Talk:Rurik/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Rurik. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Tatischev's Russian History and the Ioachim Chronicle

At least one of the persons editing this article feels that the Ioachim Chronicle is not a good source for this article. What is wrong with providing the account of Rurik from the Ioachim Chronicle in addition to what is already here? Moonshiner 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Ioachim Chronicle was compiled during the lifetime of Tatischev's father, almost a millenium after the events described therein. In historiography, any evidence recorded a century or more after the fact should be treated with caution and considered as legendary. Here we have a span of some 850 years. Actually, the Ioachim Chronicle (if it really existed) should not be given more credit than other modern inventions, e.g., introduced by Tatischev himself. --Ghirla | talk 10:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

rosbyggjar

Is there anytyhing on rosbyggjar except for http://cgi.roslagsmuseet.se/roslagen.shtml ? This one looks pretty thin. If the statement "linguists usually consider this tribe to have been the Ros-byggjar" is true, there must be more evidence of research in this area. One article cannot be credited with "usually". The cited article also exclusively referes to Swedish sources. Is there any relevant, say, Harvard research? H. has a large Slavic department. If there is any substance to rosbyggjar, they must have covered it. If they did not cover it, then it's likely to be untrue. --Gene s 07:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI, the inhabitants of Roslagen are still called Rospiggar a form which in Old Norse was Rosbyggjar. Then again, why don't you contribute to Rus' (people) you seem to be very knowledgeable in this field. Please enlighten me. Just why are his origins so controversial to you and some other people from the former Soviet Union? I doubt that there are many sources that contradict the Primary Chronicle. By the way, since you're searching on the Net, I'll help you out with a few texts of which the first may also explain my last question.

1)[1]

2)[2]

3)[3]

4)[4]

5)[5]

I will let you work on this article for a month and then I'll get back and see what you have done. Cheers,--Wiglaf 09:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kindest permission to let me work on this article for a whole month. I am really flattered with the honor. I will be awaiting with greatest anticipation the illustrous moment when you "get back and see what I have done" and bestow your fair judgement upon my humble self. --Gene s 07:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relax, Gene. Why don't you read this as a goodwill promise not to interfere with your work with minute picks at each and every moment, so that you could not write anything coherent without long debate. Such bickering happens all the time in wikipedia, and IMO Wiglaf is quite generous by letting you know he will not engage in this kind of silliness. Mikkalai 16:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wiglaf, it seems that there is a misunderstanding between you two. Gene seems to doubt in the word ""rosbyggjar", since he cannot find it by google. I suspect he thinks this is kind of the name of a tribe, while it simply means "inhabitants of Roslagen". The article must state this more clearly, with modern term added, like you did here.

BTW, the mentioned article http://cgi.roslagsmuseet.se/roslagen.shtml seems to imply that that the term Roslagen is more recent than Primary Chronicle, hence it is invalid to use it for etymology of "Rus". Mikkalai 17:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If so, I am sorry Gene. Mikkalai, I don't know if it's invalid. The problem is that the Scandinavian system of Leidang districts (called Roslag or Rodslag in Sweden) is arguably much older than the written sources which are quite late. They were the maritime version of the hundred (division), which were described as early as A.D. 98 by Tacitus. What do you suggest?--Wiglaf 17:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I cannot read Swedish well. My reading is that "Roden" was the eralier term. All I could suggest is to try and look for original data and into serious research from time to time. I am not saying anytnig with respest to the current topic, but it is quite often that popular expositions tend to twist data slightly. But each twist may bring a further departure from truth. One should be eapecially cautious with etymology of such a short word: Rus/Ros/Rhos/whatever, read from texts in different languages. No wonder theories are in multitudes. Anyway, encyclopedia is not original research. It is not our goal to "prove" of "disprove" a theory, but only to present it, if it is widespread enough. In our case all what I wanted to say is to be careful with references to old names, not to fall into an anachronism or into a circular logic. For example, much earlier I fixed the following blunder in Rus' (people): when referring to the Annals of Saint Bertan, one wiki-contributor wrote: "In this delegation there were two men who called themselves Rus (Ruzzi)", which is stretching the facts (may be not deliberate): the original text said "Rhos". Mikkalai 18:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, we should present the theories as they are, but at the same time we should check them. It is great that you verified the St Bertain part. I will see what I can find concerning the naming of Roden/Rodslagen.--Wiglaf 19:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rus, Jutland and Adam of Bremen

These articles seem to a attract a lot of creative writing, so I just want to make sure: Where does Adam of Bremen write that the Rus were from Jutland?--Wiglaf 13:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The POV of this article

This article was seriously slanted. I have tried to fix the most serious problems.--Wiglaf 06:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Imaginary sources

I suggest that we remove any scholarship which bases its theories on "lost sagas" and "lost chronicles". It appears to be acceptable in the former Soviet union to do so, but it is questionable whether the products of such scholarship belong in Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 08:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymologies

While I find Proto-Norse fascinating and in some fields can't bolster my enthusiasm for it, there are some places it doesn't belong. For example: I can't see why there is a need for an unattested P-N form of the name Rörik in this article. Could anyone cite a good reason as to why? Otherwise, wouldn't it better be deleted as to avoid confusion? And remember always to put an asterisk before an unattested name or word. Asdfgl 23:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove it then. It was there in order to show the common origin of the Old West Norse and Old East Norse forms. I thought it was highly relevant in connection with the other Germanic languages cited.--Wiglaf 06:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Perfect, I hope I didn't sound too rash. As for relevancy in connection with other germanic languages, I think that rather belongs on the page on Protogermanic (which could do with some work, I'll look into it). Asdfgl 20:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Rurik was a nephew of the danish king(pretender) Harald Klak

After the sons of Godfred had thrown Harald Klak out of Denmark several times, despite or perhaps because of his support from the frankish emperor, the emperor granted him a fief or desmene called Rüstringen covering Friesland and the lands between the Elbe and the Weser. After Harald´s death his nephew Rurik inherited the desmene. Perhaps the name Rus comes from Rüstringen.

Minor inaccuracies

While the article is well-written, there are some dubious passages. I tried to remove these, but the changes were reverted. The first issue that annoys me is that it describes the Novgorod mound as similar to "regal kurgans of Yngling kings" (i.e. the kurgans at Old Uppsala). First a picky comment: in what way similar to the Uppsala kurgans? Why similar to the Uppsala kurgans and not just any big kurgan? Recall that the Uppsala kurgans are from the 5th and 6th centuries and thus are not contemporary with the 9th century Novgorod kurgan.

A more serious issue is that the article should be more careful when referring to Yngling kings. The existence of the Yngling kings are by modern mainstream historians considered at best unprovable and at worst a nationalistic and romantic fairytale (if you don't believe me, please just go to Old Uppsala and read the information signs at the mounds). The article would be better if it represented (or at least mentioned) the present-day consensus. Anyway, the Ynglings are not relevant to this article and the passage could as well be removed.

Thanks for having explained that, I restore your edits immediately. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein, the article states as follows: "likened by the chronicler to [...] Gotlanders (Goths)". Did the chronicler refer to Gotlanders, Goths, or both? While there may possibly be an ancient connection between Gotlanders and Goths, this is based on speculation and shouldn't be stated as a fact in this (unrelated) article. Anyway, this tenuous connection can hardly have been relevant in the time of Rurik, more than half a millenium after the supposed emigration.--Kallerdis 10:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You should address these concerns to User:Wiglaf, who pushed his favourite notions of identification between Goths and Gotlanders into many Wiki articles. See Geat, for instance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is very courageous of Ghirla to refer to a defunct user. It seems much more sensible if Ghirla checked if its Goths or Gotlanders in the Primary Chronicle instead. Why do you hate Wiglaf so much? He appears to have been a respected administrator, which you are not in spite of your considerable time on Wikipedia.Isse

So you will not see my comments on this page any more. If you spend more time around, you will see that most prolific editors in Wikipedia are not administrators. Admin tools are not for editing but for fighting vandalism and performing other chores. If Wiglaf had been respected, he would not have been obliged to leave. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the history around his disappearence, but can't see any criticism of Wiglaf's behaviour in connection with it. You, on the other hand, seem to have been in conflict with him about a strange theory about Varangians (you appear to have claimed that they were Fenno-ugric).Isse

PS. Your hate for a defunct administrator and your heated way of arguing and stretching the truth make me understand why you have not been entrusted with adminship.Isse

Note. Kallerdis voices the opinions of the so-called "hypercritical school" in Scandinavian history, with proponents such as Krag.Isse

... or we may call it the Augean school. From my viewpoint as an amateur, this attitude is the mainstream in academic research today, not only in Scandinavia.--Kallerdis 14:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The version you defend is extreme (but amateurs often get enthusiastic). Even the Swedish national heritage board considers the Ynglings to have been historical, so you are quite exessive in you POV, when you assert them to have been ficticious.--Isse 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How Rurik could even appear in Russia? Wrong title.

I'm on your title "The Varangians in Russia". It seems to be not quite correct title, Russia did not exist the time, even Rus did not exist. "Russia" has appeared in some 17th or 18th, before it was Kievan Rus or Rus (root land for many modern states as Russia, Ukraine). And in 9th century when Rurik came to Ladoga there was no even such name as Rus. This image made by Nicholas Roerich originally titled Guests from Overseas (1899) and the subject has nothing to do with USSR, CIS or Russia :-) Stanislav

Looking the origin of Ruiderik another way

At last I am quite satesfied of the results published in the genetic testing of Ruiderik or shall we at last say Ruurikka family. What have been known for a long time is the fact that the Roslagen archipelago was inhabited by the Islanders ie Saaristolaiset, which were a mixture of Finno Ugrians both from Moonsund (Hiiumaa, Saaremaa, Muhu) archipelago in Aestland and Ahvena (Åland) archipelago in Vinland. This test confirms also the early connection with the connection with "Alte Finnisch" and Kuuraland (Liiviland) in addition to "Alte Prussische" spoked in Palatsi (Dvor / Hov / Hof) ie. Paltesjuborg, Palatsak, Polotesk, Polotsk, Poltesk, which was a rivaling family to the Ruiderik family which entered to Belarus using Väinäjoki route. Can any of the so called western and eastern theory supporters here provide actual information why Ruiderik and his brothers settled to the places where different dialects of Finno Ugrian language were spoken. Därför at alla dom varu två språkiga människor, som jag under certain condititions. They could easily understand the Tikaspuu (Ladder) language which was spoken at Uuslinna, Ispori, and Valgetjärv. The claim that Laatokka was deserted as one can to believe from the text of the main article, until the Varjaagi and Russi become to scene is one of the last big lies in Indo-European history made only to legimitate the development. Similar battle is also going on with the origin of Sakalibas on Volgar Bolgharia between the Tatars and Russians. When reading the Belarus history I personally believe to the theory of twofold entering to Roshland or shall we say Oruss or Uruss or ad-Dir depending the sources you use. Pritsak has made a good start to start the new research. I was also personally suprised when visited in Jukatan Peninsula in Mexico to see so many pure Finnish placenames there, even some rareties which never should be existing there. Taken as it is when looking through (peharps Ghirla tep) created arlicles of Ruiderik families in Russia that Chernigov (Tjäringova or Tjärnagova) was the main base of Dane, Göta (Guta), Svea origin families, and Soldal /Suzdal and Rosta / Rostov both with mixture of Finno Ugrian, Russian and Norwegian / Swede origin families. According to Pritsak, Rahvalod / Rangvald was for sure historical person and his roots may be found also from western sources. Rahvalod´s grande sonne is recorder as Izjaslau Uladzhimiravich in 988 at Polatsak. Jersida along the Väinäjoki / Dvzina sounds much more common Scandinavian Viking name when you make it Björn (Bear) Jernsida (Ironside) by adding simply n in it. Ironside is much more common like Thorhammar, Bloodhand and other Swedish Viking names.

For the "Tale of Bygone Years" transliteration to English I am using the splendid Old Slavonic text by Academic Dimitri Sergejevitsh Lihashov like this; "They drived varjaags behind the sea nor did they pay taxes for them and started they rule themselves. But they had no interminded common justice and rose a kin against a kin and they had intermingled quarrels and started they war against each kin against another. And said they to each others; Lets find a ruhtinaz (knäjz) who rules us and makes justified judgements. And went they to the other side of sea to Varjags, Rusjs (Rhoshs). Those Varjags call themselves Rusj (Rhoshs) as the other call themselves Sveas (Sveeas), some Normans (normanneiksi), and Anglijs (angleiksi), and as some to Gotlanders (gotlantilaisiksi), so what, so they were called. Said the Tshuudis, Meris, Sloveenes, Krivetshis, and Vepsäs "Land of ours is big and large, but there is no order in it. Come and to rule us. And chosen was three brothers with their kin and these took with them a lot of Rusjs (Rhohs) and settled the eldist - Rurik - To Novgorod (Novaharod / Uuslinna), second - Sineus - to Beloozero (Valgetjärv), and the third - Truvor - to Izborsk (Ispora). And from these Varjags got the name of Land of Rusjs".

Why not show in the article that Tshuds, Meris, and Veps were Finno Ugrians, Slovenes and Krivitshes (Crivitai) western Old Slavonic peoples.

Or peharps use a deleting finger again and remove this article from this page as so many time before. Had you understanding of Finnish language you could not delete the the text of;

Nestorin kronikka by Academic Dmitri Serjejevitsh Lihatshov Porvoo 1994
Muinaisuutemme merivallat by Professor Matti Klinge Helsinki 1983
Kiovan Rusj - Eurooppalainen suurvalta by Dr Jukka Korpela Hämeenlinna 1996
Hopeanvalkea by Dr Lennart Meri Jyväskylä 1983

And Adjeigluborg was not Staraja Ladoga or Laatokankaupunki. It was at Alavoistenjoki, on place named Alavoinen, an old kauppapaikka (Torgovaja) at Aunuksen kannas (Olonets Isthmus) where a fortres named Alvoistenlinna (castle or krepost) was built giving easy access through nearby mouth of Syvärinjoki (Svir) and Äänisjärv Ozero Onjega) and through Andoma and Kemi to Valgetjärv and beyond by Sheksna and Valgia. There were three Varjagi settlements nearby each other on the south east corner of Lake Laatokka of whose shores had been inhabited since 7000 BC and at least since by 5000 BC by Finno Ugrian peoples. One settlement was located on the mouth of Syysjoki, between Olhavanjoki and Syvärinjoki making direct connection to Mologa River and thence to via Valgia to Ieroslav and Obran Osh.

North of Vytegra toward Puutoistenjoki (where Suiskin Ushakoff kin was found) you find the Antomaa (Andoma) and east of Vytegra Kemi (Kemsk), origin of two Rurik kin Valgetjärven Andomaat (Andomsky) and Valgetjärven Kemiläiset (Kemsky) nearby you find also Uhtomaan (Ukhtomsky). Suiski is pure Karelian / Veps name. When you Russificate this name as was done when they adopted Russian Orthodox faith when all baptized received Slavonic names it become Shuisky. And large was the kin of Suiskis. You find Bruhtarin Suiskit, Glazanin Suiskit, Horvatin Suiskit, Kirdjapinin Suiskit, Skopinin Suiskit, and main root kin of Suiski from Soldal / Suzdal. Thus it seems nearly all of Soldal / Suzdal Ruideriks were Suiskis.

First came the Gutas which become Gothos from Gotland which had also Vinland name Vuojonmaa and Aestland name Ojamaa which is in daily use in Estonia. Finnish name have changed to Gotlanti. In c.200 - 250 AD every third of the creative Gutalanders at best age (16 - 30) hade to leave their countrey to auoide ouer population. They went to Väinäjoki and thence to southern direction. On their voyage some stopped to stay and founded little settlements named Holm (Island in alte Swede which turned in Old Slavonic to Kholm (knoll / hillock). Just follow the river routes and you find hundreds of Kholms in Land of Rosh. The southeners called the new settlers Sadumians, those living east of Dinjeper Ostro Sadumians (Gothos) and those wast of Dinjeper Visi Sadumians (Gothos). This according to Djagfar tarikhy as explaned by Professor Zufur Miftakhov.

Then whole Scandinavia emptied again when the Vandals come from there to settle east of Deutsch area of Pommerania. Next wave come in c.750 when the Vikings founded a settlement Aldeigjuborg Staraja Ladoga at Ladoga. In 793 the Norsemen destroyed Lindesfarne monastery in England and the age of Vikings begun. So in Indo-Eoropean main stream of history writing. How there were such a stupid peoples on the east coast of Baltic sea that they could not even sail at sea or do anything which is noted in history. No, they just appeared from sky when the history needed to be legimitated in the Indo-European Crusades toward east and Slavonic "controlling" toward north. They (Slavonians) built more ships and boats on the shores of White Sea than there was populaition according to the "offical" history and their history always start when they arrived. The Land was empty and deserted .... But the original text in Nestor´s Chronicle use purje instead of sail and laiva instead of ship. Strange, isn´t it. Uisko was Uishkui used by the Novgorodian river pirates and Gotland had onion churches. Black Sea was called Sea of Russ etc. Cheers.

Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project

|I find this study fascinating and if true, gives us a much wider picture of the history of this era while still bringing up more questions. How influential and widespread were the Finnic tribes on the affairs of the peoples known as Varangians? Do we know if some Finnic peoples were Varangians as the Project states Rurik as being? Were these Varangians less homogenously Germanic as previously thought? Where they defined as opposed to the Slavic and other Uralic peoples, as is currently believed, or was it a much more diverse association of people?

I'm not necessarily endorsing the Project either way, but it has piqued my curiosity.| CormanoSanchez (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn´t give you any picture at all since the "study" is of no scientific value whatsoever. No one knows Rurik haplogroup since we don't have access to his DNA. The only way to know the DNA of the Rus/Varangians is to acually find their bones. If we find graves that we clearly can say are Rus/Varangian then we can analyse the DNA and then compare it with DNA from different geographical areas.

Dalregementet (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, I am one of the co-administrators of the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/default.aspx?section=goals). You are correct - the only sure way to resolve the question of Rurik's ethnic origin along his paternal line would be to find his bones, positively identify these as being his and not someone else's, and then study the Y-chromosomal DNA of these bones. There is the burial mound near Novgorod, known as Shum Gora (Russian for "Noise Mountain") that is alleged to be Rurik's grave. Seismic tests of this mound indicate buried stone structures and artificial cavities. The mound has not yet been excavated, due to lack of funds. If Rurik is indeed buried therein, and if any of his bones or teeth have survived, then it may be possible to extract his Y-DNA. Usually this is very difficult with such old remains, but not necessarily impossible (unlike with the maternal-line mtDNA, which survives much longer). In the meantime, the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project is doing what is currently possible, which is to study the Y-chromosomal DNA of acknowledged and probable princely descendants of Rurik (as well as many other men who think they may possibly be descended from Rurik) in order to try to ascertain some kind of pattern from these. The project also seeks to do this with the descendants of Gediminas (Gedymin). Science does not deal with certainty, but rather with probabilities, and thus we seek to establish the probability of the line of descent. The information presented elsewhere in this discussion, namely, that so far only two modern princes have taken the test, is old. What follows is the latest information (as of March 15, 2010) from the project, as written by Dr. Andrzej Bajor, the project administrator, and edited by me for standard English - this information is reproduced here by permission of Dr. Bajor:

"The administrators of this project until 2008 were co-operating with Stepan Kravchenko and Nikita Maximov, who are the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Editor of the Russian Newsweek Magazine, respectively. The Russian Newsweek had tested the first two Rurikid princes.

"The first of these two was Prince Dmitri Mikhailovich Shahovskoi of Paris, France, the prominent Professor at the Russian Orthodox Institute, who made the 1st Y-DNA test in the Rurikid dynasty (at the end of 2006). Unexpectedly, he was found to be descended from a Finno-Ugrian background (genetic haplogroup N1c1 - earlier it was described as N3a). The 2nd one was Professor Andrei Petrovich Gagarin of St. Petersburg, Russia. His Y-DNA test result matched that of Prof. Shahovskoi. Professor Gagarin's test was confirmed later by the test of his cousin, Grigori Grigorievich Gagarin. Andrei Gagarin is also the 1st Rurikid prince to have done a Deep Clade N test (this proved that his haplo is, in fact, N1c1); in addition, after he joined the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project, he also upgraded his test up to 67 markers (FTDNA Co.'s standard).

"Next came Alexandr Solomin. For very many years he has declared that his family was, in fact, a lost branch of the Monastyrev family. The Monastyrevs of Smolensk lost the rights to their princely title as early as the 16th century. Since his Y-DNA test result matched those of Shahovskoi and Gagarin, he became the representative of the 1st family, unknown to genealogists, which proved its princely descent by Y-DNA testing. However, another test done later by Prince Nikolai Rzhevsky of the Smolensk branch showed that Alexandr is not descended from this branch of the Rurikid dynasty. Most probably he is descended from early Rurikids, but not necessarily from the princes of Smolensk.

"The 4th one was Nikita Dmitrievich Lobanov-Rostovsky of Great Britain, whose result matches the remaining three.

"The 5th one (or the 6th one after G.G. Gagarin) was Nikolai Rzhevsky of the Smolensk stock. Shortly thereafter Andrei P. Gagarin he also made his Deep Clade N test to prove his N1c1 haplo.

"These six princes are descended from St. Vladimir Monomakh. Their genetic haplo (N1c1) can be explained like this: the Roslagen seashore (slightly north of Stockholm, Sweden, where Rurik was supposed to have been born) until approx. the 4th/5th centuries A.D., was inhabited mainly by a Finno-Ugrian population. The Norse Vikings and Goths were also living in this region and were mixed with the native Finns. However, Finnish genes survived on the paternal lines. Their test results were later matched and confirmed by the tests done by the following princes from Russia: Putyatin, Kropotkin, Khilkov, Vadbolsky and Myshetsky. Although Prince Kropotkin by all means is a Rurikid, probably he is not descended on the Smolensk branch.

"The other two princes, Volkonsky and Obolensky, who are descended from Oleg Svatoslavovich (grandson of St. Yaroslav Mudry (the Wise)) are genetic Slavs (haplo R1a1). Their test results were later confirmed by a test done by another Prince Volkonsky. It seems that it was probably the king of Poland, Boleslaw II Smialy, who broke the genetic line of the Kievan Rurikoviches. In 1069 he visited Kiev with his troops. However, he escaped from Kiev shortly thereafter. The reason for this was not given by historians. He also visited Kiev in the years 1077/78 (he spent more than one year in Kiev). Their genetic haplos are typical for western Slavs, and especially for the Wielkopolska (Greater Poland) region in Poland, where the Polish royal Piast dynasty established their first princedom. Nevertheless, more explanations may exist, and these are still to be sought for.

"Prince Jakub Maria Puzyna was believed to be descended from Oleg Svatoslavovich of Kiev. However, he is not. Most probably he is not a direct descendant of Rurik. However, he is at least descended from one of Rurik's closest relatives.

"Prince Piotr Szuyski (most probably he is the last Shuyski in the world; his ancestor escaped from Moscow to the Gr. Duchy of Lithuania) was believed to be descended from St. Vladimir Monomakh. However, he is not. He is somehow related by blood with Prince Volkonsky. This puzzle can be solved by Y-DNA tests carried out among the Lyapunov and Shemyakin families (certainly, provided that the Shemyakins are descended from Prince Dmitri Shemyaka).

"By no means is Prince Stanislaw Antoni Czetwertynski a genetic descendant of Rurik. His genetic haplo (I2a2) is typical for the native population of the Ukrainian and Belarusian Polissyia region. This can also mean that Prince Tur(e), who founded the Turov-Pinsk princely dynasty, wasn't at all a genetic descendant of Rurik.

"Currently, it has been discovered that the marker # 41 (DYS 395S1b) may play a considerable role in the genealogy of the Rurikid dynasty. This marker seems to be invariant in a genetic clan. It was found that Princes Gagarin and Puzyna inherited a rare mutation (18) in this marker.

"My private database is here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mozhayski/teksty/ydna.html .

"The database also includes Gediminid princes.

"Bogdan Korybut-Woroniecki was found to be descended from a Swedish or Norwegian Viking (genetic haplo I1a). However, experts of the Polish Association of Nobility don't believe that he is a genuine Gediminid prince. In my opinion he is descended from one of the native Lithuanian princes.

"Prince Tonu Trubetsky (he is a famous musician nicknamed Tony Blackplait) is descended from the Gediminid Trubetskoi princes. His family tree since Gedimin is well documented. He was found to be descended from the native Lithuanian population. And this seemed reasonable, since from Stryjkowski's chronicle (end of 16th century) it follows that the early Gediminid princes spoke Lithuanian as their native tongue. Alas, Tonu Trubetsky's branch was broken by someone in the past [Tonu Trubetsky is of the R1a1 haplotype]. Most probably an adoption unknown to historians occurred in this branch of the Trubetsky princes. Besides, this is what the Trubetsky princes wrote in Obshchiy Gerbovnik Rassiyskoi Imperii (Armorial of the Russian Empire, vol. 2, St. Petersburg 1798). That Gedimin was descended from St. Vladimir the Great of Kiev on the Polotsk branch seems to be uncertain from the point of view of true genetics. In spite of the lack of close blood relations between the Rurikids and the Gediminids, one may, however, think of "political" family relations, i.e., that both princely lines were related in another way to each other: namely, in the Suzdal Chronicle (Suzdalskaya Letopis') one can find a text dealing with the siege of Polotsk by St. Vladimir the Great of Kiev. From this it comes out, that ROGNEDA, the future wife of St. Vladimir, as well as mother of his sons, HAD HER OWN SON from her 1st MARRIAGE. It's then quite probable that IZIASLAV VLADIMIROVICH of POLOTSK was, in fact, AN ADOPTED SON of St. Vladimir.

"Prince Askold Georgievich Khovanskii, whose ancestors were genuine Gediminid princes in Russia, is also of Finno-Ugrian descent (N1c1). He matches well with Alex Chartorisky (Czartoryski) of Australia, whose family comes from Russia. They both match well with another Prince Trubecki (Trubetzkoi) of Canada, who, for the time being, doesn't wish to show his Y-DNA test result to the public. Their tests were later confirmed by the tests made by another Trubetzkoy of Russia and Galitzine (Golitsin) of Russia. Their genetic haplos depart from those of the Rurikids. By no means were the Gediminid princes descended from St. Vladimir of Kiev. Currently, it seems that the Gediminids and Rurikids shared a common male ancestor in the time of Jesus Christ, or slightly later.

"Nevertheless, the project is seeking other princes of Gediminid descent, such as Trubecki (Trubetskoi), Golicyn (Galitzine), Chowanski (Khovansky) and Kurakin (Kurakine). Others, such as Czartoryski, Sanguszko and Koriatowicz-Kurcewicz, are rarely met in the world anymore.

"Prince Jerzy Czartoryski of Canada decided to make his Y-DNA test in spite of what historians speculate(d) about the descent of his princely branch. It is believed that his G...Grandmother, Princess Izabela Czartoryska (nee Fleming) had her 1st son with the Rurikid Prince Nikolai Vasilievich Repnin, while it was Armand-Louis de Gontaut-Biron, Duc de Lauzun, who fathered the 2nd son, Konstanty, from whom Prince Jerzy has descended. Prince Jerzy was found to be descended from a Germanic tribe (R1b1). He can still be descended from the French, since the majority of them are of Germanic origin. This is what counts here: that Prince Jerzy inherited the title of Prince, as well as family tradition, from his legitimate ancestors, the Czartoryski princes. On the other hand, however, providing that he is really descended from the Gontaut-Birons, this duly means that he is a genetic descendant of an old French family, having their roots in the 12th century, that may also eventually belong to one of the ruling dynasties (the Merovingians, or the Carolingians)."Metsamies (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for updating us at Talk:Rurik, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am the new member of TeamRurik at Yahoogroups who added Rurik and Gediminas to list of haplogroups of historical and famous figures. With what you have contributed I will be happy to update the main article, and we might also add sections to Rurikids and Gediminids, and/or House of Gediminas (separate article).

You can add your signature by typing four ~ in a row at the end of your post, or simply click them to the right of where it says Sign your posts on talk pages: a little below the edit summary box. DinDraithou (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Descendant

Queen Elizabeth 2 is related to him, should this be said in the article? This is what I found, if something is wrong, then Wikipedia are wrong.

Rurik

Igor of Kiev

Sviatoslav I of Kiev

Vladimir I of Kiev

Yaroslav I the Wise

Iziaslav I of Kiev

Sviatopolk II of Kiev

Predslava of Kiev

Béla II of Hungary

Andrew II of Hungary

Violant of Hungary

Isabella of Aragon

Philip IV of France

Isabella of France

Edward III of England

Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence

Philippa of Ulster

Roger Mortimer, Earl of March

Anne Mortimer

Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York

Edward IV of England

Elizabeth of York

Margaret Tudor

James V of Scotland

Mary I of Scotland

James I of England

Elizabeth of Bohemia

Sophia of the Palatinate

George I of Great Britain

George II of Great Britain

Frederick, Prince of Wales

George III of the United Kingdom

Prince Edward Augustus

Victoria of the United Kingdom

Edward VII of the United Kingdom

George V of the United Kingdom

George VI of the United Kingdom

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Contradiction

There is a contradiction in the article, about the disputed origin:

"So far, only two modern Rurikid princes have agreed to take this DNA test. Their results indicate that their male line originated in Uppland province in Sweden. So far, one Swede shares 11 of the prince's markers, and he believes that his own male line goes back to the 15th century in Roslagen. The DNA results of modern Rurikid princes indicate that Rurik was of Finno-Ugrian descent (haplogroup N3a1)."

So, the same DNA results show that Rurik was both of Swedish and Finno-Ugrian descent! Well? I heard (couldnt locate it in tghe text) That the varagarian Gurad were mercenaries protecting Islamic Potenetates etc/ Is this tgrue?THEEDSON1 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See "Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project", above, for updated information about this. Many more than the original two princes have by now had their DNA tested. The entry also explains how Rurik could have been of both Finnish and Swedish ancestry (although only the Finnish line shows up on the Y-DNA test). I don't know anything about the Varangian Guard protecting Islamic potentates, however - they protected the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Emperors.Metsamies (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

The pages about Rurik and Rus is of poor quality. There are new research in the subject of Rurik and Rus by the archeologist Wladyslaw Duczko. In his (exspensive) book, Viking Rus: studies on the presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, all relevant historical sources regarding Rus are listed and analyzed as well as new archeological material. Wladyslaw Duczko also states in his book, that the origin of Rus is no longer disputed, not even by russian archeologists. That because of the overwhelming material, historical and archeological, that unambigously points at Sweden for the origin of the Rus people.

It is therefore strange that Wikipedia:

Maintains material that is obviously incorrect and also published because of political and/or nationalistic interests - Rybakovs "research for example which is based on questionable sources, intrepreted in in a very imaginery way or based on no facts at all.
Publishes material that for any sane person just can´t be true. The so called genetical research regarding Rurik is of course not relevant and it has no scientific value what so ever. How can you claim to know a persons haplogroup, when he was living 1200 years ago and you have only tested 2 person that claim that they are his descendants??? If only one woman in the blood line has been unfaithful then the results will be wrong.
It is a mystery that Rorek of Dorestad is mentioned together with Rurik of Holmgard. There are no evidence at all that they are one and the same person - none. The share the a similar name but thats all. A person that let the information about Rorek of Dorestad be connected with Rurik of Novgorod must be very ignorant about Nordic history. Rorik of Dorestad, is Jut while Rurik of Holmgård is Ros. You can now see in especially US web pages claims that Rorik of Dorestad and Rurik of Holmgård is one and the same person and in this case, I think that Wikipedia contributes in spreading false information that is devastating for history knowledge.

Dalregementet (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

|Provide the sources that dispute the Bajor study so this can be clarified.| CormanoSanchez (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text transferred from the article

This is obviously a newsrelease from the project.

"Here is the latest data, as of March 15, 2010, from Dr. Bajor (reproduced here with his permission):