R—S [VIII:618b]

The rapid ethnic, political and social evolution of this term and the people(s) which it denoted during the 3rd-4th/9th-10th centuries produced a series of temporally multi-layered, occasionally contradictory notices in the classical Islamic geographical literature. In contemporary Byzantine sources it appears as ÅR«w (which may, indeed, be the source of the Arabic form, Barthold, Arabskie

The origins of the

The origin and etymology of this term/ethnonym and thus, it is averred, the ethnic affiliations of the people or socio-mercantile group that first bore this name in the Islamic and other sources of the 3rd- 4th/9th-10th century, are much debated. It has long been argued (cf. Thomsen) that Rus' is the Slavic rendering of the Baltic Finnic term for “Swede”: Finn. Ruotsi, Est.

, Vot. Rôtsi, Liv. R'
uot
'
à
(but cf. Volga Finnic: Mari Ruà
, Udm. Zu´
, Komi-Perm. Ro´
“Russian” and Samoyedic [Nenets] Låtsa
,
Låsa
“Russian”. There have been two centuries of occasionally heated discussion of this issue between “Normanists” (those favouring a Scandinavian origin of the Rus' and by extension the Rus' state) and their opponents, the “Anti-Normanists.” The Classical Normanist position, from the philological perspective, posits: Slav. Rus' < Finn. Routsi < Old Norse robper
,
robpsmenn
,
robpskarlar
“rowers, seamen” associated with the coastal region of Sweden, Roslagen (see

- | [VIII:619a] , and in Jenkins et al ., Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio. Commentary. Historical evidence in support of the Scandinavian origin of the Rus' is adduced from the account in the Annales Bertiniani, s.a. 838-9, of an embassy from the “Rhos Chacanus” ( of the Rus') to Constantinople. Unable to return to their homeland because of nomadic pressure in the Western Eurasian steppes, the embassy was diverted to the Frankish court at Ingelheim. There, to the consternation of the Franks, it was discovered that the mysterious Rhos were, indeed, Swedes. A century later, Liudprand of Cremona appears to confirm this ethnic identification in noting in his listing of the northern peoples the “Rusios whom we call by another name the Northmen” (Rusios, quos alio nos nomine Nordmannos apellamus). Elsewhere he further explains that there is a certain people established in the North whom, because of the characteristics of their physical appearance (a qualitate corporis) “the Greeks call RoÊsiow, Rusios, but we, however, because of their location call Northmen (Nordmanni).” On the basis of these and other connections made in contemporary sources with the Viking world, the formation of the Rus' state is thus seen as part of that outpouring of Viking energy aimed initially at gaining control of vital international trade routes and ending in some instances as conquest and colonisation. The name
Rås
does, indeed, figure in some accounts of Viking raids on Muslim Spain. Al-, s.a. 229/843-4, tells of the attack of the “ who are called ” on Seville (). “” [q.v.] was a term used rather broadly for pagans and more specifically for Zoroastrians and Norsemen. Al- also mentions “a nation of the ” who, before the year 300/912-3, had raided Andalus. He identified them with the and posited the Pontic region as their starting point. Ibn , in his account of the destruction of the cities at the hands of the in 358/968-9 (more probably several years earlier, this date represents the year in which Ibn first heard of these events), remarks that after their despoiling of “they came at once to the land of and Andalus ...” He then refers to earlier expeditions, commenting that they, the , “are the ones who of old went to Andalus and then to .” He also notes that “the ships of the and Turks” sometimes attack Spain. This alliance of Rus' and [q.v.], who were often at odds, while not unknown, is all the more remarkable in that it implies involvement in sea-borne expeditions. A most dramatic turn of events in activities in the Mediterranean occurred in 860, when the “Rhos” mounted an unsuccessful naval assault on Constantinople from which the Byzantines believed themselves to have been spared only through divine intercession. The Patriarch Photius (858-67, 878-86), an astute and well-informed statesman, referred to these invaders as an ¨ynow êgnvston a hitherto “unknown people” (see Vasiliev). The who attacked the Byzantine capital appear to have come from Kiev (Vasiliev) rather than from Western or Northern Europe. Almost a century later, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (d. A.D. 959) in his De administrando imperio, written ca. 948-52, gives an account of how the Rus' merchants travel from Novgorod to Kiev and then down the Dnieper and into the Black Sea to trade with Constantinople. The names of the Dnieper rapids are reported in both Rhos (ÅRvsist‹) and Slavic (Sklabhnist‹). The “Rhos” forms are clearly Scandinavian.

G. Vernadsky proferred an Iranian origin: Rus < | [VIII:619b] Alanic

through a conjectured relationship of the Alans with the early (Eastern) Slavic tribal confederation of the Antes. The Varangians (Old Norse Vaeringi, pl. Vaeringjar, Rus'. Baprisi
(Varag) Mod. Russ. Baprisi
(Varyag), Arab. Warank, Greek Barãggoi < várar “pledge, oath, guarantee” = “men of the pledge”, he argues, who in the 8th- 9th century became the dominant force here, merged with this grouping and assumed their name. This dilution of strict Normanism has found few adherents. Anti- Normanists have countered with a variety of theories, both philological and historical. Perhaps best grounded are the Slavist Anti-Normanists who point to the presence of toponyms and hydronyms with the element rus-/ros- in the Eastern Slavic lands. These, in turn, may be associated with the Slavic or Balto-Slavic *rud/*rus “reddish, ruddy, blond” (e.g. Ukr. rusËy
“blond”, Lith.
raåsvas
“red”, cf. Latin russus etc., see P. Rospond, Mavrodin). H. Paszkiewicz (The origin of Russia, 1954, repr. New York 1969, 143-4), a Normanist, suggested that this was the Slavic name of the Norsemen, so called because of their ruddy complexion.

Eastern Slavic sources do not help to clarify the situation. The later Kievan Rus' tradition associates “Rus” with the south, i.e. the Middle Dnieper Kievan region (cf.

', i). The Primary Chronicle (also called the Chronicle of Nestor), however, in its introductory genealogical comments places the “Rus” among the peoples in Japheth's part of the world, in this case the northern, Finnic ethnic groupings. Further on, it includes them in a listing of the “Varangians, Swedes, Normans (Ourmane), Gotlanders, Angles, Galicians, Italians (VolçÕ9va
), Romans, Germans, etc. Clearly, they are associated with the Germanic North. The Chronicler, often evincing a Byzantinocentric viewpoint, comments (PSRL, i, 17) that the Rus' land began to be so-called at the time of the accession of the Emperor Michael III (852). In another passage (PSRL, i, 23) discussing Oleg's conquest of Kiev, traditionally dated to 882, the Rus' are again associated with the North: ”he (sc. Oleg) had with him Varangians, Slovene (sc. a tribe associated with Novgorod) and the rest who are called Rus'.“ Elsewhere, however, the Chronicle (PSRL, i, 25-6), s.a. 898, notes the Polyane, the Eastern Slavic tribe most closely associated with Kiev, ”who are now called Rus'“ (nËne

zovoma¹ü
Rus'). Still further on, the Chronicler attempts to explain these discrepancies thus (PSRL, i, 28): ”the Slavic nation (sloven'
skËy

¹üzËk
) and the Rus' (rouskËy
) are one; for it was called Rus' from the Varangians (ot
Var¹üg
bo
prozvaê9as¹ü
Rous'yu), but first they were Slavs, although they were called Polyane, nonetheless, they were of Slavic speech ...“

In addition to philological argumentation and to the ethnographic and ethnogenetic data offered by our sources, the Normanist position is based largely on the Primary Chronicle's “historical” account of the genesis of the Rus' state. According to it, in 859 (the dating, at best, is off by several years), the Varangians “from across the sea” levied tribute on the Finnic

', the Novgorodian Slovene, the Finnic Merya and the Slavic , while the Slavic Polyane, Severyane and to their south were tributaries of the . In 860-2, the Varangians were expelled, but the northern groupings proved unable to govern themselves. As a consequence, the Varangians, led by Ryurik, who settled in Novgorod, and his two brothers, Sineus and Truvor, were summoned to rule over them. Ryurik brought with him “the whole of Rus'.” From “these Varangians it was | [VIII:620a] called the land of Rus'” (PSRL, i, 19-20). Two Varangian subordinates of Ryurik, Askold and Dir, then came to the south, taking Kiev. Al- (d. ca. 345/956-7) in his Muråù3
(iii, 64 = § 908), mentions the “king al- [Dayr], first among the kings of the .” The occasionally suggested identification of al- with the Varangian Dir is questionable. It is much more likely that, despite the similarity in names, al- 's al- was a Central European Slavic ruler and his contemporary. With Ryurik's death, sometime between 870-9, power was given to his kinsman, Oleg < helgi. Oleg is presented in the traditional narrative as the guardian of Ryurik's son, Igor'. In 880-2, Oleg took Kiev, killing Askold and Dir. Another Rus' tradition preserved in the Novgorodian First Chronicle (NPL, 107, 434), depicts Igor' as the conqueror of Kiev, with Oleg merely as his general. The charismatic Oleg, about whom legends imputing prophetic abilities developed, has also been identified with the

hlgw of the Geniza Hebrew document, the so-called “Cambridge” or “Schechter” document. This *Helgu, the “king of Rusia”, perished in the aftermath of an unsuccessful raid on Byzantium. According to the Primary Chronicle, Oleg, after taking Kiev then set about conquering the neighbouring Slavic tribes. In 907, he launched his first raid against Constantinople. Igor', according to the Chronicle, began to rule in 913. There are, indeed, serious problems of chronology and questions regarding the identity of the personages involved. Pritsak, for example, posits a conflation of several Helgi/Olegs, real and mythical. Nonetheless, it is generally accepted that the account has some underlying historical basis.

The Anti-Normanists minimise the importance of the non-autochthonous elements. They contend that in the 6th-7th century there existed in the Middle Dnieper region the Polyane tribal union which took the name Ros or Rus deriving from a toponym or hydronym. Some support for this may be found in the “Bavarian Geographer”, an anonymous work composed before 821, which places the “Ruzzi” next to the “Caziri” (

). The power of this Kiev-centred state, according to Soviet Anti-Normanists, grew as reflected in the 838-9 embassy to Constantinople. The Swedes noted here, they suggest, were merely Vikings in Rus' service. The tale of the summoning of the Varangians, they further argue, is mythical. Ryurik may have been a real figure, but his ethnic affiliation is unclear.

The Normanist vs. Anti-Normanist controversy cannot be resolved on the basis of the currently available written sources. Archaeological evidence, similarly, does not provide decisive proof. A recent assessment of the data from a Scandinavianist perspective concludes that the Rus' were Scandinavians, but constituted only one element in a mixed population. The Vikings called Rus'

“Sweden the Great”, indicating an almost proprietary sense in an area of economic expansion and opportunity. The other Old Norse term for the region was Gord
/
Gorºum
in the 10th-11th century and Garºaríki
, “kingdom of (fortified) towns or steads”, in the 12th-13th century.

The Islamic sources, while not providing the conclusive information needed to resolve these questions, shed some light on the early Rus'. Genealogical tradition, as reflected in the anonymous

, dated 520/1126, presents the eponymous

as the brother of and the son of Japheth. Dissatisfied with his own place of abode, wrote to his brother and “asked for a corner of his country.” | [VIII:620b] He obtained an island, difficult of access, with soggy soil and foul air. These and other themes are drawn from information that was part of the body of Islamic geographical literature of the 3rd-4th/9th-10th centuries (see below). , in his translation of al-, s.a. 22/643, reports the words of , the ruler of Darband/ al- [q.v.], to the commander of the Arab advance forces, b. , to the effect that he was “between two enemies the and the . These peoples are the enemies of the entire world and, in particular, of the Arabs.” This seems very early, indeed, for a Rus' presence in this region. The , of course, were already an important factor in the North Caucasus. The pairing of the with them as enemies of the Islamic world has an anachronistic ring. Nonetheless, some scholars are willing to accept its historicity (cf. Lewicki, ZródÑa
arabskie do dziejów
sÑowiaÔszczyzny
; Togan, Ibn
Fa'l§n
's Reisebericht. Novosel'tsev cites several other references to the dating to the time of I (531-79), e.g. in al- , who built fortifications against the “Turks, and .” These, too, are most probably anachronistic. The earliest reliable reference to in the Islamic sources is perhaps to be seen in the “mountain of the ” from which the river drws flows, noted in al- ^w's -årat
al-
ar'
; Novosel'tsev).

One of the earliest and most important notices is found in Ibn

, writing probably ca. 272/885-6, on the “route of the

merchants” who brought goods from Northern Europe/Northwestern Russia to . It interrupts a notice on the route of the [q.v.], a Jewish merchant company, which appears to have been supplanted by the . Noonan has recently suggested that the latter may have initiated these contacts as early as A.D. 800. A hoard of coins found at Peterhof, near St. Petersburg, contains twenty coins (, Arabo- and Arab dirhams, the latest dated to 189/804-5) with graffitti in Arabic, Turkic (probably ) runic, Greek and Scandinavian runic (more than half the total). This may be viewed as evidence for the existence of the route described in Ibn by the late 2nd/early 9th century (see T. Noonan, When did
Rås
/Rus' merchants first visit Khazaria and Baghdad?). In Ibn 's famous account, the are described as “a kind (
ù3ins
) of the ,” a sentence that has often been taken to indicate that they are a Slavic tribe. The Arabic is much more imprecise. The primary meaning of
ù3ins
is “kind, type, variety, species.” The term (sing. < Gr. Sklãbow) while often used to designate the Slavs, was also employed to denote the whole of the fair-haired, ruddy-complexioned population of Central, Eastern and North-eastern Europe. In mediaeval Greek and Latin, sclavus became synonymous with “slave” (the English world [< French esclave] deriving ultimately from the ethnic designation). Our source further notes that these merchants “transport beaver hides, the pelts of the black fox and swords from the farthest reaches of the to the Sea of . The ruler of takes a tithe of them. If they wish, they go to the (ms. Oxford, Bodleian, Huntington 433, fol. 74b

, ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale 2213, fol. 49a

, ms. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 783, fol. 65a

, see also Golden, Khazar studies),

*tnys river (variously read/identified as the ”Tanais“ [TãnaÛw] i.e. the Don (so De Goeje),

yitil, i.e. Itil (= Volga, see Lewicki, ZródÑa
) or

TËn
(= Don, see Marquart, or Donets', see Pritsak, An Arabic text on the trade | [VIII:621a] route of the corporation of ar-
Rås
in the second half of the ninth century), the River of the . They travel to /, the city of the whose ruler takes a tithe of them. Then they betake themselves to the Sea of and they alight on whichever of its shores they wish. ... Sometimes, they carry their goods from by camel to . slaves translate for them. They claim that they are Christians and pay the
ù3izya
.” Much has also been made of the use of “” translators, attesting, it is argued, a common Slavic tongue. Although we do not know with certainty what language was used, it may well have been Slavic, the most practical lingua franca in Central and Eastern Europe. b. [q.v.], the 4rd/10th century Jewish traveller, who journeyed to Central Europe and the Western Slavic lands, remarked that “the majority of the tribes of the North speak (most probably, here meaning Slavic) because of their commingling with them. Among them are the Germans (), Hungarians (), , and .” The 0udåd
, has preserved the tradition that among the “lives a group of Slavs who serve them” (see below). There is no doubt that the had very intimate ties with Slavic speakers and the Scandinavian-speaking element was certainly bilingual, if not completely slavicised by the late 10th century. Igor's son, Svyatoslav (d. 972) already bears a Slavic name. There were, it might also be noted, Slavic colonies in caliphal territories that presumably could have also provided speakers fluent in Slavic and Arabic. A variant of Ibn 's account, taken, perhaps, from a common source is found in Ibn al-. See also Pritsak, An Arabic text, and the earlier comments of Marquart, who suggest that the intellectual circle of Ibn al- 's father in served as this common source. Here, the merchants in question are designated as . After their arrival at the Sea of (most probably the Black Sea is meant here) and their payment of the tithe, they go to “ of the Jews” (cf. * of the Khazar “Cambridge” document = = Tmutorokan' /Tamatãrxa /Fanagour¤a; see literature cited in Lewicki, ZródÑa
). Then they turn towards the or they betake themselves from the Sea of the by this river, which is called the River of the , until they come to ...“ Ultimately, their goods may go as far as Rayy. The identification of the various waterways remains problematic. Al-, Muråù3
, remarks that the consist of ”numerous peoples of diverse kinds. Among them are a kind (
ù3ins
) called

al-
Låù9#§na
(or

*al-
Låù9ÿ9§na
) and they are the most numerous. They frequently visit, for the purpose of trade, the land of Spain [Andalus], Rome, Constantinople and the .“ The Låù9#§na
/
Låù9ÿ9ana
have been identified with the grouping noted as

al-
Kåù9k§na
by al- in his TanbÊh
, 141. These, in turn, have been viewed as garblings of

al-
Urdm§na
(cf. Marquart, who, while noting this possibility, preferred to view this as a corruption of al-
r§hd§niyya
/al-
r§ù9§niyya
; Minorsky, Kuda ezdili drevnie
rusË
?). Pritsak, following Kokovtsov, has suggested that the

Lwznyw of the ”Cambridge“ document, taken from an Arabic-script source

(låznÌyå
) is a corruption of

(lådm§nÊ
, see Golb and Pritsak) = Lo(r)dman = Nordman. Pritsak has, moreover, put forward an interesting thesis in explication of the Ibn / Ibn al- notices. The lands were primary sources for the slave trade (the ”river of the “ denoted the ”river of Slaves“ coming from the empire | [VIII:621b] via the Volga and Don rivers). The two major companies involved in this trade on an international level were the / (ca. 750) and the , who ultimately replaced them. Both were based in (southern) France (this is well-established for the , see Lewicki, ZródÑa
, who associates the mostly with trade in cloth). Kmietowicz, also places the ”most probably in France, though they were equally connected with Spain.“ He derives the term for this trading diaspora from raeda/rheda, the name for a type of vehicle, > veredarius ”messenger, courier, traveling merchant.“ The , according to Pritsak, were near Rodez: Rutenicis < Celto-Latin Ruteni/Ruti > Middle French Rusi, Middle Germ. Råzzi
(the source of Finnic Routsi). Unlike the , Pritsak argues, who as Jews enjoyed religious neutrality in the Mediterranean, the Rusi were obliged to seek a northern point of entry into Eastern Europe and the Baltic zone. They integrated themselves into the Frisian-Scandinavian world and by the late 8th century, developed a ”Danish“ type ”society of nomads of the sea.“ Ryurik was the Frisian Danish king Rørik. The Slavic and ”Rhos“ (Scandinavian) languages noted by Constantine Porphyrogenitus were simply two of the linguae francae used by this trading diaspora (Pritsak, Origin). While it might be noted that neither of the two passages make any reference to the slave trade, , as is well-known from the Arabic geographical literature, was a major source of slaves entering the eastern Islamic world and the were deeply involved in this trade.

The evidence is highly circumstantial at best. Given the complexities of their conjectured origins, it may, nonetheless, not be amiss to view the

at this stage of their development, as they began to penetrate Eastern Europe, not as an ethnos, in the strict sense of the term, for this could shift as new ethnic elements were added, but rather as a commercial and political organisation. The term was certainly associated with maritime and riverine traders and merchant-mercenaries/pirates of “” stock (Northern and Eastern European, Scandinavian, Slavic and Finnic).

The location of the

The tradition represented by Ibn Rusta,

and others (cf. al-, Muù3mal
, ; al-; Ibn , in Seippel; al-, see also discussion in , place the on an island of three days' journey in width in a lake (or a sea). It is densely wooded, damp, soggy and possessing foul, unhealthy air. (or rather his sources), followed by al-, puts the island's population at 100,000. Ibn and al- comment that the island is a “fortress” that protects them from their enemies. Some scholars are inclined to place this island in the north. Novgorod, it might be remembered, in Scandinavian tradition was termed Hólmgarºr
“Island-Garth” (Barthold, Arab izvest.; Novosel'tsev). Other suggestions include Aldeig-juborg, North-east Rus', Kiev, Tmutorokan' and the Taman peninsula (see literature in Golden, Question). al- , simply notes that they live on islands. This, however, may refer to a later time period. For example, al-, says that they have islands in the “Sea of ” (text has the corrupted form “” = Maeotis, the Sea of Azov). Al-, terms the Black Sea the “Sea of the ”, adding that the “inhabit the islands in it”. Al- , who is uncertain of the geography involved and is perhaps referring to the situation in his day, comments regarding the who raided Spain that they “reach their country from a gulf (Õ9alÊù3
”bay“ ? ”canal“?) which meets the Sea of , (but) not through the gulf in which are the bronze lighthouses. In my opinion—but God knows best—this gulf is connected to the Sea of and and this people is the ...” A more northerly orientation can be assumed from Ibn 's comment that the honey, wax and beaver furs brought to the Islamic world from actually come from the region around and . Indeed, some of the prized fur animals are only found “in these northern rivers which are near , and ” (see below). Al-, gives us some idea of the distances involved, informing us that “from to the first border of is 10 days' journey. From to it is about 20 days' journey.” The anonymous author of the 0udåd
, probably reporting the situation close to his own time (372/982) places the territory west of the “mountains of the .” To its south is the river (? ?), to the west are the and in the | [VIII:622b] north are the “Uninhabited Lands.” In contrast to the forbidding depiction of the island of the , the 0udåd
views the habitat as “extremely favoured by nature with regard to all the necessities (of life).” Indeed, Ibn Rusta, seemingly contradicting his remarks about the Rus' island but obviously referring to a different grouping of and perhaps conflating earlier and later traditions, notes that they have many towns. The “island” theme, in any event, most probably referred to only one grouping of .

By the late 9th century, there were three urban- territorial units associated with the Rus'. The

, following the tradition also found in al- and Ibn (a mélange of these and other traditions are also recorded in al-

), notes three subdivisions of the , each based on an urban centre: (1) Kåy§b§
(= Kiev, cf. the

[] of the 10th century Kievan letter, Golb and Pritsak, the K¤oba/K¤aba noted by Const. Porph., who mentions that the city is also called Sambatãw, the meaning of which is unclear (Pritsak, op. cit., 44, derives this term from Balkan Latin sambata “Saturday”, the principal market day. He further suggests that Kiev is based on the name of the vizierial family of ^w origin (< *kaoya “peculiar to the Iranian sacred ruling dynasty Kaway + -
§wa
”). This form arose in the late 9th century), and the Cuiewa of Western sources (Thietmar of Merseburg). Old Norse knew it as Kœnugarºr
“Boat-Garth”. This is the southernmost of the lands (“nearest to the Islamic lands”). It is also closest to and bigger than . A king resides in . (2) -al§wiyya
(-al§ba
in the 0udåd
). Barely commented on by al- (who says that it is the farthest from them) and Ibn , the 0udåd
remarks that it is a “pleasant town from which, whenever peace reigns, they go for trade to the districts of .” Only Ibn notes the presence of a king in it. Al- says that it is on the top of a mountain. The are clearly the Slovene of the Lake Il'men region and Novgorod. The latter was actually founded ca. 930, the earlier “Novgorod” is perhaps to be identified with the “Ryurikovo ”, to the south which contains some Scandinavian finds (Clarke and Ambrosiani). It continued to have a strong trade orientation towards the Finno-Ugric forest peoples, competing here with Volga up to the Mongol conquest. (3) Arï9§niyya
(< *Rothania? Ruthenia?) whose city is $rï9§
(n) (0udåd
:

"rt§b
, recte

was noted for its secretiveness and inhospitality (killing all strangers who enter). Yet they actively engaged in trade bringing their goods to the outside world. According to al- and Ibn , they exported black sable, black fox, beaver pelts, lead and mercury (see also al-, 917-18). The 0udåd
also ascribes to them the production of “very valuable blades and swords which can be bent in two, but as soon as the hand is removed they return to their former state.” Al- locates it four days' travel from both and . (iyya) is probably to be located near the Volga or in the Volga-Oka mesopotamia (hence some efforts have been made to identify them with one or another Finno-Ugric people, cf. Swoboda). It might be noted in this connection that Arabo-Jewish documents refer to the Volga as Arï9§
and the furs imported from there were termed arï9Ê
(Goitein). It is unclear which, if any, of these centres may be identified with the .

Al-

gives the names of a large number of cities in “” and its immediate envirions: (), (Sakov), , (Galicia, ), , (Turov), | [VIII:623a] (Pereyaslavl'), Qnw (Kanev?), , , (on the /Dnieper = Kiev?), , Usiyya, , , Armn, , at the mouth of the river Danast/Dnestr (some of these are discussed in Lewicki, Polska i kraje
s¬siednie
w
áwietle
Ksiegi Rogera geografa arabskiego z xii w. al- Idrîsî'ego, and Beylis.

Relations with neighbours

The Islamic sources paint a picture of largely bellicose relations with their neighbours. The

reports that “they war with all the infidels who live round them, and come out victorious.” Ibn Rusta,

and al-, note the as the principal victims. The come by boat, capture them and send them off to the slave markets of and . They also take their foodstuffs since they have no cultivated fields of their own. adds that many agree to take service with the , working as servants (confirmed by the 0udåd
, loc. cit.: “among them lives a group of Slavs who serve them”). It has often been assumed that these were the servants who functioned as translators for the merchants who came to noted in Ibn (see above). How these translators acquired Arabic, if this was, in fact, the language to which they translated, is unclear. b. remarks that the commerce of the “frequently comes by land and sea to the and Constantinople.” The in question here are probably the Western Slavs. That same author, 5, reports that the also attack the Pruss (), crossing over to attack them in ships “from the West.” These would appear to be operating in the Baltic. Prior to the 10th century and were to be found in the military service and as the servants of the , living in the capital. The judiciary made provisions for its ethnically variegated subject population. There were seven judges, two each for the Jews, Muslims and Christians and “one for the and who render judgment according to pagan judicial principles (bi-
Èukm
al-
ù3§hiliyya
), the judgment of reason” (al-, Muråù3
; al-). Al-, TanbÊh
, mentions groups of , who like the Armenians, Bulgarians () and , had entered the Byzantine military service. By the late 10th century, contingents, whose assistance, unlike the free-lance mercenaries already found in Byzantine service, had been requested by Constantinople, were used to suppress domestic rebellions in Anatolia (see below). - relations (the entered the Pontic steppe, driving out the Proto-Hungarian tribal union in the late 3rd/end of the 9th-beginning of the 10th century) were very complex. In 915, the first of a number of Rus'- “peaces” were arranged, but by 920, Igor' had launched a campaign against the nomads. Thereafter, the periods of hostility largely overshadowed the periods of more pacific interaction. As a consequence, Ibn 's statement, that the are the “fighting power” (ê9awka
) of the and their allies (
aÈl§f
)“ seems quite remarkable, as does also his statement (see above) that and ships attacked Spain. Minorsky, Kuda ezdili, suggested a very different sense of this passage, translating ê9awka
as ”thorn“ and emending
aÈl§f
to aÕ9l§f
”opponents.“ This seems closer to the general tenor of Rus'- relations. Although the had ceased to be a threat to the Kievan state and had largely been driven into the Byzantine borderlands by the and by his day, al- made note of the warfare of these nomads on | [VIII:623b] Rus' and Byzantium. He also was aware of the internecine strife that had become increasingly characteristic of Rus' domestic politics, commenting that the ”have wars and constant dissension with their own kind (ma#a

ù3insihim
) and with lands that are close to them“ (904, 960). Allusions to similar problems may be seen in the statement of the Muù3mal
that ”they do not favour one another.“ Ibn Rusta and , however, using notices that go back to an earlier era, stress their unity, cf. Ibn Rusta: ”if a people (ã§"ifa
) goes to war against them, they all go on campaign. They are not disunited, but are as one hand against their foes until they defeat them.“ He also comments that they are less fearless in combat when fighting on foot rather than from ships, their favoured mode of warfare. These two authors also note their use of ”swords of Solomon“ (al-
suyåf
al-
sulaym§niyya
), which were similar to ”Frankish“ blades, but less ornate. They appear to have been produced in the land of in (see Lewicki, ZródÑa
).

Customs and religion

Our sources are impressed with the spirit of independence and enterprise inculcated among the

from birth. Ibn Rusta, followed by , al- and the Muù3mal
, reports that “when a baby boy is born to one of them, he sets before the baby boy a drawn sword and places it between his hands and says to him 'I leave you no goods as inheritance. You have nothing except what you may acquire for yourself by this, your sword.'” (in Kawerau) adds that the daughter receives her father's inheritance, while the son is given a sword and told “your father acquired his wealth by the sword, imitate and follow him.” This same sense of rugged individualism was reflected in their treatment of the ill. Ibn remarks that “when one of them falls ill, they pitch a tent for him, in a secluded place away from them, and they cast him away there. They place with him quantities of bread and water” and leave him alone until he either recovers or dies. Transgressors were dealt with harshly. Thieves, this same source informs us, were hung by the neck from stout trees until dead and then left to rot.

This same author was quick to note their human frailties. He appears to contradict, at least in part, the report of their personal neatness noted above, declaring them the “dirtiest of God's creations” because of their lack of personal hygiene. To this failing were added inordinate suspicion and covetousness. Ibn Rusta and

report as an example, in this regard, that they go out to perform their natural functions only when accompanied by several friends to stand guard. Otherwise, a man on his own would be killed. So great is their distrust and perfidy that if one acquires even a little wealth “his brothers and friends who are with him crave it, try to kill him and dispossess him of it” ( Ibn Rusta). How much of this is accurate and how much travellers' tall tales highlighting the greed of the “barbarian” is difficult to gauge. It is highly doubtful, however, that the Rus' could have been as effective a commercial and | [VIII:625a] military force as they were, given such a state of bellum omnium. Ibn was also shocked by their lack of modesty (engaging in sexual intercourse with their slave-girls while their friends looked on).

This same source has much to say about their beliefs. When ships arrive, he reports, they each come out bearing bread, meat, onions, milk and wine. They proceed to a long piece of wood planted in the ground on which has been carved the face of a man. It is surrounded by smaller idols and other long pieces of wood planted into the ground. They prostrate themselves before the large image, which they address as “Lord” and announce what goods they have brought. They conclude their devotions by saying “I want you to provide me with a merchant who has many

and dirhams, who will buy from me everything that I want him to buy, and he will not contradict me in what I say.” If business is good, more offerings are made. In especially good circumstances, sheep and cattle are slaughtered, much of which are consumed, at night, by dogs. Ibn , occasionally adopting a mocking tone and anxious to display their ignorance to his readers, reports that nonetheless, he who made the offering says “my lord is satisfied with me and has eaten my gift”.

According to the tradition preserved in the accounts of Ibn Rusta and

, their shamans or “medicine men” (aãibb§"
/
ãabÊb§n
), enjoyed a very high status. They could pass judgment on the king and govern them. They could select as sacrifice to their gods whomsoever they pleased, human and animal. These unfortunates were hung by the neck until dead. The commandments of their “medicine men” must be carried out ( Ibn Rusta; ). We have relatively brief descriptions of their funerary customs in Ibn Rusta, and the 0udåd
. Ibn Rusta reports that “when one of their important people (ù3alÊl
minhum) dies, they dig him a grave, like a spacious house, and place him in it. Together with him, they place his personal clothing (ï9iy§b
badanihi), gold bracelets which he wore, much food, vessels with drink and gold money also. They bury with him in the grave the wife that he loved (best). She, after this (sc. his burial) is still alive. They seal up the door of the grave and she dies there.” Al- and al-, Muråù3
, also note that they cremate their dead, together with their wife or slave-girl, horses and finery. Al- further adds that “when the wife dies, the husband is not cremated. If one of the unmarried men dies, he is married after his demise, and the women request that they be cremated (with him) so that they may, according to their own thinking, enter among the souls of paradise.” Ibn , however, provides us with one of the most extraordinary, ethnographically detailed depictions of the funeral of a chief. The customs were related and explained to him on a number of occasions (“they told me of the things they did with their chiefs at their death, the least of which is cremation”). He also appears to have witnessed one such spectacular funeral. The deceased was placed in a grave over which a roof was erected. He remained there for 10 days while new clothing was fashioned for him. When a great man dies they ask his household “who of you will die with him?” Those who answer in the affirmative are duty-bound to fulfill this commitment. The majority of those who agreed to do so were slave-girls. One of the slave-girls was then given this honour. The deceased was to be taken out of his grave and placed in a special structure on a boat which was taken out of the river and mounted on a kind of wooden holding frame. The corpse, because of the cold was remarkably well-preserved. An old woman | [VIII:625b] called the “angel of death,” was now put in charge. The deceased was placed in the special structure. Food (bread, meat, onions) was placed before him. A dog was sacrificed, cut in half and thrown on the boat. Two cows were also sacrificed (as well as other animals). The slave-girl who was to die with her master then had sexual intercourse with her master's relatives or boon companions and she was given copious amounts of wine so that she became dullwitted (taballadat). The men outside began to strike their shields with wooden sticks in order to drown her cries as she was strangled. A close relative of the deceased man, completely naked, set fire to the wood under the boat. The sacrificed slave-girl was placed beside her master. In response to Ibn 's questions, one of the explains their views: “You Arabs are stupid. You take the most loved and distinguished among you and dump them in the earth. The earth consumes them (as do also) insects and worms. But we cremate them in fire, in the flick of an eye, and he enters Paradise immediately.” A small burial mound was then set up on the site in which the boat was burned. A large piece of Õ9adang
wood was placed on the spot and the deceased's name was written on it as well as that of the king of the . This Õ9adang
wood was especially associated with the lands (see ,
#Aù3§"ib
al-
maÕ9låÎ§t
). The corpses of slaves were simply abandoned to dogs and birds of prey.

Although

/ was famous for its inhospitality to strangers, killing all outsiders who came to it (al- and al- ), the other areas of ' were not. Ibn Rusta says that they were generous to their visitors. They were ferocious, however, in exacting revenge (Muù3mal
).