The origin of the word russia

Different nations name Russia differently, but how did it get its original name?

Natalya Nosova

The answer to this question is far more complicated than you may have thought.

We rarely think about it but almost every country’s name traces back to something or someone often long forgotten. For example, France’s name derives from the Franks, the Germanic tribes who conquered the respective territory in the fifth century. And America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian traveler who was among the first Europeans to step foot on the New World.

What about Russia? All historians agree that its name originates from the word “Rus.” The Byzantine emperor Constantine VII was the first to refer to the land of Slavic tribes as “Rusia” (with one “s”) in the 10th century. The typical Greek/Latin suffix “ia” anchors something or someone to the land, so “Russ-ia” meant “the land of Rus.” But here’s the interesting part: to this day, no one knows for sure what the hell “Russ” actually means.

Russia = Sweden?

According to one train of thought, “Rus” originates from the Scandinavian languages and reflects the belief that the first rulers of ancient Russia were actually Vikings, or “Varangians.” “Varangians named us Rus after themselves,” said a 12th-century chronicler, quoted by historian Vasily Klyuchevsky.

If this version is true, “Rus” is just another term for “Sweden/Swedish,” like the Normans or Vikings were once referred to. “Rus” was used by foreigners to describe Slavic tribes ruled by the Vikings, and it stuck. “Rus” is close to today’s Ruotsi – which means “Sweden” in Finnish – so there’s some logic here.

Slavic and Sarmat versions

Of course, this version doesn’t satisfy everyone, especially given that many historians slam the idea of the Varangians ever ruling ancient Russia – they consider it a legend. So they found another explanation for the origin of “Rus” – the Ros River, a tributary of the Dnieper (now in Ukraine). Some Slavs settled there so people started calling them Rosskiye, which then turned into Russkie…

This may sound like a plausible theory but linguists doubt that the “o” morphed into a “u” for this ethnonym – something which almost never happens. But there’s an even more exotic version, that “Rus” originated from the Roksolani, a Sarmat people close to the Skifs who lived in Crimea from the second century BC to the first century AD. Allegedly, the Roksolani mixed with the Slavs and somehow shortened their name to “Rus.” Who knows – after all, several thousand years have passed since then.

‘Red people’?

Another hypothesis suggests that “Rus” originates from the Roman word ross, which means “red.” “The Byzantines call them [Slavic tribes] ar-rusiya, which means ‘red,’” wrote Al-Masdi, an Arabian historian from the 10th century. The red reference was fueled by their sunburnt faces. When the northerners, who were accustomed to a lack of UV rays, traveled south their faces often got sunburnt, making them the “red people” – Ross. This is quite a poetic version.

Exotic ‘Russias’

Historians could no doubt argue for eternity over what words “Rus” originated from. Whoever is right, Russia has been Russia for so many centuries that it’s impossible to imagine the country with another name. Most nations use a similar sounding name: Russia in English, Russland in German, La Russie in French, Rusiya in Arabic, and so on – the root remains the same. However, there are some interesting exceptions:

1)   Finnish – Venäja, Estonian – Venemaa. These languages, most likely, use the root based on the name of the Veneti, yet another ancient tribe who might have been the Slavs’ ancestors.

2)   Latvian – Krievija (yes, the Baltic states seem to like giving Russia non-banal names). Actually, it’s the same – the name originated from the Krivichs, a tribal union of East Slavs.

3)   Chinese –  俄罗斯 (pronounced Elosy). The name uses the classical “ros/rus” root but the Chinese don’t use “r” so they changed it to the more familiar “l.”

4)   Vietnamese – Nga. Yep, this is the strangest one. Linguists explain it like this: up until the 20th century the Vietnamese were using Chinese hieroglyphs, so Russia was the good old 俄罗斯. But the rules of reading were completely different so it sounded like Nga La Ty. After switching to the Latin alphabet, they dropped the two last syllables and now just call Russia Nga. But in case you want the Russians to understand what country you’re talking about, better to use something less exotic.

This article is part of the «Why Russia…?» series in which RBTH answers popular questions about Russia.

If using any of Russia Beyond’s content, partly or in full, always provide an active hyperlink to the original material.

Get the week’s best stories straight to your inbox

This article is about Rusʹ as a name. For information about the Rusʹ people, see Rusʹ people.

For other uses, see Rus.

Originally, the name Rusʹ (Cyrillic: Русь) referred to the people,^[1] regions, and medieval states (9th to 12th centuries) of the Kievan Rusʹ. Its territories are today distributed among Belarus, Northern Ukraine, Eastern Poland, and the European section of Russia. The term Россия (Rossija), comes from the Byzantine Greek designation of the Rusʹ, Ρωσσία Rossía—related to both Modern Greek: Ρως, romanized: Ros, lit. ‘Rusʹ’, and Ρωσία (Rosía, «Russia», pronounced [roˈsia]).

One of the earliest written sources mentioning the people called Rusʹ (as Rhos) dates to 839 in the Annales Bertiniani. This chronicle identifies them as a Germanic tribe called the Swedes. According to the Kievan Rusʹ Primary Chronicle, compiled in about 1113, the Rusʹ were a group of Varangians, Norsemen who had relocated somewhere from the Baltic region (literally «from beyond the sea»), first to Northeastern Europe, then to the south where they created the medieval Kievan state.^[2]
In the 11th century, the dominant term in the Latin tradition was Ruscia. It was used, among others, by Thietmar of Merseburg, Adam of Bremen, Cosmas of Prague and Pope Gregory VII in his letter to Izyaslav I. Rucia, Ruzzia, Ruzsia were alternative spellings.
During the 12th century, Ruscia gradually made way for two other Latin terms, «Russia» and «Ruthenia». «Russia» (also spelled Rossia and Russie) was the dominant Romance-language form, first used by Liutprand of Cremona in the 960s and then by Peter Damian in the 1030s. It became ubiquitous in English and French documents in the 12th century. Ruthenia, first documented in the early 12th century Augsburg annals, was a Latin form preferred by the Apostolic Chancery of the Latin Church.

The modern name of Russia (Rossija), which came into use in the 15th century,^[3][4][5] is derived from the Greek Ρωσία, which in turn derives from Ῥῶς, the self-name of the people of Rusʹ.^[6]

A hypothetical predecessor of Kievan Rusʹ is the 9th-century Rusʹ Khaganate, whose name and existence are inferred from a handful of early medieval Byzantine and Persian and Arabic sources.^{[citation needed]}

Etymology[edit]

The most common theory about the origins of Russians is the Germanic version. The name Rus‘, like the Proto-Finnic name for Sweden (*Ruotsi), supposed to be descended from an Old Norse term for «the men who row» (rods-) as rowing was the main method of navigating the rivers of Eastern Europe, and that it could be linked to the Swedish coastal area of Roslagen (Rus-law) or Roden, as it was known in earlier times.^[7][8]
The name Rus’ would then have the same origin as the Finnish, Estonian, Võro and Northern Sami names for Sweden: Ruotsi, Rootsi, Roodsi and Ruoŧŧa.^[9] The local Finnic and Permic peoples in northern Russia proper use the same (Rus‘-related) name both for Sweden and Russia (depending on the language): thus the Veps name for Sweden and Swedish is Ročinma / Ročin,^[10] while in the Komi language spoken further east the etymologically corresponding term Roćmu / Roć means already Russia and Russian instead.^[11][12]
The Finnish scholar Tor Karsten has pointed out that the territory of present-day Uppland, Södermanland and East Gothland in ancient times was known as Roðer or roðin. Thomsen accordingly has suggested that Roðer probably derived from roðsmenn or roðskarlar, meaning seafarers or rowers.^{[13][page needed]} Ivar Aasen, the Norwegian philologist and lexicographer, noted proto-Germanic root variants Rossfolk, Rosskar, Rossmann.^[14]

George Vernadsky theorized about the association of Rus and Alans. He claimed that Ruxs in Alanic means «radiant light», thus the ethnonym Roxolani could be understood as «bright Alans».^[15] He theorized that the name Roxolani a combination of two separate tribal names: the Rus and the Alans.^[15]

Early evidence[edit]

In Old East Slavic literature, the East Slavs refer to themselves as «[muzhi] ruskie» («Rus’ men») or, rarely, «rusichi.» The East Slavs are thought to have adopted this name from the Varangian elite,^{[citation needed]} which was first mentioned in the 830s in the Annales Bertiniani. The Annales recount that Louis the Pious’s court at Ingelheim am Rhein in 839 (the same year as the first appearance of Varangians in Constantinople), was visited by a delegation from the Byzantine emperor. The delegates included two men who called themselves «Rhos» («Rhos vocari dicebant»). Louis inquired about their origins and learned that they were Swedes. Fearing that they were spies for their brothers the Danes, he jailed them. They were also mentioned in the 860s by Byzantine Patriarch Photius under the name «Rhos.»^{[citation needed]}

Rusiyyah was used by Ahmad ibn Fadlan for Varangians near Astrakhan, and by the Persian traveler Ahmad ibn Rustah who visited Veliky Novgorod^[16] and described how the Rus’ exploited the Slavs.

As for the Rus, they live on an island … that takes three days to walk round and is covered with thick undergrowth and forests; it is most unhealthy… They harry the Slavs, using ships to reach them; they carry them off as slaves and… sell them. They have no fields but simply live on what they get from the Slav’s lands… When a son is born, the father will go up to the newborn baby, sword in hand; throwing it down, he says, «I shall not leave you with any property: You have only what you can provide with this weapon.»^[17]

When the Varangians arrived in Constantinople, the Byzantines considered and described the Rhos (Greek Ῥῶς) as a different people from the Slavs.

The earliest written mention of the word Rus‘ appears in the Primary Chronicle under the year 912. When describing a peace treaty signed by the Varangian Oleg of Novgorod during his campaign on Constantinople, it contains the following passage, «Oleg sent his men to make peace and sign a treaty between the Greeks and the Rus’, saying thus: […] «We are the Rus’: Karl, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudi, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Vost, Stemid, sent by Oleg, the great prince of Rus’, and all those under him[.]»^{[citation needed]}

Later, the Primary Chronicle states that they conquered Kiev and created what is now called Kievan Rus’. The territory they conquered was named after them as were, eventually, the local people (cf. Normans).^{[citation needed]}

However, the Synod Scroll of the Novgorod First Chronicle, which is partly based on the original list of the late 11th Century and partly on the Primary Chronicle, does not name the Varangians asked by the Chuds, Slavs and Krivichs to reign their obstreperous lands as the «Rus'». One can assume that there was no original mention of the Varangians as the Rus’ due to the old list predating the Primary Chronicle and the Synod Scroll only referred to the Primary Chronicle if the pages of the old list were blemished.^{[citation needed]}

Other spellings used in Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries were as follows: Ruzi, Ruzzi, Ruzia and Ruzari. Sources written in Latin routinely confused the Rus’ with the Rugii, an ancient East Germanic tribe related to the Goths. Olga of Kiev, for instance, was called «queen of the Rugii» (regina Rugorum) in the Lotharingian Chronicle compiled by the anonymous continuator of Regino of Prüm.^[18]

Spread further east[edit]

The word for «Russian» can be reconstructed for Proto-Permic as *rôć [rotɕ]. Besides Komi-Zyrian роч / roć, this develops also into Komi-Yazva ruć, Udmurt ӟыч / dźuć.^[19] The word serves further as a source for exonyms of the Russians in several languages spoken in Siberia. The name surfaces in Mansi as roš, ruš, in Khanty as ruś, ruť, rüť depending on the variety, and in Selkup as ruš.^[20]

Alternate anti-Normanist theories[edit]

A number of alternative etymologies have been suggested. These are derived from the «anti-Normanist» school of thought in Russian historiography during the 19th century and in the Soviet era. These hypotheses are considered unlikely in Western mainstream academia.^[9]
Slavic and Iranian etymologies suggested by «anti-Normanist» scholars include:

• The Roxolani, a Sarmatian (i. e., Iranian) people who inhabited southern Ukraine, Moldova and Romania;^{[citation needed]}
• Several river-names in the region contain the element rus/ros and these might be the origin of the name of the Rus’.^[21] In Ukraine, the Ros and Rusna, near Kiev and Pereyaslav, respectively, whose names are derived from a postulated Slavic term for «water», akin to rosa (dew), rusalka (water nymph), ruslo (stream bed). (A relation of rosa to the Sanskrit rasā́- «liquid, juice; mythical river» suggests itself; compare Avestan Raŋhā «mythical stream» and the ancient name of the Volga River, Ῥᾶ Rā, from a cognate Scythian name.)^{[citation needed]}
• Rusiy (Русый), light-brown, said of hair color (the translation «reddish-haired», cognate with the Slavic «ryzhiy», «red-haired», is not quite exact);^{[citation needed]}
• A postulated proto-Slavic word for «bear», cognate with arctos and ursus.^{[citation needed]}

The name Rus‘ may have originated from the Iranian name of the Volga River (by F. Knauer, Moscow 1901), as well as from the Rosh of Ezekiel.^[22] Prof. George Vernadsky has suggested a derivation from the Roxolani or from the Aryan term ronsa^{[verification needed]} (moisture, water). River names such as Ros are common in Eastern Europe.^{[13][page needed]}

The Russian linguist Igor Danilevsky, in his Ancient Rus as Seen by Contemporaries and Descendants, argued against these theories, stating that the anti-Normanists neglected the realities of the Ancient Slavic languages and that the nation name Rus‘ could not have arisen from any of the proposed origins.^{[citation needed]}

• The populace of the Ros River would have been known as Roshane;
• Red-haired or bear-origined people would have ended their self-name with the plural -ane or -ichi, and not with the singular -s’ (red hair is one of the natural hair colors of Scandinavians and other Germanic peoples);
• Most theories are based on a Ros- root, and in Ancient Slavic an o would never have become the u in Rus‘.^{[citation needed]}

Danilevskiy further argued^{[citation needed]} that the term followed the general pattern of Slavic names for neighboring Finnic peoples—the Chud’, Ves’, Perm’, Sum’, etc.—but that the only possible word that it could be based on, Ruotsi, presented a historical dead-end, since no such tribal or national name was known from non-Slavic sources. «Ruotsi» is, however, the Finnish name for Sweden.^[23]
Danilevskiy shows that the oldest historical source, the Primary Chronicle, is inconsistent in what it refers to as the «Rus'»: in adjacent passages, the Rus’ are grouped with Varangians, with the Slavs, and also set apart from the Slavs and Varangians. Danilevskiy suggests that the Rus’ were originally not a nation but a social class, which can explain the irregularities in the Primary Chronicle and the lack of early non-Slavic sources.^{[citation needed]}

From Rus’ to Russia[edit]

In modern English historiography, common names for the ancient East Slavic state include Kievan Rus or Kyivan Rus (sometimes retaining the apostrophe in Rus‘, a transliteration of the soft sign, ь),^[24] Kievan or Kyivan Rus, and Kyivan or Kievan Ruthenia. It is also called the Princedom or Principality of Kyiv or Kiev, or just Kyiv or Kiev.^{[citation needed]}

The term Kievan Rus‘ was established by modern historians to distinguish the period from the 9th century to the beginning of the 12th century, when Kiev was the center of a large state.^[25]

The vast political state was subsequently divided into several parts. The most influential were, in the south, Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia and in the north, Vladimir-Suzdal and the Novgorod Republic.^{[citation needed]}

Northeast principalities[edit]

In the 14th–16th centuries most of northeastern Rus’ principalities were united under the power of the Grand Duchy of Moscow,^[26] once a part of Vladimir-Suzdal, and formed a large state.^{[27][clarification needed]} While the oldest endonyms were Rus‘ (Russian: Русь) and the Rus’ land^[28] or Russian land^[28] (Russian: Русская земля),^[29] a new form of its name, Rusia or Russia, appeared in the 15th century, and became common thereafter.^[3][4][5] In the 1480s Muscovite state scribes Ivan Cherny and Mikhail Medovartsev mention Russia under the name Росиа, Medovartsev also mentions «the sceptre of Russian lordship (Росийскаго господства)».^[30] In the following century Russia co-existed with the old name Rus’ and appeared in an inscription on the western portal of the Transfiguration Cathedral of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery in Yaroslavl (1515), on the icon case of the Theotokos of Vladimir (1514), in the work by Maximus the Greek,^[31] the Russian Chronograph written by Dosifei Toporkov (?–1543/44^[32]) in 1516–22 and in other sources.^[33]

By the 15th century, the rulers of the Grand Duchy of Moscow had incorporated the northern parts of the former Kievan Rus’.^{[citation needed]} Ivan III of Moscow was the first local ruler to claim the title of «Grand Prince of all Rus'»^{[citation needed]} This title was used by the Grand Dukes of Vladimir since the early 14th century,^{[citation needed]} and the first prince to use it was Mikhail of Tver.^{[citation needed]} Ivan III was styled by Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor as rex albus and rex Russiae.^{[citation needed]} Later, Rus’ — in the Russian language specifically — evolved into the Byzantine-influenced form, Rossiya (Russia is Ῥωσσία (Rhōssía) in Greek).^{[citation needed]}

Tsardom of Russia[edit]

In 1547, Ivan IV assumed the title of «Tsar and Grand Duke of all Rus'» (Царь и Великий князь всея Руси) and was crowned on 16 January,^[34] thereby proclaiming the Tsardom of Russia, or «the Great Russian Tsardom», as it was called in the coronation document,^[35] by Constantinople Patriarch Jeremiah II^[36][37] and in numerous official texts,^{[38][39][40][41][42][43]} but the state partly remained referred to as Moscovia (English: Muscovy) throughout Europe, predominantly in its Catholic part, though this Latin term was never used in Russia.^[44] The two names «Russia» and «Moscovia» appear to have co-existed as interchangeable during the later 16th and throughout the 17th century with different Western maps and sources using different names, so that the country was called «Russia, or Moscovia» (Latin: Russia seu Moscovia) or «Russia, popularly known as Moscovia» (Latin: Russia vulgo Moscovia). In England of the 16th century, it was known both as Russia and Muscovy.^[45][46] Such notable Englishmen as Giles Fletcher, author of the book Of the Russe Common Wealth (1591), and Samuel Collins, author of The Present State of Russia (1668), both of whom visited Russia, were familiar with the term Russia and used it in their works.^[47] So did numerous other authors, including John Milton, who wrote A brief history of Moscovia and of other less-known countries lying eastward of Russia, published posthumously,^[48] starting it with the words: «The Empire of Moscovia, or as others call it, Russia…».^[49]

In the Russian Tsardom, the word Russia replaced the old name Rus‘ in official documents, though the names Rus‘ and Russian land were still common and synonymous to it,^[50] and often appeared in the form Great Russia (Russian: Великая Россия), which is more typical of the 17th century,^[51] whereas the state was also known as Great-Russian Tsardom (Russian: Великороссийское царствие).^[38]

According to historians like Alexander Zimin and Anna Khoroshkevich, the continuous use of the term Moscovia was a result of traditional habit^{[citation needed]} and the need to distinguish between the Muscovite and the Lithuanian part of the Rus’, as well as of the political interests of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which competed with Moscow for the western regions of the Rus’. Due to the propaganda of the Commonwealth,^[52][53] as well as of the Jesuits, the term Moscovia was used instead of Russia in many parts of Europe where prior to the reign of Peter the Great there was a lack of direct knowledge of the country. In Northern Europe and at the court of the Holy Roman Empire, however, the country was known under its own name, Russia or Rossia.^[54] Sigismund von Herberstein, ambassador of the Holy Roman Emperor in Russia, used both Russia and Moscovia in his work on the Russian tsardom and noted: «The majority believes that Russia is a changed name of Roxolania. Muscovites («Russians» in the German version) refute this, saying that their country was originally called Russia (Rosseia)».^[55] Pointing to the difference between Latin and Russian names, French captain Jacques Margeret, who served in Russia and left a detailed description of L’Empire de Russie of the early 17th century that was presented to King Henry IV, stated that foreigners make «a mistake when they call them Muscovites and not Russians. When they are asked what nation they are, they respond ‘Russac’, which means ‘Russians’, and when they are asked what place they are from, the answer is Moscow, Vologda, Ryasan and other cities».^[56] The closest analogue of the Latin term Moscovia in Russia was “Tsardom of Moscow”, or “Moscow Tsardom” (Московское царство), which was used along with the name «Russia»,^[57][58] sometimes in one sentence, as in the name of the 17th century Russian work On the Great and Glorious Russian Moscow State (Russian: О великом и славном Российском Московском государстве).^[59]

Official state names[edit]

Polity name	Timespan	Notes
Grand Duchy of Moscow	1263–1547	Also Muscovy. From the 15th century, the Grand Princes of Moscow increasingly started claiming the title «of all Rus'», and later «of Russia».
Tsardom of Russia	1547–1721
Russian Empire	1721–1917
Russian Republic	1917–1918	Government abolished in 1918 after the October Revolution.
Russian Democratic Federal Republic	1918	Name used in the 1918 constitution.
Russian Soviet Republic	1917–1918
Russian State	1918–1920	Located in Ufa.
Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic	1918–1936	Constituent republic of the USSR from 1922.
Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic	1936–1991
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics	1922–1991	Commonly known as the “Soviet Union”.
Russian Federation	1991–present	Official name defined in the 1993 Constitution of Russia.

From Rus’ to Ruthenia[edit]

Southwest principalities[edit]

In the 13th–14th centuries, many of southwestern Rus’ principalities were united under the power of the Kingdom of Rus’ (Latin: Regnum Rusiae), historiographically better known as the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. Roman the Great was variously named dux Rutenorum, princeps Ruthenorum or rex Ruthenorum by Polish chroniclers.^[60] Danylo of Galicia was crowned Rex Ruthenorum or «king of the Rus'» in 1253.^[61] Alternatively, Danylo and his brother Vasylko Romanovych were styled Princeps Galiciae, Rex Russiae, and Rex Lodomeriae in Papal documents, while the population of Halych and Volhynia was called Rusciae christiani and populus Russiae amongst other names.^[62] The Gesta Hungarorum (c. 1280) stated that the Carpathian mountains between Hungary and Halych were situated in finibus Ruthenie («on the borders of Ruthenia»).^[62]

Galicia–Volhynia declined by mid-14th century due to the Galicia–Volhynia Wars after the poisoning of king Yuri II Boleslav by local Ruthenian nobles in 1340. Iohannes Victiensis Liber (page 218) records the death of Boleslav as Hoc anno rex Ruthenorum moritur (…) («In that year the king of the Ruthenians died (…)»).^[63] The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus’, Samogitia became its successor state, and the Kingdom of Poland later absorbed Galicia as the Rus Voivodeship. The latter became the Ruthenian Voivodeship (or «Russian»; Latin: Palatinatus Russiae) in 1434.^{[citation needed]}

While in the Grand Principality of Moscow the rulers called their realm Rus, the residents of Western Rus lands called themselves Rusyny, Rusniaky or Rus’ki.^{[citation needed]}

White, Black, Red[edit]

While gradually most of the territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus’, Samogitia retained the name Rus‘, some of them got more color-specific names:

• «White Rus» (Russia (Ruthenia) Alba, Belarus, Ruś Biała). This would eventually become the name of the country Belarus.^{[citation needed]}
• «Black Rus» (Russia (Ruthenia) Nigra, Chorna Rus, Ruś Czarna)^{[citation needed]}
• «Red Rus» (Russia (Ruthenia) Rubra, Chervona Rus, Ruś Czerwona)^{[citation needed]}

Although the name Ruthenia arose as a Latinized form of the name Rus‘ in Western European documents in medieval times, Russia was still the predominant name for Western Rus’ territories up until 19th century.^{[citation needed]}

Modern Ruthenia[edit]

Later application of the name «Ruthenia» became narrowed to Carpathian Ruthenia (Karpats’ka Rus’), the northeastern part of the Carpathian Mountains, in the Kingdom of Hungary where the local Slavs had Rusyn identity. Carpathian Ruthenia incorporated the cities of Mukachevo (Hungarian: Munkács), Uzhhorod (Hungarian: Ungvár) and Prešov (Pryashiv; Hungarian: Eperjes). Carpathian Rus’ had been part of the Kingdom of Hungary since 907, and had been known as «Magna Rus'» but was also called «Karpato-Rus'» or «Zakarpattya».^{[citation needed]}

Little Russia, New Russia[edit]

In 1654, under the Pereyaslav Agreement, the Cossack lands of the Zaporozhian Host were signed into the protectorate of the Tsardom of Russia, including the Cossack Hetmanate of Left-bank Ukraine, and Zaporozhia. In Russia, these lands were referred to as Little Russia (Malorossiya). Colonies established in lands ceded from the Ottoman Empire along the Black Sea were called Novorossiya «New Russia».^{[citation needed]}

Ecclesiastical titles[edit]

Originally, there was a metropolitan based in Kiev (Kyiv) calling himself «metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'», but in 1299, the Kyivan metropolitan chair was moved to Vladimir by Metropolitan Maximos, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’. One line of metropolitans settled in Moscow in 1325 and continued titling themselves «of Kiev and all Rus'». Patriarch Callistus I of Constantinople in 1361 created two metropolitan sees with their own names (in Greek) for the northern and southern parts: respectively, Μεγάλη Ῥωσσία (Megálē Rhōssía,^[64] Great Russia) in Vladimir and Kiev and Μικρὰ Ῥωσσία (Mikrà Rhōssía, Russia Minor or Little Russia) with the centers in Halych and Novogrudok.^{[citation needed]}

After the 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism, the Muscovite church became autocephalous in 1589, renamed itself the Moscow Patriarchate (today better known as the Russian Orthodox Church) and switched to the title of «Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus'». On the other hand, the southwestern territories of former Kievan Rus’ would undergo Polonisation and experience the 1596 Union of Brest, leading to the creation of the Ruthenian Uniate Church (Belarusian: Руская Уніяцкая Царква; Ukrainian: Руська Унійна Церква; Latin: Ecclesia Ruthena unita; Polish: Ruski Kościół Unicki). The primate of this church was titled «Metropolitan of Kyiv, Galicia and all Ruthenia». The Annexation of the Metropolitanate of Kyiv by the Moscow Patriarchate happened in c. 1685–1722.^{[citation needed]}

When the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church proclaimed itself in 1917, its primates styled themselves «Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine», thus replacing «Rus'» with «Ukraine», until 1936. From 1991 to 2000, two further patriarchs of the UAOC called themselves «Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus-Ukraine», but then «Rus» was definitively dropped from the name.^{[citation needed]} After the Unification Council of 2018 which established the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine was first held by Epiphanius I of Ukraine. His rival Filaret (Denysenko) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) continues claiming the title «Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus’-Ukraine». Onufriy (Berezovsky) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (UOC-MP) also claims the title of «Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine», and in 2022 the UOC formally cut ties with the Russian Orthodox Church.^{[citation needed]}

See also[edit]

• Name of Ukraine

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

Sources[edit]

story of language, the very origin of the word «Russia» has always been interesting to scientists — philologists, historians, linguists.His understanding of the term gave many Russian writers.It is used in the works of folklore.The first attempts to explain the meaning of the word rooted in antiquity.Over the past century, it emerged several versions of its interpretation, but no one of them was not entirely true.

origin of the word «Russia» and the literary heritage of the Russian people

In support of the ideas expressed above, we can cite examples of literary works by authors who represent their vision and interpretation of the origin of the word «Russia».

version expressed by Nestor, as is commonly believed, is one of the most ancient.The author of «The Tale of Bygone Years» left to posterity records that cause to reflect on many things, including the origin of the Russian people, its historic homeland.A different interpretation of the concepts offered by other well-known literary figures of the past.Particularly noteworthy research Lomonosov, Karamzin («History of the Russian State»), Gumilev («From Russia to Russia»).

In the novel V. Chivilikhin «Memory» the author put forward the version about the existence of unexplained origins, which are able to feed the energy of each person living in their native land.With the ability to honor their historical homeland, know the language and customs of their ancestors, people can endure and overcome any adversity.The work provides evidence of occurrence of the first Russian settlements on the banks of the numerous rivers and lakes.

origin of the word «Russia» is seen in many school and university textbooks.In some authors’ interpretation of the concepts are very similar.Other scientists are to readers his vision, different from the views of his colleagues.It should take into account that each of the authors has done extensive research before you put forward your suggestion.And it is worthy of respect.

Effect of foreign and ancient languages ​​on the birth of hypotheses

There are many versions in which the theory of the origin of the word «Russia» is related to the foreign languages.For example, in the Western European group used root «Rus», the value of which is reduced to the word bear.The Finno-Ugric languages ​​token such as sound there.All this served as the basis for the emergence of a still further version, explaining the origin of the word «Russia».

Latin also spawned conjecture, trying to explain the meaning of this concept.Cognates in that language meant the countryside.
Possible origin of the proper name and the names of the people are in Swedish, Iranian, ancient Russian, many Slavic languages.Traditionally, the interpretation of the concept is related to the ancient state located in Eastern and Northern Europe, as well as the people inhabiting it.Most linguists still inclined to believe that the word «Russia» for many reasons can not have a Slavic origin — it comes from a foreign language.

version first

There is a large group of scientists, linguists, historians who attributed the origin of the word «Russia» with the name of a river or a noun denoting a body of water.This version looks more reliable and has concrete evidence.

known that most of the ancient settlements of the Slavs appeared precisely on the shores of rivers and lakes.Water greatly facilitates the life of the people was used in economic activity is a natural obstacle in the path of the enemy troops on the water can easily move around in the summer, roads in winter.
That’s the word «Russia» is in close communication with the name of the river, on the banks of which in ancient times were based settlement, which became the beginning of the great cities.It is known that Ros — a right tributary of the mighty Dnieper.The same name centuries ago wore a lot.The word «Russia» is related to the name of one of the branches of the river in its delta.Bay, where he fell, was called-virus.

similar names, and other wore a small river, a tributary of the larger bodies of water.In this regard, one should not forget that the great Volga River in ancient times was also called Ros or Ras.

second version

According to Rybakov and a group of other scholars, the origin of the word «Russia», «Russian» is connected with the name of the tribe, who lived in ancient times in the vast territories of contemporary Eastern Europe — to Kiev in the north and in the steppe zonesouth.Later Ros tribes or Russes, as they were called, were joined by their neighbors.Combining tribes was the reason for the birth of the people who later became known as the Russian, and the area where he lived — Rus.

third version

Another group of scientists trying to explain the origin and meaning of the word «Russia», said that its interpretation is not closely related to the water and the forest.Dew — is stubbing forests, the people who settled in the territories covered by forests.This forest has helped families survive the harsh climatic conditions, giving warmth, food, allowing you to make such a basic household items.

This group versions include another.As mentioned above, the word «bear» in some Western European languages ​​on the sounding very similar to the root of the «Russian».It follows that Russ could call people who settled in the forest, leading a secretive way of life, but strong and powerful like a bear.This animal is considered the most powerful and menacing forest dwellers.

fourth version

This hypothesis is related to the occurrence of words spoken Finno-Ugric group.In some of them there is also a word that is similar in its sound, pronunciation by the roots «growing up.»In translation, it sounds like «Vikings», which means «the Merc».Basically, the Vikings were people, which were the to Eastern Europe.Later, the place where most of them came, came to be called Rus.Originally, the word «Vikings» was not the name of the people, and pointed to the social status of a group of people.

Now there is speculation that the Vikings and Russian — are words that are close in meaning.They mean the name of one and the same people who lived on the territory of the ancient state in the north of Europe.

fifth version

One common hypotheses to explain the meaning and origin, indicating that the «Rus» — is not the name of the tribe.According to scientists, they called those involved in collecting tribute from the people who were supposed to pay.

confirmed this version is a modern translation of «The Tale of Bygone Years», where the name of the Slavic tribes opposed to the word «Ros».

words with the same root, their interpretation

Considering the meaning of Russia, it is impossible not to draw attention to the existence of an entire group of forms that are close to it in meaning.After a little research it is not difficult to notice that each of these interpretations, one way or another connected again with water, river, sea.

For example, the mermaid — a mythical creature that lives in water bodies.About it tells the ancient pagan beliefs.And in the rapids of the Dnieper inhabits another fabulous monster, his name — Eng.

In some areas of Russian dialects hitherto used lexical units having a common root with the word Russia.For example, ruslina — a rod or Riptide, Rust — the rapid movement of the water flow direction — groove on the land, a place where the river flows.Names and Ruslan Ruslan is believed, are also related to the word Russia.

Instead of conclusion

version of the origin of the word «Russia», they point to a huge variety of great interest in this matter not only of scientists around the world, but also ordinary people.Attention to the subject has not diminished over the centuries.

large number of existing versions indicate unresolved issues.But it becomes clear as follows: the formation of a powerful ancient Russian state was the basis for the formation of a unified nation and the birth of the Russian language.The circumstances surrounding the feudal fragmentation of Rus’, the invasion of the Tatars, led to the fact that the cultural development of individual territories went their own way.

But despite years of fragmented existence, «gathering the Russian lands» still held, which subsequently led to the emergence of an independent unified Russian state.

Рассмотрена вероятная этимология слов, указанных в заголовке. Приложен перевод статьи с русского языка на английский.
The probable etymology of the words in the title is examined. Attached is the translation of the article from Russian into English.

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/yabb26/Attachments/Rossiya_001.pdf

Within the realm of history, several old controversies persist, taking on new meanings within the context of today’s political and cultural imperatives. One of these, often called the “Norman problem,” revolves around the participation of Scandinavians in the origin of the first Russian state at Kiev. This problem still survives, though the historians on each side of the debate are now different; and the problem now involves new issues. What is at stake is the origins of the word “Russia,” the first Russian state, and the Russian and Ukrainian people.

This debate has waxed and waned over the last 300 years. Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, one of the most influential authorities on Russian history in the Anglophone world, is one of today’s foremost experts on the subject. In the seventh edition of his textbook, A History of Russia, published in 2005, Riasanovsky wrote, “The problem of the origin of the first Russian state in Kiev is exceedingly complex and controversial. No other chapter of Russian history presents the same number and variety of difficulties.”[1]

Simply put, the “Norman problem” is the debate over whether Scandinavians founded and ruled the first Russian state. Proponents of the “Norman theory” have used their research to argue that Russia would never have developed “civilization” without influences from the West. Opponents say the Slavs developed civilization independently. Others have argued that the first Russian state was a melding of Scandinavian and Slavic influences. This paper will trace the historiography of the problem, and detail some approaches for further research. It is aimed at an American academic audience in an attempt at stimulating further study on this important issue.

Beginnings of the Problem

The historiography of the problem is quite old. The Chronicle of Bygone Years, which dates from 1116 and traces the then-ruling house of Rurik from the biblical flood to AD 1110, is the earliest known history of the first Russian state. Its narrative is followed by the inscription:

In the hope of God’s grace, I Sylvester, Prior of St. Michael’s, wrote this Chronicle in the year 6624 (1116), the ninth of the indiction, during the reign of Price Vladimir in Kiev, while I was presiding over St. Michael’s Monastery. May whosoever reads this book remember me in his prayers.[2]

Unfortunately, although the basic redaction of Sylvester’s text may date from 1116, the earliest available manuscript of the Chronicle, the Laurentian, was transcribed in 1377. Historians do not know what changes may have occurred in the interval between the original and the Laurentian text. The next available manuscript, the Hypatian, transcribed in 1450 and somewhat different from the first, throws little light on what changes may have occurred before 1377. The pertinent portions of the Chronicle, reproduced here, come from the earlier Laurentian text.[3] In this text, Sylvester is unequivocal about the coming of the Scandinavians. Speaking of the Slavs, he states:

[T]here was no law among them, but tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against another. They said to themselves, “Let us seek a prince who may rule over us and judge us according to the law.” They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Russes: these particular Varangians were known as Russes, just as some are called Swedes and others Normans, English, and Gotlanders, for they were thus named. [And the East-Slavic peoples] 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.[4]

Six hundred years later, Peter the Great may have “remembered Sylvester in his prayers,” for in 1722, he directed that all Chronicle texts should be collected and copied at the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg for the scholars there. However, no attempt was made to publish the manuscript for a larger audience before 1804—and even then, the publication process was interrupted by the French invasion of Russia. It was during the time that the Chroniclemanuscripts were housed in the Academy that controversies over Russian identity and conceptions of Russian culture first erupted. These controversies have survived, in one form or another, until the present day, and most arguments still mention the Chronicle.

Although known to Russian scholars, the Chronicle remained unknown to Westerners until 1732, when Gerhard Freidrich Muller, a German working at the Academy, published his translation of certain excerpts from the book. These aroused the curiosity of other German scholars, and a number of these, including Muller himself, August Ludwig Schlozer, and Gotlib Bayer, worked out what was named the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state. In it, they claimed that the Varangians—a Germanic-Scandinavian people, known as Vikings or Normans in the West—founded the Kievan Rus. Their theory was unsurprising, considering the Chronicle‘s clarity on the issue.

However, the theory was immediately subjected to sharp criticism. In particular, Mikhail Lomonosov, an influential Russian “natural scientist” of the period, wrote an irate refutation which minimized the role of the Varangians and asserted the primacy of the Slavs. Lomonosov’s counter-conception is known, unsurprisingly, as the “Anti-Norman theory” and has been popular with Russian nationalists ever since. In 1940, the Soviets renamed Moscow State University after Lomonosov, in recognition not just of his work in helping to found the university, but also of his early work in countering the Norman theory of the origin of the Rus.[5]

In 1810, Nikolai M. Karamzin, a Russian historian, attempted to seek reconciliation between the two sides in his A Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia. For Karamzin, the foundation of Russia’s present and future lay in a blend of East and West, and he conceptualized Russia as having native roots and simultaneously reflecting the influence of the West. Regarding the origin problem, he boldly built upon the Chronicle, and wrote: “Scandinavia, the lair of restless knights…furnished our fatherland with its first sovereigns.… ‘come,’ the Finns and Slavs told them, having wearied of internecine wars, ‘come to reign and rule over us.’”[6] Of the controversy surrounding the origin issue, he wrote:

This difference [between the two theories] was not without profound bearing on Russian politics, for which the attitude to the institutions and ideas of the West was always a touchstone; by it one can often distinguish in Russia conservatives proper from extreme reactionaries.[7]

Through the debates involving Lomonosov and Karamzin, we can see that the origin problem divided scholarship among Russians even as it divided scholarship in the West from that in Russia. In the words of historian Vladimir Volkoff, writing in 1985:

Since even the first redaction [of the Chronicle], which we do not possess, was obviously a compilation of facts, fantasies, interpretations, materials of different origins, interpolated discourses, imitations of other sources and fortuitous or non-fortuitous omissions, modern historians have had a jolly time tearing down the flimsy edifice. No wonder if it collapsed satisfactorily over their own heads. For, having discarded all the evidence, and having nowhere else to look for more, they began replacing it with wishful figments of imagination, each expert brilliantly succeeding in proving exactly what he set out to prove.[8]

This, then, is where the modern trouble over the origin problem began.

Modern Debate Concerning the Norman Problem

In 1947, a young Nicholas Riasanovsky wrote an article entitled “The Norman Theory of the Origin of the Russian State.”[9] In it, he bemoaned the fact that

… most of the literature on the subject which is available in western languages, and in English in particular, strikes one as being one-sidedly and extremely Normanist…practically no anti-Normanist works are available in any language but the Russian.[10]

According to Riasanovsky, the Norman theory, as formulated by Bayer, Schlozer, and Muller, and developed by others, “claimed that the entire Russian culture—religion, customs, political structure, law, art—owed its origin and the first two centuries of its development to Scandinavians-Normans.”[11] For Riasanovsky, “[t]his astounding theory could exist only as long as the ignorance of Russian antiquity was practically complete, and as long as there was no native Russian historical school.”[12]

However, Karamzin’s Memoirs were clearly part of a “native Russian historical school.” It is apparent that Riasanovsky wished to divide debate on the Norman problem with a clear East-West delineation. There are obvious problems with attempting to set all historians within these strict categories. Riasanovsky calls both Nikolai Beliaev and George Vernadsky (who were native Russians) “Normanists of one kind or another…”[13] In fact, Vernadsky was far from a Normanist. His work, which will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper, clearly argues that Russia did not completely owe its origin to Scandinavians.

Until others took up the origin problem in 1996, twentieth-century English-language debate on the issue can be encapsulated within the work of the Riasanovsky family (who argued for the Anti-Norman theory), Henryk Paszkiewicz (who argued a Normanist line) and George Vernadsky (who credits both theories). Of course, each scholar had supporters and detractors, but their positions on the origin problem are representative of most scholarship at the time.

According to the Riasanovskys, “the Slavs of the Kievan state were…the inheritors of centuries of cultural development in southern Russia.”[14] As to culture—language, law, literary traditions, etc.— Nicholas Riasanovsky went so far as to state in a 1947 article that “in fact Russia exercised a considerable cultural influence on Scandinavia.”[15] He later continues:

At the present time most specialists in the field of early Russian history think that the Normans formed merely one of the elements of the Rus, which was fundamentally connected with the natives of southern Russia and their gradual economic and political evolution….The Normans had very little to contribute to Russia…they represented merely a minor or even a superfluous element in the formation of that state.[16]

Riasanovsky’s article relied heavily on the work of G. and S. Gedeonov, Russian historians of the late 1800s. Several times, when Riasanovsky referred to arguments of ostensibly western Normanists, he actually quoted from Russian-language sources. Overall, the article reads like the polemic of a Russian who wished his history to be purely Slavic. [17]

In 1954, Henryk Paszkiewicz, a Polish historian of the Slavic peoples, entered this ongoing controversy with his The Origin of Russia. He continued in 1963 with The Making of the Russian Nation. Both books concentrate on the topics surrounding the Norman problem. Paszkiewicz largely discounted the work of Soviet historians, as he pointed out that nationalist Communist leaders had directed them to find a continuous Slavic primacy. For example, in Russian Nation, Soviet scholar Boris D. Grekov is quoted as having written in 1940 that: “It is not easy to do away with the evidence of the Normanists. I am convinced that it will never be completely suppressed. Too many facts have been verified by this school.”[18] Yet Grekov had changed his tune by 1942, writing simply that: “The Norman thesis was the work of ‘fascist falsifiers of history.’”[19] Paszkiewicz highlights the fact that, in 1940, the Soviets were allied with Germany, while in 1942, these two countries were at war.[20]

Although Grekov’s change in conclusions was timed suspiciously with his country’s change in alliances, he was correct when he stated that the “fascist falsifiers of history” used the Norman theory to further their ends. Adolf Hitler himself said: “Unless other peoples, beginning with the Vikings, had imported some rudiments of organization into Russian humanity, the Russians would be living like rabbits.”[21] However, Grekov was also obviously incorrect with his sweeping generalization that all Norman theorists were fascists.

To return to Paszkiewicz, his basic thesis was as follows:

Our considerations so far throw some light on the provenance of the Rus’. Since they were not Slavs and inhabited the northern lands, on the Baltic; since their journeying—both warlike and commercial—embraced Eastern and Western Europe, only one conclusion can be reached, viz., that they were Norsemen.[22]

Norsemen came to the city of Kiev to rule it, and Kievan rulers were descended from them, just as the Chronicle reported. He also argued that, though the Slavic element quickly became the largest component of the Russian people, the Norse influence continued for some time. Paszkiewicz used a variety of sources, including Byzantine records, Scandinavian epics, and the letters of Turkic traders, as well as varied Russian manuscript evidence including all of the various iterations of the Chronicle, to argue his theories.

The Riasanovsky family responded, via articles, to Paszkiewicz at least twice. First Valentin, Nicholas’s father, accused Paszkiewicz of “an arbitrary use of the sources, an insufficient acquaintance with the literature on the subject, and unsubstantiated conclusions.”[23] Alexander V. Riasanovsky, Nicholas’ brother, wrote an article entitled “‘Runaway Slaves’ and ‘Swift Danes’ in Eleventh-Century Kiev.” It appeared in Speculum in 1964, and was a direct response to Paszkiewicz’s second book on the subject, Russian Nation, which itself had included a retort to Valentin Riasanovksy’s article. In that article in Speculum, Paszkiewicz was lumped in with the same German and Scandinavian scholars (from the late 1700s and 1800s) whom Nicholas and Valentin had railed against in 1947. Alexander set out to undermine Paszkiewicz’s conclusions solely on the basis of Paszkiewicz’s use and translation of a certain version of the Chronicle.[24] Since it deals only with this small issue, Riasanovsky’s argument seems insufficient as a refutation of his opponent’s well-developed research.

The exchanges between the Normanists and Anti-Normanists in the mid-twentieth century were at least as vitriolic as the exchanges between their predecessors in earlier centuries. Paszkiewicz and his supporters were perhaps less polemical than their opponents, but they did not shy away from accusing the Anti-Normanists of a “National and Soviet ideological bias in interpretation of the sources.”[25] On the other side, the Anti-Normanists charged Paszkiewicz with multiple scholarly transgressions, including the sin of allowing his Polish nationalism to color his work. One reviewer, Anotole Mazour, even took the debate a step further, stating:

Academic freedom is a precious possession…If, however, some of the highly hypothetic theories assume the form of political dogmas that might seriously affect world policies, it is necessary to call for alertness. Highly hypothetical theories can quite easily turn into false instruments of national policy with sorrowful consequences for all concerned.[26]

George Vernadsky, in a 1955 review of Paszkiewicz’s Origin of Russia, applied a similar parsing of translation such as that used by Alexander Riasanovsky. Essentially, Vernadsky applauded the depth and detail of Paszkiewicz’s work, while discounting his conclusions based solely on the basis of certain translations. These translations were not central to Paszkiewicz’s main arguments, and therefore are not sufficient to refute his basic conclusions.[27]

Vernadsky briefly developed his own thoughts on the original problem in 1959 with The Origins of Russia (not to be confused with Paszkiewicz’s similarly titled book). In a work of over 300 pages, he spent a scant 15 on the Norman problem, quickly reconciling the issue in the following way: “[T]he best way to reconcile the contradictions in the evidence…is to admit the presence of both the Norse and the Slavic elements in the people of Rus at that time, in other words to consider them a symbiosis of Slavs and Norsemen.”[28] This seems to be sidestepping the issue. What was—and is—important to almost all parties in this controversy is the level of primacy the Scandinavians had in Kiev. On this issue Vernadsky was silent.

At the same time that this debate raged in Western scholarship, at least one Soviet scholar was working to temper the nationalistic tendencies of Soviet historiography. Leo Klein, together with his Leningrad seminar students, recognized seven steps in his conception of Norman influence on the East Slavs:

1. The definite arrival of the Normans to the ancient East-Slavic area.

2. The foundation of Kiev’s dynasty by the Normans.

3. The Norman origin of the word “Rus.”

4. The continued influence of the Normans on the East-Slavic state.

5. The creation of the first East-Slavic state by the Normans.

6. The pro-Scandinavian racial preferences of the Normans were the cause of their successes.

7. In the ancient East-Slavic state, Scandinavians were the rulers, Slavs were their subordinates.[29]

Klein’s conception was remarkably like that developed by Paszkiewicz, putting this Russian scholar firmly into what the Riasanovskys called the “Normanist camp.” Again, the controversy had proven not to be a debate of historians in the West versus historians in Russia. Rather, it continued as a debate between nationalistic historians and their more objective contemporaries.

Nationalism and the New Historiography

Judging by publication volume, Nicholas Riasanovsky’s textbook, A History of Russia, is the most popular English-language textbook on Russian history. It is now in its seventh edition, published in 2005. In that edition, Dr. Riasanovsky asserts that, although “the majority of scholars today consider the first Russian dynasty and its immediate retinue as Scandinavian…there is no reason to assert a fundamental Scandinavian influence on Kievan culture.”[30] However, much of the recent scholarship conducted on this issue does find what can be called at least a “Scandinavian influence.”

In 1984, for example, Vladimir Volkoff wrote Vladimir the Russian Viking about the early ruler of Kiev who brought Christianity to the Russians. Volkoff also describes the “bickering” among historians on the Scandinavian influences in Kiev, and even alludes to the Riasanovsky-Paszkiewicz feud, but ultimately takes the Chronicle at face value and proceeds with an understanding that is decidedly Paszkiewiczian in nature.

In 1996, Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepard wrote The Emergence of Rus: 750-1200. In it, they wove archaeology and historical manuscripts together to explore the origins of the Rus. They also worked largely outside of the Norman debates; instead of arguing for Slavic or Norse primacy in the creation of a Russian state, Franklin and Shepard demonstrated both the diversity of populations and cultures in the lands of the Rus and the irrelevance of the concept of a “state” during the period in question. Franklin and Shepard instead traced the steady development of the “Rus” people from their first small settlements to a more unified network of towns, and thence to the first centuries of the Kievan Rus—a modern state which had evolved from one of those settlements. According to Franklin and Shepard, a “state,” using the modern definition, did not exist on the Dnieper until long after the events described in the Chronicle.[31]

In 2001 Geoffrey Hosking painted a picture in his Russia and the Russians: A History that was not unlike that of Paszkiewicz and Klein:

It is not unknown for relatively primitive peoples to accept a ruler from a higher culture, to end feuding among themselves, to bring trade, and also to organize external defense. It is a function the descendents of the Rus frequently exercised for other peoples in later centuries. This is certainly the service the incoming Vikings performed….Together the ‘Viking-Slavs’ formed a kind of tribal super-alliance, with its center in Kiev.[32]

Also in 2001, Franklin wrote an article entitled “Pre-Mongol Rus’: New Sources, New Perspectives?” in which he discounted much of the new scholarship:

Radical changes in history do not necessarily produce instant radical changes in the writing of history; or at least, not in the writing of history which deserves to be taken seriously. The historiography of pre-Mongol Rus’ has certainly developed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but not necessarily in ways which are attributable to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, one could almost formulate a law: the extent to which a change is attributable to the collapse of the Soviet Union tends to be in inverse proportion to its scholarly value.[33]

In his synthesis of the current historiographical situation, Franklin wrote:

If we ignore the lunatic fringe, change is limited. On the one hand, long-established scholars continue to slug out the same old battles with only slight modifications to the terminology. On the other hand, attempts to introduce fresh perspectives are generally tentative in practice (if not in introductory declarations) and have not as yet produced fully coherent results.[34]

During recent decades, the debate has continued without resolution, influenced by different chauvinisms and newly emergent nationalisms. At the same time that Russian nationalist historians are continuing a conception of the ancient Russian past much like that promoted by the Riasanovskys, the new Ukrainian government has taken an official position that draws heavily on the earliest Norman theory.[35] For Russian nationalists, it is perhaps natural that they would try to prove a purely Slavic birth for their nation, and the Anti-Norman theory fits this need. For Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom now wish to minimize their connection with Russia, the reverse seems to be true—and the Norman theory is convenient for them.

Scandinavian scholars such as Hakon Stang have developed theories that help to place their homeland at the pinnacle of history.[36] In response to Anti-Norman theorists, he writes: “hypothesis is piled upon hypothesis to create edifices which are simply not susceptible to critical analysis, and the volume should be recommended only with the attachment of a clear health warning.”[37] From his position at Uppsala University, Wladyslaw Duczko published a synthesis of newer archeological evidence in 2004, which he claims supports the Norman theory.

Franklin and Duczko assert that new information is now emerging out of the former Soviet countries. According to Franklin, “early Rus’ may not have Central Committee archives to declassify, but every year brings an equivalent frisson of anticipation ahead of the season’s archaeological discoveries.”[38] These post-Soviet discoveries include: numerous gramoty, or written declarations, on birch bark from ancient Novgorod; clusters of documents from the eleventh and twelfth centuries relating to the collection of dues from outlying territories of the early city-states; and waxed wooden tablets from the beginning of the eleventh century that are now recognized as the earliest known Cyrillic “book” of the Rus.[39] No less noteworthy are the post-Soviet publications of other epigraphic sources. V. L. Ianin has written several volumes on ancient official seals, including very early examples of previously unknown types.[40] M.P. Sotnikova has republished a corpus of early native coins. T.V. Rozhdestvenskaia has published a book on ancient graffiti.[41] All of this is likely pertinent to the current debate, although most has not had time to be fully considered in the debate’s context.

Franklin also tells of new source material found in the continuing series of non-Slavic sources initiated by V.T. Pashuto in 1977. In recent years, the series has expanded to include newly discovered Latin sources from Germany, new translations of the work of ancient Byzantine historians, newly released eighth-to-thirteenth century maps, four recent volumes on Icelandic sagas, and freshly published compilations on other Byzantine and Arab sources.[42]

Though Franklin details possible sources, he makes no conclusions of his own other than:

In a field where historians’ main complaint tends to be the lack of written sources and where many remain reluctant to pay due attention to non-narrative evidence, the value of the continuing expansion and diversification of the available source base over the past decade (including non-written archaeological sources) can hardly be overestimated. The traditionally high-profile native sources–above all, the chronicles—gradually shed at least part of the burden of proof.[43]

Wladyslaw Duczko detailed the recent archeological findings in the Volkhov area that relate directly to other finds in Scandinavia. He highlighted the importance of the women’s personal ornamentation that archeologists have found in both Eastern Europe and Scandinavia and its interconnection. For Duczko, putting the post-Soviet archeological evidence in its wider context is a key to understanding the Norman problem and the culture of the people who lived and died in Ladoga, Gnezdovo, Shestovitsa, Novgorod, Kiev, and elsewhere.[44]

Despite all this debate, there seems to be both a lack of general interest in this topic in the United States and a lack of viable English-language sources to stimulate such interest. Although Duczko’s book is well-documented and relatively objective, it is poorly written in English and was clearly influenced by Duczko’s surroundings and his funding.[45] Although Simon Franklin seems to be doing his best to create a more objective picture, he works and publishes in Great Britain and his books are consequently price-prohibitive for the average American student.[46]

All these new sources, however, may not be enough to resolve the Russian origin problem. Personal agendas, including nationalistic tendencies–both Imperial and Soviet, both Ukrainian and Russian–have skewed the study of the origin question for far too long. Although it is clear that the Russian origin problem has not yet been resolved, it can be researched further, particularly with the numerous new primary sources. Perhaps American scholars, with little to lose by the outcome, could bring some much-needed detachment to the study of the early Rus. The author of this paper is confident that if American “Russianists” would simply pursue the new evidence, they would find an audience sufficiently interested in the subject.

Footnotes

[1] Nicholas Riasanovsky and Mark D. Steinberg, A History of Russia (New York, 2005): 21.

[2] Quoted in Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, “Introduction,” 4.

[3] Ibid

[4] Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, trans. and eds., The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text (Cambridge, Mass, 1953): 61.

[5] Lomonosov Moscow State University website, “MSU History,” found online at http://www.msu.ru/en/info/history.html

[6] Nicolai Karamzin, Karamzin’s Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia, trans. Richard Pipes (Cambridge Mass., 1959): 103.

[7] Karamzin, 51.

[8] Vladimir Volkoff, Vladimir the Russian Viking, (Woodstock, N.Y., 1985): foreword, xx-xxi.

[9] N. Riasanovsky, “Norman Theory,” 96-110. According to his first footnote, Nicholas’ article was apparently a slightly modified distillation of a chapter in his father’s most recent book, which had just been published in New York, but in the Russian language. Nicholas had helped his father write that chapter.

[10] Ibid., 97.

[11] Ibid., 98.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 99.

[16] Ibid., 109-110.

[17] I have nothing but the highest regard for Dr. Riasanovsky. In fact, in my work as a graduate student, I have always began my studies—of any topic in Russian history—with his extraordinary History. This paper does not seek to degrade the work and theories of great scholars. Rather, it is an attempt to generate new interest in an old, but still unsettled, controversy.

[18] Boris D. Grekov, quoted in Henryk Paszkiewicz, The Making of the Russian Nation(London, 1963): 172.

[19] Grekov, quoted in Paszkiewicz, Russian Nation, 172

[20] Henryk Paszkiewicz, Russian Nation, 172.

[21] Quoted in Wladyslaw Duczko, Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe (Leiden, Netherlands, 2004): 4.

[22] Paszkiewicz, Russian Nation, 158.

[23] Valentin Riasanovsky, “Review of The Origin of Russia by Henryk Paszkiewicz,” The Russian Review no. 2 (Apr., 1956): 134.

[24] Alexander’s argument is based on the small issue of Paszkiewicz’s translation of Thietmar’s Chronicon, a later version of the Chronicle. Alexander V. Riasanovsky, “’Runaway Slaves’ and ‘Swift Danes’ in Eleventh-Century Kiev,” Speculum, no. 2 (Apr., 1964): 288-297.

[25] Frank T. Nowak, “Review of The Origin of Russia by Henryk Paszkiewicz,” The Scientific Monthly, no. 1. (Jul., 1955): 45.

[26] Anatole G. Mazour, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 300, Internal Security and Civil Rights 9Jul., 1955): 170.

[27] George Vernadsky, “The Origin of Russia,” Speculum, no. 2 (Apr., 1955): 293-301.

[28] George Vernadsky, The Origins of Russia (Oxford, 1959): 199.

[29] Leo Klein, from papers published in the 1960s, referenced in Duczko, 4.

[30] N. Riasanovsky, History of Russia, 25.

[31] Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepard, The Emergence of Rus 750-1200 (London, 1996).

[32] Geoffrey Hosking, Russia and the Russians: A History (Cambridge, Mass., 2001): 33-34.

[33] Simon Franklin, “Pre-Mongol Rus’: New Sources, New Perspectives?” The Russian Review60 (Oct., 2001): 465. Emphasis in the original.

[34] Franklin, “Pre-Mongol Rus,” 470.

[35] Official website of the government of Ukraine, “Kyivan Rus,” found online at http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=2629325&cat_id=32672

[36] Håkon Stang, The Naming of Russia (Oslo, 1996), available on-line at http://www.hf.uio.no/east/Medd/Medd77/dl.html

[37] Franklin, “Pre-Mongol Rus,” 468.

[38] Franklin, “Pre-Mongol Rus,” 466-477.

[39] See V.L. Ianin and A.A. Zalizniak, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (Iz raskopok 1984-1989) (Moscow, 1993); and idem, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (Iz raskopok 1990-1996)(Moscow, 2000). See also A.A. Zalizniak, Drevnenovgorodskii dialect (Moscow, 1995), which is a major reassessment of birchbark writing using linguistic analysis. All of the footnotes which contain Russian-language sources were taken from Franklin’s “Pre-Mongol Rus.”

[40] V.L. Ianin and P.G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi X-XV vv., vol. 3, Pechati, zaregistrirovannye v 1970-1996 (Moscow, 1998).

[41] M.P. Sotnikova, Drevneishierusskie monety X-XI vekov: Katalog i issledovanie (Moscow, 1995); T.V. Rozhdestvenskaia, Drevnerusskie Nadpis I na stenakh khramov: Novye istochniki XI-XV (St. Petersburg, 1992). Sources found in Franklin, “Pre-Mongol Rus’,” 466-467.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Franklin, “Pre-Mongol Rus’,” 467.

[44] Duczko, 8-9.

[45] Duczko’s funding was provided by the Berit Wallenberg Foundation in Stockholm. “The purpose of the Foundation is to: ‘promote scientific research, teaching and/or education beneficial to the Kingdom of Sweden.’” Found online at http://wallenberg.org/kaw/in_english/default.asp, emphasis added.

[46] Dr. Franklin is the Director of the Department of Slavic Studies, Clare College, University of Cambridge.

Selected Bibliography

Cross, Samuel Hazzard and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, trans. and eds. The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text. Cambridge, Mass: Mediaeval Academy of America Press, 1953.

Duczko, Wladyslaw. Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2004.

Franklin, Simon and Jonathan Shepard. The Emergence of Rus 750-1200. London: Addison Wesley, 1996.

Franklin, Simon. “Pre-Mongol Rus’: New Sources, New Perspectives?” The Russian Review 60 (Oct., 2001): 465-473.

Hosking, Geoffrey. Russia and the Russians: A History. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2001.

Karamzin, Nicolai trans. Richard Pipes. Karamzin’s Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia,     Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Lomonosov Moscow State University, official website. “MSU History.” Found online at             http://www.msu.ru/en/info/history.html

Paszkiewicz, Henryk. The Making of the Russian Nation. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1963.

Paszkiewicz, Henryk. The Origin of Russia. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954.

Riasanovsky, Alexander V. “’Runaway Slaves’ and ‘Swift Danes’ in Eleventh-Century Kiev.” Speculum 39, no. 2 (Apr., 1964): 288-297.

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. “The Norman Theory of the Origin of the Russian State.” Russian Review, no.1 (Autumn, 1947): 96-110.

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia, Seventh Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ukrainian Government, official website. “Kyivan Rus.” Found online at http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=2629325&cat_id=32672

Vernadsky, George. “The Origin of Russia,” Speculum 30, no. 2 (Apr., 1955): 293-301.

Vernadsky, George. The Origins of Russia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.

Volkoff, Vladimir. Vladimir the Russian Viking. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press, 1985.