(Special Study on Ethnic Attribution)
The specialized study of archaeological monuments from the 4th to 7th centuries AD in the Smolensk Poudvin and adjacent territories of Podvin began in the mid-1950s by the Upper Dnieper group of the Slavic expedition of the Institute of History of Material Culture of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR under the leadership of P.N. Tretyakov. As a result of the first years of research, quite peculiar fortified settlements were identified – refuges from the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD, and complexes of artifacts from this period were obtained. Since some of the refuges also had structures of special sanctuaries, P.N. Tretyakov named them fortified sanctuaries of the Tushemlin type after the first most studied object (Tretyakov, 1958, pp. 170-186). The time of their existence and destruction in the fires was determined to be the 6th-7th centuries AD, and an opinion was expressed regarding their Eastern Baltic ethnic affiliation (Tretyakov, 1958, p. 170). It was later established that some of the refuges did not include sanctuaries and were simple fortified refuges. The main settlements of that time were unfortified villages – selyshcha (Ustye, Sloboda-Hlushytsia, etc.).
Summarizing the study of antiquities from the 1st millennium AD in the Smolensk Poudvin, P.N. Tretyakov concludes: “In the framework of the late 7th-8th centuries, a serious danger loomed over the inhabitants of this region. Numerous fortified refuges began to be constructed everywhere… By the end of the 1st millennium AD, all these fortified refuges perished in fire… The destruction of the fortified refuges, in our opinion, should be directly linked to the appearance of numerous new populations, likely from the Krivichs, in the Smolensk Poudvin region…” (Tretyakov, 1963, p. 41). Thus, after the completion of excavations and the study of antiquities in the upper reaches of the Dnieper in 1963, P.N. Tretyakov believed that until the 8th century, during the existence of the Tushemlin culture, the local tribes were Balts, and the settlement of Slavic Krivichs among the Baltic population occurred in the late 7th-8th centuries, marking the beginning of the process of assimilation of Balts by Slavs, which lasted until the period of Kievan Rus. These positions were specified in another work by P.N. Tretyakov from 1963, where it was stated: “…the process of assimilation of Eastern Balts was quite prolonged, and it was completed only under the conditions of Kievan Rus” (Tretyakov, 1963a, p. 29). However, in subsequent works, P.N. Tretyakov changed his viewpoint regarding the timing of Slavic settlement in the Smolensk Poudvin, believing that the penetration of Slavs into these territories began significantly earlier and is recorded in the materials of such monuments as the Lakhteyevo and Demidovka fortified settlements and the burial ground near the village of Akatovo, attributing them “to Slavic or mixed Baltic-Slavic culture” (Tretyakov, 1966, pp. 270, 278). He also believed that in the mid and late 1st millennium AD, “the integrity of the territory of the Upper Dnieper Balts was universally disrupted. In the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD, the Baltic population in the northern regions of the Upper Dnieper was preserved in the form of separate, mostly isolated from each other ‘islands’” (Tretyakov, 1966, p. 280). This was confirmed, albeit in a somewhat different form, in a work published in 1970, which stated: “In the Upper Dnieper region, there are many archaeological monuments – fortified settlements, villages, and burial grounds from the mid and late 1st millennium AD, the ethnic definition of which is not possible. They combine Slavic and Baltic elements and are convincing evidence of the processes that ultimately led to the assimilation of the Dnieper Balts by stronger and more advanced Slavic groups” (Tretyakov, 1970, pp. 63-64). Examples included the same fortified settlements of Lakhteyevo, Demidovka, and the burial ground of Akatovo. The position regarding the impossibility of accurately determining the boundaries of the settlement of Slavs and Balts in the northern part of the Upper Dnieper in the mid and third quarters of the 1st millennium AD was also expressed by P.N. Tretyakov in his last work (Tretyakov, 1982, p. 91).
Thus, if we summarize all that P.N. Tretyakov wrote regarding the ethnic affiliation of the population in the mid and third quarters of the 1st millennium AD in the upper reaches of the Dnieper and adjacent territories, i.e., in the main areas of the spread of Tushemlin culture, a complex picture of settlement emerges among the Eastern Baltic population, which had its own distinctive culture revealed in a number of monuments (Tushemlya, Gorodok, Prudki, Ustye, etc.), and Slavic tribes with their settlements (Lakhteyevo, Demidovka, etc.), whose material culture differs only slightly from the Baltic. From this time, the process of assimilation of Balts by Slavs begins, and accordingly, the territory of the latter’s settlement is reduced to small “islands,” while in some places, Slavs and Balts already lived interspersed and even formed mixed settlements that included both Balts and Slavs. The purely Baltic Tushemlin culture during the period in question was characteristic only of part of the population of the Smolensk Poudvin and Podvin. It should be noted that some of the positions expressed by P.N. Tretyakov can only be considered hypotheses, as he did not provide complete justification or an expanded system of evidence in his works.
Overall, P.N. Tretyakov’s viewpoint that Eastern Baltic tribes in the mid-1st millennium AD still inhabited the northern part of the Upper Dnieper and adjacent areas of Podvin was shared by other researchers. For instance, A.G. Mitrofanov, who studied antiquities from the 4th to 7th centuries in the territory of Belarus within the basins of the Western Dvina and the right bank of the Dnieper, after excavating the settlements of “Zamkovaya Gora,” Gorodishche, and Nekasetsk, which date to the 6th-8th centuries AD in the 1960s, expressed the assumption: “…if we recognize that this culture is Eastern Baltic, we cannot, at the same time, deny the obvious fact that its carriers were under significant influence from the Slavs” (Mitrofanov, 1966, p. 233). The basis for this assumption was some features of residential buildings discovered during excavations, such as above-ground wooden houses of post construction, quadrangular in plan, partially embedded in the mainland on slopes, having a stove in one of the corners. Additionally, the ceramic complex typical for Tushemlin-Bantser culture found in the cultural layer of some of the aforementioned monuments contained fragments of vessels of different shapes with a more profiled upper third of the vessels. Overall, in his opinion: “In the period of the 6th-8th centuries AD, Slavic tribes penetrated into the territory of Belarus, gradually assimilating the Baltic-speaking population… Probably, in the central and northern regions of Belarus in the second half of the 1st millennium, a mixed population of Balts and Slavs lived” (Essays on the Archaeology of Belarus, vol. 1, 1970, p. 254). In subsequent works, A.G. Mitrofanov further advanced the timeline for the beginning of the penetration of southern groups of tribes to the north and northeast, moving these movements, as well as the assimilation of local Eastern Baltic tribes, to the period of the 3rd-4th centuries AD. He included in the area of these assimilation processes: the eastern half of the territory of the tribes of decorated pottery in the Poudvin, as well as certain areas of the territory of the Dnieper-Dvina culture tribes in the Poudvin and Podvin (Mitrofanov, 1972, pp. 154-155). However, sufficient justification for this viewpoint was not provided. Later, in the second half of the 1970s, in a large monographic work on the Iron Age of central Belarus, A.G. Mitrofanov departed from his previously expressed views on the ethnic affiliation of monuments of the Tushemlin-Bantser type from the mid and third quarters of the 1st millennium AD. He wrote: “If we proceed from purely archaeological material, we can confidently assert that the monuments of the Bantser-Tushemlin culture within the entire area belong to Baltic-speaking tribes” (Mitrofanov, 1978, p. 123). He did not support the concept of P.N. Tretyakov expressed in the late 1970s – early 1980s, but joined the opinion of I.P. Rusanova and believed that all the population of the Upper Dnieper, including its northern and southern regions, as well as the upper reaches of the Neman and the middle and upper course of the Western Dvina, had a very close material culture and were ethnically related, i.e., Eastern Baltic (Mitrofanov, 1978, pp. 122-123).
V.V. Sedov, as a result of analyzing the antiquities of the Upper Dnieper from the second half of the 1st millennium AD in 1970, concluded that – the monuments from the northernmost regions of the Poudvin type Tushemlya belonged to Eastern Balts and that at this time, Balts occupied not only the Smolensk stretch of the Dnieper but all of Upper Dnieper up to the mouth of the Pripyat River and the lower course of the Desna River. He substantiated this viewpoint not only with archaeological materials but also with data from toponymy studies (Sedov, 1970, pp. 44-53). Considering the issue of the Zarubintsy tribes in the Poudvin and their influence on the so-called late Zarubintsy tribes of the 2nd-5th centuries AD, V.V. Sedov indicates that the Zarubintsy population, penetrating into the more northern areas of the Poudvin, did not change the ethnic composition of the local population. Thus, he confirms the viewpoint previously expressed in 1970 and formulates a general conclusion: “…the late Zarubintsy antiquities and those evolving from them from the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD of the Tushemlin-Bantser-Kolochyn type do not show continuity with the Upper Dnieper, reliably Slavic monuments of the 8th-10th centuries. Hence, it follows that the late Zarubintsy antiquities of the Upper Dnieper should be considered pre-Slavic based on archaeology, and according to hydronymic materials – Baltic” (Sedov, 1979, p. 77).
Subsequently, V.V. Sedov revised the question of the ethnic affiliation of the Tushemlin tribes and concluded: “…nothing prevents us from recognizing the carriers of the Tushemlin-Bantser culture as one of the dialectal-tribal groupings of early medieval Slavs” (Sedov, 1994, p. 61). The main archaeological justification for this, in his opinion, may be the finds of ear-shaped rings at the monuments of Tushemlin culture, about which he stated in another work from 1994: “…the appearance of bracelet-shaped ear-shaped rings at settlements and burial grounds from the mid-1st millennium AD in the central strip of the Russian plain should be regarded as clear evidence of the settlement of the Slavic ethnos” (Sedov, 1994, p. 303). Then, in a large monograph “Slavs in the Early Middle Ages,” published in 1995, V.V. Sedov interprets the question of the ethnic affiliation of Tushemlin culture in connection with the finds of bracelet-shaped ear-shaped rings somewhat differently: “These finds of bracelet-shaped closed ear-shaped rings cannot yet be the basis for the Slavic attribution of the Tushemlin-Bantser culture, but they clearly indicate the presence of a Slavic ethnic component among the Dnieper Balts in the 5th-7th centuries” (Sedov, 1995, p. 222).
When considering the main concept and the system of evidence for its legitimacy presented by V.V. Sedov in the aforementioned works of recent years, several questions arise. Firstly, it is not entirely clear which group of Slavs in the early centuries AD was characterized by bracelet-shaped closed ear-shaped rings. If we consider the Zarubintsy and late Zarubintsy tribes, then ear-shaped rings were not characteristic ornaments for them, and accordingly, such could not spread from their settlement area. The same can be said for the Pshievor tribes. It is quite indicative that in the mid and third quarters of the 1st millennium AD, ear-shaped rings of this type were not characteristic ornaments for some Slavic tribes that existed simultaneously with the Tushemlins and inhabited the southern and southwestern regions of the Poudvin, i.e., for the Korchaks and Penkovs. If the advance of Slavic tribes in the mid-1st millennium AD occurred from the Vistula basin, then specifically which of their groups left from there, so numerous that they could spread over vast areas of the central strip of Eastern Europe among the Dnieper Balts and Finno-Ugric tribes while managing to preserve their distinctiveness? In this regard, V.V. Sedov notes that determining the region where the ancestors of the carriers of ear-shaped rings settled in the central strip of Eastern Europe is currently not possible (Sedov, 1995, p. 229).
Secondly, were ear-shaped rings in general, including bracelet-shaped closed or with overlapping ends, in the first half of the 1st millennium AD ornaments only for Slavs? This question requires special consideration. However, the current state of sources provides some basis for its discussion. Vast territories from the southeastern part of Lithuania to the eastern edge of the settlement of the Dnieper-Dvina tribes in the upper reaches of the Dnieper, i.e., the central strip of Eastern Europe, were inhabited in the second quarter of the 1st millennium AD by Baltic tribes (cultures: Eastern Lithuanian barrows, Bantser, Tushemlin). In the western part of this area, in the southeast of Lithuania, ear-shaped rings are known even before the era of the great migration of peoples – from the very beginning of the 1st millennium AD. Such are the flat ear-shaped rings of the 1st-2nd centuries AD, which were part of women’s headdresses, which are generally characteristic of Baltic tribes of that time (Lithuanian Folk Art, 1958, pp. 343, figs. 61-65). Incidentally, a similar ear-shaped ring was also found in the eastern part of this area at the fortified settlement of Kholmets in the upper reaches of the Desna within the settlement of the Dnieper-Dvina tribes (Tretyakov, 1963, p. 132, fig. 69:1). In the 2nd century AD, again in the western part of the area, spiral ear-shaped rings made of wire in 3-5 turns became fashionable (Lithuanian Folk Art, 1958, pp. 343, figs. 66, 67, 134, 135). In the 4th-5th centuries AD, closed bracelet-shaped ear-shaped rings were widespread throughout the above-mentioned area, including southeastern Lithuania, where various types of bracelet-shaped ear-shaped rings (with overlapping ends, closed, and sometimes with a spiral curl at one end) were used (Lithuanian Folk Art, 1958, pp. 349, figs. 251-254, 256, 257). Researchers of Lithuanian antiquities A.Z. Tautavičius, M.M. Michelbertas, and others believe that “Ear-shaped rings in Lithuania are characteristic of the 2nd-5th centuries AD,” where they are common women’s head ornaments alongside head wreaths and pins. They are represented by three types:
-
Round wire spiral, dated to the 1st-2nd centuries;
-
Plate-shaped, predominantly used in the 2nd century AD.
-
Wire closed, sometimes with overlapping ends or with a spiral curl at one of the ends, mainly used in the 4th-5th centuries (Lithuanian SSR Archaeology Atlas IV, 1978, pp. 144 maps 1 and 2). It is not excluded that in some places, ear-shaped rings of the third type were used as ornaments even in the 6th century AD, for example, finds at the fortified settlement of Aukštadvaris (Lithuanian Folk Art, 1958, p. 349). Thus, among some Baltic tribes that performed burial of the deceased by inhumation, ear-shaped rings were a characteristic element of headwear for over 500 years from the 1st to the 6th centuries AD. Whether ear-shaped rings were borrowed in the 1st century AD from other tribes or independently originated in the local environment as head ornaments is still not established. Over time, the shape of the rings changed logically. All this gives grounds to assume that ear-shaped rings in the western part of the area under consideration could have entered the composition of headwear independently due to the logical internal development of the system of women’s head ornamentation, but one cannot completely exclude their appearance in the local environment as a result of cultural ties and borrowings. This does not mean the settlement of Slavic populations in this territory in the early centuries AD. In general, the construction of burial mounds using stone placements in the rites of both inhumation and cremation of the deceased and some elements of burial inventory in them spread in the eastern part of Lithuania from more western areas inhabited at that time by Western Baltic tribes of the Yatvags (Tautavičius, 1959, p. 135). V.V. Sedov agrees with this, noting that “The burial mound rite in Southeastern Lithuania was likely brought from the Yatvag region” (Sedov, 1994, pp. 65-66). From our point of view, this and other elements of culture give grounds to consider the population that left the Eastern Lithuanian burial mounds as Balts.
Based on the above-reviewed works of V.V. Sedov published in recent years, his viewpoint on the ethnic affiliation of the population of Tushemlin culture is that in the mid-1st millennium AD, the settlement of Slavs in the Smolensk Poudvin and Podvin occurred, and that the Slavs became a certain ethnic element among the local Baltic population and determined the character of the entire culture. At the same time, he believes that with the settlement of Slavs, the assimilation of Balts by Slavs began, and this process was lengthy “and not always straightforward, completing only in the period of Kievan statehood” (Sedov, 1994, p. 304).
I.P. Rusanova, studying Slavic antiquities of the Upper Dnieper, based on the analysis of ceramic material from the mid and third quarters of the 1st millennium AD and some other data in the 1960s, concluded that to the north of the Pripyat River on the Upper Dnieper and Desna, there existed a group of related tribes that had their own peculiarities in material culture, quite different from the culture of Slavic Korchak tribes, and that all tribes of the Upper Dnieper during this period belonged to the Baltic ethnic mass (Rusanova, 1966, pp. 186-189). Then, in a large summary work on Slavic antiquities of the 6th-7th centuries, I.P. Rusanova simultaneously provides a general characteristic of the archaeological cultures of this time for the entire Upper Dnieper and Podvin. Based on a detailed analysis of ceramics, as the main and most numerous archaeological source, she distinguishes seven types of clay vessels characteristic only in the complex of Tushemlin culture, while individual vessels may have some features comparable to those from other cultures. It is noted that within the entire Upper Dnieper and adjacent territories of Podvin “the commonality of ceramic material across the entire territory appears undeniable” (Rusanova I.P., 1978, p. 72). The ceramics of the Upper Dnieper are compared across all parameters with synchronous ceramics of the Korchak type, and the conclusion is formulated that “two distinct groups and two defined areas existed simultaneously, within each of which the pottery with its characteristic features predominated” (Rusanova, 1978, p. 68), i.e., there is nothing in common between Slavic ceramics of the Korchak type and Upper Dnieper ceramics. The differences in the culture of these two areas are also recorded when considering the nature of settlements and types of housing, etc. (Rusanova, 1978, pp. 75 and following). “The difference between these cultures is further emphasized by their different origins and completely dissimilar subsequent fates” (Ibid, p. 84). A detailed study of the archaeological material conducted by I.P. Rusanova showed that there are insufficient grounds for distinguishing the entire territory of the Upper Dnieper into separate independent and very different cultures (Tushemlya, Bantser, Kolochyn) based on ceramic material and other signs, and that all of them fall into one circle of antiquities, i.e., represent one culture. However, “within this culture, one can note only some local features related to the traditions of preceding Baltic cultures of the early Iron Age and the nearby Zarubintsy culture, with different living conditions and social development… Based on these features, three areas can be outlined – Podesennye, Smolenshchina, and Belarus. But these areas are so close to each other, and the common features of material culture stand out so prominently in them that their populations should be considered ethnically related” (Ibid, p. 81). Thus, in the Upper Dnieper in the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD, according to I.P. Rusanova, there existed an original culture that had its archaeological signs: the composition of ceramics, the type of housing constructions, special details of burial rites, etc., related to Baltic cultures, and this ethnic affiliation of Upper Dnieper antiquities is indisputable. The spread of Slavs in the upper reaches of the Dnieper occurs in the last quarter of the 1st millennium AD and is associated with the culture of long burial mounds (Rusanova, 1978, pp. 82-84).
I.I. Lyapushkin conducted a detailed analysis of the antiquities of Eastern Europe before the formation of the Kievan state in the forest-steppe and forest zones. He, in particular, believed that “until the 8th-9th centuries, the entire area of the Upper Dnieper and the adjacent regions up to the upper reaches of the Oka in the east and to the Neman in the west, from the border with the forest-steppe in the south and to the basin of the Western Dvina in the north, was occupied by Baltic tribes” (Lyapushkin, 1968, p. 89).
V.B. Perkhavko, who studied the antiquities of the Tushemlin-Bantser type (Perkhavko, 1978, 1979, 1992), believes that the territory of the Upper Dnieper and Podvin until the 8th century AD was inhabited by Eastern or Dnieper Balts and suggests that only at the beginning or within the first half of the 8th century AD did the movement of small groups of Western Slavic populations from Greater Poland and Lesser Poland through Mazovia into Upper Ponevye, Podvin, and the Smolensk Poudvin occur. This conclusion is substantiated by the spread within the settlement of Tushemlin-Bantser tribes of iron knives with volute-shaped ends of handles, iron socketed two-pronged arrowheads, iron spurs with inward hooks, Slavic ceramics, etc. The appearance of these elements in the material culture, in his opinion, could not occur “only as a result of military campaigns and trade exchanges,” but is associated with the resettlement of carriers of new culture, i.e., with the first wave of Slavic settlement on the lands of Eastern Balts (Perkhavko, 1992, pp. 86-88).
In the northern part of Belarus, predominantly in the basin of the Western Dvina, antiquities of the 1st millennium AD and, accordingly, the issues of ethnogenesis of local tribes are studied by V.I. Shadyro (Shadyro, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1996a, 1997, 1999). He believes that within the Belarusian Podvin and Upper Dnieper, within the distribution of Dnieper-Dvina tribes, until the mid-1st millennium AD, Eastern Balts inhabited the area, the population of which was approximately 15-20 thousand people (Shadyro, 1996, p. 76; 1996A, p. 81). If in the Polotsk Podvin until the 4th century AD no significant ethnocultural changes are traced, then in the Vitebsk Podvin and Orsha Poudvin, the spread of post-Zarubintsy elements of culture is documented: polishing of ceramics, decoration with combs. The penetration of these elements occurred through Posozhye and the Smolensk Poudvin and further “into the Dnieper-Dvina-Lovat corridor,” which led to the formation of monuments of the Zaozerye type, which was somewhat in the 3rd-4th centuries AD the first stage of forming the Bantser-Tushemlin type culture. The differentiation of variants of this culture is associated with differences in substrate antiquities and “with different levels of influence of the post-Zarubintsy component” (Shadyro, 1996, pp. 76-77). In his opinion, from the 5th-6th centuries AD, the territory of Belarus begins to be settled by carriers with Slavic ethnically defining features “in ceramic production, housing construction, in material and spiritual culture.” The synthesis of the Baltic substrate with late Zarubintsy and new Slavic elements created a new culture of Tushemlin type. The development of ethnocultural processes in the 5th-8th centuries led to a change of culture but not of ethnicity. According to him, there was no Slavicization of the population at this stage. Until the 9th century AD, the Dnieper-Dvina community remained fundamentally Baltic (Shadyro, 1996a, pp. 81-82). These positions, with some detailing, are also presented in his subsequent works (Shadyro, 1997, 1999). Some positions expressed by V.I. Shadyro require clarification. For example, the spread of polishing ceramics in the Smolensk Poudvin occurred not in the post-Zarubintsy period, but at the turn of eras and is recorded in fortified settlements containing the type of the middle layer of the Tushemlin fortified settlement. The presence of some changes in housing construction is indicated for settlements of Bantser culture, but for settlements of Tushemlin culture, this has not yet been noted.
A.M. Medvedev, considering the history of Belarus in the Iron Age, notes that the formation of Tushemlin culture occurred on the basis of Dnieper-Dvina culture of the preceding time and after its formation during the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD, its Baltic affiliation is beyond doubt (Medvedev, 1994, pp. 33-37). The settlement of Slavs in Northern Belarus, in his opinion, occurred no earlier than the 9th century AD. He defends these positions in a subsequent work (Medvedev A.M., 1996, pp. 57-59).
Furasyov A.G., as a result of analyzing the available materials of the Tushemlin-Bantser culture and the Pskov long burial mounds, concludes: “Most likely, the cultures of the Pskov long burial mounds and Tushemlin-Bantser represent a single circle of antiquities that arose as a result of unified cultural processes occurring among Baltic tribes in the mid-1st millennium AD” (Furasyov, 1992, pp. 106-107).
G.V. Shtykhov, who studied for many years the antiquities of the Polotsk Krivichs, believes that the Slavs are related to the Bantser-Tushemlin culture. To support this, he presents 8 factors, some of which have controversial justification, and some are unrelated to the problem of ethnic interpretation of antiquities of the 5th-7th centuries AD (factor 7). His general conclusions: in the 5th-7th centuries AD, there was a Baltic-Slavic symbiosis on the territory of Belarus, the archaeological culture was polyethnic, and assimilation processes occurred (Shtykhov, 1992, pp. 106-107). G.V. Shtykhov shifts the process of assimilation of Balts by Slavs to the mid and third quarters of the 1st millennium AD, but does not provide sufficient archaeological justification for this. The materials published by him from the Polotsk long burial mounds of the last quarter of the 1st millennium AD contradict this and testify to the Baltic elements in their material culture, see Vyshadki, Borki, Baskatogo, and even Gliniщe (Shtykhov, 1992A, pp. 21-40). The disappearance of Baltic elements in this territory occurs only at the very end of the 1st millennium AD, i.e., the process of assimilation of Balts is associated with the period of Kievan state.
In order to resolve the issue of distinguishing antiquities of the 4th-7th centuries of the Upper Dnieper into separate independent cultures, N.V. Lopatins conducted a systematization and analysis of ceramic material. The study of some features of the technology of ceramic production at the aforementioned monuments (Kolochyn, Tushemlya, Demidovka) led him to conclude about the similarity in a number of signs between Kolochyn and Demidovka, but there are also differences: in Kolochyn, the polishing of vessels was not used. A number of signs bring Demidovka and Tushemlya closer, but overall “…the ceramic complex of Demidovka occupies an intermediate position between the complexes of Kolochyn and Tushemlya, but its connections with the Kolochyn complex are much more significant” (Lopatins, 1987, pp. 89-90). Among the ceramic vessels, N.V. Lopatins distinguished 5 independent types and one transitional type (3-4)6 of which 4 types are characteristic for Kolochyn, all 6 types for Demidovka, and 3 types for Tushemlya. It is indicated by these signs of significant similarity between the ceramics of Demidovka and Tushemlya, but, from our point of view, it is necessary to indicate the differences as well. In Kolochyn, types 4 and 5 are absent, which brings Demidovka and Tushemlya closer. The absence of types 1, 2, and 3 in Tushemlya gives N.V. Lopatins grounds to assume the presence of “two different traditions” and to consider their carriers ethnically diverse, joining P.N. Tretyakov’s opinion on the division of these monuments into Slavic – Demidovka, and Baltic – Tushemlya (Lopatins, 1989, pp. 13-14). There are grounds to consider both monuments as Baltic, and the slight difference in the composition of the ceramic complex is still explained by the different timing of their destruction in fires, although N.V. Lopatins does not agree with this. However, even if we question the date from radiocarbon analysis (960+/-150), the material culture undoubtedly extends beyond the 7th century. The sickle found at Tushemlya has a strongly curved blade, which distinguishes it from sickles of type ID, which existed in the 4th-7th centuries, and in general, sickles of this type have not yet been recorded in the studied monuments of Tushemlin culture within the Smolensk Poudvin and Podvin, while sickles of type P are widely encountered (according to Minosyan R.S. 1978, pp. 76-80). The find of a hand millstone at Tushemlya also confirms the latest period of existence of Tushemlin culture, as only simple grain grinders were used at Demidovka, Bliznyaki, and other settlements.
E.A. Symonovich studied the fortified settlement of Kolochyn I on the Dnieper in the southern part of Belarus, where he obtained significant materials for the characterization of tribes in the 6th-7th centuries AD. In the publication of the results of the excavations of the fortified settlement Kolochyn I, the ethnic affiliation of this monument is not determined, although it is indicated that there is no continuity between the antiquities of the 6th-7th centuries and Slavic – Roman-Borshchiv and doubts are expressed that this monument belongs to the antiquities of the Ants (Symonovich, 1963, pp. 135 and following). In subsequent works, he puts forward the position that monuments of the Kolochyn-Bantser-Akatovo type “…cannot be included within the limits of the Baltic community,” and based on the analogies of individual vessels with ceramics of the Korchak type and materials from other cultures of the southern European part of the USSR, they should also be considered Slavic (Symonovich, 1966, pp. 42 and following; 1972, pp. 95). The illustrative method used by E.A. Symonovich of comparing individual forms of vessels, rather than the entire ceramic complex, did not provide the necessary justification for his conclusions. A complete analysis of the ceramic complexes of the Tushemlin-Bantser-Kolochyn type and the Korchak type and their comparison were carried out by I.P. Rusanova, who demonstrated the inconsistency of E.A. Symonovich’s conclusions (Rusanova, 1976, pp. 62-63).
L.D. Pobol studied the antiquities of the 1st millennium AD in the Upper Dnieper on the territory of Belarus. He considers the Zarubintsy tribes to be Slavs, and attributes their settlement throughout the territory of the Upper Dnieper, including the area of southwestern Smolensk up to the city of Smolensk, to the 1st-2nd centuries AD (Pobol, 1973, pp. 5, 8, 18, fig. 1). In the 2nd-5th centuries, these spaces are considered as the area of settlement of only Slavic late Zarubintsy tribes, while their territory is further expanded to the north (Pobol, 1969, p. 105; 1970, pp. 168-170). These conclusions contradict the factual material, as the reference to individual finds of fragments of profiled ceramics at fortified settlements in the upper reaches of the Dnieper cannot be a convincing argument for the Slavic language of the Dnieper-Dvina tribes in the 1st-2nd centuries AD since in these spaces, the places of settlements – fortified settlements with the previous construction of above-ground dwellings and oval hearths, with the old complex of things, including weights of the “Dyakov” type, etc., are preserved, and at the same time, it seems, the old tradition in the burial rite is preserved, as burial grounds characteristic of Zarubintsy tribes have not appeared. The culture of Tushemlin tribes is formed on the basis of local Dnieper-Dvina tribes in the 3rd-4th centuries AD.
In connection with the study of Kievan culture in the Middle Dnieper and the introduction into scientific circulation of materials obtained from the 3rd-5th centuries AD, the assumption of its Slavic affiliation has been expressed, and accordingly, the formation of Kolochyn culture is defined as a result of the further development of Kievan culture (Terpilovsky, Abashina, 1992, pp. 90-97). R.V. Terpilovsky expands the area of distribution of Kievan culture to the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Podvin, substantiating this with finds at settlements in these fragments of vessels with combs. He asserts: “The monuments of the Upper Dnieper and Podvin represented the northern periphery of Kievan culture, a contact zone with the cultures of Eastern Balts” (Terpilovsky, 1991, pp. 36-38). In fact, he considers the Tushemlin culture from the 4th century to be Slavic, and his definition of the Upper Dnieper and Podvin as a contact zone with Eastern Balts is meaningless, as beyond this zone in the south, west, and north in the 1st millennium AD, there were no Eastern or Dnieper Balts.
The assumption of the Slavic affiliation of the tribes of Kievan culture and their resettlement in the upper reaches of the Dnieper, in Podvin, and even on the Lovat River is shared by other archaeologists (Lopatins, Furasyov, 1995, pp. 137-138). There is also an opinion that the settlement of Slavic tribes in the upper reaches of the Dnieper occurred later, i.e., by the tribes of Kolochyn culture in the 5th-7th centuries – heirs of Kievan culture (Kolosovsky, 1997, pp. 37-39).
The author of this article has conducted a study of the monuments of Tushemlin culture in the Smolensk Poudvin and Podvin for several years. The materials obtained provided some basis for resolving the issue of their ethnic affiliation. This was determined primarily by the formation of Tushemlin culture in the 3rd-4th centuries, which occurred on the basis of antiquities of Dnieper-Dvina culture in the last period of its existence in the process of the population’s movement from fortified settlements - fortified towns to unfortified settlements - selyshcha. This transition is associated with both changes in natural conditions and the overall level of economic development and changes in socio-social relations. Evidence for this was the materials from excavated settlements: Mikulino, Zaozerye, Kuprino, Yanovo, etc., where the oldest ceramic complex of the 3rd-4th centuries was identical to that from Dnieper-Dvina fortified settlements of the 1st-3rd centuries. This is further confirmed by finds of identical types of sickles, knives, and other metal products, as well as finds of clay weights of the “Dyakov type” (Schmidt, 1999, pp. 37-46). In the process of forming Tushemlin culture, some elements from tribes settled to the south in the Poudvin were included, and the penetration of small groups of population from the peripheral territories of the tribes of decorated pottery, who brought the technique of incising the surface of vessels with a comb, is not excluded. However, this did not lead to a change in ethnicity. During the existence of Tushemlin tribes in the 5th-7th centuries, the main elements of local culture, whose Baltic affiliation is evident, were preserved (Schmidt, 1996, pp. 33-37), although new elements were included, which were associated with the migration of peoples and the movement of Baltic tribes within their area. In particular, the movement of Yatvag tribes into the territory of Eastern Lithuania, and then from there in the 5th century further through the northern territory of Eastern Balts via Podvin into the Smolensk Poudvin, i.e., within the limits of Tushemlin culture. This movement of tribes is apparently associated with the spread of ear-shaped rings, bracelets with expanded ends, spurs, etc.
Thus, in the question of the ethnic affiliation of Tushemlin culture, there are three different viewpoints: 1. This culture from the moment of its formation in the 3rd-4th centuries was Slavic (E.A. Symonovich, L.D. Pobol, R.V. Terpilovsky). 2. The culture includes Baltic and Slavic elements, in which the process of assimilation of Balts by Slavs occurs (V.V. Sedov, G.V. Shtykhov, V.I. Shadyro). 3. The culture during its entire existence was Baltic (A.G. Mitrofanov, I.P. Rusanova, I.I. Lyapushkin, A.M. Medvedev, E.A. Schmidt) and there is sufficient basis to consider that the change of ethnicity in the Upper Dnieper and Podvin occurred after the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries as a result of the settlement of Slavs in this territory and their gradual assimilation of Eastern (Dnieper) Balts.
LITERATURE
Kolosovsky Yu.V., 1977 — New data on the early Slavic settlement near the village of Vezhki in the Orsha Poudvin // History of Belarus. Iron Age and Middle Ages. Minsk, 1977. pp. 37-39.
Lopatins N.V., 1987 – On the correlation of ceramics from the upper layers of Tushemlya, Demidovka, and Kolochyn (an attempt to attract some data on technology) // Socio-economic development of ancient societies and archaeology. Moscow, 1987. pp. 85-91.
Lopatins N.V., 1989 – Tushemlya, Demidovka, Kolochyn: on the correlation of ceramics from the upper layers // Brief communications of the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, vol. 195, Moscow, 1989. pp. 9-15.
Lopatins N.V., 1995 – Furasyov A.G. On the role of monuments of the 3rd-4th centuries AD in the formation of the cultures of Pskov long burial mounds and Tushemlin – Bantser // St. Petersburg Archaeological Bulletin, 9. St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 136-142.
Lyapushkin I.I., 1968 – Slavs of Eastern Europe on the eve of the formation of the Kievan state. Leningrad, 1968.
Myadzyvedzeu A., 1994 – The population of Belarus in the Iron Age (8th century BC – 8th century AD) // Belarusian Historical Review, vol. 1. Minsk, 1994. pp. 15-37.
Medvedev A.M., 1968 – On the timing of the arrival of Slavs on the territory of Belarus (characteristics of sources) // Theses of reports and messages of the Belarusian delegation at the 6th International Congress of Slavic Archaeology. Minsk, 1996. pp. 57-59.
Minosyan R.S., 1978 – Classification of sickles of Eastern Europe of the Iron Age and Middle Ages // Archaeological Collection of the GЭ, 19. Leningrad, 1978. pp. 74-85.
Mitrofanov A.G., 1966 – New data on monuments of the 6th-8th centuries in central and northern Belarus // Antiquities of Belarus. Minsk, 1966. pp. 218-235.
Mitrofanov A.G., 1972 – On the origin of the culture of the upper layer of Bantser (5th-8th centuries) // Belarusian Antiquities. Minsk, 1972. pp. 150-163.
Mitrofanov A.G., 1978 – The Iron Age of central Belarus (7th-6th centuries BC - 8th century AD). Minsk, 1978.
Essays on the Archaeology of Belarus, vol. 1. Minsk, 1970.
Perkhavko V.B., 1978 – The emergence and spread of spurs on the territory of Eastern Europe // Soviet Archaeology, 1978, 3. pp. 113-126.
Perkhavko V.B., 1979 – Classification of tools and weapons from medieval monuments in the interfluve of the Dnieper and Neman // Soviet Archaeology, 1979, pp. 40-55.
Perkhavko V.B., 1992 – One of the components of the material culture of the early medieval population of Belarus // The population of Belarus and adjacent territories in the Iron Age. Minsk, 1992. pp. 86-88.
Pobol L.D., 1969 – Results of the study of Iron Age antiquities of the Belarusian Poudvin // Antiquities of Belarus. Minsk, 1969. pp. 89-117.
Pobol L.D., 1970 – Monuments of Southern Belarus // Essays on the Archaeology of Belarus, vol. I. Minsk, 1970. pp. 138-150.
Pobol L.D., 1973 – Slavic antiquities of Belarus. Minsk, 1973.
Rusanova I.P., 1966 – Slavic monuments of the second half of the 1st millennium AD in the northwest of Ukraine and the south of Belarus // Antiquities of Belarus, Minsk, 1966. pp. 193-192.
Rusanova I.P., 1976 – Slavic antiquities of the 6th-7th centuries. Moscow, 1976.
Sedov V.V., 1970 – Slavs of the Upper Dnieper and Podvin. Moscow, 1970.
Sedov V.V., 1979 – The origin and early history of the Slavs. Moscow, 1979.
Sedov V.V., 1994 – From the ethnic history of the population of the central strip of Eastern Europe in the second half of the 1st millennium AD // Russian Archaeology, 1994, 2. pp. 56-69.
Sedov V.V., 1994A – Slavs in antiquity. Moscow, 1994A.
Sedov V.V., 1995 – Slavs in the early Middle Ages. Moscow, 1995.
Sedov V.V., 1998 – Belarusian Podvin and Smolensk Poudvin during the migration period // Russian Archaeology, 1998, 2. pp. 54-67.
Symonovich E.A., 1963 – The fortified settlement of Kolochyn I in Gomel region // Slavs on the eve of the formation of Kievan Rus. Moscow, 1963. pp. 97-137.
Symonovich E.A., 1966 – On the connections of forest and forest-steppe early medieval cultures of the Poudvin // Soviet Archaeology, 1966, 3. pp. 38-51.
Symonovich E.A., 1972 – An attempt to compare the ceramics of Belarus and Baltic tribes of the 1st millennium AD // Belarusian Antiquities. Minsk, 1972. pp. 94-96.
Tautavičius A.Z., 1959 – Eastern Lithuanian burial mounds // Questions of ethnic history of the peoples of the Baltic. Moscow, 1959. pp. 128-153.
Tautavičius A.Z., 1980 – Baltic tribes on the territory of Lithuania in the 1st millennium AD // From the earliest history of Baltic peoples (Based on data from archaeology and anthropology). Riga, 1980. pp. 80-88.
Terpilovsky R.V., 1991 – Kievan culture and monuments of Roman times close to it // Gomel region: archaeology, history, monuments. Gomel, 1991. pp. 36-38.
Terpilovsky R.V., Abashina N.S., 1992 - Monuments of Kievan culture (summary of archaeological sources). Kyiv, 1992.
Tretyakov P.N., 1958 – Fortified sanctuaries of left-bank Smolensk // Soviet Archaeology, 1958, 4. pp. 170-186.
Tretyakov P.N., 1963 – Ancient fortified settlements of Smolensk // Tretyakov P.N., Schmidt E.A. Ancient fortified settlements of Smolensk. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963. pp. 3-140.
Tretyakov P.N., 1963A – Finno-Ugric, Balts, and Slavs in the area of the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Volga. History, folklore, art of Slavic peoples. – Reports of the Soviet delegation. 5th International Congress of Slavists. Moscow, 1963A. pp. 3-33.
Tretyakov P.N., 1966 – Finno-Ugric, Balts, and Slavs on the Dnieper and Volga. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Tretyakov P.N., 1970 – At the origins of the ancient Russian nationality. Leningrad, 1970.
Tretyakov P.N., 1982 – In the footsteps of ancient Slavic tribes. Leningrad, 1982.
Furasyov A.G., 1992 – The current state of the problem of the relationship between antiquities of the Tushemlin-Bantser type and Pskov long burial mounds // The population of Belarus and adjacent territories in the Iron Age. Minsk, 1992. pp. 104-108.
Shadyro V.I., 1992 – To the history of the population of northern Belarus in the 1st millennium AD // The population of Belarus and adjacent territories in the Iron Age. Minsk, 1992. pp. 107-109.
Shadyro V.I., 1966 – Ethnocultural and social processes in northern Belarus in the early Middle Ages // Theses of reports and messages of the Belarusian delegation at the 6th International Congress of Slavic Archaeology. Minsk, 1996. pp. 76-78.
Shadyro V.I., 1996A – The Dnieper-Dvina community in the 1st millennium AD (social aspect and ethnocultural processes) // Belarus in the system of trans-European connections in the 1st millennium AD. Minsk, 1996A. pp. 80-82.
Shadyro V.I., 1997 – The Great Migration of Peoples and the beginning of the formation of the Belarusian people // History of Belarus. Iron Age and Middle Ages. Minsk, 1997. pp. 69-71.
Shadyro V.I., 1999 – Bantser culture // Archaeology of Belarus, vol. 2. Iron Age and early Middle Ages. Minsk, 1999. pp. 359-375.
Schmidt E.A., 1996 – On the ethnic affiliation of the tribes of Tushemlin culture of the 4th-7th centuries in the upper reaches of the Dnieper // Historical-Archaeological Collection, No. 10. Minsk, 1996. pp. 33-37.
Schmidt E.A., 1999 – Tribes of the upper reaches of the Dnieper in the second quarter of the 1st millennium AD // History of Belarusian Poudvin. Magilev, 1999. pp. 37-46.
Shtykhov G.V., 1992 – On the ethnic interpretation of Bantser culture // The population of Belarus and adjacent territories in the Iron Age. Minsk, 1992. pp. 116-117.
Shtykhov G.V., 1992A – Krivichs. Minsk, 1992A.
Source:
E.A. Schmidt ON THE TUSHEMLIN CULTURE OF THE 4TH-7TH CENTURIES IN THE UPPER DNEPER AND PODVIN REGIONS (On the Issue of Ethnic Attribution)// From the History of Baltic Culture (Vilnius: Diemedis, 2000), 113-121.
“From the History of Baltic Culture”
Editor-in-chief Vitautas Kazakevičius.
Vilnius: Diemedis, 2000.
220 pp. Cover. 600 copies.