Synopsis

There is a heated debate in Russian history of the origin of the Russian state. The Normanist theory; claiming that the Scandinavian

Normans came and ruled over the primitive population, and henceforth were the creators of the Russian State, is a view held by

many, despite evidence to the contrary. This paper is analysis of Normanism. The de-evolution of the theory shows how the Normanists have constantly compromised and are now holding onto their theory by a thread. Deconstructing shows that the Primary Chronicle, the

theory’s main source, is flawed to the point of not being of any use. Further deconstruction takes place in presenting how so many other

primary documents prove contrary to the theory, especially early Normanists claims regarding Russian culture. Finally, quoting a variety

of primary and secondary sources, the paper shows that the most logical conclusion to the Normanist debate is that the people of Rus

were a multiethnic, multilingual [interfaith] unified social and economic entity.

The birth and formation of the Russian State is shrouded with obscurity. This

obscurity has given rise to a lively and passionate debate spanning over two

hundred years. The scholastic theories surrounding this period in history can be

divided into two factions, Normanist and Anti-Normanist. The former holds to the

supposition that the Normans, from the Scandinavian term Norseman – a

northern man in chronicles – Varangian, were the main architects of the political,

cultural and state life, initially on the banks of Lake Ilmen near Novgorod and

later on the slopes of the Dnieper shores of Kiev. 1 The latter generally consider

the Rus to be Slavs, and hence regard the Slavic people as having a major role in

“…the rise and growth of the State of Kiev.”2 The proceeding text is an analysis

of the Normanist theory: the de-evolution of the theory, the theory

deconstructed, and an alternative to the theory. The de-evolution of the theory

shall show how the Normanist theory has had to compromise with the original

hypothesis, how it is now drastically limited in its assertions, and the political and

racial motives behind these assertions. The deconstruction of the theory shall

show that the main source of the Normanist argument, the Provest’ Vremennykh

Let, is a mixture of folklore and fact. Further deconstruction and evolution can be

seen, as the various arguments for Scandinavian elements in Russian culture are

proven insignificant. Finally, constructing an alternative view. The purpose of the

following text is not to solve the Normanist controversy; its purpose is to cast a

shadow of doubt onto the generally accepted version of historical events and to

show that this is an historical topic that deserves further attention.

The progress of the Normanist theory shows itself to be anything but

progressive. Each of its successive theorists make less and less bold assertions

1 Roman Zakharii, The Historiography of Normanist and Anti-Normanist Theories on the origin of Rus’. Dissertation in Viking and Medieval Nordic Culture, Submitted in candidacy for the degree of Master of Philosophy, Centre for Viking and Medieval Studies, Faculty of Arts, The University of Oslo, Norway, 2002 p.18 2 Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia Philosophical Library Inc. New York, reprinted with permission of original publisher Kraus Reprint Co. USA 1969 p.109

as the role of the Norman’s in Russia’s formation. The de-evolution of the theory

began in the St. Petersburg’s Academy of Sciences in the second half of the 18th

century3. The academy was formed by Peter the Great’s physician, Laurentius

Blumentrost, a Russian with German parents4. This personal history formed a

trend in the academy, with 75% of the scholars speaking German as their first

language5. This caused barriers in their research, not being able to read primary

Russian documents, and would later affect their academic credibility. The three

first formulators of Russian history from these German academics were G.S.

Bayer, G.F. Mueller and A.L. Schlöezer.6 These scholars claimed that the whole of

Russian culture and state life had been the work of the Scandinavians. The basis

of this conclusion was a passage written in the Provest’ Vremennykh Let (The

Tale of Bygone Years)7. These early claims of Scandinavian domination are

coloured with racial prejudice, maintaining that Eastern Slavs as not being

capable of “independent state-formation process.”8 Other historians such as

Krug, Kruse, Lehrberg, and Frähn then further developed these theories with

little success9. In the 19th century Kunik, M. Karamzin, S. Solovyov, M. Pogodin,

Danish Slavist V. Thomsen10 and followers were forced to qualified and limited

their claims due to the overwhelming evidence against the initial Normanist

theory11. Their revised theory asserted that the guiding principals and institutions

were Norman, yet admitted the involvement of the native population.12 In the

20th century Neo-Normanist scholars such as “H. Jankuhn, T. Capelle, G. Stökl,

Dane A. Stender-Petersen, R. Pertner, Swede H. Arbman, V. Moshin, M. Taube,

3 Zakharii, op. cit 2002 p. 18 4 Shieko, K. Masters of Arts / History Thesis Wollongong University 2004 p.94 5 Shieko, K., op.cit. 2004 p.94 6 Zakharii, op. cit 2002 p.18 7 Appendix 1 Passage from the Provest’ Vremennykh Let 8 Zakharii, op. cit 2002 p.18 9 Joseph L. Wieczynski, The Modern Encyclopaedia of Russian and Soviet History, vol. 25, Academic International Press 1981 P.55 10 Zakharii, op. cit 2002 p.18 11 Wieczynski op. cit. 1981 p.55 12 Wieczynski op. cit. 1981 p.55

and Y. Vernadsky” even further revised the theory, claiming there was a

“gradual… [and] …peaceful Norman colonization.”13 It seems that the basic goal

of all Normanists was racial vilification. If they were of Germanic decent

(Western) they were likely to dismiss the Slavic people as backward and

incompetent, as Bayer and Schlöezer did. If they were Slavic or Russian, the

ultimate goal was to form some kind of tie to Germany as to save the country

from an Asiatic connection. With this ‘higher’ purpose in mind the majority,

including Western, historians, have overlooked inconsistencies in the evidence

used to prove the Normanist theory.

Initiated by M. Lomonosov in the 19th century, Anti-Normanism is, in part, a critic

on Normanism. In order to deconstruct Normanism, the key area of scrutiny is

the primary source used to prove the theory. The main source is the Provest’

Vremennykh Let (The Tale of Bygone Years) or The Russian Primary Chronicle.

In showing the faults within this document, the basis for the Normanist theory is

declared void. Shakhmatov (1864 - 1920) was the last and most noted Provest’

Vremennykh Let investigator. He presented himself as a Normanist, yet with so

many accommodations “that some anti-Normanists regarded him a fellow

traveller.”14 With other specialists, Shakhmantov brought to light “… obvious

inadequacies …” with the text.15 The passage previously mentioned16, bears

resemblance to 1 Samuel 8, and even more similarity to Widukind’s Res gestae

saxonicae.17 This would indicate the concocted nature, a mixture of fact and

folklore that the Chronicle really is. He further asserted that the text has multiple

layers and was most probably not written by a single author.18 In general the

Chronicle is considered to be a literature written for specific dynastical purposes,

13 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p. 14 Shieko, K. op.cit. 2004 p.104 15Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p.59 16 Look to an Appendix 1 17 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p.59 18 Shieko, K. op.cit. 2004 p.105

providing assistance both personal and political to those in the ruling class of

Russia during its composition.19 Shakhmantov claimed that Nestor’s aim in

writing the chronicle was to ascertain “… the genealogical connection between

the Varangian Riurik and the Rus princes of Kiev.”20 Soviet Historian Grekov

considered that “…the chronicler (Nestor), being a representative of a certain

class, had a political viewpoint of his own.”21 Pokrovsky, even more stinging in

his criticism named the chronicle “… simply a piece of journalism.”22 It is

interesting to note that the First Novgorodian Chronicle, which was a source of

the Primary chronicle, has a passage that differs from the Primary Chronicle. The

First Novgorodian Chronicle names the “… men of Slovenes, that were called the

Rus’.”23 The Primary Chronicle interprets this passage differently, “… Slovenes,

and the others called the Rus’.”24 This slight change can be viewed as the subtle

alterations of a politically motivated author. The question becomes, how many

other ‘alterations’ have taken place to the information he gathered.

Now that the basis for the Normanist theory is removed, here is a series of

primary and secondary interpretation documents that further debase the theory.

These sources are not cohesive or forming any sort of consensus, their purpose

is to show the possibilities.

The Kitab by Arabic scholar Ibn Fadlãn has a passage where he describes the

Rüsiyyah. From the translation25 by Montgomery the funeral of a rich and

important man sheds light on the culture of the Rus. Montgomery asserts that

Scandinavia dose not have the archaeological evidence to suggest cremation was

19 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p. 20Shieko, K., op.cit. 2004 p.105 21 Grekov, B. Pervyy Trud istorii Possii (First work on the History of Russia) in Istoricheskiy Zhurnal, Moscow, 1943 (11 - 12) p.66 22 M. Pokrovosky, Borba Klassov i russkaya istoricheskaya literature, Istoricheskaya nauka I borba klassov, I, 1933, p.18 23 Shieko, K. op.cit. 2004 p.105 24 Shieko, K., op.cit. 2004 p.105 25 Appendix 2

common place yet the abundance of female slaves could of led to indulgence.26

Further to this the Eastern Slavs and the North men were called majus or

Magians because of their cremation of the dead, which literally means fire-

worshippers. This combination of Slavic and Viking could suggest that under the

rule of the Slavs these Viking mercenaries were combining the funerary rituals of

their old and new homes27. Another interpretation is that the man that died was

apart of an interracial marriage. When Schlöezer was once asked to explain the

rapid Slavonisation of the Normans he refused to explain stating it to be “… a

phenomenon which even today is quite beyond explanation.”28 All these

interpretations must be considered as valid as that of the Normanist, to brush

them aside as Schlöezer did is to be ignorant. In his book The Eastern Slavs,

Dolukhanov quotes Mel’nikova and Petruchkin when they argued that Arabic

authors often use the word ‘ar-rus’ with no ethnic connotations, it means

warriors and merchants29. It must also be considered that continuity between

authors is highly unlikely, what one Arabic author may call Rus another would

not. Western sources also contradict the Normanist Theory. The Bertinian

Annals, a western source, claim that Rus ambassadors came through

Constantinople to Ingelheim calling the men of Khakan-Rus. Wieczynski argues

that Khakan could mean Khazar and assumes that the Russian khanate was

located in Southern Russia hence this further removes the Scandinavians.30

Constantinople’s patriarch Photius talks of a country that has cruelty that

surpasses all other, which he calls the people of Rhos.31 The Bavarian

Geographer positions a people called Ruzzi, close to the Khazars and Hungarians

suggesting the Eastern Slavs. There are many primary and secondary documents

26 James E. Montgomery, “Ibn Fadlãn and the Rüsiyyah” from the Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000 p.12 27 Montgomery op. cit. 2000 p.13 28 B. Grekov, Kiev Rus Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1959 p.503 29 Pavel Dolukanov, The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus, Harlow, 1996 p.190 30 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p.57 31 Paszkiewics, op. cit. 1969 p.110

that contradict the Normanists, yet the theory suffers even further with the

evolution of their own historical claims.

As stated above, Bayer believed that the Vikings formed the whole of Russian

culture and state life. Bayer, with many of the early Normanists, attributed

language, literature, law and religion to the Scandinavians. Bayer asserted that

he had found a considerable number of Scandinavian words in the Russian

language, despite his not being able to read Russian. Moshin, a contemporary

Normanist, attributes six words as having Scandinavian origin. Not only the

language far from Viking dominated, there was written literature in Russia before

Scandinavia. Similarly, Kievan law, once considered to be akin to Scandinavian

jurisprudence, bears little if any resemblance to any Norman models. No

evidence exists to ascribe Scandinavian influences to Kievan paganism, yet the

early Normanists like Bayer attempted to make links. The primary deity in the

Eastern Slavic pantheon is Perun, god of thunder, was described by Procopiuc in

the sixth century, yet early scholars attempted to link Perun with the

Scandinavian god Thor. They have since been proven mistaken, with much more

substantiated claims discovered with Byzantium and Oriental cultures32.

With the Normanist theory proven untenable, there must be an alternative. Far

from denying that there was ever any Vikings in Russia, it would seem more

logical to assume that there presence was as hired mercenaries, as Lomonosov

hypothesized, and that they then intermingle with the population. Ibn Fadlan’s

account of the Rüsiyyah, as interpreted above, supports this view, as does the

character of the Vikings. To be able to hire mercenaries, there would have to be

some form of civilisation. In his work Kiev Rus, Grekov, unlike many others,

presents the Eastern Slavs as a well formed society. 6th century Byzantine

historian Procopius of Caesarea described the Slavs as identical to the Antes,

32 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p.56

living democratically.33 Grekov further substantiates this high level of state life in

pre-Kiev Rus, as he looks at culture. In the 6th century the Blacksmith trade

became a specialised craft, casting and jewellery making became a man’s job

(indicating prestige) and there were advancements in agriculture. Trade is

another activity that increased into the 7th and 8th century. Luxury items such as

bronze, silver and gold weaponry and ornamentation was purchased from

Byzantium and Persia34. Ubaidallah Ibn-Khurdadhbih, an Oriental author in the

middle of the 9th century, specifically names the “… Rus merchants … are of

Sclavonian (Slavic) origin.”35 This suggests that they may be the product of an

interracial marriage. From the material studied it would seem that the Slavic

people had a well-formed society, Vikings came to a developed state (in the

most basic sense of the word) and intermingled with the population. Dolukhanov

characterises Kievan Rus as “… a loose confederacy.”36 Paszkiewics considers the

term Rus to have a two fold meaning; first to be geographical and political, and

secondly to be religious. Pritsak’s statements concur with Paszkiewics, as he

deems Kiev Rus a “… multiethnic, multilingual [interfaith] unified social and

economic entity.”37

The debate over the origins of Russia is a passionate and heated debate. When

Mueller gave his first speech on the topic to the Imperial Academy of Sciences in

1749 he was such protest he was not able to finish. Another member identified

him as a dishonour to the nation38. Such fervour has never left this debate.

Hoskings as recently as 2001 called the Slavic peoples relatively primitive39. As

Sheiko points out, this comment is not likely to endear him to the Russian

33 B. Grekov, op. cit. 1959, p.511 34 B. Grekov, op. cit. 1959, p.508 35 Paszkiewics, op. cit. 1969 p.118 36 Dolukhanov op.cit. 1996, p.197 37 Omeljan Pritsak, The Origin of “Rus” The Russian Review July 1977, (abridged) p.7 38 ibid. P.1 39 Geoffrey Hosking, Russia and the Russians: a history, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p.30.

people’s hearts. Neither is Lomonosov’s description of Bayer particularly

charming, calling him an “… idolater priest who having poisoned himself with

henbane and altered his mind by spinning around on one foot, shouts vague,

dark, wild and incomprehensible answers.”40 Political and personal bias can be

seen on either side, it is only when emotions are removed will historians be able

to see the truth. The general consensus among historians is to remain safe in the

west-centric confines that society has afforded them. Both native and foreign

scholars, as has been shown, struggle to connect Russian history to that of the

Caucasian west. The Normanist theory has been shown to be just that, a theory.

As a theory is can, and should be, scrutinised.

40 Shieko, K., op.cit. 2004 p.123

Appendix 1 The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentius Text Translated and Edited by Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor The Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 3rd Ed, 1973 (852 - 862) p. 59

Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war with one another. They said to themselves, “Let us seek princes who may rule over us and judge us according to the Law.” They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Russes: these particular Varagains were known as Russes, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, English and Gotlanders, for they were thus named. The Chuds, The Slavs, the Krivichians, and the Ves’ then said to the people of Rus’, “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to rule and reign over us.” They thus selected three brothers, with their kinsfolk, who took with them all the Russes and migrated.

Appendix 2 James E. Montgomery “Ibn Fadlan and the Rusiyyah” Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies vol.3, 2000 p.12 - 13

“I was told that when their chieftains die, the least they do is to cremate them. I was very keen to verify this, when I learned of the death of one of their great men. They placed him in his grave (qabr) and erected a canopy over it for ten days, until they finished making and sewing his funeral garments.”

Bibliography Cross, Samuel Hazzard. and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentius Text, The Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 3rd Ed, 1973.

This book was used essentially for its translation of the Primary Chronicle. Dolukanov, Pavel. The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus, Harlow, 1996

A leading authority in archaeology, Dolukhanov’s argument for anti-Normanism is the most sophisticated and persuasive exponent of a Pro-Slav stance. The book was easy to read with a clear structure.

Grekov, B. Kiev Rus Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1959

There is a spirit and passion in this text that no other conveyed. Grekov seems to take this debate right to heart. With this in mind, both of his work that I have used no only conveyed interesting and useful information, but more importantly communicated the obsession some historians harbor.

Grekov, B. Pervyy Trud istorii Possii (First work on the History of Russia) in Istoricheskiy Zhurnal, Moscow, 1943 (11 - 12) Hosking, Geoffrey. Russia and the Russians: a history, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001

This text was very much a Normanist perspective on the origin of Rus. Hosking’s book assisted greatly in background knowledge as to the Normanist argument.

Montgomery, James E. “Ibn Fadlãn and the Rüsiyyah” from the Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000 p.12

This article is divided in three parts; introduction and then the translated text and notes printed interlinear. Very clear and unbiased in his interpretation, Montgomery drew on many and diverse sources.

Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia, Philosophical Library Inc. New York, reprinted with permission of original publisher Kraus Reprint Co. USA 1969

Well-structured book, this was most helpful in proving that there are alternatives to the Normanist theory.

Pritsak, Omeljan. The Origin of “Rus” The Russian Review July 1977, (abridged)

Being an abridged version o the paper, this article did not have the detail I would of preferred. Pritsak’s argument is relatively weak; Wieczynski even sighted her paper as mythical. The paper was only used twice, and could have been replaced with something else.

Shieko, K. Masters of Arts / History Thesis Wollongong University 2004.

All references from this work were taken from chapter 3, p.89 - 135 This work provided a strong case for the anti-Normanist theory. Shieko included detailed information on the evolution of Normanism, and provided a rich bibliography of further resources to find.

Wieczynski, Joseph L. The Modern Encyclopaedia of Russian and Soviet History, vol. 25, Academic International Press 1981

This book was foundational to my research. Wieczynski, out of persuasion or political influence presents an article that is obviously anti-Normanist. The structure was clear and the argument persuasive. Containing a fair amount of primary source quotes, and referring to the best in the field, this article was essential to my argument.

Zakharii, Roman. The Historiography of Normanist and Anti-Normanist Theories on the origin of Rus’. Dissertation in Viking and Medieval Nordic Culture, Submitted in candidacy for the degree of Master of Philosophy, Centre for Viking and Medieval Studies, Faculty of Arts, The University of Oslo, Norway, 2002

This paper, despite not being grounded in historical inquiry, was abundant in interpretation and quotes from primary sources. Covering all aspects of Normanist and anti-Normanist history, this exhaustive paper, 125 pages, was very important to my argument.