Attempts to define the borders of the Belarusian national space have been made since the second half of the 19th century. This issue was also widely discussed in the pages of Belarusian emigration press, where not only the questions of ethnographic borders of Belarus were considered, but also geographical borders.
In Central and Eastern Europe, the most important and characteristic national feature has been (and apparently still is) the language, which lends itself easily to objective scientific assertion. Therefore, taking into account the political and historical circumstances, the ethnographic maps of Belarus from the 19th and 20th centuries are primarily maps of the spread of the Belarusian language.
The ethnographic borders of Belarus were discussed in such Belarusian emigration publications as: “Batskaushchyna,” “Belarusian Thought,” “Veda,” “Zapisy.” This issue was of interest to: M. Agniavida, A. Bahrovich, R. Maksimovich, I. Kasyak, V. Syankevich, Chuly Naziralnik, Licwin-Hudas-Krews, Y. Stankevich.
Reflections on the ethnographic borders of Belarus were concluded by Ryhor Maksimovich with the words of Pyotr Byassonov from 1871: “Thus, White Ruthenia embraced, united and defined its land, a whole and vast region, from the Dvina to the Neman and in the adjacent coastal areas, from the Polish borders in the Kingdom and under the Crown to the Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk, where it cut into Great Russia as far as Mozhaisk, and further south along the flow of rivers, especially the Dnieper, merging gradually with Little Russia” (R. Maksimovich, On the Issue of the Southern Ethnographic Border of Belarus, in: “Zapisy,” No. 1 (5), New York 1954, p. 24).
The New York journal “Veda” published extensive information not only about the ethnographic borders of Belarus but also about the geographical ones. Since the state borders of Belarus changed continuously, the author of the publication, Yan Stankevich, examined them according to two periods: the period of separate Belarusian principalities and the period of the unified Belarusian state, known as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Y. Stankevich, Ethnographic and Historical Territories and Borders of Belarus, in: “Veda,” Nos. 9-10 (14-15), September-October 1952, pp. 257-279).
As Yan Stankevich wrote, the more or less systematically documented history of Belarus dates back to the middle of the 9th century. At that time, the Normans (i.e., Swedes, Norwegians) attacked Belarusian principalities for the purpose of plunder. An attempt to conquer Belarusian lands was made in 980 by Vladimir of Kyiv, and then by his successors. Wars occurred between Belarusian principalities and Ukrainian ones, led by the Grand Duchy of Kyiv. It ended with a victory for the Belarusians in the sense that the Belarusian principalities preserved their independence. This was formally and legally confirmed at the congress in the northern town of Lyubech in 1097. Apart from the Grand Duchy of Polotsk, which had been independent before, other Belarusian principalities were obliged only to assist Ukraine in its wars with the Turkic-Tatar peoples.
Yan Stankevich listed the individual Belarusian principalities of this period.
The Grand Duchy of Polotsk had three centers: Polotsk, Vitebsk, and Minsk. At the height of its development, Polotsk covered all Belarusian lands to the west, including Vilnius, Novgorod, Slonim, Vawkavysk, Hrodna up to the border with Mazovia. To the south, part of Polotsk’s territory included a portion of Polesie with Slutsk and Kletsk. Polotsk also encompassed a large part of present-day Latvia, including the towns of Hertsik and Kukeynas near the Dvina.
The Grand Duchy of Smolensk encompassed all of Smolensk land, including Mozhaisk and Rzhev. In addition, the Smolensk principality included Mstsislaw and Toropets in Pskov region. The Belarusian part of Tver region also extended to Smolensk, notes Y. Stankevich.
The Grand Duchy of Seversk covered Seversk, meaning the later Chernihiv Governorate, Kursk, and part of Oryol. It also included the southern part of Mahilou region.
The fate of the Turov-Pinsk Principality was difficult. The principality, created by the trees (druzhinas) with such cities as Auroch, Karastyn, and Malin, was quickly conquered by Ukrainian Polans. Shortly thereafter, the wooden-Dregovich principality arose with its center in Turov near Pripyat. In 1017, it was dissolved as a result of the victory of Yaroslav Volodymyrovich over the Turov prince Svyatopolk. Only in the middle of the 12th century, with the weakening of Kyiv’s role, was the Turov-Pinsk Principality restored, whose territory was Polesie.
The Grand Duchy of Ryazan was formed by the Belarusian tribe of the Vyatichs. Its territory encompassed the governorates: Ryazan, part of Moscow, Tula, Kaluga, and most of Oryol. With the exception of part of the Vyatich land, which lay to the west of the upper Oka, the Vyatich language was Russified, but it retained only Belarusian elements, which leaves no doubt about its former Belarusian identity, notes Yan Stankevich in the pages of the journal “Veda.”
The large Belarusian tribe of Krivichs not only created the Polotsk and Smolensk Principalities but also the tribal-Krivich Republic of Great Pskov, whose territory was near Lake Pskov. Initially, Pskov belonged to Great Novgorod. For the liberation of Pskov from Novgorod, the Grand Duchy of Polotsk waged fierce wars. In 1136, Pskov freed itself from Novgorod and became independent.
A large part of the Belarusians of the Krivich tribe was in the Grand Duchy of Tver. They constituted no less than a third of the entire population. Besides Belarusians, the inhabitants of Tver region included Novgorodians and, perhaps, Suzdalites, writes Yan Stankevich.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed from the mid-13th century to the end of the 18th century, but you will hear about this in a week.