An important idea in contemporary linguistics is the notion of a former parent or proto-language common to all Indo-European peoples.

This theory is based on the fact that words describing certain plants and animals display unmistakable similarities in all of the Indo-European languages. These commonalities exist despite modern speakers of these languages being separated by such great distances that the borrowing of vocabulary items seems improbable.

Since the sharing of a common language implies a territorial unity on the part of the language's speakers, the problem facing researchers is that of defining the indigenous "homeland" of the Indo-Europeans (HIE).

Currently archeologists from around the world are attempting to identify a part of the earth's surface which they can confidently call the original home of the "Indo-Europeans."

The issue here is rather a delicate one. It can easily move beyond the confines of science into the political arena, raising questions such as which race takes precedence in terms of age, importance, intelligence and so on.

The logical endpoint in this line of enquiry frames the issue in terms of which race the rest of humanity is indebted to for the gifts of culture and civilization.

In light of the circumstances outlined above, it can be seen that the search for the Indo-European homeland (HIE) is far from over. Moreover, the problem has been under investigation since the early nineteenth century.

For a history of this two-hundred year quest, we turn to V. A. Safronov's monograph on HIE [18].

According to Safronov, the Indo-European language family is the most significant among the "over two and half thousand languages of the world." [15]. Speakers of these languages comprise the majority of the populations of Europe, Australia, and North America, as well as a significant portion of the population of Asia (India). The greater part of the populations of Russia and the states of the CIS are also speakers of Indo-European languages.

The modern classification of Indo-European language family has it divided into the 10 groups outlined below:

1. Indic or Indo-Aryan (incl. Hindi and Urdu)

2. Iranian (incl. Persian (Farsi), Afghani, Tadzhik, Ossetic)

3. Slavic (divided into the Eastern subgroup, incl. Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian; the Western subgroup, incl. Polish, Czech; and the Southern subgroup, incl. Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian)

4. Baltic (incl. Lithuanian and Latvian)

5. Germanic (divided into 2 subgroups including the Northern subgroup of Norwegian, Swedish and others)

6. Romance/Italic (incl. French, Spanish, Italian)

7. Celtic (including Breton and Welsh)

8. Albanian

9. Armenian

10. (Modern) Greek [9].

Worthy of note is that among the ancient Indo-European tongues, the Scythian languages of the Iranian branch were used by a number of ancient peoples including the Scythians, Sarmatians, Sacians, Massagetians, and Alanians. Ossetic is the only extant language of that ancient group, but has undergone significant change due to the influence of the peoples of the Caucasus.

Among other extinct ancient languages of Europe are the following: Gaulish, belonging to the Celtic group of languages; Old German (including Gothic); Old Italian (Umbric, Occitan, Latin); Frakian, Ancient Greek and so on. Extinct languages of Asia Minor belonging to the Indo-European family include Hittite, Palaic, Lycian, Lydian, and Phrygian. Old Persian (Middle East) and Sanskrit (India) relate to the Indo-Iranian group. The now extinct Tocharian makes up a group of its own, the first evidence of its existence dating from the latter half of the first millenium A.D. These documents were discovered in Chinese Turkistan towards the end of the 19th century. The ancient languages of Europe, Asia Minor, Central Asia and India have been known of since the Bronze Age, i.e. between the third and second centuries B.C. The Greeks were using their own writing system as far back as 1600 B.C. The Aryan Empire in the state of Mitanni is preserved in written documents from the Orient and Egypt. The Rigveda, an ancient literary canon of the Aryan tribes dates from the period between 1500 and 2000 B.C. The first written evidence of the Hittite civilization is preserved in business documents belonging to merchants by the name of Kanish. These "Cappadocian tablets" date from between 300 and 200 B.C.

The ancestral ties that are evident between modern and ancient languages, separated by thousands of years and thousands of kilometers can only be accounted for by the existence of a common proto-language. This language would have been originally spoken by an ethnically uniform population occupying an unsubstantial and compact territory - the Indo-European homeland. How else can we explain the likenesses apparent in vocabulary across the Indo-European lexicon, when speakers of these languages have been divided by such enormous distances and had little or no contact with each other? Selected instances of lexical correspondences are listed below:

Anatomy:

Nose - Sanskrit, nasa; Persian, naham; Avestan, nah-; Latin, nas(s)us; Lithuanian, nosis.

Tooth - Sanskrit (accusative case), dantarn; Avestan, dantan; Latin, dens, (genitive form) dentis; Lithuanian, dantis.

Familial relationships:

Father - Sanskrit, pitar; Avestan, pater; Latin, pater; Old German, fater; German, vater.

Mother - Tocharian, macar; Sanskrit, matar-; Avestan, matar-; Latin, mater; Irish Gaelic, mathir; Latvian, mate; Old Church Slavonic, mati.

Son - Sanskrit, sunu; Gothic, sunu; Lithuanian, sunus; Old Church Slavonic, syn.

Daughter - Sanskrit, duhitar; Old English, dohtor.

Animals: e.g. cow, goat, sheep, wild boar, wolf, beaver, grouse.

Flora: e.g. oak, beech, birch, hornbeam, willow.

Food products: e.g. butter, meat, cream, honey, salt.

Colors:

e.g. Red - Sanskrit, rudhira; Tokharian, ratre; Latin, ruber (raudas), Lithuanian, raudas; Old Russian, rud'.

Numbers Up to Ten:

e.g. Two - Sanskrit, dvau; Irish Gaelic, dau; Latin, duo; Old Church Slavonic, dva.

This is a small sample of the many astounding lexical correspondences unifying the Indo-European languages. Scholars such as Bayer and Lomonosov [3] were already drawing attention to this linguistic affinity in the mid 18th century, and it was at this time (1767) that Coeurdoul first indicated the relationship between Sanskrit and European languages [13].

This was followed in 1806 by Friedrich Schlegel's explicit formulation of a common geographical origin (in this case India) of the Indo-European languages [8].

From this point on, the issue of locating HIE has occupied the minds of scholars from a broad range of countries and fields of study.

The work of Franz Bopp [23] did much to pave the way for comparative studies of the grammatical systems of the Indo-European languages.

Many of Bopp's key ideas are contained within a multi-volume work published between 1832-1852 under the title "A Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Gothic and German." He later classified these languages as a family with the subsequent addition of almost all the languages in the current IE family tree. Half a century later, Bopp's research was taken further by August Schleicher, whose particular focus was on reconstructing the various sounds of Indo-Germanic (IE) speech. Schleicher's resulting outline of the development of the IE languages from a proto-language (a kind of family tree) as well as his classification of subgroups was relatively close to the modern-day system.

Schleicher deemed Sanskrit to be the oldest IE language, suggesting that only this tongue had preserved the [a] sound from the days of the proto-language. Schleicher believed that the subsequent [e, o, a] sounds came from this one element.

Based on this, Schleicher proposed India as the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (HIE) [36]. The very next generation of linguists however, refuted Schleicher's theory by presenting scientific proof that the [e, o, a] sounds had in fact existed in the original IE mother tongue. Citing the immutability of the laws of sounds, the "Neogrammarians" attributed the presence of [a] in Sanskrit to the specific and independent development of the Indo-Iranian languages (Shpekht, 1956: 23). As a consequence of this, linguistic theories placing HIE in India fell away. The theory was dealt a further blow when historians presented evidence to the effect that India had been settled by Dravidian tribes before the Indo-Europeans. The considerable antiquity of the Lithuanian language in comparison to Sanskrit (with written records dating from 1000 B.C.) made Europe an equally appropriate locality as homeland of the Indo-Europeans. While the debate over which continent was home to the original speakers of Indo-European was far from over, 20th century knowledge in comparative linguistics began to provide much evidence for the hypothesis that placed HIE in Europe. The main line of argument for supporters of the Asian origin theory remained their staunch belief in contacts between the original IE speakers and speakers of the Semitic and Caucasian languages.

This idea is supported by evidence of mutual linguistic borrowings, phenomena they claim could only have taken place in Asia, where the speakers of these languages dwelled.

The strength of the argument for a European origin of IE lay in the correspondence of names of trees, plants and animals in the proto-language with flora and fauna which characterized Europe and the temperate zone of Eurasia.

Below are the seven areas identified by researchers as possible regions for the Asian HIE.

1. India. Put forward as HIE by Schlegel [35], based on linguistic data affirming the ancient nature of Sanskrit. It was the Neogrammarians who proved this position wrong. Consequently, and in light of proof that Dravidian tribes had settled India before the arrival of the Aryans, the Indian homeland hypothesis lost all credo.

2. The slopes of the Himalayas were considered as a possible HIE based on the antiquity of the Vedic language. The absence of any mention of a "distant" homeland in the sacred Rigveda text also bolsters this argument, as does the comparison of flora and fauna in HIE and Himalayan plants and animals [21]. The study, however, of Lithuanian, a language younger by 3000 years, unearthed the fact that the archaic character of the Vedic language is not exceptional. With the discovery of the even older Hittite language, the Vedic tongue lost its prominent position. A good variety of flora (aspen, yew, beech) and fauna (beaver, grouse) are not found in the Himalayas and surrounding areas, making their claim on the title of HIE unacceptable [31].

3. Sogdiana and the Jaxartes and Oxus basins of Central Asia take their place in attempts to localize HIE based on some dubious data from geographical history [31, 21-66; 21, 24-26,143],. The area was imagined to have neighbored the ancient homeland of the Semites [21, 60-62]to have been directly connected with the Indo-European homeland through the shoaling of the sea (Kiri, 1921), and also to have introduced the IE people to the domesticated horse in certain areas. The location of HIE in this area must be ruled out due to the absence of fundamental elements of HIE flora (aspen, birch, yew, beech, heather) and fauna (beaver, grouse). The domestication of the horse took place in Europe in the 4th century B.C. Of the Asian territories, only the Elamite region can possibly lay claim to the taming of the horse. These Avestas only belong to the ancestral homeland of the Aryans [32], but not to the general European. However, the “beaver argument”, which is respected in the Aryan ancestral homeland, does not make it possible to play it in this area. The Asiatic steppes were excluded from the zone of search for the ancestral homeland [31, 21-66],, as they were occupied, according to Mallory, but Mongoloid and Turkic-speaking population. At present, this opinion is in drastic contradiction with the anthropological data which establishes a Europeoid population in the steppe (Afanasiev and Andronov cultures).

4. Mesopotamia, proposed by Mommsen as the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans is an homage to pan-Babyloniams, and at present cannot be examined seriously because of the lack of according flora (birch, aspen, yew, witch-elm, beech, heather) and fauna (beaver, quail, raven) [31, 21-66; 21, 22-23].

5. The Middle East and Central Asia were proposed by Pauli [21, 139-140] on the basis that the lev (lion) is a Indo-European word. However, there are no reasons to exclude from the zone of the ancestral homeland the Balkan-Danube region, where the lion still lived in historical times, and neighboring regions which satisfy the linguistic conditions.

6. Territories adjacent with the Hittites were included in the search for the Indo-European homeland by Seis [31, 21-66] on the foundation of common words in Hittite and Indo-European languages. It is now already been proven that Hittite is an Indo-European language, so Seis’ conclusion may b seen as an expression of one unknown through another and as a curiosity.

7. Areas bordering Georgia, Armenia (Armenian highlands) were first included in the zone of the search for the Indo-European homeland in 1882 by Link [31, 21-66], who indicated that the homeland of the Indo-Europeans should be located in a mountainous country, in the zone of domestication of plants and animals. Link believed that the Zend language was the “father of Sanskrit, and that Sanskrit was the origin of all Indo-European languages [21, 7].

The European ancestral homeland for the Indo-Europeans was first proposed by Latham in 1862 [31, 25; 21, 129], expressing a simple idea that was difficult to debate that it was easier to propose the separation of Sanskrit from the main group of Indo-European languages, than to imagine that all languages originated from Sanskrit. He contrasted the archaicness of Sanskrit with the archaicness of Lithuanian, which was recorded in written tradition 3,000 years after Sanskrit. After the discovery of the law of palatalisation, it was proved that Scheicher’s opinion was erroneous about the antiquity of the Indo-Iranian [a] and the development of the vowels [e, a, o[ from it, as all these vowels existed in the proto-language.

Since then different European regions have been proposed as the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans.

1. The territory from Western France to the Urals between the latitudes 60° and 45° was put forward as the Indo-European ancestral homeland by Cunot [21, 136]. Cunot rejected the existence of a single proto-language before the moment of collapse, stating that Indo-Europeans would have had to be numerous (around 1 million people) and have contacts with the Finnic language population. The localization of the ancestral homeland in such wide boundaries was unlikely to satisfy anyone, and the population of 1 million people was taken arbitrarily.

The territory from the Rhein to the Don, which was proposed by Kuhn, although it was smaller than the aforesaid zone of search, could however not be accepted as the ancestral homeland of the Indo Europeans (HIE) because of the enormous expanses. Kuhn’s method is worthy of attention – the consistent exclusion from the zone of search of areas with a non-Indo-European substrate (India, Greece, Italy, France, the British Isles). If Kuhn had just as consistently also excluded territories on which there was no representatives of flora and fauna characteristic for the Indo-European ancestral homeland, then the search zone would have shrunk significantly.

2. The localization of the HIE on the territory of Eastern Europe between the latitudes of 45 and 69 degrees was proposed by Spiegel [21], who first pointed out the necessity of mountainous landscape on the Indo-European ancestral homeland. The mountains were low and had areas necessary for sowing rye and wheat, the names of which are recorded in the Indo-European proto-language. The “argument of the mountainous landscape” makes it possible to exclude the main territories of Eastern Europe apart from the Carpathians and Caucasian foothills, and the area of the Urals; the use by Spiegel [21, 146-148] of the well-known “beech argument” would also make it possible to rule out the Urals area as a search zone. These unused opportunities significantly lowered the value of the work, and did not make it possible to accept the localization proposed by Spiegel.

3. Eastern Europe as the HIE was once more proposed by Scherer [34] in the mid-20^th century. He pointed out that the Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages have roots which perhaps originate from the proto-language era. Thus, the ancestral homeland should border on Finno-Ugric tribes, at least to some extent. The areas that were occupied by the Indo-European ancestral homeland, and after the collapse of the Indo-European community, remained occupied by Indo-Europeans: Germanic tribes, Celts, Italic tribes occupied the north and northwest by the indo-European oecumene; the Balto-Slavs occupied the northeast, and tribes speaking Greek dialects occupied the southeast.

4. The Volga is the eastern border of the HIE based on information from the Rigveda (Rasa), Avesta (Ranha) and Ptolemy (Ra). This proposal is confirmed by the identification of the above names with the Mordovian name for the Volga, Ravo [1], and gives grounds to believe that in the steppe Volga area there were located not speakers of the Indo-European proto-language, but Indo-Iranians who had already separated from the Indo-European core.

5. The culture of burials with okhra – the archeological equivalent for the Pontic ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans – was the conclusion reached by Child [25], who made a bold attempt to re-examine the origin of all European cultures, and go against the Central European localization of the Indo-European ancestral homeland, in favor of the southwest part of the south Russian steppes. The concept of M. Gimbutas [27] on the localization of the Indo-European ancestral homeland fully repeats the concept of Child, to which Gimbutas gave a vectoral direction, throwing away as ballast the 30 years of doubts by Child in the chronological probability of his concept.

Gimbutas believed that the proto-Indo-Europeans were the bearers of the pit culture “who moved to the west and south in the 5th-4th millennia B.C. from the area of the Lower Don and the Lower Volga”. Gimbutas sees the Indo-Europeanization of Europe in the disintegration of the high civilizations of Ancient Europe in the 5th-4th millennia B.C. (Vincha II-III, Lengyel, Tissy-Bkzhka, Cucuteni, Gumelnits) which formed the non-Indo-European substrate in the southeast of Western Europe, and the cultures of funnel-shaped goblets as the non-Indo-European substrate in the North European plain between Denmark and Poland [27, 15]. The gradual infiltration from the mid 4th millennium B.C. to regions of Western Europe ended in 2,500-2,000 B.C. with an invasion, as a result of which the final destruction of the remains of the ancient European civilizations took place, which have only survived in Crete [27, 15 on; 28]. The outward signs of Indo-Europeanization, according to Gimbutas, are the barrows and burial custom in holes, where skeletons are found writhing on their backs. His “composite” barrow culture is characterized by Gimbutas only according to the Sredny Srog culture of the 1^st-2^nd stage, adding to this “jumble” by arbitrarily selected Maikop and Novosvoboda complexes (which have nothing in common with each other, nor with the above-listed steppe cultures), which allow her to make the conclusion that the Indo-Europeans were “talented merchants”. One unproven statement gives rise to another. Dating the pit culture to the 5th-4th millennia B.C. – more than 1,000 years earlier that the existing dates – are not backed up by evidence. The reference to the possibility of a significantly earlier date by a correction on the Suss scale do not save this claim, as the dating by C 14 shows that “monuments of the late hole type of the Dneper and Northern Black Sea area should be dated within the limits of the 2nd half of the 3rd-early 2nd millennium B.C.” [28, 13], and it is not possible to date this earlier, using the adjustment of Suss, than by a maximum of 700 years. Additionally, the need to make adjustments cannot be considered to be proven, and facts of a drastic divergence of historical and measured dates increase doubts in the accuracy of the latter. Archeological data also does not make it possible to accept the chronology of the pit culture proposed by Gimbutas. Child selectively, and to a limited degree, used certain linguistic data: on wheel and sea transport, on the use of copper by the Indo-Europeans [25, 148], but did not mention the landscape and climate, the flora and fauna of the Indo-European ancestral homeland, and it is this data that is in drastic contradiction with its localization in the steppes of Eastern Europe. Gimbutas merely promised to keep to linguistic facts. Thus, the hypothesis of the origin of the Indo-Europeans from the Pontic-Caspian steppes does not fit in with archeological data, and is not backed up chronology. Linguistic facts on landscape, fauna and flora contradict the localization of the Indo-European ancestral homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppes (the arguments of aspen, beech, witch elm, yew, heather, beaver and lion). On the whole these discrepancies decisively prove that it is incorrect to locate the Indo-European community in the steppes of Eastern Europe. The remaining regions of Eastern Europe are even less suitable for this purpose.

6. The localization of HIE in Western Europe (Brinton, 1890), is too vague and cannot satisfy contemporaries. Indeed, already by this time Schrader had argued for the arrival of Indo-Europeans after the collapse of the Indo-European communities on Western European territories, on the basis of historical and linguistic data (the Balkans, the Apenines, the Pyrenees, France).

7. North Europe as the HIE was proposed by Penka [33] (1883-1886), who pointed out that only Scandinavia as the area of uninterrupted development of the anthropological type, and as the historical Scandinavians are Indo-Europeans, the ancient Scandinavians were ancient Indo-Europeans. Additional proof given by Penka is the fact that the Scandinavians and the historical Aryans were blond-haired and blue-eyes. It was also attempted to prove that North Europe was the Indo-European ancestral homeland on the basis of archeological arguments [32] and linguistic data [31]. However, the presence of common European names of trees (yew, witch elm, walnut) that do not grow in North Europe, and southern animals (lion) makes the North European ancestral homeland impossible.

8. North or North-east Europe, which Mann proposed as the possible ancestral homeland of the Indo Europeans, pointing out that the Indo-European ancestral homeland had summer, autumn and winter (on the basis of legends, tales and games among Indo-European peoples) is not suitable for the localization of the Indo-European ancestral homeland on the basis of the same arguments used for North Europe. Additionally, the seasons are well testified almost all over Europe, with the exception of its southernmost regions.

9. Northwest Europe, from the West Baltic to the Oder and to the foothills of the Carpathians (Much, 1902) and Germany (Cossina, 1902), proposed on the basis of data of archeologists, goes back to the hypothesis of Heiger, who in 1871 on the basis of data about plants (the beech, birch, ash and oak arguments), the eel and three seasons arguments, proposed Germany as the HIE. Although the ancestral homeland in this version is more realistic by the size of the territory and certain Indo-European realities, it is not difficult to see a nationalist bias here: without exception, all the arguments have a wider area of distribution in the east and south of Europe. Cossina, a philologist by education, used Heiger’s data on flora and fauna [21], and also, although to а limited degree, linguistic data. However, his main arguments were archeological. He saw the confirmation of the migration of Indo-European tribes in the similarity of a number of cultures of Germany and in more eastern and southern territories. The similarity was established both according to a series of signs, and if these were absent, according to individual features. Individual works by Cossina are precise and well-reasoned, and some of his thoughts were well before his time. For example, the hypothesis of the origin of the Celts and Italic tribes from the Roessen group is still recognized by many scholars [31, 21-66]. However, the biased location of the territory of the Indo-European ancestral homeland, which coincides with the political borders of Germany at the time, did not require a substantial chronological argument, according to Cossina, as all archeological cultures (cultural groups) of Germany, based on his opinions, were more ancient than eastern and southern manisfestation. Cossina reconstructed 14 expeditions of the Indo-Germanic tribes in the period from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Almost all the cultural groups known on the territory of Germany, according to Cossina, found equivalents in the south or to the east, thus confirming the general model of migrations from the north “from the northern ancestral homeland”. He connected the southernmost cultures of the linear pottery group with the Satem group of Indo-European languages, although by that time it had already been proven that the Satem group was the last to separate from the Indo-European group, and the linear pottery culture was always the most ancient of all the cultural groups on the territory of the proposed ancestral homeland. (Cossina’s nationalist bias not only discredited his own works for many years, but an entire fruitful direction in archeology – resolving cultural-ethnic problems through migration, which resulted in a wave of poorly reasoned theories of “autotochthonism”.

10. Northern and Central Europe as the HIE were proposed by Meyer (1948) on the basis of the Indo-European toponymics of this region, and its ecological characteristics (beech, bee, bear, beaver). He considered the archeological equivalent of the culture of proto-Indo-Europeans to be the corded ware culture, and the earlier linear pottery culture, was not linked to it chronologically or genetically. Although many of his arguments (bear, bee, beech) may show a wider territory of the HIE, in combination with the data of toponymics, the localization of the HIE in this region seems to be the closest to the truth. However, the proposed area of the HIE is too wide. It is impossible to localize the HIE according to the above arguments. Additionally, the origin of the corded ware culture on the territory of North Europe is problematic, and ancient versions of the linear pottery culture are closer to the Danube area.

11. The territory to the north of the Balkans, Alps and the Pyrenees was defined by Krahe [30] as the zone of habitation of the ancient European languages, and by these languages it was not any certain languages that were meant which separated from the common Indo-European base language, but only a chronologically intermediary level of evolution of the base language between the time of the common Indo-European state and 1,500 B.C., when the separation of the Indo-European languages was already recorded in written sources. This region was proposed because of the distribution of ancient European hydronymics, which Schmidt later (1975) called common Indo-European, and Gudeno showed that the area of the Indo-European hydronymics coincided with the territory of distribution of the funnel beaker culture. This showed Gudeno the way to revise the concept of Gimbutas.

12. Central Europe, according to Bosh-Gimpera [24], is the territory where in the Neolithic period (presumably in the 5th millennium B.C.) the core of ethnic groups was formed from which in the 3rd millennium B.C. (the time of the beginning of the ancient Indo-European migrations), individual Indo-European peoples emerged, the development of whose culture is determined by the Bronze Age (2nd millennium B.C.) and the Iron Age (1st millennium B.C.) of Europe. The archeological equivalent of the culture of the proto-Indo-Europeans, according to Bosh-Gimpera, is the Danube cultures, which according to common opinion includes the Linear Pottery culture, the Roessen culture, the stroke ornamented ware culture, the corded ware culture, and the Lengyel-Tis culture. Bosh-Gimpera is a follower of the European localization of the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans, based on the existence of an Indo-European cultural tradition from the Neolithic to the Iron Age, when it was also his ask to determine the chain of archeological cultures by which one could follow the genetic succession of the cultural tradition diachronically, at least in some region of Europe. There is no common opinion among archeologists about the Neolithic sources in the 5^th millennium B.C. of any Bronze culture, not to mention cultures of the Iron Age. The connection of the Bronze Age of the Danube area or Central Europe with the Danube Neolithic (especially in its expression through the linear pottery culture) is also hypothetical for the reason that in the Neolithic Era in Central Europe, several lines of development can be seen, which are not connected genetically, the majority of which end their existence in the Neolithic-Eneolithic Age, without giving productive derivatives to the Bronze Age. The concept of Bosh-Gimpera was criticized by Gimbutas, who several years earlier had supported the idea of a proto-Indo-European attribution of the linear pottery culture, and in her new theory proposed that everything that Bosh-Gimpera believed to be Indo-European was non-Indo European. Gimbutas believes that the disintegration of Neolithic cultures in the Danube area by the 3rd millennium B.C., and the according separation of Indo-European languages proposed by Bosh-Gimpera, are the traces of the encroachment of the proto-Indo-Europeans from Eastern Europe, splitting up the non-Indo-European civilizations of Europe.

13. Grassland also criticized the theory of Bosh-Gimpera [29]. He stressed the fact that the linear pottery culture, as well as the Vincha culture, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, and the Starcevo-Koros culture, do not meet the demands for the proto-Indo-European culture, as they do not have consolidated settlements, no dominance of livestock breeding over agriculture, which provided the structure of society and the family and social institutions which are known among the historical Indo-Europeans – the Aryans, Greeks and Hittites. Furthermore, the Grassland also uses the logical argument that if the Indo-Europeans do not come from Anatolia, then their proto-culture in the archeological expression cannot have Anatolian sources, and according to a number of scholars, the ancient Balkan civilization have Anatolian roots. In other words, Grassland’s position is that the Danube Neolithic has a non-Indo-European nature. He believes that the appearance of Indo-European languages in Europe can in this case be explained if one allows a Mesolithic Central European substrate which was an amalgam of Neolithic cultures. Without giving a definite opinion about the localization of the ancestral homeland, Grassland tends to agree that Gimbutas’ hypothesis gives a more flexible explanation at the level of common Indo-European unity of the culture of one part of the Indo-European peoples, more precisely the Indo-Iranians. At the same time, Grassland believes that the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans should be moved further westward than Gimbutas would have it, without specifically naming this region.

14. Regions of Europe bordering Anatolia, the Eastern European steppes and the Finno-Ugric mass, and also regions of Indo-European hydronymics in North and Central Europe are the zone where Gudeno (1971) looks for the Indo-European ancestral home. To find the territory which would satisfy the demands formulated above, Gudeno does not propose a territory, but a model of the ancestral home. According to his model, the Indo European proto-culture, characterized by mixed forms of economy, expanding from the western European steppes to the east because of the growing role of livestock breeding and the extensive use of territory, losing dependence on agriculture and moving to pasturing (an Indo-Iranian state, according to Gudeno), returned to the west, forming a continuity in the form of the funnel beaker culture (the area of the funnel beaker culture coincides with the are of Indo-European hydronymics.

It is interesting that Gudeno’s hypothesis attempts to carry out a comprehensive approach to solving the Indo-European problem, but the model proposed by Gudeno is of a mechanistic nature, as it is not backed up by a reliable archeological analysis on the origin, cultural ties and chronology of cultures of the Neolithic to the early Bronze Age in Europe. Although there are no general studies on the chronology of cultures of the Neolithic to early Bronze Age of Western and Eastern Europe, and studies are of a regional nature, it is still possible to get quite a substantial idea about the pre-history of Europe in the 5th-3rd millennia B.C., based on the complex of regional archeological studies (see below).

15. A comprehensive approach to solving the problem of localizing the HIE was realized in the works of the Soviet scholars Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, who argued for a common Indo-European ancestral home on the territory of the Armenian foothills and surrounding regions, and a secondary ancestral homeland of ancient European Indo-Europeans in the Black Sea-Caspian steppes.

The hypothesis of two ancestral homelands for the Indo-Europeans on the territory of the Armenian foothills and in the steppes of Eastern Europe was formulated by Miller in 1873 on the basis of the closeness of the Indo-European proto-language to the Semito-Hamitic and Caucasian languages [21, 146]. The works of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, published in 1980-1981 developed this idea at a new scientific level. The long years of work by the authors was completed by the publication of an encyclopedic study devoted to the language, culture and ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans [4].

Issues of the chronology and territory of distribution of the common Indo-European proto-language and the territory of distribution of the common Indo-European proto-language are correctly believed by the authors to be the most important in the search for the Indo-European oecumene. At the same time, they say that Indo-Europeans could have changed their ancestral homeland several times in the course of their existence, and that their efforts were directed to finding the oecumene of the Indo-Europeans before the beginning of the collapse of their proto-linguistic community. Thus, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov tried to localize the last common Indo-European territory. They presented serious linguistic evidence in favor of re-dating that late Indo-European ancestral homeland from the 3rd millennium B.C., as it was previously believed to be by the majority of specialists, to the 4^th millennium, and perhaps the 5th millennium B.C., based on the fact that between the appearance of the Hittites in Asia Minor, recorded by Hittite names in the “Cappadocian tablets” (2045-1875 B.C.), and their separation from the Indo-European core, which marked the beginning of its collapse, a common Anatolian (Hittite-Luvian) linguistic community existed for a long time. Re-dating the proto-Indo-European community before its collapse to the 4^th millennium B.C. is closer to the truth, according to Safronov.

Here we will break off the summary of Safronov’s exciting story of the search for the HIE, as the general picture of mutual complaints by various researchers, accusations of fanciful and unfounded conclusions, and ease of chronological manipulations of thousands of years has been shown quite thoroughly.

In light of the aforesaid problems of an unscientific nature, the author of the above-mentioned historical survey (Safronov), is in his turn, indicates not one, which would seem natural, but a total of three ancestral homelands of the Indo-Europeans, dividing them in space and time, which is quite forgivable for a specialist who has wonderfully described the thorny path of the search of many centuries for the HIE by archeologists of the entire Aryan world.

Thus, according to Safronov, the Indo-European ancestral homelands are Chatal-Gyuyuk (Anatolia), Vinci (Serbia) and Lengyel (Poland, Hungary, Austria).

In the end, the ambiguousness of the answer is the sign of its absence, as all these cultures came from elsewhere to the places of localization, and so it is quite natural to ask the question where they came from, especially the first of them chronologically (Chatal Gyuyuyk).

Finding an answer to this quite natural question may well go on for another 200 years.

What is interesting is the following circumstance, which has been demonstrated quite clearly by an experienced archeologist.

Although as early as the 19^th century, English classics of archeologists advised to search for the HIE in the area from the Rhein to the Urals, the Russian plain as a potential confinement of such expansive spaces of search was not indicated by anyone. Accordingly, in 200 years for dogged searches for the sources of the HIE, no one looked for it on the territory of Russia, evidently out of principled considerations and a-priori certainty in the spirit of the heroes of Russian literature of the 19^th century: there is nothing wonderful here and can be nothing wonderful, not even migraines.

The only attempt by the American of Lithuanian origin Maria Gimbutas to get slightly closer to the Russian plain (this lady who is respected in the scholarly world named the northern Black Sea area as the HIE) was rejected by Safronov himself. In the end, the respected archeologist turned to the Vincha civilization as the most ancient in Europe in the times of the HIE (mid 5th millennium B.C.), but gave a great deal of evidence of the cultural tie of the Vincha with the proto-civilization of Chatal-Gyuyuk (7th millennium B.C.). Safronov classifies this civilization as the early ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans.

In the history of the search for the HIE, which is outlined very colorfully by V.A. Safronov, the following circumstance stand out. Various authors proposed and criticized the proposals of other authors, based on the same foundations of linguistic nature, results of archeological studies, plus their own predilections, including of a political nature.

It is interesting that the phenomenon of the Tripolie culture is not examined by the respected archeologist at all. Blatantly ignoring a significant volume of archeological facts relating to the territory of the ancient Slavic land shows very clearly that it is too early to stop searching for the HIE. Especially as new evidence of the cultural presence of people of modern appearance was found recently in the area around Voronezh, near the village of Kostenka. An international group of scholars date these findings as 40,000 years old, which dates the culture of the Indo-Europeans to a much earlier period [26].

It is surprising that such clear distinguishing signs provided by linguistics have not led to a convincing result in 200 years of searching.

Evidently, the reason for this is nationalist basis, which simply excludes from examination any slightly cultural countries, and the deserts which would suit the tastes of competing aspirants to potential cultural superiority among today’s Indo-Europeans cannot be in the area assigned by linguistic “arguments”, as there would be no one to develop these arguments.

The solution may be found in expanding the argument basis.

For example, if it is already widely acknowledged that the HIE existed, and from its area came the practical population of the territories of the planet by people, it can be assumed that this population occurred comfortably within a certain framework of ideas about the comfort of prehistoric people.

In other words, these colonists, descendants from the HIE did not travel any old way through forests, steep slopes and ravines, which is doubtful, but along roads, which is probable

Thus, the HIE must differ from other places with similar flora and fauna, by the presence by a developed system of roads on the planetary scale system, which moreover possesses the property of central symmetry.

Another argument is provided by a young but swiftly developing science – DNA genealogy.

According to contemporary ideas of specialists in the indicated region of human knowledge, which we may become acquainted with in the works of A. Klesov [10], and on a site dedicated to the problems of this science [38], the separation of a hypothetical united proto-humanity that, obviously, populated the original HIE to individual peoples, occurred not in one moment, like the process of peas scattering from a threadbare bag, but over a long historical period.

Furthermore, it is quite possible that which the processes of the settling of Indo-Europeans can be likened to the processes of distributing the harvest, which necessarily precede the biological processes of the gradual and periodic ripening of fruits. It is completely possible that this process of the isolation of peoples from the common biological source is still taking place today. Then it is possible to formulate an additional argument for the search for the HIE as follows.

The HIE at the present moment must not necessarily look like an uninhabited desert with the archaeological treasures in the depths.

It is completely possible that it performs its planetary role of the settling of peoples to this day, and nationalist bias interferes with noticing this.

Let us note that the additional criteria of searching for the HIE implicitly, but completely logically imply that the settling of Indo-Europeans could not occur spontaneously and randomly under the influence of natural factors (the onset and retreat of glaciers, drought and flood). The presence of roads, by which Indo-Europeans moved to contemporary areas of habitation, means that this displacement could have been organized action, controlled by reasonable considerations, achieved according to plans and calculations.

This seems completely substantiated when we take into account the military and religious reality of the recent past of Russia, on the historical scale.

Let us examine taking into account the expressed arguments one additional candidate for the title of HIE - Moscow and its environs. In this case let us consider the road structure of the Moscow area. For this simply let us put on the map of the Moscow area the outline of the standard military cross of the order of Georgy (it is shown in the lower left-hand side of the map) and look at the result.

The geographical location of the rivers Shuya and Desna, which have the same names to the ancient military formation [11] of troops on the left (shuytsa) and right (desnitsa) regiments, gives the scale and direction of the axis “left to right”, and it is already not difficult to determine where the main Tsarist regiment was located.

Based on the characteristic sizes of the territory of modern European states, whose army are just the size of a good Tsarist regiment of the 17^th centuries (30,000 men), it is possible to give each regiment of the ancient troops, “Shuya”, “Desna” (in the region of Bryansk and Yelnya), a comparable territory, around 300 kilometers in their main measurements.

Incidentally, this size is characteristic for contemporary Central Russian provinces.

As we could expect, the central, Tsarist regiment was located in Moscow. The central circle of the line practically coincided with the modern third Moscow ring. The outlines of the blades of the cross of Georgy covered the territories which belonged to the appropriate regiments of the ancient troops.

The Main regiment is stationed in the environs of Ryazan. The back-up regiment is stationed in the environs of Tver. Contemporary highways practically coincide with the outlines of the cross of Georgy.

It is interesting that the flank regiments are outlined by highways, the main regiment lies on three routes, and the back is satisfied by one. Perhaps this corresponds to the aspiration of the troops – only to move forward?

Perhaps this is a coincidence, but in the rear of the troops, Bezhetsk is located. Did they plan to run (bezhat) there if necessary?

Opposite Bezhetsk, before the front of head Ryazn regiment is located Ryahsk, which was in the old days written Rozhesk. Is this the face (ryakha, or rozha) of the troops?

Here are the princes Shuisky from the dingy Shuya, the princes of Smolensk, Tver and Ryazan.

These are not independent descendants from the separated tribes, who for not reason have decided to compete with the Moscow princes for superiority, but the famous leaders of the main subdivisions of united Russian troops – a state that expanded to the south, or more precisely to Astrakhan, not that long ago, only five hundred years ago.

It is clear that such leaders could have confidence in their right to central power, which in the 16^th century led to another Time of Troubles, which ended with the complete disappearance of the representatives of these ancient lines from history. The dominance of the foreign policies of the first Romanov Tsars also becomes clear, their enormous efforts and sacrifices, who spent half a century trying to annex Smolensk. Smolensk for Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich was the missing wing of the ancient Russian troops, not an external outer principality, as it is represented by contemporary historical science.

Thus, the first Romanovs were not predatory aggressors, as it has become fashionable to depict them in numerous contemporary historical works, but the collectors of the ancient state Russian organism, divided into separate principalities as a result of the latest “time of troubles”, a regular phenomenon for our state.

As a result we have obtained something unusual in the historical perspective of the fatherland. Instead of dark barefooted peasants from numerous forgotten tribes running up and down ladders, whom the Varangians and Mongolians, rival princes and other foreign enlighteners fighting each other for centuries to try to organize them, to teach them writing, order and the “correct” Greek faith, we have an army state that is unknown to historians.

This centralized state existed on the territory of Russia in the era of the formation of modern roads, toponyms and hydronyms.

On the contemporary map are shown the outlines of those regiments structured by transport arteries of the army state that existed before the time when historians record individual principalities quarrelling among themselves.

Since this army state is structured in the area in the form of cross, the expression “christened Rus’” acquires a literal geographical sense. Indeed, in modern history the separate subdivisions of these troops are well known, but only as “independent” and quarrelling principalities: Tver, Ryazan, Moscow, Vladimiro-Suzdel, Smolensk. Now it is necessary to consider the geographical factor, which demonstrates the original organic unity of principalities supposedly independent from Moscow in the structure of cross-shaped army state, which has its center in Moscow.

If Moscow even assembled principalities around itself, starting with the era of Ivan Kalita, then this was after the Time of Troubles, which was preceded not by “the beginning of Russian history”, as academician Likhachev [12] thought, for example, but a period of prosperity of a united Russian state on the territory indicated.

Of course, it had its capital in Moscow, with the same religion, ideology and culture. How else could the population of this enormous territory be organized, if we do not allow the presence of any state-forming institutes?

In one work [16], an adequate meaning for the name “Moscow” was established = “holy place for worship of the highest deity”. It will be sensible at this point to continue the analysis of the map of Europe by the path that lies across it strictly to the West from Moscow.

The cartographer A.Yu. Ryabtsev noted, and the mathematician V.P. Zharkov [39] strictly proved, that it was Moscow (in the version by Ryabtsev, Vladimir) which precisely lies on the eastern continuation of the axis (Moscow - Smolensk - Cadiz) and is the point where the leg of a compass can be placed (on a map), for the majority of the European capitals to lie on two circles, with a radius of 1,800 and 2,400 km).

We may imagine that this opinion was the consequence of the psychological pressure of the name of Vladimir – ruler of the world (vladeyushchy mirom).

It is quite possible that the city of Vladimir was named according to the same logic used by the people who named the cities of Baghdad, Bogota or Delhi.

The Kiev prince Vladimir Krasnoe Solnyshko (Red Sun) bore the name of the heavenly body shining in the sky which our ancestors recognized as the creator and ruled of the world, and gave him the correct Russian name: Vladimir Krasnoe Solnyshko.

The world is ruled not by a city, but by its celestial namesake. Thus, the name of the city “Vladimir” does not have advantages over the name “Moscow” in the sense of its choice as the city-building center.

We will now examine the Moscow region for correspondence to linguistic signs of the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans.

As the official site [40] of the National part “Losiny Ostrov” reports, everything is in order. Beavers are multiplying properly, elk are walking between the oaks, birches and pines, the deer are also grazing there, and the crows do not let the little birds alone. There are no lions, that is true, but couldn’t there have been some losses over thousands of years? Especially as on the state symbol of the Vladimir principality, not far from Moscow, the lion is present.

At the same time Moscow is the functioning source supplying Europe with first-class bearers of culture and intellect over the period of the documented centuries. This circumstance makes it necessary to examine the candidature of Moscow for the role of the donor of Europe and in historical times of the building of European capitals.

Let us place the arcs of concentric circles on the map of Europe with the center in Moscow (the map is scanned from the 3^rd edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1972, conic equidistant projection). The result is shown below.

As we can see, increasing the number of arcs of concentric circles and placing their centers in Moscow led to an unexpected results.

Unlike Ryabtsev’s map, the majority of European cities, many of which were capitals in the recent past, precisely lie on the arcs of concentric circles which have their centers in Moscow.

Moreover, the East coast of Greenland, the East coast of England, the West Coast of the Apennine peninsula, the eastern and West Banks of Adriatic sea, the West and East coasts of Scandinavia, the North coast of Turkey near Istanbul, the North coast of Caspian Sea, the substantial parts of the rivers the Volga, Dnepr, North Dvina, the Loire, the Rhine, the Vistula, are also approximated well by the arcs of the concentric circles with their center in Moscow.

Thus, the geographical point in the Russian plain, known to us by the name Moscow, is the geometric center of the circles, which are approximated by the arc-shaped coasts of North and South Europe.

Let us examine in more detail some “necklaces” of cities obtained, which were strung accurately along the concentric circles constructed with their center in Moscow. Let us begin from the most distant of those designated on the map (see below).

Necklace of Andorra. Radius with arc of 3000 km. This arc includes Tunisia, Brest, Bordeaux and two of the four Irish cities present on the map, Cork and Galway.

Necklace of Paris. Radius with arc of 2500 km. Besides Paris itself, the arc includes London, Edinburgh and the capital of Crete, Iraklion. Right next to the arc is the tiny state of Monaco.

Necklace of Rome. Radius of 2400 km. The arc includes Torino, Genoa and Naples. Furthermore, the arc practically coincides with the simplified outline of the Tyrrhenian coast of Italy and a large section of the East coast of Britain.

Necklace of Athens. Radius of 2200 km. The arc comfortably includes Brussels and two tiny, but independent states: Luxemburg and San Marino. Furthermore, the arc coincides with the simplified outline of the Adriatic coast of Italy.

Necklace of Tirana. Radius of 2100 km. Includes Duisburg, Split, Tabriz. Venice is right next to the arc. Furthermore, the arc of Tirana coincides with the simplified outline of the Adriatic coast of the Balkan peninsula.

Necklace of Istanbul. Radius of 1700 km. Besides Istanbul itself, the famous Tsargrad in the past, the arc includes Kiel, Leipzig, Belgrade. Furthermore, the arc coincides with the simplified outline of the West Coast of Norway and a section of the Black Sea coast of Turkey near Istanbul.

Necklace of Prague. Radius of 1650 km. “Comrades” on the same arc as Prague were Oslo, Frederikskhavn, Vienna, Zonguldak, Trabzon, Tbilisi, Tyumen'.

Necklace of Berlin. Radius of 1600 km. On the same arc as Berlin are Copenhagen, Brno, Budapest, Batumi and Makhachkala. This necklace is characterized by the fact that practically includes the cities Kiruna, Nikel and Timishoara, which are famous for their extremely high quality of metal mines. Furthermore, the name of part of modern Budapest – Pesht – is sometimes derived from word “furnace”, in which the ancient inhabitants of city forged outstanding iron for weapons. It remained to add that Brno has been the weapons smithy of Europe from the earliest times.

Necklace of Sevastopol. Radius of 1300 km. On the same arc as Sevastopol, a purely Russian city built in documented times, are Lodz, Uzhgorod, Izmail, Astrakhan. Furthermore, the arc coincides with the simplified outlines of a large section of the East coast of Sweden.

Necklace of Warsaw. Radius of 1200 km. This necklace is interesting in that it can be traced through the entire circle. Counterclockwise: Warsaw, L'vov, Chernovtsy, Yassy, Kishinev, Odessa, Simferopol', Krasnodar, Elista, Ufa, Berezinki, Ukhta, Mezen', Kandalaksha. Stockholm and Gdansk slightly deviated from the correct circle, but it is pardonable for them, as they are coastal towns, and the sea dictates, where they are built.

Necklace of Riga. Radius of 900 km. On this arc are Tallinn, Rovno, Lugansk, Samara. Vilnius is right next to the arc.

Necklace of Kiev. Radius of 800 km. On this arc are also Vyborg, Kirov and Kotlas.

Necklace of Minsk. Radius of 700 km. Saint Petersburg, Pskov, Chernigov, Kharkov, Simbirsk, Kazan and Petrozavodsk materialized in the locality of the circle with its center in Moscow.

Necklace of Smolensk. Radius of 400 km. Bryansk, Tambov, Nizhniy Novgorod, Vologda are arranged around Moscow at an equal distance of 400 km.

All these necklaces of European cities definitively determine the centers of the corresponding circles which prove to be concentric to each other and to the well-known Moscow rings, the third and second “concrete runways”, the Ring Road, the Garden and Boulevard Ring. An important circumstance for cognitive purposes lies in the fact that European cities located exactly on concentric circles with the center in Moscow at present have a history that has been richly developed by specialists in their field, which is in no way connected with Moscow and Russia. The attentive reader inevitably faces a dilemma.

Either the builders of the trios equidistance from Moscow: London - Edinburgh - Paris; Copenhagen - Berlin - Budapest; Oslo - Prague - Vienna, secretly arranged among themselves (across time and distances) to arrange these cities in the locality in such a way that from three points it would be possible subsequently to construct a circle and to find its center, so that the Kiev prince Yuri would much more lately build in this center a town by the name of Moscow.

At the same time, one should remember that the agreement must have been made between the builders of all other “necklaces”, as they are concentric.

But this is not all. One must also suspect an agreement between the elements, which determined the outlines of the shores of European seas, the localization of mines of ferrous metals – Kiruna, Nikel, Brno and Budapest, which also made it possible to build a center in Moscow approximating the outlines of these circles, which are also concentric.

We would remind the patient reader that suspicions of this kind are also directly aroused today by the perception of national history, which is based on the simple triad of L.D. Trotsky

As everyone knows [37], Lev Trotsky reduced the active forces that formed Russian history to the following factors: impassible forests, cold eastern winds and raids by nomads.

Under these circumstances, according to Trotsky, Russia could not give Europe anything of cultural value, and it could only delightedly accept European cultural achievements. In our specific case, according to the suggestions of European wise men, we should look on the map of Europe for the center of arcs created by European capitals and build in this place our wooden huts, which formed the settlement called Moscow, which according to Fasmer and philologists who have authority for him, means something like a pond, a cow, squeezed fruit juice and so on.

Or it is necessary to believe in the fact that was excellently known to medieval cartographers, but it was somehow forgotten at the present time. The discussion deals with the ancient cartographic tradition to have in the center of the map, i.e., the world, a city named Jerusalem. Near Moscow there really is a spiritual place named new Jerusalem. It is accepted (in the contemporary encyclopedias) to attribute this name to patriarch Nikon's eccentricity.

One wonders to whose eccentricity can be attributed the outlines of the Apennines and Scandinavia, the arrangement of mines and sections of shores around Moscow at an identical distance?

The existence in Europe of the city-planning and coast arcs of concentric circles with the center in Moscow makes it possible to advance assumption about the special nature and isolation of the Moscow region on the planet. The hypotheses about the fact repeatedly discussed in the scientific press that the planet Earth has the form and properties of a single crystal [20], make it possible to assume that in Moscow region there is one of the principal crystallographic axes of this planetary single crystal. In that case it is possible not to search for an agreement between the builders of European cities. It is also not compulsory to think that absolutely all these cities were built by Muscovites. It is unlikely Muscovites participated in forming the mines of Kiruna and Nikel that they did not design the outlines of the Apennine and Scandinavian peninsulas.

These outlines and layers are determined by the properties of planet, which have not yet been studied, but which control the cultural activity of European humanity. The places of building new settlements are most frequently determined by sensitive highly-spiritual people, recluses. These holy people once perceived the goodness of a concrete geographical point in the locality and settled there.

So it turned out that the good places for Eurasia, which long ago transformed from monasteries into flourishing cities, are located on the arcs of concentric circles with the center in Moscow, the holy place, which according to historical tradition and physical circumstances should be considered the center of the world, at least the European world. It is significant that the European scientists in the historical time were not prone to revision and reformation of the border of Europe. As we know, this geographical concept is extended to the Ural mountains. It is not difficult to ascertain that this view corresponds to the situation represented on the map above.

The center of the European world (without the distant Pyrenean and Trans-Ural outskirts, which do not claim to a salient historical role in the fates of European civilization) in the geometric sense turns out to be Moscow, but its nearest competitors to this title are other Slav capitals, located precisely on the straight line Ekaterinburg - Izhevsk - Vladimir - Moscow - Minsk - Warsaw - Munich (Munich- monk) - Andorra - Sevilla - Cadiz (Palos). This straight line, shown on the map of Europe (see above), is the geometrically precise continuation of the sides of the left and right blades of the Georgy cross, which is superimposed on the map of the Moscow area. These faces are oriented in the locality strictly in the direction West- east along the Moscow compass. The reciprocal faces of the same blades give in their continuation a straight line, along which accurately are distributed Ukhta, Kotlas, Moscow, Kiev and Sofia are precisely distributed. With a permissible error of not more than 5%, Norris, Salekhard, the Pechora, Yaroslavl', Chernigov and Vinnitsa are also located on this straight line. Each of these cities is famous by itself, but now it turns out that they all are connected together with the united city-planning concept, expressed by the straight lines which are converge at the point of Moscow. The historic importance of the straight line Petersburg - Moscow – New Sarai – Old Sarai was described by P.N. Savitskiy in 1928.

In the recent centuries we know of four capitals, each of which administered in their time all (or almost all) the space of the Eurasian lowland- plains: there are two Sarais, Moscow and Petersburg. All four cities on the geographical map are arranged in a straight line, namely along the line which connects the mouth of the Volga with the mouth of the Neva. This line exists as “the axis of the development” of the soil- botanical zones of Russia before the Urals (it intersects the basic soil- biological boundaries, the boundary of desert, steppe and forest zone at a right angle). From the 13^th to 18^th centuries, the administrative center of the Eurasian lowland- plains moved along this line from the southeast to the northwest; each later capital is located to the northwest of the previous one: New Sarai to the northwest of the old, Moscow to in the northwest of Old Sarai, St. Petersburg to the northwest of Moscow. In the 20^th century the process went in the opposite direction (the capital returned to Moscow). It is possible that the process his will not stop at this [17].

The connection between the Horde and Russian capitals noted by Savistky may be expanded to the territory of Eurasia, as shown above. European capitals may also be placed in a patterned series determining the central symmetric position of Moscow, as the beginning or crossing of planetary roads, along which the famous cities of Europe and Asia arose.

Below is a map on which L.N. Gumilyov [6] showed the general picture of centers of civilization. AS the author believed the cause of passionary jolts to be cosmic radiation, the distribution of centers is of rather an accidental nature in his work. If we accept the postulate that all the civilization centers of Europe and Asia are connected by a common initial earthly origin, then the distribution of shocks takes on a radial symmetry with the center in Moscow (indicated by me in red).

Let us examine the process of the settling of European peoples from the obtained area of HIE based on historical information. In accordance with historical ideas, the settling of peoples occurred both in groups of many thousands associations (the tribes of Israel) and by individual families (migration of Abraham and Jacob). Thus, the scales of the migration of the Indo-Europeans could have changed over time, preserving the historical direction from Russia to the outside.

For example, according to V. Nikonov [14], in the European Union alone 10 million Russians live permanently. Russian diasporas in the world number a total of around 30 million members.

Let us trace the well known events of modern history from our time into the depth of centuries from the point of view of the activity of the population of Russia on the tendency to leave its limits. It is easy to note that at times this activity is directly linked to demolishing our fragile “Iron Curtain”, which it is sometimes possible to lower in order to preserve the remains of the educated population on the territory of Russia. This humane purpose is served by control strips with barbed wire, and soldiers in green caps with dogs stationed on the borders of the country. Ordinary people living near the border, such as Gypsies and Poles, are not constrained by the border, as they are constantly forced to visit relatives living on the other side of the barrier, simultaneously ensuring uninterrupted traffic of any advantageous goods, as is well-known from Chichikov's biography, and regular reports from customs officers about how many tons have white powder have been confiscated from the latest courier. This constant traffic is tracked by authoritative international organizations, which do not make possible to infringe the rights of the honest workers near the border, and to stop the flow of goods on both sides of notorious curtain in all historical times.

Accordingly, the discussion will concern people of different character, but mainly educated and cultured inhabitants of Russian cities who go abroad to live by the irrational call of the soul or because they cannot “continue to suffocate in the atmosphere of totalitarianism. It should be immediately noted that largest emigration flows are found in certain time periods which are known in history by the name of Times of Troubles.

1991 – until the present day. Emigration of bearers of technical knowledge and intellect. Around 20,000 million citizens of the USSR leave for the West, including millions of engineers, programmers and physicists, not counting swindlers and crooks of the Soviet ruling class, who are not interested in maintaining links with their past.

1914-1925 (conditionally). Emigration of millions of representatives of privileged Russian classes, engineers, scientists, and very rich and educated people.

1861 Emigration from Russia of the richest class of barons unhappy with the peasant reform [5].

1790 (conditionally). Emigration of participants of the Pugachev civil war, emigration from plague-ridden Moscow of 1781.

1720 (conditionally). Peter the Great’s conflicts with the Boyars led to the disappearance of 15 Boyar and 15 Okolichy families from the history of Russia. Furthermore, the entire social group of the Szlachta disappeared from Russia. Everyone knows of Peter’s aspiration to send young men from privileged social groups to study abroad. The percentage ratio between those who were sent away and those who came back is far less known. It is probably not large, as Russian official vacancies were regularly occupied by Germans.

1689 (conditionally). Kremlin coup d’etat, with Peter the Great coming to power. Before him the Tsarevna Sofia and the Streltsy were the main support of the throne. The execution of the Streltsy led to the emigration of surviving supporters of Sofia and the Golitsyns, with their families and wealth, material and spiritual.

1610 The Time of Troubles, with constant emigration, like in our times.

In the 16^th century, there was perhaps no concept of emigration, but a flow of citizens leaving Russia for good clearly existed. Prince Kurbsky, the first printer Fyodorev and sons of Boyars were sent by Godunov to England. With each historical personage mentioned, hundreds of non-historical servants, friends and relatives left.

All the flows of emigrants from Russia listed above were caused by objective historical reasons in the form of revolutions and civil wars (times of troubles). The following circumstance is less noticeable.

Times of troubles follow changes in the ideology of society which are not identically perceived and not accepted without reservation. As societies of the most recent past were deeply and sincerely religious, to understand the causes of state troubles, one must take into account changes (reforms) in religious ideas of the ruling class. These changes are introduced by force, and accordingly they are reflected in history as phenomena of the life of the state.

The main sign of ideological reform in Russia is the appearance of a new lavra.

Lavra – a large and especially important male monastery (Orthodox dictionary)

We will list these monasteries in the order that they received the status of lavras.

1. Svyato-Uspenskaya Kievo-Pecherskaya Lavra. Founded in the 9^th century (Lavra from 1688).

2. Svyato-Troitskaya Sergiev Lavra. Founded in 1345 (Lavra from 1744).

3. Svyato-Troitskaya Alexandro-Nevskaya Lavra. Built from 1710-1790 (Lavra from 1798).

Building went quickly at that time, and so during the 18^th century the official ideology changed many times, and the Lavra was redesigned many times. The center of the Lavra is the Troitsky Cathedral.

4. Svyato-Uspenskaya Pochaevskaya Lavra. Volyn, 13^th century, Rovno (Lavra from 1833).

5. Svyato-Uspensakaya Svyatogorskaya Lavra. Donetsk. Svyatye gory. Lavra status received on 24.09.2004.

Besides the lavras listed above, there is the Vysoko-Dechanskaya Lavra in Serbia, 2 km from Dechan on the river Bystritse. The history of this monastery is very ancient, but it only became a Lavra at the end of the 19^th century, when Russian monks from Mount Athos settled in it, who lived in the Hilandar monastery.

Besides those mentioned above, there are also eastern lavras with a legendary past and a no less legendary present.

1. The Lavra of St. Savva the Blessed near Jerusalem.

2.. The Lavra of St. Afanasy on Mount Athos.

The Monastery of St. Theodosius the Great, died 529 AD, was called a lavra. It no longer exists.

The Louvre in Paris, which is a lavra not recognized by the Orthodox church.

It seems the dictionary is being modest. There are thousands of monasteries in the world, but just ten lavras for the entire history of Christianity, even ancient lavras which long ceased to exist. What is hiding behind the evasive term “particularly important”? Let us try to find out.

It is curious that monasteries which have the status of lavras have a history that goes back to ancient times, but they became lavras relatively recently.

The Kievsko-Pecherskaya lavra, the oldest Russian lavra, received this status in the era of the creation of the modern Orthodox church, after the reforms of Patriarch Nikon. We may assume that this is a development of ideology that was accepted by the state during the Nikon reform of the Orthodox church. This is the ideology of a caste-based Aryan society, in which Russia is given the subordinate role of a peasant caste.

The Svyato-Troitskaya Sergiev monastery obtained its status for the development of the study of the Trinity, as follows from the name. It is bewildering that 250 years were required from the time of the life of Sergius for the acknowledgement of his merits. The solution lies in the fact that Sergius created the world common Aryan dogma, and in the middle of the 18^th century, his monastery loyally designed the caste version of ancient Arian orthodoxy, adapted for the Russian peasants by popularizing the ideas of turning the other cheek and giving up one’s last shirt. Let us note that not one scrap of the authentic manuscripts of Sergius has been preserved, although his monastery was only destroyed once during its entire history in the brief invasion of Edigu.

The Alexandro-Nevskaya Lavra obtained its status for the detection of the man essence of creator as the Father God. After this discovery, in Russia there were no autocratic empresses, but sturdy and fertile emperors, and in the capital there appeared a phallic symbol in the form of the largest granite monolith in the world. This occurred soon after the appearance in Paris of the Vandom column, which was clearly lower. Furthermore, together with the new male symbolism of the highest deity, in this era traditional female symbolism was popular, which is personified by the triumphal arches in Paris and Moscow. This shows the freshness of the discovery that God is a man.

It is completely possible that for the first time the male essence of Ra was revealed in the Louvre, after which Louis XIV named himself the Sun King. But in Russia, as the Aryan native land, which possesses spiritual authority in the eyes of Aryans of the entire world, they did not hurry to recognize this discovery, and they then found it convenient for the national interests to repeat it. Since then the Mother of God in the orthodoxy somehow strangely left the trinity in the Orthodox Church. In the Russian army, the Emperor Paul abolished triangular hats as military head-gear and once more introduced pigtails on soldiers’ heads. Noncomformist Poles tried to solve this problem (of an ideological level!) with peak caps with a rectangular top – confederate hats. In our times, European professors and English judges try to convey the idea not of the Trinity, but of the Quadrinary (the Trinity and the Mother of God) with their hats with a rectangular top.

Thus, we can conclude that until the end of the 18^th century, the Creator was recognized as the mother of the earth and regarded as a woman. For this reason, women ruled Russia in the 18^th century.

In Moscow there are over 300 churches, and not one of them is dedicated to the Father God. But over 80% of churches are dedicated to the Mother of God and her attributes. A single church is dedicated to Christ – a new church, although it is the largest in Moscow. The change of sex which took place in the supreme Orthodox divinity at the end of the 18^th century, i.e. quite recently by historical standards, was reflected in Russian symbols. The large state Russian coat of arms approved in 1882 contains a depiction of two figures, one of which is however clearly female [2].

Besides awarding the title of lavra to monasteries which develop the ideological bases of the latest reform, there is another sign, which makes it possible to reveal in the Russian history a moment of ideological break, the change of the priorities of the ruling layer and everything that we undergo today. This is the discovery the new educational institutions, called on to forge personnel in light of new approaches to the problems of educating people in the right direction.

Slavic-Greek-Latin academy. Founded in 1686. The first institute of higher education in Russia [22].

The academy was opened in the era of Nikon’s reforms, although Nikon was no longer alive. It was during this period that the bases of caste separation of Arian society were laid, in which Russians were given the role of the initial caste of peasants. Accordingly, during this period contemporary orthodoxy began to be formed as the religion of the subordinate, dependent caste. There is completely no interest in cosmogony and the structure of the macrocosm in it.

It is remarkable to see the arguments given by Russian priests in debates with Nikon’s supporters, which were held under the chairmanship of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich. They objected to the subordination of Russian church to the Constantinople patriarch, since it itself was the sultan – a non-Christian [19]. Thus Russian orthodoxy became dependent on the Islamic authority of the sultan. In contrast to this it was proposed to build church on the principles of the writings of the holy fathers created by Russian saints, above all by Sergius Radonezhskiy. However, these arguments made no impression on the Tsar and Nikon. Evidently, already in those days the highest Russian administration drew its ideas in the West, without advertising this fact, as is the case today.

Moscow University. Founded 25 January 1755, shortly after the Troitse-Sergiev Monastery was given the status of lavra, in order to introduce the new ideological findings and ideas to the masses.

Alexandrovsky Lyceum (until 1844 Tsarskoe Selo), a closed institute of study for children of hereditary nobles. Founded in 1810, opened in 1811 in Tsarskoe Selo; in 1843 moved to St. Petersburg and named in honor of Emperor Alexander I.

The lyceum was created as the smithy of administrative personnel of the highest state level. The first graduates of the Lyceum were all poets of world status, but only known in Russia. Even Pushkin is not translated into other languages, for some reason. The literary graduates of the lyceum betrayed state language, making it inaccessible for studying the culture of the 18^th century. Their main idea was to fight the Russian boyars as the national opposition to Tsarist absolutism.

Numerous Soviet study institutes were created after the 1917 revolution. This period of Russian history is quite well-known. Soviet institutes never hid their function – to forge Soviet personnel.

Until the appearance of the lavras, Russia did not live in ignorance. For example, the Solovestky Monastery was so famous as early as the 16^th century that it once resisted a seven-year siege by the Tsar.

This means that this monastery was the cultural center of Russia long before the appearance of a strong Moscow state, but its ideological foundations came into conflict with the interests of Moscow Tsars from the Romanov dynasty. As a result, the monastery did not become a lavra, but a place of exile for persona non grata.

For such rare events in Russia as the appearance of lavras and famous state institutions with state functions of inquisitions, the coincidence of the date of foundation may be seen as ideal.

Let us once more compare the dates that monasteries received the status of lavras and the dates of the foundation of the most famous institutes in the history of Russia.

Table 1.

The small delay in two cases, with the Moscow University and the Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum, is quite explicable.

Firstly, the times were tumultuous, and the Russian government sometimes had to delay long-term projects (lasting many centuries!) due to extraordinary events in domestic and foreign policy. During both these periods there are serious wars with European rivals. The founding of the Moscow University was clearly delayed by preparation for the European war known as the Seven-Year War (1756-1793).

The Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum was delayed by Napoleon and his military genus.

Secondly, these smithies of personnel probably did not have the wide support of aristocratically cultured contemporaries, and it is no coincidence that the Slavic-Greek-Latin academy took in Raznochintsy, the Moscow University is proud of its democratic nature, and Pushkin was accepted into the Lyceum allegedly by accident, as he did not have the right to study at such a privileged institution because of his poverty and lack of nobility. Accidental people were chosen, and they were trained to replace the old aristocratic personnel, the Boyars, and eventually noble children, who were forced out of their positions and out of Russia by ambitious but low-born graduates of the aforesaid institutes of study.

For a complete picture, it is necessary to add another column to table 1. It indicates the most significant events of Russian history, which preceded the creation of lavras or was synchronic with them

Table 2.

It is clear that it was not the 17-year-old Peter and not the glamorous Elizaveta who thought up the new state ideologies. In all these events of Russian history, which have been described many times, the firm hand of the real rulers of Russia and the entire Aryan world can be seen, the Boyars who sons served in the guard regiments, which put women and children on the Russian throne in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.

In the final table, we may also place the most significant event of the 17^th century, the Time of Troubles, which contains, among everything else, a coup d’etat, the siege of the famous Troitse-Sergiev monastery, and the Boyar conspiracy. The combination of all these signs of the Russian revolution in the sphere of state ideology makes it possible to claim that the revolution itself also took place. Accordingly, before the Time of Trouble, Orthodoxy looked different. Instead of a specific date in the first column, there is an interval, as new state ideologies do not arise suddenly, years are required for this.

Table 3.

In Russian history, there are five civil wars, including the modern state of Russia, which is so far a “cold” war by oligarchs against the subordinate people. Each of these wars led to significant ideological reforms in the state, the specific contents of which was developed in the according ideological center (lavra).

The new ideology is spread among the people by ideological warriors specially trained in the new study institute of the “new type”.

Each change of ideology in Russia is preceded by a foreign and civil war, which destroys the maximum number of relatively young potential opponents of the coming ideology reform, and leads to the formation of a wave of emigration directed from Russia to the outside. In these waves, Russia is left by the most cultured, educated and wealthy groups of the population, mainly young and old. These migrants do not forget to take with them everything they can tear away from the land, along with the land itself. This is what the Germans did, for example, when they took Ukrainian black soil with them in wagons in the period of the civil war, and in the Second World War.

Those who remain busy themselves with creative activity in the restoration of the living organism of Russia. Soon afterwards in Russia, a full caste society appears, which in its turn separates its privileged ruling layer into another wave of emigrants, like a fruit that matures every three generations – the harvest of the fertile organism of Russia.

European and American culture was completely created by bearers of intellect who arrived from Russia in these emigrant waves, which fertilized the planet, at least for the course of 500 years.

The following conclusions can be made from the contents of table 3.

– The change of the state ideological system in Russia is a phenomenon that is painful but inevitable, it is the same thing for Russian society as childbirth for a woman. It is slightly painful, but necessary, as if a woman does not give birth, she will not be a complete woman.

–The phenomenon described above is regular, like an apple harvest in a fruit orchard, and it can be predicted and optimize, if the will to do is there, of course.

–The regular change of state priorities, language and cultural phenomena such as style and material embodiments is an accompanying factor of each Russian revolution. At an everyday level, this change is shown as chaos in all spheres of life, which is followed by a flourishing and fruitification in all spheres.

–The wave of educated and rich emigrants who leave Russia make colossal efforts to justify their seeming defeat, and hinder the success of each reform, and denigrate its architects and active participants. We see the results of these efforts as our real, contradictory culture and history. A revolution eats its children, as it was noted a long time ago.

– As the wave of Russian emigrants sweep the planet once more, world culture at moment in its history makes up a interferential picture, as a result of the complex process of the interaction of Russian bearer of culture belonging to different “harvests” of emigrations, sometimes hostile, sometimes not recognizing each other.

In table 3, there are no materials from the epic of the mature Peter the Great.

Peter the Great is known in history as an unstoppable reformer, who besides long wars, Turkish captivity, annual holidays in Baden Baden and many other things, influenced numerous spheres of the state organism. The army, the native, the alphabet, language, religion, the calendar, agriculture, the structure of state machinery – all these complex spheres of culture experienced the force of Peter’s aspiration to reforms. The problem is that in the history of our state there are no instruments by which Peter could convey his reformer ideas to executors. In other words, he did not have tools to educate the people in the right key, he was unable to open a lavra and create an according educational institution of the “new type”,

The Petersburg Academic of Sciences is wonderfully appropriate for the role of such a tool which unites spiritual and study centers of a new ideology. This organization initially had the charter duty to instruct young and talented students from the people, and its authority in the state structure of controlling the people was no less than the authority of the Slavic-Greek-Latin academy. This can be understood from the history of the conflict of certain employees of the Academy when it was headed by Lomonosov and the administration of the Academy in the person of Shumakher. After the scientific conflict between the members of the academy went beyond an internal matter, it was dealt with by a government commission, from which the “simple librarian” Shumakher demanded – who would have thought? – the execution of his opponents.

The prominent participant of the conflict Lomonosov, the graduate of the former ideological center of Russia, the Slavic-Greek-Latin academy, shows that an irreconcilable conflict existed between the old and new ideological systems. Both of these systems were designed for the compulsory and universal instruction of the people of Russia, but were intended for different “harvests” of the Russian ideological garden. The ideological production of the Petersburg Academy is well-known to us under the brand of “westernism”. This Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state, and the official version of Russian theory that agrees with this theory, were first publicized by Karamzin, as not requiring any proof, and incontrovertible in school curricula to this day. Accordingly, the phenomenon of “westernism” is ideologically opposed by the complex of views which may be conditionally called “Slavicism”. The symbols of these opposing views are our capitals.

The Petersburg Academy appeared after the death of Peter, and the country was not waiting for its graduates. This is not the fault of the Academics, it is just that the rulers of the country changed too frequently, and the process of training new specialists requires stability in politics for many years. Thus, the role of Peter the Great may be defined as a real state figure without real humanitarian levels for reforming state structures (amusing regiments do not help here).

The problem of theoretical foundation of westernism in the eyes of the people as the foundations of state policy of Russia over the last two centuries with some intervals was shown in the choice of the heavenly patron for the Petersburg lavra. He was the holy prince Alexander Nevsky. The victor of Birger and the Teutonic knights, adopted by Batu in the Golden Horde, and it is difficult to suspect him of being a Germanophile, and other candidates who could be placed in the same rank as Sergius, the heavenly protector of the Moscow ideological center, the lavra, could not be found. This is natural, as people with a sense of their own inferiority cannot serve as an example for the people. The feeling of one’s own inferiority to Europe and its inhabitants develops in the Russian spirit parallel to the dying of the heroic essence. For this reason, the ancient common Russian saints are all leaders of powerful spirit, and from Petersburg only the holy fool Ksenia entered the pantheon of saints, if one does not remember the family of the last Tsar, who was also not a hero. This explains the weak attempts of modern officials from the ideological department to prolong the existence of the Norman theory in children’s textbooks, and the backward glance at Europe and its theoreticians, who also suffer spiritual weakness in exchange for sophistication of thought and everyday comfort.

Let us remember examples from the modern world. The bearers of the Islamic ideology, born in the Aryan caste of warriors, to which Alexander Nevsky belonged, wrap themselves in bomb to attack their enemy, while the enemy who belongs to a “cultured” people shoots the dwellings of their neighbors from tanks in closed position, according to a timetable, with breaks for lunch and beer. For a complete picture, I would add that in these tanks the doors are in the back, and after their day at work the tankmen do not have to climb out of the turret hatch heroically, as in all the other tanks in the world, so they are not shot by a sniper.

The Moscow ideology is most clearly expressed in the image of Georgy the Conqueror, the dragon slayer and leader, and Sergius Radonezhsky, the national philosopher and scholar, and teacher of the Russian people.

The Moscow view of the world does not require constant self-denigration from a person who considers himself Russian, unlike the Petersburg view. For Moscow, it is not shameful to be a Russian, but for Petersburg it is a fault which needs to be concealed from the cultural circle. At the same time, all inhabitants of the planet living to the west of Brest are unconditionally recognized as cultured. This idea is cleared expressed in the high-society Petersburg expression: what a cultured country France is, there every caretaker speaks French.

Thus, Petersburg, as the symbol of westernism in the Russian culture, personifies the real state of affairs in the world, as it is seen by the educated and cultural Aryan intellectual. The problem lies in the fact that any intellectual is limited in his world view precisely by belonging to a certain social class, and this does not make possible for him to consider full extent of the picture of God’s creation. In this creation, Russia as a participant of the territory of the world with an autochthonic population, is given the role of the living source of first-class human material for shaping the living organism of world Aryan state. Thus, Westernism is limited by the unwillingness to realize its own origin from hateful “uncultured” Russian ancestors.

As in Russia there is a periodic formation and ripening of new “fruits” in the form of emigration waves of millions of people, this fact must be taken into account, at least in the biological sense, even denying its undoubted cultural value in the life of the world. It is possible not to love and not to respect one’s own mother, but to deny her existence itself in the desire to seem self-sufficient, like a self-begetting Buddha, is simply absurd. It is just as absurd to turn one’s own mother into a disparaged servant at the son’s lordly table, as our media tries to do with impunity with respect to Russia, trying to seem democratic and European-like. It is unlike that anyone will respect a competitor for the title of “true European” who acts like this.

Russian westernism, which at present has been successfully made international by the efforts of millions of emigrants, is also absurd in its rejection of the international role of Russia, as the homeland of the modern aristocratic and cultural heritage of Europe and America.

The Moscow approach ignores the real dynamics of the development of Russian society, according to which any developed provincial instinctively gravitates towards Moscow to apply his talents, and any native Muscovite also sincerely gravitates towards Europe and the USA, and for good.

We only need to think about where the descendents of the Slavophiles of the 19^th century live, the revolutionaries and staunch Leninists of the 20^th century, and the children of contemporary members of the government live permanently.

Thus, Slavicism and westernism are two sides of the same coin, two views of the same natural phenomenon that is dynamic like any manifestation of life. We must realize that there is just one coin, it is called Russia, and it must be protected and loved, like any living being of the female gender, subject to illnesses from a feeling of hatred of its own children to a great degree than from the hostility of outsiders.

The difficulty of our times and the danger for our future lies in the fact that the current aggressive attack of the ideas of westernism on Russia and its population, led as usual by our own ruling class, gathers its energy and intellect not even from the aristocratic real rulers of the Aryan world state and the entire population of the planet. From these “international people working behind the scenes” we can expect a measured approach and a certain lordly justice sung by the poet in the immortal verse: The master will come, the master will judge us.

It is this international Boyar power that did not allow German troops shoot at Leningrad from medium-caliber cannons out of spite or stupidity, but drown Moscow in waste, destroying the Northern water station when the chance arose. The driving force of modern governmental innovations is the obtuse and spiteful servile aspiration to serve foreign masters, which is shown by today’s hired incompetent managers in Russian history, who come from the servant ranks of the old Russian society, gathering in the management institutions of the country.

These people do not care about such long-term prospects which concerned the Russian Tsars and the first Soviet governments, who built the palace park ensembles, planted forests, created political plans for the development of the country and the international community for centuries to come.

Today this concerns the miserable five years of the presidential term, which need to be extended with all efforts, promising everything that citizens tortured by 80 years of promises want to hear, while all the want is to go abroad, far from their voters and closer to these masters. These masters are real, and they can even punch someone in the face instructively, as P.P. Borodin experienced, with old lordly verve, which especially delights people with a servile psychology who aspire to high society at any price. After this treatment from their “comrades” in the billionaires’ club, who actually turn out not to be comrades, but real masters, they begin to believe even more strongly in the divine origin of any earthly power.

One can make the conclusion that the potential spiritual barrier between the Slavic and the Germanic world, which Danilevsky [7] described so vividly, physically exists, as it is felt by our emigrants and tourists.

The second conclusion is that this barrier can be overcome if there is sufficient desire.

The third and most important conclusion is that the spiritual world of the Russian person has been developing over the last five centuries in the direction of a growing desire to overcome this intercultural and intercaste barrier.

About every three generations in Russia, a contingent of the population is formed whose most passionate desire is to overcome this barrier and “be born” into the world of Europe. This desire easily overcomes the psychological barrier between cultures, barbed wire fences and the “iron curtain”, and our fellow citizens settle in the western world quite wonderfully, although not without difficulties.

Large waves of emigration appear in Russian history every three generations, about every 75 years. These emigration waves have lasted for years and encompassed entire groups who left Russia for the West, the most educated and rich people who did not forget to take their wealth and knowledge with them. Five major waves can be traced, counting from the present wave. The pre-Petrine era of the Streltsy executions is known about so fragmentarily that the pattern of three generations between waves seems to be broken. This is probably a problem for historians, and not Russian emigrants, who can be stopped by nothing, not even the “iron curtain”. Between major waves there are smaller waves, when individual lines or families leave the country who are out of favor with the state administration. No one ever came back to Russia.

We can note one fault among aggressive forms of Slavicism and westernism, the most important one, which makes them not even theories, but sketches of a developing reason, which tries to understand the structure of the macrocosm.

Slavicism is like an obstetrician who persuades the child to remain in the mother’s womb forever. This is because it does not like the real outside world itself.

Westernism is like a hurried obstetrician who tries to tempt the child with the charms of the outside world to make it emerge from the womb earlier, five months or so ahead of schedule, and this person is least concerned about the health of the mother, he is prepared to tear the baby out of the mother’s womb by force just to achieve his goal.

But both approaches are based on a misunderstanding of the dynamic qualities of the living process of bearing a child, which cannot be hurried up or slowed down without doing harm to the child, as the process of bearing the child is poorly controlled by human reason. In this case, the child is the millions-strong contingent of emigrants from Russia who have served and continue to serve as the essence of entire peoples formed in different areas of the planet.

The birth of emigration waves of Russia, functioning from ancient eras to the present day as the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans, can be compared with the birth of a child, a process which is known to every adult. The evolutionary regime of the process of spiritual development of each individual personality is from time to time replaced by an explosive turning point. This turning point is manifested in the form of a re-consideration of previous views and habits, which from time to time forces millions of intelligent people to move suddenly from their homes in their unconscious desire to leave the territory of Russia for other countries of the world.

Ignoring this objective process, both for modern Slavicism and westernism, becomes a very noticeable and even dangerous problem for the future children of Russia in the form of educated and cultured emigrants, who are necessary to the planet as a whole, as to a living organism with its own goals and tasks.

References:

1.Абаев В. И. Скифо-европейские изоглоссы.– М., 1965.

2.Большой государственный герб Российской империи. http://geraldika.ru/print/29

3.Булич С. Очерк истории языкознания в России.– СПб, 1904.

4.Гамкрелидзе Т.В., Иванов В.В. Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы.– Тбилиси, 1984.

5.Герцен А.И. Собрание сочинений: В 8 тт.– М., 1975.

6.Гумилев Л.Н. Этносфера: История людей и история природы.– М., 1993.

7.Данилевский Н.Я. Россия и Европа: Взгляд на культурные и политические отношения славянского мира к германо-романскому.– М., 2003.

8.Десницкая А.В. Вопросы изучения родства индоевропейских языков.– М.-Л., 1955.

9.Исаев И.И. Сто тридцать равноправных.– М. 1970.

10.Клесов А. Поиски пропавших колен израилевых. http://www.e-slovo.ru/349/8pol 1.htm

11.Котошихин Григорий. О России в царствование Алексея Михайловича. http:// bibliotekar.ru/rus/92.htm

12.Лихачев Д.С. ... // Новый Мир.–1988.– #6.– С.257.

13.Мейе А. Введение в сравнительное изучение индоевропейских языков.– М.-Л., 1938.

14.Никонов В., руководитель Фонда «Русский Мир», в интервью корреспонденту Delfi. http://www.russkiymir.ru/ru/pressa/index.php?id4=869, 29.02.2008.

15.Реформатский А.А. Введение в языкознание.– М. 1967.

16.Робатень С.С. Корни грехопадения. Взгляд инженера. Часть 27 //«Академия Тринитаризма», М., Эл # 77-6567, публ.13308, 12.05.2006. http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/ doc/0016/001b/00161246.htm

17.Савицкий П.Н. Геополитические заметки по русской истории. Впервые опубли-ковано в 1928 г. http://www.kulichki.com

18.Сафронов В.А. Индоевропейские прародины.– Горький, 1989 г. http://www. uniros.ru/book/safronov/safron_10.php

19.Соловьев С.М. Сочинения: В 18 кн.– М., 1993.

20.Стахов А.П. Додекаэдр, тайна Египетского календаря. http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/ doc/0232/004a/02320039.htm

21.Шрадер О. Сравнительное языкознание и первобытная история.– СПб., 1886.

22.Энциклопедический словарь Ф.А. Брокгауза и И. А. Ефрона. http://www.booksi te.ru/fulltext/bro/kga/brokefr/1/1882.htm\

23.Ворр Fr. Kleine Schriften zur vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft.– Leipzig, 1972.

24.Bosch-Gimpera P. Les Indo-Europeens: problemes archeolo-ques.– Paris, 1961.

25.Childe V.G. The Aryans.– N.Y., 1926.

26.Early Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and Implications for the Dispersal of Modern Humans - Science Magazine, 12.01.2007. Vol. 315. no. 5809, pp. 223-226.

27.Gimbutas M. Old Europe since 7000-3500 В.С.: the earliest European civilization before the infiltration of the Indoeuropean peoples // The journal of the indo-european studies. V. I.– nl.– C.1-21.

28.Gimbutas M. The Kurgan culture //Actes club VII CISPP.– Prague, 1970.

29.Grassland R.A. Immigrants from the North // Cambridge Ancient History.– V.I.– Pt.2.– 1967.– C.824-876.

30.Krahe H. Indogermanisch und alteuropaisch // Saeculurn.– 1957.– С.1-16.

31.Mallory J. A short of the, Indo-European problem // Journal of Indo-European Studies. N 1. Spring.– 1973.– C.21-66.

32.Рааре К. Ober die Heimat der Arier und die Heimat der Ostgermanen.– Schoneberg. 1906.

33.Penka К. Die Herkunft der Arier.– Viennus, 1886.

34.Scherer A. Die Uhrheimat der Indogermanen.– Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesselschaft, 1968.

35.Schlegel F. von. The aesthetic and miscellaneous works of F. Schlegel. Translation E. J. Milligton.– London, 1849.

36.Schleicher A. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen.– Weimar, 1861-1862.

37.Trotsky Leon. The History of the Russian Revolution. Vol.1. 1930.

38.http://dnatree.ru/index.php?name=Album

39.http://newchrono.ru/prcv/publ_index.htm

40.www.elkisland.ru

Pre-Cyrillic Slavic Writing and Pre-Christian Slavic Culture: Materials of the First International Congress (12-14 May 2008)/under gen. ed. of V.N. Skvortsov. – SPb.: LSU named for A. S. Pushkin, 2008.– V. 2. – pp.328-367