Ethnic territory of Belarusians

Modern Belarusian academic science (Vasil Bandarchyk, Mikhail Pilipenka, Ihar Chakvin, and others) considers that the process of Belarusian ethnogenesis began in the 13th–14th centuries within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and became distinctly realized in the 14th–15th centuries.^[1][2] The formation of the Belarusian ethnos (in the Pripyat, Upper Neman, Upper Western Dvina, and Upper Dnieper regions) involved a significant portion of East Slavs ("Rus"), certain groups of West Slavs (primarily Poles who mostly settled in Polesia), and non-Slavic ethnic groups, especially Balts (Lithuanians, Yotvingians, Prussians, Samogitians), many of whom were forced^{[by whom?]} migrants to these areas.^[3] The East Slavic population formed the mass foundation of the Belarusians, while the non-East Slavic groups acted as an additional component of this new ethnic community.^[4]

The modern self-designation "Belarusians" definitively entrenched itself across the entire ethnic territory only from the mid-1860s (and firmly among the broad masses from the 1890s). This creates difficulties in delineating the ethnic territory and demographic indicators in preceding eras.^[5] Prior to this, two main self-designations were used: "Ruthenians" (Rusins) and "Lithuanians" (Litvins).^[6]

In the 14th–16th centuries in the GDL (and later in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), alongside the name "Rusins", the self-designation "Litvins" was used in several regions of Belarusian settlement (primarily in the western and southern regions of modern Belarus and eastern regions of modern Lithuania, even applying to the Slavicized Baltic population of those lands).^[7] The terms "Rus" primarily denoted the population of the eastern and central regions of modern Belarus and were closely associated with Russian Orthodoxy.^[8] A complex hierarchical system of self-designations existed, including polytonyms, toponyms (regional and local names, including urbanonyms), confessionyms, and ethnonyms. It is often difficult to determine whether "Litvins" was understood by speakers as an ethnonym, toponym, confessionym (denoting a Catholic), or polytonym.^{[citation needed]} This led to combined self-identifications (e.g., "Litvins of the Greek faith", "Litvins of Russian descent", "Russian princes of Lithuanian descent", Gente Lithuanus, natione Polonus).^[9] The toponym "White Rus'" and the ethnonym "Belarustsy", which emerged in the late 16th–17th centuries, did not cover the entire Belarusian massif but were local-territorial designations, initially referring primarily to the Polotsk region.^[10] Under the influence of the Muscovite State and the Orthodox activists in the Commonwealth, these terms began to be used more widely from the 1630s for the Dvina and Dnieper voivodeships, though they still lagged behind "Rus" and "Rusins".^[11] By the 17th century, "Lithuania" and "Litvins" were firmly used to denote the western and central parts of the GDL, remaining in use until the Partitions of Poland and beyond.

Belarusian ethnologists hold differing views on whether there was a common ethnonym for all ethnic Belarusians during the GDL era. Mikhail Pilipenka argues that "Litvins" served as both a polytonym and an ethnonym to distinguish themselves from Great Russians and Ukrainians, while "Rusins" was used to distinguish themselves from Baltic Lithuanians. Ihar Chakvin believes "Litvins" was the most encompassing ethnonym reflecting the consolidation of the Belarusian ethnos across its territory, contrasting with the Baltic Samogitians or Aukštaitians.

A separate position is held by Belarusian historian Igor Marzalyuk, who asserts that an ethnos without a common self-designation is a "nonsense." He disputes that "Litvin" was an ethnic self-designation for Belarusians, arguing that "Rusin" was the sole endoethnonym for all parts of the Old Belarusian ethnos, paralleling Orthodoxy (and later the Uniate church). Marzalyuk associates "Litvins" exclusively with Baltic Lithuanians and Catholicism, viewing it only as a polytonym for Belarusians. He suggests that religious division matched ethnic division (Catholics = Lithuanians; Orthodox = Rusins), denying Baltic participation in Belarusian ethnogenesis.^{[12][comm 1]} Marzalyuk believes that the widespread adoption of the self-designation "Poles" alongside "Litvins" by the nobility in the 17th century meant their inclusion into the Polish ethnos. He proposes reviving the artificial, "cabinet" term "Old Belarusian ethnos" to distinguish Belarusians from Ukrainians in the GDL.^[13] However, Marzalyuk also concludes that the creators of the Belarusian-centric historical concept in the 19th century were actually Catholic nobles (e.g., Osip Turchynovich, Ignat Kulakovski, and later writers like Francišak Bahuševič and Yanka Luchyna), not Orthodox peasants.^{[14][comm 2]}

Marzalyuk's thesis of a single endoethnonym was challenged by historian Hienadź Sahanovič, who noted that Belarusians belonged to different Christian denominations, hindering a single ethnonym and ethnic consolidation.^[15] Historian Ales Smalyanchuk criticized Marzalyuk for taking quotes out of context to prove the ethnic Polishness of the Lithuanian nobility.^[16] Furthermore, contrary to Marzalyuk's claim that Catholic populations in Western Belarus and the Vilnius region were purely Baltic Lithuanians who only assimilated in the 19th-20th centuries, ethnologist Mikhail Hrynblat claimed that there was intensive Belarusization of Balts in the 14th–16th centuries.^[17] Ihar Chakvin also notes that the Slavicization of the Upper Neman region is confirmed by ancient Slavic toponymy^{[dubious – discuss]} and that Vilnius possessed a large Orthodox population (12 Orthodox churches^{[dubious – discuss][citation needed]} vs. 6 Catholic churches at the end of the 14th century).^[18][19]

After annexing the lands of the GDL, the Russian imperial administration retained the geographical terminology of the GDL (Samogitia–Lithuania–White Rus). Only the Dnieper and Dvina lands were termed "Belarusian" (forming the Belarusian Governorate-General). The rest of the Belarusian ethnic territory (including the Minsk region) was toponymically called "Lithuania" or "Lithuanian governorates" until the early 1870s. Up to the 1860s, parts of the Vilnius governorate were even officially called "Samogitian uyezds".^{[citation needed]} On December 18, 1842, the predominantly Baltic-speaking uyezds were separated from Vilnius to form the Kovno Governorate, unofficially called "Samogitia".^{[20][original research?]}

Following the abolition of the Uniate Church in 1839, the government began using the term "Northwestern Krai" (Northwestern governorates) to emphasize the "Russian" ethnoconfessional character of the region, though informal use of "Lithuania" persisted. From the 1850s, Russia intensively gathered ethnographic material. Driven by the imperial ideology of West Russianism (zapadnorusizm), authorities sought to extend the term "Belorussia" to all territories that were once part of Kievan Rus', even if they were Catholic and currently called "Lithuanian". The forced conversion of Catholics and Uniates to Orthodoxy was accompanied by using religion and language as markers of "Russianness".^[21]

In his 1853 work, Adam Kirkor mapped the boundary between the "Slavic" and "Lithuanian" tribes in the Vilnius Governorate based largely on ancient toponymy, placing Vilnius (Vilnius) within the Lithuanian zone. However, Kirkor wrote that Lithuanian was dominant only in the Trakai uyezd, while in others it yielded to the Belarusian language. He noted that Lithuanians were mostly Catholics, and Belarusian speakers were Orthodox (former Uniates).

Similarly, an 1861 Russian General Staff compilation by Captain A. Koreva followed Kirkor's toponymic boundary but also noted that peasants around Vilnius and Trakai spoke Belarusian despite being Catholic.^[22] Researchers later noted that in the 1850s, Russian ethnography drew the border purely on confessional lines: Catholic equaled "Lithuanian", and Orthodox equaled Slav, purposefully excluding the Catholic Vilnius region from the Belarusian ethnic territory.^[23]

During and after the suppression of the January Uprising (1863–1864), the Russian government published tendentious ethnographic atlases by Aleksandr Rittikh (1863, 1864) and Roderich von Erckert (1864) for propaganda purposes. To prove the "Russianness" of the lands, Orthodox inhabitants were classified as "Russian", and Catholic nobles as "Poles". Erckert and Rittich relied solely on confession, artificially inflating Orthodox numbers.^[24]

According to Erckert's atlas, the Belarusian territory covered Mogilev, Vitebsk, part of Vilnius, and Grodno governorates. He divided Belarusians into three groups:

1. "True Belarusians" (Vitebsk, Mogilev, eastern Minsk, western Smolensk);^{[comm 3]}
2. "Black Russians" (western Minsk, northern Grodno), noting that they didn't use this name themselves;
3. "Podlasians" (western Grodno).

He categorized southern Grodno and Minsk governorates as "Little Russians" (Ukrainians) based on dialect similarity.^[25]

Only from the 1880s did language become the primary marker for ethnic identification in the Russian Empire. In 1875, Aleksandr Rittikh compiled the "Ethnographic Map of European Russia" based entirely on the linguistic criterion. The map delineated the Belarusian settlement west and south of Suwałki, along the Narew, Yaselda, and Pripyat rivers, and north/east past Vilnius, Švenčionys, Ludza, Velikiye Luki, west of Vyazma and Mglin. A distinct feature was the inclusion of the Catholic Vilnius region into the Belarusian ethnic territory based on language.^[26]

In 1870, the Minsk Governorate was separated from the Vilnius Governorate-General, and soon became toponymically associated with "Belorussia" as well. By the 1890s, the name "Belorussia" firmly extended to Grodno and most of the Vilnius Governorate, aided heavily by linguistic studies by Ivan Nasovich, Pavel Shein, Yevdokim Romanov, and, definitively, by Yefim Karsky's monumental work "Belarusians" (1903, 1908).

Linguistic studies showed similarities in the dialects of peasants across the five Northwestern governorates, extending east to Rzhev and Bryansk in the Smolensk and Chernigov governorates. Karsky's map largely corresponded to the ancient lands of the Krivichs. However, in official imperial ideology, these Belarusian speakers were still considered a branch of the "Triune Russian nation".^[27]

The Moscow Dialectological Commission (1915) also mapped these dialects, expanding the Belarusian language area even further into the Chernigov and Kaluga governorates, while classifying Western Polesia as a transitional zone between Belarusian and Ukrainian.^[28]

The Russian Empire census (1897) did not ask about ethnic identity (narodnost), but only about native language and religion. According to the census, those indicating Belarusian as their native language constituted 82.4% in the Mogilev Governorate, 76% in Minsk, 56% in Vilnius, 52.9% in Vitebsk, and 44% in Grodno.^[29]

• Vilnius Governorate: Belarusian speakers dominated in Vileyka (86.4%), Dzisna (80.7%), Ashmyany (79.6%), and Lida (72.4%) uyezds. In Vilnius uyezd it was 26% (dominating the rural areas around the city), while in the city of Vilnius itself it was 4.3% (where Yiddish at 40% and Polish at 30.1% dominated).^[30]
• Vitebsk Governorate: Drissa (86.2%), Velizh (85.7%), Nevel (84%), Haradok (83.6%), Lepel (82%), Polotsk (73.1%) uyezds.
• Grodno Governorate: Sokółka (83.8%), Vawkavysk (82.4%), Slonim (80.7%), Pruzhany (75.5%) uyezds.
• Chernigov Governorate: Surazh (68.7%), Mglin (14.1%) uyezds.
• Smolensk Governorate: 100,700 people indicated Belarusian (6.6% of the province), heavily concentrated in the Krasny uyezd (90%). The overall low percentage in Smolensk is attributed to the rapid Russification of peasants in primary schools.^[29]

In total, 5.71 million people declared Belarusian as their native language. The census revealed that phonetic dialect features did not always equate to ethnic identity. For instance, in the Smolensk governorate, peasants retained Belarusian phonetic traits but identified with the Russian ethnos due to everyday informal ties with the local Russian Orthodox nobility and clergy, an assimilation that had occurred by the 18th century.^[31] Conversely, in Western Polesia (previously mapped as Ukrainian-speaking), 74.3% in Pinsk and 75.5% in Pruzhany declared Belarusian as their native language in 1897. By 1910–1913, local statistics showed the population in Kobryn and Pruzhany overwhelmingly identifying as Belarusian (over 85%), reflecting a process of "Belarusization" of consciousness as local clergy and officials recognized their flock as closer to Belarusians than Ukrainians.^[32]

In 1827, Russian ethnographer Peter von Köppen attempted to delineate the Slavic and Baltic populations, but his manuscript remained unpublished. Czech Slavist Pavel Jozef Šafárik utilized Köppen's data for his "Slavic Ethnography" (Prague, 1842). Based on language, Šafárik mapped the Belarusian territory, estimating 2,726,000 Belarusians (2,376,000 Orthodox and 350,000 Catholics). He identified two sub-dialects: "Belarusian proper" (Mogilev, Vitebsk) and "Lithuanian-Russian" (Minsk, Grodno, Vilnius). Lacking exact data for the eastern and southern borders, Šafárik largely followed the pre-1772 borders of the GDL.^[33]

After the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917, national movements sought political self-determination. This actualized the scientific concretization of ethnic borders, sparking ideological struggles between Belarusians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Poles, and Russians over the former Northwestern Krai.^[34]

Maps compiled in 1918 and 1919 by Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky and Yausey Kanchar, based primarily on linguistics, included all of Western Polesia in the Belarusian territory. Dovnar-Zapolsky expanded the borders into parts of the Lomzha, Chernigov, and Orel governorates (totaling 258,000 km² with 12 million Belarusians).^[35] Kanchar pushed even further east, claiming the entirety of Smolensk Governorate, parts of Kaluga and Tver governorates, and the "Livonian uyezds" of Vitebsk Governorate.^[36] In 1918, the Belarusian People's Republic (BNR) declared its state borders based on Dovnar-Zapolsky's map.

A different perspective was held by the conservative Krajowcy movement (led by Edward Woyniłłowicz), who sought political subjectivity strictly within the six Northwestern governorates. They rejected the national-democrats' claims to Smolensk, Pskov, and Kaluga, arguing Belarusians were a minority there. Woyniłłowicz argued the real ethnic border between Belarus and Russia was the pre-1772 GDL border. He asserted the fundamental difference was cultural and economic: the eastern border of Belarus ended where "individual ownership ends, and communal ("obshchina") ownership begins."^[37] Following the 1863 uprising, the Russian government forced the transition of peasants in the western governorates to full private ownership, destroying the peasant commune. Meanwhile, Russian peasants in the central governorates (like Smolensk) remained bound to collective land ownership until the Stolypin reform, a stark civilizational divide. Woyniłłowicz also believed that Vilnius should remain in a Belarusian state, as Lithuanians were virtually absent from the city and Belarusians dominated the surrounding region.^[38]

Ethnologist Andrei Rayuk notes that the boundary between Belarusian and Russian ethnic territories did not change significantly between the late 18th and early 20th centuries, aligning with the 1772 borders. The local Catholic nobility maintained informal networks that preserved the ethnic boundary. The imperial policies of isolation and the distinct economic realities imposed on the region inadvertently conserved the behavioral stereotypes of the Belarusian ethnos.^[39]