– I cannot help but raise the most burning question, perhaps, since the dispute between Lomonosov and Miller, a question that so often turns into a political plane… Who is right: the Normanists or the anti-Normanists?
– I don’t consider myself one of those or others. I do not believe that the State in Russia was created by the Normans. I think this is the result of internal development. I do not consider the Rus to have a distinctly Norman composition, although I admit that in the late 9th century the percentage of Normans apparently increased significantly and the Rus bore Scandinavian names. But again we know the names of the ambassadors. In the middle of the 10th century, we have a set of aristocratic names, but these are the names of the retinue of representatives of a specific family – the Rurikovichs. Well, that is, those whom we call Rurikovich, because this is a separate topic. We don’t really understand the ethnic makeup of other groups. Rostov, for example, is one of the “Russian cities”, it is considered as such, founded by Russia. Its founder, judging by the name, bore the Slavic name Rostislav. Lyubech and Chernigov are also “Russian cities.” Its founders are contemporaries of Oleg (this is at the end of the 9th or beginning of the 10th century), “princes living under him.” And they, as we see, also bore Slavic names: Lyubko, Cherniga. In this case the names of the cities tell us a lot. So if we go back to Normanism, then Normanism, of course, does not take into account many things. And it generally diverts the discussion in an unnecessary direction.
– In the political direction?
– Just in the wrong direction. Obviously it goes beyond academic limits. It is possible that until the beginning of the 9th century the Scandinavians were somewhat better organized politically than the Eastern Slavs, but already by the middle of the 10th century this was completely different. If we try to consider Russia as a “Scandinavian” state, we will have to admit that Russia became a state long before any Scandinavian state. The maximum is synchronous with Denmark, although here we run into a difficult question: what is a state anyway? Well, definitely before Norway or Sweden. But Iceland and Gotland did not have time to become states, since they were included in other Scandinavian kingdoms, and this happened already in the Early Middle Ages.
If we talk about anti-Normanism, then it is not serious to deny the participation of Scandinavians in political processes in Russia. It is not serious to “torture,” as a Normanist said in the 19th century, the names of Rurik, Oleg, Igor, Sveneld, etc., so that they “sound in Slavic.” Of course, such ethnically tinged theories politicize the process of scientific discussion and obscure some aspects and aspects, while the main goal of the study of history is self-understanding. And self-understanding cannot arise from anything other than an objective analysis of all the factors.
When, relatively speaking, on the map of the treasures of eastern coins in the Baltic region, the steady hand of someone from a serious scientific encyclopedia pulls out treasures from the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, and on the cover of this encyclopedia there are very names respectable members of our leading scientists – one cannot speak of objectivity. Therefore, I do not believe that any of these “schools of scientific thought,” if they are called that, can claim absolute truth and predominant scientificity.
– To what extent are school and university textbooks “behind” the achievements of academic science in the field of ancient Russian history? Do you think it’s time to change something?
– Well, I don’t know, to be honest, because, of course, a school textbook is a simplification by definition, it should be a simplification. I don’t think it is necessary to discard the name Rurik (by the way, it did not exist in Soviet times) because in one way or another he is a legend who has left a deep mark on our culture. Rurik is present at the “Millennium of Russia” monument. Without forgetting that he is a character in many works of art, starting with the classics of our literature. But, on the other hand, it must be made very clear, of course, that we really don’t know anything beyond the legends about this character. Of course, that understanding should exist at least in college textbooks.
Rurik. Monument to the 1000th anniversary of Russia, Nizhny Novgorod. Photo: Dar Veter/wikimedia.org
This is another point why the discussion between Normanists and anti-Normanists is useless. What’s the argument about now? The origin of the name “Rus” is something that is, in principle, especially inappropriate for historians to discuss. You just need to honestly list the concepts that exist in linguistic science and clearly say which of these concepts seems most likely. Today, most linguists adhere to the Fenno-Scandinavian concept, some to the Baltic-Slavic concept, associated with local names Poilmenya. There are other theories, but these two seem viable. And all that is required of the historian is to declare.
And the second question is “the main question of Russian history”: who was the Novgorod folklore character Rurik, according to his personal data? We do not know who he was, just as we cannot affirm that he was the father of Igor, the historical ancestor of the Rurikovichs, since this is a chronic legend. The name Rurik, of course, did not arise out of nowhere: it is a name of Scandinavian origin, which has only been used twice in the Rurik family. And the first time it was used was precisely when the Initial Chronicle was created. And precisely that prince – Rostislav Tmutarakansky, son of the Novgorod prince Vladimir Yaroslavich, whom the creator of the annals loved and respected very much. Most likely, Rostislav’s retinue in Novgorod transmitted the legend about Rurik to the chronicler.
The first mention of Rurik outside the chronicle dates back to the 14th century. In the 14th century we can already say: yes, the Rurikids themselves considered themselves descendants of Rurik. Before this, probably many of them could safely say that such a version exists. They had some of their own family legends. In general, we don’t really know Rurikovich’s own traditions. We know what the Novgorod nobility told about the Rurikovichs and those who came with Rurik, the ancestors of the Novgorod nobility. Therefore, of course, arguing about who Rurik was is pretty pointless. He is a character from the Novgorod legends, apparently reflecting the fact that some Scandinavian leader was somewhere between Ladoga and future Novgorod at the end of the 9th century.
– At the same time, are Askold and Dir, unlike Rurik, historical names?
– Dir is a historical name, of course; the Arab scientist Masudi mentions him as the ruler of a large Slavic country in the middle of the 10th century. The data probably dates back to earlier times. Of the entire galaxy of first princes, Askold appears first in Russian sources: in the translation of the chronicle of Georgy Amartol, talking about the campaign against Byzantium in 860, the Russian translator added the names of the leaders: Askold and Dir . And we can correlate Askold in this way with the South Russian group. And since, according to the legend of the chronicle, a church was erected over his tomb, we can assume that this is the same “archon” who was baptized in the late 870s and early 880s.
Regarding Igor’s origins. Last year they finally carried out a genetic study of the remains of the medieval prince Dmitry Alexandrovich, son of Alexander Nevsky. He finally confirmed that most modern Rurikovichs belong to the same family that ruled Russia in the Middle Ages. This is a genre with very distant Baltic-Finnish roots, which, however, in the historical reality of the 7th-8th centuries was already a Scandinavian genre. It is clearly located in Svealand and the islands associated with it. The Rurikovichs’ closest relative is buried in the famous Viking ship burial on the island of Saaremaa. This genus probably appeared in Eastern Europe as early as the middle of the 8th century.
So, if we talk about Igor as the true ancestor of the Rurikovichs, then most likely he came from a family that had settled in Eastern Europe for a long time at the time of his reign. We don’t know exactly how the conditional “Igor’s Rus” intersected with the Russia that included the hypothetical Rurik and the very real Oleg. But, apparently, the key is the name of Princess Olga. In the late Russian chronicles of the 15th century, chroniclers assume that Olga could be Oleg’s daughter. But the basic theory, which dominated the chronicles at that time, was already different. Realizing that all legends about Olga’s origin are nothing more than legends, we can genealogically connect her with Oleg. It is no coincidence that her names are called. In any case, something connected Igor with Oleg, and Igor becomes Oleg’s successor in kyiv and, perhaps, really was his co-ruler; after all, in the initial Chronicle they appear precisely as full co-rulers. It was in “The Story of Bygone Years”, when its creator expanded the chronology, when Igor had to become a minor.
To be continue
