The Normanist Controversy
-
Upload
laura-wright -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
description
Transcript of The Normanist Controversy
Synopsis
There is a heated debate in Russian history of the origin of the Russian state. The Normanist theory; claiming that the Scandinavian
Normans came and ruled over the primitive population, and henceforth were the creators of the Russian State, is a view held by
many, despite evidence to the contrary. This paper is analysis of Normanism. The de-evolution of the theory shows how the Normanists have constantly compromised and are now holding onto their theory by a thread. Deconstructing shows that the Primary Chronicle, the
theory’s main source, is flawed to the point of not being of any use. Further deconstruction takes place in presenting how so many other
primary documents prove contrary to the theory, especially early Normanists claims regarding Russian culture. Finally, quoting a variety
of primary and secondary sources, the paper shows that the most logical conclusion to the Normanist debate is that the people of Rus
were a multiethnic, multilingual [interfaith] unified social and economic entity.
The birth and formation of the Russian State is shrouded with obscurity. This
obscurity has given rise to a lively and passionate debate spanning over two
hundred years. The scholastic theories surrounding this period in history can be
divided into two factions, Normanist and Anti-Normanist. The former holds to the
supposition that the Normans, from the Scandinavian term Norseman – a
northern man in chronicles – Varangian, were the main architects of the political,
cultural and state life, initially on the banks of Lake Ilmen near Novgorod and
later on the slopes of the Dnieper shores of Kiev. 1 The latter generally consider
the Rus to be Slavs, and hence regard the Slavic people as having a major role in
“…the rise and growth of the State of Kiev.”2 The proceeding text is an analysis
of the Normanist theory: the de-evolution of the theory, the theory
deconstructed, and an alternative to the theory. The de-evolution of the theory
shall show how the Normanist theory has had to compromise with the original
hypothesis, how it is now drastically limited in its assertions, and the political and
racial motives behind these assertions. The deconstruction of the theory shall
show that the main source of the Normanist argument, the Provest’ Vremennykh
Let, is a mixture of folklore and fact. Further deconstruction and evolution can be
seen, as the various arguments for Scandinavian elements in Russian culture are
proven insignificant. Finally, constructing an alternative view. The purpose of the
following text is not to solve the Normanist controversy; its purpose is to cast a
shadow of doubt onto the generally accepted version of historical events and to
show that this is an historical topic that deserves further attention.
The progress of the Normanist theory shows itself to be anything but
progressive. Each of its successive theorists make less and less bold assertions
1 Roman Zakharii, The Historiography of Normanist and Anti-Normanist Theories on the origin of Rus’. Dissertation in Viking and Medieval Nordic Culture, Submitted in candidacy for the degree of Master of Philosophy, Centre for Viking and Medieval Studies, Faculty of Arts, The University of Oslo, Norway, 2002 p.18 2 Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia Philosophical Library Inc. New York, reprinted with permission of original publisher Kraus Reprint Co. USA 1969 p.109
as the role of the Norman’s in Russia’s formation. The de-evolution of the theory
began in the St. Petersburg’s Academy of Sciences in the second half of the 18th
century3. The academy was formed by Peter the Great’s physician, Laurentius
Blumentrost, a Russian with German parents4. This personal history formed a
trend in the academy, with 75% of the scholars speaking German as their first
language5. This caused barriers in their research, not being able to read primary
Russian documents, and would later affect their academic credibility. The three
first formulators of Russian history from these German academics were G.S.
Bayer, G.F. Mueller and A.L. Schlöezer.6 These scholars claimed that the whole of
Russian culture and state life had been the work of the Scandinavians. The basis
of this conclusion was a passage written in the Provest’ Vremennykh Let (The
Tale of Bygone Years)7. These early claims of Scandinavian domination are
coloured with racial prejudice, maintaining that Eastern Slavs as not being
capable of “independent state-formation process.”8 Other historians such as
Krug, Kruse, Lehrberg, and Frähn then further developed these theories with
little success9. In the 19th century Kunik, M. Karamzin, S. Solovyov, M. Pogodin,
Danish Slavist V. Thomsen10 and followers were forced to qualified and limited
their claims due to the overwhelming evidence against the initial Normanist
theory11. Their revised theory asserted that the guiding principals and institutions
were Norman, yet admitted the involvement of the native population.12 In the
20th century Neo-Normanist scholars such as “H. Jankuhn, T. Capelle, G. Stökl,
Dane A. Stender-Petersen, R. Pertner, Swede H. Arbman, V. Moshin, M. Taube,
3 Zakharii, op. cit 2002 p. 18 4 Shieko, K. Masters of Arts / History Thesis Wollongong University 2004 p.94 5 Shieko, K., op.cit. 2004 p.94 6 Zakharii, op. cit 2002 p.18 7 Appendix 1 Passage from the Provest’ Vremennykh Let 8 Zakharii, op. cit 2002 p.18 9 Joseph L. Wieczynski, The Modern Encyclopaedia of Russian and Soviet History, vol. 25, Academic International Press 1981 P.55 10 Zakharii, op. cit 2002 p.18 11 Wieczynski op. cit. 1981 p.55 12 Wieczynski op. cit. 1981 p.55
and Y. Vernadsky” even further revised the theory, claiming there was a
“gradual… [and] …peaceful Norman colonization.”13 It seems that the basic goal
of all Normanists was racial vilification. If they were of Germanic decent
(Western) they were likely to dismiss the Slavic people as backward and
incompetent, as Bayer and Schlöezer did. If they were Slavic or Russian, the
ultimate goal was to form some kind of tie to Germany as to save the country
from an Asiatic connection. With this ‘higher’ purpose in mind the majority,
including Western, historians, have overlooked inconsistencies in the evidence
used to prove the Normanist theory.
Initiated by M. Lomonosov in the 19th century, Anti-Normanism is, in part, a critic
on Normanism. In order to deconstruct Normanism, the key area of scrutiny is
the primary source used to prove the theory. The main source is the Provest’
Vremennykh Let (The Tale of Bygone Years) or The Russian Primary Chronicle.
In showing the faults within this document, the basis for the Normanist theory is
declared void. Shakhmatov (1864 - 1920) was the last and most noted Provest’
Vremennykh Let investigator. He presented himself as a Normanist, yet with so
many accommodations “that some anti-Normanists regarded him a fellow
traveller.”14 With other specialists, Shakhmantov brought to light “… obvious
inadequacies …” with the text.15 The passage previously mentioned16, bears
resemblance to 1 Samuel 8, and even more similarity to Widukind’s Res gestae
saxonicae.17 This would indicate the concocted nature, a mixture of fact and
folklore that the Chronicle really is. He further asserted that the text has multiple
layers and was most probably not written by a single author.18 In general the
Chronicle is considered to be a literature written for specific dynastical purposes,
13 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p. 14 Shieko, K. op.cit. 2004 p.104 15Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p.59 16 Look to an Appendix 1 17 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p.59 18 Shieko, K. op.cit. 2004 p.105
providing assistance both personal and political to those in the ruling class of
Russia during its composition.19 Shakhmantov claimed that Nestor’s aim in
writing the chronicle was to ascertain “… the genealogical connection between
the Varangian Riurik and the Rus princes of Kiev.”20 Soviet Historian Grekov
considered that “…the chronicler (Nestor), being a representative of a certain
class, had a political viewpoint of his own.”21 Pokrovsky, even more stinging in
his criticism named the chronicle “… simply a piece of journalism.”22 It is
interesting to note that the First Novgorodian Chronicle, which was a source of
the Primary chronicle, has a passage that differs from the Primary Chronicle. The
First Novgorodian Chronicle names the “… men of Slovenes, that were called the
Rus’.”23 The Primary Chronicle interprets this passage differently, “… Slovenes,
and the others called the Rus’.”24 This slight change can be viewed as the subtle
alterations of a politically motivated author. The question becomes, how many
other ‘alterations’ have taken place to the information he gathered.
Now that the basis for the Normanist theory is removed, here is a series of
primary and secondary interpretation documents that further debase the theory.
These sources are not cohesive or forming any sort of consensus, their purpose
is to show the possibilities.
The Kitab by Arabic scholar Ibn Fadlãn has a passage where he describes the
Rüsiyyah. From the translation25 by Montgomery the funeral of a rich and
important man sheds light on the culture of the Rus. Montgomery asserts that
Scandinavia dose not have the archaeological evidence to suggest cremation was
19 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p. 20Shieko, K., op.cit. 2004 p.105 21 Grekov, B. Pervyy Trud istorii Possii (First work on the History of Russia) in Istoricheskiy Zhurnal, Moscow, 1943 (11 - 12) p.66 22 M. Pokrovosky, Borba Klassov i russkaya istoricheskaya literature, Istoricheskaya nauka I borba klassov, I, 1933, p.18 23 Shieko, K. op.cit. 2004 p.105 24 Shieko, K., op.cit. 2004 p.105 25 Appendix 2
common place yet the abundance of female slaves could of led to indulgence.26
Further to this the Eastern Slavs and the North men were called majus or
Magians because of their cremation of the dead, which literally means fire-
worshippers. This combination of Slavic and Viking could suggest that under the
rule of the Slavs these Viking mercenaries were combining the funerary rituals of
their old and new homes27. Another interpretation is that the man that died was
apart of an interracial marriage. When Schlöezer was once asked to explain the
rapid Slavonisation of the Normans he refused to explain stating it to be “… a
phenomenon which even today is quite beyond explanation.”28 All these
interpretations must be considered as valid as that of the Normanist, to brush
them aside as Schlöezer did is to be ignorant. In his book The Eastern Slavs,
Dolukhanov quotes Mel’nikova and Petruchkin when they argued that Arabic
authors often use the word ‘ar-rus’ with no ethnic connotations, it means
warriors and merchants29. It must also be considered that continuity between
authors is highly unlikely, what one Arabic author may call Rus another would
not. Western sources also contradict the Normanist Theory. The Bertinian
Annals, a western source, claim that Rus ambassadors came through
Constantinople to Ingelheim calling the men of Khakan-Rus. Wieczynski argues
that Khakan could mean Khazar and assumes that the Russian khanate was
located in Southern Russia hence this further removes the Scandinavians.30
Constantinople’s patriarch Photius talks of a country that has cruelty that
surpasses all other, which he calls the people of Rhos.31 The Bavarian
Geographer positions a people called Ruzzi, close to the Khazars and Hungarians
suggesting the Eastern Slavs. There are many primary and secondary documents
26 James E. Montgomery, “Ibn Fadlãn and the Rüsiyyah” from the Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000 p.12 27 Montgomery op. cit. 2000 p.13 28 B. Grekov, Kiev Rus Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1959 p.503 29 Pavel Dolukanov, The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus, Harlow, 1996 p.190 30 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p.57 31 Paszkiewics, op. cit. 1969 p.110
that contradict the Normanists, yet the theory suffers even further with the
evolution of their own historical claims.
As stated above, Bayer believed that the Vikings formed the whole of Russian
culture and state life. Bayer, with many of the early Normanists, attributed
language, literature, law and religion to the Scandinavians. Bayer asserted that
he had found a considerable number of Scandinavian words in the Russian
language, despite his not being able to read Russian. Moshin, a contemporary
Normanist, attributes six words as having Scandinavian origin. Not only the
language far from Viking dominated, there was written literature in Russia before
Scandinavia. Similarly, Kievan law, once considered to be akin to Scandinavian
jurisprudence, bears little if any resemblance to any Norman models. No
evidence exists to ascribe Scandinavian influences to Kievan paganism, yet the
early Normanists like Bayer attempted to make links. The primary deity in the
Eastern Slavic pantheon is Perun, god of thunder, was described by Procopiuc in
the sixth century, yet early scholars attempted to link Perun with the
Scandinavian god Thor. They have since been proven mistaken, with much more
substantiated claims discovered with Byzantium and Oriental cultures32.
With the Normanist theory proven untenable, there must be an alternative. Far
from denying that there was ever any Vikings in Russia, it would seem more
logical to assume that there presence was as hired mercenaries, as Lomonosov
hypothesized, and that they then intermingle with the population. Ibn Fadlan’s
account of the Rüsiyyah, as interpreted above, supports this view, as does the
character of the Vikings. To be able to hire mercenaries, there would have to be
some form of civilisation. In his work Kiev Rus, Grekov, unlike many others,
presents the Eastern Slavs as a well formed society. 6th century Byzantine
historian Procopius of Caesarea described the Slavs as identical to the Antes,
32 Wieczynski, op. cit. 1981, p.56
living democratically.33 Grekov further substantiates this high level of state life in
pre-Kiev Rus, as he looks at culture. In the 6th century the Blacksmith trade
became a specialised craft, casting and jewellery making became a man’s job
(indicating prestige) and there were advancements in agriculture. Trade is
another activity that increased into the 7th and 8th century. Luxury items such as
bronze, silver and gold weaponry and ornamentation was purchased from
Byzantium and Persia34. Ubaidallah Ibn-Khurdadhbih, an Oriental author in the
middle of the 9th century, specifically names the “… Rus merchants … are of
Sclavonian (Slavic) origin.”35 This suggests that they may be the product of an
interracial marriage. From the material studied it would seem that the Slavic
people had a well-formed society, Vikings came to a developed state (in the
most basic sense of the word) and intermingled with the population. Dolukhanov
characterises Kievan Rus as “… a loose confederacy.”36 Paszkiewics considers the
term Rus to have a two fold meaning; first to be geographical and political, and
secondly to be religious. Pritsak’s statements concur with Paszkiewics, as he
deems Kiev Rus a “… multiethnic, multilingual [interfaith] unified social and
economic entity.”37
The debate over the origins of Russia is a passionate and heated debate. When
Mueller gave his first speech on the topic to the Imperial Academy of Sciences in
1749 he was such protest he was not able to finish. Another member identified
him as a dishonour to the nation38. Such fervour has never left this debate.
Hoskings as recently as 2001 called the Slavic peoples relatively primitive39. As
Sheiko points out, this comment is not likely to endear him to the Russian
33 B. Grekov, op. cit. 1959, p.511 34 B. Grekov, op. cit. 1959, p.508 35 Paszkiewics, op. cit. 1969 p.118 36 Dolukhanov op.cit. 1996, p.197 37 Omeljan Pritsak, The Origin of “Rus” The Russian Review July 1977, (abridged) p.7 38 ibid. P.1 39 Geoffrey Hosking, Russia and the Russians: a history, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p.30.
people’s hearts. Neither is Lomonosov’s description of Bayer particularly
charming, calling him an “… idolater priest who having poisoned himself with
henbane and altered his mind by spinning around on one foot, shouts vague,
dark, wild and incomprehensible answers.”40 Political and personal bias can be
seen on either side, it is only when emotions are removed will historians be able
to see the truth. The general consensus among historians is to remain safe in the
west-centric confines that society has afforded them. Both native and foreign
scholars, as has been shown, struggle to connect Russian history to that of the
Caucasian west. The Normanist theory has been shown to be just that, a theory.
As a theory is can, and should be, scrutinised.
40 Shieko, K., op.cit. 2004 p.123
Appendix 1 The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentius Text Translated and Edited by Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor The Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 3rd Ed, 1973 (852 - 862) p. 59
Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war with one another. They said to themselves, “Let us seek princes who may rule over us and judge us according to the Law.” They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Russes: these particular Varagains were known as Russes, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, English and Gotlanders, for they were thus named. The Chuds, The Slavs, the Krivichians, and the Ves’ then said to the people of Rus’, “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to rule and reign over us.” They thus selected three brothers, with their kinsfolk, who took with them all the Russes and migrated.
Appendix 2 James E. Montgomery “Ibn Fadlan and the Rusiyyah” Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies vol.3, 2000 p.12 - 13
“I was told that when their chieftains die, the least they do is to cremate them. I was very keen to verify this, when I learned of the death of one of their great men. They placed him in his grave (qabr) and erected a canopy over it for ten days, until they finished making and sewing his funeral garments.”
Bibliography Cross, Samuel Hazzard. and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentius Text, The Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 3rd Ed, 1973.
This book was used essentially for its translation of the Primary Chronicle. Dolukanov, Pavel. The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus, Harlow, 1996
A leading authority in archaeology, Dolukhanov’s argument for anti-Normanism is the most sophisticated and persuasive exponent of a Pro-Slav stance. The book was easy to read with a clear structure.
Grekov, B. Kiev Rus Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1959
There is a spirit and passion in this text that no other conveyed. Grekov seems to take this debate right to heart. With this in mind, both of his work that I have used no only conveyed interesting and useful information, but more importantly communicated the obsession some historians harbor.
Grekov, B. Pervyy Trud istorii Possii (First work on the History of Russia) in Istoricheskiy Zhurnal, Moscow, 1943 (11 - 12) Hosking, Geoffrey. Russia and the Russians: a history, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001
This text was very much a Normanist perspective on the origin of Rus. Hosking’s book assisted greatly in background knowledge as to the Normanist argument.
Montgomery, James E. “Ibn Fadlãn and the Rüsiyyah” from the Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000 p.12
This article is divided in three parts; introduction and then the translated text and notes printed interlinear. Very clear and unbiased in his interpretation, Montgomery drew on many and diverse sources.
Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia, Philosophical Library Inc. New York, reprinted with permission of original publisher Kraus Reprint Co. USA 1969
Well-structured book, this was most helpful in proving that there are alternatives to the Normanist theory.
Pritsak, Omeljan. The Origin of “Rus” The Russian Review July 1977, (abridged)
Being an abridged version o the paper, this article did not have the detail I would of preferred. Pritsak’s argument is relatively weak; Wieczynski even sighted her paper as mythical. The paper was only used twice, and could have been replaced with something else.
Shieko, K. Masters of Arts / History Thesis Wollongong University 2004.
All references from this work were taken from chapter 3, p.89 - 135 This work provided a strong case for the anti-Normanist theory. Shieko included detailed information on the evolution of Normanism, and provided a rich bibliography of further resources to find.
Wieczynski, Joseph L. The Modern Encyclopaedia of Russian and Soviet History, vol. 25, Academic International Press 1981
This book was foundational to my research. Wieczynski, out of persuasion or political influence presents an article that is obviously anti-Normanist. The structure was clear and the argument persuasive. Containing a fair amount of primary source quotes, and referring to the best in the field, this article was essential to my argument.
Zakharii, Roman. The Historiography of Normanist and Anti-Normanist Theories on the origin of Rus’. Dissertation in Viking and Medieval Nordic Culture, Submitted in candidacy for the degree of Master of Philosophy, Centre for Viking and Medieval Studies, Faculty of Arts, The University of Oslo, Norway, 2002
This paper, despite not being grounded in historical inquiry, was abundant in interpretation and quotes from primary sources. Covering all aspects of Normanist and anti-Normanist history, this exhaustive paper, 125 pages, was very important to my argument.