MOSCOW, 21 Mar. The development of archeology and historical science today is of particular importance for Russian society, since this field of knowledge forms the values and, ultimately, the national consciousness of Russians. The discoveries of archaeologists on the Tula land over the past 30 years have become the subject of the book «Archaeology of the Oka-Don Divide», published by the state museum-reserve «Kulikovo field». Aleksey Vorontsov, the editor of the publication, scientific secretary of the museum, spoke about the scientists' work.
— Aleksey Mikhailovich, you have been participating in the work of the Tula archaeological expedition since the early 1990s. Is it possible to say that recent research in archeology is revising previous conclusions and opening up new layers of knowledge?
– Essentially, yes. Until the 1990s, only occasional research by archaeologists from Moscow and other regions was carried out in the Tula region. The systematic study of the region began only in the 1980s and was initially associated mainly with the Kulikovo field. I joined the expedition in the autumn of 1992 and I remember that it was an era of pioneering for us. We have done a lot since then.
We make discoveries every year. In general, this is a property of any science. You can’t settle down on something, say “now we all know about it,” and then stand in the pose of a bronze statue and broadcast the same thing for the rest of your life. The most amazing and happy thing for me in science is when you come up with something and publish it, and after some time you find new facts, and you need to collect the big picture again.
Both in the 19th century and at the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists make their discoveries in much the same way: we go out, do exploration, excavations, discover some finds, write a report and establish scientific facts — they always remain unchanged and are accumulated by generations of archaeologists. But they can add up to completely different pictures, and their interpretation is constantly changing. Non-professionals often accuse historians: «Ten years ago you said one thing, and now you say another, you are just crooks.» In fact, constant development is the essence of science.
— The book you published consistently tells about the emergence of the Slavs and the formation of the Old Russian state on the Oka-Don watershed.
— The Slavic world in that era was much wider than the Old Russian state, it included both the Balkans and eastern Germany. What is the difference between ancient Russian culture and Slavic? Slavic culture does not imply statehood, it was associated with tribal centers, with a free peasant community, which was at the stage of self-government.
The Old Russian state is already a different level, it is a state with its own administration, state religion and laws — «Russian Truth». For example, on the territory of the upper Oka, the Vyatichi lived with their tribal structure. And on the Dnieper, the process of establishing an administration (reigning) and annexing territories that lived without a state superstructure began. The formation of the Old Russian state began. It was not so much an ethnic as a social association, because the princes and squads could be ethnically very diverse — both Slavs and Scandinavians.
< /span>
In general, in the era of the migration of peoples, it was very easy for everyone to join the Slavic communities. The Slavs «come out of the Pripyat swamps», an explosive growth in their numbers begins, and suddenly the Slavs populate half of Europe. Did they multiply? No, they included a huge number of other related, and sometimes other ethnic tribes.
The Slavic community was built on a communal agreement, in which not so much consanguinity as neighborly ties mattered. Therefore, in a relatively short time, huge groups of people began to consider themselves Slavs. So it's a lot of cultural stuff.
— Your book summarizes 30 years of research. Will it become an intermediate milestone on the scientific path or an important result of a certain stage?
— The studies described in the book have in many ways become the completion of an important stage for us, today new facts are already appearing, and we are starting to think about something a little differently. In fact, the book should become the foundation for a new scientific leap, by and large — one of the steps for the development of Russian archeology. If we do not develop our own, national school of archeology, then someone else will come and tell their version of history.