by Riazanovsky
In the seventh century a.D. a new force emerged in southern Russia, to b'e more exact, on the lower Volga, in the northern Caucasus, and the southeastern Russian steppe in general: the Khazar state. The impact of the Khazars split the Bulgars sharply in two: one group definitely settled in the Balkans to dissolve in the Slavic mass and give its name to present-day Bulgaria; the other retreated to the northeast, eventually establishing a state at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama, with the town of Great Bulgar as its capital. The Utigurs and the Kutrigurs retrenched to the lands along the Sea of Azov and the mouth of the Don.
Although the Khazars were still another Turkic-speaking people from Asia, their historical role proved to be quite different from that of the Huns or of the Avars. To begin with, they fought bitter wars against the Arabs and served as a bulwark against the spread of Islam into Europe. When their own state assumed form in southeastern European Russia, it became notable for its commerce, its international connections, and the tolerance and enlightenment of its laws. Although a semi-nomadic people themselves, the Khazars promoted the building of towns, such as their capital of Itil - not far from the mouth of the Volga - Samandar, Sarkil, and certain others. The location at the crossroads of two continents proved to be of fundamental importance for the Khazar economy. In the words of a recent historian of the Khazars, Dunlop: "The prosperity of Khazaria evidently depended less on the resources of the country than on its favorable position
across important trade-routes." The Khazar revenue, consequently, came especially from commercial imposts as well as from the tribute which increased as the Khazar rule expanded westward on the Russian plain. Pagans, Moslems, Christians, and Jews mingled in Khazaria, where all enjoyed considerable freedom and autonomy to live under their own laws. In the eighth and ninth centuries the Khazars themselves embraced Judaism, or at least their ruler, who bore the title of khakan, and the upper class did, thus adding another exceptional chapter to their unusual history. The Khazars have also been cited as one of the first peoples to institute a permanent paid armed force. The development of Khazaria, with its close links to the Arabic and Byzantine worlds, as well as to some other civilizations, its far-flung trade connections, and its general cosmopolitanism, well represents one line of political, economic, and cultural evolution on the great Russian plain at the time of the emergence of the Kievan state. It may be added that, while the Khazars were outstanding in commercial development, varied commercial intercourse on a large scale also grew further north, in the country of the Volga Bulgars.
The East Slavs
Cultures on the northern shore of the Black Sea and in the southern Russian steppe, from the neolithic period to the time of the Khazars, form an essential part of the background of Kievan Russia. Yet it is true too that the people of the Kievan state who came to be known as Russians were not Scythians, Greeks, or Khazars, much as they might have been influenced in one way or another by these and other predecessors and neighbors; they were East Slavs. Therefore, East Slavs also demand our attention. The term itself is linguistic, as our better classifications of ancient peoples usually are. It refers to a group speaking the Eastern variety of Slavic. With time, three distinct East Slavic languages developed: Great Russian, often called simply Russian, Ukrainian, and White Russian or Belorussian. Other branches of the Slavic languages are the West Slavic, including Polish and Czech, and the South Slavic, represented, for instance, by Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. The Slavic languages, in turn, form a subdivision of the Indo-European language family which includes most of the tongues spoken today in Europe and some used in Asia. To be more precise, in addition to the Slavic this family contains the Teutonic, Romance, Hellenic, Baltic, Celtic, Iranian, Indic, Armenian, and Thraco-Illyrian subfamilies of languages. The Cimmerians, it might be recalled, belonged apparently to the Thraco-Illyrian subfamily, the Scythians and the Sarmatians to the Iranian, and the Goths to the Teutonic or Germanic, while the Greeks are, of course, the great representatives of the Hellenic. Early Russian history was also influenced by other Indo-European peoples, such as the Baltic Lithuanians, as well
as by some non-Indo-Europeans, notably by different Turkic tribes - some of which have already been mentioned - the Mongols, and Finno-Ugrian elements.
Languages are organically and intrinsically related within the same subfamily and also within the same family. By contrast, no fundamental connection, as distinct from chance borrowing, has been firmly established between languages in different families, for example, the Indo-European and the Ural-Altaic. In fact, there is even an opinion that speech originated on our planet in a number of separate places, division thus being the rule in the linguistic world from the very beginning. To explain the relatedness of the languages within a family and the much closer relationship of the languages of the same subfamily, scholars have postulated an original language and homeland for each family - such as for all Indo-European peoples whence they spread across Europe and parts of Asia -and later languages and homelands for different linguistic subfamilies before further separation and differentiation. Within the framework of this theory, the Slavs have usually been assigned a common homeland in the general area of the valley of the Vistula and the northern slopes of the Carpathians. Their split has been dated, by Shakhmatov and others, in the sixth century a.D., and the settlement by the East Slavs of the great plain of European Russia in the seventh, the eighth, and the ninth. In reconstructing Slavic migrations, allowance has frequently been made for the fact that the East Slavic languages are closer to the South Slavic than those of either of these branches to the West Slavic ones. It should be emphasized that in relying on original languages and their homelands one is dealing with languages, not races. The categories listed above are all linguistic, not racial, and do not necessarily correspond to any physical traits. Besides, intermarriage, conquest, imitation, as well as some other factors, have repeatedly changed the number and composition of those speaking a given language. Today, for instance, English is the native tongue of African-Americans as well as of Yorkshiremen. An entire people can lose a language and adopt a new one. Invaders have often been absorbed by the indigenous population, as in the case of the Turkic Bulgars in the Balkans. Other invaders have been able to overwhelm and incorporate native peoples. Thus some historians explain the Germanic expansion in eastern Europe by a Germanization, not an extermination, of different Slavic and Lithuanian tribes. There are also such puzzling cases as the language of the Lapps in the far north of Scandinavia and Russia: it is a Finno-Ugrian tongue, but, in the opinion of certain specialists, it appears to be superimposed on a radically different linguistic structure.
Recent scholarship has subjected the theory of original languages and homelands to a searching criticism. At present few specialists speak with any confidence about the historical homeland of the Indo-Europeans, and some reject it even as a theoretical concept. More important for students of
Russian history, the Slavic homeland has also been thoroughly questioned. The revaluation has been largely instigated by discoveries of the presence of the Slavs at a much earlier time and over a much larger area in Russia than had been traditionally supposed. To meet new evidence, some scholars have redefined the original Slavic homeland to include parts of Russia. Others have postulated an earlier dispersal of the Slavs, some suggesting that it proceeded in several waves to explain both their ancient presence on the Russian plain and their later migration thither. Still others have given up the Slavic homeland altogether. While recent work concerning Slavic prehistory has produced many new facts, it has lacked a convincing general theory to replace that which has been found wanting.
The first extant written references to the Slavs belong to the classical writers early in our era, including Pliny the Elder and Tacitus. Important later accounts include those of the sixth century produced by the Byzantine historian Procopius and the Gothic Jordanes. The terms most frequently used to designate the Slavs were "Venedi" and "Antes," with the latter coming to mea
n the East Slavs - although "Antes" has also been given other interpretations, such as pre-Slavic Iranian inhabitants of southern Russia or Goths. Soviet archaeologists insist that Slavic settlements in parts of Russia, notably in the Don area, date at least from the middle of the first millennium b.c. It is now assumed by some historians that the Slavs composed a significant part, perhaps the bulk, of the population of southern and central Russia from the time of the Scythians. For instance, they may be hidden under various designations used by Herodotus, such as "Scythian ploughmen." It is known that the East Slavs fought against the Goths, were swept westward with the Huns, and were conquered by the Avars; certain East Slavic tribes were paying tribute to the Khazars at the dawn of Kievan history. At that time, according to our main written source, the Kievan Primary Chronicle of the early twelfth century, the East Slavs were divided into twelve tribes located on the broad expanses of the Russian plain, from the Black Sea, the Danube, and the Carpathian mountains, across Ukraine, and beyond, northward to the Novgorod territory and eastward toward the Volga. Their neighbors included, in addition to some of the peoples already mentioned, Finnic elements scattered throughout northern and eastern Russia and Lithuanian tribes to the west.
By the ninth century A.D. East Slavic economy, society, and culture had already experienced a considerable development. Agriculture was well and widely established among the East Slavs. Other important occupations included fishing, hunting, apiculture, cattle-raising, weaving, and pottery-making, as well as other arts and crafts, such as carpentry. The East Slavs had known the use of iron for centuries. They had also been engaging in varied and far-flung commerce. They possessed a remarkable number of towns; even Tikhomirov's count of them, some 238, is not complete.
Certain of these towns, such as Novgorod, Smolensk, and Kiev, a town belonging to the tribe of the Poliane, were to have long and important histories. Very little is known about the political organization of the East Slavs. There exist, however, a few scattered references to the rulers of the Antes and of some of the component tribes: for example, Jordanes's mention of Bozh, a prince of the Antes at the time of the Gothic wars; and the statement of Masudi, an Arabian writer, concerning Madzhak, apparently a prince of the East Slavic tribe of the Duleby in the Avar period.
Part II: KIEVAN RUSSIA
I I I
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KIEVAN STATE
They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Russes.
THE PRIMARY CHRONICLE
The problem of the origin of the first Russian state, that of Kiev, is exceedingly complex and controversial. No other chapter of Russian history presents the same number and variety of difficulties. Yet the modern student of the subject, although he can by no means produce all the answers, should at least be able to avoid the cruder mistakes and oversimplifications of the past.
The first comprehensive, scholarly effort to explain the appearance of the Kievan state was made in the eighteenth century in terms of the so-called Norman theory. As formulated by Bayer, Schlozer, and others, this view stressed the role of the vikings from Scandinavia - that is, Norsemen, or, to follow the established usage in Russian historiography, Normans - in giving Russia government, cohesion, and, in large part, even culture. The Norman period of Russian history was thus postulated as the foundation for its subsequent evolution. In the course of over two hundred years the Norman theory has been developed, modified, and changed by many prominent scholars. Other specialists, however, opposed it virtually from the very beginning, offering instead a dazzling variety of possibilities. More recently Soviet historians turned violently against it, and it remained largely out of bounds for Soviet scholarship until 1985 and glasnost.
In estimating the value of the Norman theory it is important to appreciate its drastic limitations in the field of culture. The original assertion of the Norman influence on Russia was made before the early history of southern Russia, outlined in the preceding chapter, had been discovered. With our present knowledge of that history there is no need to bring in the Norsemen to account for Kievan society and culture. What is more, Scandinavia itself, located in the far north, lay at that time much farther from cultural centers and crosscurrents than did the valley of the Dnieper. Not surprisingly, once the Kievan state emerged, its culture developed more richly and rapidly than that of its northern neighbor; whether we consider written literature and written law or coin stamping, we have to register their appearance in Kievan Russia a considerable time before their arrival in Scandinavian
Detailed investigations of Scandinavian elements in Russian culture serve to emphasize their relative insignificance. Norman words in the Russian language, formerly supposed to be numerous, number actually only six or seven. Old Russian terms pertaining to navigation were often Greek, those dealing with trade, Oriental or native Slavic, but not Scandinavian. Written literature in Kiev preceded written literature in Scandinavia, and it experienced clear Byzantine and Bulgarian rather than Nordic influences; under these circumstances, persistent efforts to link it to the Scandinavian epic fail to carry conviction. Claims of Norman contributions to Russian law have suffered a fiasco: while at one time scholars believed in the Scandinavian foundation of Russian jurisprudence, it has in fact proved impossible to trace elements of Kievan law back to Norman prototypes. Similarly, there is no sound evidence for Norman influence on Kievan paganism: Perun, the god of thunder and the chief deity of the East Slavic pantheon, far from being a copy of Thor, was described as the supreme divinity of the Antes by Procopius in the sixth century; a linguistic analysis of the names of East Slavic gods reveals a variety of cultural connections, but none of them with Scandinavia. Other assertions of Norman cultural influences, for instance, on the organization of the Kievan court or on Russian dress, tend to be vague and inconclusive, especially when compared to the massive impact of Byzantium and the tangible effects of some Oriental cultures on Russia.
But, while the importance of Scandinavian culture for Russian culture no longer represents a major historical issue, the role of the Normans in the establishment of the Kievan state itself remains highly controversial. The question of the origin of the Kievan state is very closely connected with a group, tribe, or people known as the Rus, and it is also from the Rus that we derive the later name of the Russians. Almost everything connected with the Rus has become a subject of major controversy in Russian historiography. Under the year a.D. 862 the Primary Chronicle tells briefly about the arrival of the Rus following an invitation from the quarreling Slavic tribes of the Sloveni and the Krivichi and some Finnish tribes:
They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Russes: these particular Varangians were known as Russes, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, Angles, and Goths, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs and the Krivichians then said to the people of Rus, "Our whole 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. The oldest, Rurik, located himself in Novgorod; the second, Sineus, in Byeloozero; and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. On account of these Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as the land of the Rus. The present inhabitants
of Novgorod are descended from the Varangian race, but aforetime they were Slavs.*
The proponents of the Norman theory accepted the Chronicle verbatim, with the understanding that the Rus were a Scandinavian tribe or group, and proceeded to identify the Rus-Ros-Rhos of other sources with the Scandinavians. However, before long grave complications arose. A group called Rus could not be found in Scandinavia itself and were utterly unknown in the West. Although the Chronicle referred to Novgorod, Rus became identified with the Kievan state, and the very name came to designate the southern Russian state as distinct from the north, Novgorod included. Still more important was the discovery that the Rus had been known to some Byzantine and Oriental writers before a.D. 862 and was evidently located in southern Russia. Finally
, the Primary Chronicle itself came to be suspected and underwent a searching criticism.
As one of their first tasks, the supporters of the Norman view set out to find the Scandinavian origin of the name Rus. Their search, from the time of Schlozer to the present, has had mixed success at best. A number of derivations had to be abandoned. The deduction of Rus from the Finnish word for the Swedes, Ruotsi, developed by Thomsen and upheld by Stender-Petersen and others, seems linguistically acceptable, but it has been criticized as extremely complicated and unlikely on historical grounds.
Because they considered the Rus a Scandinavian group, the proponents of the Norman theory proceeded to interpret all references to the Rus in Norman terms. Under the year a.D. 839 a Western source, The Bertinian Annals, tells about the Rus ambassadors who came to Ingelheim through Constantinople and who were men of Khakan-Rus, but who turned out to be Swedes. Some scholars even concluded that the ambassadors must have come all the way from Sweden, and they read khakan to mean Haakon. But the Russian khakanate was probably located in southern Russia, and the title of khakan suggests Khazar rather than Norman influence. The early date made certain other scholars advance the hypothetical arrival of the Scandinavian Rus into Russia from a.D. 862 to "approximately a.D. 840." A slight change in the original chronology also enabled these specialists to regard as Scandinavian the Rus who staged an attack on Constantinople in a.D. 860 and who were described on that occasion by Patriarch Photius.
