beginning of the thirteenth century (Sawyer 1982 : 9 , 52 ; 1991 : 62 ; Lindkvist 1988 : 8 ,
59 ). Furthermore, nowadays the existence of colonies of natives from Gotland on the
east coast of the Baltic Sea has been called into question by modern Scandinavian
archaeologists (Carlsson 1983 ; Thunmark-Nylén 1983 ; Jansson 1994 ). Many items
from Grobin ̧a in Latvia, identified as Rimbert’s Seeburg, are indeed of Scandinavian
origin and date from the Vendel period to the beginning of the Viking Age, but their
connection to some sort of colonies with a population from Gotland is without
foundation.
CULTURAL ASSIMILATION AND SHAPING IDENTITIESThe common concept of what was called Rus’, also termed by historians and archaeolo-
gist as Kievan Rus’ or Ancient Rus’, as a well-defined area with fixed borders is due to
our familiarity with modern geographical and political maps. However, this vision
would have been alien to people living in the Viking Age. There is no word with the
meaning of the modern word ‘state’ in the Primary Chronicle and even the concept of a
capital did not exist until the twelfth century, when a borrowed Greek word metropolis
was put into Prince Oleg’s mouth when he proclaimed Kiev as ‘the mother of the
Russian towns’ (Tolochko 1991 : 15 – 16 ). Absence of a clear concept of a capital is
supported by the story that Prince Sviatoslav had serious plans to abandon Kiev and
move to the Balkans where ‘all the riches are concentrated: gold, silks, wine and various
fruits from Greece’ (Cross 1930 : 173 ).
The concept of Rus’ itself has changed during the course of time and denoted com-
pletely different kinds of identity. The group of foreigners among the envoys from the
Greeks sent by Emperor Theophilus to Ingelheim in 839 claimed that they belonged to
the people (gens) called Rhos’ and it was only the emperor Louis the Pious who gave them
another identity, discovering that they belonged to the people of the Swedes (Nelson
1991 : 44 ; Garipzanov 2006 : 7 ). The Rus’ had a distinctive identity among Islamic
writers, who made a clear difference between the Rus’ and neighbouring Slavs in almost
all respects, from clothing to lifestyle and activities (Birkeland 1954 ). They described
the Slavs as people dressing in linen shirts and leather boots, using spears and shields in
battle, whereas the Rus’ wore short caftan-like coats or jackets with buttons and wide
trousers. Their women wore bracelets, beads and rings, with ‘boxes’ on the chest. Con-
trary to the settled Slavs, the Rus’ had no fixed property and lived on what they could
acquire with their swords. Sources from the eastern part of the Muslim world described
that the Rus’ were headed by a leader, which some records called Malik, while others say
Haqan. Priests are also mentioned. These were involved in human and animal sacrifices.
Certain of them had considerably more power than the kings. They were not only
warriors. According to Ibn Rustah and Ibn Hauqal (tenth century), Rus’ are traders of
sable, ermine, squirrel, honey and wax and they deal with ‘Chazars’ and ‘Byzans’ (Birke-
land 1954 : 15 – 16 , 49 – 51 ). Al-Ma-s‘u ̄dı ̄ (tenth century) writes that some Rus’ lived in the
land of Chazars and were warriors of kings of Chazars; others lived on the shore of
the Buntus sea (Caspian Sea) and had trade relations with the capital of the Bulgars, while
others had trade relations with Rome, Byzantium and Chazars (Birkeland 1954 : 33 – 4 ).
The only source that gives a picture of a kind of permanent settlement of Rus’ ruled by a
king called Ru ̄s-h
ˇ
a ̄qa ̄n is a geographical work Hudu ̄d al-‘A ̄lam (c. 982 ). Among the Rus’
there is also mention of a distinctive group of warriors, the morrovat. Rus’ paid taxes,
–– Fjodor Androshchuk––