|
 The way belarusian emigration treats ethnographic borders of Belarus
Nina Barshcheuskaya
Attempts to define the boarders of the Belarusian national expanse had been made until the second half of the 19th century. Both in central as well as Western Europe the language served (and will obviously serve in the future) as the most important and characteristic national feature, which could be easily applied within the course of the objective scientific reasoning. When we add it to those political and historical conditions and evaluate ethnographic maps of Belarus of the 19th – 22nd century, we can conclude that these are primarily the maps displaying spread of the Belarusian language.
This issue has been thoroughly discussed in the “Batskaushchyna” newspaper in the series of articles named Ethnographic expanse of Belarus and written by M. Ahniavida.
The author of the articles starts his reasoning with the quotation from the Document (Act) of March 25, 1918 of the Third Charter of the BNR (Belarusian People’s Republic), according to which “the Belarusian People’s Republic should unite all the lands within which the Belarusian people enjoy numeral superiority…”1
M. Ahniavida begins consideration of ethnographic expanse of Belarus starting with 1875, i.e. the time, when the first ethnographic map of Belarus had been published.
The pioneer attempt to evaluate the ethnographic borders of settling of the Belarusian people was made by A. F. Ryttykh. In 1860s he was assigned by the Russian General Staff to process the ethnographic map of the European part of the Russian Empire. Research activities of Ryttykh ended up in 1875 in publication of Ethnographic map of the European part of Russia in St. Petersburg. That was the first map on which ethnographic boarders of the Belarusian national expanse had been specified.
At the beginning of the 20th century Yaukhim Karski processed Ethnographic Map of the Belarusian People, which was published in Volume I of his book Belarusy (Belarusians), the latter having been revised and published again in 1918. In general, ethnographic borders of Belarus, defined by Karski, were approximately similar to the ones, shown on the map of Ryttykh.
1917 through 1920, i.e. within the time of the All-Belarusian Congress and formation of the Belarusian People’s Republic (the BNR), Belarusian politicians and statesmen faced the definite task, i.e. they were to define state borders of the BNR. To fulfill that task, they based their conclusions on the previously published materials and maps. The Ethnographic map of the Belarusian People’s Republic, published in 1919, had covered the area, which had been generally specified on maps of Ryttykh and Karski. There are also some corrections on the map. The most essential one deals with the area, located in the south-west of the country, i.e. the Berastseishchyna and the Pinshchyna had been included into the frame of the Belarusian borders. Formerly, those territories, because of strong influence of the Ukrainian language, were left outside the Belarusian ethnic expanse. The southern borderline of Belarus, shown on that map, was drawn more or less along the historical border of the Grand Duchy of Litwa of 1569. It is similar to the present borderline between Belarus and Ukraine. One could also find some other minor changes on the map. For example, the city of Bransk was the part of the BNR while Ryttykh and Karski left it outside the country.
According to M. Ahniavida, those borders in many cases did not reflect the actual linguistic situation and, more than that, they conflicted with the historical and ethnographic facts. The author stressed in his article, published in the “Batskaushchyna” newspaper”, that “the tribe of Kryvichy, residing in the north-eastern territories of their habitat, served as the tribal and ethnic basis of the modern Belarusian people. In compliance with the archeological data as well as historical and chronicle findings, the borders of habitat of the Kryvichy tribe in the north-eastern section of the area significantly overlapped and exceeded the borders, specified on the maps of Ryttykh, Karski and the BNR.”2 As for the linguistic situation, it had been known for a long time, that outside the eastern and northern borders of the BNR one could clearly hear peculiar features of the Belarusian language, mixed up with a good deal of elements of spoken Russian.
Prior to World War I, the Moscow Dialectological Committee had been founded, which comprised the following famous Russian linguists: N. N. Durnavo, N. N. Sokolov, D. N. Ushakov. Among other tasks, the Committee was assigned to develop the dialectological map of the Russian Empire. That was for the first time in history, when the Committee studied the Belarusian-Russian linguistic borders. Activities of the Committee resulted in publication in Moscow in 1915 (i.e. some years prior to publication of the BNR map) of the map, named Attempt to Create Dialectological Map of Spread of the Russian Language in Europe with Enclosed Essay on Russian Dialectology. “On that map they revealed the very important fact that both in the east and the north of the Belarusian ethnographic expanse as well as beyond the borders, specified on the pervious maps, there existed vast areas, the inhabitants of which did not speak Russian as it had generally been assumed before. Such a linguistic phenomenon had been registered along the vast strip located behind the city of Bransk in the east and in back of the Pskoushchyna, in the north.”3
M. Ahniavida pointed out that the results of the Moscow Dialectological Committee were of special significance as the Committee matched ethnographic borders of Belarus with the already well known facts from archeology, history, tribal geography as well as linguistics. “History tells us that the Pskoushchyna was the land of the same Kryvichy tribe, which inhabited the Polachchyna and the Smalenshchyna, and, therefore, its language should have the same Belarusian Kryvichy-based origin. As for the Russian elements, present in the language, they had been acquired much later as the result of a long lasting (beginning with 1510) dependence of Pskou and the Pskoushchyna upon Moscow.”4
One of the Belarusian emigrant researchers emphasized that at the beginning of the 20th century, because of the discovered huge areas of transitional dialects, the Russian scholars raised the issue of significant broadening of eastern and northern ethnographic borders of Belarus. Later on, further research of other authors had only confirmed and better substantiated the initially obtained interesting results.
M. Ahniavida specifies names of several authors who did not have enough courage to attribute the transitional Belarusian-Russian dialects to the Russian language area.5
Taking into account all the existing works on linguistic geography, Andrei Bahrovich pointed out that “On all ethnographic and linguistic maps of the Russian scholars, i.e. beginning with the “Ethnographic Map of the European part of Russia” (Ryttykh, 1875)6, Smalensk and the Smalenshchyna, the western part of the Branshchyna, Nevelshchyna as well as southern parts of the Pskoushchyna had been definitely specified as the Belarusian ones. The same status had been confirmed on the maps of Karski, published in 19037, 1917 and on8, on the map of the Moscow Dialectological Committee of 19159, on the post-war maps processed by the Russian linguists, i.e. Avanesov (194910), Chernykh11 and Kuznetsov12, published in 1954 and on. Those territories had been recognized as the Belarusians ones by the Decision of the First Congress of the Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) of Belarus of December, 1918, named “On Borders of the Byelorussian Soviet Republic”. Paragraph 4 of the said Decision specified that the territories of the Byelorussian Republic should comprise the Smalenski district with the Smalenski, Belski, Dukhaushchynski, Paretski (Dziamidauski), Darahabuski, Elninski, Krasinski and Roslauski sub-districts; the Homelski district with the Surski, Mhlinski, Staradubski sub-districts; the Vitsebski district with the Vialiski, Nevelski and Sebezhski sub-districts.13 Mainly all those “sub-districts” had been taken by Moscow away from its own (i.e. Soviet) Byelorussian Republic and added to the Russian Federal Soviet Republic.”14
A. Bahrovich emphasized that “in spite of the numerous historical, ethnographic and linguistic proofs of the Russian scholars, concerning the Belarusian nature of that expanse, in general, and from the point of view of its linguistic background, in particular, as well as contrary to the fact that even today the bulk of the population, residing in those areas, speak Belarusian, nevertheless, according to the Russian census of the population (of 1897, 1926, 1939 and 1959) inhabitants of those territories were considered by both tsarist Russian and the soviet Russian census registers to be always the Russians not only according to their nationality but their native language as well.”15
The Moscow Committee, which had systematically treated the materials of the Belarusian-Russian linguistic border, did nothing to have done similar survey at the Belarusian-Ukrainian border. But, nevertheless, in light of the results of the work of the Committee it became clear that
both former researchers (i.e. Ryttykh and Karski) attributed to the ethnographic borders of Belarus only pure Belarusian dialects and left outside that area the ones, which contained some major elements of the languages, spoken in the neighboring countries. Also, while processing their maps they did not take into account at all ethnographic, historical and other non-linguistic (but very essential) factors. “As the result of their work, the Branshchyna, the Pskoushchyna and
the part of Palessie happened to be outside the ethnographic borders of Belarus” – wrote M. Ahniavida in the “Batskaushchyna”. As for the area of the Western Palessie, that error had been noted by the activists of the BNR and had been corrected on the Ethnographic map of the Belarusian People’s Republic, published in 1919.
According to the evaluation by M. Ahniavida, only in the area of the southern Belarusian-Ukrainian border the actual border approximately matched the ethnographic one.
Ryhor Maksimovich16, another Belarusian emigrant researcher, pointed out in the “Zapisy” journal that within the course of establishment of the southern border of distribution of the Belarusian people, all the researchers, beginning with the maps of Ryttykh (of 1875) and Karski (of 1904 and 1918), tended to specify different ethnographic borders; they substantiated their decision only based on the linguistic aspects of the problem rather than on the ethnographic ones. It goes without saying that the language can serve as a powerful marker but, in compliance with the results of work of the Moscow Dialectological Committee17, both within the area of the Belarusian-Ukrainian and the Belarusian-Russian border line there was no clear linguistic border; the latter was replaced by the wide layer of transitional accents and dialects. Therefore, according to R. Maksimovich18, upon evaluation of the borders between the nations, besides the linguistic features, one should also take into account the historical, anthropologic and ethnographic factors.
The southern ethnographic border had been specified by Kazimerz Moszynski, a famous Polish ethnographer. He considered the ethnographic border, defined by him, to be the former geographic border of the nation. “According to his point of view, ethnographic phenomena were to help him define the south-western line of that huge terrain of the pushcha ancient thick forests, which formerly covered the north-eastern part of the European continent”.20 On the map of K. Moszynski all ethnographic differences lie to the south of the Prypiats river. In case we would need to draw the medium geometric line, it would have to go approximately along the southern border between Palessie and Valyn’; the said line would match the line of the old historical border of the times of the Grand Duchy of Litwa and the present-day state border between
Belarus and Ukraine.21 One of the facts that clearly supports the presence of a vivid ethnographic Belarusian-Ukrainian border is the way how the people used to build their farmhouses in the area of Palessie as well as other ethnographic peculiarities that differed from the Ukrainian but were similar to the Belarusian ones.22
“At the same time, - writes I. Kasiak, an engineer, in the “Belaruskaya Dumka” newspaper, - some of the Ukrainian foreign unions claim to the Belarusian southern lands.”23 Thus, in the book named Ukrainian Resistance, published by the Ukrainian Congress Committee in 1949 in New York, they published the map of Ukraine which was signed by R. V. Galvin. According to that map approximately half of the present-day Brestskaya region with the cities of Brest and Pinsk as well as south-eastern and south-western parts of the modern Homelskaya region, including the towns of Staradub and Turau, have been incorporated to Ukraine.24 On the map of 1930, processed by V. Kubiyovych and M. Kulytski in English (it was published in the second volume of the Ukraine – A Concise Encyclopedia, published in Toronto in 1971), similar part of the territory of Belarus had been added to Ukraine. In volume I of the said Encyclopedia (published in 1963) they had printed the map of the Reichskommissariat of Ukraine (1942), according to which the cities of Brest and Homel had been incorporated to the Reichskommissariat of Ukraine.26 The same volume contains the map of spread of the Ukrainian population. According to it, almost 100 per cent of the population of the southern part of the Brest region was considered to be the Ukrainians. Also, the area around the town of Mazyr was marked to comprise 75, 90 and 100 per cent of the Ukrainian population. At the same time, the author stresses that no sources had been specified which could lead to such high percentage of the Ukrainian population in Belarus27. I. Kasiak, substantiating his conclusions on the results of various censuses of the population28, specifies the data concerning the number of population of the Homelshchyna and the Berastseishchyna. According to them, the Ukrainians happen to have no ethnographic grounds to be able to presently claim to annexation of large parts of the Berastseiskaya and Homelskaya regions to the territory of Ukraine.
Andrei Bahrovich also draws our attention to the Belarusian-Polish borderline. In his publication
named Zhyharstva Belaruskaye SSR u sviatle perapisu 1959 hodu (Population of the Byelorussian SSR in light of the 1959 Census of Population),29 he pointed out that “… we have Belastok with its region and the Belarusian Padliashsha within the territory of the present-day Poland, but not in the BSSR or the USSR. In the said area they have more than one hundred primary Belarusian schools with Belarusian as the major language of study as well as three secondary schools, more than one hundred circles of the Belarusian cultural society and about one hundred Orthodox congregations.”30
Viktar Siankevich, in his turn, studied the issues of the Polish minority in Belarus.31 He grounded his conclusions on the basis of the studies carried out in the former Soviet Union. In 1952-1953 the Institute of Ethnography at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR carried out anthropological studies in the Baltic republics. Settlements along the Belarusian-Lithuanian border were the first on the list of studies. It turned out that the inhabitants of those areas happened to speak three languages, i.e. Belarusian, Russian and Lithuanian. The majority of the respondents considered themselves to be the Poles although in everyday life they spoke “in a simple way”, i.e. Belarusian. The researchers concluded that the choice of the population’s nationality was based on their religious background, i.e. the majority of the people residing in the area under study were Catholics.32 At the time, when Belarus was the part of Recz Pospolita, religion played the decisive ethno-differentiating role and religious beliefs were associated with the national identity of the population, i.e. Catholics considered themselves to be Poles while the Orthodox believers treated themselves as either Belarusians or Russians. Traces of that mentality survived until today. (…) It is indicative that only 16.7% of Poles considered Polish to be their mother tongue.”33
The issues of the situation along Belarusian-Lithuanian borderline were paid great attention to in editions published by Belarusian emigration abroad.
The article Fakty I Prauda (Facts and the Truth) by Andrei Bahrovich34 deserves special attention. The Belarusian emigrant researcher published his critical notes concerning the book Musu Lietuva (Our Lithuania) by Bronius Kviklys 35 in which the author, according to Bahrovich’s point of view, “specifies “historical, geographic and ethnographic information” about the key settlements, located not within the territory of the inter-war Lietuva or the present-day Lithuanian SSR, but Litwa within the broader borders, which he had defined himself.”36
According to Kviklys, the territory of the future Lietuva could reach 105 000 square kilometers (while the inter-war Lietuva comprised only half of that territory, i.e. 56 670 square kilometers). On the Belarusian side, Kviklys thinks, the border should stretch approximately via Druya,
Braslau, Postauye, Maladechna, Valozhyn, Mikalayeushchyna, Indura, Auhustova. The author also points out that Kviklys did not add to that list other territories of Lietuva, which, according to him, Lithuania has the historical right for, i.e. the Belarusified districts of Dzisna and Vialeyka, the lands of the Slonimshchyna and Navahradchyna.37
It follows from the book by B. Kviklys that the territory of Lietuva should comprise Belarusian lands of the Vilenski, Trotski, Vialeyski, Maladechanski, Ashmianski, Valozhynski, Lidzki, Shchuchynski, Horadzenski, Braslauski and the Sviantsianski districts (pavets). Kviklys substantiates his points of view based on the fact that Belarusian Catholics are the Lithuanians who only speak Belarusian because they had already gotten Belarusified.
G. Grinavickiene, in her description of some phenomena, dealing with contacts of Lithuanian and Slavic dialects in south-western part of the Lithuanian SSR, points out that the population of the Belarusian-Lithuanian borderline is multilingual. Viktar Siankevich, referring to the publication of G. Grinavickiene in the “Zapisy”, specifies that “For example, the inhabitants of the south-western suburbs of the Lithuanian capital (i.e. south-eastern part of the Vilenski district, the eastern part of the Trotski district and the Eishyshki district) are known to speak mainly Belarusian (or, they call it – pa-prostu or “in a simple way”) and Polish; they can also speak Russian; some of the people aged 70 to 80 and older can speak Lithuanian; the children of school age can speak only broken Lithuanian. (…) The people, residing in the areas under study, although considering themselves to be Poles, in everyday life in the majority of cases tend to speak Belarusian (“in a simple way”), especially the middle-aged population and the youth.”38
Numerous problems, arising out of failure to see the difference between the terms of “Litsviny” and “Lithuanians” have been considered by Chuly Naziralnik. He wrote that “If we accept the way Lithuania percepts the history, i.e. the fact that the Grand Duchy of Litwa was a Lithuanian state, we can hardly remember the time from that historical period when the Belarusian lands, stretching only from Yeuya to Maladechna, belonged to the Duchy. Even within the worst times of the historical Litwa, i.e. at the time of decay of the state – in 1772, the Grand Duchy of Litwa comprised the whole territories of the Vilenshchyna, the Horadzenshchyna and the Minshchyna (both of them with the Palessie regions, of course), the Polachchyna, the Vitsebshchyna and the Mahilioushchyna. At the time of prosperity of the Grand Duchy of Litwa the latter also comprised the Smalenshchyna, the Severshchyna and some other lands.”39
The reasons for claims of Lithuania to the Belarusian lands have been also studied by Licwin-Hudas-Krews, who came to the conclusion that on analogy with some other similar issues, they had been assisted by their “big brother”, i.e. the “maskal” (a Muscovite – IB). “Having
conquered Belarus, the Muscovites realized that it was not in their favor to call Belarusians the “Litsviny (i.e. their second original name, along with the “Kryvichy” one) as it would always remind our people about the times when our ancestors happened to constantly fight against Moscow. Therefore, the Muscovites applied the term of “Belarusians” to our people while the name of “Litsviny” was attributed to the Lithuanians; at the same time the propaganda publications tried to propagate the idea that the Grand Duchy of Litwa was the Lithuanian state, i.e. it was a foreign country that did not have any close ties with Moscow. At a definite stage the Lithuanian revival movement utilized that concept, although, originally that movement was called the “zhamoitski” one.”40
Licwin-Hudas-Krews refers to earlier works of the researchers and quotes the conclusion made by Brukner, the Polish professor, when he was reviewing the Polish translation of the Belarusian manuscript, made in Zamos’tse, i.e. “I keep referring to the word “Lithuanian”, but in reality it means “Belarusian” as in the 16th century no one could have even dreamed about Lithuania in its modern meaning”. The regular Muscovites as well as the Ukrainians would traditionally call Belarusians the “Litsviny”. The dictionary by Dal’ contains a very demonstrative example: “Let a Litsvin say whatever he wants to, but he will still pronounce it with palatalized “dz’. Only the dead Litsvin won’t do it.”
The Belarusian language was also the state language of the Grand Duchy of Litwa. The Code of Laws of the Grand Duchy of Litwa and the Charter had not only been written in Belarusian but also contained the laws that originated from the Belarusian lands, e.g. common law on the … courts. The Charter contained some laws that had been previously adopted in certain Belarusian lands (i.e. Polatsk, Vitsebsk, Smalensk) and were the parts of their constitutions, e.g. the clause about personal immunity. Earlier they happened to be the part of the Privileges of Grand Duke Kazimer (1547) and from that document they were transferred to the Charter of Grand Duchy of Litwa.
Because of the dominance of the Belarusian language within the frame of the Grand Duchy of Litwa, the Zhamoitskaya and the Aukshtotskaya gentry considered their mother tongue (dialects of Lithuanian – IB) to be too “simple” and applied Belarusian (which was recognized to be the one of a “higher” standard) in writing their chronicles. This is known to be the routine choice which is usually made by the nationally-assimilated peoples.
Licwin-Hudas-Krews points out that one should not speak about the right of the Lithuanians for Mensk or Berastse only because the towns were formerly called Mensk Litouski and Berasts Litouski. The presence of the toponyms of the Baltic origin within the territory of Belarus also does not speak in favor of their Lithuanian nature as such place names are known to be the normal thing for the Baltic-Slavic people which Belarusians are.
Discussing the issue of modern history, Chuly Naziralnik points out that in 1920s there had been no border between the Belarusian and Lithuanian people at all. “There had been only the agreement of 1920 between the Lithuanians and the Russian communists on the borderline. That agreement had never been brought into life; in the fall of 1939 it had been terminated because of the annexation of Vilna to the soviet Byelorussia. The same fall, only a bit later, there had been another soviet-Lithuanian agreement signed, according to which Lithuania acquired a piece of land up to Medniki, i.e. one hundred kilometers smaller that the previous one. However, Moscow ceded that territory to Lithuania not because of some objective reasons; on the contrary, Molotov had stated that Moscow gave those Belarusian territories away not because of Vilna being the Lithuanian city, but for the sake of Lithuanian “aspiration”. Molotov failed to add that Moscow was meeting “aspiration” of Lithuania, giving up neither Lithuanian nor Russian city of Vilna; Moscow wanted to satisfy its own “aspiration” for the future of Lithuania. Actually, that happened on June 15, 1940.”41 The “Batskaushchyna”, polemizing with the “Teviskas
Ziburiai”42 Lithuanian newspaper, published in Canada, points out that Belarusians would never recognize the Lithuanian-Belarusian border of 1920 in compliance with the agreement, signed in
Moscow by the soviet republics. It should be clear to Lithuanians that the Belarusian people will
never recognize any agreements, signed by the soviet government and its partners, which aimed
to eliminate the will of the Belarusian people to independent life within its ethnographic borders,
approved on March 25, 1918. It had been specified in the Charter of the Council of the Belarusian People’s Republic, that the Council recognized all the agreements, signed by tsarist Russia as well as the one that would be signed by Red Moscow without any consent of the Belarusian people, to be invalid.
Ryhor Maksimovich, summing up his reasoning on ethnographic borders of Belarus, concluded with the quotation of words of Piatro Biassonau (said in 1871): This is the way how Belarus embraced, connected and united, marked and isolated its land, the whole vast Krai, stretching from the Dzvina down to the Nioman as well as between the two rivers, from the Polish borders to the ones of Pskou, Nouharad and Smalensk where it cut right into the Vialikaya Rus’ close to Mazhaisk, in the south – even further down the rivers, especially the Dniapro, across Valyn’ and the Charnihaushchyna, joining in the gradual tints with the Malaya Rus’.”43
In conclusion it is worth paying closer attention to the ethnographic borders of Belarus, specified by Yan Stankevich in his publication Etnohrafichniya I histraychnyia terytoryi I hranitsy Belarusi (Ethnographic and historical territories and borders of Belarus)44. Thus, according to his words, starting with the Pskouskaye Lake to the north of Piachora, the border with Estonia runs approximately along the state border in such a way that the cities of Piachora and Izbarsk remain on the Belarusian side. Reaching Latvia, the border stretches down to the Korsuka railroad station (which is located in the Liutsynski pavet of the Vitsebskaya region). From this point the border goes down to the south-east, being only ten kilometers away from the Sebeski pavet (district). Having reached the Siniuha River, the border turns sharply to the west and, later on, from the Cherza Lake to the north-west. In the form of arch it approaches the Rezhytski pavet and from there, its broken line goes to the south-east of the borders of the Liutsynski, Sebeski and the Drysenski districts. Then, the border runs to the south-west approximately along the line, separating the Liutsynski and Rezhytski districts from the Dzvinski and the Drysenski ones in the direction of the Dzvina, i.e. more than 6 kilometers west of Prydruisk. Further on, the Belarusian border continues to run initially to the west of Dzvinsk and then to the north-west of Ilukst. The area east of Ilukst has been inhabited by the Belarusians.45
From Ilukst the border stretches to the east in the direction of the Kovenskaya province and west of the Drysviaty Lake, having enveloped some territory of the Novaaliaksandrauski district. From the Drysviaty Lake the border runs to the east of the Vilenskaya province and the Dzisna river. Having crossed the Dzisna river, it continues across the area of the Sviantsianski district in a bit curved way to the east and to the west, crosses the Zhamaitsianka river and the curved borderline goes across the Vilenski district west of Kernava. At this point it switches to the opposite bank of the Villia River and its curved line goes to the south, adding Yeuye and Troki to the Belarusian lands, i.e. to the Lidski and Ashmianski districts. The Lithuanian territory covers the Dzevianishki volost and part of the Sedlisk volost. The, the borderlinegoes along the northern part of the Lidski district, i.e. from Heraniony to south-west of the Bastuny train station, attached to the Palesskaya railroad system, and then as far as Zabalats’. From this point the border goes to the north of Eishyshki, then to the south-west of the Dub Lake. From the Dub lake the Belarusian ethnographic border reaches the borders of the Haradzenskaya province and flowing of the Ratnichanka River into the Nioman in the area of Druskeniki.
From Druskeniki the Belarusian language travels down to the Suvalskaya province, occupying south-eastern part of the Seinenski district and, partially, the Auhustouski district as well. Within the area of the Suvalskaya province the borderline goes from the Nioman river to the Auhustouski channel and then along the Netsa River down to the border with the Horadzenskaya province. The Polish dialectologist Kazimerz Nitsch in his book Dialekty jezyka polskiego (Dialects of the Polish language) also supports the idea, that the territory, within which Polish is currently spoken, had once belonged to the Belarusian ethnographic expanse.46
From that point on the Belarusian ethnographic border directs to the south and west of Suhavolia and Karytsina and reaches Knyshin and Haroshcha (which is 14 km west of Belastok), then towards Surazh down to the Narau river and Mizhrechcha of the Bela-Padliaski district. Beginning with Mizhrechcha the Belarusian ethnographic expanse borders on the Ukrainian one. The border stretches in the south-eastern direction and reaches Liubiazh and remains some 10-15 kilometers away from the towns of Bela-Padliask and Berastse; from Liubiazh it goes down to Dubravitsy and then to the north of Aleusk; from that point the border goes in the south-eastern direction of Patapavichy of the Aurutski district and continues down to point where the Tsetserava River flows into the Dniapro. The above is the description of the Belarusian ethnographic border, specified by Yan Stankevich, who, in his turn, borrowed it from the publication Zagadnienie jezykowe Polesia by Leszek Assowski.47
From the point where the Tsetsiarava River flows into the Dniapro, the border continues up to the town of Os’tser, located on the Dzisna River, and then reaches the point where it flows into the Seima River; from that point the border goes direct to the east, deviating a bit to the south of Hluhava. From here the border runs to the south and adds to the Belarusian ethnographic expanse the north-eastern part of the Putsivel district of the former Kurskaya province together with the town of Putsiul’. Here, in the west, the Belarusian-Ukrainian border goes along the border between the formed Hluhauski district and the Putsivelski one; in the south the border with the territory, within which they speak Ukrainian, is formed by the Seim River while in the east the eastern border of the Putsivelski district separates the Belarusian terrains from the Russian-speaking ones.
From that point the border with the area, where they speak Russian, goes up to the north and is located 25 kilometers away from Dzmitrausk (the former Kurskaya province) and a bit to the east of Dzmitrausk and Karacheva of the former Arlouskaya province. Then, the borderline turns to the east of Bolkhava and Beleva, then stretches along the Oka River down to the point where the Vuhra River flows into it; it continues in the direction of Medyn’ and the settlement of Matayeva, which is a bit east of Gzhatsk; from there the border keeps going along the east bank of the Gzhats River; some 10-14 kilometers away from the border between the former Tverskaya province and the Smalenskaya one.
The Belarusian ethnographic expanse, encircled by the east border, comprises almost all of the territories of the Smalenshchyna, most of the Kaluzhskaya province as well as the major parts of the Arlouskaya and Kurskaya provinces. That border had been determined by the Moscow Dialectological Committee and was specified in the book by N. N. Durnavo, N. N. Sokolov, D.
N. Ushakov named Opyt dialektologicheskoy karty russkogo yazyka v Yevrope (Attempt to
Create Dialectological Map of Spread of the Russian Language in Europe).48 Yan Stankevich also refers to works by Dal’ who registered the presence of palatalized “dz’” and “ts’” in accents of the inhabitants of the Smalenskaya province. Studying the language spoken in the Kaluzhchyna, Arloushchyna and the Kurshchyna, the Belarusian emigrant researcher quoted not only works by Dal and Karski; he also referred to the works by S. Maksimau who in 1876 in his publication Drevniaya I Novaya Rissiya (Ancient and New Russia)49 mentioned about the existence of palatalized “dz’” in speech of the inhabitants of the Kaluska-Arlouskaye Palessie.
From the border between the Smalenskaya and the Tverskaya provinces the Belarusian-Russian borderline goes along the left bank of the Volga, approximately 40 kilometers away from the latter and the same distance to the town of Dziamiansk, having left the chain of lakes together with the Selihersk Lake on the Belarusian side. Speech of the people, residing in that area, had been studied by V. Popov and I. Galanov. They registered the presence of transition of ë into ¢, fricative ã, the interrogative particle ö³ and other features of the Belarusian language.
From Dziamiansk the border turns to the west, and, having reached Porkhava, it rather rapidly turns to the north-west in the direction of the Pskouskaye Lake right in the point where the Chornaya River flows into it. The old accents of the Pskoushchyna had been studied mainly by N. Karynski and A. Shakhmatov. According to Karynski, the Pskov language of the 15th century possessed all the most important phonetic, and partially the morphologic features of the Belarusian one. Professor Piotar Buzuk studied that language in 1930s and concluded in his Da haraktarystyki paunochna-belaruskih dyyalektau – Hutarki Nevelskaha I Vialiskaha pavetau (On characteristic features of northern Belarusian dialects – Accents of the Nevelski and Vialiski districts) that the presence of such peculiarities as “tsokannie” (i.e. failure to see the difference in pronunciation of ÷ and ö and pronunciation of these two consonants as universal ö, e.g. petska), transition from ÿöü into å and the existence of the ãë êë-group (e.g. myhla, pamiaklo) instead of the common Belarusian äë , òë enable us to attribute the Pskov accents to the northern group of the Belarusian accents.
M. Ahniavida specifies approximate figures of the total area of nowadays Belarus, the Belarusian People’s Republic and the ethnographic Belarus which are as follows:
The BSSR comprised - 208 000 square kilometers
The BNR - 320 000 square kilometers
Ethnographic Belarus - 480 000 square kilometers.50
Translated by Ivan Burlyka
1 M. Ahniavid Etnahrafichny prastor Belarusi (Ethnographic expanse of Belarus, in: “Batskaushchyna”, # 23 (409), Munchen, June 22, 1958, p. 2-3
2 Same, p. 2.
3 Same, p. 2-3.
4 Same, p. 3.
5 They are, by the way, R. I. Avanesov (Ocherki russkoi dialektologii (Outline of Russian Dialectology), part.1, Moscow, 1949), P. S. Kuznetsov (Russkaya dialektologiya (Russian Dialectology), Moscow, 1954), P. Ya. Chernykh (Istoricheskaya grammatika russkogo yazika (Historical Grammar of the Russian Language), Moscow, 1954), V. Kurashkevich (Zarys dialektologii wschodnio-slowianskiej, Warszawa, 1964), T. Ler-Splawinski, V. Kurashkevich, F, Slauski (Przegland I charakterystyka jezykow slowianskich, Warszawa, 1954): in: M. Ahniavida, Etnahrafichny prastor Belarusi (Ethnographic expanse of Belarus), in: “Batskaushchyna”, # 24-25 (410-411), Munchen, June 29, 1958, p. 6-7.
6 A. F. Ryttikh, Etnographicheskaya karta evropeiskoi Rossii (Ethnographic map of the European part of Russia), St.-Petersburg 1875.
7 Ye.F.Karskiy, Belorusy (Byelorussians), t. 1, Warsaw 1903.
8 Ye.F.Karskiy Etnograficheskaya karta belorusskogo plemeni. Trudy Komissii po izucheniyu plemennogo sostava naseleniya Rossii (Ethnographic map of the Belarusian nation. Works of the Committee for studies of national composition of the population of Russia), Petrograd 1917. The map was published again in 1918, 1920, 1921.
9 N. N. Durnovo, N. N. Sokolov, D. N. Ushakov, Opyt dialektologicheskoy karty russkogo yazyka v Yevrope, s prilozheniyem ocherka russkoy dialektologii. Trudy Moskovskoy dialektologicheskoy komissii (Attempt to Create Dialectological Map of Spread of the Russian Language in Europe with Enclosed Essay on Russian Dialectology. Works of the Moscow dialectological Committee), ch. V, Moscow 1915.
10 R.I.Avanesov, Ocherki russkoy dialektologii (Outline of Russian Dialectology), ch. I, Moscow 1949.
11 P. Ya. Chernykh, Istoricheskaya grammatika russkogo yazyka (Histroical Grammar of Russian), Moscow 1954.
12 P. S. Kuznetsov, Russkaya dialektologiya (Russian Dialectology), Moscow 1954, 1960.
13 Iz istorii ustanovleniya sovetskoy vlasti v Belorussii I obrazovanii BSSR. Dokumenty I materially po istorii Belorussii (On history of establishment of the soviet power in Byelorussia and formation of the BSSR. Documents and materials on history of Byelorussia), t. IV, Minsk 1954, s. 446-447.
14 Andrei Bahrovich, Zhyharstva Belaruskaye SSR u sviatle perapisu 1959 hodu (Population of the Byelorussian SSR in light of the 1959 census of the population), in: “Zapisy”, kn. 1, Munchen 1962, s. 75-76.
15 Same, p. 76.
16 R. Maksimovich (pseudonym of Vitaut Tumash), Da spravy belaruskai paudzionnai etnohrafichnai miazhy (On the issue of the Belarusian southern ethnographic border), in: “Zapisy”, # 1(5), New York 1954, p. 18-24.
17 N. N. Durnovo, N. N. Sokolov, D. N. Ushakov, Opyt dialektologicheskoy karty russkogo yazyka v Yevrope, s prilozheniyem ocherka russkoy dialektologii. Trudy Moskovskoy dialektologicheskoy komissii (Attempt to Create Dialectological Map of Spread of the Russian Language in Europe with Enclosed Essay on Russian Dialectology. Works of the Moscow dialectological Committee), ch. V, Moscow 1915.
18 R. Maksimovich (pseudonym of Vitaut Tumash), Da spravy belaruskai paudzionnai etnohrafichnai miazhy (On the issue of the Belarusian southern ethnographic border), in: “Zapisy”, # 1(5), New York 1954, p. 18.
19 K. Moszynski, Atlas kultury ludowej w Polsce.
20 R. Maksimovich (pseudonym of Vitaut Tumash), Da spravy belaruskai paudzionnai etnohrafichnai miazhy (On the issue of the Belarusian southern ethnographic border), in: “Zapisy”, # 1(5), New York 1954, p. 20.
21 Same, p. 22.
22 Same, p. 23.
23 Inzh. I. Kasiak, Ukrainskiya pretensy da Belarusi (Ukrainian claims to Belarus), in: “Belaruskaya Dumka”, # 34, New York-South River 1989, p. 32-37.
24 Same, p. 32.
25 Ukraine – A Concise Encyclopedia, prepared by Schevchenko Scientific Society, University of Toronto Press, Volume 2, 1971.
26 Inzh. I. Kasiak, Ukrainskiya pretensy da Belarusi (Ukrainian claims to Belarus), in: “Belaruskaya Dumka”, # 34, New York-South River 1989, p. 33.
27 Same, p. 32.
28 In the publication named The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, published in Minsk in 1927 it had been specified that in 1897 the citizens of the Homel’ pavet (province) comprised 74.1% of Belarusians, 14.4% of Jews, 10.2% of Russians and Ukrainians and 1% of Poles. In 1917 the rural population comprised 94.6% of Belarusians, 1% of Jews, 1.2% of Russians and Ukrainians as well as 1.8% of Poles. In 1923 the urban population comprised 44.6% of Belarusians, 42.1% of Jews, 10.3% of Russians and Ukrainians and 1.8% of Poles. The Berasteishchyna was the part of Poland at that time. According to the Glowny Urzad Statsystyczny Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (see publication Drugi powszechny spis ludnosci z dn. 9.XII.1931 r., wojewodztwo poleskie (Warszawa 1938)) with the help of their mother tongue 164 106 of the citizens could speak Polish; as the mother tongue 54 047 recognized the Ukrainian language, 75 338 –Belarusian, 16 198 - Russian, 707 088 – the “local” one, 96 514 – Jewish and 16 452 – Yiddish. The author of the article, published in the “Belaruskaya Dumka”, is of the opinion that the “locals” were the Belarusians, and, therefore, the total number of Belarusians should comprise 782 426 people. Based on the above said, percentage of the Ukrainian population vs. the Belarusian one comprised 8% in the Homelskaya province and 6.9% in the Berastseiskaya one. Eng. I. Kasiak also refers to the censuses of the population, conducted in later times, e.g. in publication, named Itogi vsesoyuznoi perepisi naseleniya 1959 goda. Belorusskaya SSR (Results of the 1959 Census of Population. The Byelorussian SSR) (Moscow 1963), it has been specified that in the Homelskaya region there lived total 1 361 841 people and they comprised 1 181 096 Belarusians, 89 720 Russians, 45 007 Jews, 33 317 Ukrainians and 7 172 Poles. In the Berasteiskaya region there lived total 1 190 729 people and they comprised 1 024 618 Belarusians, 87 920 Russians, 42 085 Poles, 25 649 Ukrainians, 6 012 Jews and 707 Tatars. According to that census of population the percentage of the Ukrainian population comprised 2.5% and 2.82% in the Berastseiskaya and the Homelskaya regions, accordingly. Similar figures could be found in publication Itogi perepisi naseleniya 1970 goda (Results of the 1970 Census of the Population) volume IV, Moscow 1973). Total population of the Homelshchyna comprised 1 533 304 people which consisted of 1 294 046 Belarusians, of 137 410 Russians, of 46 483 Ukrainians, of 43 312 Jews and of 4 841 Poles. The population of the Berastseishchyna equaled 1 294 550 people and comprised 1 114 706 Belarusians, 106 047 Russians, 32 491 Poles, 31 626 Ukrainians, 50 15 Jews and 847 Tatars. According to that census of population the percentage of the Ukrainian population comprised 2.84% and 3.59% in the Berastseiskaya and the Homelskaya regions, accordingly.
29 Andrei Bahrovich, Zhyharstva Belaruskaye SSR u sviatle perapisu 1959 hodu (Population of the Byelorussian SSR inlight of the 1959 census of the population), in: “Zapisy”, kn. 1, Munchen 1962, s. 9-88.
30 Same
31 Viktar Sian’kevich, Da pytannia polskaye mianshyni na Belarusi (On the issue of Polish minority in Belarus), in: “Zapisy”, # 14, New York 1976, p. 76-84.
32 Same, p. 77; also: M. V. Vitov, K. Yu. Mark, N. N. Cheboksarov, Etnicheskaya antropologiya Vostochnoy Pribaltiki. Trudy Pribaltiyskoi Obyedinionnoi kompleksnoy ekspeditsii (Ethnic anthropology of Western part of Baltic States. Works of the Baltic United Complex Committee), kn. 2, Moscow 1959, s. 10
33 Same, p.78; also: E. R. Sabalenka, Suchasnaya etnichnaya situatsiya u Belarusi (Modern Ethnic Situation in Belarus), in: Vestsi AN BSSR. Seriya hramadskih navuk, # 3, Minsk 1976, s. 107.
34 A. Bahrovich, Fakty I prauda (Facts and the Truth), in: “Zapisy”, kn. 4, Munchen 1966, s. 252-256.
35 Musu Lietuva. Krasto vietoviu istoriniai, geografiniai, etnografiniai bruozai. I tomas. Paruose Broniu Kviklys. Lietuviu Enciklopedijos Leidikla. Boston 1964, 752 s.
36 A. Bahrovich, Fakty I prauda (Facts and the Truth), in: “Zapisy”, kn. 4, Munchen 1966, s. 252.
37 Same, p. 253.
38 Viktar Siankevich, Da pytannia polskaye menshyni na Belarusi (On the issue of the Polish minority in Belarus), in: “Zapisy”, # 14, New York 1976, p. 79.
39 Chuly Naziralnik, Pra letuviskiya vodhuki (On the Lithuanian Echo), in: “Batskaushchyna”, February 23, 1949, p. 2.
40 Licwin-Hudas-Krews, My I nashy susedzi (We are our neighbors), in: “Batskaushchyna”, # 50, p. 3.
41 Chuly Naziralnik, Pra letuviskiya vodhuki (On the Lithuanian Echo), in: “Batskaushchyna”, February 23, 1949, p. 2.
42 # 117, 30.03.1952.
43 R. Maksimovich, da spravy belaruskai paudzionnai etnohrafichnai miazhy (On the issue of the Belarusian southern ethnographic border), in: “Zapisy”, # 1 (5), New York 1954, p. 24.
44 Ya. Stankevich Etnohrafichniya I histraychnyia terytoryi I hranitsy Belarusi (Ethnographic and historical territories and borders of Belarus), in: “Veda”, ## 9-10 (14-15), September-October 1952, p. 257-279.
45 Ya. Stankevich refers to the publication of Karski, i.e. Etnograficheskaya karta belorusskogo plemeni (Ethnographic map of the Belarusian race), published in 1918 in Petrograd.
46 Kazimierz Nitsch, Dialekty jezyka polskiego (Dialects of Polish), in: Encyklopedia polska, t.II – dzial III. (cz.II), 1915, s. 253-254).
47 Leszek Ossowski, Zagadnienie jezykowe Polesia, Warsaw 1936.
48 N. N. Durnovo, N. N. Sokolov, D. N. Ushakov, Opyt dialektologicheskoy karty russkogo yazyka v Yevrope, s prilozheniyem ocherka russkoy dialektologii. Trudy Moskovskoy dialektologicheskoy komissii (Attempt to Create Dialectological Map of Spread of the Russian Language in Europe with Enclosed Essay on Russian Dialectology.Works of the Moscow dialectological Committee), ch. V, Moscow 1915.
49 S. Maksimov, Drevniaya I novaya Rossiya (Ancient and New Russia), 1876, # 8, s. 299-300, 306.
50 M. Ahniavida, Etnahrafichny prastor Belarusi (Ethnographic expanse of Belarus), in: “Batskaushchyna”, # 26 (412), Munchen, July 13, 1958. p. 3.
Ïóáë³êóåööà íà ñàéöå ç ëàñêàâàé
çãîäû Àá'ÿäíàíüíÿ Villa
Sokrates
|
Ïîëüñê³ à¢êöû¸í
