The Slavs, who appeared on the historical stage in the 6th century, were neither young nor virgin-wild people who came out almost naked from the forests and steppes of boundless Sarmatia, as they were portrayed by far from impartial early medieval writers. At least that part of them, which bordered on the Danube and Black Sea provinces of the Roman Empire, brought out a considerable historical and cultural experience from late antiquity. The Slavs never stood apart from world history, and if for the time being they did not create it themselves, then all the same, it came to them along with the goods of Greek and Roman merchants, sowing admiration and temptations, or burst in on the bloody footsteps of another sovereign, conqueror or the shaker of the universe: always in the form of Plutos or Mars and almost never in the form of Minerva *.
* Plutos is the god of wealth, Mars is the god of war, Minerva is the goddess of wisdom among the ancient Romans.
Having seen and experienced a lot, the Slavs learned a lot. Arts and crafts, religion and mores of the surrounding peoples already then had a significant impact on the Slavic cultural type, as it did later; at the same time, however, the assimilation of the alien did not lead to either cultural or racial assimilation. In many respects, the Slavs entered the Middle Ages almost on an equal footing with the dilapidated ancient world: they knew how to smash Roman troops in field battles and take well-fortified cities, organize river crossings and sea expeditions; their social structure, although it underwent a change and complication, came into contact with the early medieval Byzantine society, but nevertheless retained its originality and proved its viability; the envy and admiration they felt when looking at the products of the Byzantine urban industry,do not allow us to dismiss their own fine metalworking techniques, jewelry, pottery and leatherwork.
Starting in the 6th century, the Slavs became the main military enemy of Byzantium, which forced Byzantine writers to pay close attention to them. From that time on, our ancestors seem to acquire history (of course, history "written"), or rather it is given to them - as a result of their contact with the civilized world, and then, over several centuries - only as they interact with this world.
The most detailed ethnographic description of the Slavs is contained in the textbook fragments of the works of the Emperor Mauritius and Procopius of Caesarea, which have long become textbooks.
Both Byzantine writers note the truly barbaric unpretentiousness of the life of the Slavic tribes. "Wretched huts", located far from one another, in difficult places among forests, rivers, swamps and lakes - these are, in their words, Slavic settlements. The Byzantines, the heirs of the Hellenistic culture, were accustomed to living in relative cramped conditions and saw in it a certain norm, so the scattered estates, courtyards and other settlements of the Slavs were especially striking to them. Mauritius sees the reason for the unassuming attitude of the Slavs towards their dwellings, which they easily leave, often moving from place to place, in the fact that the Slavs are constantly being attacked by neighboring peoples: the danger, he says, makes them arrange many exits from their settlements from different sides. and also bury all valuables in hiding places. Archeology generally confirms this information. For example, the Gochevskoe settlement on the banks of the Vorksla, dating back to the 6th-7th centuries, consists of square dugouts 5 by 5 meters in size in a circle. A clay hearth in the middle and earthen benches along the walls exhaust all the amenities. Near these huts there are pits - something like food stores with the remains of millet and bones of domestic animals. Among the finds of that time, in the territory from the lower Danube to the Donets River, there are jewelry made of bronze, silver and gold, both of local origin and Greek, obtained by trade or plunder. Usually these finds are called "Anth hoards", although many of them can be attributed to other, non-Slavic ethnic groups.consists of a circle of square dugouts measuring 5 by 5 meters. A clay hearth in the middle and earthen benches along the walls exhaust all the amenities. Near these huts there are pits - something like food stores with the remains of millet and bones of domestic animals. Among the finds of that time, in the territory from the lower Danube to the Donets River, there are jewelry made of bronze, silver and gold, both of local origin and Greek, obtained by trade or plunder. Usually these finds are called "Anth hoards", although many of them can be attributed to other, non-Slavic ethnic groups.consists of a circle of square dugouts measuring 5 by 5 meters. A clay hearth in the middle and earthen benches along the walls exhaust all the amenities. Near these huts there are pits - something like food stores with the remains of millet and bones of domestic animals. Among the finds of that time, in the territory from the lower Danube to the Donets River, there are jewelry made of bronze, silver and gold, both of local origin and Greek, obtained by trade or plunder. Usually these finds are called "Anth hoards", although many of them can be attributed to other, non-Slavic ethnic groups. Among the finds of that time, in the territory from the lower Danube to the Donets River, there are jewelry made of bronze, silver and gold, both of local origin and Greek, obtained by trade or plunder. Usually these finds are called "Anth hoards", although many of them can be attributed to other, non-Slavic ethnic groups. Among the finds of that time, in the territory from the lower Danube to the Donets River, there are jewelry made of bronze, silver and gold, both of local origin and Greek, obtained by trade or plunder. Usually these finds are called "Anth hoards", although many of them can be attributed to other, non-Slavic ethnic groups.
This discrepancy between the treasures in the ground and the miserable poverty of the Slavic life suggests the non-economic use of the captured wealth by the Slavs. The usual reference to external danger as the main reason for hiding treasures should be rejected or, in any case, revised. For the barbarian peoples of Europe, the treasure had primarily a sacred value - it is worth remembering at least the hereditary treasures of the Nibelungen, drowned in the Rhine. The frequent location of the treasure in the center of burial mounds or settlements, that is, in a clearly sacred territory, the use of birch bark as a wrapping material not only for coffins and bodies of the dead, but also for treasures, make the religious motives for hiding the treasures obvious. Perhaps burying treasures in the form of sacrifices was part of the cult of the earth,widespread among the Slavic tribes (Froyanov I. Ya. Slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs (VI-X centuries). SPb., 1996. S. 69-70).
In general, the attitude towards wealth in ancient societies was significantly different from the current one. The possession of wealth was important primarily in the socio-political, religious and even ethical sense. Wealth acted as, so to speak, intangible value. It is no coincidence that the words "god" and "wealth", both Old Slavonic, reveal a root connection that goes back to the Indo-European community. Power, happiness, prosperity were embodied in gold and silver - this is what gave value to the noble metal in the first place. Luck (military, commercial) brought wealth, which, in turn, personified and promised success and prosperity to its owner in the future. The main desire was to have wealth, to accumulate, and not to spend it, since it accumulated the social success of its owner and expressed the favorable attitude of the gods towards him. Therefore, it was necessary to hide it, hide it, that is, make it yours forever, in order to ensure prosperity for yourself and your family.
Promotional video:
Hence, it is clear that in ancient times wealth was not directly related to relations of social inequality. If the treasures were initially accumulated in the hands of the leaders, then formally they still belonged to the tribal collective as a whole, of which the leader was the personification. But, of course, the closeness of the leader to the accumulated wealth, by which the clan or tribe determined the degree of its well-being, the favor of higher powers to them and its position among other clans and tribes, gradually increased his social prestige and power. In the economic structure of a tribe or clan, as well as in the socio-economic relations between their members, wealth for a long time did not play a significant role. A rich man did not have any preferential rights over his poorer relatives and tribesmen. Under the dominance of exchange trade in internal economic relations, money was spent from case to case, mainly in the relations of the tribe with the outside world, and again not for productive purposes. Donations to pagan sanctuaries, the purchase of good weapons, the ransom of their captive relatives, the provision of military operations - for example, payment for crossing the river, for moving around neutral territory, or acquiring allies through gifts, gifting your distinguished warriors or militias - these are the main articles expenses in the budget of any barbarian tribe of that era.the ransom of their captive relatives, the provision of military operations - for example, payment for crossing the river, for moving around neutral territory, or acquiring allied relations through gifts, gifting their distinguished warriors or militias - these are the main items of expenditure in the budget of any barbarian tribe of that era.the ransom of their captive relatives, the provision of military operations - for example, payment for crossing the river, for moving through neutral territory, or acquiring allied relations through gifts, gifting their distinguished warriors or militias - these are the main items of expenditure in the budget of any barbarian tribe of that era.
The frequent change of the places of settlements by the Slavs was also due not so much to the threat of enemy attacks as to the conditions of management, in particular, the depletion of arable land. The concept of "frequent change", however, needs to be clarified: according to archaeological data, Slavic settlements often existed in one place for decades and the inhabitants left them, probably only due to extraordinary circumstances. The attachment to the land did not contradict the high mobility of the Slavic population, because this mobility was largely due precisely to the desire to take possession of more fertile lands. On the newly colonized lands, the Slavs immediately showed a commitment to the development of progressive forms of agriculture. Along with the latter, cattle breeding played an extremely important role in the economic system. The word "cattle" was also used at a later time among the Slavs in the meaning of "money" and in general "wealth". Describing the common type of Slavic settlements, Mauritius writes about "a multitude of various cattle and cereals, stacked in stacks, especially millet and spelled." For all that, it must be borne in mind that the ancient Slav was least of all showing a craving for becoming a peasant. Every man was first of all a warrior, and only then a farmer and a shepherd.
Procopius calls the political and social organization of the Slavic tribes democracy. In contrast, Mauritius believes that the Slavs are in a state of anarchy and mutual enmity, not knowing order and power, adding that the Slavs have many leaders who usually live in disagreement with each other. The clashes between the Sklavens and the Ants, as well as the foreign policy carried out in a number of cases, independent of each other, are indeed recorded in the sources. All this is typical of the tribal organization of society. But Mauritius's remark about "anarchy" should be understood in the sense that the Slavs did not have a monarchy similar to the imperial power, which for Byzantine writers was the only example of truly legitimate power.
The political status of the Slavic "leaders" and the extent of their power remain unclear to us. Menander the Protector, speaking about the leaders of the Antes, uses the term "archons", which was generally applied by Byzantine writers to the independent rulers (princes) of barbarian tribes and tribal associations, but from his further words it can be concluded that there is a certain hierarchy among the Antian leaders. Jordan's story about the execution of the "king" Boz and seventy elders confirms this and at the same time testifies to the high intra-tribal authority of the Slavic leaders, since the reprisal against the top of the Antes ended their resistance to the Goths. This episode is comparable to the story of Tacitus about how the noble Germanic Segestus advised the Roman commander Var to imprison the leaders of the Germanic tribe Cherusci in chains. “The common people,” he assured, “will not dare to do anything,if its leaders are removed."
The tribal nobility, therefore, already had a leading role in government. Although, according to Procopius, all matters were decided among the Slavs together, the term "military democracy" introduced by F. Engels, strictly speaking, is unacceptable for defining the social system of barbarians. The "democratic" stage of development of prehistoric societies is nothing more than an illusion. In barbarian collectives, power was initially aristocratic in nature, that is, it assumed a high personal importance of the leader, who corrected the highest military, judicial and priestly functions, which were gradually assigned to one, "royal" family. Thus, under the "democracy" of power relations among barbarians, one should understand only the non-coercive, voluntary nature of the connection between the nobility and ordinary members of the tribe.
Slavic society was predominantly a society of free kinsmen. However, the institution of slavery already existed in him. Slaves were prisoners - men, women and children, captured in foreign lands during military campaigns. In the 6th century, according to the Byzantine authors, their number was already in the tens of thousands. True, slavery was not lifelong. After a certain period of time, the prisoners were given at their discretion - to return home for a certain ransom or to remain among their former masters as "free people and friends." This testimony of Mauritius finds a correspondence in Old Russian folklore. The epic about Churil Plenkovich says how this hero fell into the service of Prince Vladimir, in fact, becoming his domestic slave. Then, after some time, Vladimir granted Churila freedom in the following words:“I don’t need you anymore in the house. Yes, hosh live in Kiev, but at least go home."
There was still no clear-cut legal (or even custom) place for slaves in the socio-economic structure of early Slavic society, and the slave trade was practically absent. Polon was seized, firstly, for the sake of obtaining a ransom, and a collective ransom, and therefore very profitable, since in most cases the Byzantine authorities - the state and the church - played the role of the ransom party; and secondly, to replenish the loss of the male population in military campaigns, at the expense of those prisoners who, after their release, agreed to become members of the Slavic clans. The clan, the tribe were the main owners and managers of the captured polon, and individual members of the tribe were, in fact, just temporary users of slave labor, which, however, did not yet have a special economic need. Before their ransom or release on time, captives played the role of domestic servants, women often became concubines. Some of the prisoners were used as, so to speak, "altar meat", that is, for ritual sacrifices, but this bloody custom in the medieval era was noted only among the Slavs of the Baltic region.
The religious ideas of the Slavs are outlined by Procopius in the following words: “… they believe that one of the gods - the creator of lightning - it is he who is the only ruler of everything, and bulls and all sacrificial animals are sacrificed to him. They do not know predestination and generally do not recognize that it has any meaning, at least in relation to people, but when death is already at their feet, whether they are seized by illness or go to war, they take a vow if they avoid her, immediately make a sacrifice to God for his life; and having escaped death, they sacrifice what they promised, and think that with this sacrifice they bought themselves salvation. However, they revere rivers, nymphs, and some other deities and make sacrifices to all of them as well, and with these sacrifices they make fortune-telling."
As can be judged from the archaeological finds, the Slavic religious and ritual complex of beliefs and rituals included the cult of ancestors, agrarian and cattle-breeding cults, as well as the cult of the hearth. But in general, our knowledge of the paganism of the Slavs in that era is extremely scarce, therefore there is practically nothing to supplement the message of Procopius. It can only be clarified that by the god of thunder is meant by no means Perun, who was not a common Slavic deity, but Rod (Radogost) - the creator of the world and the ruler of the sky. "Nymphs" are, most likely, mermaids, or "pitchforks."
The Slavs, according to Procopius, are tall and strong people, “in body and hair they are not too light and not red, by no means inclined to black, but they are all slightly reddish,” that is, fair-haired. The usual clothes of Slavic men were a long shirt and a cloak, but many, as Procopius writes, having neither one nor the other, were content with only pants; while "they are constantly covered in mud." Isidore of Sevilsky in his essay "On the Properties of Nations" also notes as a characteristic national trait "the uncleanness of the Slavs" - paying, however, earrings to all the sisters. Other peoples are characterized by him, too, not too flattering: marked "envy of the Jews", "servility of the Saracens", "gluttony of the Gauls", "savagery of the Franks", "stupidity of the Bavars", "drunkenness of the Spaniards", "anger of the British", "greed of the Normans" and etc.; the Swedes fell into the category of filthy together with the Slavs.
These tall, beautiful, although not quite neat people loved to live happily, feast and were remarkable for their wonderful musicality. At Theophylact Simokatta (died after 628) we find an idyllic story about three Slavs captured by the Romans. They did not have any weapons and in general "nothing iron", only "kifars", as the chronicler sublimely calls the Slavic gusli. When they were taken to the emperor, they, in response to his questions, said that “their country does not know iron, which makes their life peaceful and unperturbed; they play the lyre, not familiar with trumpet singing. After all, for those who have never heard of the war, it is natural, as they said, to engage in artless exercises. " Written as if by the pen of Rousseau, this story rather reflects the prejudices of a civilized person regarding the simplicity and "naturalness" of the life of "savages",than the true living conditions of the Slavic tribes; but it is certainly interesting as a testament to the musical talents of our ancestors.
Mauritius, in addition, notes the good nature and hospitality characteristic of the Slavs. Slavic women, in his words, "are chaste beyond any human nature, so that many of them regard the death of their husbands as their own death and voluntarily strangle themselves, not counting life in widowhood." A similar custom among the Slavs of the 6th century is archaeologically unknown. The Anglo-Saxon missionary of the 7th century Boniface also reports on the custom of self-immolation of a widow at the stake of her deceased husband, which was widespread among the Baltic Slavs. Indeed, the remains of a young woman burnt at the funeral pyre of her warrior husband were discovered by archaeologists in one of the 7th – 8th century burials in Prützk near Brandenburg and in many paired burials dating back to the 10th century.
Procopius and Mauritius, both professional military men, speak of the fighting qualities of the Slavs and the organization of their military affairs without a shadow of disdain. Exceptionally freedom-loving, the Slavs "are in no way inclined either to become slaves or to obey, especially in their own land." The entire adult male population was warriors; they fought mainly on foot, horses were probably used only by the tribal nobility - princes and elders, since the horse was considered a sacred animal. “Every man,” writes Mauritius, “is armed with two small spears, and some of them with shields, sturdy but difficult to bear. They also use wooden bows and small arrows smeared with a poisonous substance, which has an effect if the person struck by it has not been smeared with teriak juice or other means known to medical sciences.or if he did not cut the wound immediately, so that the poison would not spread to the whole body. " Indeed, spearheads, darts, and arrows predominate among the archaeological finds of that time related to Slavic weapons.
Not knowing the correct order of battle, the Slavs preferred to attack their enemies in "wooded, narrow and steep places", and as Mauritius warns, they were inexhaustible in military tricks, "night and day, inventing numerous tricks." Ambushes and surprise attacks were their favorite tactics. In open places, they rarely took battle. If this happened, then the Slavs, shouting (another writer speaks of a "wolf howl"), all rushed to the enemy *. The rest depended on the case: “And if the enemies succumb to their cry, the Slavs attack rapidly; if not, they stop shouting and, not trying to test the strength of their enemies in hand-to-hand combat, they run away into the forests, having a great advantage there, because they know how to fight in a proper manner in the gorges."
* The fury of the barbarians, manifested by them in battle, generally amazed the people of ancient culture, "giving rise to great horror", and the war cry, exhausting the soul, causing numbness, is certainly present in the ancient descriptions of the fighting barbarians. Characteristic are the following lines of Ammianus Marcellinus, who tells about the battle of Adrianople in 378 between the Goths and the Romans: sideways torn apart, already on the very brink of death and still with the threat of rolling with fierce eyes.
For the Slavic army, there were no water barriers. Accustomed to settling along the river beds, the Slavs easily crossed them if necessary, and in this art, according to Mauritius, they had no equal. Rivers and lakes also served as a refuge for civilians, women, old people and children, suddenly caught in danger. In this case, they plunged deep into the water, holding long reeds in their mouths, and so, "lying supine in the depth, they breathe through them and withstand many hours, so that there is no suspicion about them." Only experienced Byzantine warriors could recognize a false reed "by its cut and position," and then the hiding ones had a bad time. Finding them, the Romans with a strong blow on the reed pierced the throats sitting in the water, or, pulling out the reeds, forced people to emerge from the water.
The cultural level reached by the Slavs by the 6th century remained almost unchanged throughout the entire period of the Slavic colonization of Europe, and of all the arts and crafts known to them, military art alone was destined to develop mainly in front of others.
