I was reading up on the Kievan Rus', curious as to why modern Russia is so far depraved from Scandinavian culture and language today if they were originally formed by the Kievan Rus', vikings whom formed the first Russian estate.
Apparently, historians argue their origin, according to this section of Wikipedia.
One of the earliest written descriptions of the Rus as followed by'' Ahmad ibn Fadlan, an Arab traveler during the 10th century, provided one of the earliest written descriptions of the Rus': "They are as tall as a date palm, blond and ruddy, so that they do not need to wear a tunic nor a cloak; rather the men among them wear garments that only cover half of his body and leaves one of his hands free. ''
Which does sound fairly Scandinavian.
My question is-; if they were originally from Scandinavia, most likely Sweden- how come in today's Russia and Russian language, there seem to be very few traces left? Were the original Slavs there simply too many and the Scandinavians culture changed to theirs-or what happen'd? I'd love to read other sources on the subject of their origin and why its drastically different compared to the current day Scandinavian countries.
Probably.
You're referring to the Normanist view, which holds that Scandinavians were central to the early foundation of Kievan Rus'. The ethnologist Gerhardt Friedrich Müller is one of the central figures in this debate in the 18th century, and his argument that proto-Russians were Scandinavian was generally accepted in the 19th century. There's a decent amount of archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence for this view, and it is the most accepted historical view on the origin of Kievan Rus'. Anti-Normanism, most strongly associated with the polymath Mikhail Lomonosov (against Müller),was somewhat revived in the Soviet Union, and you'll find rather uncritical interpretations of the Primary Chronicle today promoting Russian nationalism.
As you noted, however, it's not as though Kiev was a culturally Scandinavian outpost. More recent scholarship seems to construct an ethnically diverse amalgamation of people throughout Kievan Rus', including Scandinavians. By the 11th century we start to see groups coalesce as Russian Slavs (and the Primary Chronicle was likely composed in the first years of the 12th century), and Muscovy emerges after. It's that third view, that Kiev was both Slavic and Scandinavian (and a host of other things) that can explain the 'loss' of Scandinavian language and material culture.
The Lomonosov-Müller arguments are particularly interesting historically, but Barford's Early Slavs is a good, scholarly book on the origin of the Slavs up until the 10th century.