This is an archive of past discussions about Rus' people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The text under the map of Europe in the 9th century "Roslagen is located in the northernmost tip of the pink area marked "Swedes and Goths"", is plain misleading.
Rodzlagen didn't exist before the 15th century and even its predecessor Roden was mentioned first as late as 1296. The theory suggesting Rus / Ros came from Rodzlagen / Roden is but a Swedish utopia. The article at least should aim at a scientific and neutral approach. Finnedi (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Just like RasboKaren a few sections up you pick a little here and a little there, whatever suits you. There are three sources in the article that support the etymology of Roden -> Rus, which trumps your link. Thomas.Wtalk to me 19:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, this is not about me or you, a Swede, but what suits the logic. The Roslagen => Rus' theory is way too tenuous to be presented as "the most prevalent theory". Now, why would the Rus' have been named by the Finns with a Finnish word, "Ruotsi", if the Rus' were Sveas (Swedes)? If the Rus' were Finns, like Catherine the Great and Tatischev et al claimed, then I could understand the logic but then "Ruotsi" would have had to mean something else than a Svea. Also, it's terribly misleading to present a map of Europe from the year 814 and write underneath that Roslagen is on that map when we know that no Roslagen or Roden existed that time.Finnedi (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Finnedi: Excuse me, but "Ruotsi" is the Finnish name for Sweden, not the Rus'. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
????? Where does anyone claim that Ruotsi means Rus'? That part of the text is the etymology section of the article, showing that Ruo-/Ru-, the first part of Roden/Roslagen, is used as a "geographical description" for Sweden/Swedes in various languages, for example in the Finnish and Estonian words for Sweden. Ruotsi/Rootsi. Thomas.W talk 16:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: "why would the Rus' have been named by the Finns with a Finnish word, "Ruotsi"" --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII: Please read WP:SOAP. Check the WP:TALK guidelines conveniently provided at the top of this page. Perhaps you should read the article and sources properly before formulating strange questions. You've already been supplied with the answer above (months ago). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: It's not my question. It's a quote that I disagree with. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I think its time we move beyond the banal , endless debates about the Scandinavian/ 'Swedish' origin of the Rus, and useless debates about the etymology of Rus, as any serious linguistc knows that nouns and proper names do not suffer etymologyzation. Whatever the original meaning of "Rus' , it matters not, as it otherwise tells us nothing about why the Rus came to northwestern Russia, from where, the nature of their early society, and their relationship with the 'native' population, etc.
Over the next few days I suggest intend to;
1) fix the lede - lets do away with the 'debate issue', as from what I m aware, the only resistence to a largely/ predominantly Scandinavia origin of those very first "Rus" who arrived in the SE Baltic & Staraja Ladogo are from now expired Soviet scholars and a hand full of fringe theorists. Of course, this is not to say the historic Rus encountered by later sources weren't a more modified, mixed group; as indeed the contibutions I put months earlier stated (a/p H G Lunt and O Pritsak), that the Rus meant traders, seafarers, raiders, which certainly was not an exclusively Swedish affair. Ie nothing from stopping Finns, Balts, etc from joining it.
2) Why did the Rus come? Naturally the PVL is not immensely useful here, as it was written way after and was hagiographic/ Christian writings. Back to the question - the Rus arrival was the eastern equivalent of the 'Vikings'; fuelled by internal wars, conflict, and need for spoils, as the Swedes had been deprived from that which they had become accustomed during the Roman era due to the rise of Carolingians and the Danish kingdom who both effectively 'shut off' the peoples of what is now Sweden.
3) the nature of Nth Russia at time of Rus arrival (8/9th cc). Contra to Valentin Sedov;s idea that Slavs were already present in northern Russia in the 5th / 6th century, most scholars now argue that Slavonization of the Russian north occurred much later - 8/9th. So the Scandinavian migrants likely encountered a Finnic and Baltic population mostly.
4) Nature of contacts and early settlements: - undoubtedly there was some conflicts, as evident by the erection of fortified sites on the Baltic coast, as well as the mass grave of Scandinavian young men found there. Staraja Ladoga was , though, a newly created settlement, and not a pre-existing 'native' one.
We also have to keep in mind, however, that there was no one "Rus", but many Rus. Many different clans/ groups/ companies mutually antogonistic vying for supremacy. The one Rus only emerged later, after all the battle was done.
Naturally, this will be supported by the latest peer-reviewed writings of scholars, professors and PhD candidates.
Please show me an authentic (not Wikipedia made) older map in English language or written in Latin (before 18-19th centuries) where Rus people were identified. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The map File:Europe_814.png informatively ineffective. Map not show territory of Roslagen. Please do not obstruct readers to receive correct information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Roman Frankiv: The map you are trying to introduce is not backed up by reliable sources, but is original research by a Wiki Commons contributor who simply asserts that s/he has collated the information from 'hundreds of sources'. A map of such precision must be backed up by reliable sources, and not dependent on your belief that it is accurate, in order to be eligible for use on English language Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The following map contains
1) unprofessional data about territory of Slavs.
2) contains no data on the territory of Roslagen
3) names mordva not Finno-Ugric peoples
and a number of other errors.
Please do not use this map in the future. And do not obstruct others to improve the quality of this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You have already posted the same message to my talk page twice (here and here), then another bad faith message of the same nature immediately afterwards (here) without bothering to read or respond to the responses I've left on this talk page, your talk page, or my own talk page. Reiterating my response on the talk page, "The discussion is taking place on the talk page of the relevant article here; 2) Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and do not treat articles and talk pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The map you are trying to introduce is entirely WP:OR, as has been explained by me several times. 'No original research' is a policy. Thank you for your understanding." Also, it would be appreciated if you would self-revert the latest reintroduction of this original research map, it will work in your favour as you are edit warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Claiming that Roslagen should be included in the map is outright silly since there were no Rus' living there, and never have been. The original Rus' came from there, but that doesn't make the people who stayed in Roslagen Rus'... -Tom|Thomas.W talk 16:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that the name Rus appears in the article both with and without the ending apostrophe. Which is correct? Is there a difference in pronunciation? Is the name as written here a transliteration of Cyrillic? If so, what is the Cyrillic spelling of Rus', and what is the Cyrillic spelling of Rus? Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Paulmlieberman. The Cyrillic spelling is universally 'Русь' (with the apostrophe designating 'ь': the Soft sign). It's a literal transliteration, as the letters represent R-U-S-'soft-sign'. I'm aware of the disparity of usage across Wikipedia articles, but the majority of contemporary academic works (and tertiary education units specialising in Slavic Studies) on the subject in the English language favour the usage of Rus' most particularly with regards to Kievan Rus'. There are, however, many common references - dictionaries, as well as usage on the internet - still using Rus without the apostrophe. While Wikipedia's MOS guidelines WP:RUROM and WP:UKROM, for example, favour abstaining from the use of either this or the hard sign in transliterations including proper nouns, WP:COMMONNAME leans towards Rus'... but works on Rus' and the Rus' in more general terms tend to be a mixed bag, particularly where older sources are quoted directly within the research papers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Iryna Harpy. I will get to fixing these unapostrophied names sometime soon. I was just looking at the Kievan Rus' article, and I see things like
{{lang-orv|Рѹ́сь}} {{transl|orv|''Rus{{'}}''}}
I see that lang-orv displays as "Old East Slavic language". Do you know where I can find a wp article on the use of these notations? Also, why is the apostrophe after Rus in the transl part inside double curly braces? Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Article has clear nationalist bias. Rus were not "Swedes". This misinformation is based on Annales Bertiniani fragment:
qi se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant; comperit eos gentis esse sueonum
This does not mean that the Rus = Swedes. It means that the norhtmen visiting Louis the Pious at Ingelheim were part of the nation called the Rus' (qi se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant] and by nationality these particular Russes were Swedes (comperit eos gentis esse sueonum].
Just like British nation consists of Welsh, Scots and English nationality. It is an fact that Welsh are indeed British, but that does not make English Welsh. Nor does it mean that British are Welsh, even Welsh indeed are part of the British nation.
Russian Primary Chronicle (Nestors Chronicle) also makes it very clear that the Rus' are separate nation from the Swedes. "Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Nonmans, Angles, and Goths, for they were thus named ".
Infact early Rus' were collection of different (mainly) Fennoscandian tribes, having their headquarter at Aldeigjuborg located southeast shore of lake Ladoga. East Scandinavians, or Swedes, certainly were part of this nation but so were western Finns whom emigrated to shores of Ladoga about 800 AD, Vepsians were allready there back then. Even name of the trading town Aldeigjuborg (or Aldeigja), is Old Norse renderation from original Veps name of the settlement, Alodejoki.
The Rus' were not Swedes, they were Rus'. Article should be modified to more neutral pov.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.205.242 (talk • contribs)
Do you have scholarly references which put forth this opinion?- Altenmann >t 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Which opinion? That the Rus' operated from Aldeigja/Staraya Ladoga? That the Rus' were "multinational"?
I would suggest Gwyn Jones: History of the Vikings (page 250 ->), Håkon Stang: Naming of the Russia, Wladyslaw Duczko: Viking Rus: studies on::the presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe. Many of these are allready mentioned in the reference list of the article. Yet the article::doesnt really fit the description and ideas of these modern scholars.
Also the Roslagen is not the source for the word Rus' as the article says. Vilhelm Thomsen debunked the theory allready 1876 in his Relations::between ancient Russia and Scandinavia and yhe origins of Russian state. Roslagen is way too modern name to be considered as the source for the::Rus'. Old Norse name for "rowers" would have been something along the line *röther. Yet here we have the famous Roslagen , in the first::paragraph of the article. Håkan Stang in his Naming of Russia explains the origin of the word Rus' from Vepsian language *Roc briliantly. Note::that the Aldeigja/Staraya Ladoga is right on the spot where the Vepsians used to live (and partially live even today). So the referenses are::there but the article is like "fresh northern wind from mid-1800's". Article even starts: The Rus' (from Ukrainian: русь, [rusʲ]; also Ros,::Rhos, from Swedish: Ros.. Huh! Swedish was not even spoken back then. It was language now known as Old Norse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.205.242 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The 3 Viking princes:
Before I moved, I had a book, printed prior to WWII on Polish history, that was part of a volume of books dealing with the history of European countries. I no longer have it, but I refuse to accept that I was the ONLY American that had access to that high school library book. If you can find it, cite it, post the relevant passage, & (unlike me) can remember how to use grammar, I would appreciate it.
Until then, bear with me as I try recite the passage, from a 30 year old memory (I am NO bard):
3 Viking princes came to a bend, in the Vistula river, & set up camp. The oldest, Lech, climbed the tallest nearby tree. He looked around & said, "This is where I will build my kingdom." He called it Lechistan. His descendants adopted the Latin name for the previously indigenous people, Poles, when they converted to Catholicism. The middle brother, Czech, conquered the Bohemian gypsies to the west & establish what is now know as The Czech Republic. The youngest, Rus made a fort on the river north of Kiev.
I also find it disconcerting the even I mild historian would come up with a statement like: the highly civilized & wealthy Slavic Kievs, being the major trade center for half of Europe for hundreds of years, would NEVER hire seasoned Viking raiders to be there King. Ignoring a thousand years of wealthy Romans hiring barbarians to fight their battles for them. ** Hyperbole paraphrasing to drive the point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip A Demick (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt very much that the term Viking really was used in that source, I guess you mean Northmen? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This European map should be replaced or removed since its very incorrect. For example it shows how finno-ugric people lived all the way down in Swedish Värmland? That is a pure lie and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.77.2 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, you stated This was not a dup link as there are no other instances of the wl in the lead.
The lead now reads
The Rus' (Slavic languages: Русь; Greek: Ῥῶς) were an early medieval group, who lived in modern Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and other countries, and are the ancestors of modern Russians and other Eastern European ethnicities. The Rus came from what is today Roslagen of modern day Sweden. According to both contemporary Byzantine and Islamic sources and the Primary Chronicle of Rus', compiled in about A.D 1113, the Rus were Norsemen who had relocated "from over sea", first to northeastern Europe, creating an early polity that finally came under the leadership of Rurik.
(Refs and emphasis removed and my emphasis added.)
I see two identical wikilinks to Kievan Rus'|Rus'. Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, Andrewa. I'd missed the first instance. I think, for the sake of clarity in the context, the second instance is more salient than the initial Rus' wikilink. The first instance is crowding the concepts of the Primary Chronicles and Rus' together in an unintuitive manner for the reader. Would you be amenable to that as being a reasonable compromise? I think we have to be careful to distinguish how the term Rus' is used without assuming that the reader is already familiar with Kievan Rus' being a later academic distinction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree. You're quite right, the second wikilink would have been the better one to keep. Normally the first occurrence is the one to link, but here the second is the more helpful, and I missed that. Andrewa (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Cheers! I've implemented the change per WP:IAR. There aren't many editors actively involved in the development and maintenance of this article so other editors are more than welcome to bring their arguments this talk page should they disagree with the change (i.e., if there is consensus that using the second instance flouts MOS: without being beneficial to the reader). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Perfect. IMO a good example of wp:creed#2: by working together, Wikipedians will achieve results better than any of us could produce on our own.Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I like your essay, Andrewa. Bookmarked for future reference for new editors! --03:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The article correctly says that the Byzantine Greek name for Rus was dromitae (δρομίται), adding that to a Modern Greek this alludes to running and means a run. There is also a quoted source from a conference. That is all fine as far as modern Greeks are concerned. However, in Byzantine Greek the word is derived from dromon, the byzantine name for ship, and means something like "people of the ships", which is probably a direct translation seeing that in their own language the name Rus meant beople who row, or something along those lines. I would say this needs correcting as it is not obvious why a word alluding to a run in modern Greek indicates that these people sailed in ships in medieval Russia, which is what follows that statement. Perhaps this sentence had been overcorrected at one point from something that originally made more sense.Skamnelis (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"The Norsemen allegedly had some enduring influence in Rus, as testified by loan words (these ones persist from Glagolitic script at Adriatic prior and out of any norse), such as [...]"
Is the sentence within the parenthesis supporting or refuting the Norse origin of the enumerated words? If refuting, a source is needed. Luke (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
A) It's a grammatical nightmare (I can't make out what the editor who introduced this was trying to convey); B) The entire paragraph is in need of a clean up as there are unsupported claims about loan words. The only reference is essentially a note reading more like a breach of WP:NOR than etymologically supported contentions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the sentence be removed then? Luke (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the entire paragraph as meaningless... and unsupported. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
....this article has from it's tribes standpoint a rate of 80% false informations about Russia (; I don't blame the creators, because they have a very euro-centric / euro-atlantic view and feel of the world. But this article and the informations have nothing to do with Russia and it's history. In Russian Federation people are living which consist of Russkye tribes around Moscow and Siberia, scyth people, Siberian slavs, turcic tribes, finno-ugric tribes, tatar tribes, kahzar tribes. no talk about the migration and variety of this tribes in Russia.
then there are important places like Samara, Arthania.
at borders of China there were more than 1000 years ago "Caucasian" (eng) tribes. from this time all the nomadic mixtures are also ignored here. also like the Russki agriculture communes in Siberia, in "euorpean" lands of Russia, asian Russia, the Ural ( geographically description )
So the whole article don't have a clue about Russian Federation, Russian culture, history and it's Eurasian structure and history.
This article is EXTREMELY eurocentric / atlantic-centric and so it's perspective also (; The Russian character of history, reality and the moment do not appear here and the creators seems to have nothing to do with Russian reality, it's history and can't feel it's culture and character. --92.202.202.118 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You seem to have totally misunderstood what the article is about, it's about the historical Rus' people, a people who lived only in Europe, not about the modern day Russian people, or the Russian Federation... -Tom|Thomas.W talk 16:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I just read (carefully) the lede to this article (which I've edited a number of times in the past), and noticed that the first two sentences make inconsistent statements. I can't find the right words to express it clearly, so I bring it to you:
First, what is an "early medieval group"? Would the term 'people' be preferable to 'group'?
Second, would it be accurate to say that the Rus' who came from Scandanavia became the nobility of the Kievan Rus'?
The section Slavic Sources has a much clearer statement:
The Varangians were first expelled, then invited to rule the warring Slavic and Finnic tribes of Novgorod
It seems to me that the Rus' were, initially, the Vikings who came to the area that became Kievan Rus', but that later, during the existence of that realm, "Rus' people" would refer to all the inhabitants of the Rus' principalities.
Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds about right. Now all you need is refs, & you can adjust accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi there! I just realised I overlooked this discussion while making some comments about the header below. Here they are again. I think it needs some major work.
It says that the Rus' 'are the ancestors of modern East Slavic peoples'. I'm not sure where genetic research has got to on this issue (and this kind of research is still in its infancy), but I don't think we should imply that the Rus' are the only ancestors of modern East-Slavic people, which this phrasing does! I'd suggest we just delete that claim, unless someone wants to add in proper genetic scholarship that supports it.
The statement that they 'came from what is today Roslagen of modern day Sweden' is also simplistic: as the article says, recent scholarship supports the idea that this is etymologically the same as the word Rus’, but no-one thinks that Rus' people only came from from modern Roslagen. What about 'Most recent scholarship agrees that the name Rus’ has the same origin as the name of the Swedish province of Roslagen, and that key players in the formation of Rus' identity must have come from this area of Sweden.[1]'?
'According to both contemporary Byzantine and Islamic sources and the Primary Chronicle of Rus', compiled in about A.D 1113, the Rus' were Norsemen who had relocated "from over sea"'. I'm not sure if any source(s) actually say this. I searched books.google.com and scholar.google.com for '"from over sea" rus' and can't see any sources there. I'm not sure what best to do about this, but one way or another, it needs to change!
As I've discussed below, I think the header also needs to acknowledge the ongoing Normanist/anti-Normanist debate. (Although most scholars see it as settled, it remains prominent in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, and comprises most of the actual substance of this article.)
I'd welcome your views on changing these things! Alarichall (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
As it stands, this article has the following introduction to a quotation from Ibn Fadlān:
The Muslim diplomat and traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described the Rus' (Rusiyyah) in terms said to suggest Norsemen:
I suggest changing this to:
The Muslim diplomat and traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described people he referred to as Rūsiyyah. They have been widely assumed to be Norse Rus', but scholarship has found that although Ibn Fadlān may have been describing Scandinavians, the people in question might have been Slavs; a local people named after the river Ros’; Kievan chieftains; more than one people, whom Ibn Fadlān confused; or some other complex or transitional ethnic situation.<ref>James E. Montgomery, '[https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/JAIS/article/viewFile/4553/4006 Ibn Faḍlān and the Rūsiyyah]', ''Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies'', 3 (2000), 1-25.</ref> The opening of Ibn Fadlān's description says:
This changed version is properly referenced, avoiding the vague 'in terms said to suggest'. Either way, I think the article does need to reflect the debate about whether Ibn Fadlān was actually describing the people that this article is about. Thomas.W disagrees, and has reverted my edits accordingly. Would anyone else like to express a view? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Your proposed changes aren't acceptable since the suggested phrase "scholarship has found..." implies that a majority of scholars now think they were Slavs, which is not an accurate description of the current situation, where the Normanist theory has far more support than the anti-Normanist theory. Even the source you're linking to has a much more nuanced view on it than the text you propose, leaning far more towards the Rus' being culturally partly assimilated Scandinavians than towards them being Slavs, and also saying that the "composition" of the Rus' changed over time. Which no one denies, but in 922 AD that assimilation had barely begun, so claiming that the Rus' of 922 AD were Slavs is a fringe theory, and doesn't belong here... -Tom|Thomas.W talk 21:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I see your point. How about this then?
The Muslim diplomat and traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described people he referred to as Rūsiyyah. They have been widely assumed to be Norse Rus', but scholarship has found that this is uncertain. Ibn Fadlān may have been describing Scandinavians; Slavs; a local people named after the river Ros’; Kievan chieftains; more than one people, whom Ibn Fadlān confused; or some other complex or transitional ethnic situation.<ref>James E. Montgomery, '[https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/JAIS/article/viewFile/4553/4006 Ibn Faḍlān and the Rūsiyyah]', ''Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies'', 3 (2000), 1-25.</ref> The opening of Ibn Fadlān's description says:
If you're unhappy with this, perhaps you could suggest a phrasing that you find more suitable? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Since there are no objections to this rephrasing so far, I'll implement it. Ta! Alarichall (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No comment after a single day does not equal support. I'm opposed to your only slightly revised second version too, since all of the main views are already mentioned in the article, and your edit thus doesn't add anything new, and isn't needed. Your repeated addition of it, combined with your other edits on en-WP, make me believe that the real reason you want to add it is wanting to get the reference mentioned on as many articles as possible here, not a desire to improve articles. So stop. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 14:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Tom, I have no vested interest in promoting Montgomery's article. I think it would be helpful to stick to facts rather than making guesses about my motivations. Montgomery's article is just the main recent, expert assessment of who Ibn Fadlān might have been talking about when he discussed the Rūsiyyah. The problem here is that we can't be sure whether Ibn Fadlān's description is actually of the people being discussed in this article, and this issue needs to be recognised. This isn't about the debate over who the Rus' were (which is covered in the article): it's about whether or not Ibn Fadlān was describing them. Again, perhaps you could suggest a phrasing that you're happy with, that recognises the difficulties in using Ibn Fadlān as a source for the Rus'? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't share your views on Montgomery's article, to me (and yes, I have read it) it seems like just a summary of views previously presented by other scholars, i.e. nothing new. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed: it's a recent, informed, and well referenced summary of scholarly opinion on this topic. That's why it's useful to cite as a reference for the problem that we can't be sure who Ibn Fadlān is talking about. Alarichall (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The article is recent, but it isn't a summary of recent/contemporary views, just a rehash of views previously presented by other scholars, just as I wrote above. The publication date of the sources/publications discussed in Montgomery's article span at least a full century, which is why it doesn't add anything new, and doesn't deserve the prominent exposure here that you want to give it. It's like an aggregator site on the net, we don't use aggregator sites as sources, instead using the original sites as references, so instead of using Montgomery's article as a source, on multiple articles as you're trying to do, we should use the original publications as sources, provided they can add something that isn't already in the article. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 15:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Alarichall(talk·contribs) on this one. This isn't fringe stuff but perfectly mainstream scholarship we're talking about here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Did you read the entire discussion? We don't use "aggregator sites" as sources. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 16:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I have. No one has suggested that we use an "aggregator site". Please accurately represent the position of those you disagree with. Second, edit-warring won't win you any arguments. Don't do it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bloodofox: You obviously didn't read the discussion well enough: the source that Alarichall wants to use on multiple articles, and misrepresents above, is the "aggregator site" that I'm opposed too, since it's just a rehash of multiple other sources. His insistence on using that particular article as source on multiple articles, combined with his previous refspamming of an own report/article/publication (see his talk page), also makes me suspect that his primary motivation for getting the material into multiple articles is getting wide exposure for Montgomery's report/article, i.e. the source in question. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 17:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Bloodofox. Going back to Tom's concerns about Montogmery, I'd see Montgomery's survey more as comprehensive in its coverage than dated. Perhaps it helps if I point to some other work that also feels the need to signal the dangers of assuming the Ibn Fadlān is talking about the Rus', to show that it would be in line with current scholarship to do the same on Wikipedia? A recent popular history by a leading scholar says: 'the exact identity of the Rus is much debated, and we should be careful not simply to take ibn Fadlan's account of the Rus as in any way representative of Viking Age Scandinavian customs' (Anders Winroth, The Age of the Vikings (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), pp. 94-95). Neil Price, 'Passing into Poetry: Viking-Age Mortuary Drama and the Origins of Norse Mythology', Medieval Archaeology, 54:1 (2010), 123-156 doi:10.1179/174581710X12790370815779 argues that evidence 'very strongly suggests not only that Ibn Fadlan’s al-Rūsīyyah — or at least the decision-making members of the group — were Scandinavians, but also that their actions among the Bulgar closely resembled what they did at home' (p. 133). But he still feels the need to acknowledge the debate over who Idb Fadlān was describing (esp. p. 132). Thorir Jonsson Hraundal, 'New Perspectives on Eastern Vikings/Rus in Arabic Sources', Viking and Medieval Scandinavia, 10 (2014), 65-97 doi:10.1484/J.VMS.5.105213 does the same (p. 79). Indeed, I think we could even be clearer about the concensus that Ibn Fadlān can probably be used as evidence for Rus'/Scandinavian culture, as long as, like these other sources, we acknowledge that actually there is doubt and debate about it. Can we perhaps more forward on these lines? Alarichall (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, no one has mentioned any aggregator site but you. Enough. We're discussing a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal. Survey pieces are both common and highly valued in scholarship. Secondly, Hall's own scholarship is peer-reviewed and published in academic journals,exactly what we want on this site. Either assume good faith or please remove yourself from this conversation until you can. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Since when is it up to you to decide who can and who can't take part in discussions here? And before making any further comments like the one above I suggest you read WP:SPAM and WP:REFSPAM. As for assuming good faith I bet I have seen more spamming here than you have, and know how to recognize it. A number of academics who are well known within their respective fields have been blocked indefinitely on en-WP, for spamming their own peer-reviewed publications here, and at least one has also had his web site blacklisted, so being written by a scholar and being peer-reviewed does not exempt anything from the normal rules. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 17:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, please. None of this remotely applies to WP:SPAM. I've been here for over a decade, the majority of that time active almost exclusively on these topics. Your quick turn to hostility, edit-warring, and false policy and guidelines mongering isn't contributing to this discussion in any meaningful way, despite Hall's attempts to reach out to you. Again: I suggest you take a break and review WP:AGF. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
And I have been here for more than a decade, and have, unlike you, been active on a very wide range of topics, seeing a lot more of what happens here than you have. As for your claim about "quick turn to hostility, edit-warring, and false policy and guidelines mongering" it's just plain silly, and not what I had expected from an editor as experienced as you claim to be. I also hadn't expected an editor as experienced as you claim to be to instantly turn to discussing editors and not content/sources... -Tom|Thomas.W talk 18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, @Krakkos:. I see your recent edit pertains to this discussion. The edit is fine with me, so no complaints there. Just out of interest, I just wanted to ask about a couple of comments in the edit summary. You say that "Many of the theories listed by Franklin are politically motivated fringe theories, and should not be given equal weight to the mainstream theory", but the article cited isn't by Franklin, nor does his name appear in it, so I just thought I'd check that there's no confusion here. You also say "The Rus' mentioned by Ahmad ibn Fadlan are connected to Vikings in an overwhelming amount of sources". But the concern registered by my recent edit is that there is scholarly debate precisely about whether, when Ibn Fadlān talks about Rūs/Rūsiyyah, he actually is talking about the same people as other Arabic sources do when they talk about the Rūs. Anyway, as I say, I don't object to your rephrasing. Just wanted to make sure there's no confusion. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why i mentioned the name "Franklin". I was obviously referring to the article by James E. Montgomery. My point is that the people (Rūs/Rūsiyyah whatever the name) described by Ahmad ibn Fadlan are generally assumed to have been Vikings. Other assumptions are rather fringe and should not be given equal weight to the Viking theory. As Montgomery states at page 2-3: "In later years the balance has swung in favour of the Normanists... indeed among scholars generally, it is widely assumed that the Rus were Scandinavians of eastern Swedish origin." Krakkos (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply! Alarichall (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, folks, but I've restored the long standing consensus version. We are not talking about 'other scholars/academics' analysing Ibn Fadlan, but one academic (Montgomery), ergo it is WP:UNDUE to even mention his opinion under 'Arabic sources', particularly under the guise of a WP:WEASEL use of 'other'. I've followed this thread regarding Montgomery's paper from Talk:Norse funeral, and fail to see how it passes the WP:FRINGE test when mainstream theory has not changed. Where are the rest of the reliable sources agreeing with him? The primary objective of Wikipedia is to be a reliable tertiary/encyclopaedic source, not a hodgepodge of opinions expressed by every academic who has ever had a paper published. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello User:Iryna Harpy -- nice to meet you, and thanks for your thoughtful comments here and on the other thread (to which I'll reply over there). I guess I have two key points that suggest that the current text needs changing over here in Rus' people. (This isn't to say we should go back to the phrasing I previously suggested: I just think the handling does need improving somehow.) I guess if you are unconvinced by these points, I'll give up on this issue, but I'd appreciate it if you'd give them some thought. My first point is that recent and respected professional scholarship, while not necessarily agreeing with Montgomery, does feel the need to register that it's unclear who Ibn Fadlān is talking about. I suggest that Wikipedia would benefit from following this convention. I've cited a few examples of this above but here they are again (the latter two, by the way, cite the Montgomery article I cited). (Let me know if you'd like access to the papers if you can't see them and I can send them over (I'm at a.t.p.hall@leeds.ac.uk).)
A recent popular history by a leading scholar says: 'the exact identity of the Rus is much debated, and we should be careful not simply to take ibn Fadlan's account of the Rus as in any way representative of Viking Age Scandinavian customs' (Anders Winroth, The Age of the Vikings (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), pp. 94-95). Neil Price, 'Passing into Poetry: Viking-Age Mortuary Drama and the Origins of Norse Mythology', Medieval Archaeology, 54:1 (2010), 123-156 doi:10.1179/174581710X12790370815779 argues that evidence 'very strongly suggests not only that Ibn Fadlan’s al-Rūsīyyah — or at least the decision-making members of the group — were Scandinavians, but also that their actions among the Bulgar closely resembled what they did at home' (p. 133). But he still feels the need to acknowledge the debate over who Idb Fadlān was describing (esp. p. 132). Thorir Jonsson Hraundal, 'New Perspectives on Eastern Vikings/Rus in Arabic Sources', Viking and Medieval Scandinavia, 10 (2014), 65-97 doi:10.1484/J.VMS.5.105213 does the same (p. 79).
My second point is that at the moment, the phrasing of the article is not satisfactory, because it registers doubt about who Ibn Fadlān is talking about in an unclear and unreferenced way: "The Muslim diplomat and traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described the Rus' (Rusiyyah) in terms said to suggest Norsemen". Surely we can do better than that by concisely registering both the existence of a debate and the current concensus? I guess a wider point would be that if Ibn Fadlān is writing about the Rus' who are the subject of this article, he's one of the most important sources for them that we have, so I suggest it would be proportionate that the article should register this and outline the relevant historiography. I'm happy to suggest phrasings that might work, but would like to see your response to these points first in case anything I suggest will just get reverted;-) Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys! Just a note to say that, now I've improved the referencing for the historiography section of this article, I'm hoping soon to improve the referencing and general level of source-criticism for the primary source sections. So I'll be coming back to the Arabic-language sources soon. The much-maligned Montgomery will feature, but other key (and more important) secondary sources will be P.B. Golden, “Rūs”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0942 and Thorir Jonsson Hraundal, 'New Perspectives on Eastern Vikings/Rus in Arabic Sources', Viking and Medieval Scandinavia, 10 (2014), 65–69 doi:10.1484/J.VMS.5.1052. Fingers crossed that a thorough and more extensively referenced overhaul here will win a warmer reception than tinkering at the edges:-) If there's anything specific you'd like to see done, or any constructive advice you'd like to offer, please do! Alarichall (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to note that I've done a lot of work over the last day or so adding references to the large amount of unreferenced material in this article. Inevitably, that's involved correcting some mistakes too, and I've expanded the discussions of the Normanist and Anti-Normanist debates. I'm hoping to continue with this work in the other sections too. I'd still welcome comments on the issues above (recognising the complexity of Ibn Fadlān as a source, and what to do with the header). Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I am generally fine with what you have written so far.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Me again! My recent work on this page brought it to my attention that there's a lot of contest here (while at the same time the page is a bit under-referenced and could do with some work generally), so I put it on my watchlist. I note that User:Ymblanter has just undone an edit as WP:FRINGE and would like to question this.
An anonymous user edited the header by adding
There is a dispute about the origin and identity of the Rus'. ... In contrast Russian scholars and some Western historians consider the Rus' to be a southeastern Slavic tribe with origins on the Ros River in Ukraine. According to this theory Slavic tribes around the river founded the Kievan state which were later ruled by Varangians.[2]
For this the user cited the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose entry begins:
Rus, also spelled Ros, ancient people who gave their name to the lands of Russia and Belarus. Their origin and identity are much in dispute. Traditional Western scholars believe them to be Scandinavian Vikings, an offshoot of the Varangians, who moved southward from the Baltic coast and founded the first consolidated state among the eastern Slavs, centring on Kiev. Russian scholars, along with some Westerners, consider the Rus to be a southeastern Slavic tribe that founded a tribal league; the Kievan state, they affirm, was the creation of Slavs and was attacked and held only briefly by Varangians.
So the Encyclopaedia Britannica has, understandably, concluded that the salient fact about the Rus', with which its article should begin, is that there is ongoing debate about their identity. The header of the Wikipedia article, by contrast, presently only represents the theory that the Rus' were straightforwardly Scandinavian.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica should be taken seriously as a model for the present entry because:
It's a respected encyclopaedia.
Rus' people actually already cites the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the header, but chooses to reflect only the Viking theory. This seems unduly selective.
For comparison, I looked at an academic encyclopaedia entry on the Rus': Omeljan Pritsak, "Rus'", in Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia, ed. by Phillip Pulsiano (New York: Garland, 1993), which is (still) a standard reference work in Old Norse studies. Its second paragraph reads
The origin of the word Rus’, which does not occur in Old Norse sources, and the ethnic group(s) to which it referred have been the subject of much debate. That there was a significant "Scandinavian" component in Rus’ is indicated not only by written sources, but also by the bilingual names of the waterfalls on the river Dnieper, one group of which is most easily explained as deriving from Old Norse'.
So Pritsak is clear that there must have been a Scandinavian component in the origins of the Rus', but, again, nonetheless considers it necessary to recognise academic debate about this upfront.
I suggest we do the same on this article, and that we consider putting the 'Academic study' section further up the article, after 'Etymology', to reflect the fact that the main thing that is known for sure about the Rus' is that scholars are arguing about them. We could try to bring in referenced discussion of the modern political forces that are influencing the Rus' debate too.
Don't get me wrong: it seems to me that the evidence for a Norse dimension in Rus' ethnogenesis is strong. But if there isn't a scholarly consensus here yet, we shouldn't pretend there is one.
Looking forward to people's thoughts on this. Alarichall (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the same Normanism / anti-Normanism debate which is detailed in the article. We have a paragraph on Normanism and a paragraph on anti-Normanism. However, anti-Normanism is considered a fringe theory for the last hundred years, and stating that (implying all) Russian scholars share it is incorrect. No source says that. The debate is over, it has been acknowledged in the sources, in our article, and there is absolutely no need to add anouther copy of these statement formulating them in a way which is incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't checked the recent edits to this article, but WP:LEAD makes it pretty clear that article lead consists of a summary of the article's contents. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It would be more convenient to discuss if you have checked the recent edits. WP:LEAD does not suggest that the lede should contain false info.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Uh, I'm not sure what you mean by "false info", but, yes, WP:LEAD quite explicitly states that an article's lead contains a summary of the article's contents, which would include the body's discussion regarding the origin of the Rus'. This is very basic Wikipedia stuff. From WP:LEAD's lead: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." More: [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview]]. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The IP edit which I reverted added the following to the lede: "In contrast Russian scholars and some Western historians consider the Rus' to be a southeastern Slavic tribe with origins on the Ros River in Ukraine. According to this theory Slavic tribes around the river founded the Kievan state which were later ruled by Varangians." This is not correct. To make it correct, we could have said "a handful of historians, none of whom is an academic researcher ...".--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not only a fringe theory but a false claim ("founded the Kievan state which was later ruled by Varangians"???), and does not belong in the article at all. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 17:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not saying we should keep all the phrasing of the edit. Just that simply reverting it doesn't address some valid issues that it raises.
I'm all for moving beyond dead debates, don't get me wrong. But it's easier to fend these off if we're explicit about them. Otherwise, people like our anonymous editor will keep coming back to them. What about a sentence in the header along the lines of 'Debate about the origins of the Rus' people and the polities they founded has at times been fierce, but the current scholarly consensus is that the Rus' originated as Norse-speakers travelling the river-routes between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.[3][4][5]' If we don't want footnotes in the header, we could also include a similar, referenced statement in the article, in the 'history' and/or 'academic study' sections.
I think a related issue here is that the header does contain some odd phrasings, which make its claims less convincing than they might be:
It says that the Rus' 'are the ancestors of modern East Slavic peoples'. I'm not sure where genetic research has got to on this issue (and this kind of research is still in its infancy), but I don't think we should imply that the Rus' are the only ancestors of modern East-Slavic people, which this phrasing does! I'd suggest we just delete that claim, unless someone wants to add in proper genetic scholarship that supports it.
The statement that they 'came from what is today Roslagen of modern day Sweden' is also simplistic: as the article says, recent scholarship supports the idea that this is etymologically the same as the word Rus’, but no-one thinks that Rus' people only came from from modern Roslagen. What about 'Most recent scholarship agrees that the name Rus’ has the same origin as the name of the Swedish province of Roslagen, and that key players in the formation of Rus' identity must have come from this area of Sweden.[6]'?
'According to both contemporary Byzantine and Islamic sources and the Primary Chronicle of Rus', compiled in about A.D 1113, the Rus' were Norsemen who had relocated "from over sea"'. I'm not sure if any source(s) actually say this. I searched books.google.com and scholar.google.com for '"from over sea" rus' and can't see any sources there. I'm not sure what best to do about this, but one way or another, it needs to change!
The Britannica article Rus has no credited author and should therefor be treated with caution. The information contained at Britannica's's article on Russia is however written by Edward L. Keenan, professor of medieval Russian history at Harvard University. On the early history of Russia he says:
From about 770 to about 830, commercial explorers began an intensive penetration of the Volga region. From early bases in the estuaries of the rivers of the eastern Baltic region, Germanic commercial-military bands, probably in search of new routes to the east, began to penetrate territory populated by Finnic and Slavic tribes, where they found amber, furs, honey, wax, and timber products. The indigenous population offered little resistance to their incursions, and there was no significant local authority to negotiate the balance between trade, tribute, and plunder.
About 830, commerce appears to have declined in the Don and Dnieper regions. There was increased activity in the north Volga, where Scandinavian traders who had previously operated from bases on Lakes Ladoga and Onega established a new centre, near present-day Ryazan. There, in this period, the first nominal ruler of Rus (called, like the Khazar emperor, khagan) is mentioned by Islamic and Western sources. This Volga Rus khagan state may be considered the first direct political antecedent of the Kievan state.
Within a few decades these Rus, together with other Scandinavian groups operating farther west, extended their raiding activities down the main river routes toward Baghdad and Constantinople, reaching the latter in 860. The Scandinavians involved in these exploits are known as Varangians; they were adventurers of diverse origins, often led by princes of warring dynastic clans. One of these princes, Rurik, is considered the progenitor of the dynasty that ruled in various portions of East Slavic territory until 1598 (see Rurik dynasty). Evidences of the Varangian expansion are particularly clear in the coin hoards of 900–930. The number of Middle Eastern coins reaching northern regions, especially Scandinavia, indicates a flourishing trade. Written records tell of Rus raids upon Constantinople and the northern Caucasus in the early 10th century...
The degree to which the Varangians may be considered the founders of the Kievan state has been hotly debated since the 18th century. The debate has from the beginning borne nationalistic overtones. Recent works by Russians have generally minimized or ignored the role of the Varangians, while non-Russians have occasionally exaggerated it. Whatever the case, the lifeblood of the sprawling Kievan organism was the commerce organized by the princes. To be sure, these early princes were not “Swedes” or “Norwegians” or “Danes”; they thought in categories not of nation but of clan. But they certainly were not East Slavs. There is little reason to doubt the predominant role of the Varangian Rus in the creation of the state to which they gave their name.
Thanks, User:Krakkos. Yes, this quotation makes my point, in its last paragraph, that we need to acknowledge the existence of a debate. I'm fine for us to explain that the scholarly concensus is, as Keenan says, for Scandinavian origins. But we, like Keenan, would make the page better by acknowledging the issues in the header (and cleaning up some if its slightly weird phrasings). Just to reiterate, my suggested phrasing on this in the header is: 'Debate about the origins of the Rus' people and the polities they founded has at times been fierce, but the current scholarly consensus is that the Rus' originated as Norse-speakers travelling the river-routes between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.[7][8][9]'
I would be fine with this wording (did not check the references though).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Groovy, thanks User:Ymblanter, that's helpful. Any opinions on my bullet points above? (About the Rus' being 'the ancestors of modern East Slavic peoples' etc.?) Alarichall (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Generally, everything which is unsourced must disappear from the article. Specifically, I do not have off-the-top-of-my-head knowledge of these subjects. What you propose seems reasonable to me, but other editors involved with this page might have better subject knowledge and have more informed opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Let's see. Alarichall (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've done some reading around on the idea that the debate about Rus' origins is dead. Unfortunately I don't read Slavonic languages, but I've found this to be a helpful and convincing account: Serhii Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Amongst other things, Plokhy's discussion of the historiography of Rus' origins comments:
Was Kyivan Rus' the product of the activites of the Vikings/Norsemen/Varangians, or was it a state not only populated mainly by Eastern Slavs but also created and ruled by them? And if the latter was the case, then who had the better claim to Kyivan Rus' -- the Russians or the Ukrainians and Belarusians (separately or together)? ... After Russia's brief flirtation with the West in the early 1990s, the West resumed its traditional role of "other" in Russian national consciousness, thereby reviving the anti-Normanist trend in Russian historiography and popular literature. The dissolution of the USSR has well and truly revived the East Slavic contest for the legacy of Kyivan Rus. The view that the Ukrainians were the true heirs of the Rus' legacy, which was confined to Ukrainian émigré publications in the West before 1991, has gained a new lease of life in independent Ukraine on both the acacdemic and popular levels.
This account (which is roughly consistent with the Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry, quoted above) attests that, far from being dead, the debate about the origins of Rus' is still raging. It may look fringe if you're studying at, say, a US university, but not if you're at a Ukrainian or Belarusian one. It seems clear that Anglophone academics agree that Scandinavians were involved in founding Kievan Rus', and I'm not suggesting that Rus' people should give any other impression. But I think it would be better to acknowledge that in professional historiography, debate is still live, and to explain (with references) why. That way, readers who are hearing mutliple accounts can come to Wikipedia and feel assured that they are getting reliable guidance on the whole debate. By the way, I note that Kievan_Rus'#Origin has managed a concise and well balanced account of these issues, and that (perhaps understandably) it doesn't yet link Rus' people. Alarichall (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe the citation of Plokhy you provide has nothing to do with the Normanist - anti-Normanist debate. It is the debate between modern Ukraine and modern Russia who is the "true heir" of the Kievan Rus (the Principality of Kiev). Russians say that since Yury Dolgoruky transferred the title of the Grand Prince to Suzdal, the Principality of Suzdal (and later Vladimir, and later Moscow) inherits the title. Ukrainians say that since Kiev is in Ukraine they are the true heirs. Nobody cared until 1991, but after 1991 it suddenly became an issue of a top priority. That has nothing to do with the origin of Rus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't any doubt that that's part of it too, but Plokhy is explicit that it's also about the question of Scandinavian involvement in founding Rus' (i.e. the Normanist/anti-Normanist debate) -- he's explicit in the quotation that I gave itself and elsewhere. And it's not just about Russia and Ukraine, but about Belarus too. Alarichall (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not see how the above quote is equivalent to "In Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus academic publications are still being published which advocate that the anti-Normanism theory is correct". Let us may be wait for more opinions, I am sure there are more people watching this talk page who so far have chosen to remain silent.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Jonathan Shepard, 'The Viking Rus and Byzantium', in The Viking World, ed. by Stefan Brink and Neil Price (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), pp. 496-516.
After all the toing and froing above, people seem to have been content to let me get on with improving this article: thanks everyone! I have now revised most of it (the main bit still to work on is the 'history' section, though I hope that over time we might make the final section on current research more coherent).
Rus' people are generally understood in English-language scholarship as ethnically or ancestrally Scandinavian people trading and raiding on the river-routes between the Baltic and the Black Seas from around the eighth to eleventh centuries CE. Thus they are often referred to in English-language research as "Viking Rus'".
In English-language scholarship, there is a consensus that Rus' people originated in what is currently coastal Middle Sweden around the eighth century. Basing themselves among Finnic peoples in the upper Volga region, they formed a dispora of traders and raiders exchanging furs and slaves for silk, silver and other commodities available to the east and south. Around the ninth century, on the river routes to the Black Sea, they had an unclear but significant role in forming the principality of Kievan Rus, gradually assimilating with local Slavic populations. They also extended their operations much further east and south, among the TurkicBulghars and Khazars, on the routes to the Caspian Sea. By around the eleventh century, the word Rus' was increasingly associated with the principality of Kiev, and the term Varangian was becoming more common as a term for Scandinavians travelling the river-routes.
Little, however, is certain about this history. This is to a significant extent because, although Rus' people were active over a long period and vast distances, textual evidence for their activities is very sparse and almost never produced by contemporary Rus' people themelves. Nor do primary sources always mean by the word Rus' what scholars mean by it today. Meanwhile, archaeological evidence and researchers' understanding of it is accumulating only gradually. As a trading diaspora, Rus' people intermingled extensively with Finnic, Slavic, and Turkic peoples and their customs and identity seem correspondingly to have varied considerably over time and space.
The other key reason for dispute about the origins of Rus' people is the likelihood that they had a role in ninth- to tenth-century state formation in eastern Europe (ultimately giving their name to Russia and Belarus), making them relevant to what are today seen as the national histories of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. This has encouraged fierce debate as different political interest groups compete over who the Rus' originally were, in the belief that the politics of the ancient past legitimate policies in the present. Examples include ideological competition between Nazi Germany and the USSR in respect of their territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe. The prominence of the Rus' in sources for Inner Eurasia has also led to tensions arising from history-writing concerning newly or would-be independent parts of the former Russian Empire and USSR.
Looks good to me! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks like we're okay to proceed here. Alarichall (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
PS. From my point of view, the neutrality issue with the article is now resolved (though I'm still planning to do some work on the history section). @Bloodofox: I thought I'd mention this here before taking the tag down in case you or others have views on that. Thanks for tagging it earlier! Alarichall (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
No objections here! Glad to contribute. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Bohdan Bondar, Rus' people is part of theory (so called Normanist) of ethnogenesis of eastern Slavic people that is subject to debate and not acceptable worldwide. There are little or no traces of such people who existed before and they are only sparsely mentioned in few chronicles. In Russian historiography, supposedly, number of Varangians were invited to rule Slavic tribes, however there is almost no mention of Gothic rule on banks of Dnieper as it never had taken place. Is it really worth of bringing WikiProject Ukraine to this subject? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no doubt that this article is relevant to the Kievan Rus' and so to the history of Ukraine! And even if it wasn't relevant, claims to the Rus' are so prominent in Ukrainian historiography that they deserve a place here anyway. I have no objection to WikiProject Ukraine being added. Alarichall (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
What you're writing there, Aleksandr, is the anti-Normanist view on the Rus', which is a fringe theory nowadays supported only by some Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian ultra nationalists. Per WP:NPOV the article should do what it does, i.e focus on the mainstream view, the Normanist view, since it's supported by the vast majority of all scholars world-wide, and also strongly supported by both old documents and archaeology... -Tom|Thomas.W talk 14:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Alarichall and Thomas.W: If there are geographical objects of modern Ukraine in the text, then it is necessary to put it without any doubt. And it is interesting to get: Ukraine is an element of Kievan Rus and the city of Kiev is Ukraine and an element of Kievan Rus.
But when in another article we mention Kiev, its rulers, in the context of Kievan Rus - then the problems begin with recognition of the connection with Ukraine. There is mysticism: the city of Kiev from the territory of Ukraine moves a long distance to Russia, the history of Kiev in the 9-11th century turns into the history of Russia, from the Ukrainian city it becomes the city of the Russian Federation (Russia). Having succumbed to this mysticism, we forget about the term Russia as a state emerged in 1547 and was used only in Russia. Europe continued to use the word (disambiguation)Muscovy until 1721 . The word Ukraine was recorded in Europe in the works Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan. Or if we are in doubt then we need to remove the Kievan Rus from the text of the article.--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The article is about the historical Rus' people and their states, of which Kievan Rus was one, but neither the only one nor the first one, and the areas they ruled are today part of several different countries, including but not limited to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Meaning that the article should focus on the historical Rus' people and not emphasise connections between the historical Rus' and modern day countries and peoples, neither connections to Ukraine (a country that wasn't founded until a thousand years after the time of the original Rus' people) nor connections to any other of the modern day countries that in part or in whole were ruled by the Rus'. I have seen many attempts here on Wikipedia by Ukrainian editors to claim the Rus' people and their legacy for Ukraine alone, edit-warring over both article content (everything from removing every mention of connections to countries other than Ukraine to claiming that Vladimir the Great was king of Ukraine...) and translitteration of names, but we go strictly by what WP:NPOV says. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 16:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is objecting to you adding these categories, Bohdan Bondar. Just do it! Alarichall (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no problems with adding categories, provided all relevant countries are added, what I have problems with is making undue mentions of modern-day countries in the text of articles about historic entities, especially entities that covered areas that today are part of several different countries. -Tom|Thomas.W talk 14:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
WTF? In the lede??? Is this the very same NPOV wikipedia I used to edit? - üser:Altenmann >t 03:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there User:Altenmann! I wrote the current header. I specified that there's a concensus in English-language scholarship because I'm aware that this seems unlikely to be the case in, for example, Russian-language scholarship -- but I'm not in a position to make an informed judgement on that because I can't read Slavonic languages. On such a contested topic, I think that recognising the existence of a debate is part of maintaining the neutral point of view.
That said, I used 'Western scholarship' later in the article, and I think the Anglophone concensus described in the header could also be said to be the concensus in Western scholarship. How does that phrasing sound? Or do you have other suggestions?
This is exactly the point I made earlier. This is a universal consensus among scholars; there are no serious academics even in the former Soviet Union who advocate for anti-normanist theories. There are of course people like Fomenko who can easily identify Rueik with Ramses II, or there are people who state that the Ukrainian nation is 30 thousand years old, but they are outside academic research (though some of them sometimes get into the media).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't believe it's quite that simple, I'm afraid! The following works (cited in the article) make it fairly clear that there is not a 'universal consensus' among professional Russian-speaking scholars:
* Elena Melnikova, 'The "Varangian Problem": Science in the Grip of Ideology and Politics', in Russia's Identity in International Relations: Images, Perceptions, Misperceptions, ed. by Ray Taras (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), pp. 42-52
* Artem Istranin and Alexander Drono, 'Competing historical Narratives in Russian Textbooks', in Mutual Images: Textbook Representations of Historical Neighbours in the East of Europe, ed. by János M. Bak and Robert Maier, Eckert. Dossiers, 10 ([Braunschweig]: Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research, 2017), 31-43 (pp. 35-36).
If you're able to provide convincing citations showing that there is a Normanist consensus in Slavonic-speaking scholarship, though, that would be fantastic and a great way to improve the article.
All that said, I'm not particularly wedded to the phrase 'English-language' in the header. Alarichall (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This is the problem with your editing. I am not going to rush to the library and read these two books to check that what you are saying reflects their content, to start with. You have completely rewritten the article despite the existence of objections. Now do not be surprised that users - who btw can read Slavonic languages - do not like the result. I would still like to see a Russian university textbook which advocates the anti-Normanist theory - not barely mentions it - though.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have provided links. I was able to access most of Melnikova's article via Google Books, and the other article is here. Wikipedia needs to be based on scholarly citations, and I rewrote the article to achieve that. Obviously it would be fantastic if editors who can read Slavonic languages would add material citing Slavonic-language research, but obviously if you don't want to do that work it's your choice! Alarichall (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
PS, @Ymblanter: perhaps, given your comment, you could cite some recent university textbooks that accept the Normanist theory? That would be a really helpful and, I'd have thought, fairly easy way to demonstrate current concensus in Russian-speaking academia. It would be a great addition to the article. Alarichall (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I have only had time to look at the second articly you provided, and it says there are school textbooks which advocate for Anti-Normanist theory. I am not sure I would call this academic debate. In Russia (as well as in many other post-Sovies countries), there are many school textbooks approved by the ministry and advocating all kinds of bullshit. I would still like to see academic scholars saying anti-Normanist theory has been substantiated by anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, yes: good point. Though the authors of the textbooks do seem from the article to be university academics. As I say, it would be amazing if you could find an opportunity to check and cite a few recent university textbooks to establish clearly the concensus in Russian-speaking scholarship. Alarichall (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
stop please with these unserious comparisons. i want you to say, there is a reason why swedes are called swedes, poles are called poles, russians are called russians and so on. stop to make it like its something mysterious or so. yeah, let the past be past, but don't try to blur identities please.
--85.212.144.102 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I see there's some editing going on with people debating whether to include the 'history of Russia' template. Although this is clearly relevant, it would also clearly be wrong to include this but not to include 'history of Ukraine', 'history of Belarus', and maybe one or two more besides. But I worry that including all of these would be too unwieldy. The obvious solution is to revert to including none of them. Any of the editors concerned want to comment or suggest a better solution? @Valoem:@Murchison-Eye:@KIENGIR:
Include all, is that an option? Valoemtalkcontrib 13:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that's the best thing to do. I think they make the article rather cluttered, but certainly better to have them all than to have one:-) Alarichall (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi there Super ninja2. I see you've removed the Arabic spelling from the lead, with the note 'no relation with Arabic'. But one of the main written sources for the Rūs' (at least in the view of many scholars) is the Arabic Risala of Ahmad ibn Fadlan, and as Rus'_people#Arabic_sources indicates, there is a wide range of other Arabic sources for the Rūs'. So I suggest we might put the Arabic spellings back in? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Alarichall I understand what you're saying but when I first started reading the article, I saw the Arabic spelling which confused me and lead me to think that the Rus' people were from Arabian heritage. So I removed it from the article to avoid any confusion.
Yes, there are many Arabic sources about Rus' people but Rus' people don't have any common relation with the Middle East or Arabian people in terms of ancestry, race, culture, language, heritage or even history. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I've had a look at the guidance on leads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Usage_in_first_sentence, and it says: 'Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged'. We have few or no texts in which Rus' people actually write a name for themselves, so all the names given are in some sense foreign-language names (whether in Cyrillic, Latin, Greek, or Arabic script). Since the Arabic-language sources are really important for the Rus', I'd suggest the Arabic spelling belongs there just as much as the other spellings. Alarichall (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
The languages have been listed alphabetically. If we introduce subjectivity, then it opens up a can of worms over the appropriate criteria, and even with criteria there will invariably be nationalistic arguments over importance. The alphabet is not subjective. Agricolae (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The section "Other anti-Normanist interpretations" is currently completely uncited and is sort of a smorgasbord of conspiratorial ideas. I would suggest simply deleting.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Uncited information that I know is wrong, I remove on sight.--Berig (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I have seen most of them before, but Anti-Normanist theories are by their nature fringey, being based on feelings of hurt nationalistic pride. In that situation any fantastical theory may seem preferable to the offensive "Normanist theory". In Sweden, we have a similar situation with the Götaland Theory where some kind of Geatish national pride has been hurt and anything goes (of course their ancestors could never have submitted themselves to the Swedes ... it's unthinkable).--Berig (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
PS, I think they should stay as they represent the fringe-like nature of the Anti-Normanist theories. But, I am an inclusionist...--Berig (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The etymology section is factually correct, but needs to be rewritten for verifiability and a more scholarly presentation. I will focus on that for a while.--Berig (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
There! It cost me rewriting twice because of bluescreens:-).--Berig (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The agony and the ecstasy.;-). Carlstak (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it was very satisfying writing it in the end.:-)--Berig (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Mission accomplished - I now understand what the point of that material is. Agricolae (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I have added Max Vasmer's Russian dictionary for the benefit of Russian speakers. According to his article it remains the most authoritative source for Slavic etymology. He says the same thing as Hellquist, but adds a few theories that he rejects. Both Vasmer and Hellquist reject the Volga theory so I added it because it seems more notable being mentioned by both.--Berig (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This article appears to devote way more weight to anti-Normanist theories than scholarly English-language sources about the Rus' do. Anti-Normanism is however a notable subject just as the Indigenous Aryans theory and the Sun Language Theory. By splitting out a separate article on anti-Normanism, we would enable this article to strenghten its focus on the Rus' themselves, about whom this article is supposed to be. Krakkos (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Krakkos:, I agree—the "anti-Normanist" stuff is so far from mainstream scholarshop that it would seem to be WP:FRINGE at this point. Who in Scandinavian studies or ancient Germanic studies is even entertaining this stuff anymore? How much mention is it even receiving in modern works on this topic? In any case, this stuff definitely needs to segregated into a section of its own. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This section, perhaps more than others of the recent IP edits, needs some major attention, but I don't know enough about the subject to do anything but remove it. The initial quote is just dropped there without any context or citation. The remained, from the perspective of a naive reader we are supposed to be writing for, has no obvious association with the question of Rus' origin, and no attempt is made to clearly explain why this material is being brought to bear on the question. It would be good if someone with more familiarity could give it a look. Agricolae (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I have been staying clear of it. This is partly because I like the subject and I am reluctant to remove it, and partly because the present text is a tangled mess where we have POVs to straighten out and levels of historicity vs. legend to explain. It is a bit daunting.--Berig (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It would demand more focus that I can invest in it during the following days. I will try in the weekend if no one has beaten me to it.--Berig (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, I remove it. I will add relevant text later.--Berig (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have added some information that may be interesting, and that provides an overview of what can be expanded. I need to focus on real life right now, but I will get back and try to arrange something during the following week.--Berig (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to Berig. I will defer to his expertise and work on copy editing the present text as time allows, just to make it presentable until the needed rewrites can be made. As he says, the present text is a tangled mess. Carlstak (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Victoria is a good faith editor, who wants to balance the article more in favour of a Scandinavian POV, feeling it has too large a Slavic Anti-Normanist POV. I will see what I can do.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It has been 13 years since I made edits on this article. I never thought I would be back.--Berig (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Glad you're here. I get Victoria's point. Yes, the etymology section is a better place for that content—previously it was a non sequitur, disconnected from the surrounding text. Carlstak (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have started on the Nordic sources now, but it will take a while.--Berig (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't looked very closely at the history section yet, but so far it seems to be generally correct. The main issue seems to be to streamline it into a cohesive narrative, and provide context where necessary, and above all, it needs more inline references. The quality of an article does not really matter, as drive-by tagging by well-meaning but uninformed editors will riddle the greatest text with ref tags sooner or later, anyway.--Berig (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Curse those tag bombers!;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Well done! That is an impressive flak battery of references!:-)--Berig (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It's what I do. Well, it's one of the things I enjoy doing most on WP. I will add more today. As you know, it's easier to defend the integrity of the article when it's properly sourced. Carlstak (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely! It is great to see you doing that. It makes the article so much more stable in the long run.--Berig (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This article naturally focuses on the "receiving end" of Norse activities in Eastern Europe, and a problem that I think permeates the article is the lack of context about the Scandinavian situation. The way I see it, the article gives the impression that the Norse were small bands of private entrepreneurs, which was often true. However, the activities were also organized from Scandinavia on a much larger scale. It is well-known from historically better attested Western European scene, that the Danish kings, like Canute the Great, organized large scale expeditions in England gathering forces from all over Scandinavia (Danes, Norwegians and Swedes). What is less commonly presented on WP is that the same kind of organizational activities also took place on the Eastern European scene. Although there is little historical documentation about this, we know that the scalds celebrated the eastern campaigns of king Olof Skötkonung, and we know that Sweden provided an invasion army to help Vladimir the Great become the ruler of Kievan Rus' (depicted in the Russian movie Viking). Like Denmark and Norway, Sweden had the institutions for this as the Law of Uppland and Snorri Sturluson tell of the Thing of all Swedes in the end of winter. At this assembly, the king proclaimed that the fleet levy would be summoned for warfare during the summer, and all the crews, rowers, commanders and ships were decided. This primitive but effective organization could provide well-motivated armies of at least 3 000 men every summer. Vita Ansgari tells of a Swedish invasion force attacking Apuolė containing 15 000 locals in 854. There seems even to be a name for the areas of NE Europe that accepted, or were forced, to pay tribute - Svíaveldi, where veldi has little to do with the rule of law as it is derived from a Germanic word for "violence". I think this is relevant to understand the background situation in "Tale of Bygone Years" which tells that Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes jointly rebelled against the Varangians, before inviting them back. I am thinking of adding this context, but I have not yet decided how or where.--Berig (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it sounds like something that needs to go into the article. Just a tiny etymological note to veldi though: the root has meanings beyond violence in Germanic: the modern German Gewalt can mean violence but also power, including legitimate, government power. And it comes from the verb walten, which is cognate with English wield and modern Swedish vålla (to cause). The Latin cognate is valere to be well, to be strong, in Lithuanian veldė́ti to rule, to possess, even in Russian володеть to rule (as in Volodymir, i.e. Vladimir, ruler of the world) (see ). So I think the meaning "violence" actually is a development from the notion of having "power" as possessing the capacity for violence or the monopoly of violence.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You are right, and I have been thinking of translating it as "Swedish dominion". I am also considering whether to include the famous speech of Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker (quoted in the article), where he throws the book at the Swedish king informing him that the people had no interest in attacking Norway, but the people would eagerly follow him if he were to keep to tradition and proclaim campaigns against lands in the east. The historicity of the speech is debated, but still it shows that 13th c. Icelanders considered Eastern Europe to be Sweden's time honoured sphere of interest. I am also thinking of the Torsätra runestone, where the Swedish king is said to have tribute collectors that were sent out to collect tribute and could be killed in the process. It seems relevant considering the rebellion in the "Tale of Bygone Years".--Berig (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the The Anti-Normanist debate to a new article. If we are ever going to make this an article based on mainstream scholarship we can't have this debate here. Moreover, the debate is not only relevant to this article.--Berig (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the new article to Wikidata. The title of the new article should perhaps be changed to Anti-Normanism, which i believe is the WP:COMMONNAME. Krakkos (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think, even if there is a separate article, it still needs a section in this article (with a 'Main article' pointer) that gives a brief summary of the historiography and explains the nature of the dispute. Agricolae (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You have a point, but such a section easily explodes in size given the epic nature of the debate in Russia. My vision is that Anti-Normanist views should be given due weight in the sections, where relevant. However, I will not object if anyone should introduce and work on such a section and manage to keep it trimmed down.--Berig (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Agricolae:. I have been thinking of what you wrote, and I am considering a last section called "legacy", or an initial section called "historical importance", where Anti-Normanism can be introduced.--Berig (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I have been going back and forth in my head over which would be better - beginning or end of the article. I think it depends on which aspect is given more coverage. My historical bent makes me more interested in a description of the historiographical perspective as an introduction, that the Rus' had long been attributed Slavic origin before the the view that they were Norsemen gained traction among historians going back to the primary sources beginning in the 18th century, at first facing fierce nationalistic pushback but eventually becoming the predominant view of scholars. Much more so that than in an ending section more focused on the atavistic WWII- and Soviet-era nationalistic return of that view, which was only ever fringe and which can be dealt with in a sentence or two when we talk about the earlier history of the question. (And I think if we limit mention of recent anti-Normanism to a sentence or two it is less likely to be blown back up than if we give it a whole paragraph.) Agricolae (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I leave it to you to decide this, and I am sure that you will write a great section, should you decide to do so.--Berig (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I gave it a try, but welcome improvement (or even deletion if it isn't up to the task). Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it is very good. Sufficiently long and to the point. An excellent summary, IMHO.--Berig (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions about the history section and the scope of the article:
I've noticed a few things in the "main" history section that seem like they would better belong in one of the "sources" sections included below, such as Evidence for strong bloodline connexions between the Kievan Rus' and Scandinavia existed and a strong alliance between Vikings and early Kievan rulers is indicated in early texts of Scandinavian and East Slavic history. Several thousand Swedish Vikings died for the defence of Kievan Rus' against the Pechenegs. Anund Jacob, the Swedish king, was referred to as Amunder a Ruzzia by the chronicler Adam of Bremen.
A lot of the article seems to be trying to "prove" the Normanist position. This is no doubt a relic of the earlier article where the Normanist and Anti-Normanist positions were treated as equal.
What is the divide between this article and Kievan Rus'?
Thoughts!--Ermenrich (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are my two cents:
The Varangians/Rus were good at dying and often did so for political reasons, and especially in the 11th c. That part agrees well with the Varangian runestones..
I agree with the tone of trying to prove that position, but then again the mainstream narrative of the Rus' may still need it.
They overlap greatly but here are my points:
A) The time period this article focuses on begins at the latest c. 750 with the founding of Staraja Ladoga, whereas Kievan Rus' properly begins in the 880s with the Rus' conquest of Kiev.
B) This article covers a much larger area and includes the Volga River basin and there are reasons to include Scandinavia.
C) This article should focus on the Norse and their relationship with the Slavs and the Finns that they united with.
D) The article Kievan Rus' should focus on politics, and a more detailed treatment of Slavic and Finnic tribes, and especially the Slavic ones. I think the Norse matter is overrepresented there. They were just one of many ethnicities that contributed in their own ways.
When I think of it, Melnikova's linguistic study of names and dating of the final assimilation of the elite in Kievan Rus' to the late 11th c. agrees well with what is known about the princely family. Yaroslav the Wise (d. 1054) married Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden (d. 1050). Not only would Ingegerd have brought servants and retinue from Sweden, the princely family was surrounded by their Varangian retinue. Vladimir (d. 1052) Sviatoslav (d. 1076), Iziaslav (d. 1078) and Vsevolold (d. 1093) should have grown up hearing both OES and ON on a daily basis. However, in their turn, they appear not to have married Norse speaking spouses. I would like to kindly ask other editors to have a look at the section "Assimilation".--Berig (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This article should be of interest to those interested in improving the article. It is written by Elena Melnikova, Russia's most prominent runologist.--Berig (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The new material you're adding is very good, but are there any other sources that discuss the assimilation we could add? At the moment she's the only source for the section.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
As she writes, the linguistic aspects have been avoided, and probably because they complicate the narrative of an early assimilation. What can be added are references to the facts she mentions. In her defense, she is the chief researcher at the Institute of General History at the Moscow Academy of Science, a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and an internationally cited scholar on Old Norse matters, so she is as authoritative as can possibly be. There is more to add about runic finds that support late assimilation.--Berig (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't doubt it, but sections with a single source are frequent targets of tag bombers (with good reason: often they aren't cited to highly reliable sources like Melnikova) and I think it's discouraged by policy - plus if she's the only source there's more chance for some anti-Normanist to come and make a stink, right?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I know, and it has troubled me while I write it. I think it is too interesting not to include, but what should we do? Remove it?--Berig (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No, don't remove it! But surely someone else has at least discussed it marginally in books on the Viking Age for instance. Maybe Carlstak can find something? He seems to be the master at sourcing things.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, he is a source wizard! I continue writing, then, hoping that he finds supporting material.--Berig (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm on it, guys. Thanks for the moral support—it really give me a boost. Finding sources is mental sport; I'm sure you know how it is—I read the pertinent parts of at least ten times as many sources as I actually use. At the moment, I've got 576 tabs up (not all open of course). It gets out of control if I forget to close the ones I'm done with (some I'm never done with LOL).;-) Carlstak (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Carlstak:. A perfect addition. Now the discussion is referenced to two heavyweight scholars, one historian and one archaeologist.--Berig (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Berig. What do you think of the bit by Yaroslav Shchapov I just added? It seems to me that the "Assimilation" section could use some counterpoint to Melnikova, since she dominates it. 07:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It is fine:-). It is never good when a single scholar dominates a section (although sometimes inevitable when you write on individual objects, such as less notable runestones).--Berig (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!:-). I have done most of the work now, and actually added a second source, but only for the fascinating spindle whorl in western Ukraine.--Berig (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I wish Aleksander Kan were still alive. He told me that the 11th c. rulers of Kievan Rus' never needed interpreters when talking with Varangians. I regret that I never asked him for sources about that.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know where else to put this; I've just added mention of Pritsak's and Jakobson's opinions on the matter to the "Slavic sources" section. I hope it's up to snuff.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Carlstak:, good addition! I think the perfect place for it is in the Assimilation section, and I have moved it there if you don't mind, with a few edits for coherece with the rest of the section.--Berig (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Carlstak:, PS, would you look again at the years? The years cited don't seem to agree with the article Tale of Igor's Campaign.--Berig (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
LOL, I wish! Unfortunately, I have never watched Vikings. There were too many warning signs before the show even appeared on screen, and what I learnt later only keeps a purist like me away:-).--Berig (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Another source (on JSTOR): However, the Scandinavian contribution took place during the 10th century when it can be traced in contemporary records, but not since. The Scandinavian immigration changed radically in both scale and pattern. The 11th century sources mention Scand- inavians only as employees/mercenaries serving Rus'ian princes, so their impact upon Rus' affairs and societal arrangements was no longer significant (The Political Organization of Rus' in the 10th CenturyAuthor(s): Petr S. StefanovichSource: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 2016, Neue Folge, Bd. 64, H. 4 (2016), pp. 529-544)--Ermenrich (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Everything is useful, or may prove useful later. I assume the last text talks of the impact of Scandinavian immigration, when it states that the impact was no longer significant. However, if their influence was no longer significant in the 11th c. why recruit Swedish mercenaries at all? You don't hire foreign muscle for gold if they are not significant for state affairs. I take a break till tomorrow.--Berig (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ermenrich:, I have used your reference in an introductory paragraph. I hope it is used in the way you intended.--Berig (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me! I added the Uspenskij source to the "Scandinavian sources" section.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Good addition! I should have thought of that!:-)--Berig (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Berig. I think the passage I added is improved with your edits, and I agree with placing it in the "Asssimilation" section. Regarding the dates, Jakobson says:
p. 103 It is generally conceded that the author of the Slovo, writing in the late twelfth century, was not himself surrounded by a flourishing poetic school in the Old Norse tongue. But perhaps his references to and citations from the poet Bojan, his admired master, provide us with a transition to an older age. The three passages about Bojan tell us that he celebrated the deeds of the following princes: Jaroslav the Old; Mstislav the Bold, victor over Rededja; Roman the Fair, son of Svjatoslav (all these mentioned in the prelude: 5; likewise Jaroslav and Oleg "of olden time" (these names included in the epilogue: 209). Although there may be disagreement as to the identity of some of these persons, it appears fairly certain that the careers in question form a span from the middle of the eleventh century — Jaroslav the Old being identified with
p. 104 him called the Wise († 1054) — to its end, or even into the twelfth century, Bojan's own life and creative activity need not have coincided with the period of the careers he celebrated. Like the Old English Widsið, he may have commemorated princes of an earlier time known to him by report. It would appear that his work was done about 1100 [...}
Nevertheless we may inquire whether Scandinavian poetic tradition was strong enough in 1050, and showed demonstrable [sic] way of Bojan to the Slovo poet. For the fragments of Bojan's compositions, or at least explicit imitations of his style by the later writer as incorporated in the text, show no great differences of technique from the rest of the Slovo. Parallel sentence structure, sound effects, figures of speech appear to have been very similarly used, as has been pointed out more than once. p. 104
p. 107 The connections are present, then, and we may assume that Bojan himself, as late as 1110, may have heard Scandinavian song and conversation from visitors; even later, at the court of that Mstislav who was also called Harald, the opportunity must have presented itself often. But this is quite different from supposing that Old Norse was habitually spoken in twelfth-century court circles, or even among traders, except in the presence of visitors.
I have to go to a lab appointment, will check back later. Carlstak (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Something doesn't add up here, as the subject of the poem himself Igor Svyatoslavich, lived from 1151-1202 - assuming our article is accurate. The article says that the poem was written in the late 12th century according to the majority view.
I think I figured it out: Jakobsen is talking about Boyan_(bard), who is not the author of the Tale of Igor's Campaign, but is mentioned in it as having lived at the court of Yaroslav the Wise. So I think you've confused two people - the anonymous author of the Slovo, and Boyan, who is another, earlier poet.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Great!:-)--Berig (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Ermenrich, but my understanding of Jakobson's text (and mine, if I wrote it correctly) is that Boyan the bard was master of the anonymous writer of the Slovo. Now I really, really have to go my appointment.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's possible he means "master" in a more metaphorical sense - otherwise Bojan would need to live an extremely long life! Does he say anything else about the two poets meeting?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course you are right, Ermenrich. I'm still trying to sort this out while I'm in a bit of a brain fog (non-Covid). Perhaps I misread Jakobson's text, thinking that his statement, "... even later, at the court of that Mstislav who was also called Harald, the opportunity must have presented itself often" meant that Boyan was present there. The Boyan the Bard article (which is lacking, to say the least, it cites only one source, a website called "Children's Hour") says Boyan "started his career at the court of Mstislav of Tmutarakan", who died in 1035. The WP article on Mstislav I of Kiev says Mstislav I lived 1076–1132. I did have the right ruler, though, in my original submission which said that Jakobson wrote of Boyan being active at the court of Yaroslav I, whose name I forgot to disambiguate as Yaroslav the Wise, which I see that Berig has now done. Carlstak (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Don't sweat it, I know literally nothing about the Tale of Igor's Campaign or Bojan!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
Please do not use this map in the future. And do not obstruct others to improve the quality of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
--03:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
