4. The true purpose of history is to help us make sense
of the present. A chance to look at the earliest years of
history we can see present-day events from another angle.
Yevgen Nakonechnyi’s book is a means to put different
epochs into a chain of a logic narration. Analysis and
comprehension of the past facts are now of the greatest
importance, as Russian-Ukrainian relations are being
built on this basis. From this very point the official
Kremlin is imposing an idea that Ukrainians are “younger
brothers” of Russians, and they cannot claim to be fully
independent, and moreover the Ukrainian nation has
allegedly not been formed historically. With this purpose
opportunistic reasons are provided by Russian historians
to develop a chauvinistic world view of Russians. For
Ukrainians it is of great importance not to go as low as
to concentrate on mutual accusations and reproaches
but grounding on scientific knowledge and reasoning
show a real picture of the past. The fact is that “Rusyns”
(former name of Ukrainians) had been mentioned long
before Moskovia citizens, who several centuries later
started to call themselves “Russian”. This book provides
a complete picture with the help of historical parallelisms,
interconnections of nations of our planet in different
periods, depicting objectively the continuous history
process of Slavic nations, as well as those historical
events that made a basis for Ukraine’s future struggle for
independence.
Georgiy Zubko,
Founder of NGO Ukrainian Team of Reformers
5. Contents
I. THE NAME (translated by S.Andrusyshyna)...................................................7
IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME (translated by S. Andrusyshyna)...............................21
III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS (translated by N. Pavliuk)....................... 30
IV. ZALISSIA (translated by N. Pavliuk).......................................................... 46
V. “ELDER BROTHER ” (translated by N. Pavliuk)........................................54
VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY” (translated by M. Nikulin).................66
VII. THE HATEFUL ETHNONYM (translated by M. Feofentova).................85
VIII. “KRESTIANIN” (translated by M. Feofentova) ...................................... 92
IX. THE EMERGENCE OF MOSCOVIA (translated by N. Pavliuk)..............99
X. PRESERVED TRADITIONS (translated by S. Andrusyshyna, Yu. Osokina).....110
XI. THE MOSKOVITES (translated by A. Lakhtikova).................................120
XII. SCRIBERS OF FENER(translated by S. Andrusyshyna)........................129
XIII. MOSKAL (translated by Yu. Vereta)....................................................... 139
XIV. MOSCOVIA CHANGES ITS NAME (translated by Ye. Lobanov)...... 150
XV. RUSYNS (translated by Ye. Lobanov)..................................................... 155
XVI. POSSESSIVE ADJECTIVE (translated by N. Pavliuk)......................... 160
XVII UKRAINE (translated by V. Pavliuk).....................................................163
XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY(translated by Yu. Vereta).......................173
XIX. GALICIA PIEDMOND (translated by N. Maliuk).................................193
XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’)
(tr-d by N.Chugreeva, K. Diuzhenko)..............................................................202
XXI. A МAGIC WORD (translated by N. Maliuk)........................................ 217
XXII. KHAKHOL (translated by M. Lystopad).............................................. 229
XXIII. KATSAP (translated by N. Pavliuk).....................................................245
XXIV. JEWS OR HEBREWS? (translated by N. Pavliuk).............................254
8. 7
I. THE NAME
The name of a nation or the ethnonym is a special and sacred word to every
nationality. Paradoxically a nation cannot exist without an ethnonym. Actually,
no nation can exist without an ethnonym, as well as no person can live without
a name. “Each ethnos and nation has a visible and an indispensable external fea-
ture: self-designation, its own name, ethnonym”. 1 The history of a nation should
be closely related to the history of its ethnonym. Generally, the name of a group
is of a primary importance among major attributes of any ethnic community. 2
Ethnonym is a common national name, forming and organizing people better
than their common language, origin, territory, even better than their customs and
beliefs. Nation’s name (that of a tribe, clan) indicates that the unity of members
realized themselves as separated from other ethnic groups. «For each of the uni-
ties, big or small, the name is a feature uniting them as integrity and distinguish-
ing them from others”. 3 The general national name is actually an external sign
of people’s internal unity.
Sometimes ethnonyms are considered one of such abstract social and po-
litical terms as “progress”, “reaction”, “democracy”, “capitalism”, “socialism”,
“fascism”, etc. Such abstract terms are vague and polysemantic, their meaning
depending on who and for what purpose they are used. One cannot equate them
with ethnonyms, touching each person’s life directly. Ethnonyms include specific
characteristic of peoples: assessments they contain are not always fair, although
always historically grounded, and so, are valuable as a historical evidence. Eth-
nonym performs an ideological function being like a slogan, or a flag. 4 Thus, for
instance, such ethnonyms as Gypsy, German, Polish, Georgian, and Tartar can
cause among us certain specific, regular images, which are historically condi-
tioned and known as “national stereotypes”. We know from our own experience,
that other nationalities associate ethnonym Ukrainian with certain national ste-
reotype, relating both to the physical appearance and character traits, manners,
habits, behavior, tastes, preferences, beliefs, etc. In the following extract from a
book, recently published in Moscow, one can see what content can be suggested
to the term “Ukrainians”, “Ukrainians are usually characterized by dullness of
mind, narrow horizons, stupid stubbornness, extreme intolerance, haidamak bru-
tality and moral turpitude”. 5 Some groups of people in Russia see us like that.
1
Bromley, Yu.V., Podolnyi, R.G. Chelovechestvo – eto narody.- М.: Mysl, 1990.- P. 17.
2
Smith, Anthony. National Identity.- К.: Osnovy, 1994.- P.30
3
Ethnonimy.- М.: Nauka, 1970.- P. 5.
4
Ethnoniny.- М.: Nauka, 1970.- P. 3.
5
Ukrainskiy separatism in Rossia. Ideologia natsionalnogo raskola: Prilozh. k z. “Moskva”:
Sbornik.- М., 1998.- P. 251.
9. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
8
“The national name is a voice of ancestors, talking to descendants and
generations, bringing up their historical memory and self-esteem, binding them
into a national community, able to become an internal and external power and
create its own history and culture, raise interest and make others respect them.
Relations between the nation and its national name are not formal, but first of
all internal, moral, spiritual, physical, full of love, intimacy and reciprocity.
A natural name of a nation is the basis of its morality and school. Patriotism
itself, as one of the highest moral categories, is associated with the nation and
its name”. 1
For those Ukrainian historians, who wrote in the post-Marxist discursive man-
ner, such concepts as "ethnonym", "nation", "patriotism" are empty or almost empty
words. Investigating the past, they did not mention that for nearly a century Ukraini-
an people were fighting intensely for the establishment of the new ethnonym, and this
battle was tantamount to a struggle for the right to exist. In their studies, historians are
guided by bookish, abstract constructions, far from realities of East Europe. No mat-
ter what newfangled discourses are now spread, the main units of nations remained
East European political world in the 19th
and 20th
centuries were nations. It is national
patriotism that was the strongest feeling, it is patriotism that has always contained a
true cultural value. The class struggle is not the main driving force in the history. This
power is rather the national feeling” 2, which is recognized even by biased liberal
researchers.
Ivan Franko in the famous article Beyond the Possible warned against keep-
ing to the newfangled illusions: “Everything which is not within the framework
of nation is pharisaism of people, who would be happy to disguise their striving
to set the superiority of one nation over another with their international ideals or
sick sentimentalism of science fiction writers, who would be happy to cover their
spiritual alienation from their native nation with extensive “universal” phrases.
Perhaps once the time will come when free international alliances will consol-
idate to accomplish the highest international goals. But this can happen only
if all the national competitions are completed, and when national injustice and
oppression depart into the sphere of historical records”. 3
Realities of East European life during the period of both World Wars and
during the times of civil bloodshed resulted in the fact that for millions of hu-
man beings ethnonym often solved the dilemma of life or death. In fact, forced
deportation of many peoples, Jewish genocide and other forms of mass ethnic
cleansing and persecution were based on ethnonymic criterion.
A well-known proletarian internationalism that proclaimed the rule of class
solidarity of the workers over the alleged reactionary limitation of national
1
Shelukhin, S. Ukraina – nazva nashoi zemli z naidavnishykh chasiv.- Praha, 1936.- P. 88.
2
Duroselle, J.-B. Istoria diplomatii vid 1919 roku do nashykh dniv.- К.: Osnovy, 1995.- P. 727.
3
Franko, I. Zibrannia tvoriv: U 50 t.- К.: Nauk.dumka, 1986.- V. 45.- P. 284.
10. I. THE NAME
9
feelings is one of the main principles of the theory of Marxism-Leninism. The
theory of proletarian internationalism, however, did not prevent the communist
regime from including into personal documents (passport, birth certificate) and
identification forms, a notorious obligatory fifth column that clearly fixed the
ethnonym, determined by parents’ nationality. Senior officials were obliged to
“submit not only their own nationality, but also the nationality of their parents
and even wife’s”. 1 The ethnonym fixed in the fifth column was the ground for
Bolshevistic “internationalists” to discriminate and repress individuals, as well
as entire peoples. Blended families were on the list for deportation only because
of the ethnonym of the head of a family. It was ethnonym rather than class or-
igin, social status, political views, etc., that often determined human destiny in
the Soviet empire. The General Secretary of the Communist Party Khrushchev
clearly confirmed it, saying that they had conducted “mass deportation of entire
peoples from their settled lands, not excluding the Communists and Komsomol
members””. 2
Moskovshchyna (Moscovia) has experienced forced migration since Ivan
the Terrible’s times. At that period the Tatars of Kazan and Novgorod Slovenes
were partially deported. “Mass deportation began in Russia during the First
World War: I refer to the eviction of the Germans from Volyn in 1916. Later Rus-
sia began to use such a method of “solving” national problems in both peacetime
and wartime. I submit a list of peoples for which - fully or partially - the follow-
ing measures were applied: Kuban Ukrainian, Meskhetian Turks, Germans from
Southern Ukraine, Crimea and Volga region, Crimean Tatars, Greeks, Bulgarians
and Armenians from Crimea, Chechens, Ingush, Karachays, Balkars, as well as
Romanians and Greeks, who were foreign citizens, from the North Caucasus.” 3
It is also necessary to mention the intention to deport all Kazan Tatars in 1944.
The devastated areas after the deportation in 1943-44 were inhabited mostly by
Russians”. 4 It was called the “internationalism in action”.
Deportation did not spare Ukrainians. By the beginning of 1930’s Moscow
applied tactics of “creeping deportation” to Ukrainians. Ukrainians were be-
ing evicted gradually, as counterrevolutionaries, as kulaks, kulak supporters or
“sympathizers” etc. Russians were massively settled in the sites where victims
of Holodomor (1932-1933) had lived. The Second World War with its historical
cataclysms had finally given, as the Kremlin thought, an opportunity to destroy
the hated Ukrainians.
1
Bilkin, S. Masovyi terror yak zasib derzhavnoho upravlinnia v SRSR (1917-1941 rr.):
Dzhereloznavche doslidzhennia.- К., 1999.- P. 184.
2
Pro kult osoby s yoho naslidky: Dopovid M.S. Khrushchova na XX ziizdi KPRS. - “Prolog”,
1959.- P. 58.
3
Dashkevich, Ya. Podzvinne operatsii “Visla” // Ukrainski problemy.- 1997.- № 2.- P. 116.
4
Nekrich, A. Nakazannyie narody.- New York: Chroniha, 1978.- P. 88.
11. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
10
During the above-mentioned special closed meeting of the 20th
Congress of
the Communist Party (1956) Khrushchev stunned the audience with his frank-
ness, saying that during the war Stalin wanted to send out of the country the
whole Ukrainian nation, just as they did it with Chechens, Crimean Tatars,
Kalmyks, and others — all forty millions of Ukrainians, “if they were not so
numerous and if had a location to send them to”. The delegates, who were in-
volved in the mysteries of the Kremlin knew that Khrushchev meant the secret
order dated summer 1944. For a long time the decree was being proclaimed to
be a forgery, as well as the decree on the destruction of Polish officers in Katyn
or secret Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Recently, Vasyl Riasnoi, the former
People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR, the Commissar of State
Security of the 3rd
rank (Major General NKVD) said that in 1944 “comrade Sta-
lin, ordered to deport all Ukrainians to the well-known place /hell/ specifically
in Siberia for the hostile attitude to the Russian people”. Reproduction of this
secret order was published in the work of the famous procommunist Moscow
documentalist Felix Chuiev Soldiers of Empire. Here is the text of the order,
given by F. Chuiev:
TOP SECRET
The Order # 0078/42
22 June, 1944
Moscow
FOR THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF INTERNAL
AFFAIR OF THE USSR AND THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR-
IAT OF DEFENSE OF ALLIANCE OF THE USSR
The human intelligence revealed:
Recently, in Ukraine, especially in Kyiv, Poltava, Vinnytsia,
Rivne and other regions, a clearly hostile mood of the Ukrainian
population against the Red Army and local Soviet authorities has
been noticed. In certain districts and regions, Ukrainian population
is resisting hostilely the fulfilment of activities of the Party and the
government directed at restoration of collective farms and grain
deliveries for the needs of the RedArmy. They are killing the cattle
ruthlessly in order to disrupt the construction of collective farms.
Bread is being buried in pits in order to disrupt the food supply of
the Red Army. In many areas, Ukrainian hostile elements, mainly
of fugitives from the military draft to the Red Army, have been
organizing "green" gangs in forests, blowing up military trains,
attacking small military units and killing local government offi-
12. I. THE NAME
11
cials. Some Red Army soldiers and commanders, being under the
influence of semi-fascist Ukrainian population and mobilized Red
Army soldiers from liberated regions of Ukraine, began to decom-
pose and move over to the enemy. From this, it follows that the
Ukrainian population has stepped on the path of apparent sabotage
of the Red Army and the Soviet power and is aspiring to return
the German occupiers. Therefore, in order to eliminate and con-
trol mobilized soldiers and commanders from liberated regions of
Ukraine,
I order:
1. To send all Ukrainians, living under the rule of the German
occupiers, to distant edges of the USSR.
2. The eviction shall be undertaken:
а) primarily of Ukrainians, who have worked for and served
the Germans;
б) secondly to send the rest of Ukrainians, who are familiar
with the life during the German occupation;
в) to begin the eviction after harvesting, when crops are deliv-
ered to the State to satisfy the needs of the Red Army;
г) evictions shall be carried out only at night, and suddenly, to
prevent escaping, and prevent the members of the family of those
who serve in the Red Army to know it.
3. The following control shall be set over soldiers and com-
manders from the occupied areas:
а) to register a special case for each of them in special depart-
ments;
б) to check all letters, not by censorship, but by the special
department;
в) to attach a secret agent per 5 commanders and soldiers of
the Red Army.
4. Relocate 12 and 25 punitive division of the NKVD in order
to fight with anti-Soviet gangs.
The order shall be announced to the regimental commander
inclusive.
The People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR:
BERIIA
Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR,
Marshal of the Soviet Union: ZHUKOV. 1
1
Chuiev, F. Soldaty imperii: Besedy. Vosponinaniia. Dokumenty.- М., 1998.- P. 177-178.
13. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
12
As we know, the communist regime failed to execute the Order. However,
analogous orders concerning smaller nations were fully implemented by Stalin’s
satraps. The ethnonym, fixed in documents, was everywhere the main criterion
for selecting people for deportation.
Note that fighting around the ethnonym “Ukrainian” was waged fiercely for
a long time, which will be discussed below in this book. Prince Volkonsky wrote,
“There are those who believe they show broadmindedness, saying, “Little Russians
or Ukrainians, we do not argue about words.” However, they are not just words,
they are names. People not only argue about names, they die for them; and if a name
lacks people, willing to die for it, the existence of such a name and a nation, bear-
ing this name, will not be longlasting.” 1 Ukrainians were not just willing to die for
the name; hundreds of thousands of people; men, women, children actually died.
“Ukrainians became victims of the largest man-made disasters on the continent and
of total genocide. Their losses during the war of 1918-1920, collectivization of the
1930s, terror and famine of 1932-1933 and destructions of World War II are close to
20 million people”. 2 Ukrainian historians would probably say this number is larger.
According to Beriia, only in the period of 1944 to 1952 more than 500,000 people
were exposed to various types of repression to prove the right to be a conscientious
Ukrainian. Specifically, more than 134,000 people were arrested, more than 153,000
were killed, over 203,000 people were exiled from Ukraine forever. 3 That is what the
ethnonym means in just a short period of Ukrainian history. Moreover, in the second
half of the 19th
century the territory of Ukraine, according to Russian researcher Mill-
er, became the object of a true ethnonymic war. “Ukrainian activists had to introduce
a new term “Ukrainians”, instead of the more common self-naming Rusyns, in order
to overcome the a bicentennial tradition that alleged a common name for the whole
Eastern Slavic population.” 4
Ethnonyms have long been attracting human imagination, creating numerous
conjectures, often of quite irrealistic character. With the development of science,
appeared ethnonymics, a new discipline on the border of linguistics, ethnography
and history, dedicated specifically to ethnonyms,
Ethnonymics is a branch of science that deals with the study of proper names of
ethnic groups; it has a number of nomenclature terms: autoethnonyms, i.e. self-nam-
ings, ektoethnonyms-names, given by other nations. There are also khoronyms,
names of country and its population; kotoikonyms, naming people according the
place of residence, etnoforonyms, ethnic name of its single representative in addition
has his/her personal name and surname, etc. Ethnonymics helps people studying the
origin of a nation (ethnogenesis) and studying the origin of a language (glottogen-
1
Volkonsky А. V. Maloross ili ukrainets? - Uzhgorod, 1929.- P. 6.
2
Novaia i noveishaia istoriia.- 1998.- № 5.- P. 23.
3
Novaia i noveishaia istoriia.- 1998.- № 5.- P. 23.
4
Miller, А. Conflict “Idealnykh otechestv” // Rodina.- 1999.- № 8.- P. 82.
14. I. THE NAME
13
esis). “Common identity of any ethnic is usually automatically associated with the
existence of a common self.” 1 The doctrine of ethnonyms (ethnonymics) studies
not only the origin (etymology) of ethnonyms, but their whole history, the smallest
changes which took place in the development of specific ethnonym during the cen-
turies of its operation. All these changes for ethnonymics are more valuable than the
frozen original form, because they are the eloquent testimony of the history. “There is
no society that remains unchanged. If an ethnonym has existed for a couple of centu-
ries, it will denote a bit different or totally different people afterwards. The historian
who ignores this is inevitably doomed to gross errors.” 2
There are many facts when one and the same ethnonym serves to denote differ-
ent concepts, names of completely different peoples. For example, in the 7th
century
the part of Turkic-speaking people of Bulgars came to the Balkan Peninsula. Their
Khan became the head of the state, inhabited by Slavs. Although newcomers dis-
solved among Slavs, the ethnic name of Slavic population of the State was Turkic
Bulgars. Northern neighbours of ancient Greeks were Macedonians, their country is
called under their ethnonym Macedonia. In the 6th
-7th
centuries the Slavs, who got the
name of Macedonians, because of the place name Macedonia, settled in this country;
Macedonian language is Slavic, it has no references with the Macedonian language
of ancient times. Nowadays an international conflict developed around this. 3 The
government of modern Greece, referred to the history, rejecting in the UN the newly
formed South Slavic state named Macedonia. It could lead to the war. Because of
modern Greece claims concerning the modern name Macedonia, it has not been rec-
ognized yet; in 1993 the Republic of Macedonia joined the UN under a strange name
of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Ancient Romans (Romani), mixing with various conquered tribes, formed
many Roman-speaking peoples: Italians, French, Portuguese, Spanish (not in-
cluding the many Spanish-speaking nations of Latin America) and Catalans, Oc-
citanians, Romanians and others. We know that the French ethnic name comes
from the Germanic tribe of Franks, which left its name to France, but not the
language. Although our southern neighbours, Romanians, are the farthest from
the ancient homeland of Romans, i.e. Italy and its capital Rome, and Romanian
language is the least similar to Latin, in 1861, when Wallachia and Moldova
united, the Romanians got the ethnonym “Romani” as self-naming, and the name
of their country, Romania means “Roman Land”. In the late 1930's Romanian
authorities, incidentally, forced the Ukrainian Bukovynians to use in writing the
term “Romania” but not “Rumunia”.
The given examples, whose number can be certainly increased, tell about et-
nonimyc changes, which occurred by accident rather than by a conscious choice.
1
Alekseiev, V.P. Ethnogenesis.- M.: Vyshaia shkola, 1986.- P. 28.
2
Ethnonymy.- М.: Nauka, 1970.- P. 10.
3
Chesnov, Ya.V. Nazvaniie naroda: otkuda ono? // Sovetskaia etnografika.- 1973.- № 6.- P. 145.
15. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
14
Strangely, but there are also opposite situations, where the conscious choice plays
a crucial role in changing the ethnonym. For example, a Byzantine state of purely
Hellinic origin, existing from 330 to 1453, officialy called itself Romaian Empire,
i.e. the Roman Empire, while its Greek-speaking subordinates were called (Ro-
mans), although all the surrounding peoples knew that they were Greeks. This
name was of great ideological and political importance. Romeias considered their
country to be the continuation of the Great Roman Empire, and all the former prov-
inces, separated from the Byzantine Empire, were considered to be temporarily
separated, that eventually would be united again. The influence of Byzantine on the
expansionary political ideology on Moscow is well-known, and the “collection of
Russian lands” is an eloquent testimony of it. Actually Byzantine Greeks “enjoyed
the glory of the Roman name, clung to the imperial form of governing, without its
military forces; they kept to the Roman law without being just, they were proud
of the orthodoxy of their church, whose clergy turned into the vassals of the Em-
peror’s court. Such a society would inevitably fade away, although the process of
extinction could go very slowly.” 1
The change of ethnonym is as if someone whims or needs to change his/her
own last name. It is not easy to make everyone around you accept the change.
Not to mention a conscious change of a national name. It is an act of a big impor-
tance for any nation and has far-reaching results. By the way, the Chinese form
of the term "revolution" - "e.g. " means "name change". In fact, the change of
name for Ukrainians was not only a great spiritual revolution, but also the radical
change of the political image of Eastern Europe.
The history of Russian people, and later Ukrainian, experienced a conscious
change of their ethnonyms. “Ancient historical Ukrainian name “Rus” and the
name of Ukrainian state of 9th
-12th
centuries “Kyiv Rus” have caused a passion-
ate and protracted dispute between Moscow and Ukrainian historians, which is
still going on. The main issues of the dispute are: what people and whose culture
was embodied by “Kyivan Rus”, who adopted “Kyiv heritage”, continuing its
cultural and historical traditions?
It would seem that the answer to this question is very simple: it has already
been given in the very title of the Kyivan state. If Kyiv has always been and remains
Ukrainian capital and a symbol of Ukraine, “Kyiv Rus” was the Ukrainian state and
Ukrainians are its inheritors and successors to these days. However, in fact, the strug-
gle for Kyiv heritage led to paradoxical consequences: Ukrainians lost not only their
state but also was deprived of the name “Rus”, which was taken by the Northern
winner, Moscow. Muscovia claimed itself the heir and successor of the Kyivan Rus
and thus claimed its right for the “collection of Russian lands”, calling itself Russia or
the Great Rus. Russian Empire was developing, accompanied with a whole masquer-
1
Davis, Norman. Europe: History.- К.: Osnovy, 2000.- P. 400.
16. I. THE NAME
15
ade. Despite the fact that the formation of Muscovia in terms of ethnic, cultural and
historical features differed from that of Kyivan Rus, the northern tribe of Muscovites
recalled how they belonged to “Rus”, and grabbed the name “Rus” for its emerging
state, referring to its Princes’dynastic ties with the Kyivan dynasty.” 1
Tragic historical events, experienced by Ukrainian people as a result of the
loss of political independence, marked it for life, including the ethnonym. My-
chailo Hrushevskyi stated, “We are the people whose name was stolen”. It was
important to change the ethnonym. Conscious change of the people’s ethnonym,
as history shows has always been a rare phenomenon and been always driven
by very complex political and cultural reasons. The change of ethnonyms by
Ukrainians and Russians has remained unique, and has been quite an exceptional
phenomenon for the last half of a millennium in the European history.
Russians unlike us, Ukrainians, have done it without any historical compul-
sion, voluntarily and even kind of joyfully. Indeed, they have been awaiting for
our old ethnonym for a long time, since ancient times they were aspiring the mo-
ment to change the historical semantics of our ethnonym and grab it with great
pleasure, estimating the huge political importance of this fact. “Moscow land
adopted our old name, seized our long-standing name, political, state name, and
seized it quite consciously, carrying a political plan.” 2
The real process of ethnonym change began for Ukrainians and Russians
about two hundred years ago and went on till the p times. For Ukraine the pro-
cess ended up after World War II, although, it should be mentioned, that its final
completion, perhaps, is still far away. 3 Over the outlined period Moscovia, or
the Moscow State, was renamed into the Russian Empire (republic, federation)
or simply Russia, while "Rus" etnotoponim or khoronym was renamed into
Ukraine. Ethnonyms changed accordingly: Peasants-Moskovytians turned into
Russians, and Ruthenians turned into Ukrainians. It should be noted that “ethnic
substance of Ukrainians has not changed for centuries, and a formal change of
a whole ethnonym did not affect the actual ethnical meaning of the concept”. 4
Moscow's ruling circles, brought up in the Mongol-Tatar state tradition, un-
derstood the magic power of the word and khoronym meaning. “The question
of selfnaming of a state is the question of its international prestige and an am-
ulet against foreign encroachments”. 5 Europeans were amazed with an unclear
persistency and painful sensibility to a small formal mistake in the titles, a tiny
1
Golubenko, P. Ukraina i Rosia u svitli kulturnykh vzaiemyn.- New York; Paris; Toronto, 1987.- P. 93.
2
Tsegelsky, L. Zvidky vzyalysia s shcho znachat nazvy “Rus” and “Ukraina”? - Lviv, 1907.-
P. 28.
3
Mushinka, M. Rusynism na antiukrainskii osnovi.- Priashiv, 1992.- P. 15.
4
Dashkevich, Ya. Natsionalna samosvidomist ukraintsev na zlami XVI-XVII st. // Suchasnist.-
1992.- № 3.- P. 67.
5
Khoroshkevich,A.L. Rus, Rusia, Moskovia, Rossia, Moskovskoie gosudarstvo, Rossiyskoie tsarstvo //
Spornyie voprosy otechestvennoi istorii XI-XVIII vekov.- М.: In-t istorii SSSR, 1990.- P. 290.
17. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
16
inaccuracy in political terms. In fact, behind an allegedly formalistic attitude to
titles, terms, political formulas, etc. a deep understanding of language gravity in
public life, adopted from the ancient East Asian, were hidden.
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the
world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy
of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their
society”. 1 It may concern historical concepts as well.
Confusing the oldest ethnic names of Ukrainian people (Ruskii and Ruskyi)
with Russkii (Russian with double "s") on purpose, 2 Russian great power chauvin-
ists include the history of Ukrainian people and its culture into their own, creating
the appearance of its thousand-year existence and even thousand-year Baptism of
Russia, described below, which did not even exist, which is proven by the name.
Similar attempts were made by Polish assimilators, also described below. “The
views of Moscovian and Polish scientists and publicists coincided in the following:
there is no Ukraine, there are no Ukrainians, Poland and Russia are the only exist-
ing countries, Polish and Russian are the only existing nations”. 3
Verbal hypocrisy, intentional confusion of terms and concepts have been a
beloved method of Russian imperialism ideologists for a long time.
The issue of changing the Russian ethnonym is considered to be a striking
example of such confusion of terms and concepts. Through the change of theit
ethnonym, Russian governmental circles and researchers tried to prove that the
princely state of Rus, with its capital in Kyiv was Russian (Moscow) state. These
assertions were aimed at proving that there was no separate Ukrainian and Be-
larusian peoples, and Russian nation was the only one, therefore, Ukrainian and
Belarusian languages were just dialects of Russian.
“The science should finally get comfortable with the fact that its numerous the-
ses on the old Rus are built on a convenient juggling with such words as “Rus”,
“Ruskyi.” 4 Russian historiography, filled with mythologemes, was created and is
now operating as an integral part of the imperial state ideology. The concept of ge-
nealogical continuity of the ruling princely family in Moscow is the core of Russian
historiography. On the basis of the 19th
century such artificial, non-historical terms as
“Kyivan Rus”, “Volodymyr Rus”, “Moscow Rus” occured, originating in the names
of the centers of power. These terms were unknown in the Middle Ages. “The con-
cept of “Kyivan Rus” appeared in Russian science as part of some general ideas on
the historical fate of Russia, being a necessary link in the periodization of its exist-
1
Novoe v lingvistike.- М.: Nauka, 1960.- Vyp. І.- P. 114.
2
Poliek, V. “Russkii”, “rus’kyi”, “rosiis‘kyi”, “ukrains‘kyi”. Synonymy? Tak! // Berezil.- 1991.-
№ 9.- P. 160.
3
Rudnytskyi, S. Osnovy zemleznannia Ukrainy.- Uzhgorod, 1926.- P. 33.
4
Smal-Stotskyi, S. Naivazhniyshyi moment v istorii Ukrainy // Literaturno-Naukovyi Visnyk
[LNV].- 1931.- Vol. 107, b. 9.- P. 804.
18. I. THE NAME
17
ence. The status of a term as a tool has almost been forgotten, and slowly has turned
into something much bigger, completely independent, controlling our ideas.” 1 When
an official three-member formula or “the three pillars”: orthodoxy, autocracy, and
nationality (in fact: saesaropapism, despotism, chauvinism) was replaced by Marx-
ism-Leninism doctrine, dogmas of so-called “ordinary scheme of Russian historiog-
raphy” not only remained valid, but got to be perceived as a kind of “the Holy Scrip-
ture”. It would be impossible to omit an extremely spicy and telling fact that the work
written by Marx Secret Diplomatic History of the 18th
Century, analyzing the history
of Russia has never been spread or translated in Marxist countries.Areference to the
work of the Marxism founder was tacitly forbidden, by the authority, called Marxist.
This was in the country where no historical work, no article could appear without ref-
erence to the classics of Marxism. In fact, the alleged Marxist ideology masked Rus-
sian great-power chauvinism. “Having come to power Bolsheviks professed their
faith in historical patterns and inevitable collapse of any empire, decided, however,
to fight the history, recreate the empire forcibly under a new signboard and roof, as
a result, making numerous peoples and nations, including Russia, hostages to his
experiment. What was going on in the early 1990s in the USSR may be considered
a revenge, taken by the history on the international revolutionary political party, and
the evidence that the “collapse” of the Russian Empire in 1917 was not accidental.” 2
Imperial terminology was imposed to generations of Russians, Ukrainians
and Belarusians at schools, higher educational institutions and other means of
total control over the ideological life of society. It is worth adding that the Rus-
sian (Soviet) schools on the territory of Ukraine brought up foreign state citizens,
and often national shapeshifters. They were more Janissaries barracks rather
than scools. The history, studied at Russian (Soviet) schools, was an ideological
poison. It crippled Ukrainian teenage souls, allowed them neither to understand
nor to analyze their people’s destiny. Draconian censorship closely observed all
publications, preventing the slightest deviation from the statutory terms, giving
secial attention to the terminology of Kyivan Rus period.
Those Soviet Ukrainian historians, who had not accepted the Russian eth-
nonymycal terminology, were severely repressed, and works by non-Soviet his-
torians were banned as heretical. We know the kind of total physical extermi-
nation, conviction and deportation senior representatives of Ukrainian history
experienced. It concerned not only history but other sciences as well. According
to the director Yurii Illienko, the elite of Ukrainian nation, its gene pool was con-
stantly shot back, sent forward to Siberia, they died in prisons, were exiled (often
voluntary), persecuted by all kinds of censorship. They were not allowed to think
over any serious or original thought. All independent actions were forbidden,
1
Tolochko, A. Khymera “Kyievskoi Rusi” // Rodina.- 1999.- № 8.- P. 29.
2
Sogrin, V.V. 1985-1995: realii i utopii novoi Rossii // Otechestvennaia istoriia.- 1995.- № 2.- P. 10.
19. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
18
including thinking in one’s native language. For centuries, they were turning
people into the crowd, indifferent to anything but food.
Unfortunately researchers from other countries, even those from some di-
aspora, often do not realize the role and importance of ethnonymic terminology
in real conditions of Eastern Europe. A detached position of I. Lysiak-Rud-
nytsky is indicative. “The verbal polemic against the term “Kyivan Russia”
will do no good, and, probably, will not be productive.” 1 In fact, the problem
of ethnonymic terminology in terms of East Europe is not only an everyday
practice for tens of millions, but an acute problem of national identity. “Great-
est representatives of Ukrainian science considered it extremely important to
give explanations to this matter and paid it great attention.” 2 Z. Kuzelia, exam-
ining such terms as Rus, Ukraine, Little Russia, confirmed: “The terminology
issue creates the starting point for the whole structure of Ukrainian history.” 3
In fact, all courses in The History of Ukraine begin with clarification of names
in time and space, which belonged to Ukrainians and Russians through their
history.
Ideologists of “Great Russia”, manipulating with in different manners with
such ethnonyms “Russkii”, “Ruskyi”, “Rusyn”, tried to deprive Ukrainians of the
right on Kyivan Rus, make them look like an ethnic mixture, having no historical
roots and no traditions. Name manipulations have been known long ago. For ex-
ample, during a special ritual in ancient Egypt people used to crash ceramics with
enemy-nations names on them in order to draw death upon them. For the same
purpose nowadays people prohibit native ethnic names and native language.
Moscow rulers wanted to take away our ancestors’ ancient long-lasting cul-
tural heritage and their political gain, together with the name, a short word “Rus”.
Prof. O. Ohonovskyi affirmed rightly that Moscow imperialism “appropriated peo-
ple’s name “Rus” from Ukrainian nation, has been using its ancient literature and
proclaiming worldwide that Rus-Ukraine is a real Russia.” 4 Prominent Slavist O.
Briukner, also keeping to this view, noted in his History of Russia: “Cherished by
Mongolian khans, primitive people with meager cultural heritage of oriental char-
acter suddenly became an ancient European nation with rich heritage.” 5
Thus, Moscow rulers, having grabbed our old ethnonym, achieved a mimetic
effect, that is an assimilation of one thing to another.
The fact that Russians appropriated our ethnonym, regardless of its distorted
phonetic form, made the understanding of East European History totally chaotic,
1
Lysiak-Rudnytskyi, І ochatky ukrainskoii natsii // LNV.- 1931.- Vol. 106, b. 4.- P. 351.
2
Chekhovych, К. Pochatky ukrainskoii natsii // LNV.- 1931.- Vol. 106, b. 4.- P. 351.
3
Kuzelia, Z. Nazva terytorii i narodu // Entsyklopediia Ukrainoznavstva: Zagalna chastyna / Za
red. V.Kubiiovycha.- К., 1994.- Vol. 1: Perevyd. v Ukraini.- P. 13.
4
Ogonovsky, О. Istoriia literatury ruskoii. - Lviv, 1891.- P. 6.
5
Brückner A. Geschichte Russlands.- Gotha, 1896.- Bd. I.- S. 250.
20. I. THE NAME
19
brining “ambiguity and confusion”, 1 in particular, the boundaries between the
two (Ukrainian and Russian) historical and cultural heritage have been vague for
Western scholars. With few exceptions, these boundaries are not distinguished
in the West, under the influence of official terminology. Western historians, lin-
guists, literary scholars, art historians, archaeologists ascribe all our past to Rus-
sians without investigation. 2 These boundaries are also blurred in the studies of
“domestic” researchers because of ethnonymic mimetism. It would be enough to
say that in the school textbook History of the USSR, published in Ukraine, for
example, Ukrainian children read about “Russian” (!) Princes Oleg and Igor who
ruled in Kyiv. Such facts, found in popular scientific and publicist literature as
well as in fiction, could make up a number of books.
An ideological dispute on the ethnonym of “Rus”, and everything connected
with it, has been ongoing since the second half of the 18th
century. Yuri Venelin from
the Zakarpattia used to call it the dispute between “southerners and northerners.” 3
We can compare this ideological struggle to some extent with the struggle of two his-
toriographic schools, Romance and Germanic. It has been argued, whether Western
civilization appeared against the backdrop of ancient Roman culture or it is a new
civilization of Germanic origin. The dispute is of purely learned character.
However, the dispute of “southerners and northerners” does not and cannot
have an academic, phlegmatically calm nature. Mykhailo Hrushevskyi used to
warn that Ukrainian historian cannot be a neutral and skeptic researcher. Hence,
we are sometimes overpolemic, overcategorical in our statements. It is about
an important issue of the right of Ukrainians and Belarusians to exist as sepa-
rate nations. The statement about allegedly common ethnonym is the means for
Moscow imperialistic circles to legitimize ideologically the act of conquest and
oppression of Ukraine and Belarus, a sweet dream of possessing them for ever,
allegedly enjoing the right of heir to the Kyivan state of Rus. Propaganda in this
regard has lasted in Russia until now.
The scheme of historical process, based on identification of “Rus” and “Rus-
sia” terms, appeared at schools of all the USSR Republics. 4 Such practice, after
all, is still going on nowadays in Russia and partially in Ukraine.
Unprecendented, seventy-year-old anti-Ukrainian terror of Bolshevism, a
period of outright falcification, rudimentary lie, cruel police and ideological su-
pervision, when Ukrainian historians were physically exterminated along with
1
Hrushevskyi, М. Zvychaina skhema “ruskoii istorii” y sprava ratsionalnoho ukladu istoriii
skhidnoho slovianstva // Statii po slavianovedeniiu.- SPb., 1904.- P. 5.
2
Krypiakevych, І., Dolnytskyi, М. Istoria Ukrainy.- New York: Vyd-vo Shkilnoii Rady, 1990.- P. 223.
3
Venelin, Yu.O. O spore mezhdu yuzhanami i severianami na schiot ikh rossizma.- М.: Izd-vo
Imp. O-va Istorii i Drevn.Ross., 1848.- P. 9.
4
Isaievich, Ya. Problema pokhodzhennia ukrainskoho narodu: istoriografichnyi i politychnyi
aspekt // Ukraina: Kulturna spadshchyna, natsionalna svidomist, derzhavnist.- 1995.- Vyp. 2.- P. 8.
21. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
20
their forbidden studies, generations of Ukrainians were excommunicated from
their past. Sometimes even educated people get confused, identifying and distin-
guishing ethnonyms “Rus”, “Ukraine” and their derivatives. Doctor Oleksandra
Kopach in her book New Horizons of Ancient Ukraine aptly notes, “Throughout
history, names of inhabitants and territory of Ukraine changed, which caused am-
biguity and confusion, we experienced with the change of ancient name “Rus”
to “Ukraine. 1
The subject matter of the proposed research is an attempt to highlight brief-
ly the issue, why and how the process of ethnonymic mimetism of Russians
really occurred, and as this process is essential to the process of the change of
the Ukrainian ethnonym, we will consider them together, in the inseparable in-
terdependence, in which they actually appear in history. It should be noted, that
the nature of the subject often requires quoting diverse sources. Abundant ci-
tation is also caused by the fact that no book devoted to this subject, has been
publication for the last six decades. Drohobych reprint edition of S. Shelukhin’s
Ukraine — the Name of our Land since Ancient Times which first appeared in
1936 in Prague, is an exception. The latest is the publication “Why are We Called
Ukrainians: how and when rose up, what means and how long has existed our
national name” by S. Boiarych. It saw the world in Lviv at the beginning of far
1939. In Upper Dnieper region, by all means, the censorship prohibited to raise
the issue so specific for Russia. The ethnonymic problem, for the reasons we will
talk about below, was not only ignored, but strictly forbidden to discuss. As a
result, Ukrainian reader will not find most of studies and papers on the Ukrain-
ian national name, cited here, even in large scientific libraries of Kyiv, Kharkiv,
Odesa, not to mention smaller cultural centers. In particular, these are studies
of Bohdan Barvinskyi, Lonhyn Tsehelskyi, Mykola Andrusiak, Okun-Berezhan-
skyi and other Ukrainian researchers of national ethnonymic issues. Studies of
the authors, mentioned above, were strictly prohibited and kept secret under the
communist regime (as well as the tsar regime). In order to balance arguments of
the dispute, convince modern reader that the examination is objective, respectful
Russian studies and publications are cited here to reveal historical and political
nature of the terms of ethnic identification.
1
Kopach, О. Novi obrii starodavnioi Ukrainy.- Toronto; Edmonton, 1980.- P. 3.
22. 21
IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME
“Rus”, “Rus Land” was the name of the state that emerged in the second half
of the 9th
century in the middle flow of the Dnieper, among Polans’ tribe, cen-
tered in Kyiv. The name “Rus Land”, as well as other chronicle names (Lyadska
(Polish) Land, Bulgarian Land, Hungarian Land), originated from the same name
of nationalities, inhabited the lands, later the ethnonyms (names of nationalities)
turned into politonyms (names of political unities). “For more than one thou-
sand years this name was thundering over lands. Everyone knew it, knew what
it meant; and as it often happens to generally known plain concepts, it was used
without thinking, without a doubt about its clarity and intelligibility. However,
the one who thought of the origin and ancient meaning of the name, could see
how far from clear it was, and how difficult it was to answer the question, one of
the basic questions for our science and curious national consciousness: how did
Rus Land appear?”, wrote O. Trubachov, a famous Russian historian.
The first answer was found in our chronicles.
“Бѣ єдинь языкъ словѣнескъ: словѣни, иже сѣдяху по Дунаєви, ихьже
прияша угри, и морава, и чеси, и ляхове, и поляне, иже нынѣ зовомая
Русь…” (There was a common language of Slavs: Slavs were already on the
Denub, there also came Ugric, Mordva, Czech, Polish, Polians, now called
Rus) — we can read in the chronicles from Lavrentiivskyi list. So Slavic tribes,
united around Kyiv, lost their tribe names gradually (Polians, Drevlians, Siveri-
ans, etc.) and, after they became a single community, went down in history with
the ethnonym Rus.
“The oldest and the basic name of South Rusky people was Rus: it was the
way people called themselves, since they grew to be a nation, even a nation with
the state, out of a conglomerate of tribes; it was also how other peoples called it
(Polish still use this name)”. 1
Historians have long been wondered about the origin of this famous
name. It brought many conjectures and hypotheses, set out in historical,
linguistic and cultural studies. 2 There is a plenty of linguistic and historical
literature sources, devoted to the name Rus and accumulated over the past
two centuries. 3 Their number has grown so much that “it almost defies
description”. 4
1
Doroshenko, D. Narys istoriyi Ukrainy. — Munich: Dniprova khvylia, 1966.- Vol. I.- P. 19.
2
Krypiakevych, I. P. Istoria Ukrainy. - Lviv: Svit, 1990.- P. 307.
3
Kuzmin, A.G. Dve kontseptsii nachala Rusi v Povesti vremennykh let // Istoria SSSR. - 1969.- №
6.- P. 86.
4
Popov, A.I. Slaviane, Rus, Rossiya // Russkaia rech.- 1972.- № 2.- P. 107.
23. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
22
Nevertheless, both historical origin and etymological meaning of this
enigmatic word are still quite unclear. 1 M. Hrushevskyi in the research,
dedicated to this subject stated, “There is no full agreement on the meaning
and beginning of this name”. 2 “Despite all persistent efforts of scientists,
origin of the name Rus is rather dark”, — complained in the early 20th
cen-
tury academician Shakhmatov. 3
In the end of XX century American historian of Eastern Europe Richard Pipes
came to a similar pessimistic conclusion: “The origin of the name “Rus”, however,
is totally unknown”. 4 In other words, nowadays we have no precise, reliable and
final definition of the name Rus. 5 “The history of the world ethnonymy knows a
few sharp, complex, and confusing problems, hopelessly driven to deadlock, one
of them is connected with the origin of the simplest Eastern Slavic ethnic terms, the
word rus (Rus)”. 6 N. Polonska-Vasylenko notes, “The origin of this name is the
biggest mystery of Ukrainian history, which still can not be considered completely
solved”. 7 A historian of East Europe O. Briunker came to the conclusion that “a
person, who will give the correct definition of the term “Rus”, will find a key to the
ancient Rus history”. 8 Alot of scholars suggest that this problem does not have any
scientific solution at all. 9 Historical science “will hardly ever be able to find a fully
convincing solution of this complex and intricate problem”. 10
The above statements do not hinder scholars from creating new linguistic
and historical variants of etymology of the name Rus. For example, the ethno-
nym Rus is interpreted as a tradition of men from Dnieper region to shave their
heads. 11 Almost every year new publications appear with new interpretations of
etymology of Rus term. 12 Recently, Yu. Knysh traced the word “Rus” from the
Indo-Iranian cultural context. 13 There are also attempts to derive the name Rus
from the Finnish language, as well as from Swedish, Danish, Gothic, Estonian,
1
Kliuchevskyi, V.O. Sochineniya: in 8 V.- M.: Gospolitizdat, 1956.- V. I.- P. 167.
2
Hrushevskyi, M. Istoriya Ukrainy-Rusi: in 12 V.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991. - Vol. I.- P. 623.
3
Shakhmatov, A. Drevneishiye sudby russkogo plemeni.- Petrograd, 1919. - P. 52.
4
Pipes, Richard. Rossia pri starom rezhime.- М., 1993. - P. 52.
5
Krypiakevych, I.P. Istoria Ukrainy.- Lviv: Svit, 1990. - P. 36.
6
Stryzhak, O.S. Ethnonymy of Ptolemeievoii Sarmatii. U poshukakh Rusi.- K.: Nauk.dumka,
1991.- P. 3.
7
Polonska-Vasylenko, N. Istoria Ukrainy: in 2 V.- 3te vyd.- K.: Lybid, 1995.- Vol. I: Do seredyny
XVIII stolittia.- P. 79.
8
quated from: Geller, M. Istoria Rossiyskoy imperii: in 3 V.- M.: “MIK”, 1997.- Vol. I.- P. 3.
9
Popov, A.I. Nazvania narodov SSSR.- L.: Nauka, 1973.- P. 56.
10
Shaskolsky, I.P. Vopros o proiskhozhdenii imeni “Rus” v sovremennoi burzhuaznoi nauke //
Kritika noveishei burzhuaznoi istoriografii.- L.: Nauka, 1967.- P. 176.
11
Chaplenko, V. Pokhodzhennia nazov “Rus”, “Ros” ta sporidnenykh iz nymy nazov i sliv //
Naukovi zapysky UTGI.- Munich.- 1973.- Vol. XXV.- P. 116.
12
Prytsak, О. O proiskhozhdenii Rusi // Khronika 2000. Nash krai.- 1992.- Vyp. 2.- P. 3.
13
Knysh, Yu. Taiemnytsia pochatkovoii Rusy v Kyievi.- Vinnipeg: UVAN, 1991. - P. 14.
24. IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME
23
Komi, Udmurt, Karelian, Hungarian, Khazar Celtic Lithuanian, Turkic, Arab,
Jewish and even ancient languages of the Middle East. Figuratively, the initial
meaning of “Rus” is said to “be dug out of the “foundation of the pyramid of
Cheops or the sands of the Sahara, Palestine and Mesopotamia”. 1
The number of hypotheses is increasing. New variants, new bizarre assump-
tions appear. Hypotheses, as they arise, are becoming more and more compli-
cated. V. Shacherbakivskyi, assessing new hypotheses, aptly remarked: “They
all have too many words and too many imagination but so little specific facts”. 2
Now there are almost fifteen scientific hypotheses on the etymology of ethnonym
and khoronym (name of a country) “Rus”. There are more than hundred options.
Two of them are the most popular among others: the Scandinavian origin of the
name Rus and its autochthonous (Slavic) origin.
Researchers studying the history of East Europe have disputed about the
etymology of the term “Rus” since the 18th
century. In 1749, on Queen Eliza-
beth's Name Day, an imperial official historian Gerhard Friedrich Miller spoke
on “Origines gentis et nominis Russorum” (“The origin of tribe and the name
of Russian”). It was in 1749 that the origin of “Rus” has become a mystery for
scholars. 3 Following the previous imperial historian Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer,
who was also German, the Academy Fellow Miller suggested the theory on Nor-
man origin of the Rus state, his idea was that the very name “Rus” was brought
from the Swedish language. Miller asserted that the name Rus came from Nor-
man tribe of Rus led by princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, who came in 862 from
Sweden to Eastern Slavs and named the people “Ruskyi” and “marked the be-
ginning of Ruthenian state”. 4 The Norman theory was officialy unveiled, which
was based on the assumption that the Finnish called one of the Swedish tribes
“russ’”, and then the name of Finns moved to the Slavs. Norman theory is based,
mainly, on a primary chronicle “Tale of Bygone Years”. Nestor the Chronicler
wrote there, that “Rus” was a Varangian tribe, led by Rurik, as Slavs appealed.
Under year 862 AD Nestor wrote, “They (the Slavs) drove Varangians beyond
the sea, did not give them tax, started to own and rule themselves, and they did
not have truth, and stood family against family; there began internecine quarrels
among them, and started to fight with one another and said: we will seek a Prince
ourselves, for him to possess us and was just. — And they went beyond the sea
to the Varangians, to the Rus, those Varangians were called Rus, and others were
1
Kosarenko-Kosarevych, V. Moskovskyi sfinks.- New York, 1957.- P. 86.
2
Shcherbakovskyi, V. Pro pivdenne pokhodzhennia imeni Rus // Zbirnyk pamiati Ivana
Zilynskoho (1879-1952). Sproba rekonstruktsyii vtrachenoho yuvileinoho zbirnyka z 1939. – New
York, 1994.- P. 495.
3
Prytsak, O.I. Proiskhozhdeniye nazvaniya Rus/Rus’// Voprosy yazykoznaniya.- 1991.- № 6.- С. 115.
4
Podilskyi, A. Nainovishi pohliady na pokhodzhennia natsionalnykh nazv „Rus“ i „Ukraina“ //
Nova Zoria.- 1939.- Ch. 26.
25. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
24
called the Swedish, and others — the Norwegians, Alges and others — Gotlan-
dians. The Chud, Slovens, Krivichi and Ves, “Our land is great and fruitful, and
there is no guard in it. Come and rule, and possess us”. Three brothers took their
people and took the Rus, and came to their land, and the eldest Ryurik settled in
Novgorod, the second Sineus, stayed on the White Lake, and the third, Truvor —
in Izborsk. Those three Varangians gave a name to Rus land. Novgorod people
are of Varangian’s gender, though they used to be the Slovens …”. 1
According to Nestor the Chronicler, it was the way they called the overseas
Normans. Medieval chronicle tradition, as we know, was formed by an overseas
search of genealogical roots of the ruling dynasties. 2 All in all, from the earliest
scientific research Nestor’s story about the beginnings of Ruthenian state was
“taken as a dogma, German scholars having been the first to startthe reseach”. 3 It
sould be mentioned that non-Slavic origin of the name Rus should not be regard-
ed to be a disrespect of national honour. Ya. Dashkevych was right to believe that
national prestige should not be measured by the events that took place over one
thousand years ago. “Norman state entities occupied their place in the history of
England, France, Italy, and do not hamper national prestige of certain nations”. 4
Foreign origin of some European countries and peoples, for example, is a
well-known fact. Thus, Roman Gallia and its inhabitants got the new name of
France (the French) from a Germanic tribe of Franks, England and English peo-
ple — from a Germanic tribe of Angls, Slavonic Bulgaria and Bulgarians —
from a Turkic tribe of Bulgarians. However, under specific conditions of the
tsarist empire the matter of term origin acquired non-scientific political overtone.
“The so-called Norman theory of Russ calling was more than a simple the-
oretical problem from the very beginning. It played a role of the banner of ag-
gressive German Court and served political goals exclusively”. 5 After Miller's
speech, mentioned above, a sharp ideological dispute broke out all of sudden.
Miller's report was confiscated and destroyed under Lomonosov’s insistence.
That is how the struggle between “Normanists” and “Anti-normanists” began.
Normanists, proving that Rus was an old Swedish ethnic word, made a political
conclusion that so-called Eastern Slavs were not capable of independent histori-
cal activity. That is why the issue is of clear political nature. 6
The way Normanists’views, even in their gentle form, are getting an anti
Slavic taste is evident from the following quote: “Three main basins — the Baltic
1
Polnoie sobraniie russkikh letopisei, izdavaiemoie gos. Arkheograficheskoiu Komissieiu RAN
[hereinafter - PSRL].- Izd. 3-e.- Petrograd, 1923.- Т. 2, vyp. 1.- P. 15 (text is transcribed).
2
Mavrodyn, V. Proiskhozhdeniie nazvanii “Rus”, “russkiy”, “Rossia”. – L., 1958.- P. 7.
3
Hrushevskyi, M. Istoria Ukrainy-Rusi: U 12 t.- K.: Nauk.dumka, 1991.- Т. I.- P. 602.
4
Dashkevich, Ya. Ukrainski istorychni tradytsii: natsiia i derzhava // Ukrainskyi chas.- 1997.- № 1.- P. 4.
5
Tikhomirov М. Russkaia istoriografia XVIII veka // Voprosy istorii.- 1948.- № 2.- S. 95.
6
Melnykova E. A., Petrukhyn V. Ya. Nazvanye “Rus” v etnokulturnoi ystoryy Drevnerusskoho
hosudarstva // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1989.- № 8.- S. 24.
26. IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME
25
and the Northern White Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea — these are trade
ways and cultural joints, where alert, hardy and courageous common rulers of
North Germanic origin formed a foundation for the state organization of peoples,
being a part of the East Slavic language group”. 1
Normanists’ thesis transferred the issue of Rus origin “from the realm of
Slavs history to the scope of Nordic of peoples’history. Slavs got the role of inert
mass, an underlayer for historical activity of Norman newcomers”. 2
As we have already mentioned, since Miller’s academic speech was pro-
nounced, historians have divided into two antagonistic camps. Some of them
(Baer, Miller, Schletzer, Kunick, Thomsen, Miahiste and others), followed by
almost all Russian historians (Tatishchev, Karamzin, Solovyov, Kliuchevskyi
Pohodin, etc.) acknowledge that the term “Rus” is of Scandinavian origin. Oth-
ers, including a number of prominent Ukrainian historians (Maksymovych, Ko-
stomarov, Antonovych, Hrushevskyi, Bahalii, Chubatyi, etc.) believe that the
name of the Kyivan state and its people is of local, autochthonous origin.
Mykhailo Hrushevskyi expressed the views of Anti-Normanists in the best
way: “Apparently “Rus” was a specific name of Kyiv outskirts, Polianska land,
and as all samples to take the name of Rus from foreign peoples, northern and
southern, are still failing, we have to consider it a native initial name of Kyiv
outskirts”. 3
There are diverse compromise versions. For example, R. Smal-Stotskyi, H.
Vernadskyi, H. Pashkevych proved a dual (the Dnieper region and Scandinavian)
origin of the name “Rus”. According to their versions, the name is connected
with Normans and Slavs from the Dnieper region simulteniously. Smal-Stotskyi
believed that after Normans’ conquest of the Dnieper region, the name of the
Swedish Vikings “Ruotsi”, borrowed from the Finnish, in its slavonicized form
of “Rus” came across the slavonic word “Rus”, which came from the hair color
of “rusyi” (red). H. Pashkevych agreed with him and proved that the term “Rus”
initially denoted “red” color. Normans are believed to have been mostly red.
Therefore the state, founded by Normans, was called Rus. In the 18th
century
Ukrainian historian Ya. Markovych wrote about blond hair of first Slavic settlers
in the Dnieper region, as of the origin of the name Rus. 4
H. Vernadskyi assumpted that in the mid 18th
century Norman gang came
from Sweden to the Azov Steppe, and actually they established the state of Rus.
Later, in the 9th
century, a new wave of Vikings came from Denmark to the ter-
ritory of the Dnieper region. North (Danish) and Southern (Swedish) “Rus”
merged into a single state, bearing the same name.
1
Svientsitskyi I. Nazva “Rus” v istorychnomu rozvytku do XIII-ho viku.- Zhovkva, 1936.- S. 18.
2
Braichevskyi M. Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1968.- S. 7.
3
Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: U 12 t.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991.- T. I.- S. 192.
4
Markovich, Ya Zapiski o Malorossii, ee zhiteliakh s proizvedeniyakh.- SPb, 1798.- P. 7, 11.
27. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
26
The concept of Normanists, despite its anti-patriotism for Russians, got to be
an official version of Ruthenian state origin in Russian historiography of the 18th
-
19th
centuries. M. Karamazin even considered it to be an advantage of Slavs, that
they allegedly chose monarchy voluntarily, having called Norman rulers them-
selves. Throughout the pre-revolutionary period, Normanists occupied a dominant
position in the Russian science. 1 Such undisguised, anti-patriotic posture of Rus-
sian historians had its own political reasons beyond history. It is a well-known that
soon after Peter I had died only foregners ruled the Russian Empire. 2 Romanov
dynasty in the direct male generation ceased to exist with the death of Peter II, in
the female line, it was when Elizabeth I died. From 1761 and till March 1917, i.e.
until the renunciation of Nicholas II, Russian empire was ruled by German Hol-
stein-Gottorp dynasty. Using genealogical equilibristic, it was officially called the
Romanov dynasty, although researchers have always known the truth.
The tsars of the dynasty, whose family name Romanov was a historical pseu-
donym, “traditionally” married German princesses. As follows, Peter III married
Princess Sophia Augustin- Frederitsi-Anholt-Tserbska, future Queen Catherine II.
Peter II and Catherine II were born in Germany. Their son Paul I married Princess
Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg. Their son Alexander I married Princess Louise
of Baden-Baden. About Nicholas I there is even a song: “Our German tsar of Rus-
sia, wears a uniform of Prussia”. Great-grandfather of Nicholas I, who married the
daughter of Peter I, was a true German. “So his grandfather, Peter III, was only half
Russian. Since he, in turn, married a German, his son Paul, father of Nicholas I, was
3/4 German and only 1/4Russian. However Paul married a German again, which
means that his son, Nicholas I, was only 1/8 Russian and 7/8 German”. 3 Nicholas
I married Princess Frederica-Louise-Charlotte-Wilhelmina. Their son, Alexander
II, married princess Maksymiliana-Wilhelmina-Augusta-Sophia-Maria-Hessen of
Darmsht. Alexander III married princess Dagmar of Denmark and last tsar, Nich-
olas II married Alicia of Hessen. By the way, this last tsar, who imposed a strict
ban of Ukrainian language and culture, has recently been canonized by the Russian
Orthodox Church as a saint, with his wife and children.
It was necessary to justify ideologically the German origin of Russian
crowned heads. That is where Russian official circles took the line of Norman
concept, which historically justified the domination of German foreigners in the
tsarist empire.
Though the Germans in Russia of the 19th
century made up only 1% of pop-
ulation, 57% of high officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were German.
Natives of Germany and the Germans, born in Russia or in Ostzeiski (Baltic)
1
Dovzheniuk, V.I. Ob etnicheskoi prinadlezhnosti naselennia Chertiakhovskoi kultury // Drevniie
slaviane i Kyivskaia Rus.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1989.- P. 7.
2
Chukhonskaia dinastiia.- Nagasaki, 1906.- P. 5.
3
Shishko, L Rasskazy iz russkoi istorii.- SPb, 1906.- P. 5.
28. IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME
27
areas, made up 46% among the leadership of the Military Ministry, there were
62% of them among mail and railway authorities. There was, for example, a
powerful head of the 3rd
Department (secret police) and a chief of German police,
Alexander Benkendorf, did not know Russian. 1
There was no significant polemic against Normanists after the Revolution of
1917 and even until the mid 1930’s. Varangian question was considered to be finally
“resolved in favor of the Normans”. 2 However when Hitler came to power in Ger-
many with his racist sermons, pro-Norman position of Soviet historians experienced
diametric reorientation. It turned out that Norman origin of the term Rus gave a
reason for German ideologists to make a political conclusion that the German racial
element gave state and organizational structure to the Slavs, because the Slavs (par-
ticularly Russians) are not capable of state building. Since that moment the ruthless
struggle with Normanists began. Marxists internationalists suddenly made Normans
their avid class enemies. Normanists’ views were officially condemned as harmful
for the ideology, and being a “Normanist” was politically dangerous. 3 Since then
Soviet historians obtained positions, close to Ukrainian historiography of autoch-
thonous theory. “Since 1940-1950’s a version of “Southern-Rus” origin of the name
was established in the Soviet historiography. Its primary meaning was the territory
of the Middle Dnieper region where Kyiv was situated (the so-called “Rus Land” in
its narrow sense, revealed by chronicles of the 12th
-13th
centuries)”. 4
Soviet historians started associating the origin of the term Rus with the name
of Dnipro influent of the Ros river or with the Dnieper region city of Roden, or
both. 5 This idea goes back to Hustynskyi Chronicle of 1670. The author “among
different guesses”, “why our people should be called Rus”, mentioned that it
derived from “иныя от реки глаголемыя Рось” (the river called Ros). 6
Since Normanists’ views were marked as fascist and bourgeois, Soviet his-
torians wrote, “Soviet historiography finally disproved Normanists’ unscientific
assertion that the term “Rus” comes from the Norman tribe, which penetrated
East Europe in the 2nd
half of the 9th century, founded a state there and gave it
their name”. 7 In reality, the origin of the word “Rus” is connected with the terri-
tory and the population of modern Ukraine, especially with the Middle Dnieper
River, in particular Kyiv, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav. 8
1
Geller, M.J. Istoria Rossiyskoi imperii: V 3 t.- M.: “MIK”, 1997.- T. Sh.- P. 21; Zaionchkovskyi,
P.A. Pravitelstvennyi apparat samoderzhavnoi Rossii v XIX v.- M., 1978.- P. 179.
2
Hotie, Yu.V. Zheleznyi vek v Vostochnoi Yevrope.- M., 1930.- P. 248.
3
Ageieva, R.A. Strany s narody: Proiskhozhdeniie nazvanii.- M.: Nauka. 1990. - P. 116.
4
Horsky, A.A. Problema proiskhozhdeniia nazvaniia Rus v sovremennoi sovetskoi istoriografii //
Istoriia SSSR.- 1989.- № 3.- P. 131.
5
Istoriia SSSR s drevneishikh vremion.- M.: Nauka, 1966.- Т. I.- P. 348.
6
Hrushevskyi, M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi: U 12 t.- K.: Nauk.dumka, 1991.- Т. I.- P. 193.
7
Radianska entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy. - K.: AN URSR, 1972. - Т.4.- P. 38.
8
Radianska entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy. - K.: AN URSR, 1972. - Т.4.- P. 38.
29. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
28
Historians of Ukrainian diaspora suggested a compromise solution to the
problem. “The word Rus, as one might think, initially belonged to a foreign
tribe, which defeated Southern tribes of the East Slavic group, dissolved
among the Slavs, leaving behind the name, which got to be the name of our
people and the new state. This name Rus grew to be our national name and we
had it for a long time”. 1
Noting the Anti-Normanists historiographical position, they wrote, “It does
not cross out the importance of first princes and their retainers of Norman origin
in the formation of the state system in the state of Kyiv”. 2
Advanced Ukrainian research in history traditionally keep to Anti-Norma
nist approach. Thus, in the recent study it is said that “the ethnonym Rus ap-
peared in the Middle Dnieper region and in the 9th
century was firmly attached
to the state of Kyiv and was well-known beyond its borders. Later the name
“Rus”, “Ruskyi” was considered to be Ukrainians’ selfnaming. “Ruskyi” in the
ethnic meaning of “Ukrainian” was found in the 14th
century and existed for cen-
turies”. 3 Other modern researchers share this opinion, “The analysis of written
evidence has shown that the theory of the Southern origin of the name Rus is the
most plausible”. 4
Unexpectedly academician Omelian Pritsak announced an innovative ver-
sion. He tried to connect the two opposite theories, those of Khazars and Nor-
mans. Until 930’s according to the Pritsak’ concept, Khazars dominated in Kyiv
(and Kyiv was founded as an outpost of the Khazar Khanate on the western bor-
ders), later there came Normans. Pritsak believed that the name Rus was brought
to the East Europe by a Ruthenian-Frisian-Norman trading company”. 5
In the dull whirlpool of so-called “Norman question”, mentioned here, the
true problem of the term Rus was lost. As we can see, all efforts of the research-
ers were directed at elucidating its origin: whether it came from Scandinavian,
Turkic, or some other. This situation enables Russian historiography, veiled by
scholastic reasons, to hide another extremely important and topical issue: it is
not about Norman, East or autochthonous origin of the ethnical term of a purely
academic value, but about the history of its use, for “the origin of the name is
less important than the meaning”. 6 The history of the use of the term Rus and
its derivatives remains one of the fundamental problems of great importance in
establishment of national consciousness among East European nations. In other
1
Doroshenko, D. Narys istorii Ukrainy.- Lviv, 1991.- Т. I.- P. 24.
2
Zhukovskyi А., Subtelny, О. Narys istorii Ukrainy.- Lviv: Vyd-vo NTSh, 1991.- P. 13.
3
Pivtorak, G. Ukraintsi: zvidky my i nasha mova.- K.: Nauka, 1993.- P. 66.
4
Tolochko, P. Rus – Mala Rus - Ukraina // III Mizhnarodny congress ukrainistiv. Istoria. - Kharkiv,
1996.- Chast. І.- P. 3.
5
Pritsak, О. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- K.: Oberegy, 1997.- Т. І.- P. 53.
6
Krypiakevych, I.P. Istoria Ukrainy.- Lviv: Svit, 1990.- P. 36.
30. IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME
29
words, despite the issue on the origin of the name Rus, being a mostly theoret-
ical one nowadays, the issues of the term’s use and its semantics are scientific
problems of an extremely topical political importance. Because, as we will see
later, the whole thing reveals the mechanism of ethnonymic mimicry of Moscow
imperialism. 1 This is why Moscow researchers, who have spoilt a lot of paper,
creating a giant literature on the etymology of the term Rus, tell almost nothing
about the history of its use, while this history is extremely interesting and telling.
Solovyov, who seems to be the only Russian researcher of the problem in the
postwar period, complained, “in the 19th
century all attention of Russian histo-
rians was absorbed by the notorious question of the origin of Rus and its name,
although the issue of the development of the name remained untouched”. 2
It is not a coincidence that in the 20th
century Russian historians did not
investigate this matter. In contrast to Solovyov’s opinion, the reason was not
the fact that they could not escape from the haunting “Norman issue”. The issue
of the development of the name of Rus is ranked among dangerous “slippery”
topics, to study them meant to sway the foundations of a traditional ("normal")
design of Russian historiography. Russian historians actually hesitate to get into
the topic. Its objective consideration will result in the destruction of the imperial
historical and philological myth of Moscow’s right for Kyiv heritage (Moscow is
a second Kyiv), all the ensuing consequences.
1
Solzhenitsyn, A. Vystuplenia na ukrainsko-russkie temy // Zvezda.- 1993.- № 12.- P. 161-166.
2
Solovyov, A. Velikaia, Malaia i Belaia Rus // Voprosy istorii.- 1947.- № 7.- P. 24.
31. 30
III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS
In the prosperous times of the reign of Volodymyr the Great and Yaroslav
the Wise, the state of Rus was the largest in Europe, embracing the territory from
the Transcarpathia to Volga-Oka interfluve region, from Tmutarakan’at the Azov
Sea coast to the waves of the Baltic Sea. The population, inhabiting this vast and
geographically various area, lived in different economic conditions. Medieval
people were certainly dependent on the natural environment to a great extent, on
the climate, they lived in. Historians of Kyiv state claimed that natural conditions
made a dramatic effect upon the state forming process. 1
O. Dombrovskyi stressed, “The very fact that the historical process con-
sists of three main components, universal in their range: time, space and person,
makes the geographic factor a significant part of a complex composition of func-
tions of historism”. 2
The vast Empire of Rurik’s descendants was divided by landscape into sep-
arate natural climate-and-vegitative zones. “No doubt, the European territory,
occupied by the Eastern Slavs, is to be divided into belts, differentiated by the
climate peculiarities, soil and vegetation covering, and give them individual
characteristics.”3
In the North of grand East European Plain, around Novgorod, there was a
taiga zone with cool moisturous climate, coniferous forests on poor ash gray soil.
Further, to the South-East, on the territory of today’s Moscow, there was a zone
of mixed forest with low-yield soil and considerable marsh areas. Such natural
conditions did not make it possible to grow high yield wheat crop. 4
In the South near Kyiv, the forest-steppe zone is located with well-known
fruitful black soils, and further to the South, in the Greater Black Sea area, lied
the Great Eurasian Steppe, from Mongolia, and the Great Wall, to the Denube
Valley, not far from the Alps, thus embracing two parts of the world. A lot of
authors keep to the hypothesis that the home land of Indo-Europeans was the
Ukrainian Steppe.5 “Various sources make us believe that Eastern Slavonic state-
hood was maturing in the South, in a rich and fruitfull line of the Middle Dnie-
per area. Thousands of years before Kyivan Rus it saw cultivation of land. The
historical development in the South was much more intensive than in the woody
1
Chubaty, М. Kniazha Rus-Ukraina ta vynyknennia triokh skhidnoslovianskykh natsiy // Zapysky
Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Shevchenko [hereinafter, ZNTSh].- 1964.- Т. 178.- P. 24.
2
Dombrovsky, O. Studii z rannioii istorii Ukrainy: Zbirnyk prats.- Lviv; New York, 1998.- P. 209.
3
Grekov, B.D. Kyivskaia Rus.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1953.- P. 60.
4
Soloukhin, V.A. Vozvrashcheniie k nachalu. - М.: Sovremennik, 1990.- P. 18.
5
Davis, Norman Europe: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- P. 104.
32. III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS
31
and marshy Northern regions with their poor soils”. 1 Researchers claim that, “it
was this area, the land of black soils, the line where forest turned into steppe, that
had all conditions for the fast development of culture compared to the Northern
forest line”.2 Significant density of people involved in the cultivation of land,
compared to the neibouring territories, in the Dnieper area forest-steppe was ac-
counted for by qualitatively beneficial natural-and-geographic conditions. “Ad-
vantegeous for agriculture and crafts, the combination of forest-steppe and forest
areas, a favourable river system and natural resources alongside other factors,
ensured a successful development of productive forces and productive relations,
determined qualitative diversity of economies of the region”. 3
Gentle temperate climate of the South was (and is) an additional economic
resource, more important than natural deposits. For instance, in Moscow area
the number of days beneficial for vegetation is 165, while in Kyiv area it is 200.
For the cultivation of land extra month of warm weather is of great importance.
“The harvest of the same crops in Kyiv is several times more than in Volgo-Oka
interfluve”.4 To make a long story short, to the North of rich Kyiv forest-steppe
the land is not so fertile, the climate is colder, the length of light is shorter. The
lack of well-arranged roads made waterways of great importance for Rus. The
East European Plain has three waterways (sometimes four waterways are men-
tioned). 5 The main river way, as well as the spine of all the transport system in
Rus was “the way from the Varangians to the Greeks”. This way went from the
Gulf of Finland to the Lake Ilmen, then it went along the rivers, in some parts the
vessels were pulled on the ground, then it went along the Western Dvina, and af-
ter that it reached the upstream of the Dnieper and the Black Sea, which was the
way to the magnificent centres of European civilization, those of Greece (Bez-
antine) and Rome (Italy). There was a rival river way, going along the Mologa
and the Sheksna to the Volga, which then reached the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus
and the Muslim Asia. The future Suzdal-Moscow area was formed on this sec-
ond river way, and this geopolitical fact played an important role in its further
development. The third river-based communication system is the Niman river
and the Western Dvina, flowing into the Baltic Sea. “The three above-mentioned
river systems had a decisive effect upon the character, culture and national aspi-
rations of the Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians. The main rivers, those of the
Dnieper, the Volga and the Dvina, are certain to have a mysterious importance
1
Rybakov, B.A. Myr istorii: Nachalnyie veka russkoi istorii.- M.: Mol. gvardiia, 1984.- P. 39.
2
Grekov, B.D. Kyivskaia Rus.- M.: Gospolitizdat, 1953.- P. 78.
3
Rychka, V.M. Formirovaniie territorii Kyivskoi zemli (IX – pervaia tret XII v.).- K.: Nauk.
dumka, 1988.- P. 12.
4
Bushkov, A.А., Burovskyi, A.M. Rossia, kotoroi ne bylo-2. Russkaia Atlantida: Istoricheskoie
rassledovaniie.- Krasnoiarsk: Bonus; М.: OLMA-Press, 2000.- P. 248.
5
Solovyov, S.M. Istoria Rossii s drevneishikh vremion.- SPb., Izd-vo “Obshchestvennaia polza”.-
Kn. pervaia. Т. I- V.- P. 12-13.
33. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
32
for the historical life of these nations”. 1 All the waterways of East Europe were
connected with one another. According to Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, “The system
of the upper Dnieper is very closely connected with the system of the upper Vol-
ga, the Western Dvina and the system of the Northern Lakes. The system of the
Pripyat River is linked to the systems of the Niman and the Western Bug and the
Visla. The system of the Desna is connected with the system of the Oka, the mid-
dle Volga area and the upper Podon, while the Posemye and the middle сonfluent
of the Dnieper, the Vorskla and the Samara are closely linked to the system of the
Donets. As a result we have got a huge system of ways, whose main artheries are
accumulated in the middle Dnieper in its natural centre, ancient Kyiv, founded
here when the humans started inhabiting the Dnieper hills, gathering trade car-
avans from all the main confluents of the Dnieper river”. 2 Rivers continuously
attracted new inhabitants. It is here, over the rivers, where the first Rus towns
grew. Along the big rivers, the principal trade ways, were accumulated people of
the region. “Comparing the Dnieper area as the centre of the South-East Europe-
an civilization with other Eurasian civilizations, we should remind that the river
factor was of greatest importance for the earliy historical process on the territory
of Ukraine. By its importance the Dnieper was similar to the Nile, the Euphrates
and the Tigris, the Hindu and the Ganges, as well as that of the Yellow River,
Huang Ho, correspondingly, for Egypt, the Middle East, India and China; it grew
to be the centre of civilization for South-East Slavonic tribes, and in the course
of time, for the society of Kyivan Rus. The Dnieper was mostly a communica-
tion-trade means, as well as that of defence, for the dwellings of autochthonous
and land-cultivating population, located on the right bank, had a better defence
system from the nomadism of the East. The Dnieper waterway was also a win-
dow to the world of the Black Sea and the Mediterranian, in economic-and-cul-
tural aspect, and later in economic one.”
Thus, the early history process on the territory of Ukraine was naturally
connected with a great role of the Dnieper, which was also significant during
later periods of Rus-Ukraine history. Such a role of the Slavuta (old name of the
Dnieper) in the life of people made it a sacred symbol of mystery in historical
tradition, people’s creativity and literature of Rus-Ukrainian ethnos”. 3
A Polish historian Henryk Łowmiański calculated that the population of
the state of Rus in the 10th
century was about 4,500 thousand people. The popu-
lation of then German was 3,500 thousand, that of Poland was 1,225 thousand.
“Primary chronicle” (Old Church Slavonic “Повѣсть времѧньныхъ лѣтъ”)
provided a detailed list of Slavonic and non-Slavonic tribes, inhabiting the
1
Chubatyi, M. Kniazha Rus-Ukraina ta vynyknennia triokh skhidnoslovianskykh natsiy //
ZNTSh. - 1964.- Т. 178.- P. 26.
2
Hrushevskyi, M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi: U 11 t., 12 kn.- K.: Nauk.dumka, 1991.- Т. I.- P. 11.
3
Dombrovsky, O. Studii z rannioi istorii Ukrainy: Zbirnyk prats.- Lviv; New York, 1998.- P. 93.
34. III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS
33
state of Kyiv those days. In the West, in the Carpathians area, there lived the
Croatians, along the Bug — the Volynians (the Dulebes, the Buzhans). The
Drevlians, the Dregoviches were located on the right bank of the Dnieper.
There, on the territory of the modern Kyiv Province, also lived the well-known
Polians, and nearby, along the river Desna there lived the Severians. By the
Dniester river the Tivertsi built their settlements, and by the South Bug there
were the Uliches. The territory of settlement of the above mentioned tribes (as
well as their anthropological features) co-insides with the main national territo-
ry, and, which should be stressed, with the modern anthropological types of the
Ukrainian people. The Radimichi, the Polochans lived along the left confluents
of the Dnieper, while the Vyatichi’s settlements reached the Oka. The Krivichi,
who had a hub in Smolensk, reached the upper Western Dvina, while the Slov-
ens from Novgorod lived in the Lake Ilmen. “The analysis of various sourc-
es: chronicles, archeological findings, linguistic and anthropological sources,
made it possible to picture an expressive ethnic structure of Rus in the period
of its formation. The Rus of the 9th
century, which stepped confidently into the
world history, appeared as a unity of eight great ‘triban unions’ (the Polians,
the Severians, the Drevlians, the Dregovichi, the Radimichi, the Vyatichi, the
Krivichi, the Ilmen Slovenians), each of which consisted of several (the great-
est number was six) smaller tribal groups”. 1
A lot of non-Slavonic tribes, including the Hungarian and Lithuanian, were
conquered and included into Rus. The Chronicle gives their list: “А се суть инии
язици, иже дань дають Руси: чюдь, меря, весь, мурома, черемись, морьдва,
пермь, печера, ямь, литва, зимигола, корсь, норома, либь: си суть свой
язык имуще, от колена Афетова, иже живут в странах полунощных”. 2 (Old
Church Slavonic “and other peoples brought tax to Rus: the Chud, the Meria, the
Ves, the Muroma, the Cheremys, the Mordva, the Perm, the Pechera, the Yam, the
Litva, the Zymygola, the Kors, the Noroma, the Lyb: they are all different people,
descendants of Japheth”) The Lithuanian tribes inhabited the Baltic area, while
the Finno-Ugric tribes occupied all the North-East territory, including the Vol-
ga-Oka interfluve, i.e. the core of modern Russia, where there lived no Slavonic
tribes, mentioned in the chronicle. The chronicler pictures “the state of Kyiv as
a political, not ethnic creation, built on the vassal devendence on the tribes and
territories, subordinate to Kyiv”.3 Such a view is generally accepted in the his-
torical science. “The borders of the land of Rus prove that Rus had neither tribal
nor ethnic roots, but political and state-forming grounds”.4
1
Braichevskyi, M.Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- К.: Nauk.dumka, 1968.- P. 148.
2
Povest vremennykh let.- M.; L., 1950.- Т. I.- P. 10.
3
Vysotsky, S.O. Kyivska pysemna shkola X-XII st. (Do istorii ukrainskoi pysemnosti).- Lviv;
Kyiv; New York, 1998.- P. 58.
4
Sovietskaia istoricheskaia entsyklopiediia: V 16 t.- M., 1969.- T. 12.- S. 417.
35. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
34
The concept of state, and state territory of those days does not match the modern
concept of the notions. A vast state territory of Rus was an expression of its might;
however, it was also a weak point. According to A.Nasonov’s historical-and-geo-
graphical study, “The state of Kyiv was an unstable unity, which united a territory
scattered on the vast spaces of the East European Plain, where some areas were still
not domesticated. In the middle of the huge territory, there were great spaces, where
actually the state had no power; in some areas the state was nominal or irregular. It
would be correct to say that initially, the state of Kyiv was comprised of the territory
of ancient “Rus Land” and the areas, scattered about the vast East European Plain”. 1
Following K.Marx, researchers believed that the state of Kyiv was to great extent “a
non-continuous, patchwork unity”. 2 Scattered about the vast area, population of dif-
ferent ethnisities was hard to keep under control of a single power. “Different lands
and tribes revealed their separative tendencies, wishing to live independently. The
integrity of the state was kept by the dynasty”3 Giving characteristics to the internal
nature of the state of Rus, Mikhalo Hrushevskyi stressed: “The bonds connecting the
state, if only in a primitive way, were really weak. They had to be refreshed, renovat-
ed by military campaigns, change of governors and subordinates, for the state not to
be overburdened and destroyed”. 4 This gave B. Grekov grounds to call the state of
Kyiv “an awkward (disorderly) state”.5
Since mid. 9th
century, when a political formation with the capital of Kyiv
emerged on the Dnieper banks, the term “Rus Land” appeared. Similarly, the
chronicle mentioned such terms as “Liadska Land”, “Ugric Land”, “Greek Land”
etc. The word “land” meant “state”, for the word “state” was not used those days.
The word “derzhava” (“state”) is of Old Bulgarian origin and was brought to
our language with church liturgy books. Its primary meaning coincides with the
meaning of such words as “might”, “reign”, “power”. Thus, the beginning of the
chronicle, which in the authentic text is called: “Се повѣсть временных лѣтъ,
откуда єсть пошла Руськая Земля, кто въ Кієвѣ нача первѣє княжити і како
Руськая Земля стала єсть” (This is the Primary Chronicle about the Origin of
Rus Land, of Those Who First Reigned in Kyiv and How Rus Land Appeared).
The Primary Chronicle points out that the name of Kyiv state “Rus Land” first
appeared in 852 AD, during the reign of Byzantine Emperor Michael. “В лето
6360, индикта 15, наченшь Михайлу царствовати, нача ся прозывати Руска
Земля”. 6 (Old Church Slavonic Summer 6360, indict 15, Michael came to reign,
1
Nasonov А. N. “Russkaia ziemlia” i obrazovanie territorii drievnieruskoho gosudarstva.- M.: Izd-
vo AN SSSR, 1951.- С. 25.
2
Istoricheskaia geografiia SSSR.- М., 1973.- S. 39.
3
Krypiakevych I. P. Istoriia Ukrainy.- Lviv: Svit, 1990.- S. 70.
4
Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: U 11 t., 12 kn.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991.- T. I.- S. 428.
5
Griekov B. D. Feodalnyie otnosheniia v Kiievskom gosudarstve.- M.; L., 1937.- S. 189-190.
6
PSRL.- Pg., 1923.- T. 2, vyp. 1.- S. 13.
36. III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS
35
and Rus Land was called so). Approximately at that time Byzantine and Arabic
sources started to use the name “Rus” for the unity of Polians. Not touching
upon the question whether this name was given to Polians by Varyangians, or
if this name was of local origin, it is sufficient to stress that primarily the name
of “Rus”, from the enthnic viewpoint, belonged to the Dnieper tribe of Polians.
Nestor the Chronicler who of all Slavonic tribes gave preference to Kyiv Polians:
“men of wisdom and common sense”, pointed to a memorable change of their
ethnonym: “поляни, еже ныне зовомая Русь”. 1 (Old Church Slavonic“Po-
lans now called Rus”). The Chronicler so fixed the new ethnonym (“Rus” in
plural, which is, “Rusin” in singular) which was the beginning of a new ethnic
formation, which was “based on territorial links rather than on tribal ones”. 2
According to V. Shcherbakovskyi, “Kyiv was a central capital of Polians and at
the same time it was a centre and capital of Rus. Therefore Polians started to be
called Rus”.3 The role of Polians in “the formation of Rus is admitted to have been
significant; they can be considered to have been a core Rus consolidation”. 4 “The
name of “Rus” is an ancient calling of Kyiv Land, a land of Pilians, known since
the first half of the 9th
century, long before Kyiv was conquered by the Northern
princesses”. 5
According to the modern anthropology, the territory occupied by Polians
also included the middle Dnieper, towns of Kyiv, Chernigiv and Pereyaslav. 6
From Polians the ethnonym “Rus” first expanded to the neighbouring tribe of
Severians, occupying the area along the Desna. The tribal settlements of Polans
and Severians were of the same origin. They are considered to have had Chern-
yakhiv archeological culture and its relict, that of Volyntseva culture. The mod-
ern archeology believes that “the autochthonal areal of Volyntseva culture is the
tribal territory of Rus, which should be identified as Rus Land in narrow mean-
ing. 7 However the names “Rus” and “Rus Land” are found in historical sources
in different meanings at a time, which makes it difficult to interpret them. The
most complete classification of the term “Rus” was made by a classical Russian
historian (the Mordva by origin) Vasyl Klyuchevskyi. He differentiated between
four meanings of the word “Rus”: 1. Ethnographic: Rus as a tribe; 2. Social: Rus
as a state; 3 geographical: Rus as a region, and 4. Political: Rus as a state territo-
1
Poviest vriemiennykh liet.- M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1950.- T. І.- S. 2І.
2
Balushok V. Etnotsentryzm polian v “Povisti vremennykh lit” i problema vytokiv etnichnoi
samosvidomosti ukraintsiv // Naukovi zapysky KDU:. Zbirnyk prats molodykh vchenykh ta
aspirantiv.- K., 1999.- T. 3.- S. 10.
3
Shcherbakivskyi V. Formatsiia ukrainskoi natsii.- Praha, 1941.- S. 131.
4
Braichevskyi, M.Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- К.: Nauk.dumka, 1968.- P. 163
5
Tikhomirov М. N. Russkoie lietopisaniia.- М., 1979.- S. 45.
6
Alieksieieva Т. I. Etnogienez vostochnukh slavian po dannym antropologii.- М.: Izd-vo MGU,
1973.- S. 31.
7
Siedov V. V. Russkii kaganat IX vieka // Otiechiestviennaia istoriia.- 1998.- № 4.- S. 12.
37. Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name
36
ry”. 1 One more meaning can be added to the list suggested by Klyuchevskyi, the
church meaning: Rus as adepts of East Orthodox Church. In the church meaning
the word “Rus” united all the peoples, both Slavonic and non-Slavonic, that be-
longed to “Rus religion”, i.e. orthodox faith. 2
Historians suggest that the term “Rus” was most often used both as an ethno-
nym and as the name of a state. 3 However the name “Rus” had ethnic meaning
and was used as a collective nomination of a nation, therefore in the Slavonic text
of Igor’s treaty with the Greeks in 945 AD “Rus” and “Rus Ancestry” acquired
the similar meaning. “It is known that the names of states, mentioned in the
chronicle, such as Liadska (Polish), Bulgarian and Greek Lands, appeared after
the names of the nations: Liakh (the Pole), the Bulgarians, the Greeks, inhabiting
their ethnic territories. Thus, there is no doubt that the term “Rus Land”, “Rus”
was also formed from the name of the nation, the Rusins, who lived in Kyiv area.
The name “Rus Land”, “Rus” was sometimes used by chroniclers as a name of
the whole country, though there are no grounds to claim that as ethnic it belongs
to all the tribes and nationalities of Kyiv state, taking into account the fact that
many of them were of non-Slavonic origin”. 4
Otherwise stating, the fact that the ethnic structure of Kyiv state had a poly-
ethnic basis, was reflected in the use of the term “Rus”. 5 As in any multiethnic
empire, the name of Kyiv state functioned in double meaning: in ethnic and
state-and-political sense. B.Rybakov mentioned that the term “Rus” in ancient
sources “was used in two meanings: a narrow (ethnic) and a broad (territori-
al) one”. 6 Similar phenomena of different use of names (ethnic — political)
can be observed in the states, which possess not only their own, autochthonic,
ethnic territory, but also alien lands. For instance: Rzeczpospolita of Poland in
state-territorial understanding was the name of Poland itself but also of subor-
dinate Ukrainian, Belorusian and other ethnically alien lands. However at those
times neither Lithuania, no Samogitians, no Inflantians or, even Rus Voivodship
(Province) were called Poland in the sense of ethnicity.
The Denub Empire of Habsburgs was called Austria (since 1867 it was
called Austria-Hungary). However Bohemia, Croatia, Galicia and other ethni-
cally non-German lands, which were a part of the empire, were called Austria
only in the state (political) sense. In the ethnic meaning Austria has always been
the name for the lands, inhabited by the Germans. Similar dual use of the name
1
Kliuchievskii V. О. Tierminologiia russkoi istorii // Sochinieni.- М., 1959.- Т. 6.- S. 130.
2
Geller М. Istoriia Russkoi impierii: V triokh tomakh.- М.: “МIK”, 1997.- Т. 1.- S. 66.
3
Siedov V. V. Russkii kaganat IX vieka // Otiechiestvienaia istoriia.- 1998.- № 4.- S. 40.
4
Vysotskyi S. O. Kyiv: “Se budu maty hradomъ Ruskymъ” // Istoriia Rusi-Ukrainy: istoryko-
arkheolohichnyi zbirnyk.- K., 1998.- S. 102.
5
Agieieva R. А. Strany i narody: Proiskhozhdieniie nazvanii.- М.: Nauka, 1990.- S. 119.
6
Rybakov B. А. Drievniie Russy // Sovietskaia arkheologiia.- 1953.- Т. 18.- S. 31.
