Until now, many researchers refute the Slavism of the ancient Rus, attributing to them a different ethnic origin (Germanic, Celtic, Indo-Aryan, etc.). These delights are always based on the opposition of the Slavs and the Rus, found among Arab authors. Indeed, their statements can cause something of a shock to people who study history not professionally, but as amateurs.
So, Ibn-Rust assures that the Rus "attack the Slavs, approach them on ships, disembark, take prisoner …". They "do not have arable land, and eat only what they bring from the land of the Slavs." Gardizi reported the following about the Russians: "Always one hundred or two hundred of them go to the Slavs and forcibly take from them for their maintenance while they are there … Many people from the Slavs … serve them until they get rid of their addiction." According to Mutakhar ibn Tahir al-Mukadassi, the country of the Rus borders on the land of the Slavs, the former attack the latter, plunder their goods and capture them.
So, the opposition is obvious. But is it ethnic in nature? Isn't there a peculiar interpretation of perfect other realities?
It is necessary to immediately make a reservation - the ethnic opposition of the Slavs and the Rus does not even have the right to be considered a hypothesis, because it contradicts the data accumulated by science. In the "Tale of Bygone Years" - the main source on the history of Ancient Rus - the Rus are presented as Slavs. There it is quite unambiguously asserted that "the Slovene and the Russian language is one thing." The Russians themselves worship the Slavic gods. Attention is drawn to the fact that in the treaties of Rus with the Greeks, most of the names of the Rus do not belong to Slavic. At first glance, this is a powerful argument, however, upon careful consideration of the situation, it ceases to be so. The names of the Rus belong to a wide variety of ethnic groups - Celts, Illyrians, Scandinavians, Iranians, Slavs proper, and even Turks. This diversity suggests that the Rus were not some one non-Slavic ethnic group. It is possible to assume the presence of different ethnic sources for the formation of the Rus stratum, but then it is not clear why such a motley campaign became Slavic (we are clearly not talking about the first generation of Rus), began to speak Slavic and worship Slavic gods, and left the names the same? Some are trying to prove that a personal name is more important than the name of God, but this is already complete nonsense, especially if we take into account the situation of the Middle Ages, when religion meant everything to a person.especially if we take into account the situation of the Middle Ages, when religion meant everything to a person.especially if we take into account the situation of the Middle Ages, when religion meant everything to a person.
Antiquity knows many cases similar to ours. Thus, the Gothic historian Jordan acknowledged that the Goths had almost no proper names. In the case of the Russians, we are not even talking about the absence of Slavic names as such. It's just that some part of the Russians, obviously belonging to the upper stratum, used non-Slavic names. Maybe for reasons of fashion, or maybe obeying some ancient customs. How? We can assume the following. As you know, many traditions have practiced hiding their true name from outsiders, especially from enemies. The name of a person was considered an energetic expression of his essence and could be used by occult opponents to enslave his “I” or induce damage. By signing a treaty with the Greeks, the Slavs could call not their true names, but the names belonging to other, neighboring peoples.
But what about the data from Arab sources that separate the Slavs from the Rus? That's how. Today it has been proven that they all go back to the text of Ibn-Khordadbeh, who stated: "Rus are a kind of Slavs …" In the course of the source analysis, the absolute coincidence of the above message of Ibn-Rust with the story of al-Jahaini was revealed. These two messages, in turn, fully correspond to the data of Ibn Khordadbeh. Another significant figure - Gardizi himself admitted to using Jahaini's labor. Mukadassi, who also persists in this opposition, generally presented to the attention of the readers an abridged version of the story of Ibn Rusta and Gardizi.
If we take into account that the text of Ibn-Khordadbeh was written earlier than all those listed, and also the fact that the stories similar to these texts by al-Zaman, al-Marfazi and Muhammad Aufi do not contain any alienation of Russia from the Slavs, then the conclusion is quite unambiguous - later authors they simply distorted the original text, in which the Russians are presented as Slavs.
Ibn-Khordadbeh himself did not leave (with the exception of the above statement) any information about the Slavs, his text has come down to us in an abbreviated form. “… Preserved in other, more later works, references to this author, as a rule, do not coincide with the surviving extract, - writes A. P. Novosiltsev. - This suggests that the surviving version of the work of our author is only the shortest extracts from a large original.
Promotional video:
The insertions into the original story of Khordadbeh must be considered later distortions, introduced under the impression of certain differences between the Rus and the bulk of the Slavs. These differences are not tribal (Khordadbeh uses the phrase "kind of Slavs"), but social. This is evidenced by the data of "Russkaya Pravda" (Yaroslav), according to which the Rusyn is "Lubo Gridin, Lubo Kupchina, Lubo Yabtnik, Lubo Swordsman." GS Lebedev asserts the following in this regard: "… True Yaroslav emphasizes that the princely protection extends to this druzhina-trading class, regardless of tribal affiliation -" if there will be an outcast, any Slovenian. "All of them are guaranteed the same protection as and direct members of the princely administration …"
But the Russians did not at all consider administrative activities to be their main occupation. The Arabs describe them as tough, fierce and skillful fighters. Extremely warlike, they taught their children to use the sword literally from the first days of their lives. The father put a sword in the cradle of a newly born child and said: “I will not leave you any property, and you have nothing but what you acquire with this sword” (Ibn Rust). Al-Marvazi wrote about the Rus: "Their bravery and courage are well known so that one of them is equal to many of the other peoples."
The Rus were a specific stratum, professionally oriented towards war. This is the only way to explain the harshness and even cruelty of the Russians towards the Slavs, or rather their main mass, to understand the reasons for the separation of the former from the latter. The military stratum in traditional society always rises above the bulk of the inhabitants (urban and rural). They are for her - the "third estate", obliged to feed the people of the sword, defending the state and expanding its limits. In the event of disobedience, this majority is subjected to rather severe pressure, the scale of which fully corresponds to specific historical realities.
Undoubtedly, a fully developed, classical aristocracy could not exist during this period, but in a number of cases the confrontation between the professional military and the lower classes was a very real problem. In addition, pressure could also be exerted on some tribal groupings of the Slavs who resist centralization around Kiev. We should not forget about the inevitable difference in everyday life.
From the outside, it might seem that we are talking about two different peoples.
In the face of the Russians, we are not dealing with the aristocracy as such, but with a special military caste, less privileged, but still towering above the bulk of the population and even living on its own territory. It is very reminiscent of the Cossacks - a military, but not an aristocratic estate that has its own land. It is interesting that the appearance of the Rus (in the description of the Byzantine Leo the Deacon) is very similar to the appearance of the Cossack - a warrior of the Zaporizhzhya Sich: “His head was completely naked, but a tuft of hair hung from one side …” It is quite possible that the descendants of the Rus caste took an active part in creation of the Cossacks.
The Russians lived compactly, forming, so to speak, military bases. One of these bases was the famous island of the Rus (Rusia), described by the Arabs. By the way, all the texts that separate the Slavs and the Rus are connected with him. However, the occupations of its inhabitants are not related to ethnic characteristics, but to professional specialization. According to the Arabs, the inhabitants of Rusia did not bother themselves with agriculture, cattle breeding or handicraft activities, preferring war and trade (one must think of war booty). The Rus islanders practiced large-scale military operations against various countries: "And they are a strong and mighty people, and they go to distant places with the aim of raids, and they also sail on ships in the Khazar Sea, attack ships and seize goods" (al- Marvazi).
The territory of Russia was measured in three days' journey. According to the Arabs, there were cities on the island, it was inhabited by one hundred thousand people. The base itself was controlled from some ancient Russian center: Eastern authors claim that the island Rus were subordinate to a certain Russian "Khakan" ("Khagan"). It is unlikely that he means the leader of the island, it would be too great an honor for such a small territory, because the title of "Khakan-Khagan" in the east has always been equated to the imperial one. Most likely, the Arabs meant the Kiev prince - in the Dnieper region, state-forming tendencies have always been very, very strong.
But where was the island and when did the Rus naval base appear on it?
The most plausible version of its location is associated with the Azov Sea. It was formulated extremely accurately and succinctly by Academician ON Trubachev: “There is information about a certain city of Rusia … but news about the island of Rusia is repeated especially zealously … Apparently, this geographical object is referred to in the writings of early eastern geographers as an island of Rus, an island unhealthy, damp, overgrown, located in the middle of a small sea, compare the instructive indication of Dimashka (Arabic author - A. E.) that the Russians inhabit islands in the Mayotis Sea … The Mayotis Sea is Meotida, the Sea of Azov, and the islands on this sea, off its southern shores, are areas of low-lying, damp land cut by the branches of the Kuban delta. It was a whole peculiar country, really. quite visible, small in size. In particular,of interest is the exact topographic detail, reported, for example, by Ibn-Rust, where it is said about the Russians living on an island 3 days' journey. Three days of travel is a distance of no more than 90-100 km. When looking at the map, taking into account an elementary topographic reconstruction (the Kuban River, until the 19th century, still flowed into the Black Sea with one sleeve, later changing this arm to the Azov channel), we can clearly imagine this ancient island land area bounded by the old (Black Sea) channel Kuban and its other important branch Protoka in the east. And the length of this island will correspond approximately to 90-100 km, that is, a 3-day journey along the eastern geography. The country of the ancient Rus was located in the Kuban floodplains … (Of course, the Rus lived in other places. Many of them lived in Kiev,serving the local princes as their warriors or administrators).
The chronology is more complicated. It is not easy to set a lower limit. Somewhere in the region of Novorossiysk, Strabo has some sea robbers. Around the same place was the city of Nicosia, where the Apostle Simon the Canonist died, accompanying the Apostle Andrew on some travels, and a group of legends about the Myrmidons who made sea voyages is associated with these apostles. Thus, with a very high degree of caution, we can say that the base of the Rus arose no later than the 1st century. BC e. (This research is entirely based on the observations and guesses of V. Gritskov).
The upper limit is quite amenable to fixation. If we proceed from the location of the Rus in the Azov region, then Rusia should have lost its significance at the beginning of the 8th century, when the Khazars established their rule in this region. The etymology of the word "rus" is very interesting. It is closely related to red, the color of warriors, princes, and kings. He symbolized the military class among the Indo-Aryans, Iranians and Celts. For example, in Vedic India, the color red belonged to the varna (caste) of the kshatriyas, that is, the warriors. It symbolized the blood shed in battles.
But it's time to turn to the specifics of the etymological analysis.
In etymological dictionaries, the word "rus" is identical to the word "fair-haired", which, in turn, means not so much "white", as many think, as "bright red", and even "red". So, in the dictionary of A. G. Preobrazhensky “rus (b) (” rusa”,“light brown”,“light brown”) means“dark red”,“brownish”(about hair). and Serbian “rus”, Slovak “rus”, “rosa”, “rusa glava”, Czech “rusu.” M. Fasmer gives the Slovenian “rus” in the meaning of “red.” About the “red” meaning of the word “rus”was reported by II Sreznevsky in his dictionary.
The connection between the words "rus" and "red" can be traced outside the Slavic languages, which allows us to speak about the Indo-European basis of this phenomenon. An example is a Latvian. "Russys" ("blood red"), "rusa" ("rust"), lit. "Rusvas" ("dark red"), Latin. "Russeus", "russys" ("red", "red").
The Latin translator of Theophan's Chronicle translated the word "Russians" as "red". The Slavs also called the Black (Russian) Sea "Red", that is, "red". In general, the color red was very widespread in ancient Russia. The cult of the Thunderer Sort, the supreme god of the Eastern Slavs, whom our ancestors considered the creator, was closely associated with him. The name of this deity should be put on a par with the words "rodry" ("red"), "blush" ("blush"), "ore" ("red", "red"), "ore" (dialectal designation of blood). In addition, Rod has an Indo-Aryan analogue - the god Rudra (Shiva) - "the red boar of the sky." It turns out that red was of great importance for the Eastern Slavs - it was the color of the supreme god, the creator.
It should also be remembered that the red banners were the "standards" of the Kiev princes, they are visible on old miniatures, the "Lay of Igor's Regiment" speaks about them. According to the epics, red was widely used for the coloring of Russian warships. The Russians willingly painted their faces in it, using it as war paint. Ibn Fadlan wrote about the Rus that they are like palms, blond, red in face, white in body … "Nizami Ganjavi (Iskandername) depicted this in verse:
“The red-faced Russians were sparkling. They
So they sparkled like magicians sparkle fires.
The connection between the word "rus" and the military color is obvious. This term means "red", or rather "bright red", "dark red" (Such a statement can joke many, as it evokes associations with the red flag of the communists. However, you should always remember that any symbol has a double aspect. For example, gold also symbolizes the Golden Age, the time of primordial spiritual power, and the desire to worship the creature instead of the creator (“golden calf.”) The Marxists used the color red for their own occult purposes, symbolizing them a huge, bloody sacrifice to the International.) It also existed as a social term, characterizing the professional status of the Rus-"Cossacks", and as an ethnonym that they gave to the Eastern Slavs. Obviously, at some period, very significant for the fate of the East Slavic state,there was a significant influx of Rus into the Kiev ruling elite.
It's time to take stock. The great Russian nation got its name from the knightly, Kshatriya caste, famous for their ability and desire to fight. This is highly symbolic, because the Russians are perhaps the most militant people in the world, a people who have shown maximum resilience in the face of numerous enemies and managed to create the greatest empire in extremely unfavorable geopolitical conditions.
Such valor has its roots in ancient, gray, pagan times. The Slavs lived in the Dnieper region from the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. e. They survived, terrifying in power and ferocity, the invasions of the Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Avars, Goths, Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsians, who came to our land, but then disappeared from the historical stage - forever. And we not only survived, tempered in constant wars, but also created a powerful Kiev state, which achieved tremendous success. It died, but it transferred its spirit and its power to the Moscow state, the empire of the Great Russians, which inscribed new lines in the glorious chronicle of heroic deeds.
Alexander Eliseev