plik

Ibn al-Athīr's Accounts of the Rūs: A Commentary and

Translation

By William E. Watson

from: Canadian/American Slavic Studies v.35 (2001)

See Appendix: Ibn al-Athīr's Accounts of the Rūs

The evidence on the early Rūs contained in medieval Arabic geographical literature

has long been part of the Normanist/anti-Normanist controversy.

The evidence in this

literature has most frequently been used by Viking specialists to argue that the Rūs were

culturally and ethnically linked to the inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula. For

example, the descriptions of the Rūs funerary customs along the Volga in the writings of Ibn

Rustah and Ibn Fadlān have been connected with the peculiar burial customs of Viking-age

Scandinavia.

Most recently, scholars have focused on the statement of Ibn Khurdadhbih that the

Rūs were a jins ("kind, sort, variety, class, category, race, or nation") of the Saqāliba.

The

traditionally-held view that the word Saqāliba referred exclusively to Slavs has been

abandoned by many scholars, such as D. M. Dunlop, I. Boba, O. Pritsak, and P. B. Golden,

who prefer to translate the word to include Scandinavians and Finno-Ugrians along with

various Slavic groups.

Clearly, a comprehensive reassessment of the use of the word

Saqāliba by medieval Arabic and Persian authors is needed.

The concentration on Arabic geographical literature, inspired by the Normanist

controversy, has led to some neglect of the Arabic historical literature by those interested in

the Rūs. This neglect is unfortunate, however, since the Arabic historical record contains

much information on the Rūs and especially the Rūs campaigns to the south (the Caucasus

and Byzantium) which is not found in the geographical literature. Consequently, in this paper

I will examine what Ibn al-Athīr, one of the greatest medieval Arabic historians, tells us about

the Rūs. For the convenience of the reader, an English translation of the relevant passages has

been provided in an appendix.

One of the most important Arabic historical works is al-Kāmil fī 't-Ta'rīkh (hereafter

referred to as al-Kāmil), composed ca. 1231 by the Iraqi scholar Izz ad-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr

(1160-1233). Some of Ibn al-Athīr's accounts of the Rūs have been utilized by scholars

(including I. I. Krachkovskii, V. Minorsky, D. M. Dunlop, and C. Huart), but no

comprehensive study of his material on the Rūs has been done.

The work of Arabic

historians such as Ibn al-Athīr naturally focused on the expansion of the Islamic state.

The

lands of the Rūs were outside of the dār al-Islām (literally, "the house of Islam," the area of

the world under the control of the Muslims) and were thus of peripheral interest to them.

The scope of Muslim historical enterprise widened considerably in the Abbāsid

period. Universal histories were written by al-Balādhūrī (d. 892), al-Ya'qūbī (d. 897), and al-

Tabarī (d. 923), which included material on some of the peoples of the dār al-Harb (literally,

"the House of War," the area of the world which was controlled by non-Muslims).

Ibn al-

Athīr's contribution to this genre is primarily in his reworking of a great deal of material into

one of the first Arabic annalistic histories.

As al-Kāmil does not utilize the isnād (the line

of authorities upon which a tradition is based in Arabic histories, which is derived from the

study of the Hadīth), it is not always clear whence Ibn al-Athīr received his material.

Arabic and Farsi geographical literature contains a great deal of information

concerning the customs and economic activities of the Rūs beginning in the ninth century.

Ibn al-Athīr does not discuss any of the peculiar characteristics of the Rūs in al-Kāmil, but he

depicts them primarily as a war-like people who raided the Caspian region and who served the

Byzantines as mercenaries or allies. Several references to the Rūs in al-Kāmil are connected

with Byzantine military operations. Arabic authors recognized the significance of the military

and cultural ties between the Rūs and the Byzantines at least as early as the time of al-

Muqaddasī (ca. 945-1000), who curiously wrote that the Rūs were a jins of the Byzantines

(jinsān min ar-Rūmī).

Ibn al-Athīr's earliest references to the Rūs in al-Kāmil are two consecutive entries for

the year 332 A. H./943 A. D., in which a campaign by the Rūs in the Caucasus is

discussed.

This was a large naval expedition whose focus was on the southwestern shore of

the Caspian Sea and whose purpose was the acquisition of booty. The purpose and

geographical focus of this expedition was similar to that of an earlier Rūs campaign (ca. 913)

in the Caspian region described by al-Mas'ūdī, in which the Khazars granted the Rūs

permission to use their territory as a point of departure.

Ibn al-Athīr's account of the Rūs

seizure of the town of Barda'a and their eventual defeat by the forces of al-Marzubān Ibn

Muhammad (the Musāfrid ruler of Azerbaidjan) is partly derived from Ibn Miskawayh (d.

1030).

As his account differs in some respects from that of Ibn Miskawayh, Ibn al-Athīr

must have used at least one other source for this campaign, perhaps some Būyid

correspondence which is no longer extant.

The account 332/943 expedition begins with the journey of the Rūs through the

Caspian Sea and up the Kura River, and their landing near Barda'a. The expedition's point of

departure cannot be ascertained from either Ibn al-Athīr or Ibn Miskawayh, although it may

have used the lower Volga (as did the expedition of 913). The Rūs had been familiar with the

Caspian Sea (the Jurjān) and the adjacent territory since the mid-ninth century, as Ibn

Khurdadhbih's description of the trade routes of the Rūs merchants demonstrates.

In an

important battle of the 943 expedition, the Rūs defeated a force of some five thousand soldiers

which had been promptly assembled by the representative (nā'ib) of al-Marzubān Ibn

Muhammad. The narration of this battle is essentially the same in Ibn al-Athīr and Ibn

Miskawayh, but the numbers and composition of the Muslim force are different in the two

works.

Following the battle, the Rūs encamped in the town. They were provoked to action

against the populace by stone-wielding townsmen, and both Ibn al-Athīr and Ibn Miskawayh

emphasize that the subsequent barbaric behavior of the Rūs towards the populace was the

result of this action. Ibn Miskawayh notes that the belligerent townsmen were actually

lending support to a Muslim force which had surrounded the town, but Ibn al-Athīr omits this

point.

The Rūs held the town for some time, and al-Marzubān was compelled to devise a

stratagem in order to expel them. Al-Marzubān, however, testified that his plan to ambush the

Rūs almost failed because the Rūs warriors struck such fear in his men.

Ibn Rustah,

among other Arabic authors, had noted the military discipline of those Rūs who were

governed by a Khāqān Rūs (probably located near Khazar territory) in the early tenth

century.

For this battle, as with the earlier battle, the numbers and composition of the

Muslim force are different in Ibn al-Athīr and Ibn Miskawayh.

The position of the Rūs was

not undermined by the military tactics of al-Marzubān, but rather by an epidemic which broke

out in their camp after many Rūs warriors had consumed tainted fruit.

The Rūs left Barda'a with some of their booty because the maintenance of their

position became untenable. Their ranks were thinning from the epidemic and they had lost

their prince (amīr) in the Muslim ambush. After the Rūs sailed back along the Kura River to

the Caspian Sea, the Muslims unearthed a great many Rūs weapons which had been buried

with the dead warriors. Abū al- Hasan Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Malik al-Hamdānī added a

brief version of these events to al-Tabarī's Ta'rīkh ar-Rusul wa 'l-Maluk, in which he

mentioned that the Rūs also buried the wives and slaves of the dead warriors with the bodies

at Barda'a.

This Rūs practice had earlier been described by Ibn Rustah and Ibn Fadlān.

Ibn Miskawayh's account of the Rūs seizure of the town of Barda'a includes some

interesting material which was not included in al-Kāmil  by Ibn al-Athīr. For example, the
former begins his account with the following description of the Rūs:

  They (the Rūs) are a powerful people who are naturally strong and who are very
courageous.
  They do not know defeat, and none of their men turns away [from battle] until he is killed
or
  kills [his opponent]. Among their customs is that each of them carries a pounding weapon
and
   fastens it to himself. They are most skillful in wielding the axe, the saw, the hammer,
and
  similar things. A Rūs [warrior] does battle with the spear and the shield, and he wears the
  sword, which he fastens to himself in a sheath. They fight mainly on foot.

The military impact of the Rūs on the Muslims of the Caspian region, which continued

into the eleventh century, made a distinct impression on contemporary Muslim authors such

as al-Mas'ūdī, and later compilers of Islamic history such as Ibn Miskawayh and Ibn al-

Athīr.

These military expeditions obviously had an economic motive, namely, the

acquisition of plunder (and also possibly the attempt to force commercial privileges from the

Muslims, or deal a blow to commercial rivals or potential rivals). The expeditions should be

placed within the broader context of Rūs commercial enterprise in the Near East.

The first entry in al-Kāmil mentioning the participation of the Rūs in Byzantine

military operations dates to the year 343/954-55 when "al-Dumustaq" (Emperor Bardas

Phocas) led a punitive campaign against the Hamdānid amīr of Aleppo, Saif al-Dawla (d.

967). Ibn al-Athīr enumerates the various groups which served the Byzantine emperor as

mercenaries in the resulting battle of Hadath. In addition to Byzantine Greek troops, al-

Dumustaq had Rūs, Bulgars, and "others" in his forces.

Although the chronology of the

campaign is different in the account of Ibn Zāfir (d. 1226), this author also lists Rūs, Bulgars

and Armenians, in addition to Byzantine Greek troops.

It is clear that this reference by Ibn

al-Athīr and Ibn Zāfir to the presence of Rūs mercenaries at Hadath comes from al-Mutanabbī

(d. 955), who was the personal poet of Saif al-Dawla, or from Abū Firās, (d. 968), who was

the cousin of Nasīr al-Dawla and Saif al-Dawla.Abū Firās mentions that al-Dumustaq led

Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Rūs, and Saqāliba in the battle against Saif al-Dawla.

Similarly, al-Mutanabbī writes that al-Dumustaq led Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Rūs,

Saqāliba, Bulgars and Khazars in the battle.

The second entry in al-Kāmil mentioning Rūs participation in Byzantine military

operations in for the year 463/1070-71, and concerns the famous battle of Manzikert

(Malāzkird). This was the decisive battle fought north of Lake Van, in which the Byzantine

Emperor Romanos IV was defeated by the Seljuk Turks under Sultān Alp Arslan. The battle

resulted in the termination of Byzantine control over a significant part of Anatolia; it had a

major impact on the development of Transcaucasia, and in addition, it was disastrous for the

subsequent careers of Romanos and the Varangian guard.

Ibn al-Athīr lists a great number

of foreign mercenaries who served the Byzantines in his account of the battle. In addition to

Byzantine Greeks, Romanos led Franks, "Westerners," Rūs, Pechenegs, Georgians, and "other

units from that country."

The Franks (al-Franji) mentioned here were perhaps the Normans

who are known to have served in the East even before the Crusades. The "Westerners" (those

min al-gharbi) may have been Anglo-Saxons who fled to the Byzantine Empire after the

defeat of Harold of Wessex at Hastings-Senlac Hill in 1066. The author of the Hudūd al-

'Ālam (among others) knew of the Roman occupation of Britain and considered the island (al-

Baritiniya) to be a part of the Byzantine realm: "[it is] the last land of Rum on the coast of the

Ocean."

According to Ibn al-Athīr the Rūs played an important role in the battle. He writes

that the Rūs contingent of about twenty thousand men was in the vanguard of the Byzantine

forces.

The Rūs were defeated in the course of the battle along with the rest of the

Byzantine army. The leader of the Rūs contingent was subsequently taken before the sultān

and his nose was cut off.

The composition of the Byzantine army at Manzikert is similar in Ibn al-Athīr and

other Muslim sources. Ibn al-Qalānisī (d. 1160) lists Byzantine Greeks, Rūs, Bulgars, and

Khazars.

'Imād al-Dīn (d. 1201) lists Byzantine Greeks, Rūs, Khazars, Alans, the Turkic

Ghūzz and Qipchaq, Georgians, Armenians, and Franks.

As C. Cahen pointed out, a

number of other sources attest to the large variety of foreign mercenaries present in the

Byzantine army at Manzikert.

It is well-known that Ibn al-Athīr borrowed liberally from

the historical works of his contemporaries, and this material was borrowed from several of

them.

Even though they served the Byzantine emperors as mercenaries, the Rūs are known

to have attacked their sometime host on several occasions.

Ibn al-Athīr mentions the 1043

Rūs attack on Constantinople in al-Kāmil, sub anno 435.

He describes the battle in some

detail, and emphasizes the importance of Greek fire in the Byzantine victory. Many of the

Rūs either died from burns sustained by the Greek fire or were drowned when their burning

ships sank.

The Rūs who had departed their ships fought a pitched battle with the

Byzantines and were defeated. The Byzantines then cut off the right hands of some of the

captured Rūs. Only those Rūs who were taken captive with the son of the Rūs "king" were

permitted to depart from Constantinople. The Rūs "king" (malik ar-Rūsiya) mentioned here

is Yaroslav of Kiev (d. 1054).

Ibn al-Athīr included an account of the conversion of the Rūs to Orthodox Christianity

in al-Kāmil. The account is entered sub anno 375/985-86, and thus his chronology here is

imprecise. This is not surprising, considering that he is relating an episode which occurred

outside of the dār al-Islām, the news of which may have taken several years to reach the

Islamic lands. The account begins with the approach of Waradīs Ibn Lāwn towards

Constantinople and his harassment of Basil and Constantine, the two "kings" of Byzantium. In

this time of crisis, they sought aid from an unnamed Rūs "king" (malik ar-Rūsiya), offering

their sister to him in marriage.

This Rūs leader is Vladimir of Kiev (d. 1015), who actually

did provide troops to the Byzantine Emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonos for use in suppressing the

revolt of Bardas Phocas.

Vladimir's decision to convert is connected in the Russian Primary Chronicle with the

capture of the city of Kherson, located on the Crimean coast. Furthermore, according to that

source, his subsequent demand for the hand of the sister of Basil and Constantine (Anna)

precipitated the actual conversion.

According to Ibn al-Athīr, Anna "refused to hand

herself over to one whose faith differed from her own."

The Rūs "king" (Vladimir) then

converted to Christianity, and Ibn al-Athīr states that "this was the beginning of Christianity

among the Rūs."

Although the previous conversion of Vladimir's grandmother Ol'ga (d.

962) was not known to Ibn al-Athīr, he was one of the few Muslim authors to recognize the

significance of Vladimir's conversion.

An Egyptian Melkite Christian, Yahya Ibn Sa'īd (d. ca. 1066), also mentions the

conversion of Vladimir (the malik ar-Rūs) in his Ta'rīkh.

Having access to Greek and

Syriac chronicles in Antioch, he is better informed than Ibn al-Athīr. He mentions the

metropolitans (matārina) and bishops (asāqifa) sent to Russia by Basil to convert the Rūs,

and the construction of a great number of churches in the land of the Rūs.

Significantly, he

describes the Rūs as enemies of the Byzantines before this sequence of events (wahum

a'dā'ahu).

The opposite seems true in Ibn al-Athīr's account, in which the Rūs leader

appears almost eager to become allied with the Byzantines (he was certainly eager enough to

convert to the Byzantine faith in order to marry Anna).

The conversion of the Rūs is also mentioned by the Central Asian author al-Marwāzī

in his Tabā'i' al-Hayawān (The Nature of Animals), composed in Arabic ca. 1120.

Although al-Marwāzī mentions Vladimir's name (Wladmīr), he is much less informed than

Yahya or Ibn al-Athīr, and he describes the subsequent conversion of the Rūs to Islam,

because Christianity had "blunted their swords" and "closed the door to their livelihood" (i.e.,

warfare).

Al Marwāzī adds that the Rūs could recover under Islam because, as Muslims, "it

would be lawful for them to conduct raids and holy war."

The same account is related by

the Persian author 'Awfī in his Hikayāt (Anecdotes), composed in Farsi before 1236.

The conversion did not prevent the Rūs from attacking Constantinople in 1043, and

the Rūs nevertheless provided mercenaries to the Byzantine army after this date, some of

whom served, for instance, at Manzikert. Ibn al-Athīr also mentions in passing that Emperor

Michael V (Mīkhā'īl) called upon Rūs and Bulgar military units during the domestic troubles

that plagued his brief reign (1041-42).

It is the military prowess of the Rūs which seems to have impressed Ibn al-Athīr. His

references to the Rūs deal exclusively with their military activities. For his own time, when

the Rūs became less active militarily in the south, he mentions the land of the Rus only

parenthetically. This came in an entry sub anno 602/1215 describing the siege of Trebizond

(Tarābzūn) by the Seljukid Ghayāth al-Dīn Khusruw Shāh, which indicates that a commercial

link existed between that city and Russia: "He therefore blocked the roads from the land of ar-

Rūm, ar-Rūs, al-Qifjāq (Qipchaq), and other roads."

Ibn al-Athīr was fascinated by the Tatars and a detailed description of the Tatar

destruction of Kievan Rus' is included in al-Kāmil. The Rūs assembled upon hearing of the

Tatar victory over the Qifjāq (Qipchaq), and readied themselves to meet the Tatar army. They

were overconfident, however, and were caught off guard, resulting in their defeat in a great

battle and in their massacre. Many of the important Rūs merchants and wealthy men then

sailed away from Russia to the Islamic lands.

Some scholars argue that the Muslim geographers used the term Rūs as an

occupational term describing the multi-ethnic groups of merchants and mercenaries from

northeastern Europe who traveled the Volga, Oka, and Dnepr rivers.

It is clear that Ibn al-

Athīr did not use the term in quite the same manner. He made no reference whatsoever of

Rūs commerce in the tenth and eleventh centuries. This is surprising, considering that the

trade routes and trade goods of theRūs had been the primary focus of attention for most of the

earlier Muslim authors. For him, the Rūs were simply a warlike people of the dār al-Harb

who attacked the Muslims of the Caspian region and were willing to serve in Byzantine

military operations.

We can learn a great deal about the Rūs from Ibn al-Athīr. The geographical focus of

his notices of Rūs military ventures is to the south of Rūs territory in Eastern Europe, those

regions where Rūs activities became of immediate importance to the Arabs. Although some

of Ibn al-Athīr's material is available in other sources, he chronicles Rūs participation in a

variety of campaigns which are collectively unavailable elsewhere. While we can discern the

sources of some of his accounts of the Rūs (such as Ibn Miskawayh, Abū Firās, and al-

Mutanabbī), we find that he adds material from non-extant sources, and this makes al-Kāmil

an invaluable source, which is as worthy of examination as the earlier geographical literature.

Recognition of al-Kāmil as an important source for the early history of the Rūs is long

overdue.

See Appendix: Ibn al-Athīr's Accounts of the Rūs

End Notes

A brief summary of the Normanist and anti-Normanist arguments is included in O.

Pritsak,"The Origins of Rus'," The Russian Review (July 1977), 249-273; for a good summary
of the Normanist question with particular regard to the Varangians, see A. V. Riasanovsky,
"The Varangian Question," I Normanni e la loro espansione in Europa nell'alto medioevo.
Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo 16 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano
di studi sull'alto medioevo, 1969), 174-204. See also G. Vernadsky, Ancient Russia (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), v. 1. A number of nineteenth- and twentieth-century
East European and expatriate Arabists and Turkologists have closely examined the Islamic
geographical sources on the Rus', and a vast literature concerning this evidence has been
produced. From the many works, see in particular V. V. Bartol'd, "Novoe musul'manskoe
istvestie o russakh," in his Sochineniia ii, 1 (Moscow: Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963); A. E.
Harkavy, Skanzaniia Musul'manskikh Pisatelei o Slavanakh i russkikh (The Hague: Mouton,
1969); B. N. Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod svedenii o vostochnoi Europe (Moscow: Akademii
Nauk SSSR, 1962-1967).

2 Ibn Rustah, Kitāb al-A'lāk an-Nafīsa, ed. by M. J. De Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum
Arabicorum [BGA] (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1892) vii, 145-47; James E. McKeithen, The Risalah
of Ibn Fadlān: An Annotated Translation with Introduction (Ph. D. Dissertation, Indiana
University, 1979); Z. V. Togan, "Ibn Fadlan's Reisebericht," in Abhandlunzen fur die Kunde
des Morzenlands xxiv/3 (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1939). For the typical treatment of these
texts with regard to Rus' funerary customs, see J. Brondsted, The Vikings (Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1980), 293-305; P. H. Sawyer, Kings and Vikings (New
York: Methuen, 1982), 40. For an alternative interpretation of these customs by a Viking
specialist, see G. Jones, A History of the Vikings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984),
256.

Ibn Khurdadhbih, Kitāb al-Masālik wa 'l-Mamālik, ed. by M. J. De Goeje, BGA (Leiden: E.

J. Brill, 1889), 154. For the meaning of jins, see H. Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written
Arabic ed. by J. M. Cowan (Beirut: Librarie du Liban, 1980), 141; E. W. Lane, Arabic-
English Lexicon (Beirut: Librarie du Liban, 1980), book 1, part 2, 470-471; R. P.-A. Dozy,
Supplement aux Dictionnaires arabes, third edition (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), v. 1, 224-225.

D. M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), 99

n. 44; I. Boba, Nomads, Northmen and Slavs (The Hague: Mouton, 1967), 61; O. Pritsak,
"An Arabic Text on the Trade Route of the Corporation of ar-Rus in the Second Half of the
Ninth Century," Folia Orientalia 12 (1970), 248-250; P. B. Golden, "The Question of the Rus'
Qağanate," Archivum Eurasiae Media Aevi 2 (1982), 90.

I. I. Krachkovskii, Istoria Arabskoi Geografichevskoi Literatury (Moscow: Akademii Nauk

SSSR, 1957-60), v, 127, 182; V. Minorsky, "Rus, " Encyclopaedia of Islam, (Leiden and
London: E. J. Brill, 1932), 1st ed., vi, 1182; idem, A History of Sharvan and Darband
(Cambridge,U.K.: W. Heffer, 1958), passim; D. M. Dunlop, History of the Jewish Khazars,
239-240; C. Huart, "Les Mosâfirides de l'Adherbaidjan," in T. W. Arnold and R. A.
Nicholson, eds., A Volume of Oriental Studies Presented to Edward G. Browne (Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 228-256.

For some of the early historians, see A. A. Duri, The Rise of Historical Writing Among the

Arabs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983); B. Lewis and P. M. Holt, eds.,
Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1962); H. A. R. Gibb,
"Tarikh," in his Studies on the Civilization of Islam (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul,
1962), 108-137; D.S. Margoliouth, Lectures on Arabic Historians (Delhi: Adarah-i Adabiyat-i
Delli, 1977); N. Faruqi, Early Muslim Historiography (Delhi: Adarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli,
1979).

A. A. Duri, The Rise of Historical Writing, 60-71.

According to F. Rosenthal, al-Kamil "represents the high point of Muslim annalistic

historiography." See F. Rosenthal, "Ibn al-Athir," Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden and
London: E. J, Brill, 1971), 2nd ed., iii, 723-725; B. Lewis and P. M. Holt, Historians of the
Middle East, 88-90.

For the use of isnād, see N. Faruqi, Early Muslim Historiography, 196; A. A. Duri, The Rise

of Historical Writing, 69-71.

For the geographers, see A. Miquel, La geographie humaine du monde musulman jusqu'au

milieu du 11e siecle (Paris: La Haye, Mouton, and Company, 1967), 2 vols.; S. M. Ahmad,
"Djughrafiya," Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden and London: E. J. Brill, 1965), 2nd ed., il,
579-582.

A1-Muqaddasi, Ahsan at-Taqāsīm fī Ma'rifat al-Āqālīm, in A. Seippel, ed.,Rerum

Normannicarum Fontes Arabici (Oslo: A. W. Brogger, 1876-1928), 76.

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī at-Ta'rīkh, ed. by Dar Sader and Dar Beyrouth, after the edition of

C. J. Tornberg (Beirut: Dar Sader and Dar Beyrouth, 1965), viii, 414. Among the translations
into European languages of the parts of al-Kāmil dealing with the Rus' are P. K. Zhuze,
Materialy po istorie Azerbaidzhanie iz Tarikh-al-Kamil' (polnogo svoda istorie) Ibn-al-Asira
(Baku: Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1940); A. A. Vasilev, Byzance et les Arabes (Brussels: Instsitut
de philologie et d'histoire orientales, 1950), ii, passim.

A1-Mas'ūdī, Murūj adh-Dhahab wa Ma'ādin al-Jawāhir, C. Barbier de Meynard and P. de

Courteille, eds. and trans. (Paris: Société asiatique, 1863), 11, 18-25.

A number of points of convergence and divergence between Ibn al-Athīr and Ibn

Miskawayh are discussed by C. Huart, "Les Mosafirides," passim.

For a discussion of Ibn Miskawayh's sources for the period 340-369 A. H., some of which

are no longer extant, see M. S. Khan, Studies in Miskawayh's Contemporary History (Ann
Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1980).

Ibn Khurdadhbih, Kitāb, 154-155. "Sometimes ar-Rūs go in behind of ar-Rūm into the

land of as-Saqāliba, then they go to Khamlīj, the city of the Khazars, then to the Jurjān Sea,
then to Balkh and Transoxiana, then to Wurut Tughuzghur (Oghuz Turks), and then to
China." See O. Pritsak, "An Arabic Text on the Trade Route of the Corporation of ar-Rus in
the Second Half of the Ninth Century," 241-259.

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, viii, 412; Ibn Miskawayh, Tajārub al-Umam, H. F. Amedroz, ed.

(Baghdad: n.d.), ti, 62.

Ibn Miskawayh, Tajārub, 11, 63.

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, viii, 414.

Ibn Rustah, Kitāb, vii, 145-147. For a discussion of the location of this polity, see P. B.

Golden, "The Question of the Rus' Qağanate," 77-97.

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, viii, 414; Ibn Miskawayh, Tajārub, 11, 65-67.

C. Huart, "Les Mosafirides," 239, n. 1.

Ibn Rustah, Kitāb, 146-147. The source of Ibn Rustah's account is unknown, but some of

his material was later repeated in the anonymous Hudūd al-'Ālam, written in Farsi ca. 982, as
well as by the Persian author Gardīzī (fl. ca. 1050). See V. Minorsky, Hudūd al-'Ālam; The
Regions of the World. A Persian Geography (Karachi: Indus Publications, 1980), 159;
Gardīzī, in V. V. Bartol'd, "Otčët o poezdke v sredniuiu aziiu s naučnoi tsel'iu 1893-1894 gg,"
Zapiski Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, ser. viii, t. 1, n. 4 (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskoi
Akademii Nauk, 1897), 100-101. A number of the similarities between these sources are
discussed by P. B. Golden, "The Question of the Rus' Qağanate," 89-93. Ibn Fadlān witnessed
a ship burial involving cremation. See James E. McKeithen, The Risalah of Ibn Fadlān.

Ibn Miskawayh, Tajārub al-Umam, ii, 62.

For some of the Muslim authors who mentioned later Rus' military ventures in the Caspian

region, see Minorsky, Sharvan and Darband, 112-116.

The Arab and Persian geographers paid particular regard to the commercial activities of

the Rūs, and provided abundant information on trade routes and trade goods. The ample
documentation in Muslim sources on the Rūs fur trade perhaps reflects a particular interest in
furs on the part of the inhabitants of the Near East. Among the many Muslim authors who
mention the fur trade conducted by Rūs merchants are al-Istakhrī, Kitāb al-Masālik wa 'l-
Mamālik, Muhammad al-Hini, ed. (Cairo: Turathuna, 1961), 132; al-Idrīsī, Kitāb Nazha al-
Mashtāq fī Akhtirāk al-Āfāq, A. Seippel, ed., Rerum Normannicarum Fontes Arabici , 86. See
Elizabeth Bennigsen, "Contribution à 1'étude du commerce des fourrures russes," Cahiers du
monde russe et soviétique 19 (1978), 385-399; Janet L. B. Martin, Treasure of the Land of
Darkness: The Fur Trade and Its Significance for Medieval Russia (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1986).

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, viii, 508.

Ibn Zāfir, Kitāb ad-Duwul al-Munqatī'a, M. Canard, trans., in A. A. Vasiliev, Byzance et

les Arabes, ii, 125.

Abū Firās, Diwān in Ibid, ii, 364.

Al-Mutanabbī, Diwān in Ibid, ii, 331. See also M. Canard, "Mutanabbi et la guerre

byzantino-arabe: Interet historique de ses poesies," in Byzance et les musulmanes du proche
orient (London: Variorum, 1973), vi, 105.

For standard assessments of the battle, see S. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and

Modern Turkey (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press, 1978), i, 6-7; A. A. Vasiliev,
History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952), 356-357.
The significance of the battle in the larger Transcaucasian context is discussed by P. B.
Golden in "Cumanica I: The Qipčaqs in Georgia," Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi IV (1984),
55-57. The impact of the battle on the Varangian guard is discussed in S. Blondal, The
Varangians of Byzantium (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 113-114.

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, x, 65.

Minorsky, Hudūd al-'Ālam, 158. See A. A. Vasiliev, "The Opening Stages of the Anglo-

Saxon Immigration to Byzantium in the Eleventh Century," Annales de 1'Institut Kondakov 9
(1937 ), 39f f .

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, x, 65.

Ibid.

Ibn al-Qalānisī, Ta'rīkh Dimashq, H. F. Amedroz, ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1908), 43.

C. Cahen, "La campagne de Mantzikert d'apres les sources musulmanes," Byzantion 9

(1934), 629.

Ibid, 629-630

Ibid.

For the Rus' attack on Constantinople in 860, see A. A. Vasiliev, The Russian Attack on

Constantinople in 860 (Cambridge, Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1946).

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, ix, 521.

Ibid.

Ibid, ix, 43.

The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text, S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz-

Wetzor, eds. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1953), 112-
113.

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil, ix, 43-44.

Ibid, ix, 44.

V. Minorsky, "Rus" in Encyclopaedia of Islam (London and Leiden: E. J. Brill,1932), 1st

ed., vi, 1182.

For the text, see I. I. Krachkovskii and A. A. Vasiliev, eds. Patrologia Orientalis (Paris:

Firmin-Didot, 1932), t. xxiii, fasc. II, 423. Yahya's account of the Rus' conversion is placed
between a discussion of Bardas Phocas's revolt during the reign of Emperor Basil II
Bulgaroctonos. The sources of his account are Greek and Syriac chronicles which he found in
Antioch, the Byzantine-held city to which he and a number of Egyptian Christians and Jews
fled during the persecutions of the eccentric Fatimid Caliph al-Hākim (ruled 996-1021). For
commentary on Yahya and his career, see H. Gregoire and M. Canard in Vasiliev, Byzance et
les Arabes, 11, 80-86.

Yahya Ibn Sa'īd, Ta'rīkh in Patrologia Orientalis, t. xxiii, fasc. II, 423.

Ibid

For the Arabic text and English translation, see V. Minorsky, Sharaf al-Zamān Tāhir

Marvazī on China, the Turks, and India (London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1942), *23
(Arabic) and 36 (English). Other material in his account of the Rus' comes from the common
source(s) of Ibn Rustah, the Hudūd al-'Ālam, al-Muqaddasī, Gardīzī, and al-Bakrī. See
Minorsky's comments, p. 118.

Ibid, *23 and 36.

Ibid.

Ibid, 118, n. 3.

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, ix, 499. This material is entered sub anno 433, but his chronology is

incorrect here.

Ibid, xii, 242.

Ibid, xii, 387-388

See the works of Boba and Golden already cited (above, note 4), as well as O. Pritsak,

"The Name of the Third Kind of Rus and of Their City," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
1 (1967), 2-9.

This article was originally published in Canadian/American Slavic Studies v.35 n.4 (2001).
We thank Canadian/American Slavic Studies and William Watson for their permission to
republish this article.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/watson1.htm