notice on the Greeks that marks of respect were expected, while plausible claims to have
humbled the ‘God-protected city’ could overawe the indigenous populations of the
eastern lands. The Rus chaganus had not necessarily initiated the expedition, and (as with
later Rus attacks on Byzantium), many participants were probably fresh arrivals from
the Baltic region. However, retainers and associates of the chaganus probably played a
key part in equipping and guiding what Photios called ‘the unbelievable course of the
barbarians’.
Whatever the Rus expedition’s rationale and exact organisation may have been, the
fleet reportedly succumbed to a storm on its way back north. Perhaps this intervention
from Above, belated but deadly, prompted the Rus leadership’s next known move, the
despatch to Constantinople of envoys requesting baptism. By 867 Photios was boasting
that the famed Rho ̄s had received a ‘bishop and pastor’ and it is likely enough that a
mission was sent: a later Byzantine text depicts him as astounding the Rus prince and
his assembled ‘elders’ with his flameproof Gospel book (Laourdas and Westerink 1985 :
50 ; Bekker 1838 : 343 – 4 ). However, neither missionaries nor miracles could guarantee
political order and the archaeological hints of conflagration at Staraia Ladoga and Goro-
dishche datable to the 860 s and early 870 s (Zuckerman 2000 b: 110 – 14 ) suggest
upheavals and strife; the Byzantine mission seems to have folded at that time without
lasting gains to its name.
Twenty or so years later groups of eastern-based Rus made the move to the Middle
Dnieper area, some taking up residence on the hills overlooking the river at Kiev.
Neither their provenance nor the exact circumstances of their arrival are known,
although the Rus Primary Chronicle’s tale of successive would-be warlords is not implaus-
ible (PVL: 13 – 14 ; RPC: 60 – 1 ). What is reasonably clear is that they were few in
number, newcomers to a region inhabited mainly by Slavs and overshadowed by the
steppe-nomads: the Khazars and their proxies had exacted tribute there and it is
likely that a Khazar official resided in Kiev at the time when the northerners installed
themselves. Others made for the town of Chernigov and settlements nearby such as
Shestovitsa. That this occurred in the last decade or so of the ninth century is suggested
by archaeological finds at Shestovitsa and at Kiev, whose docklands beside the Dnieper
only began to be built over with log cabins from around that time onwards (Sahaidak
1991 : 82 – 4 , 88 ; Franklin and Shepard 1996 : 98 – 103 ; Androsˇcˇuk 2000 ; Kovalenko
et al. 2003 : 60 – 4 ). The region was attractive less for its own fertility or land routes
running from east to west than for the megalopolis that was a few weeks’ sailing-
distance away in springtime. Hopes of gaining access to the markets of Constantinople
probably induced the Rus to try and establish themselves there: the tribute customarily
paid by local Slavs to the Khazars might now be shipped overseas rather than borne
overland to the Khazar core-lands. The scheme was almost as audacious as the
expedition of 860 , although now it was a matter of trading with the Greeks, not raiding.
There had never been a regular waterway between the Middle Dnieper region and ports
lying to the south of the Black Sea before. The exchanges in primary produce of the
forest regions, furs, wax, honey and slaves, had mostly been conducted by nomads,
associates of the Khazars and, in the ninth century, the Hungarians. The Chersonites
were themselves important shippers of goods and passengers across the Black Sea, while
also standing to gain from the customs dues payable on all goods brought to their
hometown (Shepard 2008 ). But their trafficking did not involve river journeys
across the steppe and they most probably looked askance at newcomers ferrying goods
–– Jonathan Shepard––