What preceded the emergence of such a nation as Rus’? What was in this region before the ancient Russian state emerged here? What was the role of the Varangians [Scandinavians] in this process? We discuss these questions and more with Sergei Viktorovich Alekseev, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor in the History Department of the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, who recently completed his own study of these issues. Sergei Alekseev’s book, Rus’ and the Eastern Slavs in the 9th Century: Sources and History will soon be published by the “Radetel” Historical and Educational Society.
Historian Sergei Alekseyev —Sergey Viktorovich, when we read school history textbooks, we get the impression that Kievan Rus’ appears out of nowhere. What actually preceded its appearance?
—Naturally, there was a prehistory. This region, from the point of view of written sources, is a blank spot on the map of the Ancient World. We know the history of Scythia, and Herodotus created a history before our era replete with fantastic details and descriptions of the peoples of the forest belt of Eastern Europe. But after that, up until the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages, we have very little information about this region.
All we know is that before the emergence of Rus’ in the fourth to sixth centuries, numerous Slavic tribes appeared—one might say, out of nowhere—on the northeastern borders of the disintegrating Roman Empire. The key problem is that the data from written sources about this region is extremely fragmentary. What we have is mainly archeology. But archeology is silent. We have elements of material culture that were later transferred to the Slavs, but we have no solid evidence of which archaeological cultures are associated with the Slavs. If we talk directly about the prehistory of Rus’—that is, about the East European Plain in the seventh to ninth centuries—then we have several archaeological cultures that, with a greater or lesser degree of conventionality, are related to those tribes that the chronicler mentions in relation to the tenth to twelfth centuries. And we know practically nothing except fragmentary legends conveyed by the same chronicle. We do not know about the political development of these tribes. We can only reconstruct this development on the basis of archaeological data and the same chronicle legends, making allowance for the fact that these are legends. We have extremely little information about everything that preceded the 9th century, and the picture of what happened in the ninth century is still fragmentary.
—But can archeology at least tell where the Slavic tribes came from, and in what direction they moved? Who might have lived in these lands before them?
—In some cases, it can, but very approximately. It is clear that the lands to the south of the East European Plains were inhabited by Slavic or related tribes somewhat earlier than the lands in the very north. It is clear that there was interaction in this entire space between Slavic, Finnish and Baltic tribes, from very early history. If in the 1970s it was believed that the Novgorod lands were inhabited by Slavs no earlier than the seventh century, now we think they were inhabited by Slavs as early as the fourth to fifth centuries. This is a new level of knowledge and view put forward earlier. But the problem is that we cannot name the nationality of any archaeological artifact or burial ritual, because they are also borrowed. We can see the interaction of ethnic groups. We understand that in the end, the Slavs began to prevail in these interactions and we have an approximate chronology of these interactions. But all this is a topic for further research, perhaps involving some new methods such as paleogenetics.
—What can we say about the politogenesis of this region?
—We have quite clear data on how the politogenesis of the southern and western Slavs of the sixth to eighth centuries proceeded, and there is no reason to believe that it proceeded in a fundamentally different way among the Slavs in other regions that were more distant from the western or southern borders of the Slavic world. In principle, by the ninth century, the eastern Slavs already had certain political structures. The terms “prince,” “lord” (i.e. ruler, leader) are very old and have a fairly wide range of meanings, indicating that the main function of this prince or lord is religious. This was the role of a sacred leader, a religious head of the tribe, possibly also vested with judicial power. Along with this, there were military leaders, whose title is reflected, again, in the common Slavic word “voivode.” What should be taken into account here? We sometimes tend to modernize the picture of primitive Slavic society, transferring the images and themes that arose in the chroniclers of the early Middle Ages to the pre-state period. We see princes as rulers, as leaders of early state formations. And when we talk about some very large tribal unions that covered a huge territory, we often do not think about what kind of power structures could ensure control over such a huge territory of people living in separate communities.
—What was the Slavic world like before the emergence of states?
– If we compare this with what we know about other Indo-European peoples, including those who were at the pre-state stage of development in the New Age, and if we apply this comparative material to the language data, archeology and fragmentary data from written sources that we have—then, most likely, we will come to the conclusion (and this, by the way, concerns not only the Slavs, but also other peoples of barbarian Europe) that the entire Slavic world, not yet affected by state formation, was up until the ninth century a motley mosaic of hundreds, and maybe even thousands of units or “principalities,” to use the chronicle term. Sometimes these were tribal, sometimes communal. The tribal unions that we see are more likely to be cult associations of people who recognized a common origin and shared some common customs – we see this from the archaeological material, primarily from the funeral rituals. But, of course, this is quite far from the picture of proto-principalities that the chronicle recounts, or from the image of an almost-formed state that our textbooks and scientific monographs often depict. After all, this was still a pre-state society. Large political associations rarely formed, and if they arose at all they were ephemeral in nature. We have practically no specific information on this matter. And here, of course, some additional catalyst was needed. For the political unification of this entire vast territory—which eventually occurred—there had to be some element that would stand above tribal boundaries and would be highly mobile in order to really create what we now know as Rus’.
– And this element…
– And this element is Rus’. Rus’ as an ethnosocial group, the origin of which has been the subject of much debate in science. Now, we can probably be sure of the northern locus of origin of the name “Rus’.” Although there are other versions. There are some exotic versions that derive Rus’, for example, from the Celtic world, but this is exotic. The most common theory of the origin of the name is Finno-Scandinavian. There is a theory that can be conditionally designated as Balto-Slavic, associated with geographical names south of Lake Ilmen [near Novgorod] of Baltic or Balto-Slavic origin. In fact, this question is completely unresolved, again due to insufficient information.
But we do know that the Rus’ were originally warriors and merchants who moved in separate detachments along the rivers of Eastern Europe. In their composition, we can identify with 100 percent certainty Slavic and Scandinavian elements, which were in close interaction, considering themselves a separate Russian clan, distinct from the tribal environment. Apparently, there was a Finnish element, especially in the northeast, and even a nomadic one appeared upon reaching the south. Among the first names of the Rus’ in the first half of the tenth century, according to treaties with Byzantium, can be found names not only of Scandinavian or Slavic origin but also Turkic, Finnish and Baltic origin. That is, Rus’ was a social group motley in its original ethnic composition, constantly replenished at the expense of various ethnic groups of Eastern Europe; well organized, highly mobile by the standards of the region, which from its initial military and trade interests just during the ninth century moved to subjugating and consolidating vast areas of Eastern Europe under its control. But, of course, this is not yet a proper state.
Aivazovsky I.K. Varangian Saga—the path from the Varangians to the Greeks. 1876
—Do you share the view that the most important source of state formation in this region was the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks?
—Not just one route. There were different trade routes—a whole network. And the Rus’ played a significant role in their development as early as the eighth century. We have reason to believe that at the end of the eighth century, the Rus’ reached the lower parts of the Volga on one side, and the Black Sea coast of Crimea on the other. In the ninth century, both trade relations and the movement of military units along these routes became more developed. Throughout the ninth century—especially towards its end—during a period of silver deficit (when the flow of eastern coins to Eastern Europe was limited) a sharp rivalry arose between the leaders of the Rus’ for control over key trading points.
Actually, this is also reflected in the chronicle legends. We know that by the beginning of the tenth century, a man named Oleg had won this rivalry. Judging by the list of cities under his control, he already controlled a significant part of the East European Plain.
We can say that this is the beginning of the formation of the state. Although, of course, in the proper sense of the word, state power is already a matter of the tenth century, and the key role here was played by the Christianization of Rus’ at the end of the tenth century. We can already talk about an early state in the tenth century.
—And what is your attitude to the Norman theory, according to which the origin of Russian statehood was the summoning of the Varangians led by Rurik?
—It is thanks to this discussion of Normanism and anti-Normanism that a huge number of sources were introduced into scientific circulation. On the other hand, of course, the role of this discussion is also that we argue about the legendary figure of Rurik no less than about the twists and turns of Russian history in the twentieth century, and this is done by people who have little to do with history. It should be recognized that on both sides, the participants in the discussion very often behave more like publicists than like historians. It is enough to note that we often identify the foundation of a state with the foundation of a dynasty or with the origin of the name “Rus’.” It is these questions that turn out to be key, rather than questions of political genesis and state formation, which we are discussing now.
The Summoning of the Varangians. Artist: Viktor Vasnetsov
What can be said about the Varangian legend that started all these disputes? It is just a legend. We know nothing about Rurik, except that it is a very rare name of Scandinavian origin which is found twice more in the Rurik dynasty and is no longer found in the Slavic etymologies. At the same time, the question of whether Rurik was really the father of Prince Igor does not even remain open, since if we take Scandinavia, these are names are not found at all within the same dynasty. And, most likely, if they were both Scandinavians, they would belong to different clans. The name Igor, on the other hand, has a long history in Eastern Europe. Already at the beginning of the ninth century, a man named Inger reached Byzantium, where he made a rather significant church career. So, the bearers of this family name, at least, were present in Eastern Europe earlier than the hypothetical calling of Rurik. Therefore, to discuss the personal data of this character of Novgorod legends, in my opinion, is not very serious. If we talk about the role of the Scandinavians as such in the formation of the Russian state, then they obviously gave the Rus’ a rather important supra-tribal element. With their presence they allowed it to break away from its tribal roots. Their experience in military affairs, especially in navigation, contributed to the military and political activity of the Rus’ in various regions and gave it mobility—but nothing more. Already in the eleventh century, we see many states on the map of Europe where there were none in the eighth century.
At the same time, the Old Russian state was formed earlier than the states on the Scandinavian Peninsula, and if we talk about Denmark, then perhaps at the same time as the Scandinavian states. This was a fairly general process of political genesis, covering both Eastern and Northern Europe. I do not think that there is room for any ethno-oriented theories in reality.
—So, the emergence of the state of the Eastern Slavs fits into the development of civilization and culture in this macroregion? Can this be linked to the processes of development of social relations or technologies that are taking place at this time in Europe, the Middle East and generally in geographically adjacent regions?
—Of course, we see a practically simultaneous process of state formation in vast areas not only of Northern and settled Eastern Europe, but also of nomadic Eastern Europe, and some areas of Central Europe, as well as the South Slavic regions, where in ninthcentury Bulgaria became a fully-fledged Slavic state, and the states of the Slavs of the Adriatic region were formed.
Somewhere this process was ahead of schedule. In Bulgaria we can consider the process of state formation already completed by the end of the ninth century. In other places this process was slower. Among the Slavs of the Southern Baltic, for example, the process of state formation dragged on well into the Middle Ages and was eventually interrupted by the German conquest. Among their closest relatives—the Poles—the first national legislation appeared only in the fourteenth century.
In other words, we should not assume that everything appeared at the same time for everyone. But for the majority of peoples in this area, for Rus’, for a significant part of the southern and western Slavs, for the Scandinavians, for some nomadic peoples, the eighth to tenth centuries plus or minus 100 years really became a turning point. We see many states formed on the map of Europe in the eleventh century where there were none in the eighth century.
