Pre-modern identity No. 2: tribes and archaeological cultures (19.07.2025)
The second installment of the cycle. Dribnytsya criticizes the term “Southern Rus’” used in the 6-volume work (insisting on a single Rus’ centered on Kyiv in the chronicle sense) and shows the mismatch between the chronicle tribal unions and the archaeological picture: on the territory of present-day Ukraine in this period only two archaeological cultures are recorded (three by the Russian classification), whose artifacts, according to archaeologist Volodymyr Baran, are 80–85% alike. The conclusion: both archaeology and the chronicles refute the Russian ideologeme of a “single Old Rus’ people.” A source for the article on the formation of pre-modern identity.
Key moments
- 01:22 Critique of the term "Southern Rus'": in the chronicle sense Rus' was a single entity, centered on Kyiv
- 04:42 The chronicle records 7 (possibly 9) tribal unions: Polianians, Derevlianians, Siverianians, and others
- 08:16 On the territory of Ukraine in this period — only two archaeological cultures (Luka-Raikovetska, Volyntsevo-Romny)
- 08:50 Volodymyr Baran: artifacts of both archaeological cultures are 80–85% alike
- 11:36 The seven chronicle tribes do not map onto the two archaeological cultures — direct correspondence is impossible
- 13:00 The Russian thesis of a "single people" before/during the Rus' period contradicts archaeology and the chronicles