Welt der Slawen, 1986, 22). By the supporters of Slavdom of venetov, that
adopted this thesis, was reproduced also the connected with it ancient position
of the German science about the luzhitskoy culture as about the archaelogical
correspondence to this Indo-European etnonimu (Labuda, 1980, s. 41). However,
this noncritical adoption clearly is not coordinated with the fact that it is
well known both about the Slavs and about the carriers of luzhitskoy culture.
The latter by the German science of beginning KHKH v. were considered by no
means as the Slavs, but as the northern offshoot of illiriytsev (Kossina, 1915,
s. 113 - 114; La baume, 1934, s. 6). This confirmed data of the linguistics,
according to which, in particular, the names large rivers of luzhitskogo area,
elba, Oder, Vistula, were etymologized precisely from the the illiriyskogo
(Pokorny, 1938, s. 19). However, late linguists established the independence of
venetskogo, that was,
on the level with the the illiriyskoy, the German, etc., the independent branch
of "indogermanskoy" - Indo-European lingual family (Krahe, 1954, s.
44). These ancient venety were confidently compared with the carriers of luzhitskoy culture even in
1950- e yr. (Miloj?.i?, 1952, s. 318 - 325; Schwarz, 1956, s. 33). Is later
with the same neslavyanskimi, but ancient-Indo-European venetami luzhitskaya culture, at least, the
western part of its massif, began to be compared also by Polish archaeology
(Pradzieje ziem polskich, 1988, s. 756).
Thus, archaeology
does not make possible for us to assume some direct coupling of Slavs with
these luzhitskimi venetami,
like the attitudes of order Germans with baltskimi prussami, from which was
preserved name itself, in the form ' Preusen. Indeed the finale of luzhitskoy culture is
isolated from the appearance of reliable Slavs in the territory of Poland
approximately by millenium. This
space is filled, as is known, with the moving in of here many tribes, besides
clearly neslavyanskikh, such, as bastarny, Vandals and Goths, and also by their
withdrawal into the distant countries, after ' limes romanus. Therefore,
if we believe To prokopiyevu to story about the withdrawal of gerulov to their
northern native land, from the Carpathians and to varnov in the Baltic region
stretched the enormous empty region (Procop., Bell. Goth, II: 2, 14 - 15).
Moreover this was on the eve of the Slav settling to the West and exactly on
the spot for the future German
Vinedaland. Populated already by Slavs, it was as before, for the descendants
of ancient Germans, the "country
of venedov": in our view, in the same sense, into what North Black
Sea area invariably it remained for Romans and Byzantines Of
"skifiyey", and the migrating themselves there Goths, rusichi and
Turks, they were converted, correspondingly, into
the "Scythians". I.e. as Slavs - into "vendov". That
the similar assumption is permissible, follows, probably also from the fact
that the same clav4ne, that populated that left by silingami and langobardami to eastern
pogranich'e of the German earth, in Adam bremenskiy are called ' vandali, or ' vinnili
(Bierbrauer, 1998, s. 410).
Explicit parallel
in history to term '
Wenden, ' Winden
in the value "Slavs"
is the same old-German ' Walch,
' Walche, in the
address, this time, the western and southwestern, romance neighbors: for
example, ' Walhf.land
- "Italy". But initially this was German the name of the
neromanizirovannykh still celts, as such, ' Walchen. It is considered
derivative on behalf of one of the tribes - ' volcae, or ' volcae tectosagae,
that was moved into average Germany, according to Caesar, from galliums.
(M6.llenhoff, 1900, s. 100 - 104; Schwarz, 1956, s. 27 - 28). Corresponding
Slav names, "volokh",
' vlakh, ' W?.oczy undoubtedly German adoptions - as, by the way, and
Finnish ' vene, '.Vend.zhd
(Much, 1937, s. 415).
Besides the
inadequacy both of the linguistic and archaelogical proofs of Slavdom of venetov, systematically proved
to be completely unsatisfactory and "summary" approach itself, as
such, to the information of the ancient authors about enetakh - genetakh- venetakh - venedakh. Let us
recall, with what precisely sources the discussion deals. First to their pages
burn maloaziyskiye genety, mentioned by Homer in Paflagonii (Hom., Il., III:
852). Poltysyacheletiya after about Balkan, illiriyskikh enetakh????????? ???????,
dwelled, as they assume, on the northern border of Macedonia (Zeuss, 1925, s.
151; Much, 1937, s. 414; Labuda, 1980, s. 31), he communicates by Herodotus
(Herod., I, 196). Apparently, with the same enetami-illiriytsami it was connected and Evripidovo
communication about "You enete, city into epire" (Esch., Hippolyt),
and also Strabonovo the reference about the city of???????, or '??????, in the
West of the Balkan peninsula, which belonged to the illiro- Celtic tribe of
iapodov (Strabo, THE IV: 6, 21, THE VII: 5, 4). One of the the iapodskikh is
clan, according to Appianus, was called also?????????? (Illyr., THE IV: 16 -
18).
On the level
with the Balkan, in Herodotus are mentioned also italiyskiye vnety of -???? in the Adriatic sea
(Herod., V: 9) about the same Adriatic genetakh - enetakh - venetakh, which dwelled in northeastern
Italy on r. po, mentioned then many authors: Strabon (Strabo, THE IV: 4, 1; V:
1, 4 - 5), Polybius (Pol., II: 17), Pliniy (Plin., NH, THE XXXVII: 43.), etc.
on other, already Atlantic coast, in gallic reinforced-Rieke venetami
encountered Caesar, who conquered them in the naval battle (Caesar, Bella
gallica, III: 8) the same venetov
as one of the tribes of belgov on the shore of ocean, several times mentions
then geographer (Strabo, THE IV: 6, 9). To I v. n. 3. relates the information
about the tribe ' venedi,
which somewhere in the pond of Baltic sea for the first time is mentioned
Pliniyem: "... this country is pulled along Vistuly and it is populated by
Sarmatians, venedami,
skirami and girrami "(Plin., NH, THE IV: 97). somewhat later about the
same Baltic venedakh it
reported, on the basis sea-scape Of tirskogo, also Ptolemy. Besides themselves
' against???????, the "great people Of sarmatii", to them are
mentioned even The venedskeye
mountains, and also The venedskiy
molded edge of Sarmatian ocean (Ptol., Geogr., III: 5,1, 5, 7 - 10, 28). '
against????????? ??????, The venedskiy molded edge, with the rivers falling
into it, is mentioned by Markian gerakleyskiy (Marc. Heracl., II: 38). in spite
of the very possible distortion of their true position, nevertheless on the
very shore of the sea, which washes Europe from the north, certain ' venadi sarmatae shows and
Tabula peutingeriana (segm. THE VIII: 1), ascending, as they assume, to III-
mu, or, wider - to middle II - THE IV of substances n. 3. (Miller K, 1962;
Lowmia?.ski, 1964, s. 181). however, C Baltic venedami as if connected communication about the
"Indus", which reach amber, in Cornelius nepont (Corn. Nep., fr 7).
From other side, the name ' Lacus
Venetus, "Venetskoye", i.e., present Boden, the lake,
Pomponius meloy's mentioned, from the remaining information of the antique
authors about venetakh as
if is isolated (Mela, De chorographia, III: 24).
Separate block
are, apparently, also latinoyazychnye sources about venetakh in the east Europe. These venety, in contrast to all
those mentioned above, were removed up to the significant distance from any of
the seas. Earliest communication here - from Tatsitovoy "Germany",
final to 98 g. n. 3., where it communicates about venetakh, which were settled east of the Vistula,
between pevkinami and fennami (Tac., Germ., 46). To tatsitovoy, according to
the general impression, approximately corresponds localization of venetov in Jordan. "in
leftist them (Alps, i.e. the Carpathians - S.R.) the slope, which is descended
to the north, beginning from the place of the generation Of vistuly river, on
the infinite spaces was located the populous tribe of venetov ", Gothic historian speaks. And,
commenting on contemporary to it the situation of middle THE VI century n. 3.,
it continues: "although their designations now change with respect to
different kinds and localities, nevertheless they are predominantly called sklavenami and antae"
(Iord., Getica, 34). However, to the second of fourth OF IV century, on the
basis of The iordanovoy relative chronology, is usually timed its communication
about Gothic -venetskom
the conflict: "after the defeat of gerulov Ermanarich directed army
against venetov" (Iord., Getica, 116 - 120). Localization of events is not
refined.
In spite of its
sufficiently wide popularity, it is not possible to take for granted and
localization ' venadi
Pevtingerovykh tables in the northwestern Black Sea area - in The budzhakskoy
Ukraine or southern Moldove (Tab. peut., segm. THE VIII: 1) in these tables the
real coordinates of geographical objects are distorted, since here all axial
distances W - O are extremely increased, and along axis N - S, on the contrary,
to the same degree they are reduced. As a result,
vnutrikontenintal'nye peoples
proved to be those moved aside
to the sea shores. In his time to this circumstance focused attention K. myullengof, who noted the improbability
of razmeshchenya ' lupiones
sarmatae, i.e., ' lugiones - lugiyev
- on the Baltic shore, next
to ' venadi sarmatae.
In his opinion, both peoples had
to be much south, namely near
yazigov west the Carpathians and bastarnov east
these mountains (M6.llenhoff, 1892, s. 80). Compensating by similar means the same
distortion, we had to and ' venadi
iz"yat'
from the number of Danube peoples, after moving them from
the lower reaches of the river of Agalingusa- Dniester for the north, into his
upper reaches.
But it is considered, however, that presence in middle III v. n. 3. near Danube of some "venedov", and, therefore, and localization ' venadi in The pevtingerovykh tables, indirectly confirms emperor volusian's title: ' Venedico Volusiano Augusto (Rikman, 1975, s. 327). However,
in actuality no venedov this joint ruler
of unlucky Treboniana Of galla conquered, and reference 3.A.
Rikmana on Zosim nothing gives.
In The zosimovoy "new history" among the barbarians, who ruined imperial provinces on Danube
"during the happy-go-lucky administration Of galla" (251 - 253 yr.), not about what venedakh
is mentioned (Zos., I: 23 - 28). It is obvious that this - in all the title- motto,
pereklikayushchiysya with the ambitions of the maximin of "Sarmatian" to subjugate all northern countries
"to Carmatskogo ocean itself" (in Volusiana - to Baltiki and Baltic
venedov) (Jul. Capit., Vita Maximini, V).
Thus, were
mentioned it seems all Proceedings of different antique writers about different
tribes and peoples with the names of the type of????, '.Venetyui, '
against???????, ' Venedi, ' Venadi. The problem of the explanation of the
accord of these names arose it seems even in the epoch of antiquity. Thus,
"summary approach" to venetam is not invention of contemporary
science, indeed only whether first it tried to use still geographer himself.
Strabon attempted to combine venetov of italiyskikh with the gallic, assuming
base by the latter of colony on Adriatike. Is presented by it also another
version - about the origin of these Adriatic from genetov maloaziyskikh, which
allegedly emigrated to Italy as a result of the Trojan war (Strabo, THE IV: 4,
1; V: 1, 4 - 5). However, already to Herodotus was known one of the versions of
the same enetskogo people legend, which also told about the moving out of their
ancestors from Asia and the arrival to Adriatiku. "A as they burn there
from the mussel, 4 I cannot explain", wrote the "father of
history" (Herod., V: 9), thus after doubting, first, in the lawfulness of
"summary approach" to the origin of venetov.
Then Jordan similar doubts,
apparently, lacked, and therefore antae and sklaveny, the successful
competitors of Germans, its tribesmen and contemporaries, were declared by
Gothic historian by straight heirs the infamy of ancient venetov, conquered and
which were submitted to Ermanarich (Iord., Getica, 116 - 120). True, this
already drew on Jordan suspicion, that it "... seemingly planned in THE IV
century of the event OF THE VI C." (Rikman, 1975, s. 372). In fact, such as
confirmation of reality of these events is absent, and the subjugation of
venetov by Ermanarich, in the essence, is reliably not more than fantastic of
the Jordans march is ready against the pharaoh of Egypt... Furthermore, in
spite of Iordanovu to assertion about the fact that in Slavs "now three
names: venety, antae and sklaveny ", is actually set for doubt even very
reality of existence about THE VI century n. 3. individual Slav tribe, which
corresponds to the first of the named in Gothic historian names. Localization
of these "strictly venetov" would be even, according to Ye. okulich,
"systematically erroneous" (Okulicz, 1984, s. 132 - 134). "an
attempt at the localization of these venetov, according to M. parchevskiy,
would lead us into the sphere of fantasy". Against the background of the
reliable identification of the carriers of Prague culture with sklavenami, and
pen'kovskoy with the antae, this becomes clear especially distinctly
(Parczewski, 1988, s. 107). Let us focus attention: by negermanskimi
Iordanovymi contemporaries, in contrast to it, no venety as the ancestors of
the people of????????? are not mentioned (Procop., Bell. goth., 27). That, on
the whole
is not
surprising, indeed this ancient etnonim corresponds precisely precisely to
Gothic ' winiH.a (Much, 1937, s. 414 - 415). Gothic autonym ' Gutans, ' Gutf.s,
as is known, acquired in "getike" clearly fictitious connection with
the relatively close in the sounding drevnefrakiyskim ' Ga.etae. Not was the
same artificial also the connection between ' winiH.a, i.e., on -Gothic,
"Slavs", with the similar archaic etnonimom ' venethi, in THE VI
century n. 3., possibly, it is also narrower as soon as book? So that the
origin of antae and sklavenov, nominal Iordanovykh "venetov" THE VI
century n. 3., from the similar, but IV- GO of a century, sufficient proofs
does not have. It is obtained, however, that the latter are deprived not only
of descendants, but also of ancestors. Indeed it is difficult to dispute the
conclusion, already made on this score D.A. The machinskim: "no direct
indications of the connection between venethi OF THE IV - THE VI Jordan and
venedi - venethi, the mentioned in authors I - II substances neither in Jordan
itself nor in other ancient authors is had" (Machinskiy, Tikhanova, 1976,
s. 62). However, in contrast to
However, in
contrast to this that differentiated, was proposed, actually, the restoration
of ancient "summary" approach. Indeed again, as Strabona, in T.
sulimirskiy is had in the form migration from the peninsula Brittany to
Adriatiku. According to its hypothesis, and all the remaining venety, Balkan,
maloaziyskiye, Eastern European between Oder and Vistula, occur, in principle,
of one root. In middle OF II thousand of n. 3. from lower Saxony, where
original homeland of this ancient-Indo-European ethnos was located, it began
the prolonged multistage expansion, one of results of which was the venetskoye
achievement of praslavyanskoy luzhitskoy culture (Sulimirski, 1973, s. 381 -
387, Abb. 1). However, on G. birkkhan's observation, "the curious
assumption that venety were moved to Adriatiku from Brittany, finds individual
adherents also in the contemporary science" (Birkhan, 1997, s. 201). It is
emphasized also by it that one and the same name, "venety", known in
the different time and on the different, removed one from another territories,
obviously, designated the tribes of completely different ethnic and cultural
belonging, and therefore it cannot be interpreted monogenetic: it arose in the
different places independently. In fact, indeed even in Polybius is noted difference,
on the language, italiyskikh venetov from the Celtic (Pol., II: 17) the name of
venetov in gallium is considered it derivative of Celtic ' wen, "to
love", or from the same, but even Indo-European, the value
"amicably" (Much, 1900, s. 35). In the value "relatives",
it is explained from the the ancient-German ' veni - "friend", '
venia - "relatives", "kind",
to love ",
or from the same, but even Indo-European, with the value" amicably
"(Much, 1900, s. 35). In the value "relatives", it is explained
from the the ancient-German ' veni - "friend", ' venia -
"relatives", "kind", "tribe" (Much, 1937, s. 414
- 415). Here there is, however, and a different version - from the Gothic '
vinja, "pasture"; Thus, venety - "people, which possesses many
good pastures" (M6.llenhoff, 1900, s. 514; Zeuss, 1925, s. 67). It goes
without saying, is interesting also the interpretation Of e. kolendo, who
compares the designation of Eastern European venetov with the Latin ' venetus,
"blue" (or "celestial"). The designations of these distant
tribes are connected by it also with the name of italiyskikh venetov, even in III
v. conquered by Rome. "the name of venetov, notes Ye. kolendo, was for
Romans completely intelligible and convenient in the pronunciation, in contrast
to many etnonimov Of barbarikuma" (Kolendo, 1984, s. 640). By the way
speaking, in the correspondences from the people Latin see the basis also of
other names severoyevropeyskikh tribes, for example, for The ptolemeyevykh
carbon - ' carbones (Tymieniecki, 1949, s. 114). From other side, now
completely reject the known comparisons of the name of antique venetov with the
the praslavyanskim * vety, by Church Slavonic "vyatshiy", and also by
tribal of "vyatichi" (Labuda, 1980, s. 33). Which, however, is
completely understandable: ancient-veinYecTscue Kentum- language, one way or
another, zapadnoindoyevropeyskiy (Schwarz, 1956, s. 33).
Thus, need,
instead of "summary", precisely, individual approach to the
information of the ancient authors about venetakh was completely obvious.
Indeed, for example, when desired on the same bases, on which Baltic venety,
Pliniyevy and Ptolemeyevy, are united with the continental Tatsitovymi, with
the latter they are compared, in principle, also Adriatic venety on r. po - it
is already accurately not Slavs. That seaside venety to continental are not
completely identical, with all persuasiveness it was substantiated By e.
kolendo. they emphasized the generality of similar doublets and even triplets
in the ethnic nomenclature Of barbarikuma. Doublet from the continental Tatsitovykh
' venethi and Baltic Pliniyevykh ' venedi, that correspond To ptolemeyevym '
against???????, it is differentiated in Ye. kolendo as follows: with the first
copostavleny ' Stauano? Ptolemy, and with the second - ' aesti Tatsita. The
"venedskeye mountains", according to Ye. kolendo, this completely not
the Carpathians, but much modest elevation - Sambiyskaya, or El'blongskaya.
Thus, in his opinion, by status of "great people" seaside venedy were
obliged not to extensiveness, but it is faster to the successful arrangement of
the occupied with them territory. This small tribe of ancient baltov dwelled
somewhere east of the mouth of the Vistula - exactly at the output of
"amber way" to the places of the output of that desired for Romans '
glaesum (Kolendo, 1984, s. 637 - 651). Thus, it turns out that from the Baltic,
or the the baltskikh, venedov Of pliniya and Ptolemy venety Of tatsita are
independent approximately just as from Celtic venetov galliums, genetov Of
paflagonii, and so forth according to the observation PERHAPS of Shchukin, by
all Tatsitovymi commentators, not connected with the Slav problems, his venety
they are invariably placed east of the Vistula (Shchukin, 1972, s. 110).
However, at the disposal of the supporters of the Slav attribution of venetov
Tatsita remains, as if, the still following argument: these venety, in the
first place, territorially correspond to mentioned somewhat late Ptolemeyevym
stavanam, and in the second place, the autonym of the latter was, in reality,
"Slavs". But it is revealed with the more careful examination of
background of the question: the deeply taken root idea, that Ptolemeyevo '
Stauanoi should be, allegedly, read as ' S?.labanoi (Havlik, 1973, s. 154;
Machinskiy, 1981, s. 34), from the point of view of classical linguistics are
blunder, besides discovered already sufficiently long ago. According to K.
myullengof, the reading ' Stauanoi as ' S?.labanoi is inadmissible because in
the Greek in ozvonchenii (anlaut) of?.l never it is written; Greeks themselves
wrote???????, ????????? (M6.llenhoff, 1887, s. 21). By the way, on its daring
assumption of replacement, allegedly, '? on ' A especially did not insist and
itself P. shafarik, by whom was proposed even the reading Of ptolemeyeva '
Stau?.no? as to "stavyane", i.e., the "inhabitants of
lakes" (' staw - "lake"). That the outstanding Slavist,
unfortunately, turned himself with the ethnic nomenclature Of barbarikuma very
freely, testifies also his "transfer" Of ptolemeyeva '??????? as
"northerners" (Shafarik, 1848, s. 105, 345). Slavdom of these
"stavyan" and of "northerners" from an historical
linguistic point of view proves to be even more problematic, if we recollect
also, that also in Ptolemy himself, and in Pliniya, and many other ancient
authors it is easy to find much set of pseudo-Slav etnonimov, type ' Serboi on
Ra river (Ptol., Geogr. V: 9, 17 - 22), ' sirbi on Meotide (Plin., NH. III:
22). in fact, if we "stabanoy" again read as "stlavanoy",
then ancient-Pannonian ' aravisci i'.oseriates we must compare with
rannesrednevekovymi Slav etnonimami ' maravi /.moravi and ' oseriane... But
indeed the reading of the hydros-nim of Roman Dakii to the Slav harmony, '
Patissus as "To potiss'e", Pistra -"Bystritsa", ' Tsierna -
"black" (Mavrodin, 1945, s. 22), together with the appropriate
hypotheses, already belong it seems only to past of the science, when, on the
observation I.S. Pioro, was considered it progressive everywhere to search for
and "to find" the ancient Slavs (Pioro, 1990, s. 6). By the way,
stavanov, in the form '????????, Ptolemy again calls not only in Ligurii, but
also in the depth of Asia. Takeing into account their this interesting
position, K. Zeiss arrived at the following conclusion: "Stavany, the
neighbors of alaunov or alanov, were alanskim or Sarmatian people, since the
same name, ' Sta?????, '??.ba?.i and?.Asta of??????, By Ptolemy will be again
named in connection with Ariane, Perside and Girkanii "(Zeuss, 1925, s.
271). Also in the contemporary linguistics for explaining Ptolemeyeva of etnonima
' Stauanoi is proposed Sanskrit ' stb.v?.na, ancient-Iranian avestiyskoye '
stavana - "khvalimyy", while also ossetic ' stavun, "to
praise" (Abayev, 1949, s. 183; Trubachev, 1979, s. 41). This ethnic
interpretation, together with the corresponding to it geographical undoubtedly
they are interesting; however, in those named in Ptolemy together with them
'??????? and '??????? traditionally see the first reference of western baltov -
sudavov and galindov (Laur, 1954, s. 266; Sedov, 1987, s. 410; Kolendo, 1998,
s. 51). Ptolemeyevy ' Stauanoi also could belong to the drevnebaltskim tribes
it seems in spite of its Sarmatian- Iranian parallels. Indeed the same
Pliniyevykh ' sarmatae, the neighbors of Germans and venedov in the lower
Vistula, to consider as the Iranian nomads is hardly possible (Plin., NH, THE
IV: 95). Therefore it is completely natural that, on the level with the Slav
and Iranian, since olden times has a walking also the baltsko- Baltic
etnogeograficheskaya attribution Of ptolemeyevykh stavanov. K. myullengof saw
in them "eastern Lithuanians on other side of the average Neman between
its upper flow and Viliyey, up to the swampy part of Belorussia, or to
Bereziny" (M6.llenhoff, 1887, s. 21). Later as argument in favor of a
similar localization was indicated even presence in average Belarus' of the
names type columns, Stolovichi, etc., but their association with stavanami it
seems was explicit oddity (Bagrow, 1945, p. 381). The territory of stavanov,
according to K. myullengof, corresponds, on the whole, to the area of the
shtrikhovannoy ceramics, with whose carriers they were compared BY D.A.
Machinskim, which proceeded, as is evident, from the similar geographical
interpretation Of ptolemeyevykh information about this tribe (Machinskiy, 1981,
s. 34). Thus, although stavany to the number of the "great peoples Of
sarmatii", according to Ptolemy, and do not relate, by it it was accepted
to remove huge territory. For example as in Ye. kolendo: between the the
Masurian Poozer'em, where galindy, and sudiny, by the steppe Black Sea area,
where there were alanskiye camps of nomads (Kolendo, 1998, s. 54). However, he
is noted by the historians of geography that the grid of lengths in Ptolemy as
is extended to the east and differs from the contemporary on 20° (Bronshten,
1988, s. 141). As a result in it the displacement of various objects is
observed, sometimes very significant. It is interesting, in this connection
what do Yu. kulakovskiy has, by whom was also considered the error of graticule
into "'?????????? ????????" approximately to one third, stavany are
related to one and the same territorial group not with steppe alanami, but with
Baltic galindami and sudinami (Kulakovskiy, 1899, s. 13 - 22). Probably, a
similar localization of this tribe must be considered as the more preferable,
but as then explain Ptolemeyevo assertion "... and stavany - to
alanov" (Ptol., Geogr., III: 5, 9)? Apparently, the author of
"geographical management" experienced the need to somehow fill the
lacuna between the Black Sea and Baltic tribes, and he solved this task due to
very south from the latter. I.e. as in Jordan, which, however,
"settles" far to the forest north of the Black Sea steppe inhabitant-
nomads: "... the coast of ocean hold esty, completely peaceful people. To
the south will neighbor with them the strong tribe of akatsirov, which does not
know cereals, but which feeds from the cattle and the hunting "(Jord.,
Getica, 37). Thus, Ptolemeyevy ' Stauanoi territorially converge faster with
The the tatsitovymi ' aestii, than it ' venethi. About them by the author
"De origine et situ Germanorum" communicates, literally, the
following: "... here the end Of svebii. To carry pevkinov, venedov and
fennov to the Germans or the Sarmatians, I do not know, although pevkiny, which
some call bastarnami, by speech, means of life, by permanent residency and by
dwellings are repeated Germans. Because of the mixed marriages their appearance
becomes increasingly uglier, and they acquire the features of Sarmatians.
Venety adopted much of their dispositions, since for the robbery they will rove
on leam and mountains, such as only do not exist between pevkinami and fennami.
However, more often it is possible to add them to the Germans, because they
build to themselves houses, bear panels and are moved by foot, besides by
sbol'shoy rapidity; all this mark off them from the Sarmatians, who conduct
entire life in the vehicle and on the horse "(Tac., Germ., 46). To the
interpretation of etogoTatsitova of communication, including of lokazizatsii of
its venetov, is dedicated already sufficiently significant literature. Are
traditionally the authors divided here into the supporters of wide and narrow
localization. Thus, in Polish archaeology, in particular, are represented both
points of view. According to Ye. kolendo, Tatsitovo the description of venetov
- figura retoryczna. They cannot be localized any accurately, since, similar To
ptolemeyevym stavanam, they are placed on the enormous space, and, apparently,
for the same purpose - to fill territorial lacuna. Tatsitovykh pevkinov, writes
Ye. kolendo, one should consider steppe nomads, and fenny, this, possibly, the
d"yakovskaya culture, where for preparing the most diverse instruments
widely adapted the bone. However, Venetov it is possible to correlate some by
the part of the zarubinetskoy culture (Kolendo, 1984, s. 648 - 649). According
to V. novakovskiy, the localization Of tatsitovykh venetov appears much
opredelenneye, since with pevkinami by it are compared the
poyaneshti-lukashevskiye monuments, including of upper podnestrov', but with
fennami - massif of forest antiquities far out of the boundaries of Roman
influences, and not only the d'yakovskikh, but also adjoining them from the
West, at the sources of the Dnepr. With venetami themselves by it are compared
postzarubinetskiye antiquities of the type Of rakhny-Pochep (Nowakowski, 1990,
s. 75 - 96; Nowakowski, 1992, s. 218 - 230). In parallel with the Polish,
somewhat different version of lokaliatsii and archaelogical identification Of
tatsitovykh venetov was developed in the Russian, and also in the Ukrainian,
the historiography. Its basic difference is, perhaps, entirely another idea
about the northeastern orientator - Tatsitovykh fennakh. D.A. By machinskim
they move aside into Lapland, however, in our view, it is hardly sound.
"in the latter researchers Tatsita with a sufficient base perceive the
soprikosavshikhsya with the Germans on the north of Scandinavia distant
ancestors of Laplander- Lapps", it asserts, referring in this case only to
R. mukha (Machinskiy, 1976, s. 88, 100). However, in actuality by this German
researcher are in no way brought the substantiations of the identity Of
tatsitovykh ' fenni precisely with ancient saamami of Finnish Lapland. On the
contrary, they emphasized specially that Lapps in the ancient-Scandinavian
sources were named differently from strictly Finns (samonazv. ' Suomi, others
-germ. ' Fenn?.z, ' Finn?.z): ' Skridi-finn?.z, ' Skridefinnas, i.e.,
literally, "Schneeschufinnen" - "ski Finns". Finns, by the
name '??????, calls also Ptolemy, in whom they not only near the Vistula next
to the Goths, but also, deystvited'no, on the north '??????? However, in R.
mukh this information is given by no means for the localization of fennov Of
tatsita, but for the purpose to show its difference, on this score, from
Ptolemy (Much, 1937, s. 414 - 416). True, the identification Of tatsitovykh
fennov precisely with saamami, whose ancient toponymy is fixed on the south of
Estonia, Pskovshchiny and Novgorodchiny, actually has already been located in
the scientific revolution (Anfert'ev, 1988, s. 118 -120), but did not appear
this hypothesis under the effect of very D.A. Of machinskogo? In it very, as a
result of actual refusal from one of the orientators of localization of venetov,
actually occurred daval'vatsiya Of tatsitovykh information about this people.
Indeed D.A. For machinskomu it was necessary to divide it by venetov of
"real", that dwelled near Carpathian bastarnov, and... the rest -
consequently, unreal, which were charted by it, between the Pripet and the
upper Dnepr, only with the sign of a question (Machinskiy, 1976, s. 90, Fig.
1). Idea about these so-called "real" venetakh subsequently underwent
transformation, and by very unique. "according to the analysis D.A. Of machinskogo,
writes SHITYU D.N. Of kozak, determined Tatsitom the territory of the stay of
venedov it coincides with the area of zubritskoy culture, which occupies the
regions Of zaradnoy Volyni and West Podolia. Coincide the data about the
boundary of venedov and Germans - respectively, the areas of zubritskoy and
pshevorskoy cultures. The significant interest cause data of the pis'menykh
sources, which testify, on D.A. Machinskomu that venedy in second-half I v. n.
3. they appeared between the Pripet and the Dniester as the new, recently
arrived population, which yet completely did not master territory "(Kozak,
1991, s. 139). Thus, at first glance it can seem that at long last it was
possible to overcome the "archaelogical elusiveness" Of tatsitovykh
venetov. In any case, their comparison with the zapadnovolynskimi and
verkhnednestrovskimi antiquities of the so-called zubritskoy group of
second-half I - end OF THE II substances n. 3. it appears. it is more
preferable than the arrangement in the zone of "archaelogical void"
on the lower Pripet, the grass snake and the heath-cock, where from the
southern part of the area of the culture of the shtrikhovannoy ceramics in
Tatsitovo time supposedly would penetrate population with the archaelogical not
fixed porebal'nym rite (Machinskiy, 1976, s. 95). However, it becomes clear
that, being only formally based on the hypothesis D.A. Of machinskogo, D.N. Of
kozak actually, developed its own, in the root outstanding. Indeed D.A.
Machinskiy, together with M. babeshem and PERHAPS Shchukinym continuing the
even prewar studies By g. kossiny, K. takenberga, V. la Baume, etc., much made
for the establishment identities of carriers both poyaneshti-lukashevskoy and
classical zarubintskoy culture to precisely ancient-German bastarnam (Kossina,
1914, s.147, 154; Tackenberg, 1929, s. 232 - 244; La baume, 1934, s. 86; Babe?,
1973, s. 213; Machinskiy, 1973, s. 54 - 55; Shchukin, 1972, s. 109; Shchukin,
1987, s. 104, 109). Besides, on Shchukin's observation PERHAPS, this
bastarnskaya belonging of entire, or almost entire, zarubinetskoy culture
acquired in the course of time the still b?l'shuyu obviousness, than this
escaped from the preshestvuyushchikh works D.A. Of machinskogo (Shchukin, 1993,
s. 94). However, D.N. Of kozak proceeds from the fact that "zarubinetskaya
culture - sterzhn', around which was developed ancient-Slav generality on the
boundary of era". Zubritskiye monuments it names
"zapadnovenedskimi" and separately emphasizes their proximity by
zarubinetskim and pozdnezarubinetskim, with respect, to
"vostochnovenedskim" (Kozak, 1993, c. 24 - 25). However, as it proved
to be to the check, this hypothesis about venedakh only outwardly will be
coordinated with the ideas about them both D.A. Of machinskogo and, apparently,
Cornelius tatsita himself. In fact, according to D.N. To kozaku, the so-called
zubritskaya group began to finally take shape as a result of inflow into the
pshevorskuyu medium in the West Of volyni and Podolia, following the the
lipitskimi from the south, also even and new emigrants from the north. Some
even more obscure thus far reasons caused in second-half I v. n. 3. destruction
of the Pripyat version of zarubinetskoy culture and the mass flight of its
carriers in the different directions: to northwest in Podlyas'e, where they
left the tomb Of grinevichi Of vel'ki, to the southwest into Lyubel'shchiznu,
where is added the same mixed pshevorsko-zarubinetskaya chernichinskaya group
of monuments, and, in essence, to the south. "probably, as correctly are
assumed D.N. Of kozak, zarubinetskiye tribes moved from the woodlands by small
separate, most probably, family groups they did not base separate settlings.
They stopped on the already existing pshevorskikh, entering into the close
contact with their inhabitants "(Kozak, 1991, s. 32, 114). To consider
these refugees terrible venetami Of tatsita, which roved "for the
robbery", probably is difficult. The achievement of Podolia and Volyni was
their clearly not role, and it is obvious that much the more soundly flowed
here process is characterized as the withdrawal of zarubinetskogo population
"under the cover it is shield the verkhnednestrovskoy group of bastarnov,
represented by monuments of the type Of kolokolina - Chizhikova - Zvenigorod -
Grineva" 109). Grineva "(Shchukin, 1987, s. 109). Thus, in the second
place, in addition, in spite of D.N. To kozaku, these mixed
pshevorsko-lipitskiye monuments of upper podnestrov', to whom more lately was
added zarubinetskiy element, D.A. By machinskim are compared not with Slav venedami,
but with German bastarnami (Machinskiy, 1976, s. 91). It turns out that the
so-called zubritskaya group of monuments, in spite of the
"zapadnovenedskoy" version D.N. of cossack, must be compared not with
samimiTatsitovymi venetami, but, faster, with their southwestern neighbor-
Germans. Thus, the searches For tatsitovykh venetov led us into the country of
bastarnov in the foot of Carpathian mountains. By the way, according to F.
Brown, their name in the Greek transfer ' Karpb.ton, is connected with the
bastarnskoy form * HarЂ.ah.a. One way or another, the name of the
Carpathians, on Tabula peutingeriana, is this ' Alpes Bastarnicae, to the east
of which are noted themselves ' Blastarni, i.e., bastarny (Brown, 1899, s. 107,
173). Certainly, with the same mountains the discussion deals also in the
"natural history". Pliniy, after mentioning Sarmatian yazigov in the
plain, it reports that "mountain ranges and gorge to Patissy river (they
occupy) driven away by them daki. From the river fog, or Dirii, which separates
them from the reign Of vannianskogo, he speaks further, opposite regions they
occupy basternei and then other Germans "(Plin., NH..iv: 75).
"concept" Germans "Pliniya is sufficiently concretely and among
those enumerated by them" German peoples "does not have not one,
whose belonging with the Germans in the contemporary meaning of this term could
be set for doubt", establish D.A. Machinskiy and M.A. Of tikhanova. For
other Pliniyevykh "these Germans" co-authors proposed the completely
opredepennaya localization: north bastarnov in the Dniester, east of the
Vistula and south of ocean. However, precisely there, instead of these '
germani, in them are charted... Tatsitovy ' venethi, besides also in complete
agreement with the source (Machinskiy, Tikhanova, 1976, s. 66 - 67). Thus, the
agreement of localization of both ancient etnonimov - by no means new
discovery. But this correspondence is required finally to base, especially as
this of special complexity present must not. To begin already from the practically
chronological agreement between the information Of pliniya and Tatsita, indeed
"natural history" and "Germany" were finished by them,
correspondingly, 77- m and 98- m yr. n. 3. Correspond also the geographical
framework: in both these Roman authors it is discussed, in particular, the
space between the ocean, either The svebskim sea, and By istrom, or Dunabiyem,
east Of vistuly, which they equally consider current even along the earth of
Germans. Orientator for the localization of tribes inside the hinterland is
also identical: the region of the inhabiting of basterniyev, or of pevkinov
(cf.: Plin., THE IV: 75 - 100; Tac., Germ., 1 - 46). Difference consists,
strictly, in the fact that in Pliniya is indicated only southwestern
orientator, ' basterne.i, and in Tatsita - both southwestern and southeastern,
' peucini and ' fenni **. in this respect Of pliniy it occurs nearer to
Strabonu than to its contemporary To tatsitu. Strabon; also calling for
bastarnskikh atmonov and sidonov only of their southwestern neighbors,
tregetov, acknowledges, however, in its lack of information relative to
northern and northeastern limits, even strongly exaggerating the same,
"since we do not know neither bastarnov nor savromatov and generally no
one of the one living higher than Ponta" (Strabo, Geogr., THE VII: 2, 4;
THE VII: 3, 15 - 17). Apparently, exactly therefore with Strabonovymi
bastarnami first carefully it were compared not entire zarubinetskaya culture,
but only its southern version in the average Dnepr (Machinskiy, Tikhanova,
1976, s. 75 - 76). It can seem that Pliniyem is given for a similar caution the
still bul'shiy occasion: indeed it, in contrast to the geographer, attempted to
compensate the same its lack of information relative to real etnogeografii of internal
territories by noncritical adoptions from Herodotus (Rassadin, 1999, s. 30).
Nevertheless despite the fact that its information about other
"Germans" when desired also can be timed only to the South outskirts
of their settling, they are completely suitable for the comparison with The
tatsitovymi information about venetakh. Tatsitovy of venety are compared with
the heritage of bastarnskoy zarubinetskoy culture by already many researchers.
In its time this point of view was in detail reasoned also in the special
publication (Rassadin, 1992). Otmetm, by the way, that still earlier these
venety were compared even directly with the quite zarubinetskoy culture
(Kolendo, 1984, s. 130). Its German roots became more obviously, when it was
actually, so to speak, was torn the "kleshevaya" line of the
genealogy of ancient Slavs. Let us recall that in the interwar and postwar
period Yu. kostshevskiy speaking against the ancient-German ethnic attribution
die Gesichturnenkultur, which defended the German archaeologists. This kultura
urn twarzowych was connected with it first with western baltami, and then also
with the seacoast offshoot of praslavyan (Z Polskiego Towarzystwa
Prehistorycznego, 1928, s. 11 - 12; Kostrzewski, 1946, s. 71). Much more lately
similar approach again is encountered in THE EXPLOSIVES Sedov, by whom this
culture is divided by two: strictly seacoast, zapadnobaltskuyu, and
ranneslavyanskuyu podkleshevuyu. The ethnic tradition of the latter could, in
his opinion, cause the belonging also of zarubinetskoy ku'tury (Sedov, 1979, s.
76). However, a similar division of this sufficiently monolithic generality,
apparently, by nevertheless rannegermanskoy, was considered it late incorrect,
and it is explained as the element of not always correct discussion with the
German archaeologists (Malinowski, 1992.). As German archaeologists 1930- X,
YU.V. Kukharenko 1960- m g. indicates again the precisely seacoast roots of
zarubinetskoy culture (Kukharenko, 1960, s. 109). True later with this seacoast
genetic version began successfully to compete "yastorfskaya",
accentuated on the historical connections of zarubinetskoy generality not with
Pomerania, but with lower elba and Jutland (Nieweg?.owski, 1986, s. 205;
Shchukin, 1993, c. 91). However, in any event, it is very difficult to assume
that in its final period, which includes, strictly, Tatsitovy of the
information about venetakh, zarubinetskaya culture had already another, not
German, ethnic content. One of the confirmation of reverse - Pliniyevy
Proceedings about "other Germans".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Literature: Abayev V.I., 1949. Ossetic language and folklore. M., L. Anfert'ev
A.N., 1988. Information Of tatsita about the peoples of northeastern Europe: the
experience of interpretatsi// archaeology and the history of Pskov and Pskov
earth. Theses of report scientific -prakt. conf Pskov. Artamonov M.I. 1946.
Venedy, nevry and Budins in by Slavyansk ethnogeny// the herald OF LGU №
2. Ram E, 1974. Slavs in middle OF THE I millenium of our era// the problem of
ethnogeny of Slavs. Kiev. Brown F., 1899. Researches in the region of Goto-
Slav ratios// the collector of the department of the Russian language and
literature of the emperor academy of sciences. Spb. Vol. lxiv. № 12.
Bronshten V.A., 1988. Klavdiy Ptolemy: II century n. 3. M. Kozak D.N., 1991.
Yetnokul'turna istor.i4 Of volini (I st. to n. 3. - IV st. n. e.). Kipv. Kozak
D.N., 1993. Vzaєmovіdnosіnі of slov'yan і of germantsіv
to terrіtorіїOf ukraїni into pershіy of
polovinі THE I yew-tree n. e.// Of arkheologіya. Vip. 2. Kozak
D.N., 1996. Formuvannya of davn'oslov'yan'skikh pam'yatok to teritor.iїOf
volin.i i of pivnichnoїOf galichini into pershy of chvert.i THE I
yew-tree// Arkheolog.iya. Vip. 2. Kulakovskiy Yu., 1899. Map of European
Sarmatii according to Ptolemy. Kiev. Kukharenko YU.V., 1960. To a question
about the origin of zarubinetskoy culture// SA № 1. Mavrodin EXPLOSIVE,
1945. Formation of Old-Russian state. L. Machinskiy D.A., 1973. Celts on the earth
to the east of the Carpathians// ASGE. Iss. 15. Machinskiy D. A., 1976. To a
question about the territory of the inhabiting of Slavs into I - THE VI
centuries// ASGE. Iss. 17. Machinskiy D.A., 1981. Migration of Slavs v in THE I
millenium n. 3. (on the basis of the written sources with the attraction of
data of archaeology)// the formation of feudal Slav national character. M.
1981. Machinskiy D.A., Tikhanova M.A., 1976. On the places of inhabiting and
the directions of the motion of Slavs in I - THE VII of substances n. 3. (on
the basis of the written and archaelogical sources)// Acta Archaeologica
Carpathica. 1976. T XVI. Pasternak 4.,
1961. Arkheologіya Of ukra?nі.
Toronto. Pioro I.S., 1990. Crimean Of gotiya. Kiev. Rassadin S.E.,
1992. Venety and bastarny// Barbarcum. T OF III Rassadin S.E., 1999. Tribes and
the peoples of the "zaskifskogo" north and northeast. Author's
abstract dissertation... of the doctor of historical sciences. Minsk. Rikman
E.M., 1975. Ethnic history of the population Of podnestrov'ya and adjacent
Podunav'ya in the first centuries of our era M. Sedov EXPLOSIVES, 1976. Origin
and the early history of Slavs. M. Cedov EXPLOSIVES, 1987. Balty// Archaeology
OF THE USSR. Finno-Ugrians and balty in the epoch of the middle ages. M. Sedov
EXPLOSIVES, 1996. Contemporary state of the problem of ethnogeny of Slavs// SA.
Vol. xxxvii. the Slavs of southeastern Europe in the predgosudarstvennyy
period, 1990. Kiev. Tret'yakov P.N., 1953. Eastern Slavic tribes. M.
Tret'yakov, 1970. At the sources of Old-Russian national character. L.
Trubachev O.N., 1979. "trying Skifiya" Herodotus and Slavs// Vya.
№ 4. Daredevils A.D., 1946. Tribes of European Sarmatii II v. n. 3.// Se.
№ 2. Shadyra Of v.І., 1993. Fіna-ugry, balty і Slavs to
poўnachy Of belarusі ў OF I thousand of n. 3.// Vestsі AN of
belarusі. Ser. of gramadsk. Navuk. № 3. Shafarik P., 1848. Slav antiquities. M. Vol. I. Book I Shchukin PERHAPS, 1972. Sarmatian
monuments of average Podneprov'ya and their relationship with the zarubinetskoy
culture// A.CHGE. Iss. 14. Shchukin PERHAPS, 1976. The archaelogical
data about Slavs II - THE IV is age-long. Prospects for retrospective method//
A.CHGE. Iss. 17. Shchukin PERHAPS, 1987. On three ways of the archaelogical
search of the ancestors of ranneistoricheskikh Slavs. Prospects for the third
way// ASGE. Iss. 28. Shchukin PERHAPS, 1993. Problem of bastarnov and ethnic
determination of poyaneshti-lukashevskoy and zarubinetskoy cultures//
Petersburg archaelogical herald № 6. Babe? M, 1973. Germanische lat1.nezeitliche
Einwanderungen to them Raume ts.stlichyu der Karpaten (zum heutigen Stand der
Forschung '.ber die Poienesti-Luka?.evka-Kulturgruppe// Aktes du VIIIe Congres
International des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques, Beograd 9 - 5
septembre 1971. Tome troisieme. Beograd. Bagrow L, 1945. The Origin Of
Ptolem'ys Geographia// Geografica Annaler. T 27. Bierbrauer V, 1998. Gepiden in
der Wielbark-Kultur (1. - 4. Jahrhundert n chr.)? Eine Spurensuche// Studien
zur Archd.ologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Kiel.
Birkhan H, 1997. Kelten. Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur. Wein.
Blume E, 1912. Die germanischen Std.mme und die Kulturen zwischen Oder und
Passarge zur rq.mischen Keiserzeit. W6.rzburg. Ebert M, 1921. S6.dru@4.land the
them Altertum. Bonn. Godlowski K, 1979. Z bada? nad zagadneniem
rozpzestrzeinienia s?.owian w V - VII w n e. - Kraku.w. Godlowski K, 1984.
"Superiores barbari" und die Markomannenkriege the them Lichte
archd.ologischer Quellen// Slovenskb Archeolf.gia. R XXXII. Hachmann R, 1970.
Die Goten Und Skandinavien. Berlin. Hachmann R, Kossak G, Kahn H, 1962. Vq.lker
zwischen Germanen und Kelten. Neum6.nster. Havlik L, 1973. Einige Frage Der
Ehtnogenese Der Slawen The them Lichte der rq.mischen und byzantischen
Historiographie (I Hd.lfte des 1. Jahrhunderts)// Berichte to '.dtyu den II
Internationalen Kongre@4 f6.r slawische Archd.ologie. Berlin. 1973. Bd. III
Hirt H, 1905. Die Indogermanen. Ihre Verbreitung, ihre Heimat und ihre Kultur.
Strassburg. Bd. I Ja?.d?.ewski K, 1981. Pradzieje Europy?.rodkoshezh, Wroc?.aw
- Warscawa - Kraku.w - Gda?.sk. Kazanski M, 1992. Les arctoi gentes
"l'.emperie" d'.Hermanarich. Commentaire arch1.ologique d'.une source
you y.chrite// Germania. Jahrgang 70. Kolendo J, 1984. Wenetowie w
ewropie?.rodkoshezh i wschodniej. Lokalizacija i rzeczywisto?? etniczna//
Przegl?.d historyczny. T LXXV. Zeszyt 4. Kolendo J, 1998. Swiat antzczny i
barbarzyncy: Teksty, zabytki, refleksija nad przeszloscia. Seria podrecznikow,
tom 1. Warszawa. Kossina G, 1914. Die deutsche Vorgeschichte. W6.rzburg.
Kossina G, 1915. Die illyrische, die germanische und die keltische Kultur der
fr6.hesten Eisenzeit the them Verhd.ltnis zu dem Eisenfunden von Waren bei
Leipzig// Mannus. Bd. VII. Kossina G, 1924. Zu meine Ostgermanenkarte// Mannus.
Bd. 16. Kostrzewski J, 1946. Germanie przedhistoryczny w polsce// OF THE RA. T
VIII. Kostrzewski J, Chmielewski W, Ja?.d?.ewski K, 1965. Pradzieje Polski.
Wroc?.aw Koval ' I, 1993/1994. Kultura przeworska na ukraine zakarpatskiej//
Wiadomosci To a.rchyueologichzne. T LIII. Krahe H, 1954. Sprache und Vorzeit.
Heidelberg. La baume W, 1934. Urgeschichte der Ostgermanen. Danzig. Labuda G,
1980. Udzia? wenetu.w w etnogenezie s?.owian// Etnogeneza i topogeneza
s?.owian. Materia?.u z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Komisje
Slawistyczna przy Oddziale PAN w poznania w dniach 8 - 9 XII 1978. - Warszawa -
Pozna?. Laur W, 1954. Esten, eine germanische Volksbezeichnung the them
baltischen Raum// Zeitschrift f6.r Ostforschung. 3. Jahrgang. Lehr-Sp?.awi?.ski
T, 1948. O staro?.ytnych lugiach// SA. T I Lowmia?.ski H, 1964. Poczatki
Polski. Warszawa. T I Malinowski T, 1992. W sprawie tzw. kultury grobu.w
kloszowych// Zemie polskie w wczesnej epoce of?.elaza i ich pow?.zania z innymi
terenami. Przezow.. Miller K, 1962. Die peutingersche Tafel. Stuttgart.
Miloj?.i? V., 1952. Zur Frage Der "Lausitzer Wanderung"// Germania.
Bd. 30. Much R, 1900. Deutsche Stammeskunde. Leipzig. Much R, 1937. Die
Germania Des Tacitus. Haidelberg. M6.llenhoff K, 1887. Deutsche Altertumkunde.
Berlin. Bd. II M6.llenhoff K, 1900. Deutsche Altertumkunde. Berlin. Bd. IV.
Nieweg?.owski A, 1986. Uwagi o chronologii i genezie kultur zarubinieckiej i
przeworskiej// AP. T XXXI. Nowakowski W, 1990. Ludy na polnocno-wschodnich
skrajach Barbaricum. "Germania" Tacyta w swietle analizy zrodel
archologicznych// Meander. № 2/ 3. Nowakowski W, 1992. "HIS SVEBIAE
FINIS" - Concept of the Border of the Barbarous World at the East Baitic
Coast in the Roman Period// Barbaricum. T 2. Okulitz J, 1984. Einige Aspekte
Der Ethnogenese Der Balten Und Slawen The them Lichte archd.ologischer und
schhprachwissenschaftlicher Forschungen// Questiones Medii Aevi. - 1984 - T 3.
Parczewski M, 1988. Najstarsza faza kultury wczesnoslowia?.skiej w polsce.
Krakt.w. Parczewski M, 1993. Die Anfd.nge Der Fr6.hslawischen Kultur In polen.
Wien. Pokorny J, 1938. Urgeschichte der Kelten und Illyrier. Halle. Pradzieje
ziem polskich, 1988. Tom I Od Paleolitu Do?.rodkoshego okresu late?.skiego. Cz??? 2. Epoka br?.zu i poc?.tki epoki
of?.elaza. Warszawa -?u.d?. Schmidt L, 1910. Geschichte der deutsche Std.mme bis zum
Ausgange der Vq.lkerwanderung.
Die Geschichte Der Ostgermanen. Berlin. Schwarz E,
1956. Germanische Stammeskunde.
Heidelberg. Sulimirski T,
1973. Die Veneti - Venedae und deren
Verhd.ltnis zu den Slawen//:
Berichte '.ber
II Internationalen Kongre@4
f6.r Slawische Archd.ologie. Berlin. Bd. III Tacitus Publius Cornelius, 1957.
Germania. Die Annalen. M6.nchen. Tackenberg K, 1929. Die Bastarnen// Volk und Rasse.
Bd. IV. Tymieniecki K, 1948. Wenetowie, nazwa i rzeczywisto?? historyczna// SA.
T I Tyminieski K, 1949. Droga Gotu.w Na po?.udnie// Archeologia. - T III. Welt
der Slawen. Geschichte. Ge.gesellschaft. Kultur, 1986. M6.nchen. Wenskus R,
1961. Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden Der Fr6.hmittelalterischen
Gents. Kq.ln - Graz. Z Polskiego Towarzystwa Prehistorycznego, 1928// Z
otch?.ani wiekow. T III Zeuss K, 1925. Die Deutschen Und Nachbarstd.mme.
Heidelberg. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: * so in the text - S.R. ** these Tatsitovykh fennov has already been
proposed to place in Belorussian Podvin'e; subsequently Finno-Ugric ethnic
basis Dnepr -dvinsko1 culture obtained also the new confirmation (Rassadin,
1992, s. 12; Shadyra, 1993, s. 83 - 90).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions: ASGE - archaelogical collector of state hermitage. AP - Archeologia
Polski THE RA - Przeg?.d archeologiczny. SA - Slawia antiqua. Se - Soviet
ethnography. Vya - questions of linguistics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syntax of the footnote: C.E. Rassadin. Between the Alps and the ocean: venety -
other "Germans"? //Eastern European archaelogical periodical, 5(18)
September- October 2002,
(http://archaeology.kiev.ua/journal/050902/rassadin.htm)
Thus, need, instead of
"summary", precisely, individual approach to the information of the
ancient authors about venetakh was completely obvious. Indeed, for example,
when desired on the same bases, on which Baltic venety, Pliniyevy and Ptolemeyevy,
are united with the continental Tatsitovymi, with the latter they are compared,
in principle, also Adriatic venety on R po - it is already accurately not
Slavs. That seaside venety to continental are not completely identical, with
all persuasiveness it was substantiated By e kolendo. they emphasized the
generality of similar doublets and even triplets in the ethnic nomenclature Of
barbarikuma. Doublet from the continental Tatsitovykh ' venethi and Baltic
Pliniyevykh ' venedi, that correspond To ptolemeyevym ' against???????, it is
differentiated in ye. kolendo as follows: with the first copostavleny '
Stauano? Ptolemy, and with the second - ' aesti Tatsita. The "venedskeye
mountains", according to Ye. kolendo, this completely not the Carpathians,
but much modest elevation - Sambiyskaya, or El'blongskaya. Thus, in his
opinion, by status of "great people" seaside venedy were obliged not
to extensiveness, but it is faster to the successful arrangement of the
occupied with them territory. This small tribe of ancient baltov dwelled
somewhere east of the mouth of the Vistula - exactly at the output of
"amber way" to the places of the output of that desired for Romans '
glaesum (Kolendo, 1984, s. 637 - 651). Thus, it turns out that from the Baltic,
or the the baltskikh, venedov Of pliniya and Ptolemy venety Of tatsita are
independent approximately just as from Celtic venetov galliums, genetov Of
paflagonii, and so forth according to the observation PERHAPS of Shchukin, by
all Tatsitovymi commentators, not connected with the Slav problems, his venety
they are invariably placed east of the Vistula (Shchukin, 1972, s. 110).
However, at the disposal of the supporters of the Slav attribution of venetov
Tatsita remains, as if, the still following argument: these venety, in the first
place, territorially correspond to mentioned somewhat late Ptolemeyevym
stavanam, and in the second place, the autonym of the latter was, in reality,
"Slavs". But it is revealed with the more careful examination of
background of the question: the deeply taken root idea, that Ptolemeyevo '
Stauanoi should be, allegedly, read as ' S?..labanoi (Havlik, 1973, s. 154;
Machinskiy, 1981, s. 34), from the point of view of classical linguistics are
blunder, besides discovered already sufficiently long ago. According to K
myullengof, the reading ' Stauanoi as ' S?..labanoi is inadmissible because in
the Greek in ozvonchenii (anlaut) of?..l never it is written; Greeks themselves
wrote???????, ????????? (M6.llenhoff, 1887, s. 21). By the way, on its daring
assumption of replacement, allegedly, '? on "A especially did not insist
and itself P shafarik, by whom was proposed even the reading Of ptolemeyeva '
Stau?..no? as to "stavyane", i.e., the "inhabitants of
lakes" (' staw - "lake"). That the outstanding Slavist, unfortunately,
turned himself with the ethnic nomenclature Of barbarikuma very freely,
testifies also his "transfer" Of ptolemeyeva '??????? as
"northerners" (Shafarik, 1848, s. 105, 345). Slavdom of these
"stavyan" and of "northerners" from an historical linguistic
point of view proves to be even more problematic, if we recollect also, that
also in ptolemy himself, and in pliniya, and many other ancient authors it is
easy to find much set of pseudo- glories etnonimov, type ' Serboi on Ra river
(Ptol., Geogr. V: 9, 17 - 22), ' sirbi on Meotide (Plin., NH. III: 22). in
fact, if we "stabanoy" again read as "stlavanoy", then
ancient-Pannonian ' aravisci i'.oseriates we must compare with
rannesrednevekovymi Slav etnonimami ' maravi /..moravi and ' oseriane... But indeed
the reading of the by hydros- it of Roman Dakii to the Slav harmony, ' Patissus
as "To potiss'e", Pistra -".Bystritsa", ' Tsierna -
"black" (Mavrodin, 1945, s. 22), together with the appropriate
hypotheses, already belong it seems only to past of the science, when, on the
observation I.S. Pioro, was considered it progressive everywhere to search for
and "to find" the ancient Slavs (Pioro, 1990, s. 6). By the way,
stavanov, in the form '????????, Ptolemy again calls not only in ligurii, but also
in the depth of Asia. Takeing into account their this interesting position, K
Zeiss arrived at the following conclusion: "Stavany, the neighbors of
alaunov or alanov, were alanskim or Sarmatian people, since the same name, '
Sta?????, '??..ba?..i and?..Asta of??????, By Ptolemy Will Be again Named In
connection With Ariane, Perside and Girkanii "(Zeuss, 1925, s. 271). Also
in the contemporary linguistics for explaining Ptolemeyeva of etnonima '
Stauanoi is proposed Sanskrit ' stb.v?..na, ancient-Iranian avestiyskoye '
stavana - "khvalimyy", while also ossetic ' stavun, "to
praise" (Abayev, 1949, s. 183; Trubachev, 1979, s. 41). This ethnic
interpretation, together with the corresponding to it geographical undoubtedly
they are interesting; however, in those named in ptolemy together with them
'??????? and '??????? traditionally see the first reference of western baltov -
sudavov and galindov (Laur, 1954, s. 266; Sedov, 1987, s. 410; Kolendo, 1998,
s. 51). Ptolemeyevy ' Stauanoi also could belong to the drevnebaltskim tribes
it seems in spite of its Sarmatian- Iranian parallels. Indeed the same
Pliniyevykh ' sarmatae, the neighbors of Germans and venedov in the lower
Vistula, to consider as the Iranian nomads is hardly possible (Plin., NH, THE
THE IV: 95). therefore it is completely natural that, on the level with the
Slav and Iranian, since olden times has a walking also the baltsko- Baltic
etnogeograficheskaya attribution Of ptolemeyevykh stavanov. K myullengof saw in
them "eastern Lithuanians on other side of the average Neman between its
upper flow and Viliyey, up to the swampy part of Belorussia, or to
Bereziny" (M6.llenhoff, 1887, s. 21). Later as argument in favor of a
similar localization was indicated even presence in average Belarus ' of the
names type columns, Stolovichi, etc., but their association with stavanami it
seems was explicit oddity (Bagrow, 1945, p. 381). The territory of stavanov,
according to K myullengof, corresponds, on the whole, to the area of the
shtrikhovannoy ceramics, with whose carriers they were compared BY D.A.
Machinskim, which proceeded, as is evident, from the similar geographical
interpretation Of ptolemeyevykh information about this tribe (Machinskiy, 1981,
s. 34). Thus, although stavany to the number of the "great peoples Of sarmatii",
according to Ptolemy, and do not relate, by it it was accepted to remove huge
territory. For example as in ye. kolendo: between the the Masurian Poozer'em,
where galindy, and sudiny, by the steppe Black Sea area, where there were
alanskiye camps of nomads (Kolendo, 1998, s. 54). However, he is noted by the
historians of geography that the grid of lengths in ptolemy as is extended to
the east and differs from the contemporary on 20° (Bronshten, 1988, s. 141). As
a result in it the displacement of various objects is observed, sometimes very
significant. It is interesting, in this connection what do Yu. kulakovskiy has,
by whom was also considered the error of graticule into "'??????????
????????" approximately to one third, stavany are related to one and the
same territorial group not with steppe alanami, but with Baltic galindami and
sudinami (Kulakovskiy, 1899, s. 13 - 22). Probably, a similar localization of
this tribe must be considered as the more preferable, but as then explain
Ptolemeyevo assertion "... and stavany - to alanov "(Ptol., Geogr.,
III: 5, 9)? Apparently, the author of "geographical management"
experienced the need to somehow fill the lacuna between the Black Sea and
Baltic tribes, and he solved this task due to very south from the latter. I.e.
as in jordan, which, however, "settles" far to the forest north of
the Black Sea steppe inhabitant- nomads: "... the coast of ocean hold
esty, completely peaceful people. To the south will neighbor with them the
strong tribe of akatsirov, which does not know cereals, but which feeds from
the cattle and the hunting "(Jord., Getica, 37). Thus, Ptolemeyevy '
Stauanoi territorially converge faster with The the tatsitovymi ' aestii, than
it ' venethi. About them by the author "De origine et situ Germanorum"
communicates, literally, the following: "... here the end Of svebii. To
carry pevkinov, venedov and fennov to the Germans or the Sarmatians, I do not
know, although pevkiny, which some call bastarnami, by speech, means of life,
by permanent residency and by dwellings are repeated Germans. Because of the
mixed marriages their appearance becomes increasingly uglier, and they acquire
the features of Sarmatians. Venety adopted much of their dispositions, since
for the robbery they will rove on leam and mountains, such as only do not exist
between pevkinami and fennami. However, more often it is possible to add them
to the Germans, because they build to themselves houses, bear panels and are
moved by foot, besides by sbol'shoy rapidity; all this mark off them from the
Sarmatians, who conduct entire life in the vehicle and on the horse
"(Tac., Germ., 46). To the interpretation of etogoTatsitova of
communication, including of lokazizatsii of its venetov, is dedicated already
sufficiently significant literature. Are traditionally the authors divided here
into the supporters of wide and narrow localization. Thus, in polish
archaeology, in particular, are represented both points of view. According to
Ye. kolendo, Tatsitovo the description of venetov - figura retoryczna. They
cannot be localized any accurately, since, similar To ptolemeyevym stavanam,
they are placed on the enormous space, and, apparently, for the same purpose -
to fill territorial lacuna. Tatsitovykh pevkinov, writes Ye. kolendo, one
should consider steppe nomads, and fenny, this, possibly, the
d".yakovskaya culture, where for preparing the most diverse instruments
widely adapted the bone. However, Venetov it is possible to correlate some by
the part of the zarubinetskoy culture (Kolendo, 1984, s. 648 - 649). According
to V novakovskiy, the localization Of tatsitovykh venetov appears much
opredelenneye, since with pevkinami by it are compared the
poyaneshti-lukashevskiye monuments, including of upper podnestrov ', but with
fennami - massif of forest antiquities far out of the boundaries of Roman
influences, and not only the d'yakovskikh, but also adjoining them from the
West, at the sources of the Dnepr. With venetami themselves by it are compared
postzarubinetskiye antiquities of the type Of rakhny-Pochep (Nowakowski, 1990,
s. 75 - 96; Nowakowski, 1992, s. 218 - 230). In parallel with the Polish,
somewhat different version of lokaliatsii and archaelogical identification Of
tatsitovykh venetov was developed in the Russian, and also in the Ukrainian,
the historiography. Its basic difference is, perhaps, entirely another idea
about the northeastern orientator - Tatsitovykh fennakh. D.A. By machinskim
they move aside into Lapland, however, in our view, it is hardly sound.
"in the latter researchers Tatsita with a sufficient base perceive the
soprikosavshikhsya with the Germans on the north of Scandinavia distant
ancestors of Laplander- Lapps", it asserts, referring in this case only to
R mukha (Machinskiy, 1976, s. 88, 100). However, in actuality by this German
researcher are in no way brought the substantiations of the identity Of
tatsitovykh ' fenni precisely with ancient saamami of Finnish Lapland. On the
contrary, they emphasized specially that Lapps in the ancient-Scandinavian
sources were named differently from strictly Finns (samonazv. ' Suomi, others
-.germ. ' Fenn?..z, ' Finn?..z): ' Skridi-finn?..z, ' Skridefinnas, i.e.,
literally, "Schneeschufinnen" - "ski Finns". Finns, by the
name '??????, calls also Ptolemy, in whom they not only near the Vistula next
to the Goths, but also, deystvited'no, on the north '??????? However, in R mukh
this information is given by no means for the localization of fennov Of
tatsita, but for the purpose to show its difference, on this score, from
Ptolemy (Much, 1937, s. 414 - 416). True, the identification Of tatsitovykh
fennov precisely with saamami, whose ancient toponymy is fixed on the south of
Estonia, Pskovshchiny and Novgorodchiny, actually has already been located in
the scientific revolution (Anfert'ev, 1988, s. 118 -120), but did not appear
this hypothesis under the effect of very D.A. Of machinskogo? In it very, as a
result of actual refusal from one of the orientators of localization of
venetov, actually occurred daval'vatsiya Of tatsitovykh information about this people.
Indeed D.A. For machinskomu it was necessary to divide it by venetov of
"real", that dwelled near Carpathian bastarnov, and... the rest -
consequently, unreal, which were charted by it, between the Pripet and the
upper Dnepr, only with the sign of a question (Machinskiy, 1976, s. 90, Fig.
1). Idea about these so-called "real" venetakh subsequently underwent
transformation, and by very unique. "according to the analysis D.A. Of
machinskogo, writes SHITYU D.N. Of kozak, determined Tatsitom the territory of
the stay of venedov it coincides with the area of zubritskoy culture, which
occupies the regions Of zaradnoy Volyni and West Podolia. Coincide the data
about the boundary of venedov and Germans - respectively, the areas of
zubritskoy and pshevorskoy cultures. The significant interest cause data of the
pis'menykh sources, which testify, on D.A. Machinskomu that venedy in
second-half I v n 3. they appeared between the Pripet and the Dniester as the
new, recently arrived population, which yet completely did not master territory
"(Kozak, 1991, s. 139). Thus, at first glance it can seem that at long
last it was possible to overcome the "archaelogical elusiveness" Of
tatsitovykh venetov. In any case, their comparison with the zapadnovolynskimi
and verkhnednestrovskimi antiquities of the so-called zubritskoy group of
second-half I - end OF THE II substances n 3. it appears. it is more preferable
than the arrangement in the zone of "archaelogical void" on the lower
Pripet, the grass snake and the heath-cock, where from the southern part of the
area of the culture of the shtrikhovannoy ceramics in tatsitovo time supposedly
would penetrate population with the archaelogical not fixed porebal'nym rite
(Machinskiy, 1976, s. 95). However, it becomes clear that, being only formally
based on the hypothesis D.A. Of machinskogo, D.N. Of kozak actually, developed
its own, in the root outstanding. Indeed D.A. Machinskiy, together with M
babeshem and PERHAPS Shchukinym continuing the even prewar studies By g
kossiny, K takenberga, V la baume, etc., much made for the establishment
identities of carriers both poyaneshti-lukashevskoy and classical zarubintskoy
culture to precisely ancient- Herman bastarnam (Kossina, 1914, s.147, 154;
Tackenberg, 1929, s. 232 - 244; La baume, 1934, s. 86; Babe?, 1973, s. 213;
Machinskiy, 1973, s. 54 - 55; Shchukin, 1972, s. 109; Shchukin, 1987, s. 104,
109). Besides, on Shchukin's observation PERHAPS, this bastarnskaya belonging
of entire, or almost entire, zarubinetskoy culture acquired in the course of
time the still b?.l'shuyu obviousness, than this escaped from the
preshestvuyushchikh works D.A. Of machinskogo (Shchukin, 1993, s. 94). However,
D.N. Of kozak proceeds from the fact that "zarubinetskaya culture -
sterzhn ', around which was developed ancient- glories generality on the
boundary of era". Zubritskiye monuments it names
"zapadnovenedskimi" and separately emphasizes their proximity by
zarubinetskim and pozdnezarubinetskim, with respect, to
"vostochnovenedskim" (Kozak, 1993, c. 24 - 25). However, as it proved
to be to the check, this hypothesis about venedakh only outwardly will be
coordinated with the ideas about them both D.A. Of machinskogo and, apparently,
Cornelius tatsita himself. In fact, according to D.N. To kozaku, the so-called
zubritskaya group began to finally take shape as a result of inflow into the
pshevorskuyu medium in the West Of volyni and Podolia, following the the
lipitskimi from the south, also even and new emigrants from the north. Some
even more obscure thus far reasons caused in second-half I v n 3. destruction
of the Pripyat version of zarubinetskoy culture and the mass flight of its
carriers in the different directions: to northwest in podlyas'e, where they
left the tomb Of grinevichi Of vel'ki, to the southwest into Lyubel'shchiznu,
where is added the same mixed pshevorsko-zarubinetskaya chernichinskaya group
of monuments, and, in essence, to the south. "probably, as correctly are
assumed D.N. Of kozak, zarubinetskiye tribes moved from the woodlands by small
separate, most probably, family groups they did not base separate settlings.
They stopped on the already existing pshevorskikh, entering into the close
contact with their inhabitants "(Kozak, 1991, s. 32, 114). To consider
these refugees terrible venetami Of tatsita, which roved "for the
robbery", probably is difficult. The achievement of Podolia and Volyni was
their clearly not role, and it is obvious that much the more soundly flowed
here process is characterized as the withdrawal of zarubinetskogo population
"under the cover it is shield the verkhnednestrovskoy group of bastarnov,
represented by monuments of the type Of kolokolina - Chizhikova - Zvenigorod -
Grineva" 109). Grineva "(Shchukin, 1987, s. 109). Thus, in the second
place, in addition, in spite of D.N. To kozaku, these mixed
pshevorsko-lipitskiye monuments of upper podnestrov ', to whom more lately was
added zarubinetskiy element, D.A. By machinskim are compared not with Slav
venedami, but with German bastarnami (Machinskiy, 1976, s. 91). It turns out
that the so-called zubritskaya group of monuments, in spite of the
"zapadnovenedskoy" version D.N. of cossack, must be compared not with
samimiTatsitovymi venetami, but, faster, with their southwestern neighbor-
Germans. Thus, the searches For tatsitovykh venetov led us into the country of
bastarnov in the foot of Carpathian mountains. By the way, according to F
Brown, their name in the Greek transfer ' Karpb.ton, is connected with the
bastarnskoy form * HarЂ..ah.a. One way or another, the name of the Carpathians,
on Tabula peutingeriana, is this ' Alpes Bastarnicae, to the east of which are
noted themselves ' Blastarni, i.e., bastarny (Brown, 1899, s. 107, 173).
Certainly, with the same mountains the discussion deals also in the
"natural history". Pliniy, after mentioning Sarmatian yazigov in the
plain, it reports that "mountain ranges and gorge to Patissy river (they
occupy) driven away by them daki. From the river fog, or Dirii, which separates
them from the reign Of vannianskogo, he speaks further, opposite regions they
occupy basternei and then other Germans "(Plin., NH..iv: 75).
"concept" Germans "Pliniya is sufficiently concretely and among
those enumerated by them" German peoples "does not have not one,
whose belonging with the Germans in the contemporary meaning of this term could
be set for doubt", establish D.A. Machinskiy and M.A. Of tikhanova. For
other Pliniyevykh "these Germans" co -authors proposed the completely
opredepennaya localization: north bastarnov in the Dniester, east of the
Vistula and south of ocean. However, precisely there, instead of these '
germani, in them are charted... Tatsitovy ' venethi, besides also in complete
agreement with the source (Machinskiy, Tikhanova, 1976, s. 66 - 67). Thus, the
agreement of localization of both ancient etnonimov - by no means new
discovery. But this correspondence is required finally to base, especially as
this of special complexity present must not. To begin already from the
practically chronological agreement between the information Of pliniya and
Tatsita, indeed "natural history" and "Germany" were
finished by them, correspondingly, 77- m and 98- m yr. n 3. Correspond also the
geographical framework: in both these Roman authors it is discussed, in
particular, the space between the ocean, either The svebskim sea, and By
istrom, or Dunabiyem, east Of vistuly, which they equally consider current even
along the earth of Germans. Orientator for the localization of tribes inside
the hinterland is also identical: the region of the inhabiting of basterniyev,
or of pevkinov (cf: Plin., THE THE IV: 75 - 100; Tac., Germ., 1 - 46).
Difference consists, strictly, in the fact that in pliniya is indicated only
southwestern orientator, ' basterne.i, and in tatsita - both southwestern and
southeastern, ' peucini and ' fenni **. in this respect Of pliniy it occurs
nearer to Strabonu than to its contemporary To tatsitu. Strabon; also calling
for bastarnskikh atmonov and sidonov only of their southwestern neighbors,
tregetov, acknowledges, however, in its lack of information relative to
northern and northeastern limits, even strongly exaggerating the same,
"since we do not know neither bastarnov nor savromatov and generally no
one of the one living higher than Ponta" (Strabo, Geogr., THE THE VII: 2,
4; THE THE VII: 3, 15 - 17). Apparently, exactly therefore with Strabonovymi
bastarnami first carefully it were compared not entire zarubinetskaya culture,
but only its southern version in the average Dnepr (Machinskiy, Tikhanova,
1976, s. 75 - 76). It can seem that Pliniyem is given for a similar caution the
still bul'shiy occasion: indeed it, in contrast to the geographer, attempted to
compensate the same its lack of information relative to real etnogeografii of
internal territories by noncritical adoptions from Herodotus (Rassadin, 1999,
s. 30). Nevertheless despite the fact that its information about other
"Germans" when desired also can be timed only to the South outskirts
of their settling, they are completely suitable for the comparison with The
tatsitovymi information about venetakh. Tatsitovy of venety are compared with
the heritage of bastarnskoy zarubinetskoy culture by already many researchers.
In its time this point of view was in detail reasoned also in the special
publication (Rassadin, 1992). Otmetm, by the way, that still earlier these
venety were compared even directly with the quite zarubinetskoy culture
(Kolendo, 1984, s. 130). Its German Roots Became More Obviously, when it was
actually, so to speak, was torn the "kleshevaya" line of the genealogy
of ancient Slavs. Let us recall that in the interwar and postwar period Yu.
kostshevskiy speaking against the ancient- Herman ethnic attribution die
Gesichturnenkultur, which defended the German archaeologists. This kultura urn
twarzowych was connected with it first with western baltami, and then also with
the seacoast offshoot of praslavyan (Z Polskiego Towarzystwa Prehistorycznego,
1928, s. 11 - 12; Kostrzewski, 1946, s. 71). Much more lately similar approach
again is encountered in the EXPLOSIVES Sedov, by whom this culture is divided
by two: strictly seacoast, zapadnobaltskuyu, and ranneslavyanskuyu
podkleshevuyu. The ethnic tradition of the latter could, in his opinion, cause
the belonging also of zarubinetskoy ku'tury (Sedov, 1979, s. 76). However, a
similar division of this sufficiently monolithic generality, apparently, by
nevertheless rannegermanskoy, was considered it late incorrect, and it is
explained as the element of not always correct discussion with the German
archaeologists (Malinowski, 1992.). As german Archaeologists 1930- X, YU.V.
Kukharenko 1960- m g indicates again the precisely seacoast roots of
zarubinetskoy culture (Kukharenko, 1960, s. 109). True later with this seacoast
genetic version began successfully to compete "yastorfskaya", accentuated
on the historical connections of zarubinetskoy generality not with Pomerania,
but with lower elba and Jutland (Nieweg?..owski, 1986, s. 205; Shchukin, 1993,
c. 91). However, in any event, it is very difficult to assume that in its final
period, which includes, strictly, Tatsitovy of the information about venetakh,
zarubinetskaya culture had already another, not German, ethnic content. One of
the confirmation of reverse - Pliniyevy Proceedings about "other
Germans". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Literature: Abayev V.I., 1949. Ossetic language and folklore. M, L Anfert'ev
A.N., 1988. Information Of Tatsita About The Peoples Of Northeastern Europe:
the experience of interpretatsi// archaeology and the history of Pskov and
Pskov earth. Theses of report scientific -.prakt. Conf Pskov. Artamonov M.I.
1946. Venedy, nevry and Budins in by Slavyansk ethnogeny// the herald OF LGU
№ 2. Ram E, 1974. Slavs in middle OF THE I millenium of our era// the
problem of ethnogeny of Slavs. Kiev. Brown F, 1899. Researches in the region of
Goto- Slav ratios// the collector of the department of the Russian language and
literature of the emperor academy of sciences. Spb. Vol. lxiv. № 12.
Bronshten V.A., 1988. Klavdiy Ptolemy: II century n 3. M Kozak
D.N., 1991. Yetnokul'turna istor.i4 Of volini (I st. to n 3. - IV st. n e). Kipv. Kozak D.N., 1993. Vzaє.movі.dnosі.nі of slov'yan і of germantsі.v to terrі.torії.Of ukraї.ni into pershі.y of polovinі THE I yew-tree n e of
arkheologі.ya. Vip. 2. Kozak
D.N., 1996. Formuvannya of davn'oslov'yan'skikh
pam'yatok to teritor.iї.Of volin.i i of pivnichnoї.Of galichini into pershy of chvert.i
THE I yew-tree// Arkheolog.iya. Vip. 2. Kulakovskiy Yu., 1899. Map
of European Sarmatii according to Ptolemy. Kiev. Kukharenko YU.V., 1960. To a question about the
origin of zarubinetskoy culture// SA № 1. Mavrodin EXPLOSIVE, 1945.
Formation of Old-Russian state. L Machinskiy D.A., 1973. Celts on the earth to
the east of the Carpathians// ASGE. Iss. 15. Machinskiy D A, 1976. To a
question about the territory of the inhabiting of Slavs into I - THE THE VI
centuries// ASGE. Iss. 17. machinskiy D.A., 1981. Migration of Slavs v in the I
millenium n 3. (on the basis of the written sources with the attraction of data
of archaeology)// the formation of feudal Slav national character. M 1981.
Machinskiy D.A., Tikhanova M.A., 1976. On the places of inhabiting and the
directions of the motion of Slavs in I - THE VII of substances n 3. (on the
basis of the written and archaelogical sources)// Acta Archaeologica
Carpathica. 1976. T OF THE XVI. Pasternak 4., 1961. Arkheologі.ya Of
Ukra?.nі. Toronto. Pioro I.S., 1990. Crimean Of
Gotiya. Kiev. Rassadin
S.E., 1992. Venety and bastarny// Barbarcum. T OF III Rassadin S.E., 1999. Tribes and the peoples
of the "zaskifskogo"
north and northeast. Author's
abstract dissertation... of the doctor of historical sciences. Minsk. Rikman
E.M., 1975. Ethnic history of the population Of podnestrov'ya and adjacent
Podunav'ya in the first centuries of our era M Sedov EXPLOSIVES, 1976. Origin
and the early history of Slavs. M Cedov EXPLOSIVES, 1987. Balty// Archaeology
OF THE USSR. Finno-Ugrians and balty in the epoch of the middle ages. M Sedov
EXPLOSIVES, 1996. Contemporary state of the problem of ethnogeny of Slavs// SA.
Vol. the xxxvii. The Slavs Of Southeastern Europe In the Predgosudarstvennyy
Period, 1990. Kiev. Tret'yakov P.N., 1953. Eastern Slavic Tribes. M Tret'yakov,
1970. At the sources of Old-Russian national character. L Trubachev O.N., 1979.
"trying Skifiya" Herodotus and Slavs// Vya. № 4. Daredevils
A.D., 1946. Tribes of European Sarmatii II v n 3. SE № 2. Shadyra Of
V.І., 1993. Fі.na-ugry, balty і Slavs to poў.nachy Of
belarusі ў OF I thousand of n 3. vestsі AN of belarusі.
Ser. of gramadsk. Navuk. № 3. Shafarik P, 1848. Slav antiquities. M Vol.
I. Book I Shchukin PERHAPS, 1972. Sarmatian monuments of average Podneprov'ya
and their relationship with the zarubinetskoy culture// A.CHGE. Iss. 14.
Shchukin PERHAPS, 1976. The archaelogical data about Slavs II - THE IV is age-
Long. Prospects for retrospective method// A.CHGE. Iss. 17. shchukin PERHAPS,
1987. On three ways of the archaelogical search of the ancestors of
ranneistoricheskikh Slavs. Prospects for the third way// ASGE. Iss. 28. shchukin
PERHAPS, 1993. Problem of bastarnov and ethnic determination of
poyaneshti-lukashevskoy and zarubinetskoy cultures// Petersburg archaelogical
herald № 6. Babe? M, 1973. Germanische lat1.nezeitliche Einwanderungen to
them Raume ts.stlichyu der Karpaten (zum heutigen Stand der Forschung '..ber
die Poienesti-Luka?..evka-Kulturgruppe// Aktes du VIIIe Congres International
des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques, Beograd 9 - 5 septembre 1971.
Tome troisieme. Beograd. Bagrow L, 1945. The Origin Of Ptolem'ys Geographia//
Geografica Annaler. T 27. Bierbrauer V, 1998. Gepiden in der Wielbark-Kultur
(1. - 4. Jahrhundert n chr.)? Eine Spurensuche// Studien Zur Archd.ologie Des
Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Kiel. Birkhan H, 1997. Kelten.
Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur. Wein. Blume E, 1912. Die
germanischen Std.mme und die Kulturen zwischen Oder und Passarge zur rq.mischen
Keiserzeit. W6.rzburg. Ebert M, 1921. S6.dru@4.land the them Altertum. Bonn.
Godlowski K, 1979. Z bada? nad zagadneniem rozpzestrzeinienia s?..owian w V -
VII w n e. - Kraku.w. Godlowski K, 1984. "Superiores barbari" und die
Markomannenkriege the them Lichte archd.ologischer Quellen// Slovenskb
Archeolf.gia. R OF THE XXXII. Hachmann R, 1970. Die Goten Und Skandinavien.
Berlin. Hachmann R, Kossak G, Kahn H, 1962. Vq.lker zwischen Germanen und
Kelten. Neum6.nster. Havlik L, 1973. Einige Frage Der Ehtnogenese Der Slawen
The Them Lichte Der Rq.mischen Und Byzantischen Historiographie (I Hd.lfte des
1. Jahrhunderts)// Berichte To ' to..dtyu den II Internationalen Kongre@4 f6.r
slawische Archd.ologie. Berlin. 1973. Bd. III Hirt H, 1905. Die Indogermanen.
Ihre Verbreitung, ihre Heimat und ihre Kultur. Strassburg. Bd. I Ja?..d?..ewski
K, 1981. Pradzieje Europy?..rodkoshezh, Wroc?..aw - Warscawa - Kraku.w -
Gda?..sk. Kazanski M, 1992. Les arctoi gentes "l'.emperie"
d'.Hermanarich. Commentaire arch1.ologique d'.une source you y.chrite//
Germania. Jahrgang 70. Kolendo J, 1984. Wenetowie w ewropie?..rodkoshezh i
wschodniej. Lokalizacija i rzeczywisto?? Etniczna// Przegl?..d Historyczny. T
LXXV. Zeszyt 4. Kolendo J, 1998. Swiat antzczny i barbarzyncy: Teksty, zabytki,
refleksija nad przeszloscia. Seria podrecznikow, tom 1. Warszawa. Kossina G,
1914. Die deutsche Vorgeschichte. W6.rzburg. Kossina G, 1915. Die illyrische,
die germanische und die keltische Kultur der fr6.hesten Eisenzeit the them
Verhd.ltnis zu dem Eisenfunden von Waren bei Leipzig// Mannus. Bd. VII. Kossina
G, 1924. Zu meine Ostgermanenkarte// Mannus. Bd. 16. Kostrzewski J, 1946.
Germanie przedhistoryczny w polsce// OF THE RA T OF THE VIII. Kostrzewski J,
Chmielewski W, Ja?..d?..ewski K, 1965. Pradzieje Polski. Wroc?..aw Koval ' I,
1993/1994. Kultura przeworska na ukraine zakarpatskiej// Wiadomosci To a.rchyueologichzne.
T LIII. Krahe H, 1954. Sprache und Vorzeit. Heidelberg. La baume W, 1934.
Urgeschichte der Ostgermanen. Danzig. Labuda G, 1980. Udzia? wenetu.w w
etnogenezie s?..owian// Etnogeneza i topogeneza s?..owian. Materia?..u z
konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Komisje Slawistyczna przy Oddziale
PAN w poznania w dniach 8 - 9 XII 1978. - Warszawa - Pozna?. Laur W, 1954.
Esten, eine germanische Volksbezeichnung the them baltischen Raum// Zeitschrift
f6.r Ostforschung. 3. Jahrgang. Lehr-Sp?..awi?..ski T, 1948. O staro?..ytnych
lugiach// SA. T I Lowmia?..ski H, 1964. Poczatki Polski. Warszawa. T I
Malinowski T, 1992. W sprawie tzw. kultury grobu.w kloszowych// Zemie polskie w
wczesnej epoce of?..elaza i ich pow?..zania z innymi terenami. Przezow.. Miller
K, 1962. Die peutingersche Tafel. Stuttgart. Miloj?..i? V., 1952. Zur Frage Der
"Lausitzer Wanderung"// Germania. Bd. 30. Much R, 1900. Deutsche
Stammeskunde. Leipzig. Much R, 1937. Die Germania Des Tacitus. Haidelberg.
M6.llenhoff K, 1887. Deutsche Altertumkunde. Berlin. Bd. II M6.llenhoff K,
1900. Deutsche Altertumkunde. Berlin. Bd. IV. Nieweg?..owski A, 1986. Uwagi o
chronologii i genezie kultur zarubinieckiej i przeworskiej// AP. T OF THE XXXI.
Nowakowski W, 1990. Ludy na polnocno-wschodnich skrajach Barbaricum.
"Germania" Tacyta w swietle analizy zrodel archologicznych// Meander.
№ 2/ 3. Nowakowski W, 1992. "HIS SVEBIAE FINIS" - Concept of
the Border of the Barbarous World at the East Baitic Coast in the Roman
Period// Barbaricum. T 2. Okulitz J, 1984. Einige Aspekte Der Ethnogenese Der
Balten Und Slawen The Them Lichte Archd.ologischer Und
Schhprachwissenschaftlicher Forschungen// Questiones Medii Aevi. - 1984 - T 3.
Parczewski M, 1988. Najstarsza faza kultury wczesnoslowia?..skiej w polsce.
Krakt.w. Parczewski M, 1993. Die Anfd.nge Der Fr6.hslawischen Kultur In polen.
Wien. Pokorny J, 1938. Urgeschichte der Kelten und Illyrier. Halle. Pradzieje
ziem polskich, 1988. Tom I Od Paleolitu
Do?..rodkoshego
Okresu Late?..skiego.
Cz??? 2. Epoka
br?..zu i poc?..tki epoki
of?..elaza. Warszawa -?.u.d?. Schmidt L, 1910.
Geschichte der deutsche Std.mme bis zum
Ausgange der Vq.lkerwanderung.
Die Geschichte Der Ostgermanen. Berlin. Schwarz E,
1956. Germanische Stammeskunde.
Heidelberg. Sulimirski T,
1973. Die Veneti - Venedae und deren
Verhd.ltnis zu den Slawen//:
Berichte '..ber
II Internationalen Kongre@4
f6.r Slawische Archd.ologie. Berlin. Bd. III Tacitus Publius Cornelius, 1957. Germania.
Die Annalen. M6.nchen. Tackenberg K, 1929. Die Bastarnen// Volk Und Rasse. Bd.
IV. Tymieniecki K, 1948. Wenetowie, nazwa i rzeczywisto?? Historyczna// SA. T I
Tyminieski K, 1949. Droga Gotu.w Na po?..udnie// Archeologia. - T III. Welt der
Slawen. Geschichte. Ge.gesellschaft. Kultur, 1986. M6.nchen. Wenskus R, 1961.
Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden Der Fr6.hmittelalterischen Gents.
Kq.ln - Graz. Z Polskiego Towarzystwa Prehistorycznego, 1928// Z otch?..ani
wiekow. T III Zeuss K, 1925. Die Deutschen Und Nachbarstd.mme. Heidelberg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: * so in the text - S.R. ** these Tatsitovykh fennov has already been
proposed to place in belorussian Podvin'e; Subsequently Finno-Ugric Ethnic
Basis Dnepr -.dvinskoy culture obtained also the new confirmation (Rassadin,
1992, s. 12; Shadyra, 1993, s. 83 - 90).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions: ASGE - archaelogical collector of state hermitage. AP - Archeologia
Polski THE RA - Przeg?..d archeologiczny. SA - Slawia antiqua. SE - Soviet
ethnography. Vya - questions of linguistics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syntax of the footnote: C.E. Rassadin. Between the Alps and the ocean: venety -
other "Germans"? //.Eastern European archaelogical periodical, 5(18)
September- October 2002, (http://archaeology.kiev.ua/journal/050902/rassadin.htm