In search of grandeur

Rus’ Prince Sviatoslav Ihorovych occupies a special place in Ukrainian historical identity. The conqueror of the Khazars, Volga Bulgarians, Alans, Radimichs, and other tribes, who looked like a Zaporozhian Cossack, he became one of the informal symbols of the Dynamo Kyiv fan movement. It is to Sviatoslav that a monument was erected in Mariupol in place of the torn-down Lenin on the initiative of the Azov Regiment. And recently, thanks to Azov fighters again, a unique artifact, the seal of the valiant Kyiv prince, was brought back to Ukraine from Russia. We spoke with Oleksandr ALFIOROV, Ph.D. (History), a research associate at the Institute of Ukrainian History, ex-spokesman of the Azov Regiment, spokesman of the Azov Civilian Corps, about why “demand” for Sviatoslav is rising in present-day Ukrainian society.

Oleksandr, why do you think Ukrainian society is showing interest in Sviatoslav the Brave? What is the importance of this historical figure from the viewpoint of modern-day Ukrainian identity?

“It is usually people with polar personalities who draw attention. Sviatoslav is one of the most contradictory figures in the history of Ukraine. His polarity is today in a point that, much to our regret, is not always clear. Honor, glory, the state, the army, and family are the things that run all through the Tale of Bygone Years through the terse words of a chronicler who describes the events he has never seen – he was told about them by older-generation people who had in turn heard this from their parents and grandparents.

“Sviatoslav’s figure is controversial in many respects. He sought happiness not only in his fatherland – he used to set sail overseas, fight with the Khazars, Pechenegs, Bulgarians, and the Byzantine Empire. What did he search for? The answer is unambiguous: he searched for his fatherland’s grandeur.

“There are at least four monuments to Sviatoslav in Ukraine today: two in Kyiv, one in Zaporizhia, and one, from now on, in Mariupol. The Mariupol monument is a significant point. This is a city which the Russian troops tried to seize in August 2014, but the Azov battalion successfully defended it. It is a question of identity, of drawing a friend-or-foe line of sorts. It is also a step to decommunization. For decommunization means not only to get rid of incomprehensible and out-of-place ideological benchmarks, but also to qualitatively update them. Unfortunately, the state has not yet coped with this job. If you tear down a statue, you should not leave the place empty. The Sviatoslav statue is now on the pedestal where the monument to Lenin used to stand.

THE MONUMENT TO SVIATOSLAV WAS UNVEILED IN MARIUPOL IN PLACE OF THE TORN-DOWN LENIN IN LATE DECEMBER 2015. THE INITIATORS OF THIS PLACEMENT ARE THE KANIBORS, FATHER AND SON WITH THE SAME FIRST NAME OF OLEKSANDR. THE FATHER IS DOING ARTWORKS NOW, AND THE SON IS AN AZOV REGIMENT FIGHTER / Photo by Yevhen SOSNOVSKY

“The initiators of this placement are the Kanibors, father and son with the same first name of Oleksandr. The father is doing artworks now, and the son is an Azov fighter. They drew a sketch and turned to the Azov commander Andrii Biletsky. They intended not only to reconstruct a historical image, but also to offer a particular modern-day view of it. Mariupol’s Sviatoslav has some stubble that shoots through the moustache – it is Sviatoslav in a campaign. This image may not exactly coincide with the historical description by Byzantine chronicler Leo the Deacon, but it mirrors Sviatoslav’s bellicose nature. The monument was unveiled in late December 2015. The ceremony gathered about 4,000 people, including very many activists. Naturally, it was a culture shock of sorts for Mariupol which had been named Zhdanov until recently. The city is full of communist toponyms and symbols. Many were asking: why, of all people, Sviatoslav? Despite a more than a thousand-year gap, the figure of Sviatoslav can be transposed onto the present-day Ukrainian dimension – and not only visually (Sviatoslav looks like a Zaporozhian Cossack). This implies an enormous abyss between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples. The Russians would be glad to appropriate Sviatoslav, but they will fail to do so, for he cuts the ground from under the Russian historical myth. For this very reason, they view him as a ‘Varangian,’ a ruler who fought for someone else’s cause.”

 As far as re-actualization of history is concerned, I wonder how academia responds to this kind of initiatives and processes. For it is known that a lot of academics are taking a very cautious approach to any attempts to extrapolate pre-modern history onto present-day Ukraine. For them, it is problematic to call even Bohdan Khmelnytsky, let alone Sviatoslav, a Ukrainian…

“There are three groups of history researchers in Ukraine. The first is Soviet-school academics – the backbone of Kyivan Rus’ studies. Their background consists of diverse ideological concepts. The second is historians who deal with the early modern period which they think laid the groundwork for the emergence of nations. Nations in fact emerged in the 19th century, and some are still in the making. The third group of historians is amateur researchers who ‘spin books out of thin air’ and foist this product on Ukrainian audiences. They produce semi-literary works based on dubious sources and immature concepts. Written in an easy-to-grasp language, they have been quite popular since the 1990s. On the contrary, books by the first two groups of historians have a dry academic style and are absolutely unreadable. For this reason, such authors as Buzyna managed to find a niche of their own.

“Modern historians, who oppose the view that nations emerged from the depths of centuries, rest on European historical schools, but they cannot understand that, for example, it is absolutely normal for the French to call Charlemagne a Frenchman. Why then can we not consider Volodymyr the Great a Ukrainian? Foisting this vision of history on us, they in fact throw the Kyivan Rus’ heritage at the mercy of Russia. And what about the Antes, Sclaveni, and, still earlier, the Cherniakhov, Penkovka, Zarubintsy, and Kyiv archeological cultures? Does it mean that we should not view representatives of all these cultures down to the Scythians, who left us hundreds of hydronyms (Dnieper, Dniester, Don, Danube, etc.), as our ancestors? History is thus turning into a sliced pie, and only some of the slices maintain a link with present-day Ukrainians.

RECENTLY, THANKS TO AZOV FIGHTERS AGAIN, A UNIQUE ARTIFACT, THE SEAL OF THE VALIANT KYIV PRINCE, WAS BROUGHT BACK TO UKRAINE FROM RUSSIA

“At the same time, I defended a dissertation on genealogy, tracing my family line down to the 1450s. And I am prepared to categorically deny that my great-great-great…grandfather has nothing to do with me because he was in reality a Lithuanian, Ruthenian, or someone else, for I am one bone and one flesh with by forefathers. My ancestor Marko Alfiorov, one of the founders of the city of Sumy, was known as a Cherkas or a Little Russian. But is there a fundamental difference between him and me, a citizen of the state of Ukraine? For we have the same DNA. I am convinced that we must understand history precisely this way. We are the people who were born and lived on this territory, and plowed the vast steppe. We used to have, lose, and then regain our statehood. We were conquered but not destroyed. If we are to believe that Ukrainians are not the descendants of those who lived under Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Danylo of Galicia, or Sviatoslav the Brave, we must admit that we know nothing at all about the genesis of humankind. Where did the Ukrainians come from in that case?”

 This means Ukrainian history is now under crossfire. On the one hand, chauvinistic Russia is trying to appropriate everything it can reach, and, on the other, Europeans claim that we were not we but somebody else 100 years ago…

“When we walk across Kyiv and see St. Sophia’s Cathedral and the Golden Gate, we understand that they were created and left for us by the people who are our genetic ancestors. When one walks across Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, or Vyatka, he or she finds it difficult to understand where exactly their heritage is here. ‘I am Russian, but somebody is German, English…,’ they think. Russia pursues this policy not because it is chauvinistic but because its true origin lurks in the darkness of the 16th century. As an ethnos and a nation, the Russians are still unaware of their roots. Naturally, they are descendants of the tribes that populated what is now the Russian Federation. The very term ‘Russian,’ i.e. ‘resident of Russia,’ raises questions. We have heard about ‘Russian’ Chukchi and ‘Russian’ Buryat soldiers fighting against Ukraine. For present-day Russia, the history of Rus’ is not a search for its own identity but a way to seize someone else’s heritage and historical territory. A few years ago, Russia celebrated the 1,150th anniversary of Russian statehood. But they might as well have celebrated the 600th anniversary of a certain khan mounting the throne of the Golden Horde. If you look at history the way they do, Russia is as much a successor to the khanates of Siberia and Kazan.”

 Sviatoslav’s era is an imperial era in Ukrainian history. Is this imperial history part of a modern-day Ukrainian’s identity?

“In my opinion, an imperial world view is in a way typical of Ukrainians. It is the second identity of a Ukrainian, a strong owner being the first. This approach rests on the European tradition of the right of property and Roman law. At the same time, Ukrainians hold an imperialist view of the world. This is especially true in the context of our attitude to Podlachia, Kholm region, and other ethnic territories. The true soul of a Ukrainian shows at the moment when he sits at the table with a close relative and recalls the times which neither his grandfathers nor his great-grandfathers remember, speaking about Kuban and Green Ukraine (Zeleny Klyn). Ukrainian imperialism originates from the feeling of ownership – ‘we worked there, we plowed that soil.’ Ukrainians usually have imperial feelings towards the lands where their compatriots sweated their guts out. Obviously, this feature is inherent in grain-growing nations.

“It is difficult to imagine a Ukrainian who aspires to seize Poland or Belarus. But, at the same time, we have always been conceiving some gigantic projects. For example, today it is the Baltic-Black Sea Axis. In the recent past – it is worldwide diaspora communities. Wherever Ukrainians gather, they accumulate a strong cultural heritage. Ukrainian imperialism is, above all, cultural. It is an interesting phenomenon that needs to be researched further.

“Sviatoslav’s imperialism was very simple: ‘I am the master of this land bounded by certain seas and rivers, but, for my state to exist, I must pay my army and, therefore, control trade routes and get rid of rivals.’ It is for this reason that Sviatoslav destroyed the Khazar Khaganate, invaded Crimea, established Tmutarakan, and mounted a campaign against Bulgaria. Sviatoslav was the first ruler who tried to establish a union of Slavs. Obviously, he mulled over the project of a Slavic superpower.”

 Is it the reason why he wanted to transfer the capital to Pereyaslavets in Bulgaria? Was this city to become the center of a future state?

“A chronicler quoted Sviatoslav as saying this. He cited the words of the prince about 100 years after his death, perhaps seeking to justify his campaigns.

“Sviatoslav never reflected on who would rule in Kyiv in his absence. First it was his mother Olha, then his son Yaropolk. Sviatoslav supposedly hit upon the idea of establishing a superpower because state borders were not marked by customs offices or other facilities at the time. There were trade routes, thoroughfares, and waterways. Would Sviatoslav have stayed behind in Bulgaria? I don’t know. I think he would have come back. I presume that Sviatoslav would have embraced Christianity a few years later if he hadn’t been killed. But he was a state-oriented figure. Bulgaria belonged to Byzantine civilization, and Sviatoslav apparently wished, in spite of everything, to join it. His mother Olha was recognized by the Byzantine emperor. Sviatoslav knew what it meant to be a peripheral state of Byzantine civilization.

“Olha remains an unclear figure. If she really belonged to a Bulgarian dynasty, Sviatoslav had an undeniable right to the Bulgarian throne. During his campaign against Bulgaria, there was a change of power both in Bulgaria and in the Byzantine Empire. At that historic moment, Sviatoslav could have been baptized symbolically and become a symbolic monarch, i.e., a Bulgarian tsar. By the same token, he must have adopted the title of khagan after ruining the Khazar Khaganate. This title was later inherited by his son Volodymyr and grandson Mstyslav. Why did Sviatoslav not put on the Bulgarian crown? Sviatoslav’s campaigns were part of that time’s big politics and diplomacy, in which he, much to our regret, got confused because he was an absolutely frank and sincere person. Sviatoslav was, above all, a soldier. After all, he finally emerged as a ‘defeated winner.’”

 The Ruthenians-Ukrainians showed interest in Bulgaria at various historical stages – from Kyi to Cossacks who sang their praises of the Danube. What is the root cause of this aspiration and what are its results in addition to perhaps the most obvious ones, such as alphabet and faith?

“Firstly, I must say that what we call today the Byzantine heritage of Ukraine-Rus’ is, above all, the Bulgarian heritage. All the ‘Greek’ masters came to us from Bulgaria and Chersonesus (Korsun), not from Constantinople. It is difficult to say who they were ethnically. But as far as Ukrainian late 10th-11th-century architecture is concerned, it resembles that of Bulgaria. It does not look purely Byzantine. Bulgaria was much nearer, its masters and workmen cost cheaper, and there was no language barrier. Bulgarian masters even minted coins under Volodymyr the Great and his sons. Bulgarian culture was expressed not only in writing – it became the first imperial culture for us. What we usually call ‘Byzantine’ was in fact Bulgarian.

“In the 10th century, when great powers were emerging, Ukraine and Bulgaria were very close allies and partners.”

Are today’s Bulgarians, particularly academics, aware of these historical ties? Incidentally, in an interview with our newspaper, Bulgarian historian Ivo Indzhev called Sviatoslav… “Russian prince.”

“Bulgaria has been under a strong influence of Russian ideas in the past 200 years. But we are in contact with Bulgarian historians who keep finding in Bulgaria seals of Kyiv metropolitans and bishops as well as spindle whorls made of Ovruch slate. The Bulgarians know that the points of contact that have remained in material culture originated from the Kyiv region, i.e., ethnic Rus’. Of course, this is going against the backdrop of ‘Rus’-Russia’ manipulations. Unfortunately, Ukrainian historians do not often pay attention to Bulgaria. There is a great deal of archeological proof of links between Kyivan Rus’ and Bulgaria. This includes the seals of Bulgarian officials, found in Ukraine, and the seals of Rus’ officials, found in Bulgaria. The Byzantine seals with first and last names, found in Ukraine, show that they belonged to the Bulgarian families that had certain commercial, political, and diplomatic interests here. We are trying today to explore and spotlight these links, but our resources are not always sufficient to break through Russian historical distortions.”

 In May this year, thanks to Azov Regiment members, Russia returned to Ukraine the seal of Sviatoslav. How was this “special operation” held? Has the artifact’s authenticity been proved? When is Azov going to hand it over to a museum?

“An exhibit dedicated to Sviatoslav will be opened in September, where everybody will be able to see this relic. It was found in the 1980s in Kyiv and illegally taken to Russia. As soon as it was brought back to Ukraine, we showed it to archeologists and sigillographers who confirmed its authenticity. This relic is invaluable now. We managed to get in back, although Russia and Ukraine are in fact in a state of war. This event gave a powerful impetus for boosting the morale of our boys at the front. You really feel like defending a fatherland that aspires to save its relics.

“Whenever Sviatoslav was a long way from Kyiv, he still had to effectively rule the state and, at the same time, communicate with Byzantines and Bulgarians at a proper diplomatic level. Before that, our princes had been ruling by way of oral instructions. Written language was not developed enough to be used effectively in administrative affairs. For this reason, Sviatoslav switched to a new diplomatic level.

“There is Sviatoslav’s princely sign on one side of the seal and a bident, presumably the princely sign of his father Ihor, on the other. The seal also shows a new thing – a Greek title, ‘archon,’ is written next to Sviatoslav’s name. This means the combination of two – Byzantine and Kyiv Rus’ – traditions. In all probability, staying in Bulgaria, Sviatoslav sent a letter of instructions to one of his sons, presumably Yaropolk, for the seal was found by workers on Desiatynny Lane, where the prince’s palace used to be located.

“A lot of proposals are now being discussed about the artifact’s further destiny. Several museums have simultaneously contacted us. After being displayed together with other 10th-century objects at an exhibit, the seal will be handed over to one of the leading state-run museums. The relic is undoubtedly of all-Ukrainian, if not all-European, importance.”

 Why is our general public by and large unaware of the ties that link us with Bulgaria?

“We lived for decades in a totalitarian system which imposed the idea of ‘three fraternal peoples,’ the union of 15 republics, and socialist camp on society. Meanwhile, the true history of ties between the Ukrainian, Bulgarian, and other Balkan peoples is unique.

“The figure of Ivan Vyshensky, who went to Mount Athos in the late 16th century, is being actively studied now. The Zograf Monastery on Mount Athos, which received an enormous number of Rus’ monks, i.e. Ukrainians, is Bulgarian. The conquered Ukraine and the conquered Bulgaria maintained a spiritual link via Mount Athos. The intensity of contacts between Ukrainian and Bulgarian monks on Mount Athos has no analogies in history.

“Rus’ seamen used to go on any expedition to Constantinople across the Bulgarian coast. The troops went by sea as well as by land. The system of Byzantine fire towers informed about the enemy’s approach thousands of miles away in 15 minutes. At the same time, Rus’ warriors would manage to reach Tsarhorod unnoticed. Obviously, Bulgarians understood that it was a remote ally which indirectly strengthened Bulgaria itself. A lot of Rus’ archeological artifacts have been found in the port of Varna.

“There were a lot of Bulgarian-origin nicknames in Ukraine. Bulgarians still remember legends about 12th-century Rus’ princes. Some of our Chernihiv princes, the descendants of Rostyslav Mykhailovych, were even said to be Bulgarian tsars.

“All this was forgotten and stigmatized by Russian and Soviet imperial ideologies. It is very difficult to restore this heritage – we have to sieve it in order to distinguish between Ukrainian and Russian history. Our historical memory needs to be reconstructed, which will help us dispel the Moscow-imposed historical myth.

“We should restore historical cooperation and cultural ties with Bulgaria, Rumania, Montenegro, etc., through new strategic supranational associations, such as the Baltic and Black Sea Alliance. The identity of these peoples is absolutely clear to Ukrainians. They lived, as we did, on the borderline between the Christian and Muslim worlds. They had border guards of their own – Christian frontier warriors like our Zaporozhian Cossacks. These peoples were also ruled for a long time by other states. For this reason, we are very close at the level of mental perception of the world.”

 Bulgaria was a colony for about 650 years. Nevertheless, the impression is that it was easier for them to revive their state than it was for us. Why? Were their national elites more active?

“It is the Ukrainian elite that was the most active in Eastern Europe. Ukrainian generals commanded Russian armies. Our elites were always strong, but, unfortunately, they not always served the interests of Ukrainian statehood. Bulgaria found itself, as Romania did, between two empires, but it did not give in either to Turkey or to Russia. Modern-day Bulgaria and Romania emerged in the 19th century. They were in fact created by the empires which were trying to find a pawn for what once was a powerful Ottoman Empire. European civilization won and relevant institutional mechanisms were restored in these countries. In Ukraine, much to our regret, things went differently.”