Re: [sig] Re: Re: Book: Kiev Rus, by B. Grekov - thoughts?
> >So, what is "Pravda Rus'ka"? And what is >anActually, 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. :-)
> -- 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, 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.
> 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.
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 formedAlso, 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.
> 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
> AntiNormanists contend that the norse/scandinavianAbsolutely. There is a very small circle of Scandinavian words borrowed.
> influence was completely absorbed by the local
> culture, leaving hardly a trace.
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.
> Actually, Ibn Fadlan <SNIP>. Their origins, pardonme - is stated as a scientific fact by Michael
> same who wrote Jurassic Park, - his rather pulpyHere's an americanism for you, Alex: "No shit,
> 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.
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 RussiansSources? Citations?
>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.
>BTW, the idea of two antagonist theories just omitsSources? Citations? Archeological references?
>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.
Please, when you make these "correction" comments of
yours, which come across as very definitive in tone,
site some sources? Thanks.
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
- 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
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.
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005