Finno-Ugric peoples: appearance. Are Finno-Ugric tribes the ancestors of Russians?

Inhabited the Volga-Oka and Kama basins in the 1st millennium BC. e., is distinguished by significant originality. According to Herodotus, the Boudins, Tissagets and Irki lived in this part of the forest line. Noting the difference between these tribes from the Scythians and Sauromatians, he points out that their main occupation was hunting, which supplied not only food, but also furs for clothing. Herodotus especially notes the horse hunting of the hirks with the help of dogs. The information of the ancient historian is confirmed by archaeological sources indicating that hunting really occupied a large place in the life of the studied tribes.

However, the population of the Volga-Oka and Kama basins was not limited only to those tribes mentioned by Herodotus. The names he gives can only be attributed to the southern tribes of this group - the immediate neighbors of the Scythians and Sauromatians. More detailed information about these tribes began to penetrate into ancient historiography only at the turn of our era. Tacitus probably relied on them when he described the life of the tribes in question, calling them Fenians (Finns).

The main occupation of the Finno-Ugric tribes in the vast territory of their settlement should be considered cattle breeding and hunting. Swidden farming played minor role. Characteristic feature production among these tribes was that, along with iron tools, which came into use around the 7th century. BC e., bone tools were used here for a very long time. These features are typical of the so-called Dyakovo (interfluve of the Oka and Volga), Gorodets (southeast of the Oka) and Ananino (Prikamye) archaeological cultures.

The southwestern neighbors of the Finno-Ugric tribes, the Slavs, throughout the 1st millennium AD. e. significantly advanced into the area of ​​settlement of Finnish tribes. This movement caused the displacement of part of the Finno-Ugric tribes, as an analysis of numerous Finnish names of rivers in the middle part shows. European Russia. The processes in question occurred slowly and did not disrupt cultural traditions Finnish tribes. This allows us to connect a number of local archaeological cultures with Finno-Ugric tribes, already known from Russian chronicles and other written sources. Descendants of the Dyakovskaya tribes archaeological culture, probably, there were tribes Merya, Muroma, descendants of the tribes of the Gorodets culture - the Mordovians, and the origin of the chronicle Cheremis and Chud goes back to the tribes that created the Ananyin archaeological culture.

Many interesting features of the life of the Finnish tribes have been studied in detail by archaeologists. The most ancient method of obtaining iron in the Volga-Oka basin is indicative: iron ore was smelted in clay vessels standing in the middle of open fires. This process, noted in settlements of the 9th-8th centuries, is characteristic of the initial stage of the development of metallurgy; later ovens appeared. Numerous bronze and iron products and the quality of their manufacture suggest that already in the first half of the 1st millennium BC. e. Among the Finno-Ugric tribes of Eastern Europe, the transformation of domestic production industries into crafts, such as foundry and blacksmithing, began. Among other industries, the high development of weaving should be noted. The development of cattle breeding and the beginning emphasis on crafts, primarily metallurgy and metalworking, led to an increase in labor productivity, which in turn contributed to the emergence of property inequality. Still, the accumulation of property inside tribal communities in the Volga-Oka basin occurred rather slowly; because of this, until the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. the ancestral villages were relatively weakly fortified. Only in subsequent centuries did the settlements of the Dyakovo culture become fortified with powerful ramparts and ditches.

A more complex picture social order inhabitants of the Kama region. The burial inventory clearly indicates the presence of property stratification among local residents. Some burials dating back to the end of the 1st millennium allowed archaeologists to suggest the emergence of some kind of disadvantaged category of the population, possibly slaves from among prisoners of war. On the position of the tribal aristocracy in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. evidenced by one of the striking monuments of the Ananyinsky burial ground (near Yelabuga) - a stone tombstone with a relief image of a warrior armed with a dagger and a war hammer and decorated with a mane. The rich grave goods in the grave under this slab contained a dagger and a hammer made of iron, and a silver hryvnia. The buried warrior was undoubtedly one of the clan leaders. Separation family nobility especially intensified by the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e. It should be noted, however, that at this time the clan nobility was probably relatively few in number, since low labor productivity still greatly limited the number of members of society who lived off the labor of others.

The population of the Volga-Oka and Kama basins was associated with the Northern Baltic, Western Siberia, the Caucasus, and Scythia. From the Scythians and Sarmatians, many objects came here, sometimes even from very distant places, such as the Egyptian figurine of the god Amun, found in a settlement excavated at the spout of the Chusovaya and Kama rivers. The shapes of some iron knives, bone arrowheads and a number of vessels among the Finns are very similar to similar Scythian and Sarmatian products. Connections of the Upper and Middle Volga region with the Scythian and Sarmatian world can be traced back to the 6th-4th centuries, and by the end of the 1st millennium BC. e. are made permanent.

About Finno-Ugric tribes

In the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD. e. The Slavic population, settled in the Upper Dnieper region and mixed with local East Baltic groups, with its further advancement to the north and east, reached the borders of regions that had anciently belonged to Finno-Ugric tribes. These were the Estonians, Vodians and Izhoras in the South-Eastern Baltic, all on the White Lake and tributaries of the Volga - Sheksna and Mologa, Merya in the eastern part of the Volga-Oka interfluve, Mordovians and Muroms on the Middle and Lower Oka. If the eastern Balts were neighbors of the Finno-Ugric peoples from ancient times, then the Slavic-Russian population came into close contact with them for the first time. The subsequent colonization of some Finno-Ugric lands and the assimilation of their indigenous population represented a special chapter in the history of the formation of the Old Russian people.

In terms of the level of socio-economic development, lifestyle and nature of culture, the Finno-Ugric population differed significantly from both the Eastern Balts and especially from the Slavs. The Finno-Ugric languages ​​were completely alien to both. But not only because of this, not only because of significant specific differences, Slavic-Finno-Ugric historical and ethnic relations developed differently than the relations of the Slavs and their ancient neighbors - the Balts. The main thing was that Slavic-Finno-Ugric contacts relate mainly to a later time, to a different historical period than the relationship between the Slavs and the Dnieper Balts.

When the Slavs at the turn and at the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. e. penetrated the lands of the Balts in the Upper Dnieper region and along its periphery; although they were more advanced compared to the aborigines, they were still primitive tribes. It was already discussed above that their spread throughout the Upper Dnieper region was a spontaneous process that lasted for centuries. Undoubtedly, it was not always peaceful; The Balts resisted the aliens. Their burnt and destroyed shelter-forts, known in some areas of the Upper Dnieper region, in particular in the Smolensk region, indicate cases of brutal struggle. But nevertheless, the advance of the Slavs into the Upper Dnieper region cannot be called a process of conquest of these lands. Neither the Slavs nor the Balts acted as a whole, with united forces. Up the Dnieper and its tributaries, step by step, separate, scattered groups of farmers moved, looking for places for new settlements and arable land and acting at their own risk and peril. The refuge settlements of the local population testify to the isolation of the Baltic communities, and to the fact that each community, in the event of clashes, defended itself first of all. And if they - the Slavs and the Balts - ever united for joint armed enterprises into larger groups, these were special cases that did not change the overall picture.

The colonization of Finno-Ugric lands took place under completely different conditions. Only some of them in the southern part of the basin of lakes Ilmen and Chudskoye were occupied by the Slavs and the Dnieper Balts who mixed with them relatively early, in the 6th–8th centuries, under conditions that differed little from the conditions of the spread of the Slavs in the Upper Dnieper region. In other Finno-Ugric lands, in particular in eastern parts Volga-Oka interfluve - on the territory of the future Rostov-Suzdal land, which played a huge role in the destinies of Ancient Rus', the Slavic-Russian population began to settle only from the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennium AD. e., already in the conditions of the emergence of early feudal ancient Russian statehood. And here the colonization process, of course, included a considerable element of spontaneity, and here the peasant farmer was the pioneer, as many historians have pointed out. But in general, the colonization of Finno-Ugric lands proceeded differently. It relied on fortified cities and armed squads. Feudal lords resettled peasants to new lands. The local population was subject to tribute and placed in a dependent position. The colonization of Finno-Ugric lands in the North and the Volga region is no longer a phenomenon of primitive, but of early feudal Slavic-Russian history.

Historical and archaeological data indicate that until the last quarter of the 1st millennium AD. e. Finno-Ugric groups of the Volga region and the North still largely retained their ancient forms of life and culture that had developed in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. e. The economy of the Finno-Ugric tribes was complex. Agriculture was relatively poorly developed; Cattle breeding played a major role in the economy; he was accompanied by hunting, fishing and forestry If the Eastern Baltic population in the Upper Dnieper region and on the Western Dvina was very significant in number, as evidenced by hundreds of refuge settlements and settlement sites along the banks of rivers and in the depths of watersheds, then the population of the Finno-Ugric lands was comparatively rare. People lived here and there along the shores of lakes and rivers that had wide floodplains that served as pastures. Vast expanses of forests remained uninhabited; they were exploited as hunting grounds, just as they had been a thousand years ago in the early Iron Age.

Of course, various Finno-Ugric groups had their own characteristics and differed from each other in the level of socio-economic development and in the nature of culture. The most advanced among them were the Chud tribes of the South-Eastern Baltic - the Ests, Vods and Izhoras. As Kh. A. Moora points out, already in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. e. Agriculture became the basis of the Estonian economy, and therefore the population settled from that time on in areas with the most fertile soils. By the end of the 1st millennium AD e. the ancient Estonian tribes stood on the threshold of feudalism, crafts developed among them, the first urban-type settlements arose, maritime trade connected the ancient Estonian tribes with each other and with their neighbors, contributing to the development of the economy, culture and social inequality. Tribal associations were replaced at this time by unions of territorial communities. Local features that distinguished individual groups of ancient Estonians in the past began to gradually disappear, indicating the beginning of the formation of the Estonian nation.

All these phenomena were observed among other Finno-Ugric tribes, but they were much less represented among them. Vod and Izhora were in many ways close to the Estonia. Among the Volga Finno-Ugric peoples, the most numerous and those who reached a relatively high level of development were the Mordovian and Murom tribes who lived in the Oka valley, in its middle and lower reaches.

The wide, many-kilometer floodplain of the Oka River was an excellent pasture for herds of horses and herds of other livestock. If you look at the map of Finno-Ugric burial grounds of the second, third and last quarters of the 1st millennium AD. e., it is not difficult to notice that in the middle and lower reaches of the Oka they stretch in a continuous chain along areas with a wide floodplain, while to the north - in the Volga-Oka interfluve and to the south, along the right tributaries of the Oka - Tsne and Moksha, as well as along In the Sura and Middle Volga, ancient burial grounds of the Volga Finno-Ugrians are represented in significantly smaller numbers and are located in separate nests (Fig. 9).

Rice. 9. Finno-Ugric burial grounds of the 1st millennium AD. e. in the Volga-Oka region. 1 - Sarsky; 2 - Podolsky; 3 - Khotimlsky; 4 - Kholuysky; 5 - Novlensky; 6 - Pustoshensky; 7 - Zakolpievsky; 8 - Malyshevsky; 9 - Maksimovsky; 10 - Muromsky; 11 - Podbolotevsky; 12 - Urvansky; 13 - Kurmansky; 14 - Koshibeevsky; 15 - Kulakovsky; 16 - Oblachinsky; 17-Shatrishchensky; 18-Gaverdovsky; 19-Dubrovichsky; 20 - Borokovsky; 27 - Kuzminsky; 22 - Baku: 23 - Zhabinsky; 24 - Temnikovsky; 25 - Ivankovsky; 26 - Sergachsky.

Pointing to the connection between the settlements and burial grounds of the ancient Finno-Ugrians with the wide river floodplains - the base of their cattle breeding, P. P. Efimenko drew attention to the inventory of male burials, depicting the Mordovians and Muroma of the 1st millennium AD. e. as mounted shepherds, somewhat reminiscent in their attire and weapons, and, consequently, in their way of life, of the nomads of the southern Russian steppes. “There is no doubt,” wrote P. P. Efimenko, “that shepherding, for which the beautiful meadows along the Oka River were used, in the era of the emergence of burial grounds acquired the significance of one of the very important species economic activity population of the region." Other researchers, in particular E.I. Goryunova, characterized the economy of the Volga Finno-Ugrians in exactly the same way. Based on materials from the Durasovskoe settlement, studied in the Kostroma region, dating back to the end of the 1st millennium AD. e., and other archaeological monuments, she established that up until that time the Volga Finno-Ugric peoples - the Meryan tribes - were predominantly cattle breeders. They bred mainly horses and pigs, with smaller quantities of large and small animals. cattle. Agriculture occupied a secondary place in the economy along with hunting and fishing. This picture is also typical for the Tumov settlement of the 9th–11th centuries, studied by E.I. Goryunova, located near Murom.

The pastoral aspect of the economy was preserved to one degree or another by the Finno-Ugric population of the Volga region during the period of Ancient Rus'. In the “Chronicle of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal”, after listing the Finno-Ugric tribes - “other pagans” - it is said: “The ancient tributaries and horse-corrects have been restored.” The term “horse feeders” does not raise any doubts. The “Inii Yazitsi” raised horses for Rus', for its army. This was one of their main duties. In 1183, Prince Vsevolod Yuryevich, returning to Vladimir from a campaign against Volga Bulgaria, “let his horses go to the Mordovians,” which was probably a common occurrence. Obviously, the Mordovian economy, like the economy of other Volga Finno-Ugric peoples - “horse feeders”, was significantly different from Agriculture Slavic-Russian population. Among the “feedings” mentioned in documents of the 15th–16th centuries is the “Meshchera horse spot” - a duty levied on sellers and buyers of horses.

On such a unique economic basis, with the predominance of cattle breeding, especially horse breeding, among the Volga Finno-Ugrians at the end of the 1st millennium AD. e. Only class relations of a primitive, pre-feudal appearance could have developed, albeit with significant social differentiation, similar to the social relations of the nomads of the 1st millennium AD. e.

Based on archaeological data, it is difficult to resolve the question of the degree of development of crafts among the Volga Finno-Ugric peoples. Most of them had long been engaged in home crafts, in particular the production of numerous and varied metal jewelry, which abounded in women's costumes. The technical equipment of the home craft at that time differed little from the equipment of a professional artisan - these were the same casting molds, dolls, crucibles, etc. Findings of these things during archaeological excavations, as a rule, do not allow us to determine whether there was a home or specialized craft here, a product of the social division of labor.

But there were undoubtedly professional artisans at the indicated time. This is evidenced by the emergence on the Finno-Ugric lands of the Volga region at the turn of the 1st and 2nd thousand separate settlements, usually fortified with ramparts and ditches, which, judging by the composition of the finds made during archaeological excavations, can be called trade and craft settlements, “embryos” of cities. In addition to local products, imported items can be found at these points, including oriental coins, various beads, metal jewelry, etc. These are finds from the Sarsky settlement near Rostov, the already mentioned Tumov settlement near Murom, the Zemlyanoy Strug settlement near Kasimov and some others.

It can be assumed that the northern Finno-Ugric tribes, in particular the entire one, which, judging by the chronicle and toponymic data, occupied a huge space around White Lake, were more backward. In its economy, like that of the neighboring Komi, hunting and fishing occupied almost the main place at that time. The question of the degree of development of agriculture and cattle breeding remains open. It is possible that there were deer among the domestic animals. Unfortunately, archaeological sites Belozerskaya village of the 1st millennium AD e. still remain unexplored. And not only because no one specifically dealt with them, but mainly because the ancient whole did not leave behind either the remains of well-defined long-term settlements or burial monuments known in the lands of other neighboring Finno-Ugric peoples - Estonians, Vodians , Mary, Murom. It was apparently a very sparse and mobile population. In the southern Ladoga region there are burial mounds from the late 9th–10th centuries. with burnings, peculiar in funeral rite and belonged, perhaps, to the Vesi, but had already been subjected to Slavic and Scandinavian influence. This group has already broken with the ancient way of life. Its economy and way of life were in many ways reminiscent of the economy and way of life of the Western Finno-Ugric tribes - the Vodi, Izhora and Estonians. On White Lake there are antiquities from the 10th and subsequent centuries - mounds and settlements that belonged to the village, which had already experienced significant Russian influence.

Most of the Finno-Ugric groups that were part of the borders of Ancient Rus' or closely associated with it did not lose their language and ethnic characteristics and subsequently turned into corresponding nationalities. But the lands of some of them lay on the main directions of Slavic-Russian early medieval colonization. Here the Finno-Ugric population soon found itself in the minority and after several centuries was assimilated. As one of the main reasons for the Slavic-Russian early medieval colonization of the Finno-Ugric lands, researchers rightly call the flight to the outskirts of Rus' of the agricultural population fleeing growing feudal oppression. But, as already indicated above, there were also “organized” resettlement of peasants, led by the feudal elite. The colonization of the northern and northeastern lands especially intensified in the 11th–12th centuries, when the southern ancient Russian regions lying along the border of the steppes were subjected to severe attacks by nomads. From the Middle Dnieper region, people then fled to the Smolensk and Novgorod North, and especially to the distant Zalesye with its fertile soils.

The process of Russification of Finno-Ugric groups - Meri, Belozersk Vesi, Murom, etc. - ended only in the 13th–14th centuries, and in some places even later. Therefore, the literature presents the opinion that the listed Finno-Ugric groups served as a component not so much of the Old Russian as of the Russian (Great Russian) nationality. Ethnographic materials similarly indicate that Finno-Ugric elements in culture and life were characteristic of the ancient rural culture only of the Volga-Oka and northern Russian population. But archaeological and historical data indicate that in a number of areas the process of Russification of the Finno-Ugric population was completed or had gone very far by the 11th–12th centuries. By this time, significant groups of Meri, Vesi and Oka tribes, as well as individual Baltic-Finnish groups in the North-West, had become part of the Old Russian people. Therefore, the Finno-Ugrians cannot be excluded from the number of components of the Old Russian people, although this component was not significant.

The colonization of Finno-Ugric lands, the relationship between newcomers and the indigenous population, its subsequent assimilation and the role of Finno-Ugric groups in the formation of the Old Russian people - all these issues have not yet been sufficiently studied. Below we'll talk about the fate of not all Finno-Ugric groups whose lands were occupied in the early Middle Ages by the Slavic-Russian population, but only those of them about which there is currently any information, historical or archaeological. Most data is available on ancient population eastern part of the Volga-Oka interfluve, where in the 12th century. The most important center of Ancient Rus' moved. Something is known about the Finno-Ugric population of the North-West.

Strange as it may seem at first glance, the ancient Finno-Ugrians who found themselves within the borders of Rus' were most interested in the third quarter of the 19th century. Interest in them was caused then, firstly, by the results of research by outstanding Finno-Ugric scholars - historians, linguists, ethnographers and archaeologists, primarily A. M. Sjögren, who first drew a broad historical picture Finno-Ugric world, and his younger contemporary M. A. Kastrena. A. M. Sjögren, in particular, “discovered” the descendants of the ancient Finno-Ugric groups - the Vodi and Izhora, who played a large role in the history of Veliky Novgorod. The first study specifically devoted to the historical fate of the water was the work of P. I. Keppen, published in 1851, “Vod and Votskaya Pyatina”. Secondly, interest in the Finno-Ugric peoples and their role in national history was then caused by grandiose excavations of medieval mounds on the territory of the Rostov-Suzdal land, carried out by A. S. Uvarov and P. S. Savelyev in the early 50s of the 19th century. According to A. S. Uvarov, with whom he spoke at the First Archaeological Congress in 1869, these mounds belonged to the chronicle measure, as they said then, of the Meryans - the Finno-Ugric population, the “rapid Russification” of which began “almost in prehistoric times for us "

The work of A. S. Uvarov and P. S. Savelyev, “which discovered what seemed to be an unknown culture of an entire nation and showed the enormous importance of archaeological excavations for early history Russia, rightly led contemporaries into admiration” and caused numerous attempts to find traces of Mary in written sources, in toponymy, in ethnographic materials, in secret languages Vladimir and Yaroslavl peddlers, etc. Archaeological excavations continued. Of the numerous works of that time devoted to the ancient merya, I will name an article by V. A. Samaryanov about the traces of merya settlements within the Kostroma province, which was the result of archival research, and an excellent book by D. A. Korsakov about the merya, the author of which, summed up the huge and varied factual material, had no doubt that “Chudskoe (Finno-Ugric, - P.T.) tribe" was "once one of the elements of the formation of the Great Russian nationality."

IN late XIX- early 20th century the attitude towards the ancient Finno-Ugrians of the Volga-Oka interfluve changed noticeably, interest in them decreased. After excavations of medieval mounds were carried out within various ancient Russian regions, it turned out that the mounds of the Rostov-Suzdal land in their mass do not differ from ordinary ancient Russian ones and, therefore, A. S. Uvarov gave an erroneous definition of them. A. A. Spitsyn, who came up with a new study dedicated to these mounds, recognized them as Russian. He pointed out that the Finno-Ugric element in them was insignificant and expressed distrust of the chronicle's reports about Mary. He believed that the Merya was forced out of the Volga-Oka interfluve to the northeast, “staying on the path of retreat only in small patches.”

In general, A. A. Spitsyn’s considerations regarding the Rostov-Suzdal mounds of the 10th–12th centuries. were undoubtedly correct, and they were never disputed. But his desire to almost completely exclude the Finno-Ugrians from the population of North-Eastern Rus', to reduce their role to a minimum, was certainly erroneous.

The assessment given by A. A. Spitsyn to materials from medieval mounds examined at the end of the last century by V. N. Glazov and L. K. Ivanovsky south of the Gulf of Finland, between lakes Peipus and Ilmen, was similarly erroneous. A. A. Spitsyn recognized almost all of these mounds as Slavic, contrary to the opinion of Finnish archaeologists, who classified them as Vodi monuments. A.V. Schmidt was right when he pointed out in his essay on the history of the archaeological study of the ancient Finno-Ugric peoples that the views of A.A. Spitsyn were a reflection of a certain nationalist tendency that was widespread at that time, which A.V. Shmidt called the “Slavic point of view,” indicating its main representatives in Russian archeology of that time were I. I. Tolstoy and N. P. Kondakov. This point of view was presented then in the works of historians of Ancient Rus': D.I. Ilovaisky, S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others. They, of course, did not deny that within the borders of Ancient Rus' there were areas with “foreign ", the Finno-Ugric population, which in some places survived until the 13th–14th centuries, and in some places even later. But pre-revolutionary researchers did not see the subjects of history in non-Slavic tribes. They were not interested in their fate and assigned them a passive, secondary role in the history of Rus'.

A belated echo of these same views was the speech of the famous ethnographer D.K. Zelenin, who published an article in 1929 in which he questioned the very fact of the participation of the Finno-Ugric people in the formation of the Russian nation. This speech was then subjected to severe criticism from ethnographers.

Unfortunately, the nihilistic attitude towards the history of the Finno-Ugric peoples and other non-Slavic participants in the creation of the Old Russian people, for reasons other than before, of course, was preserved among Soviet historians of Ancient Rus'. In the works of such specialists in the history of population and feudal relations in North-Eastern Rus' as M.K. Lyubavsky and S.B. Veselovsky and others, the non-Slavic population - all, Merya, Meshchera, Muroma - is only mentioned and nothing more. In the works of B. D. Grekov, dedicated to the history of the peasantry, S. V. Yushkov, in which we're talking about about the history of law, M. N. Tikhomirov about peasant and urban anti-feudal movements and others, the population of Ancient Rus' is considered from the very beginning as essentially homogeneous. Willingly or unwittingly, historians proceed from the idea that the ancient Russian people in the 9th–10th centuries. has already taken shape. They do not see and do not take into account local characteristics, they do not see or do not take into account the fact that individual Slavic-Russian, Finno-Ugric and other groups had their own economic, social and ethnic specifics. Non-Russian tribes fought for independence not only in the 9th–10th centuries, during the formation of Ancient Rus', but also later - in the 11th–12th centuries. Historians seem to fear that, by recognizing the existence of antagonism between individual ethnic groups, which were part of the borders of Ancient Rus', they weaken their Marxist assessment historical events, main force of which there was class struggle. As a result, this leads to some kind of idealization of Ancient Rus'.

Let's take, for example, the famous anti-feudal uprising of 1071 in the Rostov region. Despite the fact that the description of this event in the chronicle leaves no doubt that its participants - both the Smerds led by the Magi, and the “best wives” who were robbed and killed by the hungry Smerds - were Meryan, Finno-Ugric elements (we are talking about This will be discussed below), historians of Ancient Rus' do not attach any importance to this or try to completely deny this circumstance.

Thus, M.N. Tikhomirov, recognizing that the Rostov-Suzdal land in the 11th century. had a mixed Russian-Finno-Ugric population, nevertheless tried to consider specific ethnographic features, accompanying the uprising of 1071, as features allegedly widespread in the Russian environment. He considers the rebel Smerds with the Magi to be Russian, since the chronicle story does not indicate anywhere that Jan Vyshatich communicated with the rebels with the help of translators.

Of the historians of our days, it seems that only V.V. Mavrodin gave, in my opinion, a correct description of the not only social, but also specific tribal environment in which the uprising of 1071 took place.

And at present, little has changed in historiography in this area. One can fully agree with the recently expressed opinion of V. T. Pashuto, who noted that “in our historiography the issue of ethnic and economic complexity and the political heterogeneity of the structure caused by it has not yet been explored Old Russian state... The features of the anti-feudal struggle of the peoples subject to Rus' and its relationship with the history of the class struggle of Russian smerds and the urban poor have not been studied.” It must be pointed out that in the work of V. T. Pashuto, from which this quote is taken, in fact, for the first time all these topics in their entirety were presented to historians. But so far they have only been delivered.

In recent decades, the situation has been somewhat better with archaeological research devoted to the early medieval history of the Rostov-Suzdal land and the north-west of Novgorod. As a result of repeated excavations in the Volga-Oka interfluve, significant new material was obtained that illuminates the culture of the Finno-Ugric - Meryan, Murom and Mordovian population, as well as a picture of the appearance of Slavic-Russian settlers in this area. One of the latest results of these works was published in 1961. big Book E.I. Goryunova. In this book, in my opinion, one cannot agree with everything, especially in those sections where we talk about the distant past. But the second part of the book, dedicated to early Middle Ages, in particular the relationship of the Russian population with the local Meryan and Murom groups, contains mainly very interesting data and their interpretation, which will be used more than once in further presentation. The works of L. A. Golubeva, a researcher of the city of Beloozero, are devoted to the medieval antiquities of the Beloozero village. Population of this ancient city was mixed, Russian-Finno-Ugric.

The results of archaeological work in the Mari, Mordovian, and Udmurt Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics adjacent to the Volga-Oka interfluve were also of great importance for research in the field of history and culture of the Volga-Oka Finno-Ugric tribes.

As for the northwestern Finno-Ugric regions, which were once part of the Votskaya Pyatina of Veliky Novgorod, in its western parts, lying south of the Gulf of Finland and the river. Neva, over the last half century there has been very little archaeological research devoted to the study of the history of the ancient indigenous population. Nevertheless, A. A. Spitsyn’s views on the medieval mounds of this area were revised. Researchers such as X. A. Moora, V. I. Ravdonikas, V. V. Sedov came to the conclusion that the kurgan antiquities of the 11th–14th centuries, a considerable part of them, should be associated with the indigenous population - the Vodya and Izhora. And how could it be otherwise, if these Finno-Ugric groups constituted a significant part of the population here until the 19th century. and if a population that preserves the memory of its Votic and Izhorian origins exists here and there at the present time.

Large studies of medieval mounds in the 20-30s were carried out in neighboring regions - in the southern Ladoga region and the Onega region; they were associated with excavations at the site of Staraya Ladoga and were intended to give a picture of the rural population surrounding this city, previously known mainly from the excavations of N. E. Brandenburg. The results of all these studies caused a long discussion among archaeologists, which has not yet ended. As already indicated, some researchers claim that the medieval mounds of the Ladoga and Onega regions belong to the Vesi; others see them as monuments to southern Karelian groups. It is only clear that this was not a Slavic-Russian population, but a Finno-Ugric one, although it was subject to significant Slavic-Russian influence.