Ataman Platov history. Ataman Platov: from Cossack to Count

Unknown artist. Portrait of M.I. Platov (early 19th century)

Platov! Europe already knows
That you are a terrible leader of the Don forces.
By surprise, like a sorcerer, everywhere
You will fall like snow from clouds or rain.

G.R. Derzhavin (1807)

In 1801, Emperor Paul I was seized by the idea, together with the French army, to oppose England and go on a campaign to India, which was one of the strongest British colonies.

Platov was asked to lead the Cossack army - he was very popular at that time among the Don Cossacks. Now this idea of ​​going to India seems fantastic, but then they were preparing for it seriously: the Cossack army consisted of 27,500 people and 55,000 horses. But when the Cossacks reached Orenburg, news came of the death of Paul I and the accession of Alexander I to the throne. The campaign was canceled, and Platov was promoted to lieutenant general and appointed military ataman of the Don Army.

Unknown artist. Portrait of M.I. Platova on horseback (1810)

This is just one episode from the life of Ataman Matvey Ivanovich Platov, full of events, adventures and heroic deeds. “Whirlwind-ataman” - that’s what the poet V. Zhukovsky called him. And the Cossacks loyal to him composed songs about his military victories.

From the biography

Bust of M. I. Platov in the village of Starocherkasskaya (Rostov region)

Matvey Ivanovich Platov was born into the family of a military foreman in Cherkassk, the capital of the Don Cossacks, in 1751.

Stanitsa Starocherkasskaya(then until 1805 Cherkassk) is located in the Aksai district of the Rostov region. Here, besides M. Platov, many other Don heroes were born.

Church of Peter and Paul (Starocherkasskaya station)

And in this church M.I. was baptized in 1751. Platov, hero of the Patriotic War of 1812

It was during the Patriotic War of 1812 that Platov’s name became popularly known, although as a brave commander he distinguished himself with the rank of captain in 1771 during the attack and capture of the Perekop line and Kinburn. From 1772, he began to command a Cossack regiment, and already in the second Turkish war (1787-1791) he distinguished himself during the assault on Ochakov, for which on April 14, 1789 he was awarded the Order of St. George, 4th class.

Y. Sukhodolsky “Storm of Ochakov”

Then M. Platov took part in the Persian War of 1795-1796. with the rank of marching chieftain. But in 1797, Paul I suspected him of plotting against the emperor and exiled him to Kostroma, and then imprisoned him in prison. Peter and Paul Fortress. But in January 1801, by order of Paul I, M. Platov took part in a campaign in India.

Founding of Novocherkassk

The foundation of this city - the idea and its implementation - belongs to M.I. Platov.

What was this for?

Stanitsa Starocherkasskaya

The village of Starocherkasskaya is located on the right bank of the Don River, and it was almost annually flooded by the waters of the Don, which flooded in the spring. Another reason was frequent fires in the former Cossack capital, built chaotically, without a master plan, in the fire of which up to half of the wooden buildings burned out. In addition, there were no reliable land access routes to Cherkassk.

Ataman Platov had long been nurturing the project of creating a new capital of the Don Cossack Army. In 1804, Emperor Alexander I approved the proposal of M. I. Platov “on the founding of a new city on the Don, which will be called the new Cherkassy.”

Unknown artist. Portrait of Franz de Volland (Devolan, circa 1805)

The famous French engineer Franz Devolan worked on the city plan. He was the first engineer in the armies of G. A. Potemkin and A. V. Suvorov, the first architect of Voznesensk, Odessa, Novocherkassk, Tiraspol, Ovidiopol and other cities, the builder of the first cast iron bridge in St. Petersburg, the first engineer at the head of the Department of Railways, the first member Committee of Ministers from this department. Under his leadership, the Tikhvin and Mariinsk water systems were created. In 1805, on the day of the Ascension of the Lord, the ceremonial foundation of the new city took place. The festively arranged move to New Cherkassk took place on May 9, 1806 and was marked by 101 gun shots. Currently, Novocherkassk is already the capital of the world Cossacks, and in the center of the city, near the Military Cathedral, there is a monument to the founder of the city - Ataman Matvey Ivanovich Platov.

Monument to Ataman M.I. Platov in Platov Square (Novocherkassk)

There is also an equestrian monument to M.I. in this city. Platov.

Equestrian monument to M.I. Platov (Novocherkassk)

Monument to the All-Great Don Army (Novocherkassk)

Patriotic War of 1812

During the Patriotic War of 1812, Platov first commanded all the Cossack regiments on the border, and then covered the retreat of the army, while simultaneously undertaking successful battles with the French (near the town of Mir and Romanovo).

The battle near Mir in July 1812 is called the “case of Platov’s Cossacks.”

The main forces of the French Great Army crossed the Neman in Lithuania, the 1st and 2nd Russian armies stationed there were separated by the advancing French. The commander of the 2nd Army, Bagration, who was in Volkovysk, received an order to urgently move to join the 1st Army of Barclay de Tolly. From the west, Bagration was pursued by the army of Jerome Bonaparte.

On July 1, Bagration's retreating army headed towards the junction, but on July 3, avoiding a battle with the army of Marshal Davout, it turned back to Nesvizh. On July 8, Bagration’s army stopped to rest near Nesvizh, and Bagration ordered Ataman Platov to send patrols and hold back the enemy’s movement while the army rested.

Under the command of Ataman Platov there were 5.5 Cossack regiments numbering 2,600 sabers. On July 9, Ataman Platov ordered an ambush and detained the enemy’s advance detachment. V. A. Sysoev (lieutenant general, also a Don Cossack) divided his regiment into three groups: one hundred were defiantly put forward; two hundred were placed before the World; On the road south of Mir, the main Cossack forces with mobile artillery were secretly positioned. This is how the “Cossack Venter” ambush was prepared. The Polish lancers were ambushed, and during two days of fighting near Mir, 6 lancer regiments were defeated; Platov captured 18 officers and 375 lower ranks. Almost all the prisoners were wounded due to the extremely fierce battle.

Platov's rearguard battle delayed the movement of Napoleon's troops and ensured the withdrawal of Bagration's 2nd Army to Slutsk. Napoleon Bonaparte was furious; he blamed his own brother Jerome, the commander of the right wing of the army, for the defeat of the division, and he returned to the Kingdom of Westphalia. Marshal Davout took command of Jerome's troops.

Ataman M.I. Platov. Engraving by S. Cardelli (early 19th century)

In the battle near the village of Semlevo, Platov’s army defeated the French and captured a colonel from the army of Marshal Murat. Platov shared this success with Major General Baron Rosen.

D. Doe “Portrait of G. W. Rosen.” Hermitage (St. Petersburg)

During the retreat of the French army, Platov pursued it and inflicted defeats on it at Gorodnya, Kolotsky Monastery, Gzhatsk, Tsarevo-Zaimishch, near Dukhovshchina and when crossing the Vop River. For his services, by a personal Highest decree of November 10, 1812, the ataman of the Don Army, general of the cavalry, Matvey Ivanovich Platov, with his descendants, was elevated to the dignity of count of the Russian Empire. In November, Platov captured Smolensk from battle and defeated the troops of Marshal Ney near Dubrovna.

In 1813 M. Platov fought in Prussia; in September he received command of a special corps, with which he participated in the battle of Leipzig and, pursuing the enemy, captured about 15 thousand people. In 1814, he fought at the head of his regiments in the capture of Nemur, at Arcy-sur-Aube (the battle of March 20-21 between Napoleon's army and the Main Allied Army on the Aube River during the 1814 campaign in France. This was the last battle Napoleon, where he personally commanded the troops before his first abdication), Cezanne, Villeneuve. Awarded the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called.

After the conclusion of peace M.I. Platov accompanied Emperor Alexander I to London, where he was greeted with loud applause. He became the first Russian to be awarded an honorary doctorate from Oxford University (although Platov was only taught to read and write).

A Royal Navy ship was named after him, and bronze medals were struck in his honor by the London Mint.

Medallion in honor of Platov (1814)

M.I. Platov died on January 15 (new time), 1818. His ashes were reburied several times, but were finally reburied in the same place in the military cathedral on May 15, 1993 (Novocherkassk).

Lifetime portrait of M. I. Platov, painted during his stay in London (1814)

Legend

It is impossible to imagine that the life of a person who had such a stormy temperament and such a heroic biography would not have been overgrown with all sorts of myths and legends. But legends are not made about everyone, only about those who deserve them. Or maybe it’s not a legend at all, but a fact. But this is how they talk about the meeting between Platov and Napoleon.

They met back in 1907, at the conclusion of the Peace of Tilsit. M.I. was present in the retinue of Emperor Alexander I. Platov. He observed the meetings of the two emperors on the Neman River. During one of these meetings, Napoleon decided to award the Russian generals with the Order of the Legion of Honor. Platov was also among those awarded. Having learned about this, the Cossack ataman said indignantly: “Why should he reward me? After all, I didn’t serve him and I can never serve him.” Of course, these words were immediately conveyed to Napoleon, who at the meeting, getting acquainted with the Russian generals, did not honor only Platov with a handshake. But Platov remembered this insult to him.

D. Serangeli “Farewell of Napoleon to Alexander I in Tilsit” (Palace of Versailles)

At one of the military reviews, Platov looked long and intently at Napoleon, which affected his pride. Napoleon sent a general from his retinue to Platov. The general asked: “Does the chieftain not like the great emperor that he looks at him so intently?” “I’ll tell you that I’m not looking at your emperor at all, because there’s nothing unusual about him, he’s the same as other people. I’m looking at his horse, and as an expert myself, I really want to know what breed it is,” Platov answered him.

But this conflict ended quite peacefully, namely with the exchange of gifts. Napoleon gave Platov a snuffbox with his own portrait, and Platov gave the emperor a combat bow. But in 1814, Platov replaced the portrait of Napoleon on the snuff box with a “more decent antique.” Platov always remained himself.

Monument to M.I. Platov in Moscow

One of the most interesting figures of the Patriotic War of 1812 is Matvey Platov, the ataman of the Don Cossack army. He was a rather extraordinary and interesting personality. In addition to the Patriotic War, Ataman Platov took part in many other battles. The biography of this person will be the subject of our discussion.

Youth

The future ataman Matvey Ivanovich Platov was born in August 1751 in Cherkassk, which at that time was the capital of the Don Army. His father, Ivan Fedorovich, belonged to the class of Cossack elders, and his mother, Anna Illarionovna (b. 1733), was a faithful life partner to her husband.

In addition to Matvey, there were three more children in the family, all male: Andrei, Stefan and Peter.

There was no doubt about what path of activity the future ataman M.I. Platov would choose. Of course, the son of a Cossack could only be a Cossack.

At the age of fifteen, Matvey entered service in the office of the Don Army, while holding the rank of constable. Three years later he received the next rank - esaul.

On the battlefields

The future ataman Matvey Platov took part in the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774. In 1771, he took part in the attack on the Perekop line and Kinburn, where he distinguished himself well. A year later, he was already entrusted with commanding a regiment of the Don Army. In 1774, Matvey Ivanovich went to the Caucasian front, where he participated in the suppression of the uprising of the highlanders in the Kuban, who supported the Ottoman Empire.

After the end of the Russian-Turkish war in 1775, M. Platov took part in the suppression of Pugachev’s rebellion. In the subsequent period, he returned to the North Caucasus, where in 1782-1784 he fought with the rebel Lezgins, Nogais and Chechens.

In the next Russian-Turkish war (1787-1791), Platov also took the most active part. With his participation, storms of such fortresses as Ochakov (1788), Akkerman (1789), Bendery (1789), Izmail (1790) took place. In 1789 he also fought in the ranks of the Russian army in the battle near Causeni.

His exploits on battlefields did not go unnoticed. Since 1790, Platov was the ataman of the Chuguevsky and Ekaterinoslavsky regiments, and in 1793 he received the rank of major general.

In 1796, Matvey Ivanovich took part in which, however, was soon cancelled.

Opal

M.I. Platov knew more than just joys. The chieftain was suspected by Emperor Paul of a conspiracy against him and exiled to Kostroma. This happened in 1797. After some time, he was transferred to the Peter and Paul Fortress, which meant an even greater aggravation of guilt.

Platov's disgrace lasted until 1801, when Pavel decided to release him from captivity so that the ataman could take part in the upcoming Indian campaign. However, the adventurousness of this plan, as well as the death of the emperor, did not allow the plan to come true.

At the head of the Don Troops

Paul's son Alexander I, who became the Russian emperor after his father's death, patronized Matvey Ivanovich. Since 1801, Platov has been the ataman of the Don Army. This meant that from that moment he became the leader of the entire Don Cossacks. In addition, Matvey Ivanovich received the rank of lieutenant general.

The new position provided for an even greater level of responsibility to the emperor and the state. Of course, the burden of responsibility could break any person, but Platov was not such a person. Ataman carried out the reorganization of the Don Army, the structure of which until then had been very disorderly. In addition, in 1805 Platov founded the new capital of the Don Cossacks - Novocherkassk.

War against Napoleon

The Cossacks of Ataman Platov, led by their commander, took part in the war of the Fourth Coalition against Napoleon. The fighting took place mainly on the territory of the Kingdom of Prussia.

Platov personally commanded his detachment at the Battle of Preussisch-Eylau, after which he gained worldwide fame. His Cossacks acted atypically for the battles of that period, which greatly puzzled the enemy. They used guerrilla warfare tactics, making quick raids on the enemy's flanks and inflicting significant damage on them.

After the signing of the Tilsit Peace Treaty between Russia and France in 1807, Napoleon personally noted Platov’s services. He handed him a valuable snuff box. Platov was also to be awarded the Order of the Legion of Honor. The chieftain refused such an honor, citing the fact that he could not serve a foreign sovereign.

One of the significant companies of that period should be called the Russian-Turkish war of 1806-1812, in which Platov’s Cossack detachment also acted successfully. Then he received a new rank - cavalry general.

Patriotic War

But the years with Napoleon left the greatest mark on Platov’s biography.

At the beginning of the Napoleonic invasion, Platov directly commanded all the Cossack troops, but then the situation forced him to lead individual detachments. Just as in the previous campaign against Napoleon, the actions of Platov’s Cossacks, due to their surprise, caused many problems for the enemy. It was Platov’s troops who managed to capture the French colonel and also seize important papers of General Sebastiani.

Platov fought his first successful battle against Napoleonic troops in June near the village of Mir, where he defeated the detachment of General Rozhnetsky. After the battle of Saltykovka, the Cossacks covered the retreat of General Bagration, and after the Battle of Smolensk, Platov took command of the entire rearguard Russian troops who continued to retreat.

But soon the situation changed. In August, at the request of the commander-in-chief Barclay de Toli to the emperor, Platov was expelled from the army. According to official papers, “for lack of management.” But, according to authoritative sources, the main reason for Platov’s removal was his increased craving for alcohol.

However, Platov soon returned and participated in and at this meeting he spoke out against retreat from Moscow.

When Napoleon's army began to leave Russia, it was Platov who led its pursuit. As the leadership believed, his mobile units could inflict maximum damage on the enemy.

Foreign campaign and the image of the Cossacks in European culture

The troops of Platov, who by that time had received the title of count for his services, were among the first to cross the borders of the Russian Empire near the Neman and began to pursue Napoleon’s army outside the country. They began the siege of Danzig, where General MacDonald was holed up.

Afterwards, Ataman M. Platov was mainly located at the Emperor’s Main Apartment, although Cossack detachments continued to operate just as effectively, pursuing the enemy. Sometimes Matvey Ivanovich was entrusted with command of individual units. In particular, he led a unit in the battle of Leipzig, called the Battle of the Nations.

Cossack troops marched all over Europe, all the way to France, where Napoleon signed the surrender. Platov's Cossacks appearance, as well as a lower level of discipline than regular army units, terrified not only enemy troops, but also ordinary Europeans. After this campaign, the image of the Russian Cossack became archetypal in European culture.

Death of the Ataman

Matvey Platov died in January 1818, in a village near Taganrog, on his native Don land, at the age of 66 years. This is how one of the most active personalities in the history of the Don Cossacks passed away.

Platov was initially buried in Novocherkassk, but then a series of reburials followed. The chieftain's grave was desecrated by the Bolsheviks. Ultimately, in 1993, the remains of Matvey Platov were buried in the same place.

Family and descendants

Matvey Platov was married twice. His first marriage was to Nadezhda Stepanovna Efremova, who was the granddaughter of the ataman of the Don Army. In this marriage, a son, Ivan, was born in 1777, who, however, died in 1806, long before his father’s death. Soon after the birth of her son, in 1783, Nadezhda Stepanovna also died.

Platov’s second marriage was to Marfa Dmitrievna Martynova, for whom this was also the second marriage. She also came from a Cossack elder family. They had two sons (Matvey and Ivan) and four daughters (Martha, Anna, Maria, Alexandra).

Marfa Dmitrievna died at the end of 1812. After this, M. Platov lived in a civil marriage with a subject of the British king, Elizabeth.

The descendants of Ataman Platov, through his sons Matvey and Ivan, have the dignity of count.

Characteristics of the chieftain

Ataman Platov was pleased interesting personality, who devoted a lot of energy to serving her Motherland. His heroism undoubtedly sets an example for posterity. It is also difficult to overestimate the contribution of Matvey Ivanovich to the formation of a truly powerful fighting force from the irregular Don Cossacks, terrifying the enemy.

Of course, like any person, the legendary chieftain had his shortcomings. These, for example, include excessive addiction to alcohol. But nevertheless he positive traits largely prevailed over the vices.

As we see, Ataman Platov seems to be one of the most prominent figures of his time. Unfortunately, there is no photo of him, since at the beginning of the 19th century the art of photography was not yet known to the world. Nevertheless, there are quite a large number of portraits executed by talented artists who provide us with the opportunity to contemplate the image of the great ataman.

One of these works is the posthumous portrait of Platov performed by the famous English artist of that time, George Dow. This picture is located above. Judging by the external features of the person depicted on it, Ataman Platov was a decisive and strong-willed person. Thanks to works like this, we can see what the greatest of past centuries were like.

In the photo: “Portrait of Count M. I. Platov” (1814) by Thomas Lawrence.

Native of Cherkassk Matvey Ivanovich Platov- one of the most famous Don atamans. Having become the hero of Leskov’s “Lefty,” he even ended up in fiction, and such things always emphasize the significance of a historical figure.

Ataman Platov - a life spent in battles

Ataman Matvey Platov born in 1753 in Cherkassk in the family of a military foreman, was baptized in the Peter and Paul Church. He did not receive any systematic education, but he knew how to read and write from early childhood, preferring historical novels to any other reading. True, he hardly had much time left for reading, because the Cossack had been sitting on a horse almost from the cradle. At the age of 13 he was already a constable, at 20 he commanded a Cossack regiment.

Such ups just don’t happen - Platov was literally born for military life. Since 1788, he fought under the command of Suvorov, taking Ochakov and Izmail. The young Cossack general was favored by Empress Catherine II, which backfired on him when Paul ascended the throne and began persecuting his mother’s favorites. Detached from military service, Platov went into exile in Kostroma, and then was completely imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress. He was released when Pavel needed an energetic leader for his planned trip to India. Cossack troops, prepared for this purpose, was headed by Ataman Matvey Platov. The news of the death of Paul I overtook Platov in Orenburg - Alexander I canceled the crazy campaign, and appointed Platov as military chieftain.

Matvey Ivanovich's first most important task in this post was the transfer of the Don capital to a new location and the construction of Novocherkassk. But he did not engage in peaceful affairs for long - in 1805 the war with Napoleon broke out. From then on until 1815, Ataman Platov fought almost without rest - his Cossacks rushed like a whirlwind across the European continent, calming down only, as one would expect, in Paris. All of Europe applauded them, and most of all - Ataman Platov, who, one must think, seemed to foreigners to be an expression of the mysterious Russian spirit.

On April 13, 1813, Emperor Alexander I signed a manifesto “expressing royal gratitude to the Don Army for its services in the Patriotic War”: “The courageous and tireless vigilance of the military ataman Platov,” it said, “as well as all the brave generals who fought with him.” , officers and all Don police officers and Cossacks in general, contributed greatly to overcoming the great enemy forces and to achieving complete and famous victories over them...”

Six months earlier, Platov was elevated to the rank of count. By 1816, he had amassed a collection of all the highest awards, including the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, became a doctor at Oxford University, and even the ship Ataman Platov appeared in the British Navy. All that remained was to rest on our laurels, but Vikhor-Ataman did not know how to do this. Returning to the Don in 1816, Matvey Ivanovich did not live long - he died in January 1818. His grave is located in the Novocherkassk Ascension Military Cathedral.

In the book:
""Barbarians". Collection of articles on the history of the ancient world and medieval Europe» M., "Metagalaxy", 1999. 304 p. (series " True History Russian People", release 2.99 (5)).
pp.191-211.

Anton Platov

SLAVIC RUNES:
TWO CENTURIES OF RESEARCH

Not later than the very beginning of the 10th century in Bulgaria, the monk Brave wrote lines that have survived to this day and now cause so many contradictory, sometimes completely opposite in meaning, judgments: “Before, I didn’t have any writing in Slovenia, well, I read with words and cuts and gataahu, the real trash...” Almost all modern works devoted to the pre-Christian writing of the Slavs traditionally begin with a commentary on these ancient lines. But no matter how numerous such comments are, it is impossible to avoid analyzing the words of Brave in this essay.

Let's start with the most controversial one, with the verb chtehu, the interpretation of which causes so much disagreement (the translation of the second verb in the phrase - gataahu - is beyond doubt: they guessed). As expected, two translation options are possible: read and counted. Modern authors, for the most part, are inclined to give the verb chtehu the meaning of considered. Indeed, there are certain arguments for this. For example, there are known South and East Slavic counting systems using peculiar notches (lines or cuts) on special sticks, described by many researchers 1 . Another argument in favor of reading was considered to be no less logical and even more compelling. Indeed, if we assume the meaning of read, then how can we understand the previous remark of Brave that Slovenes have no letters?

It should be remembered that the words of Brave were preserved not in one, but in several lists. Moreover, only in the Moscow and Chudovsky lists of legends do we find “they had no writings,” but in the others - Savinsky, Lavrentyevsky and Hilendarsky - “they had no books” 2 . This gives the words of Brave a completely different meaning and completely refutes the second argument of the supporters of the option: it is quite possible to write and read, but at the same time compile books in the European sense of the word.

Further, if we turn purely to linguistics, we will see that the difference between the Slavic verbs to read and count is not of fundamental importance in this regard, if only because both verbs contain the same ancient stem, which also sounds in the verb to honor, read. Moreover, in most ancient writings the actual writing and numerical recordings were carried out using the same characters (Latin writing, early Cyrillic, etc.).

Taking into account all that has been said, many modern authors are now inclined to a new, somewhat different from the established, opinion regarding the notorious words of the monk Brave. Probably, the Bulgarian monk still had in mind the existence of a certain written system of “devil and cut”, but stated the absence - at least in his opinion - Slavic books written in this writing system.

The first arguments in favor of the existence of Slavic pre-Christian writing were put forward at the beginning - middle of the last century; Some of the evidence given then is now attributed to the Glagolitic alphabet, and not to the “dash and cut” system, some turned out to be simply untenable, but a number of arguments remain valid to this day. Thus, it is impossible to argue with the testimony of Thietmar, who, when describing the Slavic temple of Rethra, points to the fact that the idols of the temple were inscribed with “special”, non-Germanic runes. It would be completely absurd to assume that Thithmar, being an educated person, could not recognize the standard minor Scandinavian runes if the names of the gods on the idols were inscribed with them. Massudi, describing one of the Slavic temples, mentions certain signs carved on stones. Ibn Fadlan, speaking about the Slavs at the end of the 1st millennium, points to the existence of grave inscriptions on pillars among them. Ibn El Nedim talks about the existence of Slavic pre-Cyrillic writing and even gives in his treatise a drawing of an inscription carved on a piece of wood (the famous Nedimov inscription). The Czech song “The Court of Lubusha,” preserved in a 9th-century copy, mentions pravodatne desks—laws written on wooden boards in some kind of writing.

When studying pre-Christian writing among the Slavs, it is also necessary to take into account the fact, noted by the Bulgarian scientist E. Georgiev, of the coincidence of roots associated with reading and writing in all Slavic languages:

"The words pьsati, citati, pisьmo, kъniga and others are common to all Slavic languages, and this shows that the Slavs were familiar with the fact of reading and writing a very long time ago, even before living an independent life in the newly created Slavic powers, at least" read" and "wrote" their "features" and "cuts", about which the ancient Bulgarian writer Chernorizets Khrabr speaks, but, probably, more than that" 3.

Thus, the very fact of the existence of pre-Cyrillic writing among the Slavs can, despite numerous attacks by opponents of this opinion, be considered indisputable. This follows both from the above considerations and from the analysis of material (including archaeological) monuments, some of which, in our opinion, related to Slavic runes, will be considered below. At one time, this opinion was shared by such an authoritative Russian historian as V.N. Tatishchev, who wrote the following words in his “Russian History”: “Others are more amazing than they say, supposedly in Rus' before Vladimir there was no writing, therefore, ancient affairs they could not write... In reality, the Slavs long before Christ and the Slavic-Russians actually before Vladimir had a letter, which many ancient writers testify to us and, firstly, that this is true of all Slavs" 4 . Concluding this short introduction, let us additionally point out that the fact of the existence of pre-Cyrillic writing among the Slavs has now been confirmed by a number of researchers 5 .

Turning to the actual topic of this article - to the Slavic runes - it should be noted that over the past two millennia there has been not one (any) system of Slavic writing, but several such systems that developed independently and were fundamentally different from each other. One of these systems was runic writing itself. As an example of another, independent writing system, one can cite the writing studied by M.L. Seryakov and called by him “primordial Russian”. This author examines a whole series of monuments made, in his opinion, with the same signs, akin to the ancient Indian Brahmi script 6 . In general, M.L. Seryakov’s conclusions look very plausible, although they deserve some criticism - primarily in relation to the definition of the typology of a particular archaeographic monument and in relation to the failure to indicate possible ways of development of the studied writing and its possible analogues.

Now we move on to consider the Slavic runes themselves, and first we will clarify the question of the origin of the term itself, meaning the letters of runic writing.

The now traditional interpretation of the word rune was established in the scientific community at the end of the last century. Quite rightly, the Germanic runa, rune, denoting the letter of runic writing, is associated with the Gothic runa - mystery and other German. the verb runen (modern German raunen) meaning to whisper 7. Some variety in the interpretation of the word rune was introduced by Nigel Pennick, who pointed out its non-North European parallels: Old Celt, run, Middle Wall. rhin meaning whisper, whisper; modern irl. run - secret; Scottish-Gaelic run - lot 8. Almost all modern researchers lose sight of the Slavic languages ​​(by the way, much closer to the Scandinavian ones than the Celtic ones). This was not the case in late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, during the heyday of research on the Slavic runic.

Thus, at one time the Polish Slavist A. Kukharsky tried to connect the word runa with Serbian, gronic. V. Tsybulsky and I. Yagich equally opposed this interpretation, finding it “crazy.” But against the later assumption of D. Zhunkovich 9 not a single researcher was able to put forward any counter-arguments. Zhunkovich’s version was simply forgotten, as often happened in the field of Slavic runology. At one time, I happened to come to the same conclusion as was made by Zhunkovich, almost independently of this researcher. I was struck by the existence of many Slavic rivers bearing the mysterious name Runa 10. In most cases, the etymology of these names is considered unclear. But there is an old Slavic root of the runes: it is from this that the Russians come. wound, injure, dig, ukr. rillya - furrow. According to Zhunkovich, the same root contains the verb ruti - to cut and the noun runa, meaning cut, furrow, ...CUT. Isn’t it with these cuts that the ancient Slavs used these cuttings?

It is curious that the basis run/ran with the meaning to cut, wound was known to the ancient Germans, and it is surprising why researchers do not pay attention to this fact. Thus, the famous spearhead from Damsdorf, dating back to the first half of the 1st millennium, bears the runic inscription RANJA, translated as “piercing”, “wounding”, “wounding” 11.

Probably, the term rune still comes from the ancient Slavic-Northern European base with the meaning to cut (which looks natural), while the appearance of European words of the same root, but already bearing the meaning of secret, to speak in silence, is secondary and is associated with the magical use of the ancients carved signs, ancient runes.

There is a number of written and other indirect evidence of the existence of pre-Christian writing among the Slavs, including runic writing. However, the only direct evidence can still be the monuments of Slavic runic writing themselves. In a strange way, it so happened that all researchers of the Slavic school of runic art for almost two centuries certainly fell into one of two warring camps, representatives of one of which rejected all arguments in favor of Slavic runes and declared all objects with runes different from Futhark to be fake ( Yagich and others), and representatives of the opposite camp interpreted any scratch on archaeological finds as Slavic runes (Klassen, Volansky, etc.). Of course, such maximalism of both warring sides could in no way lead to the establishment of the truth. Moreover, a similar situation continues to this day, when some researchers frown with disgust at the mention of the pre-Cyrillic writing of the Slavs, while others read indiscriminately in modern Russian all the inscriptions of all times and peoples - from signs on the seals of Harappa to Latin epitaphs on Roman tombstones.

Thus, Klassen, following Volansky, declares the signs of the Italic (including Etruscan) alphabets to be ancient Slavic runes and in three editions of his “New Materials on History...” provides the Slavic reading of many dozens of inscriptions from the Italian Peninsula 12. The naivety and groundlessness of the interpretations of Volansky and Klassen could cause emotion if their publications had not misled many to this day. At the same time, Yagich, in his great work “The Question of Runes among the Slavs” 13, sets out such a negative view of the problem of Slavic runes that the entire Western Slavic archaeological science of the 19th and early 20th centuries involuntarily seems to be collecting and describing countless fakes.

All this suggests the need for a sober, unbiased analysis of existing monuments that may be related to the Slavic school of runic art, the very existence of which can hardly raise doubts 14 .

In an effort to maintain a neutral position here in relation to the two-hundred-year-old dispute between supporters and opponents of the existence of Slavic runic culture, we do not draw any final conclusions - except for the fundamental conclusion about the very existence of Slavic runes. In addition, we deliberately do not make any attempts to decipher the inscriptions, so as not to get carried away and succumb to the temptation to build something out of nothing 15 . Further, we leave aside such sources as the Book of Veles and the Boyanov Hymn for two reasons: due to the current lack of direct evidence of their authenticity, and due to the lack of clarity whether we can classify writing monuments of this type (if they are genuine) to runic ones.

So, we begin to describe the monuments of Slavic runic art - art, since writing itself (especially writing with sacred symbols, which are traditionally revered by runes) has always been considered such in the traditional culture of Europe.

The oldest known monuments of this art belong to the Chernyakhov archaeological culture and date back to approximately the 2nd-4th centuries AD. These monuments form a unique and isolated group, clearly distinguished by the material of archaeological excavations by Rybakov (sixties), Tikhanova (1957-1962) and other researchers in the territory of the Chernyakhov culture. Some monuments are identified as supposedly runic by the leaders of the field work themselves, 16 others seem very doubtful.

Undoubtedly runic signs include, for example, signs on fragments of ceramics from excavations near the village of Lepesovka, published by M.A. Tikhanova; The opinion that these signs are traces of writing was also shared by the famous Romanian archaeologist B. Mitrya. Another example is the famous “Ripnevsky fragment” - a fragment of ceramics from near Ripnev, bearing an inscription, probably runic, and published in the fundamental twenty-volume publication “Archaeology of the USSR” 17.

Thus, the very existence of the runic culture among the Chernyakhov tribes should be considered an established fact. Another thing is that a number of researchers (M.A. Tikhanova, M.L. Seryakov, etc.) ascribe this writing not to the Slavs, but to the Germans, and above all to the Goths. Yes, indeed, the Goths in their migration reached the territory of distribution of the Chernyakhov culture and could well have had some influence on the ethnogenesis of the Chernyakhov tribes, but the arguments presented in favor of the Germanic origin of the Chernyakhov writing are strange, to say the least. The logic of these arguments is as follows: the Chernyakhov runes are Germanic insofar as the Chernyakhovites themselves are Germanic; the latter is deduced from the fact that they used Germanic runes, which are Germanic because..., and so on, in a vicious circle. And this is despite the fact that already academician B.A. Rybakov at one time showed the inconsistency of the version of the Gothic origin of the Chernyakhov culture, which this outstanding researcher attributed to the circle of the most important Proto-Slavic cultures of the early-mid 1st millennium AD.

The monuments of the conventionally defined “Central European” group can probably be considered somewhat later. Unlike the archaeographic monuments of the Chernyakhov culture, which are objects found as a result of excavations, the group of monuments in Central Europe is formed mainly by rock inscriptions discovered at different times and described by different authors.

For example, Žunković mentions eight Slovak rock runic inscriptions, known already at the beginning of the 20th century, but by the time his work was published (1918) not yet studied 18. Another inscription, the Velestur inscription, discovered in southern Slovakia near the confluence of the Vaha and Turoča, not far from Velestur, is mentioned by both Zhunković 19 and Ružička 20.

The famous Shutgard (Shuterad) inscriptions also belong to this group of monuments of Slavic runic writing. The first of them (the “large” Shutgard or Sita inscription) was discovered in 1928 near the village of Sitovo, not far from the ruins of ancient Shutgard. The first description of the inscription belongs to the secretary of the archaeological society in Plovdiv Peev: “Upon a careful examination of the southern wall of the cave (the wall is an almost sheer rock), we discovered that about two meters from the floor a smooth polished strip was carved, 23 to 30 cm wide and 260 cm long. ". Some mysterious signs are hollowed out on this strip. Without a doubt, the inscription was made by a human hand. The signs resemble the so-called runic writings used by the ancient Germanic peoples..." Peev was unable to decipher the inscription.

The next decryption attempt was made in the early fifties by Academician Goshev. In his opinion, the inscription was made by craftsmen of the Slavic Runkhin tribe; Goshev translated the beginning of the inscription as “I, the prince of the Runkhins...” Unfortunately, Goshev did not have time to finish the work of deciphering and translating the inscription.

Subsequently, attempts to read the inscription were made repeatedly. As an example, we give a translation of the inscription belonging to prof. Titov: “In 6050 (542 AD), Prince (?) Yelania from Veslanida (presumably Thessalonica) taught the language and ancient writing.” However, neither this nor other options for reading and translating the inscription seem to us at least to some extent convincing.

The Small Shutgard (Sit) inscription was discovered by Peev in the same cave as the previous one. From his report: “The eastern wall of the cave is a huge stone block. Here we also found an inscription 23 cm high and 80 cm long.” Like the first one, the inscription has not been deciphered.

The most interesting local group of monuments of runic writing, dating from the end of the 11th - beginning of the 14th centuries, consists of monuments collected during archaeological excavations in the Vitebsk region of Belarus at the site of Maskovichi. Currently, most of these monuments are kept in private collections in Moscow. These monuments were published in very fragmentary form by L.V. Duchits and E.A. Melnikova in “The Most Ancient States...” for 1980 21 . We published a slightly larger number of monuments from this group in the 6th issue of “Myths and Magic of the Indo-Europeans” 22.

Most of these monuments are objects made of bone (more rarely, wood) with clearly runic inscriptions on them. Attempts to decipher the inscriptions, made on the basis of a rather controversial assumption about their German origin, did not yield results. In general, we consider the inscriptions to be clearly Slavic; Many Belarusian archaeologists and historians share the same opinion - for example, A.A. Duchkov, to whom we are grateful for the materials provided on the excavations in Maskovichi.

Let us finally turn to what is perhaps the most numerous and famous group of monuments of Slavic runic writing, the so-called “Vendian” runes, common among the Western (Baltic) Slavs.

To this group we include the Mikorzhin runic stones discovered on the lands of the Western Slavic tribe of Lutich, the cult images from the Radegast temple in Retra 23, which we have already described, and a number of other monuments. The name of the group is derived from Venda Runis, i.e. "Vendish runes", which can be found in Scandinavian sources.

We are encouraged to unite monuments of such different nature into one group not only by their connection to the same territory and to the same ethnic community, but also by a more important reason - the similarity of the alphabets used. Firstly, all the signs of the Mikorzhin inscriptions find correspondence among the Rethryn runes (see table), and two runes (Nos. 1 and 19), contained both in the inscriptions on the Mikorzhinsky stones and in the inscriptions on cult objects from Rethry, absent from any other common runic alphabets. Secondly, the number of symbols used in the Retrin inscriptions (25-30) coincides with the estimated number of runes in the Mikorzhin alphabet. In addition, it is probably necessary to note a curious fact: the image on Mikorzhinsky stone No. 1 almost repeats image No. 14 from the collection of retrin objects published by us.

Yagich, in the work already mentioned, declares all the monuments of this group known to him to be fakes. Yagich had at his disposal the work of M.T. Arnkiel (Arnkiel, 1691), which, unfortunately, is inaccessible to us. According to Yagich, Arnkiel does not touch upon the issue of Slavic runes, but provides a list of the unique Germanic runic system containing Retrin runes No. 2 and 19. Believing the appearance of these runes in the Arnkiel system to be the result of an engraver's error (?), Yagich concludes that these “wrong” runes were used by falsifiers of all the monuments of the Vendian group, which allegedly confirms their forgery. However, it seems strange to us that the assumption about the “mistake” of the engraver Arnil, and we, for our part, are inclined to consider the presence of Retrin runes No. 2 and 19 in Arnil’s system as additional indirect evidence in favor of the authenticity of the inscriptions themselves. It should also be mentioned that a rune similar to sign No. 2 is present in the runic inscription on a cow rib from Novgorod 24, discovered during excavations in 1956.

Let us dwell in some detail on the main monuments of this group.

“Mikorzhin runic stones” currently refer to three stones bearing images and runic inscriptions. They were discovered in 1836 in the Poznan region (Poland). Researchers such as Przhezdzetsky, Tsybulsky, Letseyevsky, Schultz, Pekosinsky and others spoke in favor of the authenticity of the inscriptions on the Mikorzhinsky stones. The opposite point of view was defended by de Courtenay, Nering, Yagich. Drawings of the stones have been published by many researchers, including Letseevsky 25 .

The inscriptions use 15 or 16 characters; The total number of runes in this alphabet was estimated by us based on the results of a combinatorial analysis of inscriptions 26 as exceeding 24-25, but hardly more than 30-32. Of the dozen and a half known signs, more than ten are close in design (or coincide) with the signs of the younger Scandinavian runic alphabets. They are closest to the Danish runes of the beginning of the 2nd millennium AD. At the same time, there are also signs unknown in Scandinavia. Moreover, attempts to read the inscriptions as Germanic inevitably lead to failure, so their Slavic origin can hardly be disputed.

The traditional reading for the first stone is SMIR PROVE KMET, but Pekosinsky read the inscription differently: SAIR ERDWD TDAT, which, unlike the first interpretation, does not allow for translation. For the second stone (with a horse), Pekosinsky gives the following transliteration: SAIR TOGOTHLV WOIV S LVTWOI. It remains unknown to us exactly how Pekosinsky intended to translate this text. Yagich, maintaining a negative position, transliterates the inscription somewhat more intelligibly: SMIR BOG(O)DAN VOIN LIUTVOI S.

A.A. Bychkov gives the following translation of the inscriptions: SMIRZH THE VICTIM LIES (No. 2) SMIRZH THE FATHER OF LYUTEVA TO THE WARRIOR SON (No. 1)

If the Mikorzhinsky stones are monuments, the authenticity of which is much more likely than forgery, then the authenticity of the Retrin objects and inscriptions on them is questioned by many researchers. Here we should mention such supporters of the authenticity of the Retrin monuments as the brothers Grimm and Jan Kollar, whose unexpected death made it impossible to prepare in 1852 under the personal patronage of Her Imperial Highness Vel. Princess Elena Pavlovna publication of work on this subject. We also note that the question of the authenticity or counterfeitness of objects from Retra (at least those published by A.G. Mash in 1771 27) is currently being raised only in Russia. European researchers, for the most part, prefer to follow the verdict of a special commission that studied this issue for two years and decided that the objects are genuine.

According to existing ideas, bronze images of gods and ritual objects from the Retrin Temple were found in the soil of the village of Prillwitz at the end of the 17th century. Much later, a certain Andreas Gottlieb Masch acquired them, described them and ordered engravings. These materials were published by him in 1771 in Germany. His book contains engravings of more than six dozen sculptures and other objects. The entire Masha collection was again lost 28 , and later one “batch” of objects from Retra surfaced and was published by Potocki 29 .

All objects from the Retrin Temple were melted; on their surface - judging by the engravings - numerous runic inscriptions made in runes are clearly visible, many of which - like many of the Mikorzhin runes - have no analogues in the younger Germanic alphabets.

If we accept that the Retrin objects themselves are authentic, then the question of the authenticity of the inscriptions on them remains open. There are arguments that testify both in favor of their fakeness and in favor of authenticity. An important argument indicating the fakeness of the inscriptions is their very appearance. Is it possible to admit that the priests of the temple of Retra covered the images of their gods with runes all over the place? 30 It would be easier to assume that the inscriptions were made much later, already on top of the melting, in order to increase the selling price of the images.

On the other hand, a number of facts indicate the opposite. It can be unequivocally stated that the inscriptions are not a meaningless set of signs; the person who carved these runes - whether he was an ancient priest or an accidental owner - this person was well acquainted with the runic art. It is necessary to point out that a number of runes used (Nos. 8, 18, 25) are relatively rare, and, importantly, belong to the same style (one of the Danish variants of the minor runes). This fact indicates that the runes applied to the images are not random and represent some kind of separate tradition. In addition, as already mentioned, a number of signs are absent in the known runic alphabets, but are present in the inscriptions on the Mikorzhinsky stones.

It should also be noted that “fakeness” and “authenticity” of inscriptions on images in this case are relative concepts. Even if we assume that the runes were applied after the discovery of the images, in the 17th or XVIII centuries, what was said in the paragraph above remains in force, and before us - one way or another - is an example of a certain West Slavic runic style, related to Mikorzhinsky or directly coinciding with it. 31

Among a significant number of inscriptions, only two can be clearly read, constantly repeated: RHETRA and RADEGAST.

The fact that last name we meet precisely on those sculptures that we would most likely consider to be images of Radegast, again indicating that even if the carver was not a priest of the temple, he was nevertheless knowledgeable in the esoteric tradition of the Lutichians.

The total number of monuments with inscriptions or signs made in Vendian runes is quite large. Thus, Letseevsky cites a number of very interesting monuments, most of them representing runic inscriptions on Polish stones 32. A unique monument - the so-called Krakow medallion - is mentioned, in addition to Lecejewski, also by Pekosinski (1897), Przyborowski (1873) and, after them, by Yagic (1911). The latter believed the medallion to be a fake, citing a very, very strange argument in favor of this: supposedly this monument cannot be genuine, since Scandinavian runologists (who do not speak Slavic languages) could not translate the inscription on it. Pskosinsky and Letseevsky, on the contrary, considered the medallion to be unconditionally genuine; We are inclined to the same opinion.

Concluding this short review, we would like to say a few words about the most recent evidence of the use of runes by the Slavs. We are talking about runic or near-runic monuments, gravitating towards the White Sea area and dating back to the 19th-20th centuries. Now it is difficult to judge how legitimate it is to unite these monuments into one group 33, but much more important is the very statement of the existence of a living runic or near-runic tradition among the Pomors at the beginning of the current century.

The initial prerequisites for identifying an independent “White Sea group” were the fact of the use of unusual runic signs in wooden Karelian runic calendars. One of them, the Petrozavodsk runic calendar, is currently stored in the Petrozavodsk Historical and Architectural Museum, where it arrived in the twenties of the current century from the village of Vokpavelek (Kemsky district) 34. The calendar is a wooden staff with a total length of 1.5 m with a handle, in cross-section it forms a square 3x3 cm. The runic signs of the calendar are unusual and are a cross between Germanic runes and letters of the Old Slavic alphabet.

More recently, new and very interesting data have been obtained on the existence of runes among the Pomors. Thus, E. Lazarev discovered runic signs and even inscriptions on the logs of wooden buildings on the Tersky coast 35. According to the researcher, a number of signs coincide with Scandinavian runes, some look similar to the runes of the Eurasian steppes, some look like deformed Cyrillic characters. Among them, several inscriptions with a length of 4-5 positions were discovered.

Unfortunately, at this time there is no large-scale research into White Sea runes. This is all the more regrettable because the signs, applied to parts of wooden buildings in the first half of this century, are irretrievably destroyed as the wood itself is destroyed. It is impossible to judge whether the knowledge of these runes is preserved among modern Pomors (at least, there is no ethnographic data on this). If its last keepers have already died, then the signs and inscriptions on logs along the shores of the White Sea are the last witnesses of this tradition.

Summarizing all of the above, we must conclude that the existence of runic writing and runic culture in general among the Slavs is indisputable. The first traces of this culture appear at the beginning of the new era, i.e. almost simultaneously with the formation of the classical Germanic Futhark runic alphabet. Monuments of Slavic runic writing, probably representing different styles and alphabets and dating from the middle of the 1st millennium AD. before the era of the “developed” Middle Ages, are found throughout Slavic Europe and, despite actually existing fakes, are mostly genuine and directly indicate the use of runic signs by the Slavs. Finally, we must state that the runic tradition among the Slavs was not interrupted with the advent of modern times . Echoes of the ancient Slavic runic culture existed until very recently in remote areas of the Slavic world.

NOTES

1. An overview of this kind of monuments can be seen in the following work: I.V. Yagich. Question about runes among the Slavs. // Encyclopedia of Slavic Philology. Department of Russian language and literature. Imp. Academician Sci. Issue 3: Graphics among the Slavs. St. Petersburg, 1911.

2. ML.Seryakov. Russian pre-Christian writing. St. Petersburg, 1997.

3. E. Georgiev. Slavic writing to Cyril and Methodius. Sofia, 1952.

4. V.N.Tatishchev. Russian history. T.1. M.-L., 1962.

5. ML.Seryakov. Quote op.; A.V.Platov. Monuments of the runic art of the Slavs. // Myths and magic of the Indo-Europeans, issue 6, 1998; E. Georgiev. Quote op.; and etc.

6. M.L. Seryakov. Quote op.

7. I.VLgich. Quote op.

8. N.Pennick. Rune Magic. L., 1992.

9. D. Zunkovic. Die slavische Vorzek. Maribor, 1918.

10. As an example, the Runa river flows into the Upper Volga lakes on the border of the Tver and Novgorod regions.

11. E.A.Makaev. The language of the most ancient runic inscriptions. M., 1965; A.V.Platov. Runic magic. M., 1994.

12. E. Kpassen. New materials for the ancient history of the Slavs. Vol. I-III. M., 1854-1861.

13.I.V.Yagich.Cit.cit.

14. A.V.Platov. Quote op.

15. From the point of view of linguistics, in most cases, we really have nothing - the existing corpus of inscriptions, scattered and representing different styles, is currently not sufficient to carry out unambiguously reliable decipherment work. This, of course, does not in the least prevent us from stating the very fact of the existence of the Slavic runic culture.

16. M.A. Tikhanova. Excavations at a settlement of the 3rd-4th centuries. near the village of Lepesovka in 1957-1959 // Soviet Archeology, 1963, No. 2; Hers: Runic inscriptions from the territory of the USSR. Elder-runic inscriptions. In the book: E.A. Melnikova. Scandinavian runic inscriptions. M., 1977; Her same: Traces of runic writing in the Chernyakhov culture. In the book: Medieval Rus'. Sat. M., 1976.

17. Slavs and their neighbors at the end of the 1st millennium BC. - first half of the 1st millennium AD In the series: Archeology of the USSR. Ed. B.A. Rybakova. M., 1993.

18. D. Zunkovic. Op. cit.

20. J.Ruzicka. Slovanska Mythologie. Prague, 1924.

21. The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR. Vol. 1980 M., 1981.

22. A.V.Platov. Monuments of the runic art of the Slavs // Myths and magic of the Indo-Europeans, issue 6, 1998.

23. A.V.Platov. Cult images from the temple in Retra//Myths and magic of the Indo-Europeans, issue 2, 1996.

24. V.P.Petrenko, Yu.K.Kuzmenko. Runic inscriptions from the territory of the USSR. Younger runic inscriptions. In the book: E.A. Melnikova. Scandinavian runic inscriptions. M" 1977.

25. J.Leciejewski. About runah i runicznych pomnikach slowianskich. Lwow, 1906.

26. An elementary analysis was carried out on the increase in the number of characters with an increase in the serial number of the position in the text - A.V. Platov. On the question of the alphabet of the Mikorzhin runic inscriptions. M., 1993. Author's archive.

27. A. G. Masch. Die Gottesdienftlichen Ulferfhumer der Obotriten, aus dem Tempel gu Rhetra. Berlin, 1771.

28. Some time after the publication of Gottlieb’s book, some more objects allegedly related to the Retrin temple appeared, but these new monuments were recognized as fraudulent by the absolute majority of researchers. The fate of these items is unknown to me.

29. J.Potocki. Voyage dans qudques de la Basse Saxe pour la Recherche des antiquites Slaves ou Vendes. Hamburg, 1795.

30. It is necessary, however, to remember the testimony of Thietmar, who claimed that on the images of the gods in the Retrino temple their names were written in runes. In addition, Etruscan sculptural images come to mind, sometimes painted in no more elegant way.

31. The assumption that the “Retrino” style could have been obtained by a conditional forger by mixing Danish and Mikorzhin runes must be rejected: Mikorzhinsky stones were discovered only in 1836, i.e. half a century after the 1771 publication.

32. J. Leciejewski. Op. cit.

33. See: A.V.Platov. Monuments of the runic art of the Slavs // Myths and magic of the Indo-Europeans, issue 6, 1998.

34. L.E. Maistrov. Runic carved calendar of the Petrozavodsk Museum. //Historical and astronomical research. Vol. XVIII. M., 1986.

35. E. Lazarev, Runes of the White Sea. // Myths and magic of the Indo-Europeans, issue 4, 1997.