Normanism andanti-Normanism are competing groups of theories about the origin ofKievan Rus' that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries concerning the narrative of theViking Age inEastern Europe. At the centre of the disagreement is the origin of theVarangianRus', a people who travelled across and settled in Eastern Europe in the 8th and 9th centuries, and are considered by most modern historians to be ofScandinavian origin who eventually assimilated with theSlavs. The Normanist theory has been firmly established as mainstream, and modern anti-Normanism is viewed ashistorical revisionism.
The origin of Kievan Rus' is infamously contentious, and relates to its perceived importance for thelegitimation ofnation-building,imperialism, andindependence movements within the East Slavic-speaking world, and for legitimating different political relationships between eastern and western European countries. TheNorsemen that ventured from what is nowSweden into the waterways of Eastern Europe feature prominently in the history of theBaltic states, Scandinavia,Poland, and theByzantine Empire.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] They are particularly important in the historiography and cultural history ofBelarus,Russia andUkraine, but have also featured in the history of Poland.[8] Contention has centred around whether the development of Kievan Rus' was influenced by non-Slavic Varangians (this idea is characterised as the "Normanist theory"), or whether the people of Kievan Rus' emerged solely fromautochthonous Slavic political development (known as the "anti-Normanist theory"),[9] including some other anti-Normanist andskeptical theories stemming from the scarcity of contemporary evidence for the emergence of Kievan Rus', and the great ethnic diversity and complexity of the wide area where these Norsemen were active.[10]
Whereas the term "Normans" in English usually refers to the Scandinavian-descended ruling dynasty ofNormandy inFrance from the 10th century onwards, and their scions elsewhere in Western Europe, in the context of the Rus' people, "Normanism" is the idea that the Rus'had their origins among the Normans (i.e. among "Northmen").[9] The term "Normanism" was used to cover a range of opinions about the degree of influence of the Varangians in the early history ofKievan Rus. The idea that Varangians founded Rus was seen politically unacceptable by many Russian historians.[11] Nevertheless, the close connection of Rus' with Scandinavians is confirmed by archaeological evidence for extensive Scandinavian settlement in Russia and Ukraine.[12]
Modern studies of the Rus' began when the German historianGerhardt Friedrich Müller (1705–1783) was invited to work in theRussian Academy of Sciences in 1725.[13] Müller presented research made by his predecessorGottlieb-Siegfried Bayer in the papersDe Varagis ("On theVarangians", 1729) andOrigines russicae ("Russian origins", 1736), and on thePrimary Chronicle, written in the 12th century, and covering the years 852 to 1110. At the beginning of an important speech in 1749, later published asOrigines gentis et nominis Russorum ("The Origins of the People and the Name of the Russians"), Müller argued that theRurikid dynasty descended from ethnically Scandinavian Varangians and that the term "Russia" originated from Old Norse.[14][15] This statement caused such uproar in his Russian audience that he was unable to finish his presentation, and appeals to thepresident of the academy and theEmpress led to the formation of a committee to determine if his research was "harmful to the interests and glory of the Russian Empire".[16] Before the committee, scathing criticism fromLomonosov,Krasheninnikov, and other Russian historians led to Müller being forced to suspend his work on the issue until Lomonosov's death. It was even thought during the 20th century that much of his research was destroyed, but recent research suggests that this is not the case: Müller managed to rework it and had it reprinted asOrigines Rossicae in 1768.[11]: 58–59
Despite the negative reception in the mid-18th century, by the end of the century, Müller's views were the consensus in Russianhistoriography, and this remained largely the case through the 19th century and early 20th centuries.[14][17] Russian historians who accepted this historical account includedNikolai Karamzin (1766–1826) and his discipleMikhail Pogodin (1800–1875), who gave credit to the claims of thePrimary Chronicle that the Varangians were invited by East Slavs to rule over them and bring order.
The theory was not without political implications. For some, it fitted with embracing and celebrating the multiethnic character of the Russian Empire.[14] However, it was also consistent with theracial theory widespread at the time thatGermanics (and their descendants) were naturally suited to government, whereas Slavs were not.[18][19][20] According to Karamzin, the Norse migration formed the basis and justification for Russian autocracy (as opposed to anarchy of the pre-Rurikid period), and Pogodin used the theory to advance his view that Russia was immune to social upheavals and revolutions, because the Russian state originated from a voluntary treaty between the people ofNovgorod andVarangian rulers. The German-born Moscow academicianAugust Ludwig von Schlözer said in 1802 that the Slavs had been living like "savage beasts and birds" before the advent of the civilizing Norsemen, a view later adopted by several scholars as well as non-scholars such asAdolf Hitler in the 20th-century, who saw in Russia "a wonderful instance of the state-organizing capability of the Germans among an inferior race".[21]
During the historical debates of the 20th century, the key evidence for the mainstream view that Scandinavian migrants had an important role in the formation of Kievan Rus' emerged as the following:
In the 21st century, analyses of the rapidly growing range of archaeological evidence further noted that high-status 9th- to 10th-century burials of both men and women in the vicinity of the UpperVolga exhibit material culture largely consistent with that of Scandinavia (though this is less the case away from the river, or further downstream). This has been seen as further demonstrating the Scandinavian character of elites in Old Rus'.[30][31]
It is also agreed, however, that ancestrally Scandinavian Rus' aristocrats, like Scandinavians elsewhere, swiftly assimilated culturally to a Slavic identity: in the words ofF. Donald Logan, "in 839, the Rus were Swedes; in 1043 the Rus were Slavs".[32] This relatively fast integration is noteworthy, and the processes of cultural assimilation in Rus' are an important area of research.[32][33]
The old Normanist assumption was that the Scandinavians introduced civilization to their Slavic subjects, but the number of Norsemen was relatively small compared to the number of Slavs and non-Slavs.[21] In addition, the Norsemen married local women, had their weapons made by Slavs, and only a relatively small number of Norse loanwords in Russian have been established.[21] In general, the Norsemen absorbed culture in Russia and down the Volga.[21]
There is uncertainty as to how large the Scandinavian migration to Rus' was, but some archaeological work in the years around 2000 argued for a substantial number of free farmers settling in the upper Volga region.[34][35]
Proponents of anti-Normanism are of the opinion that a state was founded by the Slavs even before the vocation ofRurik.[24][21] Starting withMikhail Lomonosov (1711–1765),Slavophilic scholars have criticised the idea of Norse invaders.[36] By the early 20th century, the traditional anti-Normanist doctrine (as articulated byDmitry Ilovaisky)[citation needed] seemed to have lost currency. Russian and then Soviet historians began to downplay the idea of Scandinavian influence in early Russian history.[21] The anti-Normanist arguments were revived and adopted in officialSoviet historiography,[37][6][36] partly in response to Nazi propaganda, which posited that Russia owed its existence to a Germanic ruling elite.[38] In the earlier 20th century, Nazi Germany had promoted the idea that Russia owed its statehood to a Germanic, racially superior, elite.[38]Mikhail Artamonov ranks among those who attempted to reconcile both theories by hypothesizing that the Kievan state united the southern Rus' (of Slavic stock) and the northern Rus' (of Germanic stock) into a single nation.[39]
In light of evidence, theories – most of them proposed by Soviet scholars with nationalistic agendas – of a Slav state in the Baltic region attacked by and ultimately absorbing Viking invaders are more likely the product of wishful thinking than of fact.
The staunchest advocate of the anti-Normanist views in the period following the Second World War wasBoris Rybakov, who argued that the cultural level of the Varangians could not have warranted an invitation from the culturally advanced Slavs. This conclusion leads Slavicists to deny thePrimary Chronicle, which writes that the Varangian Rus' were invited by the native Slavs. Rybakov assumed thatNestor, putative author of the Chronicle, was biased against the pro-Greek party ofVladimir Monomakh and supported the pro-Scandinavian party of the ruling princeSvyatopolk. He cites Nestor as a pro-Scandinavian manipulator and compares his account of Rurik's invitation with numerous similar stories found in folklore around the world.[citation needed]
By the 21st century, most professional scholars, in bothAnglophone and Slavic-language scholarship, had reached a consensus that the origins of the Rus' people lay in Scandinavia and that this originally Scandinavian elite had a significant role in forming the polity of Kievan Rus'.[24][40][41][42] Indeed, in 1995, the Russian archaeologistLeo Klejn "gave a paper entitled 'The End of the Discussion', in the belief that anti-Normanism 'was dead and buried'". However, Klejn soon had to revise this opinion as anti-Normanist ideas gained a new prominence in both public and academic discourse in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.[43] Anglophone scholarship has identified the continued commitment to anti-Normanism in these countries since the collapse of the Soviet Union as being motivated by present-day ethno-nationalism and state-formation.[44][11]: 63 One prominent Russian example occurred with an anti-Normanist conference in 2002, which was followed by publications on the same theme, and which appears to have been promoted by Russian government policy of the time.[45] Accordingly, anti-Normanist accounts are prominent in some 21st century Russian school textbooks.[46] Meanwhile, in Ukraine and to a lesser extent Belarus, post-Soviet nation-building opposed to a history of Russian imperialism has promoted anti-Normanist views in academia and, to a greater extent, popular culture.[47]
The controversies over the nature of the Rus and the origins of the Russian state have bedevilled Viking studies, and indeed Russian history, for well over a century. It is historically certain that the Rus were Swedes. The evidence is incontrovertible, and that a debate still lingers at some levels of historical writing is clear evidence of the holding power of received notions. The debate over this issue – futile, embittered, tendentious, doctrinaire – served to obscure the most serious and genuine historical problem which remains: the assimilation of these Viking Rus into the Slavic people among whom they lived. The principal historical question is not whether the Rus were Scandinavians or Slavs, but, rather, how quickly these Scandinavian Rus became absorbed into Slavic life and culture.
There are some Anglophone scholars who remain skeptical about the origin of Rus', however, either because the evidence is not good enough, or because they remain uncertain whether Rus' was an ethnic group with a clear point of origin.[1][49][50][51]
Scholars such as Omeljan Pritsak and Horace G. Lunt offer explanations that go beyond simplistic attempts to attribute "ethnicity" on first glance interpretation of literary, philological, and archaeological evidence. They view the Rus' as disparate, and often mutually antagonistic, clans of charismatic warriors and traders who formed wide-ranging networks across the North and Baltic Seas.[52][53] They were a "multi-ethnic, multilingual and non-territorial community of sea nomads and trading settlements" that contained numerous Norsemen—but equally Slavs, Balts, and Finns.[52]
Tolochko argues "the story of the royal clan's journey is a device with its own function within the narrative of the chronicle. ... Yet if we take it for what it actually is, if we accept that it is not a documentary ethnographic description of the 10th century, but a medievalorigo gentis[a] masterfully constructed by a Christian cleric of the early 12th century, then we have to reconsider the established scholarly narrative of the earliest phase of East European history, which owes so much to thePrimary Chronicle".[54]
Archaeological research, synthesizing a wide range of 20th-century excavations, has begun to develop what Jonathan Shepard has called a "bottom up" vision of the formation of the Rus' polity, in which, during the ninth and 10th century increasingly intensive trade networks criss-crossed linguistically and ethnically diverse groups around rivers like the Volga, the Don, the Dnieper. This may have produced "an essentially voluntary convergence of groupings in common pursuit of primary produce exchangeable for artefacts from afar".[55] This fits well with the image of Rus' that dominates the Arabic sources, focusing further south and east, around theBlack andCaspian Seas, the Caucasus and the Volga Bulgars.[56] Yet this narrative, though plausible, contends with the "top-down" image of state development implied by thePrimary Chronicle, archaeological assemblages indicating Scandinavian-style weapon-bearing elites on the Upper Volga, and evidence for slave-trading and violent destruction of fortified settlements.[57][58]
Numerous artefacts of Scandinavian affinity have been found in northern Russia (as well as artefacts of Slavic origin in Sweden). However, exchange between the north and southern shores of the Baltic had occurred since the Iron Age (albeit limited to immediately coastal areas).[59] Northern Russia and adjacent Finnic lands had become a profitable meeting ground for peoples of diverse origins, especially for the trade of furs, and attracted by the presence of oriental silver from the mid-8th century AD.[60] There is an undeniable presence of goods and people of Scandinavian origin; however, the predominant people remained the local (Baltic and Finnic) peoples.[61]
The increasing volume of trade and internal competition necessitated higher forms of organization. The Rus' appeared to emulate aspects ofKhazar political organization—hence the mention of a Rus'chaganus in theCarolingian court in 839 (Royal Frankish Annals). Legitimization was sought by way of adopting a Christian and linguistically Slavic "high culture" that became the "Kievan Rus'".[62] Moreover, there is doubt if the emerging Kievan Rus' were the same clan as the "Rus" who visited the Carolingians in 839 or who attacked Constantinople in 860 AD.[63]
The rise of Kiev itself is mysterious. Devoid of any silverdirham finds in the 8th century AD, it was situated west of the profitable fur and silver trade networks that spanned from the Baltic to the Muslim lands, via the Volga–Kama basins. At the prime hill in Kiev, fortifications and other symbols of consolidation and power appear from the 9th century, thus preceding the literary appearance of "Rus" in the middle Dnieper region. By the 10th century, the lowlands around Kiev had extensive "Slavic" styled settlements, and there is evidence of growing trade with the Byzantine lands. This might have attracted Rus' movements, and a shift in power, from the north to Kiev.[64] Tolochko argues that Kiev did not evolve from the infrastructure of the Scandinavian trade networks, but rather it forcibly took them over, with the destruction of numerous earlier trade settlements in the north, including the famousStaraya Ladoga.[65]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)