Origins_of_Rus

Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review

The Origin of Rus' Author(s): Omeljan Pritsak

Source: The Russian Review, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 249-273

Published by: Wiley on behalf of Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/128848

Accessed: 17-01-2016 14:29 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Russian Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Originof Rus'*

By OMELJAN PBrrSAK

I.The Normanist versus Anti-Normanist Controversy

1.

On September 6, 1749, Gerhard Friedrich Miiller (1705-1783), the official Russian imperial historiographer and member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, was to deliver an anniversary speech on the origins of Russia, entitled "Origines gentis et nominis Russorum."His talk was based on research published in 1736 by his older compatriot, Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738), who introduced sources like the Annales Bertiniani and works by the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogenitus into East European scholarship. From these, academician Miiller developed the theory that the ancient state of Kievan Rus' was founded by Norsemen, and it was this

theory that he began to propound in his speech.

Miiller was never to finish this lecture. A tumult arose among the members of the Imperial Academy of Russian national background, who protested such infamy. One of them, the astronomist N. I. Popov, exclaimed, "Tu, clarissime auctor, nostrum gentem infamia afficis! [You, famous author, dishonor our nation!]." The affair was brought before the president of the Academy, the future hetman of

the Ukraine, Kyrylo Rozumovs'kyj (1750-1764; d. 1803), and the Empress Elizaveta Petrovna (1741-1762), who appointed a special committee to investigate whether Miiller's writings were harmful to the interests and glory of the Russian Empire. One of the referees was the famous author, Mixail Vasil'evi6 Lomonosov (1711-1762).

His testimony was devastating: Miiller was forbidden to continue his research in Old Rus' history and his publications were confiscated

* This article, originally delivered as an inaugurallecture by ProfessorPritsakupon his assuming the Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyiChair of UkrainianHistory at Harvard University on October 24, 1975, is an exposition of the principal thesis of a six-volume work entitled The Origin of Rus' to be published by Harvard University Press. It is available in a bound brochurefor $2.50 from the HarvardSeries in UkrainianStudies, 1581-83 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. To avoid error, transliterationsand notationshave been left as they appearin the originaltext.-Ed.

249

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

250 The Russian Review

and destroyed. The intimidated scholar eventually redirected his scholarlyworkto a moreharmlesssubject-the historyof Siberia.

Nevertheless,September6, 1749 remains an importantdate in

thisday.

2.

The Normanistsbelieve (the word believe is used here to charac-

terize the intellectualclimatein question)in the Norseoriginof the term Rus'. They consider the Norsemen-or, more exactly, the Swedes-as the chief organizersof politicallife, firston the banksof LakeIl'menandlateron the shoresof the DnieperRiver.

On the otherhand,the Anti-Normanistsembracethe doctrinethat

the Rus'were Slavswho lived to the south of Kiev fromprehistoric times, long before the Norsemenappearedon the Europeanscene. To supportthis thesis,the names of severalriversare cited as evi-

dence, for example,the Ros',a right-banktributaryof the Dnieper. The Anti-Normanistsattributeto this "native"Slavic element a de-

cisive role in the state-buildingprocess of that period, particularly that of KievanRus'.OfficialSoviethistoriographyadoptedthe Anti-

Normanistpositionfor the following reason:"The Nor- "scholarly"

manisttheoryis politicallyharmful,because it denies the ability of the Slavicnationsto forman independentstateby theirown efforts."

(1) The Rus'receivedtheirnamefromRuotsi,the Finnishdesigna- tion for the Swedes in the mid-ninthcentury, which was derived

fromthe nameof the Swedishmaritimedistrictin Uppland,Roslagen

or pulling).In a modifiedvariantof this etymology,representedby

(2) The PrimaryChronicleincludesthe Rus'amongthe Varangian

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

peoples frombeyond the sea, i.e., the Svie (Swedes), Urmane(Nor-

wegians),Angliane(English),andGote(GautsorGoths).

(3) Most of the names of Rus'envoys who appearin the treaties with Byzantium(911,944)areobviouslyof Scandinavianorigin,e.g.,

Karly,Inegeld,Farlof,Veremud,etc. (911).

(4) The Annales Bertiniani,a contemporarysource, says that c. 839 the Rhos envoys (Rhos vocari dicebant) who came from the

ByzantineEmperorTheophilosto the EmperorLouisI in Ingelheim and whose ruler had the title Chacanus(Kagan,also appearingin

reply:

(1) The name of Rus' was not originally connected with Great

Novgorodor with Ladogain the north,but with Kiev in the south.

Moreover, the Rus' existed in the Kiev area from times immemorial.

To support this thesis, two arguments are presented: first, the toponymic, i.e., the existence of the names of several rivers in that area such as the Ros'; second, the existence of the "Church History" of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor, a Syrian source compiled in 555 A.D. (long before the appearance of the Norsemen), which mentions the Hr6s, or Rus', in connection with some North Caucasian peoples found south of Kiev.

(2) No tribe or nation called Rus' was known in Scandinavia, and

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

it is never mentioned in any of the Old Norse sources, including the

sagas.

(3) The Scandinavian names of the Rus' envoys who visited Ingel- heim in 839 and signed the treaties with the Byzantine Empire in the tenth century do not prove that the Rus' were Scandinavians (Swedes). The Norsemen were only representatives of the Slavic Rus' princes, specialists who carried out commercial and diplomatic functions. For that reason, they were looked upon as men "of Rus' descent"(ot rodarus'skago).

(4)One of the oldest Islamic writers, Ibn Khurdadhbeh, who wrote

c.840-880, clearly calls the Ris a tribe of the Slavs.

(5)Archaeological material from the towns and trade routes of Eastern Europe indicates that few Scandinavians were present in this area.

5.

A critical examination of these arguments reveals both their weak-

nesses and why the debate has continued unresolved to this day. The connection of the Rus' with the Finnish Ruotsi and Ro6slagen is doubtful. Ruotsi goes back to *Ruzzi, not Rus'. Also, the Anti-

Normanists are correct in doubting the existence of a Scandinavian Rus', even if they were peasants

empire-builders as formulated by Stender-Petersen. In the words of

V. Mosin (1931), "one finds oneself in a quagmire when one begins to operate with terms derived from rus or ros [especially since Ros'

goes back to Ros, not Ros]...."

The Syriac Hr6s (555 A.D.) found in the work of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor, and introduced into East European history by J. Markwart in 1903, proved to have no relation whatever to Rus'. In an addenda

to Rhetor's "ChurchHistory,"there is a very interesting report about the Christian mission of a certain Kardast among the Huns in the Northern Caucausus, including a list of Hunnic tribes. This report stimulated the learned copyist to quote an Amazon episode from a Middle Persian version of the Alexandersaga, in which the Greek term heros (hero) is used for the gigantic mates of the Amazons. In the Syriac adaptation, this Greek term assumed the form hros.

The Anti-Normanist explanation, which maintains that the pos- sible existence of Scandinavian specialists at the court of some Rus'

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

princesdoes not necessarilyprove the identity of the Rus'with the Scandinavians,cannot be easily dismissed. However, Ibn Khur-

dadhbehdoes not identifyRus'with the Saqaliba(meaning"Slavs").

The Arabicterm jins (< Lat. genus) has the primarymeaning of "kind"or "sort."It may be assumedthat in introducingthe name

Rus into Arabic scholarshipIbn Khurdadhbehwas generalizing ("andthey are a kind of Saqaliba")as to who these new trading partnerson the horizonof the Abbassideempire were. Within the

(Sclav-),meaning"fair-headedslave,"was known earlier(sometime in the sixthcentury)thanthe nameRus.Becausethe Ruscamefrom the north and correspondedto the anthropologicalcriteriaof the term Saqlab(meaning"red-hairedand ruddy-faced"in comparison with the peoples of the NearEast),the authoradded this phraseby

way of explanation.

The historianmight rightly ask the question posed by British

thosethathavebeenarenotspecificallyVikingin characterThe.other Vikingtownsin England[knownfromhistoricalsources-O.P.]have producedhardlyanyVikingantiquitiesYet,.we knowthatthe Vikings werethere.

who have consideredthe issue from a narrowperspectiveand an almost exclusiveconcentrationon the term Rus'.Such an approach is aboutas usefulas studyingthe etymologyof the nameAmericain

orderto understandthe emergenceof the Constitutionof the United States.

That the debate has continuedunresolvedto this day is due, in my view, to the followingreasons:historianshave often substituted political (or patriotic)issues for improvedtechniques of historical methodologyin their discussions;they have had limited knowledge

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of world history;and they have used source materialsin a biased way. The work of the historiansin question can be comparedto

mosaicistswho piece together excerpts from sources of different provenance,and who often disregardthe semanticsof the original,

since they have usually relied on simple translationinstead of ac- quiringknowledgeof the sourcesandtheirculturalsphere.

II. ProposedMethodology

1.

The origin of Rus'is foremosta historicalquestion.In analyzing this problem,archaeologyand linguistics are of secondaryimpor-

tance. The latterarecertainlyreveredscholarlydisciplines,but they have theirown methodsand goals,and theirown spheresof respon- sibility. Historybegins-and I shall put stresson the word beginswith written sources. It is impossibleto extend history back to a

periodwithout such sources,althougharchaeologicaland linguistic data can be very useful in elucidatingcertainfacts and situations.

Contraryto the convictionof Sovietscholars,however,archaeology cannot be regarded as pre-history.There is no causal connection between archaeologyandhistory!History,which reflectsthe highest

stage of human experience,cannot appear deus ex machinafrom archaeology.Only people with history can bring it to territories withouthistoricalconsciousness.

us take the year 1620.On the one hand, it markedthe beginningof historyfor New England,yet, on the other, it was the end of an archaeologicalera in NorthAmerica.Here, we can clearlysee that the subsequent historical period neither emerged nor developed from the archaeologicalone (as Soviet archaeologistsclaim for Kievan Rus'), but was brought from the outside by those with

2.

History,like any other exact science, is an abstract,intellectual discipline.It is concernedfirstwith establishingand systematizing historicalfacts by analytic"experiments,".e., researchinto specific issues, and then the constructionof relevanthypotheses.However,

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

sincethe historiancan neitherreconstructthe past "wiees eigentlich

to Toynbee,however,thereis only one, universalhistoricaldevelop- ment, not that of separate cultures), of the function of selected "his-

torical facts" that are part of a larger system, and not the study of the historical facts themselves. This system or pattern contains various

points of intersection along lines demarcated by economic, cultural,

and political developments, which occur at both synchronical, i.e.,

static, and diachronical, i.e., dynamic, levels. The real task of the historian is to recognize the system and to discover its common denominators.

Now, a few words about source study. One should never approach a source without prior philological and historical analysis. Con-

versely, reflecting the perspectivism of Ortega y Gasset, it is neces- sary to embrace all the sources of a given epoch in order to reconstruct the multiperspectivity inherent in them. History, I stress again, is an exact science that can produce accurate answers only when the full perspective of a given problem is discerned.

3.

Before dealing with the problem of the "Origin of Rus'," it is

necessary to settle some methodological questions. From what has already been said, it is clear that there is only one possible way to discuss the emergence of the Rus' state, and that is as a historical

experiment within a larger system.

History begins at Sumer in Mesopotamia in the third millennium B.C. The ancient Greeks, who discovered the human being and scientific history, together with the Romans, those pragmatic empirebuilders, transferred the focal point of western historical develop- ment to the basin of the Mare Nostrum, or Mediterranean Sea. Until

the ninth-tenth centuries A.D.,history was essentially concentrated in the Mare Nostrum. Because China was isolated from Europe at that time, it is excluded from discussion here.

Within this time span, i.e., from the period of the Roman Empire

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ing chainreactions,tookplace that arerelevantto the emergenceof Rus'in the ninthcentury:

(1) The desertionof the RomanLimes(Rhine-Danubeline) by the

Roman legions (c. 400 A.D.);

(12) The organizationof a new type of steppe empire-the Avar realmcenteredin present-dayHungary(c. 568-799A.D.);

(3) The intrusionof the Arabsinto the basin of Mare Nostrum

(c. 650 A.D.).

The firsthistoricalevent, the desertionof the RomanLimes,pro- voked the migrationof peoples and the organizationof Germanic semi-civilizedrealms and nomadicPaces within Imperialterritory

and/or regionsclosest to the Romanfrontiers.The most important of these was the GermanicFrankishrealm establishedfirst in the

Netherlandsand then in Gaul,since the Frankswere the only bar-

barianswho adopted the "correct,"catholicvariantof Christianity. Theircooperationwith PapalRomewas to become the cornerstone of WesternEuropeandevelopment.

the emergenceof the Avarrealmand the Arabintrusion,I wish to

(Varjagi).

The firstconceptwas introducedby the GothichistorianJordanes

(551 A.D.). In describing the fate of the Goths he remarked: "From the same ScandzaIsland [Scandinavia],which acts like a manufac-

tory [workshop]of peoples (officinagentium),or to be more exact, like a vagina of nations,went out, accordingto tradition,the Goths with theirking Berig."Therewere two places in Eurasiawhere the

greatmigrationsof peoplesnormallyoriginated:the ArabianDesert in the west-the "home"of all Semiticpeoples;and the Gobi Desert

in Mongolia-the truevaginanationumof all Altaicpeoples,i.e., the

Huns,Turks,Mongols,and Forcenturiesscholars Mandju-Tunguzes.

advanced various theories to explain this unusual state of affairs. Somemedievalscholarseven suggestedthatthe nomads,likelocusts,

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

were born at regularintervalsfrom the sand and thereforereap-

peared in periodicpopulationexplosions.We, certainly,cannot ac-

cept this ingeniousexplanationand must also dismisssome recent theories,e.g., that climaticchangesdessicatedthe steppe andcaused

movementsthat became a chain-reaction migration.Climatological

studieshave proved that no significantchangesin climate occurred during the historical millennia. Also, careful study of primary

sources, such as the Chinese annals, has made it clear that the

nomadscould migrateonly if their horses were well-fed, healthy, andstrong.Therefore,populationmovementnevertookplace during timesof famineorrestraint.ArabiaandMongoliabecamethe centers of populationmigrationsnot becauseboth were deserts,but because both were located on the crossroadsof importantcommercialhigh-

ways that connected agriculturaland political centers. Having moved there, the nomadsassuredthemselvescontrolof these com-

mercial routes and, at the same time, gained the opportunityto blackmailthe given sedentary power with options for retreat or

to point out that a nomadicpax is a confederationof severaltribes

whose primarysource of existenceis the grazingof livestock.The

militarymobilityof these tribes ensuresthe functioningof interna- tionaltradeand the controlof traderoutes,which are the real bases

of the nomadeconomy.A nomadicpax cannotemergenor exist per se. Rather, it always develops in response to the challenge of a sedentary society. For instance, the moment a given agricultural

empire (Rome, Iran, China) developed economic stability and achieveda measureof prosperity(i.e., establishedinternationalcommercialties), nomadswere temptedto try their luck in obtaininga portionof its El Dorado.Thetypicalpatternwasasfollows.

Withina nomadictribein Arabia/Mongolia,a daringleadermight appearwho is successfulin robbinga wealthycaravan.His fame im-

territoryin orderto take part in the promisingenterprise.Now begins the period of training,like the one so vividly describedin all primarysourcesdealingwith the emergenceof the Mongolianpower led by Temujin/CinggisQa'an.Raids become more frequent and

grow constantlyin size until the time is ripe for the leaderto unite

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:29:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions