In the tenth century Bishop Liutprand of Cremona referred to the Rusios in his description of the neighbors of the Byzantine Empire. A controversy
* I am using the standard English translation of the Primary Chronicle by Professor S. Cross (The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text. Cambridge, Mass., 1930), although I am not entirely satisfied with it either in general or in this particular instance.
still continues as to whether Liutprand described his Rusios as Normans or merely as a northern people. Also in the tenth century the Byzantine emperor and scholar Constantine Porphyrogenitus gave the names of seven Dnieper rapids "in Slavic" and "in Russian." The "Russian" names, or at least most of them, can best be explained from Scandinavian languages. This evidence of "the language of the Rus" is rather baffling: there is no other mention of any Scandinavian tongue of the Rus; on the contrary, the Chronicle itself states that the Slavic and the Russian languages are one. The supporters of the Norman theory were quick to point to the Scandinavian names of the first Russian princes and of many of their followers listed in the treaties between Kievan Russia and Byzantium. Their opponents challenged their derivation of some of the names and stressed the fact that the treaties were written in Greek and in Slavic and that the Rus swore by Slavic gods.
Certain Arabic authors also mention and sometimes discuss and describe the Rus, but their statements have also been variously interpreted by different scholars. In general the Rus of the Arabic writers are a numerous people rather than a viking detachment, "a tribe of the Slavs" according to Ibn-Khurdadhbih. The Rus had many towns, and its ruler bore the title of khakan. True, the Rus are often contrasted with the Slavs. The contrast, however, may refer simply to the difference between the Kievan Slavs and other Slavs to the north. Some of the customs of the Rus, described in Arabic sources, seem to be definitely Slavic rather than Norman: such are the posthumous marriage of bachelors and the suicide of wives following the death of their husbands. The Rus known to the Arabs lived most probably somewhere in southern Russia. Although Arabic writers refer primarily to the ninth century, the widespread and well-established relations of the Rus with the East at that time suggest an acquaintance of long standing.
Other evidence, it has been argued, also points to an early existence of the Rus in southern Russia. To mention only some of the disputed issues, the Rus, reportedly, attacked Surozh in the Crimea earlyin the ninth century and Amastris on the southern shore of the Black Sea between A.D. 820 and 842. Vernadsky derives the name of Rus from the Alanic tribe of the Roxo-lans. Other scholars have turned to topographic terms, ranging from the ancient word for Volga, Rha, to Slavic names for different rivers. An ingenious compromise hypothesis postulates both a Scandinavian and a southern derivation of Rus-Ros and the merger of the two.
The proponents of the Norman view have reacted in a number of ways to assertions of the antiquity of the Rus and their intrinsic connection with southern Russia. Sometimes they denied or challenged the evidence. Vasiliev, for instance, refused to recognize the early attacks of the Rus on Surozh and Amastris. The first he classified as apocryphal, the second as referring in fact to the well-known campaign of Igor in a.d. 941. Other
specialists, in order to account for all the events at the dawn of Russian history and to connect them with the Scandinavian north, have postulated more than one separate Scandinavian Rus, bringing, rather arbitrarily, some of them from Denmark and others from Sweden. Their extremely complex and unverified schemes serve little purpose, unless one is to assume that the Rus could be nothing but Scandinavians. For example, Vernadsky in his reconstruction of early Russian history conveyed one group of Normans to the shores of the Black Sea as early as A.D. 740. Vernadsky's reasoning unfortunately is highly speculative and generally not at all convincing. By contrast, recently many scholars have considered the Normans as merely one element in the composition of the Rus linked fundamentally to southern Russia and its inhabitants.
The Primary Chronicle itself, a central source for the Norman theory, has been thoroughly analyzed and criticized by Shakhmatov and other specialists. This criticism threw new light on the obvious inadequacies of its narrative and revealed further failings in it. The suspiciously peaceful establishment of Riurik and his brothers in northern Russia was related to similar Anglo-Saxon and other stories, in particular to a passage in Widukind's Res gestae saxonicae, to indicate, in the opinion of some scholars, the mythical character of the entire "invitation of the Varangians." Oleg's capture of Kiev in the name of Riurik's son Igor in A.D. 882, the starting point of Kievan history according to the Chronicle, also raised many issues. In particular it was noted that, due to considerations of age, Igor could hardly have been Riurik's son, and that no Kievan sources anterior to the Primary Chronicle, that is, until the early twelfth century, knew of Riurik, tracing instead the ancestry of Kievan princes only to Igor. Moreover, the Chronicle as a whole is no longer regarded as a naive factual narrative, but rather as a work written from a distinct point of view and possibly for definite dynastic purposes, such as providing desirable personal or territorial connections for the Kievan ruling family. On the other hand, the proponents of the Norman theory argue plausibly that the Chronicle remains our best source concerning the origin of the Russian state, and that its story, although incorrect in many details, does on the whole faithfully reflect real events.
To sum up, the Norman theory can no longer be held in anything like its original scope. Most significantly, there is no reason to assert a fundamental Scandinavian influence on Kievan culture. But the supporters of the theory stand on a much firmer ground when they rely on archaeological, philological, and other evidence to substantiate the presence of the Normans in Russia in the ninth century. In particular the names of the first princes, to and excluding Sviatoslav, as well as the names of many of their followers in the treaties with Byzantium, make the majority of scholars today consider the first Russian dynasty and its immediate retinue as Scandinavian. Yet, even if we accept this
view, it remains dangerous to postulate grand Norman designs for eastern Europe, or to interpret the role of the vikings on the Russian plain by analogy with their much better known activities in Normandy or in Sicily. A historian can go beyond his evidence only at his own peril.
In any case, whether through internal evolution, outside intervention, or some peculiar combination of the two, the Kievan state did arise in the Dnieper area toward the end of the ninth century.
I V
In that city, in the city of Kiev…
KIEVAN political history can be conveniently divided into three periods. The first starts with Oleg's semi-legendary occupation of the city on the Dnieper in 882 and continues until 972 or 980. During that initial century of Kievan history, Kievan princes brought the different East Slavic tribes under their sway, exploiting successfully the position of Kiev on the famous road "from the Varangians to the Greeks" - that is, from the Scandinavian, Baltic, and Russian north of Europe to Constantinople - as well as other connections with the inhabitants both of the forest and the steppe, and building up their domain into a major European state. At the end of the century Prince Sviatoslav even engaged in a series of far-reaching campaigns and conquests, defeated a variety of enemies, and threatened the status quo in the Balkans and the Byzantine Empire itself.