All the centuries-old works of Europeans to expel the Slavs from ancient history can go down the drain.
To admit the very idea that the Slavs (and, in particular, the Russians) are not only inhabitants of the Pripyat swamps of the early Middle Ages, but direct compatriots of the ancient Etruscan tribe who lived in Italy as far back as the II millennium BC. e., whose culture, as is commonly believed, formed the basis of Ancient Rome, world historiography is simply unable to. Unfortunately, within the framework of the paradigm of European historiography, many Russian researchers also act, in other cases demonstrating their scientific conscientiousness.
Here is Professor Valery Chudinov cites an extensive quote from the book of Nadezhda Guseva (Doctor of Historical Sciences, Indologist and Ethnographer. - Ed.): “Along with the naturally interpreted explanation of the formation of the names of localities or rivers, a less natural interpretation of ethnonyms has developed in scientific research. And in this field many contradictions arose in the explanation, for example, of the ethnonym "Etruscans".
After for two hundred years, scientists from many countries tried to explain the origin of this people and reveal its connections with the population of other, both neighboring and distant countries, in the 19th century in Russia, E. Klassen's book “New materials for ancient history in general and Slavic-Russ (KLA), in which the decoding and readings of the inscriptions on the tombstones and some tables of the Etruscans were given, and this decoding boiled down to the fact that the language of these inscriptions was Russian. The reason for this interpretation was the fact that the font of the inscriptions was close to the Greek alphabet, from which the Cyrillic alphabet is also produced. Carried away by its decoding, Russian readers, as well as some researchers, did not pay attention to the fact that such modern Russian, which was proposed by Klassen, could not be spoken in Etruria in the II-I millennia BC. e.,how these inscriptions are dated”(GUS, pp. 106-107).
Chudinov replies to this remark: “Judging by the numerous inaccuracies (consisting in truncation and distortion of the title of E. Klassen's book not only in this text, but in the list of references, in the mention of E. Klassen's name as the author of decryptions, although in fact the author was Tadeusz Volansky, who inserted his book into the book of E. Klassen, the absence of any "Etruscan tables" in the book, etc.), N. R. Guseva has not read this book by E. Klassen, and her opinion is based on other people's reviews.
For me, as a researcher of this problem, it is also of interest that the inscriptions date from her not only to the first, but also to the second millennia BC. e.; it looks like it is dating from the 19th century. Today, the most ancient Etruscan inscriptions date back to the 8th century BC. BC, that is, their chronology was brought closer to our days by 12 centuries. Although, in my opinion, the inscriptions are still about 12-15 centuries younger. As for the "modern Russian", which the inscriptions of T. Volansky allegedly speak, then, on the one hand, no one has studied the Russian language of the Etruscan time before me, therefore it is very difficult to talk about whether it is "modern" or "ancient".
On the other hand, T. Volansky's decipherments, which were very progressive for their time, at least for the noble desire to consider the language of the Etruscans Slavic (as a true Pole, T. Volansky never considered that the Etruscan language was a Russian language: he only translated Etruscan inscriptions into Slavic languages), including Polish and Russian), were nevertheless incorrect, so there is no reason to consider this attempt exemplary. So the objections of N. R. Guseva 1) written from hearsay, 2) make inaccuracies in the knowledge of the source and, therefore, inaccuracies in its interpretation, 3) declare one of the unsuccessful attempts to read Etruscan texts as an example of proving the Etruscans' belonging to the Slavs, and 4) condemn T. Volansky's unsuccessful attempt to the rest of the readers from the standpoint of the allegedly existing knowledge of the Russian language of the Etruscan time. Therefore, the opinion of N. R. Guseva not only does not inspire confidence in me, but also contains all the signs of unprofessional treatment of the source in question."
Chudinov also touched upon another remark of Guseva: “The historian Yu. D. Petukhov developed a scheme of the genealogical tree of Indo-European languages, deriving them from the "Proto-Slavs-Boreals", and included the Etruscans among the other descendants of this ancestor, calling them "Raceno-Etruscans"; at the same time, in his book "By the Roads of the Gods" he traces the connection of Etruria with Asia Minor - through the Balkans to Northern Italy, closing this circle across the Dnieper and the Black Sea, and also connecting the Etruscans with the ancestors of the Slavs "(GUS, p. 107).
Promotional video:
As Chudinov explains: “The works of Yu. D. I would not like to discuss Petukhov casually; I suppose that in time I will give a detailed review of these interesting constructions … It is important that he mentioned the Etruscans as Slavs."
Guseva, however, continues to insist: “He was not a beginner in his search: many researchers wrote about the noticeable influence on Etruscan culture and art of many aspects of Asia Minor culture already in the 19th century. A major joint work on the history, culture and language of the Etruscans was the capital study of the French orientalist historian Z. Mayani "The Etruscans begin to speak." Prefaced by a detailed review of previous publications, the author points out that some words and signs were found in Etruria that cannot be deciphered as belonging to the Indo-European family system, but the bulk of the vocabulary is clearly related to this system”(GUS, p. 108).
But Zachary Mayani took on an almost impossible task: to comprehend as a kind of language the mess into which Massimo Pallottino (Italian Etruscologist, professor of the University of Rome. - Ed.) Turned the Etruscan language into words, who simply inscriptions and "transliterated", that is, gave the Latin spelling of Etruscan texts. As Valery Chudinov emphasizes, "without knowing the reverses, that is, permutations of Etruscan letters, as well as ligatures or, on the contrary, dismembered letterforms, without knowing Etruscan words, it is practically impossible even to divide the text into words." So, from the point of view of Professor Chudinov, "Zachary Mayani actually read a Latin surrogate for Etruscan, and his book should have been titled" The surrogate for Etruscan begins to babble ",for in more than a quarter of a century he was able to comprehend about 300 words of a surrogate language, while in two years I was able to identify more than 2000 Etruscan-Russian word forms.
A legitimate question arises: did the professionals-Etruscologists for more than two centuries of observation have not understood that they are dealing with a variety of the Russian language? I think they understand. In the same way, the Europeans are well aware that the Albanians have no legal rights to Kosovo. However, they believe that it is necessary to get rid of the Slavs at any cost … Returning to our problems: why talk about the fact that the Etruscan language was Slavic? What if the inscriptions extracted from the ground contain something that runs counter to the accepted European historiography, in which the Slavs were expelled from the ancient period? What if it turns out that both Russia and Moscow existed, and it was the “hand of Moscow” that ordered the creation of Rome? Then all the centuries-old works of Europeans to expel the Slavs from ancient history will go to waste,and so wonderfully for the Europeans, the ongoing cold war will turn into a counter-offensive by the Slavs."
