Evidence for a Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization

Comparative Civilizations Review Volume 73 Number 73 Fall 2015 Article 7 9-1-2015 Evidence for a Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization Piotr Murzionak Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr Recommended Citation Murzionak, Piotr (2015) "Evidence for a Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization," Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 73 : No. 73 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol73/iss73/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the All Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Comparative Civilizations Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact , . Murzionak: Evidence for a Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization Comparative Civilizations Review 51 Evidence for Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization Piotra Murzionak This article argues for the existence of a distinct Eastern European Slavic civilization on the territories of modern Belarus and Ukraine. One group of Slavs migrated to Eastern Europe from the fifth century to the ninth century and then, for various reasons, separated and formed two civilizations – an Eastern Slavic civilization (Belarusian-Ukrainian) and a Eurasian civilization. The critical factors for this division were the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the emergence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Principality, which saved Eastern Slavs from “Eurasian influence.” Belarus and Ukraine share a number of characteristic Western features. Today it is obvious that including Belarus and Ukraine in the Orthodox, Eastern or Eurasian/Russian civilization must be revisited. Including the two civilizations as one has resulted from the prevalence of created myths and misinterpretations of history, such as the asserted threefold nature of East Slavic people (Great Russians, Little Russians and White Russians); on the claimed Slavic nature of the Russian Empire; on a supposed historical continuity between Kievan Rus’ and modern Russia; and on Muscovy’s role in uniting the Eastern Slavs. Introduction: Was Rurik in Polotsk -- or who wrote our history for us? Kievan Rus’ emerged at the end of the ninth century on the territory occupied by the Eastern Slavs. The term Kievan Rus’ is used by many investigators, both in scholarly and in popular literature, to refer to the ancient land around Kiev that is today part of Ukraine and, to some extent, Belarus (Zacharii, 2002; Plochy, 2006). Modern Russia emerged out of the area known as Muscovy (the territories around Suzdal, Murom, and Rostov). The change in meaning of Russia-Rus’ began in the early eighteenth century, especially during the reign of Empress Catherine II (1762-1796). She ordered a history of Russia to be written that included the Normanist theory of the origin of Rus’ and Tatishchev’s (16861750) and Karamzin’s (1766-1826) histories of Russia. In fact, all these works, as well as some later ones (Solovyov, 1820-1879), were used to justify the de facto annexation of the Polish Republic and the 'reunification' of the Eastern Slavs (Great Russians, Little Russians, and White Russians), confirmation of both the Slavic nature of the Russian Empire, and the legitimacy of historical continuity from Kievan Rus’ to modern Russia. For a long time, the history of the Russian state was official in Belarus and Ukraine. Karamzin’s and Solovyov’s histories of Russia were based on the Normanist theory, developed by G. F. Mueller (1705-1783), who worked at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 2015 1 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 73 [2015], No. 73, Art. 7 52 Number 73, Fall 2015 According to the Normanist theory, a major role in the creation of Kievan Rus’ [not Russia - PM] was assigned to Scandinavians, Germans and Varangians (Vikings), and these alien peoples were called “Rus’”. The territory of Rus’ has often been known in the West as “Ruthenia.” This theoretical formulation was familiar to people of the region since the end of the Russian Empire, although Soviet historians were anti-Normanists. There is a political bias to the topic. Obviously, it was necessary to maintain the Slavic unity of the three nations that had formed the basis of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, supported unconditionally in both cases by the Orthodox Church. During the reign of Catherine II, it was needed to prove the leadership of Scandinavians and Germans in governing the Slavs; in the Soviet era, between the two world wars, it was necessary to keep the unity of the Slavic spirit. No wonder that the Second World War saw the release of the film on Alexander Nevsky who defeated the Teutonic Knights (Germans) on Lake Peipus. Mikhail Lomonosov did not accept a history of Russia written by German scholars and he accused Mueller of falsification. Lomonosov believed that the Rus’ hailed from Slavic lands and they were not Varangians (Bielawski, 1955). Only the first part of the first volume of Lomonosov’s Ancient Russian History was published posthumously by Mueller, while Lomonosov’s archives have vanished. It should be noted that Muller managed the archives of the Academy of Sciences from 1766 until his death. Such was the case also with the works of Tatishchev, with Mueller posthumously publishing five volumes of Russian history based on Tatishchev’s notes. Again, as in the case with Lomonosov’ archives, the Tatishchev manuscripts mysteriously disappeared, along with earlier and now unknown chronicles on which these manuscripts had been based. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the ideas contained in such works of Lomonosov are similar to those of Mueller. So what were they arguing about? That's why it is crucial to create today an accurate understanding of the actual place of the Eastern Slavic states of Belarus and Ukraine in the modern world. The starting point for the Normanist theory was ‘The Tale of Bygone Years’ or ‘The Chronicle of Nestor’. For more on Normanists, neo-Normanists, and anti-Normanists see the historical reviews of Zakharii, 2002, Klein, 2009). The Tale of Bygone Years (Povest' Vremyan'nykh Let) (PVL), which dates back to 1113, was written by a monk named Nestor, and perhaps not only by him (Pihio, 1981), based on lost chronicles, legends, and Byzantine documents. The first mention of the Slavs in PVL dates them back to 862. This means that the chronicle was written more than 250 years after the events it was describing could possibly have taken place. PVL tells of the arrival of the Vikings/Varangians, whom the Slavs had invited to reign over them. Three semi-mythical brothers (Rurik, Truvor, and Sineus) began to rule in Novgorod, Izborsk, and Beloozero in 862. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol73/iss73/7 2 Murzionak: Evidence for a Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization Comparative Civilizations Review 53 However, there is no further information on (...truncated)