The end of the favorite maydaun myth about the “horde”. A word for geneticists
Russians are one of the most purebred peoples in Eurasia.
Recent joint research by Russian, British and Estonian genetic scientists has put a big, bold end to the common Russophobic myth that has been infiltrated into people’s minds for decades - they say, “scratch a Russian and you will definitely find a Tatar.”
The results of a large-scale experiment published in the scientific journal “The American Journal of Human Genetics” clearly say that “despite the widespread opinions about the strong Tatar and Mongol admixture in the blood of Russians, which their ancestors inherited during the Tatar-Mongol invasion, the haplogroup Turkic peoples and other Asian ethnic groups left virtually no trace on the population of the modern northwestern, central and southern regions.”
Like this. We can safely put an end to this long-standing dispute and consider further discussions on this issue simply inappropriate.
We are not Tatars. We are not Tatars. The so-called “Mongol-Tatar yoke” - which in reality did not exist (see video) - did not have any influence on Russian genes. We Russians did not have and do not have any admixture of Turkic “Horde blood”.
Moreover, genetic scientists, summing up their research, declare the almost complete identity of the genotypes of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, thereby proving that we were and remain one people: “genetic variations of the Y chromosome of the inhabitants of the central and southern regions of Ancient Rus' turned out to be practically identical to those of Ukrainians and Belarusians.”
One of the project leaders, Russian geneticist Oleg Balanovsky, admitted in an interview with Gazeta.ru that Russians are an almost monolithic people from a genetic point of view, destroying another myth: “everyone is mixed up, there are no longer pure Russians.” Quite the opposite - there were Russians and there are Russians. One people, one nation, a monolithic nationality with a clearly defined special genotype.
Further, examining the materials of remains from ancient burials, scientists found that “Slavic tribes developed these lands (Central and Southern Russia) long before the mass resettlement of the main part of the ancient Russians to them in the 7th-9th centuries.” That is, the lands of Central and Southern Russia were inhabited by Russians (Rusichs) already, at least in the first centuries AD. If not before.
This allows us to debunk another Russophobic myth - that Moscow and the surrounding areas were supposedly inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes from ancient times and that Russians there are “aliens.” We, as geneticists have proven, are not aliens, but completely autochthonous inhabitants of Central Russia, where Russians have lived since time immemorial. “Despite the fact that these lands were inhabited even before the last glaciation of our planet about 20 thousand years ago, there is no evidence directly indicating the presence of any “original” peoples living in this territory,” the report states. That is, there is no evidence that any other tribes lived on our lands before us, whom we supposedly displaced or assimilated. If I can put it this way, we have been living here since the creation of the world.
Scientists also determined the far boundaries of the habitat of our ancestors: “analysis of bone remains indicates that the main zone of contact between Caucasians and people of the Mongoloid type was in Western Siberia.” And if you consider that archaeologists who excavated the most ancient burials of the 1st millennium BC. on the territory of Altai, they found the remains of distinctly Caucasoid people there (not to mention the world-famous Arkaim) - the conclusion is obvious. Our ancestors (ancient Russians, proto-Slavs) - originally lived throughout the territory modern Russia, including Siberia, and quite possibly Far East. So the campaign of Ermak Timofeevich and his comrades beyond the Urals, from this point of view, was a completely legitimate return of previously lost territories.
That's it, friends. Modern science destroys Russophobic stereotypes and myths, cutting the ground from under the feet of our liberal “friends”. Their further speculations on these topics are completely beyond the bounds of common sense, being of interest exclusively to psychiatrists who study the mechanisms of obsessive delusions...
Did the neighborhood with the Turks and Finno-Ugric peoples influence the gene pool of the Russian nation, where humanity came from? Is there a danger in the formation of a genetic database?
The Russian Planet correspondent talked with Konstantin Perfilyev, general director of the DNA-Heritage company and Kharis Mustafin, scientific director of this company. The core activity of “DNA-Heritage” is determining the historical origin of a person using genetic research, which is carried out in the Laboratory of Historical Genetics, Radiocarbon Analysis and Applied Physics, created on the basis of the MIPT Genome Center. At the same time, the company’s employees are engaged in purely scientific work, studying the DNA of ancient and medieval people.
Russian Planet (RP): Please tell us about the scientific work carried out by the laboratory staff.
DNA Heritage: Historical genetics, firstly, examines the modern human genome, which allows us to look into the past and determine how people settled and migrated in different periods, and secondly, deals with archaeological artifacts, DNA isolation and genome research ancient man in order to obtain information about the origin of people living in certain regions.
If we take central Russia, which is primarily within the zone of our scientific interests, then it should be said that experts believe that central Russia is an extremely difficult climatic zone for preserving DNA in archaeological artifacts. Under conditions of changes in humidity and temperature, deep degradation of DNA occurs, which makes it very difficult to isolate archaeological DNA and then obtain reliable data on the human genome.
We were actually the first in the country to develop a technology for isolating DNA from people of the Russian Middle Ages and are fully implementing methods for deciphering it. We obtain reliable, reproducible results. The main element of this technology is the anti-contamination system, i.e. the entry into the ancient, studied material of particles released by contemporaries. Due to this, the unambiguity and reliability of the research results is achieved.
RP: What do such studies give to contemporary people?
DNA Heritage: Understanding what it was like true story. Now we are working with archaeological artifacts of ancient Yaroslavl, which at the beginning of the 13th century was destroyed, and the rich population of the city was killed. The chronicles do not contain any mention of this event. As a result of archaeological excavations in Yaroslavl, places of mass graves of people were discovered. We have the opportunity to establish family ties between them; we analyze haplogroups and haplotypes, which in turn allows us to determine the origin of the people whose remains were genotyped.
The research has just begun and the results are not enough to make unambiguous conclusions, but so far we see that among the townspeople there are no representatives of the local population, the Ugric tribes Meri and Chud. In the future, we will study suburban burial mounds of the early Christian period and see what the results of genotyping there will be. If we determine that the local population is significantly different from the one who lived in the city, the mechanism of the birth of cities will be more clear, it will become clear that squads came along the rivers, set up a fortress, after which farmers and cultivators were sent to the outpost, a settlement was created that interacted Trade routes arose with the local population and other cities. This will allow us to clarify some details of the emergence of cities, principalities and the Old Russian state as a whole. We are already interacting with historians, who are very grateful to us for the results presented.
RP: Could this help in determining how not even the Slavic, but the Russian ethnic group was formed? There is an opinion that Russians are not pure Slavs, but a mixture with Finno-Ugrians. What do genetic studies say about the “composition” of Slavs and Russians?
DNA Heritage: Who is a Slav from the point of view of the gene pool is a very difficult question. For example, the Slavic haplogroup R1a is very common among Tajiks and Turks, who are not Slavs. How should we feel about this? The fact is that the concept of a haplogroup determines whether those who are part of it have a common ancestor in the distant past. Nationalities were formed much later and therefore any national group includes representatives of different haplogroups. When they talk about the “Slavic” haplogroup, they usually single out the haplogroup that prevails among representatives who consider themselves to be a Slavic ethnic group. However, it is important to emphasize that without a genetic study of a particular person, an unambiguous conclusion about the connection between his haplogroup and his nationality cannot be made; we can only talk about statistical data. Indeed, Russians include representatives of a number of haplogroups, among them most of all belong to haplogroup R1a, which is very often found among the Slavs, in second place in number are representatives of haplogroup N1a (according to the modern classification), among which the majority of peoples are Finno-Ugric language group(but not only).
RP: These concepts have not yet been formed?
DNA Heritage: Now the process of developing statistical information is underway, and it must be understood that the concept of a haplogroup is used primarily for population studies that reveal how groups of people with a common ancestor settle while changing in numbers.
RP: That is. DNA and blood are not the main criteria for determining nationality?
DNA Heritage: Blood is an indicator of the history of a group of people who have common ancestors. The history of migrations around the planet, lifestyle, indicates the landscape of residence, food and economic system.
RP: Even on the management system?
DNA Heritage: Of course, for example, in Crimea, from time immemorial, fishermen and cattle breeders lived side by side, but analysis of the gene pool of Crimeans shows large differences between very close neighbors. The population living in the coastal zone has a different haplotype than the nomads who live nearby in the steppe. They have gastronomic preferences; the former ate mainly seafood, the latter – meat. They have different lifestyles. Mixing between them occurred, but the features were still preserved.
RP: That is. Is it impossible to say with 100% accuracy what nationality a person is?
DNA Heritage: When genetic research becomes more extensive, when more people are genetically typed, and new subclades (subgroups) are discovered, then it will be possible to drill down, get closer to the characteristics, and say that a certain subclade is characteristic of such a group. then the people. At this stage, the determination of nationality is made approximately. Tajiks also have haplogroup R1a, but the subclade is different. Those. Russians and Tajiks had a common ancient ancestor, but then a separation occurred.
Science does not stand still, new subclades are being discovered and clarification is taking place. It is known that haplogroup R1a has an Asian, Indian and European subclade.
R1a is a macrohaplogroup that includes Indians, Tajiks, and Russians, but if you “turn on the microscope”, we will see the subclade M458, characteristic of the Russian plain, for the Slavs. The more contemporaries are genetyped and new subclades are discovered, the greater the likelihood that a sub-branch will be discovered that will characterize, say, Ukrainians, Belarusians or Poles. Gradually we will come to this detail.
RP: But to some extent, modern research is already making it possible to delineate the boundaries of nations?
DNA Heritage: If we talk about the Russian people, they are Russian precisely by nationality. Its composition from the point of view of the gene pool is as follows - in 1st place are representatives of haplogroup R1a, in 2nd place N1a, in 3rd place I, then R1b. This speaks volumes about the rich history of the land where such people live. large number representatives with different ancestors. When people have different origins and live in the same territory, they interact and enrich each other.
If according to the zone of residence R1a is steppe and forest-steppe, then N1a is forests, taiga, and border forest-steppe. There was a union of peoples who had lived nearby for a long time. This happened 3 thousand years ago. Later, on their basis, the Russian people were formed.
RP: Returning to the question of the origin of Russians. There is a fairly common misconception that the Mongol-Tatar yoke quite strongly influenced the gene pool of the Russian nation. And since the time of the historian Karamzin, the proverb “Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar” has been in use. How true is this statement?
DNA Heritage: Three aspects can be distinguished here, the first is the gene pool. Research was conducted to look for the presence of Mongolian genes in Russians. In the Asian part of Russia, from the shores of the Pacific Ocean to the Urals, the Russian population has 3% of such genes. From the Urals to the Volga - 0.5%. From the Volga to the West - absent.
Now let's look from the other side. Among the Mongols, no traces of Slavic blood, which could have appeared as a result of the captivity of the Russians, were also found. Not observed in any form. This suggests that Mr. Karamzin, being an excellent writer, wrote a story that has little correlation with the written sources that came before him and with the results of natural scientific research of our days.
Read the continuation of the interview with representatives of the DNA-Heritage company in the near future.
Creator of DNA genealogy Anatoly Klesov about the Tatar project, fallacy Norman theory and descendants of the Bulgars exterminated in Hungary
The conclusions of Moscow geneticists that the Crimean, Siberian and Volga Tatars do not have a common ancestor are erroneous, says famous chemist, ex-professor of Moscow State University and ex-professor of Harvard Medical School Anatoly Klesov. In an interview with BUSINESS Online, the Russian-American scientist spoke about the search for 13 million rubles for the study of the Tatars, the origin of Russians from three main clans and the difference between DNA genealogy and population genetics.
Anatoly Klesov: “Each ethnic group has its own standards of beauty. That’s why they usually marry their own people, unless it’s kidnapping, of course. Even from the Tatars we see how different everyone is.” Photo: Igor Dubskikh
“GENGISH KHAN BELONGED TO ONE CLAN, BUT THE TATAR HAD A MASS OF DIFFERENT CLANES”
— Anatoly Alekseevich, a group of scientists led by Oleg and Elena Balanovsky studied the Tatars of Eurasia. We wrote about this, but the reaction of local historians and ethnologists of Tatarstan was negative, the text received many comments. Do you agree with the conclusion of geneticists that the Crimean, Siberian and Volga Tatars do not have a common ancestor?
- No, I don’t agree. I wrote in the Bulletin of the Academy of DNA Genealogy why I think so. To begin with, the formulation of the question itself is incorrect, because all Tatars - Crimean, Astrakhan, Kasimov, Siberian, Mishar, and others - have a set of clans. They cannot have a common ancestor. Each genus has its own common ancestor. So there is always a bunch of common ancestors. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that the Tatars do not have a common ancestor, because they cannot have a common ancestor. It's like Russians have three main families. It also makes no sense to say that Russians have one common ancestor.
The question of geneticists is incorrectly posed; one must ask: does everyone have a more or less common set of ancestors? There is not just one common ancestor, but if the common ancestors in their set are more or less the same in both places, then there is, of course, a connection between them. And what is written in that article [by the Balanovskys] is incorrect, since the question itself is incorrect. That’s why the Tatars were indignant - they are all one community. As they say, when our people are beaten, it doesn’t matter whether we have common ancestors. In such a situation, defending ourselves, we can give our lives for ours. Russian or Soviet soldiers fought on the battlefield not because they had a common ancestor, but because they were beating ours.
The Tatar population itself is composite, but this composition is similar everywhere. My article in Vestnik is not directed at Balanovsky at all, I just think that his statement of the problem is wrong. So I understand why the article was met with outrage. We must approach such issues with caution. A dry scientific study is one thing, but an explanation of what kind of families the Tatars have, what common ancestors they have and when they separated, how the Tatars from the Golden Horde came to Lithuania and now speak not Turkic, but Lithuanian, Polish and Belarusian languages is another. How did this happen? In general, a lot of interesting questions.
- Do you have answers to these questions?
- No, but there is a part. I didn't do this on purpose. But we have already formulated the Tatar project. This year I wanted to fly to the Crimean Tatars to connect them to it, but they were not ready. Probably due to the fact that the Moscow Tatars were not ready. In June, I spoke to the latter - I took the first step to prepare them.
— Our publication is especially interested in the Kazan Tatars. Do you have any idea where they came from? Geneticist, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Evgeniy Lilin once told me: “Try to tell some Tatar that Genghis Khan was not a relative of all Tatars, you’ll immediately get punched in the face.” So where did they come from? What are the haplogroups?
— Genghis Khan belonged to one clan, but the Tatars have a lot of different clans. So all Tatars cannot be descendants of Genghis Khan. Someone - yes. But this is just one line. I understand that this may irritate the Tatars, but it looks like Genghis Khan wasn't even a Mongol. Literally 10 years after his death, a book by a thorough Arab historian who studied Genghis Khan was published. So he wrote that Genghis Khan did not have the characteristics of a steppe dweller at all; it seems that he never was a steppe dweller. When they were chasing him, he ran and hid in the forests and had a good sense of direction there; his favorite pastime was picking mushrooms and berries. Find me a Mongolian who picks mushrooms and berries in the forests. He and his brother were fishing with a seine. Find a steppe dweller who is fishing. There are many such facts. Moreover, he was a bourgein - blue-eyed, which also somehow doesn’t fit in very well. I don’t know who he was, but it seems that he was either in the R1a or R1b group ( names of haplogroups — approx. ed.). But the fact that he was not a steppe dweller is most likely. Therefore, this should not upset the Tatars in any way, since they have both R1a and R1b. That is, he is not at all alien to the Tatars by birth. And if we find out more precisely, then I think the Tatars will be interested.
But among the Siberian, Volga and Lithuanian Tatars, the set of common ancestors is really close to each other.
“ONCE SOME SCIENCE TRY TO IMPOSE ITS SOLUTION ON OTHERS, THERE ARE ALWAYS DISAGREEMENTS”
— They say that the Crimean Tatars have completely different ancestors.
- No, they have the same R1a groups, but another thing is that the Crimean ones are more fragmented - there are more births than others, that is, there is a lot of mixture. But there were Greeks in Crimea, and there were others too. So the Crimean Tatars may be more diverse in their origins.
I think that the Tatars need to be dealt with; this is a complex problem. That’s why we made a Tatar project and are waiting for the Tatars themselves to be interested in it. Then it will be possible to discuss the project in more detail, all these issues, organization, how to do it technically. We have a laboratory. Question: how to secure financing? I would not like to take money from every Tatar, but I would like the government of Tatarstan to immediately allocate a large sum of money. 13 million rubles is not a huge amount of money for Tatarstan; you can already study a thousand people. It will be possible to make a thousand Kazan Tatars, a thousand - Astrakhan, a thousand - Crimean, a thousand - Lithuanian, and this will already be a group that is nowhere near the volume of material in the world. Then there will be a lot of options for discussion. I would like the initiative to come from the Tatars themselves.
But the research must be carried out with the participation of Tatar linguists, archaeologists, ethnologists, anthropologists, and someone from the government in order to achieve consensus on each issue. We don't need conflicts. Let's sit down together and discuss. We may be wrong in the interpretation - great, let's look for a solution together. Support is needed from everywhere. I know from experience that whenever one science tries to impose its solution on others, there are always dissenters.
— So, are there still any Mongolian traces left in the Tatars or Russians? Geneticists say that there are no such traces.
— If there is, then at a very small level. Let's say that 100 years ago some Mongolian came to study at the institute and stayed. Technically, such traces can exist. But there is no evidence that the Mongols were noticeable. There is also very little Tatar blood among Russians. Therefore, the saying “Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar,” which was introduced by the great historian Nikolai Karamzin, is incorrect. He also lived according to concepts: he proceeded from the fact that there was a yoke, there was an invasion, there was violence, children had to be born. Therefore, in Russian there is a Tatar trace everywhere, scratch it and you will find it. Neither one, nor the other, nor the third is incorrect, because in the group most represented among both Russians and Tatars, it is R1a, where R is a large genus, it has a subgenus - R1, which includes another subgenus. So it is different for Russians and Tatars. They have different indexes. The Russians mostly have the Z280, and the Tatars have the Z93. They are descended from the same common ancestor, but Z280 is one line and Z93 is another. They separated about 5 thousand years ago, long before the days of the yoke. Geneticists, studying mutations, build a phylogenetic tree - which mutation occurred when and which branch came from where. It turns out like a tree. So 5 thousand years ago there was a common ancestor for both Z280 and Z93. That’s when the lines that became dominant among the Russians and Tatars diverged.
- Why did they separate? Any guesses?
- They separate all the time. Why does a tree split into branches? It happened that way.
“ALL THESE ARE FABLES THAT THE SCANDINAVIANS LIVED IN Rus'”
- So who is the common distant, distant ancestor?
— The most ancient, which has already been studied quite well, is Z645. He lived 5.5 thousand years ago. According to all data, this was the beginning of the Aryans. Their origin is written in the book by Lev Samuilovich Klein. So it has nothing to do with fascism, as some hotheads say, it’s historical ancient tribe does not have. Data from historians, linguists, ethnologists agree that 5.5 thousand years ago there was a single tribe that had marks in DNA genealogy, it spoke the language Indo-European group. Branches diverged from them 5 thousand years ago - Z280, Z93 and Z284. And Z284 are Scandinavians, this group stayed there and never went anywhere. So these are all fables that the Scandinavians lived in Rus'.
— So you are not a supporter of the Norman theory?
- Absolutely. This does not exist at all and cannot exist. Scandinavians have clearly defined marks, Russians do not have them at all. The Scandinavians did not come here to make it noticeable. And where they are, there are a ton of marks - of course, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the north of France and all the British Isles. There is darkness there. They walked in that direction, but not in our direction. So these are all stories, that there were many of them here, tens of thousands of people, that they brought crafts and so on. There are none! When I tell population geneticists about this, they are silent and do not dispute it, but they also do not comment, because it does not agree with the accepted concept. Population geneticists, including the Balanovskys, do not deviate one step from the accepted concept.
“AT LEAST A FEW WESTERN SLAVS CAN BE FOUND AMONG THE TATARS FOR SOMEHOW”
- Let's return to the ancestor of the Russians and Tatars, to common family. Tell me, did he live in this territory all the time? Where did he come from?
— A pronounced vector of movement of the descendants of the Z645 group is visible; they traveled a long way to the east to Altai and further to China.
-Where did they come from? From the Balkans?
- Looks like it's from the Balkans. This is not entirely clear yet. But they clearly came from Europe, apparently from the Balkans. They were heading east. During this movement they formed Z280 and Z93. Z280 is the northern part from approximately Belarus to the Urals. And Z93 is the southern part. It so happened that some went there, others went there. Group Z93 moved through forest and forest-steppe territories, reached the Urals through Central Asia, she went to India, Iran, China, the Middle East and became the Altai Scythians. These are all relatives of the Tatars, closer than the Russians, since they are all Z93. Although everyone descends from a common ancestor, the Tatars are one step closer to the very ones who moved. The enemies would say that the Russians were lazy, sitting in one place in the north and not moving anywhere. And the Z93 have come a long way, apparently they were more passionate for some reason. It is from them that the Tatars originated, because Z93 dominates among them. When they reached Altai, they became Scythians, as historians called them. Then they went back, became nomads, and the Kyrgyz were formed from them. This is a huge passionate group, it was they who created Iran and the Persians, they created ancient Syria. In Syria there was the Mitanni kingdom, these were also Z93. In Iran - Z93, in India the highest castes - Z93, Kyrgyz, Tajiks and Pashtuns - Z93.
That is, the Z280 remained higher, they moved to the Baltic - the Baltic Slavs appeared, they had their own range, they went south, to the Adriatic. Venets and Wends are all Z280. Therefore, it turned out that Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Czechs, Slovaks and others are a huge range of the Z280. They had the very first Fatyanovo culture - they were actually the Old Russians. So Z280 and Z93 are two parallel branches, they practically did not intersect.
— But the Tatars are quite diverse in appearance. What explains this?
- This is explained by the fact that there is no homogeneity anywhere. Z93 entered Russian lands, then married either Russian, or Polish, or Ukrainian women. They weren't isolated. This is how Slavic lines, especially Western Slavic ones, came to them. This is not even a Z280 or a Z93, but an M458 - these are Western Slavs. Among the Tatars they are also represented by 10–15 percent. In fact, it would be more correct to say that there are three main groups: Z280 (sort of northern and central Russians), Z93 (Tatars and the eastern part) and M458 (Western Slavs). Therefore, here the saying “Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar” is incorrect: if you do not scratch, you will not find him.
“Then scratch a Tatar and you’ll find a Russian, right?”
— Yes, it turns out that for some reason you can find at least a few Western Slavs among the Tatars, as well as some Russians. Moreover, there were many mixed marriages. Moreover, I have the feeling that Tatars took Russian wives more often than Russian men took Tatar women. The Tatars can argue with me, maybe they will be right, but I have a feeling from these figures that it’s more likely that women came to the Tatars. But this also needs to be studied, I would not insist on this. So the picture is complex and interesting.
“THE MEN - DESCENDANTS OF THE BULGARS IN HUNGARY WERE ALL EXTERIFIED”
— What can you say about the Bulgars, whose descendants the Tatars consider themselves to be?
“They talk a lot about this now, but little is studied. It would be ideal to raise Bulgar burials (and there are plenty of them), museums are full of bones. DNA is extracted from them, and it is immediately clear who they are - Z280, Z93 or someone else, or maybe M458. There is no way I can deny this.
The Bulgars marched from the Urals and Volga to Hungary. The paradox is that even though the Bulgars went to Hungary, brought Finno-Ugric languages there, and formed Hungary, there are no men from this group there. There are legends that the Tatar-Mongols exterminated them. When they came to them, they did not surrender, did not pay tribute, they entered into battle, and the Tatar-Mongols had a principle: either the city surrenders or is destroyed. Therefore, it seems that the male descendants of the Bulgars in Hungary were all exterminated, but the women continued to pass on the language. This fact is often underestimated, that women pass on language through their children.
If you lift the bones, it will be clear who these Bulgars were, what the route was, because they walked, a trail remained, and it is clear from it who these people were.
- So, do they have anything to do with today’s Tatars?
- This is what we need to find out. The Tatars believe that they have. As a rule, if they believe, it means there are fundamentals; there is no smoke without fire. I think this is most likely what will happen. It is unlikely that stable legends and myths will suddenly turn out to be incorrect; this rarely happens.
“They used to be sure that the earth was flat, but that turned out not to be the case...
- Of course, it happens, so you always have to be careful. This is how science is built: this is how it is for now, and tomorrow new data will appear.
“Men moved more compactly, women, as a rule, came to the village to visit their husbands. Therefore, for women it is more difficult to trace their specific historical trace. The woman spins the carousel all the time” / Photo: “BUSINESS Online”
“RUSSIANS HAVE THREE MAIN GROUPS - R1A,I2A And N1S1"
— Not only Tatars live in Tatarstan, but also Russians. How homogeneous are Russians? And who are the Russians?
— Russians are a family of three main clans and many small ones. Like any ethnic group, there are dominant ones and there are less dominant ones. Take the same Lithuanians and Latvians. The Russians came to the Baltic and added their lines. Experience shows that Russians have much more ancient ancestors than the Balts. Excavations show that those orders lived there for another 8 thousand years, when there was no trace of the Finno-Ugrians. So they came and started a family. So in the Baltic there are basically two groups - R1a and N1c. As for the second, the Yakuts are of the same group. It seems, what is the connection between the Yakuts, Latvians and Lithuanians? Again, women are changing anthropology. There were Mongols there, and they gave birth to children of Mongoloid appearance, despite the fact that the Yakuts may have originally been Caucasian. Let me give you the example of Alexander Pushkin: he has a Negroid part, but he has R1a. Hannibal, through the female lines, brought Negroid to Pushkin. And the original haplogroup is R1a.
If you go somewhere to Russian villages, you won’t find many blacks, American Indians, Australian aborigines - they didn’t make it there. They usually marry their own people. If you take a Russian, it is unlikely that he will be married to a Mongolian; the Mongols even have a different standard of beauty, for example, a face like the moon, while the Russians have a completely different one: Turgenev’s girls did not have a face like the moon. And in general, each ethnic group has its own standards of beauty. That’s why they usually marry their own people, unless it’s kidnapping, of course. Even from the Tatars we see how different everyone is.
And the Russians were made up of three different clans. One of them is those who can be linguistically called Eastern Slavs - R1a-Z280. A subgenus was added to them - also R1a, but already M458 - Western Slavs, there are a lot of them in Belarus, Poland, but there are also a lot of them among Russians. In principle, they are all the same, but the shares are slightly different. The second genus is the southern Slavs, the Danube Slavs - those about whom The Tale of Bygone Years talks. This is haplogroup I2a. They are the youngest, formed only 2 thousand years ago. But in fact they are very ancient, they have been found since the time of the glacier, but they were destroyed, and we see the darkness of bones in the excavations, and among modern people they appeared only 2 thousand years ago. Some survived and gave birth to abundant offspring. And when you look at where the common ancestor was - only 2 thousand years ago, then a gap - and they found fossils 7-8 thousand years ago. If Veles's book is ever recognized, then an interesting thing will turn out: Veles's book is Eastern Slavs, and “The Tale of Bygone Years” are the southern Slavs.
And the third group N is just the Balts, Pomors, and Komi. This vector also came from Altai, but in a different way - northern. They walked from Altai to the north, walked along the Ural Mountains and crossed somewhere over them. In general, R1a, R1b, N, and Q came from Altai. In general, it was such a cradle of nations, kindergarten, let's put it this way. Many people actually came from there. Group Q also left Altai, went north through the Bering Strait and became the American Indians. R1a took the same southern route from there and went to Europe. R1b also went from Altai, but through Northern Kazakhstan and the Volga region, it also went to Europe. And N, as I already said, went north and dispersed: some became Finns, others - Lithuanians and Latvians, and still others - Bulgars. Study of ancient remains and modern peoples gives a clearer picture of who went where.
So the Russians have three main groups - R1a, I2a and N1с1 (renamed N1a1 this year). These three main clans formed into the Slavs, although there are three different clans. So the Serbs are ours, the Bulgarians in general too. Same thing for the Poles. But Poles and Russians were separated by religion; in fact, they are the same people.
— I know what you think: Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are one people.
- The data proves this. And the Poles are there too. But I usually don’t mention Poles, because people are less interested in them. But in fact, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and East Germans are relatives. In East Germany, the former Slavs are also all “marked”. There were also solid Slavic lands there. Remember, Pushkin wrote about Buyan Island? So in fact, Ruyan, also known as Rügen, is a Slavic island. When Ilya Sergeevich Glazunov was there during excavations, he asked what was found, and the archaeologists answered him: “Everything here is Slavic, down to the magma.” That's how it is. There was also a huge settlement of pagans. They were stormed by Westerners to impose Christianity, and they died there. Then, if you take from Berlin up to the Baltic, look at the names of cities and towns: they are all Slavic - they end in -ov and -ev, that’s what they were called by their last names. When I talk about this, I say that during the Great Tragedy Patriotic War they fought their own against their own: R1a - former Slavs - here and there. It would be a civil war if people knew that they were actually brothers. East Germans are more similar to Russians; those who visit there see a completely different psychotype than in West Germany.
“THATARS HAVE MORE SIMILARITY IN THE Collective, BUT BASHKIRS ARE MOVED TO THE SIDEWAY, THEY ARE NOT TATARS”
— The Balanovsky group studied the Volga Tatars and came to the conclusion that group N dominates1cand R1a, less than R1b. Do you agree with this arrangement?
- This means that in this sample that was studied, this is the situation. If you take another one and get the same thing, then everything is correct. Or there may be shifts in the other direction, which also happens. This is a descriptive model only.
— But Rafael Khakimov said that it is useless to study the gene pool of the Tatars without knowledge of history.
- Right.
- But you know that history is a largely political science.
— I would say this: the study of peoples must necessarily include a set of information on history, linguistics, DNA genealogy, and anthropology. Each one individually can lead us in the wrong direction. But, unfortunately, there is almost no such thing. Academician Ivanov was once asked: why don’t you consider anthropological data in your studies of history and linguistics? And he says: “They do something else.” That's the problem, but it should be the same thing.
— What is the connection between the Tatars and Bashkirs?
— They have a lot in common, R1a and Z93 also dominate, but the Bashkirs have more R1b, this is a different subbranch. Where they came from also needs to be clarified. I would not give an explanation now, because there is still a lot that is unclear. But they have a certain bias in the totality of different genera. I would say that the Tatars are more similar in aggregate, and the Bashkirs are shifted to the side, they are not Tatars.
- But there are Tatars from Siberia, and Astrakhan, and others.
— The question is: what do they have in common?
- So they only have a common name?
- Not just the name. The Slavs are the same - not only the name is common, but also the language, although the history diverges in different directions. Therefore, the Bashkirs are in many ways similar to the Tatars, but different in the combination of clans. They have a lot of R1b, which is only 5 percent for Russians, and not much for Tatars either. So we can only guess where they came from. Either these are ancient groups, or military specialists like Demidov’s people came to the Middle Ages, under Peter, and they brought their group from Europe. For example, let's take for analogy literary character Fandorin - he is Dutch, brought his Dutch group to Russia, the children went, he himself main character Fandorin is already Russian, and he most likely had R1b.
—Y-chromosome is transmitted only through the male line. Does this mean that only men can find out their origins?
- No. The Y chromosome is the male marker. Why is it being used more widely? Because men moved more compactly, women, as a rule, came to the village to visit their husbands, they did not move in formation, did not go somewhere in columns, there were no separate female migrations. Where would they go separately? But there were male migrations. For example, the army of Alexander the Great marched from Greece to India, they left behind both a trail and fossils, and women were around all the time. Take a harem: there is an owner, if the eunuch is correct and does not spoil the picture, then everyone will have one Y-chromosome of the owner of the harem, and each woman will have her own, that is, the offspring will have a darkness of mitochondrial DNA and only one Y-chromosome. Therefore, for women it is more difficult to trace their specific historical trace. The woman spins the carousel all the time.
“I AM NOT A Sword Swallower, I DO NOT CLAIM FOR GENETICS”
— The Balanovsky geneticists mentioned in our conversation criticize you and consider you a pseudoscientist. Why do you think?
- This is, to put it bluntly, a small but noisy group. And there is a large segment of my silent support. The Balanovskys carry out very aggressive attacks on DNA genealogy and on me personally. There are several reasons for this. When I started doing DNA genealogy, which is my profession...
“They say that there is no such science as DNA genealogy.”
- Welcome to science. Quantum mechanics didn’t exist recently either. Sciences emerge, people create new directions, their own methodology appears. Sciences are not divided by objects. Let's say physicists study the hydrogen atom in one way, and chemists in another. Therefore, chemists do not understand physicists well, and vice versa. There was such a laureate Nobel Prize in medicine, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, he said: “Give a chemist a dynamo, and the first thing he will do is dissolve it in hydrochloric acid.” Do you understand? The chemist will dissolve it in hydrochloric acid, because his task is to check what it consists of, what elements are there. So does DNA genealogy. Population genetics is one thing, but DNA genealogy is something completely different. The whole point is that DNA genealogy is a different field.
— Isn’t this population genetics?
— Yes, not population genetics, we have a different methodology, different calculation and descriptive tools. Encyclopedias say that the main task of population genetics is to find the relationship between genotype and phenotype. The genotype is your genes, DNA, and the phenotype is what you look like, as well as what hereditary diseases you have. Take, for example, Jews, they have many hereditary diseases, while Tatars have completely different hereditary diseases. Why? Here is the question of population genetics: what is different about them, that, say, the bouquet of diseases is different? In general, a phenotype is a manifestation of a genotype. Hair color, anthropology - these are the questions of population genetics.
- Aren’t you doing this?
- Absolutely not. We don't study genes at all.
- So there is a connection between genotype and phenotype?
- Of course there is. The way you look is a reflection of your genes, what your dad and mom gave you. Your skin is not black, you are not a black woman. And if dad were a black man (or mom), you would have a pronounced mixed race, or even black skin color. There are genes responsible for skin color, the width of the nose, the brow ridges, the shape of the neck - everything is reflected in the genes. This is not what DNA genealogy does. The fact is that DNA genealogy does not deal with genes at all, and population genetics is genetics even by name. In science, it is accepted that the second word defines science. Let's say physical chemistry is chemistry, and chemical physics is physics.
— So what does DNA genealogy do?
— Population geneticists also work on DNA, but in a different, more descriptive way. What does population geneticist? He comes, for example, to the village of Gadyukino in the Yaroslavl region and writes down: the carrier of the haplogroup is such and such - such and such a percentage, another - such and such a percentage. They do descriptive information, but this is not DNA genealogy. And genealogy is actually a historical science, but based on DNA.
- So you also study Y?-chromosomes?
- Yes, but I study DNA fragments, isolated chromosomes. In general, chromosomes are not that interesting to me. We don't deal with genes. What is DNA genealogy? When fragments are studied based on DNA and they show who a person’s ancestor was, where he moved, what were there along the way archaeological cultures, what languages those people spoke. This is not genetics at all, so the focus is completely different.
I am a chemist by birth with considerable experience in the medical sciences. I have never studied genetics. And when critics write that he is not a geneticist, I say: “What difference does it make? I’m not a sword swallower, I don’t pretend to be a geneticist either.” Therefore, the reproach that I am not a geneticist is ridiculous. I don’t pretend to be a geneticist, I’m a chemist, a person who deals with medicine, cancer, their causes, inflammatory pathologies, for which I receive most of my salary. So I can pay for DNA genealogy. So I have nothing to do with genetics. But geneticists apparently don’t understand it at all. They say that a non-specialist delved into genetics. I didn’t go! I don’t understand it, I don’t intend to understand it. I don’t need it, there are thousands of geneticists for that. I do what no one else can do except me. I always work at the intersection of sciences.
- What sciences are these? Story...
— The main one is physical chemistry. As a physical chemist, I study the laws of DNA mutations, and DNA mutations are determined by rate laws. I look at the DNA and see: these are mutations, for some reason they occur slowly in some areas, faster in others, and even faster in others. Geneticists don't do this, and that's my specialty. For example, I am developing computer programs that allow you not to count manually, but to give a DNA fragment and in a second receive information about when an ancestor lived. I study archaeological cultures. This is not what genetics does. I’m also studying why so many mutations have accumulated in one culture, and a different number in another. When there is more in this one than in this one, it means that the direction was going in that direction, because the mutation is growing all the time. I trace how culture developed archaeologically, how migration took place from Europe to Altai, China, and India. I look at the paths people took. Since they did not walk silently, but talked, it means that tongues also walked with them. I make an assumption by describing which languages could be transferred and at what speed they changed. I can take a set of languages and, based on certain morphemes and lexemes, tell when they diverged, say Russian and Persian.
— So you are also a linguist?
- To the extent that I can work with changes and failures. So I can give a linguist a head start on these concepts. By the way, structural linguistics deals with similar things, but they believe, for example, that it is not entirely correct. And I see why they count incorrectly... because they don't know how to determine the rate of change in words. Therefore, I go to the junction of science between physical chemistry and DNA, but not with genetics, which has its own apparatus.
Anatoly Alekseevich Klesov born on November 20, 1946 in Chernyakhovsk, Kaliningrad region of the RSFSR.
In 1969 he graduated from Moscow state university. In 1972 he defended his PhD thesis on the topic “The relationship between the structure and reactivity of alpha-chymotrypsin substrates”, and in 1977 - his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Kinetic-thermodynamic foundations of the substrate specificity of enzymatic catalysis”. He worked at Moscow State University, where in 1979–1981 he was a professor at the Department of Chemical Enzymology of the Faculty of Chemistry.
Since 1981 he moved to the Institute of Biochemistry named after. Bach Academy of Sciences of the USSR, where until 1992 he held the position of head of the laboratory.
In 1990, Klesov moved to Newton, a suburb of Boston in the USA. From 1989 to 1998, he served as visiting professor of biochemistry at Harvard Medical School.
From 1996 to 2006, R&D manager and vice president of a polymer composites company in the industrial sector, Boston. At the same time (since 2000) - senior vice president of the company and chief research fellow on the development of new anticancer drugs.
Member of the World Academy of Sciences and Arts (founded by Albert Einstein) since 1987, academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Georgia. Founder of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy. Author of more than 30 books in Russian and English.
Material from Lurkmore
Craniometer. They can scrape Russians
“Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar”(fr. Grattez le russe et vous verrez le Tatare , English Scratch a Russian and you’ll find a Tatar ) - the phrase came from French, authorship has not been established, attributed to various personalities, starting with N. Bonaparte, A. Custine, and ending with A. S. Pushkin.
Also a craniometer
Initially, as is clearly seen in de Cussy’s quote, it was about rejection of the Russian (Russian) political and cultural model, which has now “rebaptized” into EURASIANism. All these references to "European clothes" contrasted with the werewolf's "skins" and "fur" are literary style.
It should be remembered that after the victories of Kutuzov and especially after the defeat of Napoleon, the leadership of the Russian Empire behaved in Europe as a new “master”. Just remember Bezborodko’s phrase “not a single cannon in Europe could fire without our permission.” No less alarming to the governments of European countries was the desire of the Russian royal house to become the head of " Slavic peoples", look for exits to the Mediterranean Sea, etc. All this caused protest from the “old” European elites and anti-Russian propaganda. They began to recall slavery, which had long been abolished in Europe ( serfdom, which Napoleon abolished in Poland), the conservatism and rudeness of the morals of Russians (foreigners liked to write about this when they returned home from the Russian Empire), high (almost complete) illiteracy and low level of education among the peasantry, excessive drinking, lack of rights of citizens before the state, always reasonable severity of laws (in comparison with European ones, but selective comparison is often biased)...
At the same time, the negative assessment of the Tatars was taken from the Russians themselves. After all, you can’t hide the folk wisdom about “an uninvited guest who is worse than a Tatar” and other pearls of Great Russianism, such as the supposed stupidity “Wait, Tatar, let me take out the saber (or: sharpen).” Europe was cut off from central Asia by the Russian Empire and had virtually no reliable information about the peoples of its western and central parts. Appearance of Tatar military units in Paris Russian army was perceived more as a costume performance.
Later, especially from the end of the 19th - mid-20th centuries (with the advent of the ideologies of “pure races”, Germanism, Pan-Slavism, Pan-Mongolism, Aryanism, etc.), the essence of the issue shifted to the assumption of the racial impurity of Russians as a nation, the partial loss of Russian (Slavic ) genotype, mixing with the Tatar-Mongols in antediluvian times, with the YER in times of enlightened internationalism and with eastern immigrants today. Therefore, as a rule, the phrase is used in disputes between some idiots and others when it comes to racial purity.
The bearers of the idea conduct “scientific” research into the geographical and historical features of Russian settlement over a vast territory in the vicinity of other tribes. In these scientific works You can also find statements that, in fact, the Mongols were white people:
It is also worth noting that in the process of the spread of the Russian ethnic group to the north and especially the Urals, there was often a miscegenation of Russians with the indigenous population of the northern peoples, which gave rise to such small sub-ethnic groups of “Russian people” as the Gurans (Russian-Mongols), Indigirshchiki, Yakutians (Russian-Yakuts), Sitskari (Russian-Ugrians), Kamchadals and several dozen more similar ethnic groups, which are collectively called old-timers. A small group of old-timers with Russian-Indian roots also still lives in Alaska. It is worth noting, however, that the number of such ethnic groups is very small and usually does not exceed several hundred people. And the representatives of the ethnic groups themselves are not inclined to see themselves as Russians, but rather as an independent people.
In addition, we must not forget about the Cossacks, who are dearly loved by the Ukrainian Svidomo. In our understanding, Cossack is more of a military rank, but even earlier Cossacks were none other than representatives of freely nomadic Turkic peoples (Tatars, by the way, are also Turks), who over the centuries continued to merge with the Slavic ethnic group, adopting culture, religion, and language. At the same time, the most popular profession among the Cossacks was the service of local kings and lords, therefore, by the 19th century, the Cossacks turned into a purely military class, while retaining such Turkic elements as trousers, crests with mustaches, musical instrument Kobza and others. The carriers of Cossack blood are mainly eastern Ukrainians, Russians in the south and especially in high concentrations in the Kuban.
- Delivers a hint of the phrase's origins in freemason and pederast.
Trolling: Throwing shit into the nozzle of a scraper is usually carried out using an argument like: “The Russian people today are a bunch of Ugro-Tatar hybrids and other genetically modified racial impurities that vaguely resemble people. How to live further?
Application: With the help of this winged metaphor, the fighters for the historical Motherland seem to be telling us the truth: “You just have to scratch and you will definitely find it!”
So, if you try and scrape together not a Tatar, but, for example, a Jew in your family, then obtaining a visa to Israel will take much less time. How many of these scrappers left for the cordon in those very nineties - I can’t even count them...
Counterarguments against trolling
As mentioned above, the phrase is often used to troll Russians and even often has political or offensive implications, and the theory about the Asian roots of the Russian people was usually promoted by haters of Tsarist Russia in the circle of the nobility to prove that Russia is not Europe. Most often, the idea was promoted by the Polish gentry, with their approach: gentry - Sarmatians, Slavs - cattle. The idea was fully adopted by the Nazis, only the Poles were included there, to the discontent of the latter.
Yes, Russians partly have non-Slavic roots, but this is a typical element for a people who led a conquering lifestyle; the history of mankind is a history of conquest and assimilation, absorption different nations- by others. Take any people you know, and you will see that, for example, in the same Western European peoples you can’t scrape together anything. Based on similar arguments, one can classify the British as almost purebred Celts, the Germans with the Romans: The Germans - with the Celts, Germans, Slavs, Romans, Alpines, etc.; Spaniards - Berbers, Arabs, Romans, Celts, Moors, etc.; and the Turks, Arabs, Chinese, American Yankees have so many impurities that there is no point in listing them in the text. Based on this conclusion, the argument about the impurity of Russians does not essentially have any weight or meaning, and is often used by an individual who has little or no idea about the formation of peoples or ethnic groups, in particular, below are arguments showing the transparency of statements about Russian-Tatars:
- Russians are a conquering people; for them, as for other conquering peoples, admixtures of other peoples are typical. Take the British or Turks for comparison; the share of their true ethnicity in their blood is insignificant even in comparison with the Russians.
- All peoples have admixtures, even the closed Japanese, who assimilated the Ainu in the north and other mountain peoples. The only purebred representatives are the small tribes that exist in complete isolation thousands of years, but no one guarantees that they did not mix before isolation.
- If we take the first people who came to Europe, they were not even remotely similar to Europeans, but rather to blacks, but they still rightfully remain the first people of Europe.
- If the person putting forward the phrase “Russian-Tatar” is a Ukrainian, then remind him that the Ukrainian ethnic group appeared as a result of the assimilation of the Turkic, Scythian and later Polish and Jewish peoples by the Slavs. The Scythians were Iranian peoples, which potentially makes the Ukrainians distant relatives of the Abkhazians.
- This phrase indirectly indicates the inferiority of Asian peoples and may offend the Tatars themselves. Why are Asians worse than Europeans? Don't forget that Asians have the highest intelligence and sense of community. They develop advanced technologies (and cartoons with huge tits, beloved by anonymous), and it is already recognized that the future lies in the East.
- Scientists have long proven that the Russians did not mix with the Mongols and did not become more Asian after the horde. Arguments like “Alexander Nevsky is Asian” do not say anything, and were explained by the fashion of Novgorod princes in the 12-13 centuries to take trophy women from nomadic Asian tribes as wives. The fashion of the royal family to take foreign wives as wives has always been typical for any kingdoms and cultures, and by this fact one cannot in any way judge the mixing among the masses, because the share of the nobility to the commoners has always been negligible.
- Again, Scientists compiled average faces of different ethnic groups, where it is clear that Russians do not look more oriental than the inhabitants of Europe. The female face of the nation. Photos individuals they don’t talk about anything, there are 140 million Russians. So naturally among such a number there will be different and atypical faces. With the same approach, you can successfully find doubles of all famous politicians and stars of the world among a billion Chinese.
- Where is the evidence that the ancient Slavs were “true blond Aryans”? The unique identifier of the Slavs - the chromosomal particle R1a is most common... among the Kyrgyz and Indian castes Brakhmanov. The ancient Greeks, when describing the Slavic tribes, did not note their “fairness” but rather their similarity with modern Serbs or Bulgarians. So what are true Slavs?
- Remind your partner that in the same “enlightened” Germany, France or England, natural growth is made up by millions of migrants and refugees from Africa, who, in addition to giving birth to 4-6 children in Europe, are happy to take local girls as wives, and who gave birth to curly-haired mulattoes and mestizos. At the same time, the share of interracial marriages is much higher than in the same “multinational Russia”. Every 4 German and French women give birth to a Turk, a black man or an Arab, less often from an Asian man. After 3-4 generations, “white Europeans” will become a rarity, and then it will be possible to compare them with Russians again.
Scratch the Russian monarch and you will find a true Aryan
Taking into account the fact that the institution of the nobility is not recognized by the national government and is not supported by the international community, talk about the revival of the monarchy in Russia takes on a tone of hopelessness. However, from a historical point of view, such searches are of some interest.
Genealogical gurus will tell and show you how to properly scratch a king:
Once again about race
Starting with the boyar Andrei Ivanovich Kobyla (under Prince Ivan Kalita), the Romanov dynasty underwent such changes that by the beginning of the twentieth century, Emperor Nicholas II had 1/128 of Russian blood, and the heir to the throne - 1/256. Moreover, the line of the Romanov tsars in the male line ended in 1730 with the death of Peter II, the grandson of Peter I. With the death of Elizaveta Petrovna, daughter of Peter I in 1761, the Romanov line also ended in the female line.
The monarchs got out of the situation with the help of a dynastic treaty: the son from the marriage of Anna Petrovna (daughter of Peter I) with Duke Karl of Holstein-Gottorp (the future Peter III) was recognized as a member of the House of Romanov. But here, too, everything is not so simple: there is a theory that Peter III was infertile due to smallpox (this also includes the crooked theory that he was not interested in women at all), and his wife, the German Catherine II, gave birth to Saltykov ( or from another lover, that’s not the point). Thus, starting with Paul I, Russian tsars de facto do not have the right to the Romanov surname.
There is a story that when Alexander III was told that he was a descendant of Saltykov, he crossed himself and said: “Thank God, we are Russian!” And having heard a refutation from historians, he crossed himself again: “Thank God, we are legal!”
There is also a joke that the Russian people expelled Napoleon because a Frenchman could not be the Russian Tsar. Only a German can be a Russian Tsar!
The main point of this race is that, having ceased to be the Romanovs, through Catherine Great Romanovs 146% became legitimate, direct descendants... Rurikovich, although through the female line - the princely family of Anhalt-Zerbst descended directly from one of the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise.
From all of the above it is easy to see that the purely racial principle when applied to kings does not work!
Let's scrape the Russian tsars
The issue of royal blood became especially acute after the 1917 revolution and the murder of the royal family.
At a time of general despondency among the Russian emigration, Mikhail Zyzykin tried to scrape together the Romanov family with the help of the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire. In his book “Tsarist Power in Russia”, in 1924, he formalized certain “theoretical ideas” of succession to the throne, based on the principle of primogeniture in combination with equality, Orthodoxy and other points. With the help of “theoretical ideas,” Zyzykin’s followers are trying to identify the heir to the throne of the no longer existing Empire. As of the summer of 2010, there are only twelve living male descendants of Emperor Nicholas I. And the probability is low. But still...
The final answer to the race question
Russians of the future are glad to see you, anon
Version
There is an opinion that Custine was simply misunderstood - he called him “Tatars” not a specific nationality, but simply savages, barbarians (== tartar). For example, the Russians entered Paris in 1814 - their uniforms were shining, the officers were all talking in the local way, well, just like civilized people. And later on it was all sorts of things - they drank vodka to excess, and rowded, and groped mamzels for derrière, and simply robbed them. The entire veneer of civilization disappeared in one moment. It is clear that there were both Cossacks and Kalmyks there - but for Custine, their comrades were all Russian. This is approximately how the gang consisting of Rabinovich, Ebloev, Shaverzashvili and Khachikyan is now called the “Russian mafia”.
P.S.
The Kazakhs have a proverb that is diametrically opposed to Kustin’s: “scratch a Tatar, you will find a Russian.”
See also
Links
| Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar - part of the harsh reality of this country. | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
“Scratch a Frenchman, an Italian, and you will find a Jew.” Is there no such saying yet?
“Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar”...
And I started digging. I discovered a lot of interesting things. The quote is more than popular; as usual, everyone is named as the author famous personalities ranging from Homer to Panikovsky. But most often those who quote, without further ado, simply declare it a proverb. For example, Putin, almost our everything, put it this way: “We, you know, they say: “If you rub every Russian properly, a Tatar will appear there.” In general, it seemed that there was no way to find the end - they blurted out the quote and used it. But there are no barriers to an inquisitive mind, especially if this mind does not want to shake a rattle in front of the heiresses, justifying itself by preparing for a radio appearance.
I’ll go straight to the main thing - I finally dug up the original source.
The great Russian writer N.S. It was not for nothing that Leskov said that if you scratch a Russian, you will find a Tatar.
http://www.musakov.ru/cgi-bin/ubb/ultim ... 2;t=000007
And when Dostoevsky wrote: “scratch any Russian and you will see a Tatar”
http://wct.by.ru/v7/index_r.htm
A.S. himself Pushkin said - Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar
http://forum.intrance.ru/index.php?s=a7 ... 10276&st=0
As Klyuchevsky used to say, scratch a Russian and you will see a Tatar
http://info.rambler.ru:8101/db/news/msg ... =260004288
Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar (as in Shestov).
http://www.medbrat.ru/cgi-bin/ikonboard ... postno=183
Ivan Bunin's remark - if you scratch any Russian, you will find a Tatar
http://www.kazpravda.kz/archive/07_08_2002/k.html
Scratch any Russian - you will scrape off a Tatar, Gogol said
http://press.try.md/print.php?iddb=Inter&id=37549
It’s like Kuprin said: scratch any Russian and you’ll get a Tatar
http://www.azerros.ru/pnhtml/gazeta28/n28_1205.htm
paraphrasing the statement of V.V. Rozanov (“Scratch any Russian, and you will find a Tatar”),
http://www.postindustrial.net/content1/ ... sian&id=58
“Scratch any Russian, you will find a Tatar,” President Vladimir Putin said not so long ago.
http://www.materik.ru/print.php?section ... 047f3a6f6a
This is an arctic fox. Complete and comprehensive. Soon there will not be a single Russian classic who will not be credited with the authorship of this nasty and bad phrase. For - Hryun Morzhov himself, no bullshit!
Here is an enlightened European opinion about the Tatars:
“The Tatars surpass us not only in abstinence and prudence, but also in love for their neighbors. For among themselves they maintain friendly and good relations. They treat the slaves they only have from foreign countries fairly. And although they were either won in battle, or [acquired] for money, but they are not kept [in captivity] for more than seven years. This is ordained in the Holy Scriptures, Exodus 21. But we hold in eternal slavery not those captured in battle or for money, not strangers, but of our kind and faith. , orphans, poor people married to slaves.
And we abuse our power over them, for we torture, maim, execute them without a legal trial, on any suspicion. On the contrary, among the Tatars and Muscovites, not a single official can execute a person, even if convicted of a crime, except for the capital’s judges; and then - in the capital. And in all our villages and cities, people are sentenced.
Until now, we take taxes for the protection of the state from only the poor townspeople and poorest farmers subject to us, bypassing the land owners, while they receive a lot from their latifundia, arable land, meadows, pastures, gardens, vegetable gardens, fruit plants, forests, groves, apiaries, fisheries, taverns, workshops, trades, customs, maritime taxes, piers, lakes, rivers, ponds, fisheries, mills, herds, labor of slaves. And it would be much better for military affairs to proceed and for us to collect the taxes we need, which would be collected from each person, if the begun measurement of all lands and arable land [belonging] to both the nobility and the common people came to an end. For the one who has more land would contribute more.”
(c) enlightened European
The Koran begins with the words “There is no God.” "It would be a big mistake to think..." V.I. Lenin