Holy waters of the ancestral homeland of mankind

Introduction

The problem of locating the original homeland of the Indo-European peoples has long confronted scholars. The discovery of Sanskrit, the first texts written in it, and the resulting fascination with ancient Indian culture were decisive for the emergence of Indo-European studies, a phenomenon most vividly reflected in von Schlegel's book, "On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians" (1808). Von Schlegel, the first to propose a single original homeland for all Indo-Europeans, located this original homeland in Hindustan. However, this assumption was soon proven erroneous, as before the arrival of the Aryan tribes, India was inhabited by representatives of a different language family and a different, distinct type—the Black Dravidians. However, this idea is shared by a significant number of Hindu scholars and politicians of the Hindutva school.

Modern anthropologists believe that modern European humans developed in Eastern Europe, between the Dnieper, Don, and Volga rivers. There are simply no earlier finds in other regions.

Until the early 1930s, the Soviet historical school based its definition of the Indo-European homeland on the works of A. A. Shakhmatov and L. I. Niederle. Based on natural geographical factors, the Indo-European homeland was located in Moravia and Silesia. Meanwhile, the homeland of the Eastern Indo-Europeans (Slavs, Armenians, and Indo-Iranians) was located in the Moscow and Tver regions, in the upper reaches of the Dnieper. It was assumed that the Eastern Indo-Europeans later migrated south along the Dnieper to the Black Sea region, where the Aryan Indo-Iranians formed, then migrated from the Don to Iran and India.

The Slavic homeland was located from Prussia to Pskov, along the banks of the Neman, Dvina, and the Gulf of Riga. The Slavs then migrated to Poland and further to the Balkans, Carpathians, and Ukraine. But then, in 1929, “Russian history” itself was recognized as counter-revolutionary, and in 1932-36 the “homeland theory” was declared by communist ideologists to be non-Bolshevik, fascist, and anti-scientific.

Russian Historical Atlas by K. Kudryashov

It should be noted that since the 1930s, a primitive theory has prevailed in Russia that all Eastern European hydronyms derive from an extinct Finno-Ugric language. Proponents of this theory typically consider themselves descendants of certain Finno-Ugric women raped by the Tatar-Mongols in the 13th century, and for this reason, they passed on the Russian language and customs to their descendants. Kievan Rus', which existed before this time, is somehow forgotten.

Not only the name of the river "Yelna" (fir tree), which is clearly of Slavic origin, is considered Finno-Ugric. According to this theory, the hydronym "balka" (beam) is taken from the Mordvin "vele" (village). One Russian researcher found that in the names, the word "ozero" (lake) is a calque of Finno-Ugric terms that have not survived to this day. The word "reka" (river) comes from the word "ruchei," and the word "ruchei" (stream) from the Finno-Ugric word "ega," the source of which is unknown. Moreover, in his opinion, the words "reka, ruchei, ozero" in the names of rivers, streams, and lakes have nothing in common with the Slavic words "reka, ruchei, ozero."

To determine the meanings of East Slavic hydronyms, a method is used to blend words from various Finnic and Ugric languages into a single hydronym. In other cases, such a hodgepodge is not used.

The latest trend among Russian Finno-Ugric scholars is to write all words in Latin. Since the Komi and, for example, the Mari, use Cyrillic, each author's notation ends up being unique, different from the others, and unclear as to what the original designation is. But it's confusing and "scientific."

The entire Finno-Ugric theory is a quasi-scientific invention, with no basis in reality other than a translation error from German into Russian of early 19th-century works on northern ethnography, later creatively developed by communist scholarship.

Of course, not all Soviet science supported such fabrications. The works of N. A. Bryusov, N. S. Derzhavin, B. V. Gornung, N. R. Guseva, V. V. Ivanov, archaeologists V. N. Danilenko, N. A. Chmykhov, and Yu. A. Shilov, and many other genuine scholars, are well-known.

Academician Boris Alexandrovich Rybakov was convinced of the original Slavic settlement in the vast expanses of Eastern Europe. He begins the history of its modern population in the mid-second millennium BC and traces it back to Scythia during the time of Herodotus. He then traces the line of succession to Kievan Rus'.

Speaking of the Slavic peoples, B.A. Rybakov attributes their formation to two eras: he associates names like "Radimichi" with the later colonization of the 6th and 7th centuries, and names like "Polyane" with the Trzciniec-Komarov culture.

"B. V. Gornung speaks even more definitively of the separation of the Proto-Slavs in the mid-2nd millennium BC and directly links the Proto-Slavs with the Trzciniec and Komarów (a more developed variant of the Trzciniec) cultures. The vast region of the Trzciniec culture in its final form has revived the concept of a Slavic massif from the Dnieper to the Oder, in complete agreement with the latest linguistic data on the time of the separation of the Slavs... Thus, we can recognize the region of the Trzciniec-Komarov culture as the primary site of unification and formation of the first separate Proto-Slavs, who remained in this area after the massive dispersal of the Indo-Europeans—the "Lace-Led" people—had ceased. This region can be designated by the somewhat vague term "homeland"...

Let's consider the historical lifespan of each of the cultures reflected by the three maps: Trzciniec-Komarowska – about 400 years, Przeworsk-Zarubinets – about 400 years, and the Prague-Korczak culture – about 200 years. This gives us approximately a thousand years during which the area of a certain ethnic community, reflected on these maps, was a historical reality. We must necessarily take this into account and align our research into Slavic ethnogenesis with this reality...

The creation of a homogeneous archaeological (Trzciniec-Komarowska) culture was the result and material expression of the process of consolidation. Slavdom at that time was not completely monolithic – the single archaeological culture was subdivided into 10-15 local variants, which could correspond to ancient tribes or tribal unions, and possibly even to the original dialects of the Proto-Slavic language. The starting point we have chosen for the Slavic historical process—the mid-second millennium BC—finds the Proto-Slavic world at the level of a primitive communal system, but with a fairly rich historical past."

The ancestors of the current population of Ukraine include the precursors of the Bronze Age cultures—the Eneolithic inhabitants of Trypillian settlements, farmers of the 6th-4th millennia BC—as direct ancestors of the Slavs and as participants in the creation of their culture.

Academician B. A. Rybakov points out: "I recall B. V. Gornung's thesis that the Trypillians were among the linguistic ancestors of the Slavs." He devoted considerable space to interpreting the ornamentation on Trypillian ceramics, since it has been proven in the Soviet Union that these people were genuine Proto-Slavs, speaking a Proto-Slavic (or, more accurately, Old Russian) language.

B. A. Rybakov predicted that myths and legends survive not hundreds, but tens of thousands of years, and that many surviving traditions trace their roots back to the time of mammoth hunting. He identified parallels in Trypillian culture with the hymns of the Rigveda: "Trypillian painting is an exact illustration of the tenth hymn of the Rigveda."

Academician B. A. Rybakov wrote about the long journeys of the Aryans with their herds and called the Slavs their direct descendants. He considered the Dnieper region to be the homeland of the Aryans. In his opinion, the Rigveda was formed in this territory, and from there, part of the population migrated to India. He had a great influence on the development of the concepts of S. V. Zharnikova and A. G. Vinogradov.

N. A. Chmykhov (who was personally acquainted with both S. V. Zharnikova and A. G. Vinogradov) wrote about the roots of the Slavs in the Proto-Neolithic, long before the emergence of the Trypillian culture, and called Right-Bank Ukraine the original homeland of both the Slavs and the Indo-Europeans as a whole. In his opinion, settlers from Ukraine led the "Neolithization" of the Middle East and carried out the "Neolithic Revolution." N. A. Chmykhov considered the current population of Eastern Europe to be the original population, who inhabited the territory of the Indo-European homeland for 10,000 years, the only truly indigenous Indo-Europeans.

The connection between the Trypillians and the Slavs is usually proven through archaeological evidence. S. V. Zharnikova demonstrated the unity of the ornamental complexes characteristic of Old Russian and Trypillian monuments (we will not cite these materials here, as they are widely known and would fill many volumes).

This is also supported by an analysis of toponyms and hydronyms. S. V. Sokolovsky, speaking of toponymy and hydronymy as indicators of ethnic areas, notes the need to use the category of migrant toponyms, which "mark the processes of ethnic settlement." S. V. Sokolovsky cites the unrelatedness of their etymologies to the names and nicknames of individuals, as well as the areal distribution of the toponymic forms they comprise, as essential characteristics of mass-colonization toponyms. He notes that "the latter characteristic is the most significant, as it attests to the transfer not of an isolated name, but of a toponymic system."

Having analyzed the "Dictionary of Hydronyms of Ukraine," which includes 44,000 variants of river and lake names, and having mapped hydronyms with the formants "-n-" and "-na," we compared the resulting area with a map of archaeological cultures for coincidences. The area of hydronyms with the formant "-na" in Ukraine coincides with the area of the Trypillian culture.

It is assumed that the population of the western Trypillian culture is related to the cultures of the Balkan Neolithic and Anatolia, while the population of the eastern Trypillian culture is related to the cultures of the Volga region and the Central Russian region. The Mahabharata records the hydronym Yamuna for the central part of Russia. Names with the formant "-na" are also present in the Baltic linguistic region. Naturally, these hydronyms (Desna, Berezina, Stugna) do not have a purely Slavic linguistic basis, although it is not always possible to distinguish between Slavic and Baltic, or Baltic and Sanskrit, names.

This position is consistent with B. A. Rybakov's account of the beginning of the Slavic historical process: "The ancestors of the Slavs had already been practicing agriculture since the 5th-3rd millennia BC. They experienced a temporary upsurge in the Eneolithic era, associated with the intensification of pastoral livestock breeding. They participated in the settlement of vast territories, and by the time the Proto-Slavic ethnic group crystallized, they had already achieved a certain level of culture: their economy was based on sedentary livestock breeding and agriculture, supplemented by hunting and fishing; they lived sedentary lives in small villages. The main tools were still made of stone, but bronze (chisels, awls, jewelry) was also used. The distinction of a military stratum within the tribe is not documented."

And what's more. After analyzing the "Dictionary of Hydronyms of Ukraine," which includes 44,000 variants of river and lake names, and mapping the root hydronyms (Uzh, Vepr, Teteriv), we compared the resulting area with a map of archaeological cultures for overlap. A distinctive feature of these hydronyms is the presence of a variant in the common Russian language (with the optional presence of a West Slavic variant). The area of these hydronyms coincided with the area of the Bug-Dniester culture.

The Bug-Dniester culture is an early Neolithic culture widespread in the Dniester region, the tributaries of the Dnieper, and the Bug basin. It dates back to 6400-5300 BC. It was later replaced by the Trypillian culture. It should be noted that the ornamentation of the Bug-Dniester culture ceramics is identical to the ornamentation of Vologda embroidery and lace.

1. Archaeological cultures

Let us consider some archaeological cultures that can be associated with the autochthonous Slavic population and the ancient Aryans in general.

1. Bug-Dniester culture

The Bug-Dniester culture is an archaeological culture that developed during the Neolithic period from 6400 to 5000 BC in the area of the Dniester and Southern Bug rivers. It was identified by V.N. Danilenko, who identified it as encompassing the entire Neolithic period of this region, up to the junction with Trypillia.

Barley, emmer, emmer, and spelt were used in the economy. Livestock farming was developed, including pigs and cattle.

V.N. Danilenko saw this culture as a continuation of the Mesolithic Grebeniki culture (8th-5th millennia BC), which existed in the steppe between the Dniester and Southern Bug rivers.

Archaeologists have found a number of mixed assemblages with the Körös and Linear Pottery cultures, and for the late period of the culture, influences from the Middle Dnieper region. Pottery produced beginning around the end of the 7th millennium BC is similar to that of the Elshansk culture of the middle Volga region.

The pottery of the first period of the Bug-Dniester culture finds parallels among the pottery of the oldest layers of the Grivac and Blagotin settlements on the Danube and with the oldest pottery of northeastern Bulgaria, Serbia, and Croatia. The earliest Bug-Dniester pottery differs radically from the pottery of the Balkan Körös culture, which later came under its influence. Körös (Starčevo-Kriš) farmers arrived in the Prut River valley around 5800 BC.

After 5500 BC, ties with the Starčevo-Kriš culture were lost due to the invasion of the Linear Pottery culture, which likely came from the upper Dniester region and devastated the entire region. The local stone houses disappeared, and linear-banded pottery became common. The remnants of the population migrated to the Dnieper-Donets culture area, where they played a role in the creation of the Sredny Stog culture.

2. Early Cultures.

The Elshan culture flourished in the middle Volga region, along the Samara and Sok rivers, in the 7th millennium BC. The oldest pottery in Europe has been discovered there. It is believed to be the source from which the art of pottery spread south and west, toward the Balkans. Elshan vessels, dating from 6700 BC onward, typically feature simple decoration. The population is classified as belonging to haplogroups R1b and Q1b.

Around 6200 BC, the Elshan culture gave way to the Middle Volga culture (with more complex ceramic ornamentation), which lasted until the 5th millennium BC. It was then replaced by the Samara culture (mid-5th to mid-4th millennium BC). The population is classified as belonging to haplogroups R1b and Q1b.

European linguists associate the Yelshan culture with the Indo-European language, arguing that it spread north into the forest zone as the Kama culture, reflecting the migration of Indo-European speakers into an area where Proto-Uralic languages were spoken.

It is now believed that the Bug-Dniester culture evolved from the local Kukrek culture.

The Scythians are considered neighbors of the Slavs. It is generally accepted that the Scythians spoke an Iranian dialect. However, the Iranian Scythian language has not yet been reconstructed. The Cimmerians are considered the predecessors of the Scythians.

Oleg Nikolaevich Trubachev, in his book "Indoarica in the Northern Black Sea region," substantiated the presence of Indo-Aryan tribes (Scythian-Sindian population) in the Northern Black Sea region. He reconstructed hundreds of linguistic relics, proving the existence of a vast Indo-Aryan population, representing their westernmost group. He also pointed to a connection between the local language and Sanskrit. Thanks to O. N. Trubachev's work, three extensive areas of Indo-Aryan linguistic relics were identified: Sindo-Meotian (Kuban), Tauro-Scythian (Ukraine), and Sigynno-Getian (Romania).

If an ancient Indo-Aryan population existed here, they should have preserved texts similar to the Vedas and Puranas, and these texts themselves should be associated with the Black Sea and Dnieper regions.

The area of Indo-Aryan linguistic relics corresponds only to the area of the Kukrek culture and the cultures that emerged from it.

The Kukrek culture of the late Mesolithic (mid-8th to late 7th millennium BC) existed in the Northern Black Sea region and the steppe and foothills of Crimea.

Most researchers believe that the Kukrek culture represented a development of the late Paleolithic Anetovo community, which existed in the middle reaches of the Southern Bug River. Improved production technology allowed the Kukrek tribes to spread as far as the Prut River basin in the west and the Dnieper and Kerch Rivers in the east.

The Kukrek culture is characterized by a high level of tool manufacture. A horn hoe comes from the Igren settlement. Dwellings were above-ground and semi-dugout. D. Ya. Telegin considered this evidence of the continuation of construction traditions from the late Paleolithic (Mezhirichi, Mizin, Gontsy). Several early Neolithic cultures descended from the Kukrek culture: the Bug-Dniester, Azov-Dnieper, Oleksiivka, and Sursk-Dnieper cultures.

The Azov-Dnieper (Mariupol) culture dates from the fourth quarter of the 5th to the third quarter of the 4th millennium BC. Its remains have been discovered in the Dnieper steppe region, Crimea, and adjacent regions of the Azov region. Representatives of this culture built semicircular and oval above-ground dwellings, sometimes with floors made of compacted shells. They were skilled in making pottery from clay mixed with sand and plants, and a variety of flint tools, including axes and maces.

The Azov-Dnieper culture was gradually absorbed by the Trypillian and Sredny Stog cultures. The Kvitian culture (late 4th - early 3rd millennium BC) formed through contact between the Skelian culture (from Nadporozhye to the Azov coast and the Lower Don in 4750-4100 BC) and the Azov-Dnieper cultures. The Kvitian culture (3800-3500 BC) spread in both directions from the Dnieper tributaries of Samara and Orel, across the steppe to the lower reaches of the Don and Danube.

The Alekseevka culture existed in Crimea between 5000 and 3500 BC.

The Sura-Dnieper culture was widespread in the Dnieper Rapids region. It dates from the 5th to early 4th millennium BC. Settlements have been discovered on islands in the Dnieper. Sites of this culture are known in the Azov region (Kamennaya Mogila), on the Orel River and the Seversky Donets, in Crimea, and in the lower reaches of the Don. At the beginning of the 4th millennium BC, the Sura culture population in Nadporozhye was displaced by the Dnieper-Donets culture, who arrived from the more northern territories of the Dnieper region.

3. Trypillian culture

1.

The Bug-Dniester culture was succeeded by the Trypillian culture, also known as the Cucuteni culture. The Trypillian culture (5050–2950 BC) is an archaeological culture of southeastern Europe. One of the most vibrant cultural communities of the Eneolithic period, it stretched from the Carpathian Mountains to the Dnieper basin, encompassing significant parts of Ukraine and Romania. It also reached southern Poland and Belarus, covering an area of 350,000 square kilometers. The cities of this culture were the largest settlements in Eurasia, and possibly in the world. At its peak, the population of this culture may have exceeded several million people.

The roots of the Trypillia culture are found in the Starčevo and Vinča cultures (6th-5th millennia BC), and the Bug-Dniester culture. In its early period (in the 5th millennium BC), the Trypillia culture was influenced by the Linear Pottery culture from the north and the Boyan culture from the south.

It was part of a major center of highly developed agricultural and pastoral cultures in Europe, encompassing the Balkan Peninsula, Appulia, the Danube region, Romania, and Right-Bank Ukraine.

The Trypillia culture was familiar with metals—copper and gold. Scholars suggest that the Trypillia used wooden plows in agriculture and oxen as draft animals. Economically, socially, and spiritually, the society stood above the rest of Europe.

Comparing the socioeconomic development of Mesopotamia and Ukraine, N.A. Chmykhov argued that Ukraine was in no way inferior to the world's most ancient civilization, Mesopotamia. He believed that statehood in Ukraine arose at the beginning of the Bronze Age, as cities existed there as early as the Neolithic. The vast settlements of Trypillia surpassed the city-states of Sumer and Egypt in size. These settlements existed more than half a millennium before the Sumerian cities.

The Trypillia culture was distinguished by sophisticated ceramics made with modern kilns, advanced architectural technologies that allowed for the construction of large buildings, and sophisticated agricultural and metallurgy techniques. Evidence indicates that salt was extracted from salt-saturated water in Trypillia by briquetting around 6050 BC. The remains of a potter's wheel from the mid-5th millennium BC are the oldest pottery wheel ever discovered, predating evidence of similar wheels in Mesopotamia by several hundred years. The pottery has characteristic colors: red and white and red, white, and black. The main motifs are meanders, swastikas, spirals, circles, and sometimes images.

The economy was based on a complex system of agriculture (wheat and barley) and livestock raising (cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs). In the later period, livestock raising became more important, and horses also played a more significant role. Agricultural tools, evidence of weaving, woodworking, basketry, and hide tanning have been found.

The Trypillian culture possesses the oldest evidence of wheeled vehicles in the form of miniature wheeled models, which predate any evidence of wheeled vehicles in Mesopotamia (a wheeled bull figurine from the Trypillian culture in Ukraine has been dated to 3950-3650 BC). Archaeologists and historians argue that wheeled vehicles were invented in the Trypillian culture and spread from there to other regions. One hypothesis for the domestication of horses places them in the steppe region adjacent to the Trypillian culture at approximately the same time (4000-3500 BC), so it is possible that this culture was familiar with the domestic horse.

However, it is worth noting the discovery of a pendant depicting a horse at the Sunghir site (25,000-35,000 BC). Apparently, knowledge of this horse took a special form. This suggests a possible ancient connection with the idea of the chariot of the Sun drawn by horses, reflected in the Rig Veda and the presence of domestic horses.

Tools were made from deer or roe deer antler, boar tusks, and elk antler. These included hoe tips, plows, awls, and awls.

Paleobotanical research has shown that in the early Trypillian period, agriculture was a stable, long-established practice with a reliable seed stock. Wheat (einkorn, emmer, and spelt) and barley (hulled and hulled) were cultivated, as well as oats, rye, millet, and hemp.

Dogwood, wild pears, apples, and cherries were gathered in the forests and groves surrounding early Trypillian settlements. Apricot pits have been found. Gathering and fishing were closely linked to this economic activity. Catfish and cisco were caught in river channels, especially in the Dniester. During the Middle Trypillian period, the composition of cultivated plants during the Middle Trypillian period remained largely unchanged—emmer wheat predominated. Of particular interest is the discovery of grape seeds in the Middle Trypillian layers. They belong to a cultivated variety with small berries. Hunting continued to primarily focus on large ungulates—deer and wild boar, and less commonly, roe deer. Elk was also hunted, especially in the Dnieper region.

In the late period, the territory occupied by the Trypillian tribes expanded further. In particular, the arid steppe zone in the south was developed, which naturally led to an increased diversity of economic systems.

In addition to previously cultivated varieties of wheat and barley, the proportion of millet and legumes increased. Plum pits, believed to be a hybrid of cherry plum and apricot brought from Asia Minor, and seeds of large-berry table grapes have been found. Bees were kept. The inhabitants did not suffer from protein deficiency, as they consumed eggs and dairy products.

2.

The Trypillian culture is usually divided into early, middle, and late periods. A key point of contention is how these phases relate to radiocarbon dating data.

The Cucuteni culture in Romania developed from the Precucuteni culture. The following phases of the Precucuteni culture are distinguished:

Precucuteni I (5050-4950 BC)

Precucuteni II (4950-4750 BC)

Precucuteni III (4750-4550 BC)

The following phases of the Cucuteni culture are distinguished. Cucuteni A, Cucuteni AB, Cucuteni B:

Cucuteni A1 (4600-4550 BC)

Cucuteni A2 (4550-4300 BC)

Cucuteni A3 (4300-4150 BC)

Cucuteni A4 (4150-4050 BC)

Cucuteni AB (4050-3775 BC)

Cucuteni B (3775-3500 BC)

Gorodishtea-Foltești (3500-2650 BC)

According to another chronology, the following phases are distinguished:

Cucuteni A (5800-5000 BC)

Cucuteni B (5000-3500 BC) Horodisty-Foltești (3500-3000 BC).

The Trypillian culture in Ukraine is divided into the following phases:

Trypillian A (5800-5000 BC)

Trypillian B (5000-3500 BC)

Trypillian C (3500-3000 BC)

Usatovo culture (3150-2650 BC).

In later times, the Trypillian culture area underwent significant changes, resulting in a sharp decline in the number of sites, especially in the western part of the area. The Balkan "Dark Ages" began. Around 3100 BC, the climate became colder and drier than at any time since the end of the last Ice Age, leading to the worst drought in European history since the dawn of agriculture. The situation was reminiscent of the dust storms in the US Midwest in the 1930s. Under such climatic conditions, the agriculture on which the Trypillian culture relied would have collapsed.

The confusion surrounding the synchronization of Trypillian settlements and the construction of local chronological columns is primarily due to the unsatisfactory state of ceramic typology.

Radiocarbon dates allow for a fairly accurate dating of early period sites. The lower boundary is established by the age of the Linear Pottery culture settlement in Târpești—4220 and 4295 BC. This is supported by a large series of dates for other sites of this culture.

The upper boundary is based on dates obtained for the layer of the late Early Period in Târpești—3580 BC—and in Rusesti Noi—3620 BC.

The existence of Middle Period settlements (Cucuteni A2-A3) dates back to 3675, 3660, 3535, 3490, 3405, 3395, 3360, and 3150 BC.

A comparison of the dates of settlements from the late Early Period and sites from the first half of the Middle Period allows us to consider 3600 BC as the beginning of the Middle Period, and 3400 BC as the end of its first half. The end of the middle period can be considered to be 3250 BC.

Radiocarbon dates rarely correspond to the settlement periodization. For example, the 14 absolute dates obtained for settlements of the A2 phase of the Gumelnitsa culture cover an inordinately long period, from 3915 to 3410 BC. However, judging by the finds of Trypillian ceramics at the Gumelnitsa settlements, the A2 phase corresponds to the end of the early and beginning of the middle periods of the Trypillian-Cucuteni culture. Therefore, dates placed between 3600 and 3450 BC are acceptable and comparable with the dates of the Trypillian settlements.

Several radiocarbon dates have been obtained for settlements of the late Trypillia culture:

3000 BC (Cucuteni B1), 2920, 2840, 2650, 2450, 2425, 2390 BC (Trypillia), and 2380 BC (Usatovo).

This list can be expanded with dates obtained for cultures that were in contact with the Trypillia culture:

Funnelbeaker culture - 2725, 2665 BC.

Globular Amphora culture - 2490, 2240, 2195 BC.

Yamnaya culture - 2380, 2100 BC.

Cernavoda I culture - 2555, 2435, 2310 BC.

Karanovo culture - 2385, 2360 BC.

3.

Approximately 3,000 Trypillian settlements are known in Ukraine. Some settlements have been explored over large areas, while others have been excavated almost entirely. Aerial photographic decipherment in the 1960s revealed the presence of large settlements covering several hundred hectares, containing up to 2,000 dwellings, some of which were two-story. Rectangular (up to 200 square meters), multi-chambered adobe-frame houses (limestone was also used) have been found.

The first settlers of the Upper Olt and Carpathian regions, from whom the Trypillian communities trace their origins, emerged as a society with an established tradition in the construction of settlements, the production of household implements, and methods of agricultural and livestock farming. The agricultural and domestic economy methods they developed were so efficient that they persisted for centuries without significant change. It has been established that settlements of the initial stage of cultural development (Docucuteni 1) were localized within a very small area of southeastern Transylvania and the Eastern Carpathian region, while settlements of the next stage (Docucuteni 2) occupied a vast area from the Eastern Carpathian region to the Middle Dniester region. Almost all communities left Transylvania and settled the fertile lands of the forest-steppe zone from the Siret to the Dniester. The dispersal of sites across this territory indicates that it was not overpopulation that forced people to migrate long distances, but rather an extensive method of agriculture and livestock farming, which necessitated periodic changes of land.

The cultural area had approximately doubled by this time, indicating a fairly rapid process of settlement of Trypillian communities from the Eastern Carpathian region toward the Dniester, and then the Southern Bug.

The early period of the Trypillian culture is characterized by a predominance of small settlements (1-1.5 hectares), small and medium-sized adobe houses, the widespread use of dugouts and semi-dugouts for housing and utility rooms, and the construction of family altars near hearths.

In the middle period of the Trypillian culture (Trypillian B), settlements were located in areas with natural protection. During this stage, settlements fortified with a ditch and rampart (sometimes two) became more common. A ring-shaped (circular) settlement layout with nest-like groupings of dwellings is characteristic. The area of settlements increased to 8, and sometimes to 60 hectares (Veremye, Vladimirovka) and even over 150 hectares (Vesely Kut).

The increase in the number of settlements was associated with an increase in population size and density. The Trypillian tribes continued to disperse further to the northeast, into the Dnieper region and to the southeast. From the mid- to late 4th millennium BC, the Trypillian tribes expanded their territory, inhabiting the Upper Dniester region, the Bug-Dnieper region, and reached the right bank of the Dnieper.

In the late period of the Trypillian culture (Trypillian C), the territory expanded as the tribes advanced north and east. The Trypillians settled the upper reaches of the Pripyat, Sluch, Goryn, and Styr rivers, and in the south, they reached the Black Sea coast. Remote settlements were founded along the Don and Volga rivers. The Trypillian culture occupied a territory equal in size to the Harappan civilization.

During this period, on the left bank of the Dnieper, the Trypillian culture encountered a genetically unrelated, rapidly developing Catacomb culture. This likely contributed to the delay in the further eastward expansion of the Trypillian tribes. It was in the Dnieper region, based on the Late Trypillian foundations, that the Middle Dnieper culture later emerged.

Settlements were located in high, inaccessible areas. Moats and ramparts were not used to fortify the entire settlement, but only a portion of it—the highest point. At the same time, there exist small settlements with irregular development and giant settlements (up to 300-400 hectares) with populations of 10,000-60,000 people, strictly planned (with rings and radii), fortified and unfortified settlements, and one- and two-story houses of medium (40-80 square meters) and large (100-150 square meters) sizes.

The number of 30-40 houses for a small settlement is constant, and based on the calculation of seven people per house, the total population was approximately 500. This is also confirmed by materials from ancient Sumer. The settlement, with a population of tens of thousands of people, was significantly larger in size than any ancient Eastern city.

The subsequent simultaneous decline in the number of settlements, the gradual loss of individual regions by the Trypillian tribes, and other phenomena indicate a growing crisis of sorts in the development of Trypillian society. Most Trypillian settlements were suddenly abandoned; traces of exposure to high temperatures and the presence of a glassy mass are present.

Experiments burning adobe structures have demonstrated the impossibility of reducing the walls to the condition seen in Trypillian structures by a conventional fire lasting many hours. Research by A. Ya. Bryusov (1951) revealed the presence of residual radioactivity in the ruins of Trypillian settlements.

4.

Despite the enormous abundance of settlements and material artifacts of the Trypillian culture, it is virtually devoid of burials. For this reason, the genetics of this culture are poorly studied. American archaeologist Douglas W. Bailey writes: "Cucuteni cemeteries do not exist, and the discovered Trypillian cemeteries belong to a very late period." The anthropological composition of the early Trypillians is unknown due to the lack of skeletal remains.

Perhaps this culture practiced a burial rite in which neither bones nor even ashes were left in the ground. This rite developed precisely in the early Neolithic culture of Anatolia, from which, according to genetic and archaeological data, the Neolithic wave of migration originated, leading to the formation of the agricultural cultures of Southeastern Europe, including the Trypillian culture.

Cemeteries from the early and middle periods of the Trypillian-Cucuteni culture have not yet been discovered. Currently, the only Trypillian site where human remains dating from 3600-2500 BC have been found is Verteba Cave in western Ukraine. This cave was not identified as a Trypillian site.

A 2022 study published in the journal Scientific Reports analyzed DNA samples from Verteba Cave.

Regarding Y-DNA haplogroups, the following were found: G2a2b2a3, G2a2a1, G2a2a1, C1a, E, I2a1a2a-L161.1, I2a2a1, and I2c.

According to mtDNA, the haplogroups are J1c2, K1a2, T2b, H, H5a, H5b, H15a1, H1b, HV, J1c5, K1a, K1a1b1, K1b1, N1a1a1a, T2, T2b, T2c1d1, T4, U5a, U5a2, U8b, W.

This set of markers confirms the kinship of the population of this culture with the peoples of the Balkan Neolithic and Asia Minor. In Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, some carriers of G2a are Kurds. Also in the Caucasus, there are many carriers of G2a, including Ossetians, Circassians, Avars, Lezgins, and Chechens. Haplogroup I2 is concentrated in Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia. Haplogroup C1a is present among both Oceania and Siberia. Haplogroup E distinguishes the peoples of East Africa.

All studied samples "are primarily characterized by an ancestral component dominant in Anatolian-Neolithic individuals, suggesting a strong connection with European Neolithic populations. This indicates a common origin with the Baden culture population. Genotypes of local origin associated with Ukrainian Neolithic hunter-gatherers are absent."

Neolithic farmers from Asia Minor brought a set of mitochondrial lineages to Europe: J, T2, HV, and N1a. New haplogroups first appeared in the Balkans, the northern Mediterranean, and the Iberian Peninsula, and then spread to Central and Northern Europe, leading to the gradual disappearance of haplogroup U representatives. By the end of the Neolithic, mitochondrial haplogroup U had virtually disappeared from Europe.

In the Late Period, Trypillians found burials in both kurgan and ground cemeteries. The cemeteries, most often inventory burials, contained the burials of adults and children. Burials were carried out using cremation rites, in urns and, more often, without urns (in pits).

Regarding Y-DNA haplogroups, the following haplogroups were found for the Late Period: Y-chromosomal haplogroup I2a and mitochondrial haplogroups K1a1, 1K1b2, H, T1a, T2c1d1, U4a, and U4b.

Some maternal genetic lineages of the Trypillian population of Podolia originate in Asia Minor. However, the local lineage was found to be predominant in the remains of Trypillians from Podolia. Whether this is also true for other areas of the Trypillian area is unknown due to the lack of genetic material. The anthropological type of the Trypillians is similar to the Mediterranean type, common at the time in the Balkans and the Danube region. However, the craniological material contains evidence of influence from the tribes of the Eastern European steppe region. Differences in the anthropological types of female and male skulls have been identified, which may indicate the mechanical mixing of different ethnic groups.

5.

The cultural, economic, and ethnic ties of the Late Trypillian population with their neighbors determined the significant changes that swept across a significant area of Eastern Europe in the late 4th and first half of the 3rd millennium BC.

This primarily concerns the Trypillians' western connections. During the middle period of the Trypillian culture, contacts with the cultures of the Balkan-Danubian Eneolithic were decisive. In the late period, these cultures ceased to exist, and the entire area of their distribution underwent a dramatic cultural transformation. The Late Trypillian tribes also established contacts with the creators of new cultures in the Lower Danube region and the northern Balkan Peninsula. Of these, the Cernavoda culture was geographically closest to Trypillian culture, belonging to the same circle as cultures such as the Kotsofeni in the Danube region and the Ezero in southern Bulgaria. The appearance of elements common to these cultures in Late Trypillian monuments is characteristic. Connections with the new Balkan-Danubian and Anatolian cultural system resulted in the emergence of a number of distinctive bronze artifacts among the late Trypillians, including the famous Usatov daggers. At the same time, typical Usatov artifacts and entire complexes appear in the Balkan-Danube region and Anatolia.

In the upper Dniester and western Volyn, as far as the left bank of the Vistula, active contacts between the late Trypillian population and the Funnelbeaker culture tribes are recorded.

These contacts were interrupted in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC as a result of the eastward expansion of the Globular Amphora culture tribes, who in turn established contacts with later Trypillian groups, some of whom were displaced by the newcomers, while others continued to exist later.

In the east, contacts between Trypillian communities and the steppe populations intensified in the late period. Close interaction with the ancient Yamnaya tribes and the influence of their traditions explain the emergence of the kurgan rite among the late Trypillian tribes, the spread of a number of specific forms of grave goods and corded ornamentation on pottery among them, and the formation of the complex and multi-component Usatovskaya group.

The emergence of the Usatovskaya group in this area marked the culmination of a long process of penetration of steppe pastoral groups into the agricultural community. These same groups became the transmission medium, facilitating contacts between Trypillian communities and the population of the North Caucasus. Evidence of reverse influences between Trypillian tribes and steppe groups is still limited. Nevertheless, these influences are undeniable.

The Trypillian influence on cultures such as the Sredny Stog and Dnieper-Donets cultures is significant.

The Sredny Stog culture (5300-3300 BC) occupied a vast area of the Black Sea steppe (from the Dnieper River, the upper Donets River, the lower Don River, and the Sea of Azov in the east to the Danube Delta in the west). It is sometimes combined with the more eastern Khvalynsk culture into a single cultural and historical community of the Black Sea-Caspian steppe. The main occupation of the Sredny Stog tribes was cattle breeding, likely including early forms of horse breeding.

Archaeologists believed that the Sredny Stog culture developed in the Azov-Dnieper-Donets region, based on the Lower Don and Sura cultures.

According to genetic data, the Sredny Stog culture arose as a result of population migration from the lower Volga region or the North Caucasus. This population carried the genes of Caucasian Neolithic farmers (particularly those from Armenia). The settlers, already familiar with livestock breeding, interbred with local residents in the Dnieper and Don river basins (the Dnieper-Donets culture).

The Sredny Stog people were farmers and livestock breeders. They kept sheep, goats, pigs, dogs, and horses. A large number of horse remains (52%) have been found in settlements dating back to 4200-4000 BC. They hunted deer, roe deer, wild boar, elk, otter, wolf, fox, beaver, and wild ass. They cultivated emmer wheat, barley, millet, and peas. They were also engaged in fishing.

Anthropologically, the Sredny Stog culture represented a mixture of two racial types: the Neolithic population of Ukraine (southern Mediterranean Caucasians) and the northern branch of Caucasians.

Y-chromosomal haplogroup I-L699 (I2a) has been identified in the Sredny Stog culture. During the Neolithic, this haplogroup predominated among the population of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture (Dnipropetrovsk region) and was found among Lower Volga pastoralists in the Volgograd and Saratov regions (5th millennium BC). Haplogroup R1b, also characteristic of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, has been found. Haplogroup J2a (J-M319), of Transcaucasian origin, has been identified (4359-4251 BC, Rostov region). Mitochondrial haplogroups U5, U2, H13, U4, T2, K1, and I4 have been found in the Sredny Stog culture.

According to one theory, the migration of some of the Sredny Stog population to the Lower Danube was the cause of the separation of Anatolian languages from Indo-European. The Anatolian language had almost no vocabulary related to agriculture. According to researchers, this supports a Sredny Stog culture as its ancestral home.

The Dnieper-Donets culture (5th-3rd millennia BC) developed from local forest-steppe cultures under the influence of steppe cultures: the Bug-Dniester, Sura, Azov-Dnieper, and Lower Don cultures. The culture's source was the Mesolithic of southern Belarus, and a connection with the preceding Bug-Dniester culture is quite likely. The culture's initial area was in Ukrainian and Belarusian Polesia, from where its bearers moved north (to the Mogilev region) and southeast to the Don River and the Sea of Azov.

The main occupations of the culture's bearers were hunting and fishing. Although bones of dogs, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle are found at sites, wild animal bones predominate. The ratio of wild to domesticated bone remains is 78% to 22%. Birds and pond turtles were hunted in Polesia. The settlements consisted of dugouts.

Dnieper-Donets pottery is similar to the pottery of the western Ertebølle, Swifterbant, and French Sub-Neolithic cultures. It differs from the utensils of the Linear Pottery culture, which spread across central Europe during that era along with the Balkan Neolithic.

Dnieper-Donets pottery is similar to the neighboring Trypillian culture and the Samara culture (in the middle Volga region). The Dnieper-Donets culture was the initial center for the Pit-Comb Ware culture, which spread northward, moving through Valdai into Finland.

This culture occupied a region from the Vistula to the Dnieper, but some scholars, extending it to related cultures, extend it to the Volga and the Urals and believe that the bearers of this cultural complex spoke an Indo-European language.

Genetic studies have shown no direct connection between the pastoralists of the Volga and Ciscaucasia regions and the population of the Dnieper-Donets culture. Around 4500 BC, the tribes of the Dnieper-Donets culture were culturally and probably linguistically assimilated by tribes advancing from the east, which led to the formation of the Sredny Stog culture (this is expressed in the appearance of symbols of power in the form of a scepter-mace, characteristic of the Volga region).

Representatives of the Dnieper-Donets culture were clearly Cro-Magnon, which significantly distinguished them from the Mediterranean appearance of the Balkan Neolithic, but brought them closer to the Mesolithic of Northern Europe.

Archaeologists have suggested that the Dnieper-Donets culture was formed in the 6th millennium BC by migrants from the Balkan Peninsula (Bug-Dniester and other cultures), driven from their homelands by the expansion of the western Linear Pottery culture.

According to autosomal genetics, the population of the Dnieper-Donets culture was formed as a result of migration from the Balkan Peninsula to the Northern Black Sea region between the 7th and 6th millennia BC. The migrants interbred with the indigenous population, forming a new community. Genetic studies have confirmed that the Dnieper-Donetsk tribes (the population of the Mariupol community) received 45% of their genes from Balkan settlers from Serbia, 49% from settlers from the Samara region, and 7% from Linear Pottery tribes (Y-DNA haplogroups R1b and I2 and mtDNA haplogroup U). Moreover, almost all Y-chromosomal haplogroups of Dnieper-Donetsk males are of Balkan origin (I-L699 and R1b-V88), suggesting that the Dnieper-Donetsk population inherited their genetic heritage primarily through female lineages.

During the 6th millennium BC, the Dnieper-Donetsk tribes expanded eastward into the Don region, where they were further assimilated. The Dnieper-Donetsk culture in the Voronezh region, along with the Dnieper-Donetsk Y-chromosomal haplogroup I-L699, contains R1a-M459, characteristic of Eastern Europe.

In the Don region, the Dnieper-Donetsk tribes encountered a flood of migrants from the south with Transcaucasian genetics. As a result, the Dnieper-Donetsk culture in the Zaporizhzhia region (5475-5320 BC) contains 25% CHG genes, while in Mariupol (5474-5236 BC) it contains 7% Transcaucasian genes.

Around 4500 BC, the situation in the Northern Black Sea region changed dramatically with the invasion of pastoralists from the Volga region and the Ciscaucasia. The Dnieper-Donetsk culture was replaced by the Sredny Stog culture. Genetically, the Sredny Stog people inherited between 30 and 80% of their genes from the Dnieper-Donetsk population.

The continuity of Y-chromosomal haplogroups acquired after migration from the Balkan Peninsula was preserved in the Sredny Stog culture: almost all men of this culture possessed the Dnieper-Donetsk haplogroup I-L699. This continuity was disrupted only with the arrival of the Yamnaya culture in the Northern Black Sea region in the 4th millennium BC, which brought the R1b-M269 haplogroup, which was new to the region. The Yamnaya culture itself inherited approximately 23% of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture's genetics.

The modern population of Europe is the result of a mixture of lineages or haplogroups: R1a, I1, I2, and R1b. R1b carriers dominate in Western Europe, while R1a carriers dominate in the East, particularly in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. In Africa, haplogroup R1b is found in isolation among the indigenous populations of the Lake Chad region. This branch migrated to the continent from Eurasia in prehistoric times and differs from European subclades.

In the Americas, haplogroup R1b is found in isolation among indigenous populations of Algonquian tribes, including the Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan (62%), Seminole, Sioux, and Cherokee. A special analysis showed that the R1b found in North American groups is not a direct modern European trait.

B.V. Gornung believes that the original territory of the Indo-European linguistic community in the late 4th - early 3rd millennium BC included most of the northern Balkan Peninsula, the Middle Danube basin to the Carpathians east of the Tisza and to the Tatra Mountains, as well as the area of the archaeological Trypillian culture.

The Anatolian group was the first to emerge from this community, expanding into Asia Minor. At the end of the 3rd millennium BC, a northward expansion occurred (the Globular Amphora culture). At the same time, a group emerged, represented by the Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo, and Komarovo cultures (the last purely Slavic). At the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, a "breakaway" occurred from the southeastern group (the Late Yamna and Catacomb cultures, interacting with the Trypillian and Poltavka cultures). According to B.V. Gornung, the Western European variants of the Corded Ware and Battle Axe cultures gave rise to the Proto-Illyrian (Unetice and Pre-Luzatian cultures), Proto-Celtic, and Proto-Italo-Germanic dialect groups. At the same time, Indo-Europeans settled in Greece (the Middle Helladic culture), and the Proto-Slavic group formed in Ukraine.

6.

It is believed that the Trypillian culture formed the basis for the Usatov culture (considered a late variant of the Trypillian culture itself) and the Middle Dnieper culture.

The Usatov culture (3900-2500 BC or 3100-2500 BC) was located on the northwestern coast of the Black Sea between the mouths of the Bug and Danube rivers. It is usually considered a single cultural and historical community with the Coțofeni (3500-2500 BC) and Foltești (3500-2500 BC) cultures, which occupied most of Romania, Serbia, and Bulgaria.

Radiocarbon dates for the Usatov culture, after correction for the reservoir effect, are approximately 3700-2800 BC.

It is believed that the Usatovo culture resulted from the migration of the Sredny Stog culture to the lands of the Trypillian culture, interacting with migrants of the Varna-Karanovo-Gumelnitsa culture, who fled the flood from the western coast of the Black Sea. The Varna-Karanovo-Gumelnitsa migration and the expansion of Trypillia occurred between 4200 and 3900 BC, although other datings place this event as early as 3100 BC. The fusion of these three elements created the Usatovo culture, which spread along the northwestern Black Sea coast.

The main economic activity of the Usatovo culture in Ukraine was livestock breeding. They raised sheep (63% of the herd), cattle, and horses.

The location of Usatovo culture settlements on the seashore facilitated fishing: many catfish and sturgeon bones have been found.

They produced tools, weapons, and jewelry made of copper and silver. Glass beads, along with finds near Kiev and beads from the Moldovan village of Ketroshika, are the oldest glass in Eurasia. The Usatovo people conducted extensive trade with the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, and Egypt.

Based on autosomal genes, Usatovo culture bearers are 43% descended from the ancient steppe population of the Stavropol Krai, 5% from Caucasian farmers, and 52% from the Trypillian culture.

The Y-chromosomal haplogroups E1b, R1a, and J1 have been identified in the Usatovo culture. Mitochondrial haplogroups T2h2, X2d, U5a1, W1, H+195, and U4d3 have been identified.

The Usatovo culture is considered Indo-European. Traditionally, it is considered part of the Balkan-Danubian cultural complex, which stretched from Troy to the Danube Valley.

7.

More controversial is the relationship between the Trypillian groups and the Corded Ware tribes and their role in the genesis of these cultures, particularly the Middle Dnieper culture.

The Middle Dnieper Corded Ware culture (26th-15th centuries BC) was located in the Middle Dnieper region (Belarus, southwestern European Russia, and northern Ukraine). The earliest settlements have been identified in the Kyiv and Cherkasy regions. The development of the Middle Dnieper culture ceased with the emergence of the Sosnitsa culture (a variant of the purely Slavic culture) in its territory.

The population engaged in livestock breeding, agriculture, hunting, and fishing. The Zhilo people manufactured flint, stone, and bronze tools and weapons, metal, bone, and amber jewelry, and ceramic pottery. They traded with the Caucasus, from which they obtained bronze items and metal. There are finds of Egyptian faience multi-segment beads and bronze willow-leaf pendants (18th-15th centuries BC).

The Middle Dnieper culture is represented by settlements in 209 locations in the Middle and Upper Dnieper regions. The settlements cover less than one hectare. The remains of above-ground dwellings with pillar structures and hearth pits or stone hearths inside have been discovered at these settlements.

The stages of development of the Middle Dnieper culture allow us to determine the region of its formation (the right bank of the Middle Dnieper region) and trace the settlement of the Middle Dnieper tribes.

Initially, the Middle Dnieper tribes advanced from the right bank of the Middle Dnieper region northward and to the left bank, into the territory of the late Trypillian tribes of the Sofievka group, then along the banks of the Desna, Lower Pripyat, and Sozh rivers. Sites from the middle period are known throughout the Middle and Upper Dnieper region. During the late period, the territory of the Middle Dnieper tribes expanded further. Settlements appeared on the banks of the Seim, in the upper reaches of the Oka River, on the left bank of the Western Dvina in the Vitebsk region, in the upper reaches of the Neman, and in the Minsk region.

There are various hypotheses regarding the origins of the Middle Dnieper culture. According to researchers, the origins of the Middle Dnieper culture should be sought in the northern regions of the Middle Dnieper region, based on the Yamnaya culture. Its subsequent development occurred in interaction with the Catacomb and Volyn cultures, as well as the Late Trypillia culture.

Researchers believe that several local cultures contributed to the development of the Middle Dnieper culture: the Dnieper-Donets, Ancient Yamnaya, Sredny Stog, and Trypillia cultures. Similarities are evident in the forms and ornamentation of Middle Dnieper pottery with Trypillia pottery.

A. Ya. Bryusov links the origins of all "Corded Ware and Battle Axe cultures" to the Catacomb culture. Most researchers believe that the Corded Ware cultures had nothing in common with the late Neolithic cultures of the Volga-Oka basin, the Upper Dnieper region, the Eastern Baltic, southern Scandinavia, and Central Europe. The Corded Ware tribes arrived in these areas as newcomers, settling among the local populations.

The anthropological composition of the Corded Ware population is heterogeneous. Mediterranean, Paleo-European, Lappish, Armenoid, and Nordic anthropological types have been identified. This indicates a complex process of formation of the Corded Ware cultures.

The origins of the Corded Ware cultures are sought in regions of Ukraine formerly occupied by the Trypillian culture, in areas adjacent to the northern coast of the Black Sea, in the area between the Dnieper and Vistula rivers, and in the forest-steppe zone of Right-Bank Ukraine.

Many researchers note the significant role of the Middle Dnieper culture in the ancient history of the forest belt of Eastern Europe. The Middle Dnieper culture contributed to the formation of the Vistula-Neman, Estonian, and Fatyanovo cultures.

From the upper Dnieper, the Middle Dnieper culture spread west and northwest to the Baltic region, north to the Ilmen region, and east to the Volga-Klyazma interfluve. Early sites of the Klyazma group of the Fatyanovo culture (24th-18th centuries BC) contain vessels similar to those of the Middle Dnieper culture, indicating the synchronicity of these cultures and the participation of the Middle Dnieper culture in the development of the Fatyanovo culture.

The Middle Dnieper culture contributed to the development of the Vistula-Neman and Boat Axe cultures of the eastern Baltic region. The Middle Dnieper tribes coexisted with the Upper Dnieper (Rohachev) and Pit-Comb Ware cultures.

P.N. Tretyakov notes that "the significance of the Middle Dnieper tribes in the ethnogeny of the Eastern European forest belt tribes lies not only in the fact that over the course of several centuries they conquered vast expanses of the Upper and partly Middle Dnieper region, but also in the fact that the subsequent history of this region is the history, first and foremost, of their direct descendants."

The Middle Dnieper culture formed the basis for the development of the Bronze Age Sosnitsa culture, which occupied the same territory in the Dnieper region as the preceding Middle Dnieper culture from the second half of the 2nd to the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.

2. Saraswati. Goddess

1.

The widespread story in Vedic literature about the discovery of the lost Vedas on the banks of the Sarasvati River is of exceptional scientific interest.

Despite the importance of the Sarasvati River, it is absent from India. Nor is it sought in the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Aryans, Eastern Europe.

Sarasvati is both the goddess of speech and a river. In Slavic languages, the words "rech" (speech) and "rechenka" (a babbling river) have the same root. Therefore, it is believed that the Sarasvati River is a representation of the Milky Way, and the Vedas were directly given by the goddess of knowledge and speech.

Sarasvati is the goddess of wisdom, knowledge, art, beauty, and eloquence. She possesses the nature of complete knowledge. She is credited with the invention of the sacred language, Sanskrit, and writing. Sarasvati is considered one of the five highest manifestations of Prakriti.

In Hinduism, Saraswati is Brahmacharini, Brahma's assistant in the creation of the universe. Saraswati is Brahma's wife, the mother of the Vedas. She binds heaven and earth in conjugal union and creates the heavenly Bridal Chamber—the Chamber of salvation and eternal bliss.

In Buddhism, Saraswati (Biancaitian in Chinese culture, Yangchenma in Tibetan culture) is considered the consort of the Bodhisattva of Wisdom, Manjushri.

In Shintoism, in Japan, Saraswati (Benzaiten) is one of the seven deities of happiness.

Sarasvati dwells on earth among people, but has a special refuge with her husband in Brahmaloka.

Sarasvati is depicted as a beautiful, fair-skinned young woman dressed in white linen.

She is depicted with four arms (two arms symbolizing the wings of a swan). In one hand, she holds a cup of water. In her other hand, she holds the book of the Vedas, a symbol of knowledge. She holds a string of white pearls, called the Shivamala (Shiva's garland), which serves as a rosary—a symbol of spirituality. In her other hand, she holds a small drum—a symbol of art. When Saraswati is depicted seated on a lotus pedestal (padma-sana) and playing a harp-like instrument, she has only two arms. In some reliefs, her hands are folded in a protective gesture or a blessing. Sometimes she is depicted standing at full height. She is often depicted seated on a white swan, and her emblem is a six-pointed star. Her «vahana» is a white swan or a bull.

Sarasvati, being Brahma's wife, was considered his daughter. Therefore, the other devas considered her union with him criminal. However, among the asuras, this was common. She is sometimes called Vishnu's wife. The epic mentions the goddess's son, the rishi Sarasvat.

Devibhagavata Purana, 9.8. Hari can be seen everywhere in lakes, wells, and streams, and therefore he is called Sarasvan, and she, Sarasvati.

The Vaishnavas of Bengal have a legend that Sarasvati was Vishnu's wife, as were Lakshmi and Ganga. Sarasvati was quite quarrelsome. Vishnu, believing that one wife was enough even for a god, gave Sarasvati to Brahma, Ganga to Shiva, and was satisfied with Lakshmi alone.

Sarasvati is also called Shiva's wife.

Markandeya Purana. 88. The Brahman performed a sacrifice to Sarasvati on her behalf and calmly recited hymns addressed to Sarasvati.

O Mental Strength, Sarasvati, the Chosen One!

O Wealth, Wife of Babhru, the Dark One!

O Self-Controlled Queen, be merciful!

O Narayani, homage to you!

(Babhru or Beaver – Shiva).

In the Rig Veda, Sarasvati is called Vritraghni (the Destroyer of Vritra). A version of the myth of Vritra's slaying is contained in the sixth book of the Devibhagavata Purana. The goddess is called Vritra-pranahara (the Taker of Vritra's Life).

During the Vedic period, Sarasvati was revered as a purifier, protector, and healer. In the Rig Veda, verse 10.17 addresses Sarasvati as the goddess of ancestors and the current generation. In verses 1.13, 1.89, 10.85, 10.66, and 10.141, she is mentioned alongside other gods and goddesses, not rivers. In verse 10.65, she is addressed with "sacred thoughts" and "generosity," consistent with her role as the goddess of knowledge and fertility. Tradition (Rig Veda 10.135) relates that she, along with the celestial physicians Ashvins, healed the weakened Indra.

Sarasvati was primarily a river deity, as her name clearly indicates. Her involvement in sacred rites thus likely led to the subsequent conclusion about her influence on the creation of hymns, which formed an important part of the rites, and to her identification as the goddess of speech.

The evolution of the river goddess into a goddess of knowledge began with the later Brahmanas, which identified her with the goddess of speech due to the central role of speech in Vedic worship and the development of cults on the banks of the river. Although Sarasvati initially appeared as a river goddess in the Vedic hymns, she was rarely associated with the river in the Puranas. Instead, she became the goddess of knowledge, learning, wisdom, music, and the arts. She is often invoked alongside other deities.

Sarasvati is often invited to sacrifices along with several other goddesses, who were never river nymphs but personified either worship or sacred science.

In later mythology, Saraswati was identified with Vācha, and under various names became Brahma's consort, the goddess of wisdom and eloquence, and was addressed as a Muse. In the Mahabharata, she is called the mother of the Vedas, and the same is said of Vācha in the Taittariya Brahmana, where she is called Indra's wife, encompassing all worlds and sought by the rishis who composed the Vedic hymns, as well as by the gods who sought her through asceticism.

As Brahma's consort, Saraswati was called Vācha, Sandhya, Shatarupa, and Brahmani.

The usual list of Dharma's wives in the Puranas includes Lakshmi, Saraswati, Ganga, Vishvesa, and Savitri.

In the Varaha Purana, Sarasvati is mentioned as Gayatri, Maheshvari (one of Parvati's names), and Savitri.

In the Vayu Purana, 9.78-80: Svaha, Svadha, Mahavidya, Medha, Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Aparna, Ekaparna, Patala, Uma, Haimavati, Shasthi, Kalyani, Khyati, Prajfiya, Mahabhaga, and Gaurli. Know also briefly the universal forms assumed by the Noble Lady through the formation of individual bodies.

Devibhagavata Purana. 9.8. Sarasvati descended partially upon the holy land of Bharata due to the curse of the Ganges, but she herself remained in the abode of Hari. She is called Bharati because she descended upon the land of Bharata. Brahmi—because she is the beloved of Brahma. And because she is the deity presiding over speech, she is known as Vani. Hari can be seen everywhere in lakes, wells, and streams, and therefore he is called Sarasvan, and she, Sarasvati.

The Matsya Purana lists Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Sadhya, Vishvesa, and Urjasvati. From the list of their descendants, it follows that Kama was the son of Lakshmi. The Sadhyas were the sons of Sadhya. The Vishvadevas were the sons of Vishva. The Maruts were the sons of Marutvati. And Vasu was the descendant of Devi, who could be either Sarasvati or Savitri.

The Matsya Purana confirms the belief that only one goddess is meant, although she is called by several names: "Brahma then created from his own immaculate substance a woman who is celebrated by the names Satarupa, Savitri, Sarasvati, Gayatri, and Brahmani."

Known: Mahasaraswati (Great Saraswati) is the third great demon-fighting manifestation of the goddess Devi.

Nilasaraswati (Dark Blue Saraswati) is the manifest aspect of Tara. Another name is Vidyarajni (Queen of Knowledge).

In the legend from the Skanda Purana, Savitri refers to Saraswati, and Gayatri is a young, beautiful, and smiling milkmaid who became Brahma's second wife and the mother of the Vedas. In the legend, Ishvara (Shiva) addresses Devi (Parvati):

"Listen, O Devi, and I will tell you how Savitri left Brahma, and he subsequently became betrothed to Gayatri. The Vedas speak of the great benefits of sacrifice, which pleases the gods, and therefore they send rain upon the earth... Therefore, to ensure the greenery and vitality of the three worlds, I perform sacrifices. And, imitating me, the gods and humans perform sacrifices." For the same purpose, Brahma and his wife Savitri, the immortals and holy sages, set out for Pushkara. But when all the preparations for the sacrifices had been made, with all the necessary rites and ceremonies, Savitri, busy with household chores, failed to appear. So the priest went to call her.

But she replied, "I haven't finished my attire yet and haven't settled many matters. Lakshmi and Bhavani..."

"And Ganga, Svaha, Indrani, and the wives of the other gods and holy sages haven't arrived yet, so how can I enter the assembly alone?"

The priest returned and addressed Brahma: "Savitri is engaged and will not come. But without a wife, what good are these rites?"

The god, angered by Savitri's behavior, said to Indra, "Hurry and, obeying my command, fetch a wife from wherever you can."

Indra followed his instructions. And, hurrying past, he saw a young, beautiful, and smiling milkmaid carrying a jug of butter. He seized her and brought her to the assembly, whereupon Brahma said, "O gods and holy sages, if you deem it right, I will take this Gayatri in marriage, and she will become the mother of the Vedas and the cause of the purity of these worlds!"

After this, Brahma united with Gayatri, who was led into the bridal pavilion, where she was dressed in silken garments and adorned with the most precious ornaments.

At this time, Savitri, accompanied by the wives of Vishnu, Rudra, and other gods, arrived at the sacrificial site. Seeing the milkmaid in the bridal bed and the priests performing the sacred rites, she turned to Pitamaha in anger: "O Brahma! Have you really conceived such a sinful intention as to reject me, your wife? Are you not ashamed that, succumbing to love, you are committing such a reprehensible act? You are called the great father of gods and holy sages, and yet you publicly act here in a manner that must provoke the ridicule of the three worlds. But how can I now appear in public or, abandoned by my husband, call myself his wife?"

Brahma replied: "The priests have informed me that the time for the sacrifice is drawing to an end, and that it cannot be performed without the presence of my wife... and since Indra has brought Gayatri, Vishnu and Rudra have given her in marriage to me. Therefore, forgive me for this act, and I will never offend you again!”

Hearing these words, Savitri exclaimed, "By the power I have gained through my penance, let Brahma never be worshipped in a temple or sacred place except on one day a year...

And Indra, since you brought this milkmaid to Brahma, you will be chained by your enemies and imprisoned in a foreign land. And your city and your position will be occupied by your enemies."

Addressing Vishnu, she said, "Because you gave her in marriage to Brahma, then by Bhrigu's curse you will be born among men and suffer the torment of your enemy taking your wife from you. And for a long time you will wander, a humble herder of cattle!"

To Rudra she said, "By the curse of the holy sages, you will be deprived of your manhood!"

To Agni she said, "May you be a devourer of all that is pure and impure!"

She said to the priests and brahmins: "From now on, you will perform sacrifices solely out of a desire for ordinary gifts. And out of greed, you will visit temples and holy places. You will be content only with the food of others, and dissatisfied with the food of your own homes. And in pursuit of wealth, you will perform sacred rites and ceremonies to excess!"

Having uttered these curses, Savitri left the assembly and walked a short distance, accompanied by Lakshmi and the other goddesses, who all declared their intention to return.

Hearing this, Savitri became enraged and addressed them thus: "Since you are now leaving me, O Lakshmi! May you never remain in one place. And may you always dwell with the vile, fickle, contemptible, sinful, cruel, foolish, and barbaric! And, Indrani, when Indra commits Brahmin murder by killing Tvastri's son, then Nahusha will receive his kingdom and, desiring to have you, will exclaim: "Am I not Indra? Why then does not the young and beautiful Indrani serve me? If I do not have her, I will kill all the gods." Upon learning of his desires, you will remain in your home, immersed in grief and oppressed by the weight of my curse!"

Then Savitri pronounced this curse on the wives of the gods: "May you all remain barren, never having children!"

Vishnu then tried in vain to appease her. After Savitri angrily left the assembly, Gayatri modified her curses. She promised all manner of blessings, including final absorption by him, to all the worshipers of Brahma. Though Indra would be bound, his son would free him. Though Vishnu would lose his wife, he would regain her. Though Rudra would be deprived of his manhood, the lingam, as his representative, would be universally revered. Though men would bring gifts to the Brahmins, it would be because they revered them as gods. And though the goddesses would be unable to bear children of their own, this would not cause them regret.

In the Padma Purana, this story ends happier. Vishnu and Lakshmi, at Brahma's request, followed Savitri as she left the assembly and persuaded her to return. Upon returning, Brahma asked what she wanted him to do with Gayatri. Savitri was too shy to speak. Then Gayatri threw herself at her feet. Savitri lifted her up and, embracing her, said, "A wife must obey her husband's wishes and commands. For a wife who reproaches her husband, who complains and quarrels, and instead of being his life, deprives him of long life with her behavior, will surely go to hell after death. Given this, a virtuous wife will do nothing to displease her husband. Therefore, let us both be attached to Brahma." "So be it," said Gayatri. "I will always obey your commands and value your friendship as my life." "I am your daughter, oh goddess! Please protect me!"

2.

The Atharva Veda (the Veda of the Fire Priests) states:

5.27. O divine Hotaras, praise with the tongue of Agni our rite, directed upward. Praise for the sake of a successful sacrifice! Let the three goddesses sit upon this sacrificial straw: Ida, Sarasvati, the great Bharati, the sung one!

7.1. Thy breast, inexhaustible, sustaining, benevolent, easily invoked, beautifully bestowing, whereby thou bestowest the best boons in abundance—O Sarasvati, let me cling to it here!

The Rig Veda mentions the goddess Sarasvati numerous times:

1.13.9. Ida, Sarasvati, and Mahi—the three goddesses who bring joy—may they sit on the sacrificial straw, undefeated!

1.89.3. To them we turn with the usual invocation. To Bhaga, Mitra, Aditi, the unerring Daksha, Aryaman, Varuna, Soma, and the Ashvins. May Sarasvati, the auspicious one, create happiness for us!

1.142.9. Pure one, placed among the Hotra gods, Bharati among the Maruts—may Ida, Sarasvati, and Mahi sit on the sacrificial straw, worthy of sacrifice!

1.164.49. Your inexhaustible, sustaining breasts, with which you bestow in abundance all the best boons. She who brings treasures, who finds good, who gives beautifully—O Sarasvati, let me cling to her here!

1.188. 8. O Bharati, Ida, Sarasvati, all of you, to whom I appeal, encourage us to beauty!

2.1. 11. You, O god Agni, are Aditi for the worshipper. You are Hotra, Bharati, strengthened by a song of praise. You are Ida, who lives for a hundred winters, for the power of action. You, O lord of good, are Sarasvati, who slays enemies.

2.3. 8. Sarasvati, who brings our poetic thoughts to success, the goddess Ida, Bharati, who overcomes all—the three goddesses, seated at will on this sacrificial straw, may they guard us with unfailing protection!

2.30. 8. O Sarasvati, help us. Accompanied by the Maruts, brave one, vanquish the enemies! Even this arrogant, ostentatious leader of the Shandiks is slain by Indra.

2.41.16. O most maternal, best river, best goddess Sarasvati! We seem unglorified - Create, O mother, glory for us!

17. In you, goddess, O Sarasvati, rest all the spans of life. Be intoxicated by the descendants of Shunahotra! Grant us offspring, O goddess!

18. Enjoy these prayers, O Sarasvati, bearer of reward, the poetic thoughts which the descendants of Grits, pleasing to the gods, offer to you as a sacrifice, O pious one.

3.54.13. Maruts with lightning chariots, with spears, celestial youths, born of law, tireless, Sarasvati - let those worthy of sacrifice listen! Grant wealth along with your sons, O mighty ones!

5.5.8. Ida, Sarasvati, and Mahi—three goddesses who bring joy—sit upon the sacrificial straw, O infallible ones!

5.43.11. From the high heavens, from the mountain, may Sarasvati, worthy of sacrifice, come to us for the sacrifice! The goddess who delights in the call, surrounded by fat, may she hear our mighty speech with favor!

5.46.2. O Agni, Indra, Varuna, Mitra, O gods, the throng of Maruts, and Vishnu, grant! May the two Nasatyas, Rudra and his wives, Pushan, Bhaga, and Sarasvati enjoy!

6.49.7. Daughter of lightning with radiant vitality, Sarasvati, wife of heroes, may she give inspiration! In harmony with the divine wives, may she grant a shield without rifts, invincible protection to the singer!

6.50.12. May they have mercy on us: Rudra, Sarasvati, the unanimous, the generous Vishnu and Vayu! May Ribhukshan, Vaja, the divine distributor, Parjanya, and Vata make the sacrificial delight swell for us!

6.61. To Sarasvati. 1. She gave the fierce debt-paying Divodasa to the worshiper Vadhryashva, who took away the food of all the Panis—these are your mighty gifts, O Sarasvati!

4. May the goddess Sarasvati, rich in rewards, aid us, patroness of prayers!

5. If one turns to you, O goddess Sarasvati, when the stake is set, As to Indra in the fight against enemies,

6. You, O goddess Sarasvati, help with rewards, O rich in rewards! Like Pushan, lead us to the spoils!

10. And may Saraswati, beloved among the beloved, with her seven sisters, be highly valued, be worthy of our praise!

7.9.5. O Agni, go forth with your messenger's service—fail not!—to the gods, who offer prayers in throngs! Honor Sarasvati, the Maruts, the Ashvins, all the gods, that they may bestow treasure!

7.35.11. For our good fortune, may the gods be, all the gods! For our good fortune, may Sarasvati be with prayers! For our good fortune, may those who accompany us, and for our good fortune, may those who accompany us in our giving! For our good fortune, may those in heaven and earth, for our good fortune, may those in the waters!

7.39.5. O Agni, bring Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Agni, and Aryaman, Aditi, and Vishnu from heaven and earth, and bring them songs of praise! May Sarasvati and the Maruts rejoice!

7.40.3. Let that mortal be fearsome, let him be unbridled, O Maruts, whom you aid, O masters of the motley steeds! Agni, Sarasvati (and others) inspire him; none surpasses his wealth.

7.96.6. To Sarasvati and Sarasvat. We would cling to Sarasvat's swollen breast, visible to all, to receive offspring, the joy of sacrifice!

8.21.17. Only Indra bestows such a generous gift, or Sarasvati, the bringer of happiness, bestows a boon, or you, Chitra, to the sacrificer.

8.38.10. I choose for myself the aid of Indra-Agni, accompanied by Sarasvati, for whom the Gayatri hymn is sung.

8.54.4. Pushan, Vishnu, Sarasvati, the seven rivers, may they support my call! Let the waters, Vata, mountains, forest trees, and Earth hear the call!

9.5.8. Bharati, Sarasvati, and the great Ida, may the Pavamanas, the three goddesses, beautifully adorned, come to this our sacrifice.

9.81.4. May Pushan, Panavama, with beautiful gifts, the unanimous, Mitra, Varuna, Brihaspati, the Maruts, Vayu, Ashvins, Tvashtar, Savitar, and the easily controlled Sarasvati come to us!

10.17.7. Sarasvati is called upon by those who aspire to the gods, Sarasvati, when the rite is prolonged. Sarasvati is called upon by those who perform good deeds. May Sarasvati grant the devotee the chosen gift!

8. O Sarasvati, who came on a single chariot by her own inclination, O goddess, rejoicing with the fathers, rejoice, seated on this sacrificial straw! Grant us sacrificial delights that bestow health!

9. Sarasvati, whom the fathers invoke as they approach the sacrifice from the right, give here a share in the sacrificial delight worth a thousand, grant the sacrificers prosperity in wealth!

10.110.8. Let Bharati, Ida, who manifests herself here as at Manus, quickly come to our sacrifice! Let the three goddesses, Sarasvati, sit here on this comfortable sacrificial straw, the skillful ones!

10.131.5. Like parents supporting their son, both Ashvins. You supported Indra with poetic powers and miraculous deeds. When you drank with strength from the mixture poisoned by the sura, Sarasvati cured you, O generous one.

10.141.5. Move Aryaman, Brihaspati, Indra to giving, Vata, Vishnu, Sarasvati, and Savitar, the bringer of rewards!

10.184.2. Offer the fruit, O Sinivali! Offer the fruit, O Sarasvati! Let the Ashvins, two gods with lotus wreaths, give you the fruit! In addition to the goddess Sarasvati, the Rig Veda mentions Saraswat (a rishi, the son of a goddess), called the celestial eagle. However, there are also references to the Saraswat River.

In the Puranas, the guru, or spiritual mentor, is called Kapila or Saraswata; he is one of the Purana teachers.

Saraswata is also the name of the people who inhabited "Medhya desha" (the Middle Country).

«Rigveda» 1.164.52. I call upon Saraswat, the celestial eagle, the great bird, the offspring of the waters, pleasing to the eye, the plants that saturate with rain in abundance.

3.4.8. Let Bharati, along with her wives descended from Bharata, Ida, along with the gods, Agni, along with humans, Sarasvati, along with Sarasvati's descendants, the three goddesses, sit here on this sacrificial straw!

7.2.8. Let Bharati, along with her wives descended from Bharata, Ida, along with the gods, Agni, along with humans, Sarasvati, along with Sarasvati's descendants, the three goddesses, sit here on this sacrificial straw!

7.40. To Sarasvati. The celestial eagle, full of juice, enormous, offspring of the waters, the bull of plants, abundantly satisfying with rain, let them settle in our stable, those who dwell in wealth!

7.41. To whose precept all domestic animals follow, in whose precept the waters reside, in whose precept the Lord of Prosperity resides, this Saraswat we invoke for aid. Dressed in the prosperity of wealth, striving for glory, we wish to summon here Saraswat, the receptacle of wealth, who reveres as he approaches, the Lord of Prosperity, who resides in wealth.

7.95. To Saraswati and Saraswat. 3. He grew up a man among young wives, a courageous young bull among worthy victims. He gives to the generous a reward-bearing steed. Let him polish his body for capture!

6. This Vasishtha, O Saraswati, has opened the gates of the law for you, O bringer of happiness. Strengthen, O beautiful one, and bestow rewards upon the praiser! Protect us always with your favors!

9.4. Rich in milk, you permeate the tribes of the gods; you are called Indra, you are called Saraswat. He who sacrifices a bull to a Brahmin gives a thousand cows to one person.

The Yajur Veda describes the goddess Sarasvati thus:

29.33. May Bharati soon come to us for worship, and Ida, appearing like a human being. May Sarasvati and her two companions, the accomplished goddesses, sit on this beautiful grass.

The Vayu Purana says: 55. Uma, Shita, Sinvali, Kuhu, Gayatri, Lakshmi, Kriti, Dhriti, Medha, Lajja, Kshanti, Vapus, Svadha, Pusti, Kriya, Sarasvati, the goddess of speech, Sandhya, and Ratri are also born from you, O Lord of the Devas.

59. Bhrigu, Kavya, Prachetas, Dadhika, Atmavan, Aurva, Jamadagni, Vida, Sarasvata, Advisena, Arupa, Vitahavya, Sumedhasa, Vainya, Prithu, Divodasa, Prashvara, Gritsaman and Nabha: these nineteen sages were the expounders of the mantras.

The Vishnu Purana says of the goddess Sarasvati: "Then the mighty and indignant Daityas forcibly seized the cup of Amrita, which was in the hand of Danvantari. But Vishnu, assuming a female form, charmed and deceived them. And, taking the Amrita from them, He gave it to the gods. Shakra and the other deities drank the ambrosia. The enraged demons, seizing their weapons, attacked them. But the gods, infused with new strength by the ambrosial potion, prevailed and put their armies to flight, and they fled through the regions of space and plunged into the subterranean realms of Patala. The gods rejoiced greatly at this, paid homage to the holder of the discus and mace, and resumed their rule in the heavens. The sun shone with renewed splendor and once again performed its assigned task. And the heavenly bodies once again circled in their respective orbits. Fire once again blazed upward, beautiful in its splendor. And the minds of all beings were invigorated with devotion. The three worlds were once again blessed with prosperity. And Indra, the chief of the gods, was restored to power.

Seated on his throne and once again in the sky, exercising sovereignty over the gods, Shakra praised the goddess who holds a lotus in her hand: “I bow to Sri, the mother of all beings, seated on her lotus throne, with eyes like blossoming lotuses, reclining on the chest of Vishnu. You are Siddhi (superhuman power). You are Svadha and Svaha. You are Suda (ambrosia), the purifier of the universe. You are evening, night and dawn. You are strength, faith, intelligence. You are Saraswati. You, beautiful goddess, are the knowledge of devotion, great knowledge, mystic knowledge and spiritual knowledge that grants eternal liberation. You are the science of reasoning, the three Vedas, the arts and sciences. You are moral and political science. The world is peopled by You with pleasant or unpleasant forms. Who, if not you, O goddess, sits on that face of the god of gods, the mace-wielder, which is composed of the sacrifice and contemplated by holy ascetics? Abandoned by you, the three worlds were on the brink of destruction, but they were revived by you. Through our gaze, O mighty goddess, men gain wives, children, homes, friends, harvests, and wealth. Health and strength, power, victory, and happiness are easily attained by those upon whom you smile.

3. Sarasvati. River. Modern interpretation.

1.

The Vedas contain hymns composed in the immeasurable depths of time. They provide information about the natural environment of the lands where the hymn-writers lived, the beliefs and rituals of the Aryan ancestors, their customs, way of life, and economic practices.

Sarasvati is revered as both a river and a goddess. The lost Vedas were found on its banks. The hymns mention rituals performed on the banks of this river. Sarasvati was associated with the image of sanctity ascribed to the region called "Brahmavarta" (the abode of Brahma), located between the Sarasvati and Drishadvati streams. The river acquired a divine character. Thus, Sarasvati was for early Indians what the Ganges (mentioned only twice in the Rig Veda) is for their descendants. It is only natural that the blessing of its holy waters was invoked as a necessary element for the proper conduct and successful completion of rites and rituals.

"Mahabharata. Shalva-parva." Book 9.53. In the presence of the Brahmins, he, the everlasting, sang this laudatory shloka:

"Where is there such pleasure as that which comes from dwelling on the Sarasvati?

Where is there such religious merit as that which comes from dwelling on the Sarasvati?

Having reached the Sarasvati, people were able to ascend to heaven!

Everyone should always remember the Sarasvati River!

The Sarasvati is the most sacred of all rivers!

The Sarasvati always brings great happiness to people!

Having reached the Sarasvati, people involved in sins do not grieve for them either here or in the next world!"

According to M. Witzel, the Vedic Sarasvati River is superimposed on the "heavenly river" of the "Milky Way," which is seen as "the path to immortality and a heavenly afterlife." The Sarasvati River descends into this world from Plaksha Prasarvana, the world tree at the center of heaven and earth, and flows through the earth "Kura," the center of this world.

The Sarasvati is the sacred river of the Aryans of the Vedic era. Its name is translated as "rich in water." The Sanskrit "saras" means "lake, pond," and "sara" means "flow." "Sarasvati" may originally have been an adjective meaning "filled with water." It could have been a river that connected many lakes due to its abundant flow.

Another meaning could have been "Sara-Svati," meaning "Stream of Holiness," and applied to the holy river.

Sarasvati is considered related to the Avestan Harakhvati. In later times, Harakhvati was identified with Harauvati or with Arachosia, a region rich in rivers.

Many believe that the Vedic Sarasvati once flowed east of the Indus (Sindhu) River. Scientists, geologists, and explorers have identified the Sarasvati with many modern or now-defunct rivers. It is believed that the Sarasvati is the Ghaggar-Hakra, a seasonal river in India and Pakistan. It is also believed that Sarasvati was the sacred name of the Indus, and Sindhu the secular name. Alternatively, the Sarasvati is the Arghandab, a river in Afghanistan.

Several modern Indian rivers are also named Sarasvati, in honor of the Vedic goddess Sarasvati:

The Sarasvati is a river originating in the mountainous Ambala district and flowing into the Ghaggar near Shatrana.

The Saraswati is a river originating in the Aravalli Mountains in Rajasthan and flowing into the Rann of Kutch.

The Saraswati River in Uttarakhand is a tributary of the Alaknanda River.

The Saraswati River in West Bengal, formerly a branch of the Hooghly River, dried up in the 17th century.

The kingdoms located in northern Rajasthan also bore names associated with the Saraswati River.

2.

Beginning in the late 19th century, many scholars, such as K. Lassen (1800-1876), M. Müller (1823-1900), and M. A. Stein (1862-1943), proposed identifying the Sarasvati River with the Ghaggar-Hakra river system, which flows through northwestern India and eastern Pakistan, between the Yamuna and Sutlej, and ends in the Thar Desert.

Identification with the Ghaggar-Hakra system acquired new significance in the early 21st century.

In 2015, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government proposed that archaeologists search for evidence of the physical existence of the Vedic river, thereby reinforcing the concept of a "Golden Age" of the Hindu Indian subcontinent. The government established the "Sarasvati River Heritage Development Board in Haryana." On October 19, 2016, the commission established by the BJP government concluded that the Sarasvati River did indeed exist.

In 2021, the Chief Minister of Haryana stated that more than 70 organizations were involved in researching the Sarasvati River's heritage and that the river "still flows underground from Adi Badri to Kutch in Gujarat."

The Sarasvati River Revival Project aims to develop it as a tourist and pilgrimage route. This joint effort by several states aims to create religious tourism facilities. The annual five-day International Saraswati Festival, organized by the Haryana Saraswati Heritage Development Council, is held in the last week of January to honor the Saraswati River as a manifestation of the Hindu goddess Saraswati. During the festival, pilgrimages are organized through various ghats at religious tirthas and sites of the Indus Valley Civilization.

Hindutva proponents propose an early date for the Rig Veda, renaming the Indus Valley civilization the "Sarasvati culture," suggesting that the Indus Valley and Vedas are comparable. They reject the Late Indo-Aryan Migration Theory, which postulates a long period of Indo-European migrations to the Indian subcontinent between 1900 and 1400 BCE. This, given the beginning of the Pandava Yuga (the era of the Pandavas) in 2449 BCE and the mention of the Battle of Harappa in the Rig Veda, is quite plausible. However, the fact that Hindutva proponents date most Vedic texts to the 7th-4th millennia BCE does not transfer the events they describe to Hindustan.

Satellite images of the region have confirmed the discovery of the lost river. The great river originated in the Himalayas, flowed into the plains of Haryana, and flowed through the Thar Desert in Rajasthan and eastern Sindh (parallel to the Indus River), before reaching the sea at the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat.

The strange, marshy landscape of the Rann of Kutch is explained by the fact that it was once the mouth of the great river. However, until the early 20th century, it was a shallow sea strait. During the summer monsoons, it is flooded by seawater, as well as the waters of the Banas and Luna rivers.

Contrary to assumptions that a large Himalayan river, fed by glaciers and identified with the Saraswati, irrigated the central part of the Harappan civilization in the interfluve of the Indus and Ganges basins, only rivers fed by monsoon rains operated there during the Holocene. Although there is general agreement that river courses in the Indus basin frequently changed direction, the exact sequence of these changes and their dating remain problematic.

3. Ghaggar-Hakra river system

Modern archaeologists and geologists, such as Virdi (2006) and Valdia (2013), have also attempted to identify the Sarasvati with Ghaggar.

According to Valdia, "it can be concluded that Ghaggar was once known as 'Sarsuti,' which is a 'corruption of the word Sarasvati,'" because "in Sirsa, on the banks of the Ghaggar, stands a fort called 'Sarsuti.' Now abandoned, this medieval fort celebrates and honors the Sarsuti River."

There are numerous suggestions that the Ghaggar-Hakra river system was a major glacial river in the Himalayas. However, the absence of large-scale incisions in the interfluve suggests that no major glacial rivers flowed through the Ghaggar-Hakra region during the Holocene.

The modern Ghaggar-Hakra Valley and its tributaries are now dry or have seasonal flows. However, rivers were active in this region between 3400 and 2300 BC. In the upper interfluve, fine-grained floodplain sediments continued until 900 BC. This suggests that rainfall may have supported permanent rivers.

The present-day Ghaggar-Hakra River is a seasonal river in India and Pakistan, flowing only during the monsoon season.

Puri and Verma (1998) argue that the present-day Tons River was the ancient upper reaches of the Ghaggar-Hakra River. At that time, the Ghaggar-Hakra was fed by Himalayan glaciers, making it the mighty river described in the Vedas. Major seismic activity in the Himalayan region led to the uplift of the Bata-Markanda divide, blocking the western course of the Ghaggar-Hakra. Since the Yamuna River was nearby, the blocked water flowed into the Yamuna.

According to Lal (2002), the disappearance of the river could have been further caused by earthquakes, which could have altered the courses of its tributaries.

Mitra and Bhadu (2012) argue that active faults are present in the region, and lateral and vertical tectonic movements have frequently altered river courses in the past. The Ghaggar-Hakra River may have shifted westward due to such an uplift.