• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Petro Tolochko: “Although many myths are being hatched in Ukraine, at the end of the twentieth century this road leads nowhere”

13 November, 2012 - 00:00

Today we present an interview with Academician Petro Tolochko, People’s Deputy, Director of the Institute of Archaeology of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences. Archaeology, which seemed to interest only a handful of experts not so long ago, has suddenly found itself in the front lines of ideological combat.

Q.: Has your attitude to the traditional concept of Kyiv Rus’ being the cradle of three Slavic peoples changed over the past several years?

A.: Our concept about Kyiv Rus’ is subject to change because we continue studying new data as it comes in. Times are changing and new generations come to pass, posing their own questions to our science. Archaeology is an “exact” humanitarian science, so we do not have to do much by way of revising our previous findings. We have never worked to serve any of the changing political objectives, yet we are faced with a great deal of myth-making these days, more than we have ever experienced.

The three-Slavic-people-cradle theory is now being put to a very serious trial. Mostly, it seems to concern people who have a vague idea about the notion, if any. I mean that these people have no professional knowledge, but their views on the matter veer about like a weathervane, in strict conformity with the current political situation. Now the concept that Kyiv Rus’ is the ethnic origin of three Eastern Slavic peoples – Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarus – was not dictated by any political considerations. It resulted from fundamental studies based on tremendous factual material. Of course, the Old Rus’ body politic was composed of regional ethnic and dialectical groups, largely ones which the latter-day Ukrainian nation possesses. There were at least a dozen dialectical zones, but the final result was three peoples, The reason is, that Old Rus’ as a single polity found itself divided in the second half of the 13th century, emerging as three sections, with Southern Rus’ going to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, to be strongly influenced the Polish language and culture. It was at that period that the Russian and Belarus [White Rus’] peoples started taking shape. None of these can be considered “senior” or “junior,” of course. Those who fool around with this cradle concept ought to consider the kinship of the languages, because all three are rooted in Kyiv Rus’.

The history of Southeastern Rus’ settlement serves as graphic evidence of this kinship. Most of the original settlers came from Southern Rus’. Towns appeared in the Volga-Oka river basin, later to become known as Pereyaslavl, Vladimir, Galich, Zvenyhorod, Peremyshl [Przemysl], along with the rivers Desna, Lybid, Pochaina, and Irpin. Assuming that those southern settlers were Ukrainians in the 12th century, it stands to logic that they also brought the Ukrainian language with them. Well, we know that they did not.

Q.: Which of the Archaeology Institute’s works would you consider most significant over the past few years?

A.: In the first place, the 2-volume Ancient History of Ukraine, a textbook for university students majoring in history. The first of the 3-volume edition Ancient History of Ukraine came off the presses in 1997. We also published a two-volume collection of papers on the well-known Scythian burial mound, Chortomlyk, in collaboration with the University of Hamburg. Field archaeology work has also yielded important data. A joint Ukrainian-Polish expedition, headed by the Institute’s Dr. Serhiy Skoryk and Krakow History Museum’s Jan Chochorowski, studied third century BC Scythian burial sites not far from Zvenyhorod, particularly the Ryzhanivsky Mound where excavations date from the late nineteenth century, started by the Polish archaeologist Henryk Ossowski. The latter unearthed a richly adorned woman’s grave yielding gold and silver pieces. Excavations were resumed precisely a hundred years later and a sensational discovery was made: an intact core burial site within a mound belonging to a Scythian nobleman, along with a museum-like display of gold, silver, wood, and clay decorations. We are planning to join both collections into a single Ryzhanivsky Mound exposition and exhibit it in Krakow and Kyiv.

Another joint Ukrainian-German expedition, headed by the Institute’s Dr. Vyacheslav Murzin and Hamburg University’s Prof. Renata Rolle, is studying fifth and sixth century BC Scythian Bielske Horodyshche in Poltava oblast. The site is unusual, I would even call it enigmatic. The settlement’s fortified walls number 32 kilometers in perimeter, here and there reaching 10 meters in height even now. Such giant projects implies tremendous human effort and advanced political organization. There are reasons to believe that the place is Helona, a Scythian city-fortress described by the father of history, Herodotus.

A team of Ukrainian archaeologists led by Dr. Hlib Ivakyn, unearthed a tile plate with a relief depicting a holy warrior down in the foundation of the Golden Dome Cathedral of St. Michael. It proved the find the century, a third of its kind, with the first one discovered in the late eighteenth century and the second one in the late nineteenth century.

Q.: We know that you have been studying the historical role played by the Orthodox Eastern Church in forming the Ukrainian polity. You wrote once that “for as long as the Metropolitan of Rus’ stayed in Kyiv not a single Old Rus’ principality, strong as it was, could count on complete independence.” How would you estimate the role of this Church in building the Ukrainian state these days?

A.: The religious situation in Ukraine is very depressing. The Orthodox Church is divided into three groups, and there is little love lost between them. This is the result of our loss of what used to be our inherent spirituality, and of what is now generally known as politicization. Ukraine has suffered the worst of what could have occurred: its church patriarchs started politicking and politicians started meddling in religious affairs. Both have done their dirty jobs, so that now our Church cannot play its innate role as a stabilizing factor, not in Ukrainian society anyway. Rather to the contrary.

Q.: Does a superpower always have to create a “supermyth” to help shape its people’s patriotic mentality? If so, is Ukraine building such a myth or maybe it is all history now?

A.: Myths are usually created by younger nations who are still to live through the crucial phase of shaping their national identities. Although many myths are being hatched in Ukraine (remember all those Ukrainian Aryan theories? Incredible!), I think that at the end of the twentieth century this road leads nowhere. By following it we will only instill an ironic, condescending attitude toward Ukraine elsewhere in the civilized world. It is high time that we grew up. It would do us a world of good if we could rally round a valid social-national idea. Something like building a democratic versatile society in Ukraine governed by law.

Regrettably, experience shows that setting priorities is not one of our strong points. When proclaiming Ukrainian independence our leaders assured us that the number one priority was developing our national state. We have been doing this for the past seven years, seemingly unaware of the fact that we do have a national state and that this state should not be regarded as an aim in itself, but only as a means of ensuring well-being for all people living in it. After all, what can be more important than making man happy?

Now should we require everyone living in a given state to be patriotic? Given an ideal polity, yes, we definitely should. Given our present-day realities, this question cannot be answered in so many words, especially considering that the Ukrainian public domain turned out to be possessed by 15% of the populace, the “chosen few,” with 85% being able to just make do. The latter come out with political protests and are officially regarded as lacking patriotic sentiments. And some of those 15% “chosen superpatriots” come out with indignant statements, something like “Can’t they wait? Things will get better eventually.” But the “chosen few” do not want to wait. And they do not have to, because they already have everything one could want.

Photo by Volodymyr Rasner,The Day:

Vice-President of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences Petro Tolochko

 

Rubric: