• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Article

Антская проблема как предмет этимологии и этноистории (возражение М.В.грацианскому)

Византийский временник. 2015. Т. 73 (98). С. 251-263.
Иванов С. А., Анткин А. Е.

The article is a refutation of the publication: М.В.Грацианский. «О происхождении этнонима «анты»// ВВ. 2012. Т.71 (96). С.27-39). M.Gratsianskii tries to identify the ethnonyms Antes, Venethi and Viatichi; he wants to corroborate the  Russian Chronicle in stating that the Vyatichi descend “from Liachi”. Both assertions are highly dubious. Gratsianskii’s article is primarily based on the old publication by D.V.Bubrich (1947). It’s Bubrich’s article with which one has to polemicize. The ethnonym Vyatichi is indeed akin with the Indoeuropean word Venethi, as Bubrich thought, but the ethnonym Antes is hardly related to them. Gratsianskii’s attempts to develop Bubrich’s ideas are ungrounded.As for the historic-anthropological constructs by Gratsianskii, they belong to the primordialist paradigm, but even within this parafigm, they are inconsistent: if any Venethi, pace Gratsianskii, were Antes and any Antes were Slavs, then the latter should be traced back to Homerus. Such pseudo-patriotic exercises obliterate the last half a century of the development of world historical anthropology.