LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXX (1993) PERIFERINĖS LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMĖS

F. D. KLIMCHUK

THE BALTIC–POLESIAN AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN–POLESIAN ETHNOCULTURAL AREAS

In the ancient history of Europe, the Alpine–Carpathian mountain belt played a major role¹. To its north, the glacier exerted a significant influence on the climate; to the south, the role of the glacier was considerably smaller. Consequently, conditions for people’s economic activity differed in the two parts of Europe. South of the Carpathians and on the Balkan Peninsula, productive forms of economy—agriculture and animal husbandry—had already developed in the VI–V millennia BC². North of the Alpine–Carpathian belt, appropriative forms of economy—hunting, gathering, and fishing—continued to predominate at this time. In ancient times, under a productive economy, people could obtain sixteen times more food from the same area than under the predominance of appropriative forms of economic activity³. Therefore, in the VI–V millennia BC, south of the Carpathians (and above all on the Balkan Peninsula), population size and density increased sharply. But the climate in the zone north of the Carpathians and the Alps gradually changed, and living conditions there began to approach those of southern Europe. The economy there, however, remained appropriative, while population density remained low. Thus, a kind of disproportion arose: living conditions were relatively similar in both zones, population density was high in the southern zone and low in the northern one. This led to migrations from the southern zone to the northern one⁴. The main migrations passed from the Middle Danube through the Moravian Gate.

North of the Carpathians, a stable cultural community—the Swiderian culture (X–VIII millennia BC)—formed as early as the Upper Paleolithic⁵. Its area included the basins of the Vistula, upper Oder, Pripyat, Desna, upper Dnieper, Western Dvina, and Neman, as well as adjacent territories of northern Czechoslovakia and southern Estonia. Subsequently, a group of related cultures, the so-called Swiderian-related cultures (VII–VI millennia BC), formed on the basis of the Swiderian culture⁶.

1 Godłowski K., Kozłowski J. K. Historia starożytna ziem polskich. Warszawa, 1983. S. 34. Kukharenko Yu. V. Archaeology of Polesie. M.,1969. P. 20. Rybakov B. A. Paganism of the Ancient Slavs. M., 1981. P. 147. 2 Mongait A. L. Archaeology of Western Europe. The Stone Age. M., 1973. P. 200–224. Dovzhenok V. M. Geography of the Stone Age. M., 1979. P. 110–136. Formozov A. A. Problems of the Ethnocultural History of the Stone Age in the Territory of the European Part of the USSR. M., 1977. P. 9. 3 Formozov A. A. Problems of the Ethnocultural History... P. 15. 4 Rybakov B. A. Paganism... P. 147. 5 Archaeology of the USSR. The Paleolithic. M., 1984. P. 171, 223, 224. Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 1. Kyiv, 1985. P. 95. 6 Telegin D. Ya. Mesolithic Sites of Ukraine. Kyiv, 1982. P. 143. Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 1... P. 83–106.

47

As a result of migrations and other types of cultural influence, predominantly north of the Carpathians and the Alps, in the V millennium BC a Linear Band Pottery culture formed over the territory extending from Britain in the west to southern Volhynia and northern Moldavia in the east.⁷ Its substrate consisted of several cultures, including the southern part of the former Swiderian culture. The superimposition of the Linear Band Pottery culture on part of the former Swiderian culture initiated the division of the latter’s area into southern and northern regions. We shall provisionally call the northern region Baltic–Polesian and the southern region Central European–Polesian. In the northern region, predominantly autochthonous traditions continued to develop without significant southern influences. The southern region, however, resulted from the superimposition of Balkan–Danubian traditions on Swiderian ones.

In the middle of the IV millennium BC, a new significant wave of migrations from the Middle Danube to the north took place along the same route through the Moravian Gate, accompanied by the formation of a new community. This community was the Lengyel culture (3500–2500 BC).⁸ Its original center of formation was the Middle Danube. Its area included the Middle Danube, Moravia, western Slovakia, central and southern Poland, southern Volhynia, and northern Galicia. This is predominantly the Central European–Polesian area identified by us.

In the V millennium BC, related Comb Ceramic cultures began to form⁹. In the middle of the V millennium BC, the Neman and Dnieper–Donets cultures formed; in the first half of the III millennium BC, the Valday, Usvyaty, and Narva cultures formed. They existed until the beginning of the II millennium BC. The common area of the Comb Ceramic cultures included the territory of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, a significant part of Ukraine, the regions of Russia adjacent to the Baltic and Belarus, and Poland (in the rest of Poland, the Neman culture spread only in the middle of the III millennium BC). This area largely coincides with that of the Swiderian culture.

In the second quarter of the IV millennium BC, the Funnel Beaker culture formed¹⁰. Its most probable initial area was Jutland and the neighboring regions of present-day Germany and Poland. It lay west of the former Swiderian area. Subsequently, the Funnel Beaker culture spread across a vast territory from the Netherlands in the west to Volhynia and Western Polesia in the east, and from southern Scandinavia in the north to the northern part in the south. East of the Oder, it was intrusive. In the territory of eastern Poland, Volhynia, and Polesia, this culture appeared around 2500 BC. It existed until the end of the III millennium BC. The Central European–Polesian area lay within the Funnel Beaker culture’s area, while the Baltic–Polesian area lay beyond its boundaries.

7 Mongait A. L. Archaeology of Western Europe. The Stone Age... P. 224–232. Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 1... P. 126–133.

8 Mongait A. L. Archaeology of Western Europe. The Stone Age... P. 234–237. Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 1... P. 268–273.

9 Isaenko V. F. Settlements of Pripyat Polesia. Minsk, 1976. P. 108–127.

10 Mongait A. L. Archaeology of Western Europe. The Stone Age... P. 272–278. Archaeology of the USSR. The USSR Era. M., 1982. P. 259–262. Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 1... P. 225, 273–280. Kukharenko Yu. V. Archaeology of Poland... P. 42–45.

48

A major role in the ancient ethnic history of Central and Eastern Europe belongs to the Globular Amphora culture (2900–2000 BCE)¹¹. Its area covered Poland, Bohemia, eastern Germany, southwestern Belarusian Neman region, a considerable part of Ukraine (Volhynia, Galicia, Podolia, most of Volhynia and Zhytomyr Polesia, as well as the Middle Dnieper region), and northeastern Romania. It mainly repeats the area of the Lengyel culture, but is considerably broader than the latter. The formation of the Globular Amphora culture in the eastern part of its area, particularly in Polesia and the Dnieper region, was connected with significant migrations from the west. The traditions of this culture, both west and east of the Western Bug, persisted in subsequent cultures—the Corded Ware and Trzciniec–Komarów cultures. The Central European–Polesian area constituted the main part of the Globular Amphora culture’s area, whereas the Baltic–Polesian area lay beyond its limits.

At the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, the Corded Ware, or Battle Axe, culture formed¹². Its area extended from the Rhine in the west to the Middle Volga in the east, and from southern Scandinavia and southern Finland in the north to the Middle Danube and the Dnieper rapids region in the south. This area included the Central European–Polesian, Baltic–Polesian, and other regions. During the period under consideration, not only cultural consolidation took place, but also various migration processes, the nature of which is far from finally resolved. A single ethnos could not have formed throughout the entire area of the Corded Ware culture. Yet cultural unity contributed to the consolidation of related ethnic groups.

In the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, the Trzciniec–Komarów cultural community formed on the basis of local variants of the Corded Ware culture¹³. It is sometimes called a culture, while at other times the Trzciniec, Komarów, and Sosnytsia cultures are distinguished within it. The area of this community comprised the basins of the middle and upper Oder, the middle and upper Vistula, the Western Bug, the upper Dniester, the Pripyat, the lower and middle Desna, and the Seim, as well as part of the Middle and Upper Dnieper regions. This area corresponds to the Central European–Polesian region. Unlike the preceding periods (the Lengyel and Globular Amphora cultures), it underwent considerable expansion in a northeastern direction.

At the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 1st millennium BCE, the Trzciniec–Komarów area was divided into three parts: western (the Lusatian culture), southeastern (the Belohrudivka, followed by the Chornolis culture), and northeastern

¹¹ Segetnikov I. K. The Globular Amphora Culture. // Archaeology of the USSR. Compendium of Archaeological Sources. Issue ВІ-27. Moscow, 1983. Mongait A. L. Archaeology of Western Europe. The Stone Age... P. 278–279. Archaeology of the USSR. The Eneolithic of the USSR. Moscow, 262–263. Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 1... P. 280–291. Rybakov B. A. Paganism... P. 230–231.

¹² Archaeology of the USSR. The Bronze Age of the Forest Zone of the USSR. Moscow, 1987. P. 35–84. Mongait A. L. Archaeology of Western Europe. The Stone Age... P. 275–278.

¹³ Berezanskaya S. S. The Middle Bronze Age in Northern Ukraine. Kyiv, 1972. Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 1... P. 422, 428–445. Kukharenko Yu. V. Archaeology of Poland... P. 61, 70. Archaeology of the USSR. The Bronze Age... P. 106–124. Rybakova B. A. Paganism... P. 221–222.

49

(the Milograd, followed by the Lebedyn cultures)¹⁴. After a chronological interruption, the former Trzciniec–Komarów area (more precisely, the Central European–Polesian area) was “restored.” This was connected with the emergence of the related Wielbark (2nd century BCE–5th century CE) and Zarubintsy (3rd century BCE–2nd century CE) cultures. Then the area under consideration was again divided and, after another chronological interruption, “restored” once more. The latter was connected with the formation of the Prague culture /5th–7th centuries/. B. A. Rybakov drew attention to the coincidence of the areas of the Trzciniec–Komarów, Przeworsk–Zarubintsy, and Prague cultures¹⁵. The researcher sees the reasons for this coincidence as follows. In the Trzciniec people he sees fully formed Proto-Slavs, which is quite probable. In his opinion, the division of the areas occurred in connection with the formation of new cultural centers that incorporated parts of the Proto-Slavic area into their sphere of influence. B. A. Rybakov sees the reasons for the “restoration” of the areas of the archaeological cultures mentioned above primarily in the fact that these cultures created, in different chronological periods, one and the same ethnos (in this case, the Proto-Slavs). While not all researchers share B. A. Rybakov’s view concerning the Slavic affiliation of the Trzciniec–Komarów culture, the Slavic character of the Prague culture is considered generally recognized.

After the “disintegration” of the Corded Ware cultural community, the Baltic–Polesian area represented a relative unity. In the 1st millennium BCE, it disintegrated into three regions: the first occupied the former land of the Prussians, as well as western Lithuania and southwestern Latvia; the second, eastern Lithuania, southeastern Latvia, and northwestern and central Belarus (the Brushed Pottery culture); the third, the Middle and Upper Dvina regions, the Upper Dnieper region, and the Desna basin¹⁶. Most researchers consider the cultures of all three regions Baltic.

We may regard certain cultural communities, or parts thereof, as transitional between the Central European–Polesian and Baltic–Polesian regions. They apparently included a population that was ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous. Such communities include, in particular, a considerable part of the Milograd culture (8th–3rd centuries BCE), part of the Zarubintsy and Late Zarubintsy cultural communities, and the Bantser or Kolochin–Bantser culture (5th–8th centuries)¹⁷.

The earliest history is known to us primarily through so-called archaeological cultures. In this work, we operate with this concept. What did these cultures represent? What was their relationship to ethnoses? The uniformity of archaeological cultures indicates that they were left by an ancient (or medieval) society representing some kind of unity, within

¹⁴ Rybakov B. A. Paganism... P. 224. Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 2. Kyiv, 1986. P. 29–36, 39–43, Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR. Vol. 1... P. 445–450, 449–512.

¹⁵ Rybakov B. A. Paganism... P. 214–230.

¹⁶ Sedov V. V. The Slavs of the Upper Dnieper and Dvina Regions. Moscow, 1970. P. 11–33.

¹⁷ Baran V. D. The Slavs in the Middle of the 1st Millennium CE. // Problems of the Ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Kyiv, 1978. P. 5–39.

50

through which constant contacts were carried out. This contributed to ethnolinguistic consolidation. But related groups consolidated first and foremost. Most archaeological cultures were, in all likelihood, ethnically heterogeneous. Yet in many of them, apparently, conditions arose for the consolidation of one or several ethnic groups united by an archaeological culture, which is quite understandable: bilingualism and multilingualism were widespread in ancient societies—this has been demonstrated by researchers on the basis of ethnographic materials, i.e. information about peoples who lived under Stone Age conditions as late as the XIX–XX centuries. ¹⁸. Everywhere, archaeological cultures changed. The reasons varied. In some cases, this was the result of cultural and economic changes; in others, of “political” regroupings or an influx of people of other ethnic origins, and so on.

We examined the sequence of changes in archaeological cultures in the area between the Carpathians and the Baltic Sea in the earliest times up to the second half of the I millennium A.D. When the areas of these cultures or groups of related cultures are superimposed, the following picture emerges. Two areas stand out whose boundaries largely do not intersect with the boundaries of the areas in question and which, at the same time, are separated from neighboring areas by clusters of such boundaries. We provisionally called these areas the Central European-Polesian and Baltic-Polesian areas (see above). In these areas, when archaeological cultures changed, the new culture usually spread across the entire area or most of it. Therefore, each area maintained cultural and economic uniformity for a long period. Apparently, if fairly numerous representatives of a new ethnic group appeared within an area, they settled throughout the area; the appearance of this ethnic group did not lead to the division of the area into parts. Thus, conditions for the formation of an ethnic group existed in each of the areas mentioned. Perhaps it is not accidental that, in historical times, Balts are attested in the Baltic-Polesian area, while Slavs are attested in the Central European-Polesian area. The material presented allows us to suggest that the areas under consideration are directly related to Baltic and Slavic glotto- and ethnogenesis.

The boundary between the Central European-Polesian and Baltic-Polesian areas changed. In particular, it shifted in a northeastern direction.

Polesia was one of the regions where the cultures of both areas remained in contact for a long period. Both Baltic and archaic Slavic hydronymy are widespread across a considerable part of Polesia¹⁹. North of western and central Polesia, however, archaic Slavic hydronymy is absent. South of Polesia, compact Baltic hydronymy is absent.

¹⁸ History of Primitive Society. The Era of the Primitive Tribal Community. Moscow, 1986. Pp. 469, 473, 478.

¹⁹ Gorodov V. N. and Trubachev O. N. Linguistic Analysis of the Hydronyms of the Upper Dniester Region. Moscow, 1962. Trubachev O. N. Names of the Rivers of Right-Bank Ukraine. Moscow, 1968. Klimchuk O. D. On the Specific Features of the Hydronymic Landscape of a Slavic Microzone. // Scholarly Notes of Tartu State University. Works on Russian and Slavic Philology. Questions of the Formation and Development of the Language System. Tartu, 1981. Pp. 52–59. Klimchuk O. D., Sanchuk L. R. Hydronyms of Vygauzyan Polesia (Mobitsa-Ethnic Interpretation) // Word Formation and Nominative Derivation in Slavic Languages // Abstracts of Papers of the II Republican Conference /25–26 September 1986/ Part II. Grodno, 1986. Pp. 64–67.

51

Fig. 1. Boundaries of archaeological cultures + + + + — Swiderian and Swiderian-like; ᴛ ᴛ ᴛ ᴛ Comb Ceramic; — — — — Linear Band Ceramic; · · · · · Funnel Beaker

Fig. 2. Boundaries of archaeological cultures x x x x Lengyel; ᴛ ᴛ ᴛ ᴛ Globular Amphora; — — — Tschinets-Komarov; · · · · · Corded Ware and Early Zarubintsy; — · — · — Prague.

52

THE BALTIC POLESĖ AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN POLESĖ ETHNOCULTURAL AREAS

Abstract

The article reviews the area extending between the Carpathians and the Baltic Sea, and the changes in archaeological cultures from the earliest times to the second half of the 1st millennium AD. Based on the clusters of boundaries of those cultures, two areas are distinguished, conditionally called the archaeological cultures of Central European Polesė and Baltic Polesė. Historical data indicate that Balts lived in the Baltic Polesė area, while Slavs lived in the Central European Polesė area. The material presented shows that the aforementioned Baltic and Slavic areas were connected by glottogenetic and ethnogenetic ties. The boundaries of Central European Polesė changed through bilingualism, most often shifting eastward. Polesė is one of the regions where the cultures of both areas were in contact for a long time. Archaic hydronymy, both Baltic and Slavic, is widespread over a large part of Polesė. North of western Polesė there is no archaic Slavic hydronymy, while in the southern part of Polesė there is no compact Baltic hydronymy.

53