The Normanist Controversy

In the middle of the 9th century, the lands along the Dnieper were still an economic, cultural, and political backwater. About 150 years later, they constituted the core of Kievan Rus’, a mighty political conglomerate well on the way to creating one of the most sophisticated societies and flourishing economies in Europe at the time.

In the year 852… the land of Rus’ was first named… 859: The Varangians from beyond the sea imposed tribute upon the Chuds, the Slavs, the Merians, the Ves, and the Krivichians. But the Khazars imposed it upon the Polianians, the Severians and the Viatichians, and collected a squirrel-skin and a beaver-skin from each hearth. 860–862: The tributaries of the Varangians drove them back beyond the sea and, refusing them further tribute, set out to govern themselves. There was no law among them, but tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, “Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to the law.” They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Russes: these particular Varangians were known as Russes, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, Angles and Goths… The Chuds, the Slavs and the Krivichians then said to the people of Rus’: “Our whole land is great and rich, and 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.¹

In the 18th century, using this passage as evidence, several German scholars in Russian service, such as Gottlieb Bayer, Gerhard Müller, and August-Ludwig Schlozer, developed the so-called Normanist theory.

Much of the ongoing debate is linguistic in nature and centers on the etymology of the word Rus’. The Normanists contend that Rus’ stems from Ruotsi, a Finnish word for Swedes that, in turn, derives from the ancient Swedish word rodr, “to row.” Because the Finns had close and long-standing contacts with both the Swedes and the Slavs, it is assumed that their designation for the former was passed on to the latter. The anti-Normanist explanation associates Rus’ with the names of the Rus and Rusna rivers in central Ukraine. Another hypothesis raises the possibility that the term is related to Roxolany, a nomadic tribe whose name is derived from the Iranian word rhos, meaning “light.” Because each of these hypotheses has serious weaknesses, none has won general acceptance.

Just as no definite conclusion has been reached about the origin of the term Rus’, no consensus has evolved on the broader issue of external Scandinavian influence as opposed to internal Slavic evolution in the rise of Kievan Rus’. Actually, the long and acrimonious debate has produced little in the way of new information. It would appear that this lack of knowledge has gradually induced scholars (Soviets excepted) to seek a compromise solution. There is general agreement now that the Scandinavian impact on East Slav society and culture was minimal. Appearing as small, enterprising bands of warrior-merchants, the Varangians rapidly assimilated the East Slavic language and culture and were probably too few in number to bring about important changes in native ways. However, the participation, if not leadership, of the Varangians in political life is difficult to deny in view of the fact that all the rulers of Kiev up to Sviatoslav had Scandinavian names as did the members of their retinues or druzhyny. Either by politically organizing the Slavs over whom they gained control or by posing a threat and forcing the Slavs to organize themselves more effectively, the Varangians acted as catalysts for political development. On certain issues, such as the restriction of Khazar influence, stemming the nomad incursions, or opening and maintaining the Dnieper trade route with Byzantium, East Slav and Varangian interests coincided.

Map 6 Varangian (Viking, Norman) expansion

There are, therefore, good reasons to view the rise of Kiev not as the exclusive achievement of one ethnic group or another, but as the result of a complex Slavic/Scandinavian interrelationship. Recently, Omeljan Pritsak has taken this point further and argued that the entire question of the ethnic origins of Rus’ is irrelevant.² In his view, the original Rus’ were a multiethnic and multilingual trading company that tried to control the trade routes between the Baltic and the Mediterranean and in the process established the political entity called Kievan Rus’.