Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [sig] Re: Re: Book: Kiev Rus, by B. Grekov - thoughts?

Expand Messages
  • Alexey Kiyaikin aka Posadnik
    Greetings! ... Actually, as extreme viewpoints, they hardly express the whole truth. The incompleteness of both theories was obvious by end-of-war. The only
    Message 1 of 14 , Oct 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings!

      > >So, what is "Pravda Rus'ka"? And what is >an
      > "antinormanist"??
      > -- Paul
      >
      > Near as I can tell, it seems that the Normanist vs
      > AntiNormanist has to do with theories of how Russia
      > developed and the origin of the name "Rus'".
      Actually, as extreme viewpoints, they hardly express the whole truth. The incompleteness of both theories was obvious by end-of-war. The only thing was that usually both arguments were used in the Cold War: that the Slavs were wise enough to live by their own law (USSR), and that the Slavs were stupid enough to lack their own ruling hand even in the early days of Slavic states (Western historians). As with any politic reasons, both theories had distorted historic truth many times. The discussion on that topic raged in the FIDOnet echoconference SU.HISTORY about this spring-summer, and must be available through Googlegroups. Sorry, but it is in Russian. :-)

      >
      > The Normanist theory says that Russia was developed
      > and named out of the Scandinavian influence -- using
      > the writings of Ibn Fadlan, who calls the norse
      > raiders "Rusiyyah", and Ibn Rustah calls them "Rus"
      > and differenciated them from the Slavs, the native
      > peoples. Basically, it says the Rus were varagians,
      > and they took over, just like the Norse in Normandy.
      Actually, Ibn Fadlan (being a VERY emotional and not in the least impartial viewer - say, he reports of seeing a huge log-size snake, on the middle Volga, near Bulgar, some 150-200 kilometers south from Kazan - anyone can use Googlemaps and see how stupid a lie it is) says of some Rus merchants and describes their funeral rituals - saying nothing about their origins. Their origins, pardon me - is stated as a scientific fact by Michael Krichton, the same who wrote Jurassic Park, - his rather pulpy fiction novel The Eaters of the Flesh (13th warrior with Banderas is based on it) cites Ibn Fadlan for pages, to make the reader believe that the characters are really normans, of which there is actually NO proof.
      And, afair, Ibn Ruste says about the tribe Rus, which is a neighbor to the Slavs, and Rus merchants buy from the Slavs. No native vs. newcomers. And some other Arabic source names Rus "a tribe among teh Slavs", - thus, no agreement with the sources even in this.

      Actually, there is no proof that Scandinavians ever called themselves "Rus". The Finns called them ABOUT so (Ruotsi) - yes (and, afair, they called the Swedish like this), but the Scandinavians themselves - never. Even the fact that Ruotsi is related to the word Rus - lacks proof.

      > The AntiNormanist position is that the nation formed
      > more from the native Slavic people, with a source for
      > the word "Rus" being imbedded in the slavic language:
      > Ruslo (riverbed), Rusalka (river-spirit). Also the
      > two rivers in the Ukraine the Ros' and Rusna. The
      Also, the fact that "Rus" for 12 century Russians meant Kiev and Chertnigov region, they could even say "He went to the Rus" meaning a trip from outer regions like Rostov, Novgorod, etc to Kiev, Chernigov, Liubech, etc.

      > AntiNormanists contend that the norse/scandinavian
      > influence was completely absorbed by the local
      > culture, leaving hardly a trace.
      Absolutely. There is a very small circle of Scandinavian words borrowed.
      Also, there is a little wider circle of Russian/Slavic words borrowed by Scandinavians.

      :-)
      BTW, the idea of two antagonist theories just omits something: the legendary Riurik could be
      neither a Slav nor a Scandinavian. In 9-10 century the Slavs could have called a warlord of Celtic origin, they still lived in the south Baltic by then.

      Bye,
      Alex.
    • Sfandra
      ... me - is stated as a scientific fact by Michael Krichton, the ... Here s an americanism for you, Alex: No shit, Sherlock. :D Crichton s apologia is in
      Message 2 of 14 , Oct 7, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        > Actually, Ibn Fadlan <SNIP>. Their origins, pardon
        me - is stated as a scientific fact by Michael
        Krichton, the
        > same who wrote Jurassic Park, - his rather pulpy
        > fiction novel The Eaters of the Flesh (13th warrior
        > with Banderas is based on it) cites Ibn Fadlan for
        > pages, to make the reader believe that the
        > characters are really normans, of which there is
        > actually NO proof.

        Here's an americanism for you, Alex: "No shit,
        Sherlock." :D Crichton's apologia is in the author
        notes for "Eaters of the Dead". I'm rather offended
        that you for some unknown reason assumed that I was
        using a work of fiction as a reference, as if I didn't
        know the difference, rather than thinking I was
        attempting to create a brief summary based on acedemic
        sources. Clearly, if I am making an effort to read
        straight through this ponderous mass known as Grekov's
        "Kiev Rus", I am not a johnny-come-lately to the world
        of acedemic research.

        I WAS attempting to simply paraphrase the wikipedia
        article that was posted at the same time whole hog.


        I personally, as I said at the end of my email, have
        no thoughts or opinions or even support either the
        normanist or antinormanist argument, having not done
        enough research on the subject. Note the "As near as
        I can tell" at the beginning of my email.

        >Also, the fact that "Rus" for 12 century Russians
        >meant Kiev and
        >Chertnigov region, they could even say "He went to
        >the Rus" meaning a trip
        >from outer regions like Rostov, Novgorod, etc to
        >Kiev, Chernigov, Liubech, etc.

        Sources? Citations?

        >BTW, the idea of two antagonist theories just omits
        >something: the
        >legendary Riurik could be
        >neither a Slav nor a Scandinavian. In 9-10 century
        >the Slavs could have
        >called a warlord of Celtic origin, they still lived
        >in the south Baltic by then.

        Sources? Citations? Archeological references?

        Please, when you make these "correction" comments of
        yours, which come across as very definitive in tone,
        site some sources? Thanks.
        --Sfandra

        ******************
        Sfandra Dmitrieva iz Chernigova
        Kingdom of the East
        ******************
        "Earth: The most dangerous place known to Man. Billions of humans have died there." --TarynEve, "Desert Isle" (ENTff)



        __________________________________
        Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Tim Nalley
        Lets not let the endemic bickering of the Old World color this new world we are all creating, si vous plait. Michael Chriton is a hack genre writer, as is
        Message 3 of 14 , Oct 7, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Lets not let the endemic bickering of the Old
          World color this "new world" we are all creating, si
          vous plait. Michael Chriton is a hack genre writer, as
          is well known, so I doubt that anyone ever uses his
          works as any serious historical source, even on the
          tertiary level, outside entertainment. OTOH, works of
          modern entertainment often have a utility of shedding
          light on important, yet obscure bits of history that
          might otherwise be overlooked in the shadows of some
          of the historical "monolith" areas of discussion and
          research.......
          Back to the subject, is there a group that
          encompasses the middleground, sans political dogma,
          and takes the pragmatic approach of fairly rapid
          assimilation with trace influence in the already
          existant culture? I know of hardly any human culture
          at any point in history that hasn't been noticably
          affected by contact with other cultures, sometimes
          quite pervasively and enduringly.
          'dok





          __________________________________
          Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.