[Aaus-list] Kievan Rus — the original Russian Federation

Hanya hanya at brama.com
Mon Oct 20 09:51:15 EDT 2014


As seen in The New York Times:
Where Mud Is Archaeological Gold, Russian History Grew on Trees
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
OCT. 18, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/world/europe/where-mud-is-archaeological-gold-russian-history-grew-on-trees.html?_r=0

"He then boasted about Novgorod’s role, along with Kiev, as one of the two
principal cities of Kievan Rus — the original Russian Federation — adding
that Moscow could lay no claim to national prominence until Ivan III made
it the capital in the 15th century."

The rest of the article seems to be in order, but when I came across the
passage about Kievan Rus being the original Russian Federation, I nearly
fell off my chair.

I don't pretend to be a historian, but isn't this what Hrushevsky and
Pritsak (and others) proved NOT to be the case? Is this not the main
inaccuracy in Putin's version of Russia's history? Am I laboring under an
illusion that there were clear divisions between the people of Rus', who
became the people of Ukraine, and the people of Muscovy, who became the
people of Russia?

If my understanding of history is correct, will one of our scholars
address this egregious mistake? An op-ed should be written to the NY Times
asap.

If I'm wrong, please be good enough to explain or refer me to books or
articles that will set me straight.

Hanya


-- 
Less is more, more or less.
- Mies van der Rohe






More information about the AAUS-list mailing list