The full interview with A. A. Klyosov, see the portal "the Slavic World" slavmir.tv/vid...
Who are the Slavs? The question is very complex and ambiguous. And it is considered one of the most difficult and unresolved issues in modern historical science. Why? First,this definition is official, the Slavs-is the people speaking Slavic language groups, Slavic languages group. Here are the same poles, Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians and so on. Nothing to argue about, so of course determine. But then the whole historical layer is cut off. Because, according to linguists, Slavic languages appeared around the middle of the first Millennium ad. This is about the sixth century ad. Only one and a half thousand years ago, and before that Slavs were not.
It turns out strange, the ancient Scandinavians were, the ancient Japanese were. For example, take 13,000 years ago there were ancient Japanese there. The ancient Indians were, although now they are called more native Americans, although everyone understands that these are the same Indians who used to be called Indians. Or even say proteinazy or prandase or prenature Americans, there is no such. And the Slavs, even the Slavs historical science tries not to use. That is, the Slavs it is the 6th century of our era. I say: and before? And before were not Slavs. But they were ancestors, right? They have that - there was mum and dad, those Slavs who were in the sixth century, they did not have grandparents? Well, you know, you would be more Slavs into the stone age put.
If you convert the Slavs, turning to them direct ancestors of modern Slavs, it was 5000 years ago. They came from Europe, from the Balkans it seems, as times 5,000 years ago 4900 years ago. I wonder why not Slavs? Then Start to raise data, such as the fatyanovo culture of the archaeological, archaeology to measure cultures., Culture is education, populations are ancient, which combine to combine cultural traits, for which are usually or often pots. Here ceramic pots, they usually have patterns, that culture is usually considered in these pots.
Fatyanovo culture is ancient, it is, according to historians, was formed 4300 years ago. And it ended 3,000 years ago. And then I went to the first early Slavic or pre-Slavic culture, Lusatian culture 3000 years ago, the academician Sedov many wrote about it. It was closer to the Baltic, that is, somewhere on the site of Berlin, or between Berlin and the Baltic coast. The Lusatian culture, it has gone a number of other cultures. And they are all Slavic or pre-Slavic, and they all have common features. But it turns out the discrepancy. Here's an example of Arkaim, the name on a modern Ural just syntaktische culture. And I usually say a linguist: but why the sixth century, because the language is formed for thousands of years? It couldn't have been formed in the sixth century, it Could have been formed - it was invented as a language. You can even name the address and apartment where Esperanto was created. It turns out that the Slavic languages go deep. I am told: no, it is considered to be so! It is considered to be the 6th century ad.
And now to the fact that for thousands of years the language develops. Sergey Starostin was engaged in structural linguistics. He believed words similar in different languages. He called it, following the rules, basic vocabulary. And it turned out that the ancient Indian language and modern Russian match basic vocabulary 54%. But Ayurveda is actually a Sanskrit. In Sanskrit it is a turn-down language polished by the works of the Great Indian linguist Panini. Therefore, Starostin prefers to call the ancient Indian language shows that it departs from the smoothed version of the language.
54% match, And how many millennia have passed? It turns out that the language is quite inertial. So I say how is the Sixth century and all? He had to go from Aryan times, to 5000 years. They too have to speak, let there will be not 54, let there will be 40%, 30%, but language similar. Therefore, I believe that the Slavs, a linguistic definition let it be, of course, Who am I to say that it was not, but it can be used as an appendage, like an Appendix to a much more ancient history. And to say that the Slavs lived from ancient times, but they developed languages around the middle of the first Millennium ad. Where different groups of people, from different places, different kinds met. This and the Urals - haplogroup N, that the South Slavs - Donici, haplogroup и2а, is ethnic Russian half of the haplogroup r1a. And when they came together, that's the language they have developed together. The one that is very similar to Ukraine and Belarus, and Poland, and Serbia, and Croatia, and so on. Therefore, we all understand these languages, or at least feel that the language is similar.
30 сен 2024
