International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

HISTORIOGRAPHY 10
TH
 – 11
TH
 CENTURIES
Chairs: 
Athanasios Markopoulos, Predrag Komatina
Aleksei Shchavelev
, 
Rus’
in the First Half of the 10
th
Century 
(According to Synchronous Byzantine and Arabic Sources)
Christina Sideri
, 
Orality and Audience in Theophanes Continuatus
Panagiotis Manafis
, 
Roman Antiquarianism in the 10
th
Century: The 
Constantinian Excerpts
and the 
Excerpta 
Anonymi
Dariya Rafiyenko
, 
Excerpta historica iussu Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta de sententiis: 
Edition and Study of the Concept of an Excerpt Collection (10
th
Cent., Constantinople)
Predrag Komatina
, 
Some Remarks on the Structure of 
De administrando imperio
and Its Relations to Other Works of Porphyrogenitus
Francisco Lopez-Santos Kornberger
, 
The Reigns of Isaak I Komnenos and Constantine X Doukas in the 
Skylitzes Continuatus
: 
Just a Rewriting of Michael Attaleiates’ 
History
?

---

110
Aleksei Shchavelev
Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of World History, Moscow, Russian Federation; 
[e-mail]
Rus’
in the First Half of the 10
th
Century 
(According to Synchronous Byzantine and Arabic Sources)
Rus’ in the 9
th
century was a number of chaotic groups without localization and clear social 
characteristics. On the contrary, in the mid and the second half of the 10
th
century we have a unique 
combination of Greek, Latin, Arabic, Khazar-Jewish, Scandinavian, and Slavic Sources, which give us 
a stereoscopic view of the Rurikid’s polity. But it’s necessary to realize that it is impossible to transfer 
these rich data to the previous half of the 10
th
century, it is necessary to study this intermediate 
duration separately.
We have seven synchronous evidences about Rus’ in the first half of the 10
th
century. The first 
one is the chapter about affairs in sea of military treaty “The Taktika” (t.a.q. 912) of Leo VI the Wise. 
Using textual analyses I have demonstrated that the text in the oldest manuscript Laur. 55,4 has 
distortion, but the second oldest manuscript Ambros. B 119-sup., reflecting the archetype, retains 
ethnonym “οἱ Ῥῶς”. The second evidence is chapters 37 and 42 of the treaties “De Administando 
Imperio”, which belong to the “first editorial stage” of the text made in the time of Leo VI (J. Howard-
Johston), or some time later (S.A. Kozlov, A.S. Shchavelev). The third is chapter 44 of the treaties 
“De Cerimoniis” about the expeditions against Saracens in 910/911 (R.J.H. Jenkins, J.F. Haldon). 
The fourth is the lapidary passage in the Chronicle of Symeon Logothete about “οἱ Ῥῶς Δρομῖται”. 
The fifth is Patriarch Nicholas’s I letter of 922, where he mentioned the opportunity to use the Rus’s 
against Bulgarians. The sixth is the Slavic translation of the peace treaty between Byzantine and Rus’ 
dated 12 of September 911 (the “treaty” of 907 is a construct of the author of Primary Chronicle). 
The seventh is Achmad Ibn-Fadlān’s “Kitāb” (“The Book”), the report of the journey in the 921–922 
to Volga’s Bulgaria (about social terminology of this text see: T.N. Kalinina & O.G. Bolshakov).
In this period we have only rough landmarks of Rus’s localization: “the North”, “rivers flowing 
to the Black Sea”, “upper Dnieper”, and “upper and middle Volga”. We have no synchronous evidence 
about any urban-center of Rus’ before the mid of the 10
th
century neither in Arabic nor in Byzantine 
texts. But we have exact evidences of definite territories, where Rus’ live; in 9
th
century only trade routes 
and places of war activities had been mentioned. It’s possible to clarify the Rus’s social structure. The 
treaty of 911 and Ibn-Fadlān vividly point out the supreme leader: great knyaz (μέγας ἄρχων) or malik 
al-Rūs. The denomination of a man from upper stratum is boyarin / knyaz (ἄρχων) or ra’īs. The basic 
strata consists of men (роусь, οἱ Ῥῶς ἄνδρες, al-Rūs), and the low one consists of semi-slave youth 
(ghulām, τό παιδίον). The main attribute of Rus’ was small vessel (ὁ ἀκατός μικρός, safīna sagīra) and an 
ability of moving by water. There is no trace of any prince’s family: Rurikid’s dynasty. So, Rus’ was rather 
egalitarian, but rank heterarchical (K. Cristiansen) society. There is no trace of any Slavic element among 
Rus’s names (Е.А. Melnikova) and only one Turkic: Актеву <*aqteγwe (“white camel”) (S.V. Kullanda).
All this features correspond to the information from core proro-narrative about first Russian 
Rurikids starting early Russian chronicle tradition (the mid of the 11
th
century), where we find 
supreme leader, three social strata (“воевода”, “мужъ”, “отрокъ”), the difference of Rus’ and Slavs, 
and close attention to the nautical business (precious sails, rowlocks).

---

111