THE NORMANS AND THE KHAZARS IN THE SOUTH OF RUS' (THE FORMATION OF THE

"RUSSIAN LAND" IN THE MIDDLE DNEPR AREA)

Author(s): VLADIMIR IA. PETRUKHIN
Source: Russian History , 1992, Vol. 19, No. 1/4, THE FRONTIER IN RUSSIAN HISTORY
(1992), pp. 393-400
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24657513

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Russian History

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Russian History, 19, Nos. 1-4 (1992): 393-400.

VLADIMIR IA. PETRUKHIN (Moscow, Russia)

THE NORMANS AND THE KHAZARS

IN THE SOUTH OF RUS' (THE
FORMATION OF THE "RUSSIAN
LAND" IN THE MIDDLE DNEPR AREA)

The Russo-Byzantine treaties of 911 and 944 included in the Primary

Chronicle (Povest' vremennykh let) distinguish three towns in the Middle
Dnepr area—Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereiaslavl'. In Russian chronicles these
towns are united in the region called "the Russian land" (in the narrow
sense). Before the division of the Russian land by the will of Iaroslav the
Wise in 1054 Russian princes had not put their sons in Chernigov and
Pereiaslavl'. We have no information about local dynasties either, so "the
Russian land" may be considered to have been the domain of the Great
Kievan princes, at least during the reigns of Vladimir and Iaroslav.1
The problem of the formation of the "Russian land" is complicated by
contradictions in the Primary Russian Chronicle (PVL). Pereiaslavl' is men
tioned in the texts of the treaties 911 and 944, but according to the Chronicle
itself it was founded by Vladimir the Saint in 992. The town is not men
tioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitos in his De administrando imperio (the
middle of the tenth century). Thus the hypothesis of Dr. Lind, that mention
of Pereiaslavl' represents a later interpolation in the texts of the treaties made
by the editor of the Chonicle in accordance with the reality of the second half
of the eleventh - beginning of the twelfth century seems to be correct.2 The
Chronicle's date of the foundation of this town in 992 is confirmed by ar
chaeological materials: there are cemetaries of the tenth century with the
tombs of the princely retinue in Kiev and Chernigov, but not in
Pereiaslavl'—the first Old Russian finds are dated from the turn of the tenth
and eleventh centuries there.
But just the archaeological material gave the chance to some researchers
to look for the ancient background of the Russian land in the Middle Dnepr
area. This search became activated after the Second World War, when tenden

1. V. T. Pashuto, "Cherty politicheskogo stroia drevnei Rusi," in Drevnerusskoe gosu

darstvo i ego mezhdunarodnoe znachenie (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 11-76.
2. J. H. Lind, "The Russo-Byzantine Treaties in the Early Urban Structure of Rus', " The
Slavonic and East European Review 63 ( 1984): 362-70.

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
394 Russian History/Histoire Russe

cies for a demonstration of the local (nat

nomenon predominated. So some speci
called treasures of the seventh and eigh
Dnepr area and named by the prerevoluti
antiquities of Antes" (an ancient Iranian o
Acad. B. A. Rybakov as the "antiquities of
name, attributed in the Russian Chroni
Rybakov and others examined the data ab
tioned in the Syrian Chronicle of the sixt
name of the river Ros' on the right bank
construction is groundless in the historic
confirmed by archaeological data, either.4
including some metal decorations, especia
and so on), are of North Caucasian origin;
character; and the whole archaeological cul
so-called Pen'kov culture (sixth - beginnin
ethnically mixed character.5 The conclusi
the antiquities of the Antes are of special
sures were hidden mainly in the seventh -
during the Khazar invasion.6 Moreover, A
monuments of the Middle Dnepr area—M
other complexes of the beginning of the e
uments of the Khazar nobility, maybe of t
These archaeological conclusions are very
Primary Chronicle, especially for the datin
the Slavonic and Iranian tribes, the Pol
Viatichians. A. N. Nasonov in his brilliant
the narrow sense) demonstrated that the b

3. B. A. Rybakov, "Drevnie nisi," Sovetskaia ark

4. See A. Thulin, "The Southern Origin of the
Byzance. Actes du colloque nordique et internationa
1979, ed. Rudolf Zeitler (Uppsala: Almqvist an
Upsaliensis. Figura, n.s. 19], 175-83; V. la. Petruk
logicheskaia traditsiia," in Mekhaniimy kultury (M
5. This ethnically mixed character of culture in
for the whole Russian history, including the cossack
Treasures of Khan Kubrat—Culture of Bulgars, Kh
Print at the Committee for Culture, 1989).
6. G. F. Korzukhina, "K istorii Srednego Pod
Sovetskaia arkheologiia 22 (1955): 61-82; cf. E.
kul'tury v Srednem Podneprov'e," Kratkie soohshc
7. A. K. Ambroz, "O Voznesenskom kompleks
tatsii," Drevnosti epokhi Velikogo pereseleniia nar

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Normans and the Khazars in the south of Rus' 395

all territories of these tribes, but only parts of them. T

not the traditional tribal unit—Nasonov insisted that this land formed within
the borders of the territories paying the Khazarian tribute.8
The exposition of Russian history in the Chronicle is the tribute, paid in
859 by Slovens, Krivichians and Ieria in the north to the Varangians, and by
Polians, Severians and Viatichians in the south to the Khazars. In accordance
with this tradition the last town, mentioned as belonging to Riurik, the
Varangian prince of the north, was Murom on the Oka River; in the south, it
was the tribal territory of the Viatichians, the Khazarian tributaries.9 We have
no information about direct conflicts between Normans and Khazars in the
ninth century, but according to the eastern sources the Russian (Varangian)
princes claimed the Khazarian title khagan in this time.10 A. N. Novoseltsev
supposes that the "invitation" of the Varangian princes to Ladoga and
Novgorod by the Slovens, Krivichians and Meria took place because of the
Khazarian threat." Be that as it may, the interests of the Normans (ar-Rus of
the eastern sources) in the south of Eastern Europe, in the zone of the influ
ence of the Khazarian khaganate, are evident in the ninth century (see Ibn
Khordadbekh and others). They could gain a foothold in the south by using
the oppressed population—the Slavonic tribes of the Middle Dnepr area.
Some scholars attribute the ease with which Askold and Dyr settled down in
Kiev in the 860s to the aspiration of the local population—the Polians—for
release from the Khazarian tribute.12
According to the Russian chronicle, the Kievan area seized by Askold
and Dyr was called the Polianian land (Polskaia zemlia, Polia), but not the
Russian land, despite the desire of the adherents of the local (Kievan) origin
of the name Rus' P This area did not receive the name Rus' or "Russian land"
under the rule of Askold and Dyr (although their retinue was called Rus'):
this happened when Oleg and Igor established their legitimate power in Kiev
in 882. This legitimization has two aspects: first, Oleg (and Igor) was, ac
cording to the Primary Chronicle, the legitimate heir of the invited prince
Riurik; second, they claimed rights to the Khazarian tribute. In 883 Oleg be

8. A. N. Nasonov, "Russkaia zemlia" i obrazovanie territorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva

(Moscow: AN SSSR, 1951), 28-46.
9. Povesl vremennykh let, 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1950), 1:18.
10. A. P. Novosel'tsev, "K voprosy ob odnom iz drevneishikh titulov russkogo khiazia,"
Istoriia SSSR 4 (1982): 150-59.
11. Idem, "Obrazovanie Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva i ego pervyi pravitel'," Voprosy
istorii, nos. 2-3: (1991), 6.
12. Kh. Lovraian'skii, Rus' i normany (Moscow: Progress, 1985), 207; cf. Novosel'tsev,
"Obrazovanie," 9-11.
13. Povest' vremennykh let, 19; Novgorodskaia Pervaia letopis' (Moscow-Leningrad:
AN SSSR, 1950), 106.

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 396 Russian Histoiy/Histoire Russe

gan war first against the Drevlians, the Sla

Dnepr, on the Kievan side, and only after
expansion on the left bank, in the zone
Severians were first, and Oleg "laid on th
them to pay it to the Khazars for he was their enemy (884). The
Radimichians were next and also became tributaries of Oleg. The land of the
Drevlians was not included in the Russian land (in narrow sense): the name
of the retinue of Oleg and Igor—Rus'—given first to Kiev as princely capital,
spread only on the territories which had been under the influence of the
Khazars. So the Russian princes spread their claims from title of the
Khazarian ruler to real territories.
The historical sources give no information about the reaction of the kha
ganate, but numismatics does. Thomas Noonen has shown that the first crisis
in the transmission of Arabian silver via the territory of the Khaganate to
Eastern Europe occurred in the last quarter of the ninth century.14 The flow of
silver renewed in the beginning of the tenth century, but it went not via
Khazaria, but from the Samanid state via Bulgaria on the Middle Volga, the
result of a Khazarian blockade of Russian trade. Only in the tenth century did
the first hoards of dirhems appear in Kiev. In the ninth century the Middle
Dnepr area was out of the sphere of Russian-Oriental trade.
The last but not least source of our knowledge about the fates of the
Normans and the Khazars in the south of Rus' is archaeology. The archaeo
logical material refutes the historiographical myth about the founding of Kiev
in the sixth century: actual early town complexes, including town yards,
hoards, and the necropolis are dated from the tenth century (or, perhaps, the
end of the ninth century).15 One may presume the existence of a town in the
ninth century, taking into account the data of the Primary Chronicle. Among
the early archaeological material the data from old excavations is significant:
in the necropolis a group of burials which employed the "Saltovo" culture
ritual was discovered.16 That is not surprising, since the Saltovo culture was
the culture of the population of Khazaria; the whole region Kozarie is known
in Kiev from the Chronicle (944)—Omelian Pritsak in his commentaries on
the famous Hebrew-Khazarian letter of the tenth century from Kiev connects
Kopyrev konets (Kievan district) with the Turkish (Khazarian) tribe of the
Kabyrs.17 One should add the Ugorskoie site near Kiev, connected with the

14. Th. Noonen, "The First Major Silver Crisis in Russia and the Baltic c. 875 - c. 900,"
Hikuin 11, 41-50.
15. See on dendrodates, Novoe v arkheologii Kieva (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1981), 447
50.

16. M. K. Karger, Drevnii Kiev, 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1958), 1:136-37.

17. N. Golb, and O. Pritsak, Khazarian-Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca:
Cornell Univ. Press, 1982), 56-57.

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Normans and the Khazars in the south of Rus' 397

advance of the Hungarians from Khazaria to Pannonia at th

century: Oleg and Igor with their retinue stayed there bef
Kiev. It is only natural that Saltovo-Khazarian tradition (
Pechenegian) is evident in the material culture of Kiev, inc
tion of Saltovo belt buckles and other things.18 This tradi
customs of the Russian retinue, judging by the finds of
ness, weapons, as well as by some ritual features in the cha
Kievan and other cemetaries.
Ihe chamber graves themselves, as most scnoiars now aamit, are or
Scandinavian origin. The difference between two kinds of wooden grave con
struction—framework and post construction—has no ethnic significance. The
rituals and the positioning of burial objects are identical in all the chamber
graves. The diffusion of chamber graves is very significant. Fifteen graves of
the tenth century are known in Kiev itself, later—in the tenth-eleventh cen
turies—some graves appeared in the Kiev area in Vyshgorod (a princely town
in the middle of the tenth century), Kitaiev and other nearby sites on the
right bank. On the left bank, at the same time as in Kiev, chamber graves ap
peared between the Dnepr and Desna rivers around Chernigov and in the more
distant sites—Kvetun' and Levenki in the borderland between the
Radimichians and Severians. The diffusion of chamber graves corresponds
entirely to Nasonov's reconstruction of the Russian land, excluding
Pereiaslavl' region. The majority of the chamber graves date from the middle
of the tenth - second half of the tenth century. Their spread through the Desna
River basin may be compared with the activities of Olga, who founded the
system of pogosts—sites for a retinue—on the Desna in 947.
Further diffusion of chamber graves on the right bank of the Dnepr in
clude Korosten' (one grave) and Volyn'. These graves mark the activities of
the Russian princes in the lands of the Drevlians (note the story of Igor's
death in the Primary Chronicle [945] and his tomb near Korosten') and
Volyn' during Vladimir's rule.19 The diffusion of chamber graves in Old
Rus' as a whole shows the formation of state ties (including the systems of
pogosts) from Ladoga, the Upper Dnepr (Gnezdovo) and the Volga
(Timerevo) to Kiev, Chernigov and other centers. The earliest chamber grave
(end of the ninth-beginning of the tenth century) was discovered in Ladoga,
the only one found there. A concentration of chamber graves is characteristic
for the Kievan and Chernigov areas in the middle of the tenth century. This
is connected with the first stages in the formation of the princely domain.

18. Novoe v arkheologii Kieva, 77.

19. See A. P. Motsa, "Srubnie grobnitsy iuzhnoi Rusi," Problemy arkheologii iuzhnoi Rusi
(Kiev, 1990), 99-107.

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
398 Russian History/Histoire Russe

Chernigov itself is especially interesting

in the tenth century are unknown, but the
lis—Chernaia Mogyla and Gulbishche—cha
main centers of state power in Russia of
Earlier attempts to attribute these barrow
Severian nobility are unsatisfactory
Chernigov, and parallels in the rituals of t
with the Scandinavian great barrows of G
center of state power between Kiev and N
The great barrows contain cremations wit
cauldrons. A Scandinavian figurine of a si
Mogyla. These two groups of mounds ar
Scandinavian features, however.20 The sp
(and harness) in a heap has parallels not in
The oldest variant is known in Voznesenka
The ritual complex with the cauldron an
includes two famous rhytions (drinking h
characteristic of the art of the steppe. Th
"competition" of two archers—has a par
Kotsky site, where two fighters have the
them has a braid, the other long hair. A br
riors, for only the kagan had the right t
spoon may represent the struggle betwee
rival. Possibly a variant of this motif (a c
see on the rhytion from Chernigov.
This example of the influence of Kha
Orlov has demonstrated the strong influen
tive traditions of the Middle Dnepr area.2
was significant, too. In the chamber grav
well as in Gnezdovo) the position of a h
Scandinavian (at the feet), but nomadic (a
sign of the cultural and ethnic mixture in
of the Normans in Russia, the participatio
in Russian ritual practice and the formation
This synthesis of Scandinavian and Khaz
did not signify complete harmony. The r

20. V. la. Petrukhin, "K problème formirovaniia

Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR (Moscow
21. P. N. Tret'iakov, U istokov drevnerusskoi na
22. R. S. OrtöV, "Srednevekovaia traditsiia khud
vv.," Kul'tura i iskusstvo srednevekogo goroda (Mo

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Normans and the Khazars in the south of Rus' 399

continued during the tenth century (compare the data

letters). Maybe this rivalry explains the situation i
Sixteen km. from Chemigov on the way to Kiev th
cant site in Shestovitsa with a Scandinavian chamber
the necropolis. This pogost on the Desna was evident
Kiev controlled the Chernigov area. It disappeared af
against Khazariia: the rout of the Kaganate eliminate
nants of the Khazarian population in the Chernigov a
Sviatoslav began his campaign in 964 with th
Russian princes. First he conquered the last Slavoni
rule, the Viatichians. The natural base for the mar
along the Desna with its pogosts. The circular rout
Atil, the Northern Caucasus (and maybe Tmutaraka
River, and the Viatichians again might be connecte
nomadic area of the kagan himself. If so, the desire o
the Khazarian legacy came true.23 The attempt to a
"the South Slavonic," to establish the center of the
led to the death of warrior-prince Sviatoslav. But t
domain in the Middle Dnepr area, which had been c
the first Russian princes, was sufficiently strong to
Sviatoslav in the Balkans.

In 968 the Pechenegs, taking advantage of the absence of the prince from
Kiev, besieged the town. Olga sent to the "other side" of the Dnepr, to the
left bank, and the chief of a retinue. Commander Pretich, came to help. After
his parley with the Pecheneg khan, Pretich gave him Russian weapons and
received as a gift a horse, a sabre, and arrows. The Chronicle here gives a
clear example of the formation of the retinue culture.24 Nasonov believed that
the commander from the left bank of the Dnepr had his residence in the main
center of this land—Chernigov—and was the vassal of the Kievan prince. We
may extend this idea and suggest that the great barrows of Chernigov (as well
as Gnezdovo) belonged to the family of the princely military commander.
These burials were performed according to three traditions—Old Russian
(Slavonic), Scandinavian (Norman) and Khazarian. These traditions were
characteristic of the whole culture of the Russian retinue. The same traditions
are reflected in the Old Russian lexicon, especially in social terminology; so
O.-R. kniaz' (prince) corresponded to the Khazarian title kagan; the early
meaning of the word Rus' corresponded to O.-R. druzhina (retinue) and was
of Scandinavian origin. In the treaty of Sviatoslav with the Greeks (971) the
retinue was divided into various parts—boiare, gridi (from O.-N. gridi), sot

23. Cf. S. A. Pletneva, Khazary, 2-e izd. (Moscow: Nauka, 1986), 49-50.
24. Povest' vremennykh let, 1: 47-48.

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
400 Russian History/Histoire Russe

skii, desiatskii (from O.-R. "hundred" a

ethnocultural components were the same.
This synthesis of traditions was not onl
ence from different ethnic components o
the result of the requirement of the Russ
ogy and customs to overcome Slavonic
was evident too. The title kagan is the m
Russian metropolitan Ilarion in the first h
tantly for Vladimir and Iaroslav. These p
Khazaria. Meanwhile, Vladimir (as well as
the Normans as aliens: he deceived the Va
Kiev and did not give them tribute. The
Jews among other aliens during his "choic
the formation of the princely domain, th
fortresses on the Desna, Vostra, Trubezh,
after this—Pereiaslavl', a new town on the
tions was designed to protect the Russian
gathered the "best men" from the north
Viatichians to populate the new south
Normans and the Khazars, from having be
factors in the history of the Russian state.

Moscow State University

This content downloaded from

159.146.34.189 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 10:35:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms