Who and where were the Slavs before they were called that? The archaeological discoveries of the last century on the Apennine Peninsula and the Balkans became revolutionary for the historiography of Europe: they led to the emergence of a new field of historiography - the Etruscologists, affecting not only ancient and early Roman times. The information obtained provided comprehensive material that made it possible to fully identify the culture of the Etruscans, including language, religion, traditions, rituals, and everyday life. These signs of culture made it possible to trace the history of the development of the Etruscan-Roman civilization up to our time. They shed light on many of the "blind spots" of history and the "dark times" of historical literature. They gave answers to fundamental questions regarding the prehistory of the Slavs. The general conclusion is that the Etruscans are Proto-Slavs:a large number of material data demonstrate the identity of the cultures of the Etruscans and the ancient Slavs, and there is not a single fact that contradicts this. All the fundamental features of the Etruscan and ancient Slavic cultures coincide. In addition, all the fundamental features that unite the Etruscan and Slavic cultures are unique and different from other cultures. There is no other people that would have at least one of these characteristics. In other words, the culture of the Etruscans is not like anyone except the Slavs, and vice versa, the Slavs are not like anyone in the past, except for the Etruscans, i.e. the Etruscans have no descendants other than the Slavs. This is the main reason why the Etruscans are persistently trying to "bury". All the fundamental features of the Etruscan and ancient Slavic cultures coincide. In addition, all the fundamental features that unite the Etruscan and Slavic cultures are unique and different from other cultures. There is no other people that would have at least one of these characteristics. In other words, the culture of the Etruscans is not like anyone except the Slavs, and vice versa, the Slavs are not like anyone in the past, except for the Etruscans, i.e. the Etruscans have no descendants other than the Slavs. This is the main reason why the Etruscans are persistently trying to "bury". All the fundamental features of the Etruscan and ancient Slavic cultures coincide. In addition, all the fundamental features that unite the Etruscan and Slavic cultures are unique and different from other cultures. There is no other people that would have at least one of these characteristics. In other words, the culture of the Etruscans is not like anyone except the Slavs, and vice versa, the Slavs are not like anyone in the past, except for the Etruscans, i.e. the Etruscans have no descendants other than the Slavs. This is the main reason why the Etruscans are persistently trying to "bury".except for the Slavs, and vice versa, the Slavs are not like anyone in the past, except for the Etruscans, i.e. the Etruscans have no descendants other than the Slavs. This is the main reason why the Etruscans are persistently trying to "bury".except for the Slavs, and vice versa, the Slavs are not like anyone in the past, except for the Etruscans, i.e. the Etruscans have no descendants other than the Slavs. This is the main reason why the Etruscans are persistently trying to "bury".
Reliable data show that the homeland of the peoples who are now called the Slavs is the south of Europe. There are two fundamental reliably confirmed facts of the history of Byzantium: first, the population of the European part of Byzantium from the 5th century gradually began to be called the Slavs as well; on the other hand, before the formation of the Slavic principalities, the territories of the Roman and Byzantine empires: from the Black Sea to the Alps and the Apennines, the Adriatic coast was the only reliably established territory of the permanent presence of the culture of the ancient Slavs. The name "Slavs" was neither the original name of the people, nor their self-name. This name, which goes back to the word "glorious", developed in the Middle Ages as a common name for a part of the Byzantine and former Byzantine population, who staunchly professed the pagan monotheism of the god Perun,and in whose names the ending “glories” was widespread (Miroslav, Rostislav, etc.). We are talking about a developed sedentary people with a state social culture, a people, the structure of the language, the pre-Christian religion and traditions of which date back to the ancient times of Rome. How did this people arise with such a high state culture - a culture that has been developed for many centuries, is not easy to develop and has not been achieved by all the peoples of the past? Where are the origins of such a high level of development of the Slavic principalities in the X-XII centuries? What is the prehistory of the Slavs, or, in other words, the pre-Slavic history of the people named by this name (the term "Slavs" appeared only in the 10th century AD). Who really and where were the ancestors of the Slavs? What are myths, hypotheses, and what is reality?We are talking about a developed sedentary people with a state social culture, a people, the structure of the language, the pre-Christian religion and traditions of which date back to the ancient times of Rome. How did this people arise with such a high state culture - a culture that has been developed for many centuries, is not easy to develop and has not been achieved by all the peoples of the past? Where are the origins of such a high level of development of the Slavic principalities in the X-XII centuries? What is the prehistory of the Slavs, or, in other words, the pre-Slavic history of the people named by this name (the term "Slavs" appeared only in the 10th century AD). Who really and where were the ancestors of the Slavs? What are myths, hypotheses, and what is reality?We are talking about a developed sedentary people with a state social culture, a people, the structure of the language, the pre-Christian religion and traditions of which date back to the ancient times of Rome. How did this people arise with such a high state culture - a culture that has been developed for many centuries, is not easy to develop and has not been achieved by all the peoples of the past? Where are the origins of such a high level of development of the Slavic principalities in the X-XII centuries? What is the prehistory of the Slavs, or, in other words, the pre-Slavic history of the people named by this name (the term "Slavs" appeared only in the 10th century AD). Who really and where were the ancestors of the Slavs? What are myths, hypotheses, and what is reality?How did this people arise with such a high state culture - a culture that has been developed for many centuries, is not easy to develop and has not been achieved by all the peoples of the past? Where are the origins of such a high level of development of the Slavic principalities in the X-XII centuries? What is the prehistory of the Slavs, or, in other words, the pre-Slavic history of the people named by this name (the term "Slavs" appeared only in the 10th century AD). Who really and where were the ancestors of the Slavs? What are myths, hypotheses, and what is reality?How did this people arise with such a high state culture - a culture that has been developed for many centuries, is not easy to develop and has not been achieved by all the peoples of the past? Where are the origins of such a high level of development of the Slavic principalities in the X-XII centuries? What is the prehistory of the Slavs, or, in other words, the pre-Slavic history of the people named by this name (the term "Slavs" appeared only in the 10th century AD). Who really and where were the ancestors of the Slavs? What are myths, hypotheses, and what is reality?called by this name (the term "Slavs" appeared only in the 10th century AD). Who really and where were the ancestors of the Slavs? What are myths, hypotheses, and what is reality?called by this name (the term "Slavs" appeared only in the 10th century AD). Who really and where were the ancestors of the Slavs? What are myths, hypotheses, and what is reality?
Unfortunately, the historiography of the Slavs cannot rely on reliable written sources. The problem of non-survival and unreliability of surviving historical written sources is common, but in the case of the prehistory of the Slavs, it is critical - the prehistory of the Slavs on the basis of only information from the few surviving and repeatedly rewritten monuments of historical literature that managed to survive cannot be reliably reconstructed. The surviving literature of the Middle Ages about the Slavs is scarce and reflects only the confrontation between the emerging Christianity and the monotheistic paganism of the god Perun, who was preached by the ancient Slavs (the commitment of the emperors of Byzantium to Christ-Radimir and Perun also wavered, some of the emperors were pagans, some were Christians).
But the absence of truthful written information is not the end of historiography. After all, the people are identified not by what the author or a later copyist of the monument of historical literature said about those who are now called ancient Slavs. There are objective signs of a people and criteria for its identification.
The people are identified by their culture (all its parts), that is, by what has been developed over many centuries. Three fundamental features of culture that are self-sufficient for the identification of a people are: language, its structure, pre-Christian religion, traditions, rituals and customs. In other words, if these fundamental features of culture coincide in two peoples of the present and the past, then they are one and the same people at different times. Culture is incomparably more than just the name of a people. The names of many peoples of Europe were different, changed over time, and this was a source of confusion in written and sources and the subject of speculation at a later time. Only self-name has objective value. For the historical identification of the people, the fourth fundamental feature is also important - the level of social culture: sedentary state,semi-nomadic, nomadic.
In the first millennium BC. most of the territory of the Apennine Peninsula, the southern part of the Alps and the Adriatic coast was occupied by the Etruscans. They determined the development of this region in the last millennium BC. and in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. During the rise of Rome, the territory of the Etruscan cities stretched from the Alps, from the Veneto-Istrian region to Pompeii. It was one of the most advanced ancient civilizations. The unique features of Etruscan culture - the presence of writing in modern letter form, the presence of a fully developed religion, as well as the unique social and federal organization of society - determined the development of this region and all of Europe for many centuries.
Archeology testifies to a high degree of cultural community of the population of the Apennine Peninsula, the Alps and the Adriatic. The degree of this community was for a number of signs (at least in socio-political development) higher than the community of the scattered Greek cities of that time. This is not surprising, because the population lived much more compactly due to the uniqueness of the peninsula and its geographical position and had closer ties than the population of Greek cities scattered over a thousand kilometers along the coasts of various seas.
Rome as a real stable settlement arose as one of the cities of the Etruscan federation - the league of cities and, like all other Etruscan cities, was originally ruled by kings. During the reign of Servius Tullius and Superbus Tarquinius, Rome becomes a self-governing, albeit economically still dependent city. In Rome, there were Etruscan religion, writing, numbers, calendar, holidays. After the change in the political structure of Rome - the transition to republican rule, which gave some rights to the plebeians ("latum pedes") - the city became more independent, but this had economic consequences. Lacking its own area, Rome experienced food difficulties. Bread and other products were brought in from the sea through Ostia (Ustia) at the mouth of the Tiber. Rome needed its own agricultural area. As a result of negotiations with the Etruscan kings and military campaigns,mostly Samnites, a small area southeast of Rome was annexed to it. The annexed area included some Etruscan cities (Tusculum, Preneste, Rutula), as well as part of the adjacent lands of the Sabines, Mars, Samnites, Volsk. This "international" region became known as "Latium" - it is translated from Latin as 'expansion, environment'. In ancient, pre-Roman times, the population of this area was Etruscan, Sabine, Mars, Samnite, Oscans, Umbras. Of the tribes, only the Pomptinian, Ufentinian, and Guernica tribes are known. There were no Latins among the ancient peoples who lived here. Archaeological evidence shows that Etruscan culture also prevailed in Latia. On one of the picturesque White Hills of this area, near the Etruscan city of Tusculum, where such famous Etruscans were born,like Cato Priscus and Cicero, one of the statues of the main ancient god of the Etruscans, Jeova (Jupiter), was installed. Rome proposed a new political system - a republic, which, after a few centuries, established itself in the entire Etruscan federation. The wearing of an Etruscan tunic (toga) was a sign of Roman citizenship.
Promotional video:
It is established that the basis of writing in Rome is the Etruscan alphabet and writing. No one, except for the Etruscans, had alphabetic writing during the period of the rise of Rome. The Etruscans were in intense contact with the Phoenicians (Carthage), who, as you know, passed on their alphabet to the Greeks. The earliest known literal text in history - the inscription on the "Nestor's Cup", was found in the territory of the Etruscans. The Roman alphabet (Latin alphabet) is the (Roman) variant of the Etruscan alphabet. Just like, say, Ionic, Athenian, Corinthian and others are variants of the Greek alphabet. In Rome, the font of the ornate Etruscan letters was changed to simpler and lighter ones. The Etruscan script continued to be used by priests on special occasions. The language of Rome has the structure of the Etruscan language. The dictionary of the Latin language was formed on the basis of the Etruscan language and the language of other ethnic groups who arrived in Rome, mainly the Sabines. The pantheon of the ancient gods of Rome was made up of the ancient gods of the Etruscans. The service in the temples of Rome was based on ancient Etruscan books. Not only kings, but also some of the future Roman emperors and many prominent figures were Etruscan in origin.
In modern historiography, there is an insoluble problem, which consists in the fact that there are no reliable historical data, neither written nor archaeological, confirming the reality of the ancient tribes of the "Latins"; they were not known either before the rise of Rome, or for three to five centuries after the founding of the city. It is necessary to distinguish between the terms "antique Latin" and "Latin" (late). In early Roman times, the ancient population of the territory of the future Latium consisted of various peoples, among which the ancient tribe of "Latins" was not known. They were not known either to the very first ancient authors - the contemporaries of the emergence of Rome and the authors of Greek mythology Hesiod, Homer, nor the later historians Thucydides and Herodotus, who wrote already 300 years after the city was founded. There are no Latin words"Latin" and in the first published code of laws of Rome "XII Tables", written two centuries after the emergence of the city. The first literary use of the term "Latin society" appeared only more than five centuries after the rise of Rome and usually meant incomplete citizens of the republic. There is also no archaeological data confirming the existence of the ancient tribe "Latina", there is nothing that could be somehow connected with them. Broad and massive attempts to find some real evidence of the existence of the tribe of "Latins" in the territory of Latyia were undertaken again in the second half of the last century. But they again did not give the desired result: several more Etruscan cities were discovered in Latia. The first literary use of the term "Latin society" appeared only more than five centuries after the rise of Rome and usually meant incomplete citizens of the republic. There is also no archaeological data confirming the existence of the ancient tribe "Latina", there is nothing that could be somehow connected with them. Broad and massive attempts to find some real evidence of the existence of the tribe of "Latins" in the territory of Latyia were undertaken again in the second half of the last century. But they again did not give the desired result: several more Etruscan cities were discovered in Latia. The first literary use of the term "Latin society" appeared only more than five centuries after the rise of Rome and usually meant incomplete citizens of the republic. There is also no archaeological data confirming the existence of the ancient tribe "Latina", there is nothing that could be somehow connected with them. Broad and massive attempts to find some real evidence of the existence of the tribe of "Latins" in the territory of Latyia were undertaken again in the second half of the last century. But they again did not give the desired result: several more Etruscan cities were discovered in Latia.which could be somehow connected with them. Broad and massive attempts to find some real evidence of the existence of the tribe of "Latins" in the territory of Latyia were undertaken again in the second half of the last century. But they again did not give the desired result: several more Etruscan cities were discovered in Latia.which could be somehow connected with them. Broad and massive attempts to find some real evidence of the existence of the tribe of "Latins" in the territory of Latyia were undertaken again in the second half of the last century. But they again did not give the desired result: several more Etruscan cities were discovered in Latia.
Thus, history does not have any data, either written or archaeological, confirming the reality of the existence of the ancient tribes of the "Latins". The terms “Latin”, “Latius”, “Latin” appeared 3-5 centuries after the rise of Rome. These terms are not directly related to each other, but they have a common linguistic root - the Latin word "latum", meaning "broad, general". The word "Latin" can be translated from the "Latin" language as "broad, general", and does not require anything additional to explain its meaning and origin. Such a neutral name for the language is not unique in history - the same name arose for the first common Greek language; it was called “koine dialectos”, which in Greek has the same meaning as “Latin” in Latin - that is, “common language”. The Koine people also never existed. Subsequently, this first name of the Greek language ceased to be widely used, and the question of the possible existence of the Koine tribes disappeared by itself. But this did not happen with the name of the language of Rome, it survived and gave rise to the hypothesis of the ancient Latins. Something similar is observed today in the process of mastering the English language by the backward population of the Pacific Islands. The resulting hybrid received the contemptuous name "pidgin-english", or simply "pidgin", i.e. literally: "pork English". And it is not excluded that in two thousand years historians will insist on the existence of a separate people "Pidgin". But this did not happen with the name of the language of Rome, it survived and gave rise to the hypothesis of the ancient Latins. Something similar is observed today in the process of mastering the English language by the backward population of the Pacific Islands. The resulting hybrid received the contemptuous name "pidgin-english", or simply "pidgin", i.e. literally: "pork English". And it is not excluded that in two thousand years historians will insist on the existence of a separate people "Pidgin". But this did not happen with the name of the language of Rome, it survived and gave rise to the hypothesis of the ancient Latins. Something similar is observed today in the process of mastering the English language by the backward population of the Pacific Islands. The resulting hybrid received the contemptuous name "pidgin-english", or simply "pidgin", i.e. literally: "pork English". And it is not excluded that in two thousand years historians will insist on the existence of a separate people "Pidgin".that in two thousand years, historians will insist on the existence of a separate Pidgin people.that in two thousand years, historians will insist on the existence of a separate Pidgin people.
The language called "Latin" was formed in the Roman Republic several centuries after the rise of Rome as a result of the mixing of several languages. A similar "Latin" name was given to the small agrarian region of Latium, which is translated from the Latin language as "expansion surrounding". The socio-legal term "Latins" was not ethnic and referred to any resident of the Roman Republic who did not have full Roman citizenship and did not have all the "Roman" rights. A Roman, for example, could not be enslaved by another Roman; at the same time, a Roman could have a Latin slave.
Two centuries after the transition to the republic, the official language of Rome and the language of the army began to be called "Latin", but the republic itself, its citizens, law, then the empire, emperors, all power structures remained "Roman". The terms "Roman" and "Latin" are not equivalent, they have different origins and different contents.
The terms "Latin", "Laty", "Latin" are not the only terms whose etymology goes back to the common root "latum". The supreme god of the ancient pantheon of Etruscan gods, Jeova (Jupiter), in the Roman Republic was also called "Latiar" (another altar of Jeova was at the same time in Macedonia); "Latus fundus" meant "large economy, latifundia", "lati-clavus" means "wide stripe" and is famous for being worn on their togas by senators, "latum pedes" - plebeians and the bulk of the Roman army, etc. In other words, all Latin words with a lati stem (n) come from one common root - the adjective "wide, common." And history does not have any data that speaks in favor of any ethnic content of these words.
The basic linguistic fact of European history is that Latin and Slavic languages have a common genetic root. The origin of the language cannot be established simply on the basis of the coincidence of some words, since many words as a result of the development of contacts have passed from one language to another. All modern languages have a large number of words borrowed from Latin.
The genetic root of a language is the structure of its grammar. Words can easily change, borrow and pass from one language to another, but the grammatical structure, structure of the language, its morphology, syntax do not change. The structure of the language, in contrast to the dictionary and phonetics, is conservative and has not changed, as history shows, for thousands of years. The stability of grammar is demonstrated by all known languages with a long history. Examples include Greek and Latin. The grammar of the Greek language has not changed in 2,800 years. All the principles of grammar, categories have been preserved, only some endings in several types of declensions and phonetics have changed. (Phonetics may differ at the same time in different places of residence.) At the same time, the vocabulary of the Greek language has changed almost completely, and it has changed more than once.
The same stability is demonstrated by the grammar of the Latin language: the structure of grammar, all its categories, principles, forms, constructions have been preserved. Only some of the endings have changed. At the same time, the vocabulary of the Latin language was changing. In general, any living language is an example of how much its vocabulary has changed in a relatively short period of time. Every European language currently has a so-called. The “old language” is its predecessor, which was used only 7-8 centuries ago. But what each language has in common with its "old language" is the structure of language and grammar.
Comparison of the grammars of all European languages with the grammar of the Latin language reveals that the Slavic languages are the closest to the Latin language. And not just the closest, but fundamentally and cardinally close - all the basics of grammar, all categories, principles, constructions, forms coincide. The only difference is in some endings. (There were fewer differences in the endings between the Old Church Slavonic and Latin.)
And at the same time, the grammars of the so-called Romance languages are fundamentally different from Latin, there is practically nothing in common between them. They have a completely different, non-Latin, grammatical basis, a different syntax, morphology. Unlike Latin grammar, the "Romance" languages have no declensions, cases, neuter, a completely different system of verb forms, a different syntax, but there are articles (in Italian there are the greatest number of them) - that is, everything is exactly the opposite of Latin. It is difficult to compare, in essence, the Latin grammar and the grammars of the "Romance" languages, since it is not clear what exactly can be compared.
Latin and Slavic languages stand apart from all the others: they are the only ones that do not have articles, they have the same number of cases and not only nouns, but other parts of speech are inclined, they have a common system of verb forms that differs from all other languages, a different syntax and much more. The list of grammatical categories, forms and structures common to Latin and Slavic languages and absent or fundamentally different from other European languages can be continued.
This basic linguistic fact reflects the historical events of one and a half thousand years ago, which took place during the collapse of the Roman Empire, the time when the Germanic and Gothic nomadic tribes of "barbarians" of central Europe flooded the Apennine peninsula. They came with their own language, but naturally they borrowed many words from Latin. The popular language of the Roman Empire with its grammatical basis was preserved in its Byzantine part. Latin and Slavic languages are united not only by grammar. The kinship between Latin and Slavic languages is confirmed by another sign. As you know, there are no less Latin words in Slavic languages than in other languages. As noted from the simple presence of Latin words, the affinity of this language to Latin does not yet follow. What really matters is which words match. In Latin and Slavic languages, the fundamental, original root words coincide, which arose at the earliest stage of the formation of the language, and did not get into it as a result of later contacts, as happened in other languages. For example, words such as house, mother, moon, sun were formed at the very initial stage of language development and did not change significantly. Latin words dom, mater, luna, sol, nova, est, fructa, semena, vera, volo, sibi, mini, tibi, tui, nema, pasti, ne, vidit, vertit, stoit, brosh, pripea, vethum (old), atque (read 'ake'), nunce ('now'), spina, cost, persona and many others do not need translation. Let's note one more historically very important Etruscan-Latin and Old Slavic word 'perur' (to burn), which is the root of the name of the god of the ancient Slavs Perun. A double coincidence is also very important: in Latin the word 'est' has the same two meanings as in Russian - 'to be' and 'to eat' (food). Such an overlap cannot be the result of simple borrowing. This is a fundamental original coincidence.
Old Slavonic and Old Russian languages were even closer in vocabulary to Latin. In the Old Church Slavonic language, for example, the word "eat" meant the same as in Latin - to cook food, cook. Slavic languages either grew out of Latin, or they, together with Latin, grew out of a common root.
As for the Etruscan language, everything that is known about its grammar coincides with the corresponding forms of the Latin language. This is a linguistic confirmation of the historical fact that the Latin language was formed on the basis of Etruscan, and the Etruscan language was the predecessor of Latin, i.e. is essentially an "old Latin" language. Also, say, the Old Slavonic language was the predecessor of the Old Bulgarian, Old Russian …
During the collapse of the Roman Empire, its indigenous people were ousted by the Germanic and Gothic nomadic tribes of "barbarians" from the Apennine Peninsula to the mainland, to the Byzantine part of the empire and gradually began to be called Slavs. The folk language of the European part of Byzantium, called the folk Latin (latina rustica) or the Old Slavonic language, had, like all modern Slavic languages, the structure and grammar of the Latin language.
We are not using now Glagolitsa, this 38-letter alphabet, according to tradition, compiled for church literature. The origin of the alphabet that is used today and is also referred to as "Cyrillic" is not precisely established. It was used in inscriptions, for example, on the territory of Bulgaria, long before the appearance of the first Christian Slavic literature. According to its composition, it is an insignificant modification of the Etruscan alphabet, in which two additional letters 'b', 'U' are introduced. Of all the alphabets known in History, Etruscan is the closest to the "Cyrillic" alphabet. The difference in two letters that are not consonants is not substantive and much less fundamental than the differences that existed, for example, between the numerous variants of the Greek alphabet (Ionic, Athenian, Corinthian, Samos, Katchiski,Byzantine-Greek and others). The Cyrillic alphabet differs less from the ancient Etruscan alphabet than from any variant of the Greek alphabet. It is well known that consonants formed the basis of all known alphabets. And they completely coincide with the Etruscan; at the same time, there are several consonants in the "Cyrillic" alphabet that are not present in any of the "Greek" variants.
The presence of two alphabets among the Slavs when changing religion is not an accidental and non-trivial phenomenon, it has a deep foundation. The majority of scientists do not doubt the existence of a pre-Christian Slavic writing system. She was pagan and had no historical chance of surviving.
The pre-Christian religion of Perun is the later religion of the Etruscans. Only one name of the god of the pagan monotheists of the European part of Byzantium is known - it is Perun. Perun's symbolism was found in ancient Etruscan burials and cities in various places on the Apennine Peninsula, Byzantium, Bulgaria, and Slavic principalities.
It is very important that this pre-Christian religion was unique: in Europe there was no other full-fledged real pre-Christian religion besides the one that the Etruscans had, then the Romans and, finally, the Slavs. Greek mythology was not associated with certain religious cults with the pantheon of gods and was not a real religion. “The Greeks did not have the very word to denote religion.” (Britannica, 1989, vol. 18, 911). The level of religion of the "barbarian" (Germanic, Gothic, Celtic) tribes was much lower. Human sacrifice was practiced. Religion was more a personal relationship of a person to his chosen idol than a generally accepted cult. Human sacrifices among the Celts were prohibited by the Roman emperor Claudius, and among the German-Scandinavian tribes they still continued in the 8th century A. D. (Britannica 1989, vol. 18, p. 896).
Iovi (Java, Jeova) was the main god of the ancient pantheon of the Etruscan gods. (It is customary to call him Jupiter.) The kings of Macedonia worshiped the Etruscan god Jehova-Sun, one of the altars of which was located on one of the highest places in Thrace. The Etruscan-Roman religion came in its development to the only god of all things, Jeova-Sun (Perun). The name Perun comes from the Etruscan-Roman word for 'burn, burn'.
Penates are the ancestral gods of the ancient Etruscans and guardian angels of the house of the late Slavs. Pop is the rank of an Etruscan priest.
Initially, another personal name of Christ was used in Byzantium - "Radimir". The etymology of this name is Slavic. It means "savior." Constantine I the Great (Constantine Valery) and his father used this very Slavic name of Christ when referring to him (Eusebius. Vita Constantini, 2.49).
In Europe, in its entire history, only two monotheistic religions were known: Perun and Christ-Radimir. The choice between them was the religious problem of the Proto-Slavs and many emperors of Rome and Byzantium, including Constantine the Great. The first Christian emperor, until the end of his life, could not finally break with the religion of his ancestors: he saw his first Christogram in the rays of the sun, when Constantinople was consecrated, the central object was the chariot of the Sun God, over which towered a cross. (Until now, in the republics of Yugoslavia, the cross of Christ is combined with the rays of the sun.) At the beginning of the 6th century, a historical split occurred in Byzantium - a part of the Proto-Slavs adhering to the old (pagan) monotheistic religion of Perun was forced to leave Byzantium. In the literature in the Byzantine-Greek language, the term "sklavin" appeared. Latin authors called them "Veneti" - this shows their place of residence and origin - the Veneto-Istrian region of the Roman Empire.
The religious and political split marked the beginning of the formation of separate (as it is commonly called, Slavic) state formations. But this did not completely solve the internal problem of the European part of Byzantium. Oscillations between Christ and Perun that existed for a long time continued. The commitment of the emperors of Byzantium also fluctuated: Justinian declared his commitment to Christ, his successor, Justin II, to Perun.
For pagan Russia, Constantinople remained the main capital - Constantinople. It should be emphasized this important fact that not for Christians, but for pagans, who did not accept Christianity for more than three centuries, the Christian capital of Byzantium was the main city! Russian squads fought on the side of Byzantium being pagans. Between Byzantium and Russia there were treaties on the provision of military assistance to the emperor. The Russian military squad was constantly present in Constantinople and it was a reliable protector of the emperor. In Byzantium itself, the attitude to these facts was ambivalent. Some Christian chroniclers sometimes called the campaigns of the Russian squads to provide military assistance to Constantinople an attack on it, but many of these reports are not confirmed by other sources or archaeological data. This important discrepancy once again demonstrates the depth of the religious intolerance that existed in Byzantium, as well as the fact that the emperor of Byzantium did not always agree with the patriarch in military matters. For the emperor it was military aid, for the patriarch and some Christian chroniclers it was an "attack." Both were right in their own way: for the patriarch of Byzantium, this military aid was apparently an "invasion of pagans" (pagans) into his religious domain.for the patriarch of Byzantium, this military aid was apparently an "invasion of pagans" (pagans) into his religious domain.for the patriarch of Byzantium, this military aid was apparently an "invasion of pagans" (pagans) into his religious domain.
The transition at the beginning of the 11th century of the Eastern Slavic principalities to Christianity resolved a very deep, painful and almost thousand-year-old historical problem: the powerful pagan religion that served as the ideological basis of the statehood of the Etruscans-Romans-Slavs is gone. To our great regret, together with her left - and she could not help but leave - pagan literature and with it the early pre-Christian prehistory of the Slavs.
It must be said here that there is and cannot be any doubt about the superiority of Christianity over the pagan religion, and even over its late monotheistic form of the god Perun. Everything pagan had to go. Fortunately, apart from pagan literature, not everything is gone. Material data remained.
National writing and literature in Europe began to take shape in the Middle Ages. Before that, only Greek and Latin writing and literature existed. The literature of the Franks and Slavs were the first texts of the national literatures of Europe. The first literary text in Italian (and not in Latin!) Appeared only at the end of the 12th century i.e. almost 200 years later than the Bulgarian, Russian and other Slavic literary texts. Slavic literature appeared much earlier than the national literature of other peoples of Europe: for example, 300 years earlier than the semi-syllabic (not purely literal) Icelandic, which was the first among all Scandinavian literature.
Tradition is also one of the fundamental features of a people.
It makes little sense to list the surviving traditions. Almost all of our old traditions date back to Etruscan traditions, including Shrovetide (Etruscan Spring Festival) and the tradition of decorating eggs. The egg was a highly revered object among the Etruscans.
One of the most outstanding, vital achievements of the Etruscans was their domestication of the wild chicken ("rustic bird"). The "rustic bird" image can be found on Etruscan vases, sometimes along with a five-pointed star. Small vessels for ink were also made in the form of a rustic bird and decorated with the alphabet.
The word "rustic" was used by the Etruscans to denote a properly organized agriculture of a high level, the word "culture" among the Etruscans-Romans meant agricultural methods of cultivation. The fertile area near Valeria was called Rosia or Rosea. (According to Roman historians, hemp grew there as tall as a fruit tree.)
Until the 18th century, Russia, Russia celebrated the New Year, like the ancient Etruscans, on March 1. Among the Etruscans, the New Year began on the first calendar of the year, i.e. March 1. The first Etruscan calendar had 10 months and began in March, the first day of the month was called the calendula. January and February were added to the calendar later. The names of the first months came from the names of the ancient gods of the Etruscans. For example, the name of the month June was given in honor of the Etruscan goddess Yuno, whose famous temple was erected in the ancient Etruscan city of Valeria. The names of the last 5 months repeat the names of numbers from 6 to 10. This explains why the last month, December, does not mean “twelfth”, but “tenth”. The sixth and seventh month names were later replaced by Julius Caesar and their first emperor Augustus.
Many Slavic names and Etruscan names. Here are just some Etruscan names - Aleksatr, Valeriy, Servius, Evgeenei, Tuliy, Olei, Russus, Julius, Anina, Julia, Anna, Larisa, Zina, Lena, Tanna, Sveita; the names of the regions - Veneta, Rosea (Rosia), Valeria, Veya, and the names of the cities - Rusila, Perussia, Antiy, Arbat, Valeria, Adria, Spina, Dobruya, Ravenna, Ostia (Ustia), Veya, Kume, Populonia, Saturnia, Fessenia other.
The name Valery, contained in the full name of Constantine I the Great, the founder of Constantinople, as well as in the names of many other Roman and Byzantine emperors, indicates their roots in the old Etruscan family of Valerius, which was known from the 9th century BC.
In the city of Fescinia, neighboring to Valeria (from whose name the word festival comes from), annual Festinian holidays of folk satirical songs-couplets (ditties) were held.
An important material sign of the historical identification of a culture is the burial ceremony. Etruscan culture is clearly identified by a burial rite that is absent among other peoples: cremation and burial in urns. This rite was preserved among the pre-Christian pagans of Russia.
Historical information is very different in its reliability. No matter how respectful one is to historical literature, nevertheless it cannot be idealized. The problem of historical literature is, as you know, that as a result of non-preservation and repeated rewriting of manuscripts, it is not always clear what is truth in it, and what is fiction or intention.
Archaeological information, material cultural data (linguistic, pre-Christian religion, traditions and others) not only compensate for the loss of literature - they do not lend themselves to falsification and this determines their priority.
"The Tale of Bygone Years" is an outstanding and worthy monument of ancient literature to be proud of, but not an indisputable history textbook. This story is a monument to religious instructive literature, the main pivot of which is the struggle against paganism. The early (pagan) history of ancient Russia is excluded (greatly distorted) from the Tale.
We repeat once again: there can be no doubts about the laws governing the transition to Christianity, but historically, the prehistory of the Slavs is pagan, and in the highest degree developed.
It has been reliably established that the legend about the alleged invitation of unknown "Varangians" and a number of other events described in the story are unhistorical.
There are sufficient grounds to assert that the emperor Augustus, like some other Roman emperors (Claudius, Otho, Constantine …) and his deputy, the famous Metsenas, were Etruscans by origin. Russian princes knew this in the 10th century, when they derived their ancestry from Augustus.
Facts are known that the failure to preserve the manuscripts of the Etruscans, ancient Slavs in the past was not always the result of natural disasters. It is alarming that some Etruscan inscriptions have already been lost in our time. But there are also archaeological sites. There is still, and, following Yugoslavia, the sky above them is by no means cloudless (Bizantino-Bulgarica, n.9, 1995, p. 37).
Vladimir Popov