For a couple of decades, scientists have been arguing with unprecedented passion about when Russia arose, the Slavic race and the Russian ethnos were formed. There are several main hypotheses with solid ground each. Some of them contradict, while others rather complement each other. Historians still cannot agree on a single opinion. However, most of them agree on one thing – millennia of the fascinating history of Russia have hitherto been hidden from the Russian people and many facts have been deliberately distorted. Let's look at the most common and well-reasoned of these hypotheses.
The official version and its sources
The first Russian chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" was written by the monk Nestor in 1110-1118 in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. The monk proceeded from both oral traditions passed down from generation to generation and historical written sources in the monastery itself, comparing and verifying them against each other. He narrated events from biblical times to 1113. The linguist Shakhmatov revealed that this chronicle had predecessors. However, this is the first reliably confirmed Russian chronicle. It was rewritten several times, the original was lost.
Shakhmatov, not without reason, believes that in the course of rewriting significant changes were made to the chronicle. Indeed, after the death of Prince Svyatopolk Stanislavich in 1113, the monk Sylvester from the Mikhailovsky Vydubitsky monastery rewrites the "Tale of Bygone Years" (bringing the story to 1117) in order to substantiate the claims of Monomakh, married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, to the grand ducal throne. The gaps in the narrative were filled with info from Byzantine chronographs such as George Amartol and from folk legends (among which is the story of Olga's revenge on the Drevlyans)1, as well as from English sources2.
The oldest copy of Nestor’s chronicle that has come down to our days is the Laurentian manuscript of 1377, to which the monk Laurenty added a chronicle of North-Eastern Russia’s events before 1305. The book is written on a "charter" – a parchment made of specially treated calfskin. The chronicle was written either in the Nativity Monastery in the city of Vladimir or in the Annunciation Monastery in the city of Nizhny Novgorod.
A later, less trusted, Ipatiev’s manuscript, was discovered at the beginning of the XV century by a historian N.M. Karamzin in the library of the Ipatievsky Monastery in the city of Kostroma. It is valuable for its description of events in Kiev, Galich and Volhynia before 1292. There are several other rewritings of Nestor’s chronicle as well.
According to the" Tale of Bygone Years", Russia, as a state, arose in 862, when the leaders of the Russian tribes invited a Varangian (a Viking) – the Scandinavian Prince Rurik to rule. According to the chronicle, such a step was taken in order to stop the endless internecine struggle of the leaders of Russian tribes for leadership, because the foreign ruler equalized them all, so that no one was particularly offended. This allowed forcing everyone to obey and, thus, restore order in the Russian lands. We must note here, that till that event, then union of Russian lands did not bear yet the name of Russia (Rus).
The chronicle entry for 862 says: "Drove the Varangians out over the sea and did not give them tribute, and began to rule themselves on their own. And there was no truth among them, and some clans arose against others, and there was strife among them, and they began to fight with themselves. And they said to themselves: ’Let's look for a [foreign] prince who would rule us and judge us rightfully'. And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russ. Those Varangians were called Russ, just as others are called Swedes, and some Normans and Angles, and still others – Gotlanders (…). Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and all [other tribes] said to Russ: 'Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it, so come in to reign and rule us'".
That is, as follows from the chronicle record, the Varangians initially came to the Prarussian tribes to impose tribute on them, but were defeated and driven away. And then our ancestors turned to another tribe of Varangians (logically not to the one that attacked them), which was called "Rus", which later gave the name to the entire Russian state.
The artist Vasnetsov V.M. in 1909 captured on canvas his vision of the moment of Rurik's meeting in the painting "The Invitation of the Varangians":
The image from https://ru.wikipedia.org. According to international and Russian legislation it is free from licensing restrictions on publication as more than 80 years have passed since the author's death in 1926.
Rurik (Rorik) of Jutland (a peninsula in Denmark) came with his squad and two brothers. "And the eldest, Rurik, settled down in Novgorod, and Sineus in Beloozero, Truvor in Izborsk". Since the names of the brothers Sineus and Truvor sound exotic even for the Varangians, there is an opinion that the phrases was distorted by the chronicler. From the old Norman language “sine hus” and “thru varring”, which mean “with their home” (with relatives and servants) and a “loyal army”. Rurik really managed to stop internecine princely wars, unite tribes and principalities, and restore order.
3 groups of theories of Russia’ origin
1. “Norman”, which asserts that Rurik was a foreigner from Scandinavia and that it was he with his squad and retinue who formed the state of Russia from "unorganized" Slavic tribes. The Normans are a generalized name for the neighboring Scandinavian peoples in the Northern Baltic States – the Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, who ravaged Western Europe and Eastern Slavic lands with sea robber raids from the VIII to the XI century. Therefore, the "Norman" group is divided into three almost identical versions, which differ mainly by whether Rurik was a Swede, a Dane or a Norwegian.
The dashing "raiders" from across the sea were called either Vikings or Varangians. Some historians consider these words synonymous. Others believe that the Vikings are sea robbers who, unlike pirates, did not rob ships, but neighboring countries. They say that the Varangians were not robbers at all, but the defenders of their commercial business (for example, on the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks") or military mercenaries in various countries including in Byzantium and Russian principalities. The chronicle however says that it was the very Varangians, not the Vikings who raided and tried to impose tribute. So, there was a very fine line between Vikings and Varangians at that time.
2. "Slavic". That group of hypotheses claims that either Rurik was a Slav, just from an overseas tribe, or that Slavic statehood was formed long before the arrival of Rurik (if he ever arrived at all).
3. "Other Russia". The theories of the third group claim that there was some other strong and militant Varangian state "Rus", which was at war with almost every country around (including Byzantium) and was located not in Scandinavia, but somewhere else. This Russia subsequently merged with the Slavic lands, exerted its "civilizational" influence on the Slavic principalities, leading most of them, and gave the united state its name. Such versions are called either by the location of this "other" Russia, or by the people who inhabited it. The main theories of each group are briefly outlined below.
False Rurik?
Although to this day, the year 862 is considered the official date of the formation of Russia (the portrait gallery of the rulers of Russia in the Kremlin opens with a portrait of Rurik), this date can only be accepted as just another milestone in its history. Western historians insist on this date in order to belittle the role of Russia, the ancient origin of the our people and the fact that the we created our statehood independently on our own. Obviously, the Slavic tribes lived on these lands long before the arrival of Rurik. And not as wild nomadic hordes, but as organized principalities, with large cities already built up, some of which are mentioned in the chronicles. The ability to build fortresses at that time meant that the people were at a very high civilizational level, that there were already engineering solutions for the construction of buildings and fortifications, production technologies for both household and military products. That is, there were a division of labor, the classes of artisans, merchants, etc.
The historian Natalia Pavlishcheva in her book "False Rurik. What historians are silent about", writes that the Varangian Rurik did not come to an "empty place" as by the IX century the Slavic civilization had flourished for several millenniums, having long ago formed a special way of life that was radically different from the Western one. It was based not on "law and order", but on Veche (conciliarity), which provides more justice and will then European pseudo-democracy. She points out that Rurik was not at all called upon to “own us” – but was simply hired as an “effective manager”, “equidistant” from all local clans, and therefore capable of safeguarding the interests of all people and lands. A wise decision.
The current “Westerners” do not want to understand the main thing, writes Pavlishcheva, that then the government did not "own the people", but was its hired worker: an objectionable ruler could not only be kicked out of the princely chorus with a kick in the ass, but generally executed. Let us recall the execution of Prince Igor, who was tied to two birch trees for his brazen attempt to collect tribute from the Drevlyans twice and was torn apart in half. Even famous Alexander Nevsky was expelled from Novgorod, despite his victory over the Swedes on the Neva, because, contrary to the opinion of the Veche, he attempted forcing Novgorod to pay tribute to the Tatar-Mongol Horde, although the city was not conquered by it. And Alexander's father was also expelled from Novgorod. The same fate would have befallen Rurik, if he had not justified the trust of the Slavs. Pavlishcheva proves that Rurik's epic was not the "beginning of the beginnings", but only a passing chapter of the several thousand year chronicle of Russia. 3
The incorrectness of the official date of the emergence of Russia is confirmed even by the fact that the first "official and reliable" mention of the Russian state in foreign chronicles, recognized in the West, falls on the year 839. That is 23 years before the coming of Rurik. There is a mention in the Bertin Annals (the chronicle of the Saint-Bertin monastery in France) that the ambassadors of the Ross people arrived to the Byzantine emperor Theophanes in 839 to establish diplomatic and trade relations and that their ruler was a Khagan. Here the title of the ruler is somewhat surprising, but the Russian Khaganate apparently existed indeed as it is written below. Also, the Arabs and sometimes the Slavs themselves (on especially solemn occasions) called the prince of Kiev by the word Khagan up to and including the X century (possibly under the influence of the Khazar Khaganate). Whether these ambassadors came from Novgorod, Kiev, Ladoga or another part of Russia is unclear.
Thus, long before the advent of Rurik the Russian state had already been establishing diplomatic and trade missions with the neighboring countries. The material collected by several generations of individual Russian scientists indicates that the age of Russian statehood is about the same as that of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. Although this point of view has not yet been officially recognized, it is gaining more and more supporters over time.
Slavic theory of Lomonosov
Mikhail Lomonosov, in his work "Ancient Russian History from the beginning of the Russian people to the death of Grand Duke Yaroslav the First or until 1054," was resolutely against the "Norman" theory and wrote "about the distant antiquity of the Slavic people." Here is a quote from the 6th volume of his complete works (Moscow, Leningrad, 1952):
"At the beginning of the sixth century after Christ, the Slavic name became very famous; and the power of this people was not only terrible in Thrace, Macedonia, Istria and Dalmatia, but also contributed very much to the destruction of the Roman Empire. The Vends and Ants, uniting with their kindred Slavs, multiplied their strength. The unity of these peoples is not only shown by the current similarity in languages, but is also testified twelve hundred years ago by Iornand, who left the message that "from the beginning of the Vistula River to the north, there are populous Vendian peoples living in an immeasurable space, whose names, although different for different generations and places, but the Slavs and Ants are generally called." He also adds that from the Vistula they extend to the Danube and to the Black Sea.
Before him, Ptolemy in the second century by Christ places the Vendians near the entire Vendian Bay named after them, that is, near the Finnish and Kurland bays. This author, moreover, let us know that Sarmatia was taken over by the great Vendian peoples. And Pliny also testifies that in his time the Vendians and Sarmatians lived near the Vistula… So, the Slavic-polish people justly call themselves Sarmatian; and I will not hesitate to conclude with Kromer that the Slavs and the Vendians in general are ancient Sarmatians… About antiquity [of the Slavs, – translator’s remark] we have a satisfied and almost obvious assurance in the greatness and power of the Slavic tribe, which has been standing on almost one measure for more than a thousand and a half years; and it is impossible to imagine that in the first century after Christ, it suddenly multiplied to such a great multitude..".
"In Southern Europe, the antiquity and power of the Slavs is evident from Herodotus, who Venedov and the Illyrians regard as one people and describe their habits, similar to those of the Medes [Euterpia, p. 36; Terpsichore, p. 128], which confirms the unity shown above. The antiquity of the Illyrians extends to fabulous centuries; the strength of their military dealings with the Greeks and Romans is known."
"Campaigns from the north of the Goths, Vandals and Lombards serve a lot to prove the multiplication of Slavic power. For although I separate them fairly from the Slavic generations, however, I have good reasons to assert that Slavs made up a considerable part of their armies; and not only ordinary, but also the main leaders were of Slavic breed. So, now it is quite clear how great the Slavic tribe was already in the first centuries after the Birth of Christ."
Lomonosov also claimed, that the Varangians were not a nationality, but a certain social group and could be either Swedes or Danes, or Slavs. He substantiates that the Varangians invited to Novgorod were the Slavs who lived on the shores of the Baltic between the Dvina and the Vistula and Rurik himself was the grandson of the Novgorod prince Gostomysl who invited him. Michael believed that Prince Rurik was a Slavic Varangian prince from Prussia, not Scandinavia. "The eastern shoulder of the Nemeni River, flowing into the Gulf of Kursk, is called Rusa which bears the name of the Varangian Russ." That is the name Rus (as well as Ros) has a purely Slavic origin and not brought from the outside by another people. And the Russian people have their roots as ancient as the Greeks and Romans do or even older.
Lomonosov also points out the absence of Scandinavian words in the Russian language for this reason. In fact there are some but a very few indeed. Wilhelm L.P. Thomsen (1842 –1927) the professor of Copenhagen University and the President of the Danish Academy of Science (plus the member of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland) counted 16 Scandinavian words in Russian. And even these 16 are under question. For instance, the Russian word “Yakor (anchor) he refers to the Swedish word "ancare" or the Old Norse "akkeri". However, in Latin dictionary we find "ancora" – anchor and the mark – "Greek". So, this word had entered Latin from Ancient Greek thousands of years before the world heard of Scandinavia. As shown above, Russia had an intense relationship with Byzantine Empire where the Greeks were perhaps a major nation (the Slavs also were numerous there among others). Therefore it is almost certain that this word entered Russian from the Greeks of Byzantine, not Scandinavia. The majority of other words of those 16 are also more likely to be German, French or Greek rather than Scandinavian. But even if we assume all of these Russian 16 words to be of Scandinavian origin, it is still too miserable number. The numbers of German, French and Greek words in Russian are greater by a couple of orders of magnitude. This adds more doubts that the Variangians of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" were Scandinavians and especially that Rurik came from Scandinavia.