|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 2, 2009 8:01:57 GMT 3
There's a drinking horn with a supposed image of a Khazar warrior with a twisted lock of hair (Jewish style) coming down the side.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 2, 2009 19:32:21 GMT 3
Of course there is. Kassogs inhabitted much larger areas than they inhabit now. Like I said it was called Kassogia by Byzantines, now it's Kuban region. There is absolutely evidence that there was Slavic population. They were called Brodniks, apparently, they were Slavics based on the Russian chronicles, but they had unique features and for some reasons they prefered to join Mongols in the battle of Kalka river. French amsassador to the Horde Robruque describes numerous Brodniks setttlements on Don in the 13th century, there was also a Russian principality Tmutarkan on Taman peninsula. That had Slavic population up until the 15th century. And BTW Tmutarkan Slavic population was also heavilty mixed with Kassogs and had also some Alan admixture. Migration of Kassogians to the North is also supported by evidence. They even founded cities in Ukraine that were called Cherkassy (Circassians). In fact, Circassians migrated as far as Romanian principalities and some local noble families have Circassian origins. Finally, in fact, this theory is directly supported by the book of one of the most famous Russian historian Tatishev. I'm giving directly the quote from his book. Ïåðâûå êîçàêè, çáðîä èç ÷åðêåñ ãîðñêèõ, â êíÿæåíèè Êóðñêîì â 14 ñò. ÿâèëèñü; ãäå îíè ñëîáîäó ×åðêàñû ïîñòðîèëè è ïîä çàùèòîé òàòàðñêèõ ãóáåðíàòîðîâ âîðîâñòâîì è ðàçáîÿìè ïðîìûøëÿëè; ïîòîì ïåðåøëè íà Äíåïð è ãîðîä ×åðêàññû íà Äíåïðå ïîñòðîèëè. — Â. Í. Òàòèùåâ, Èñòîðèÿ Ðîññèéñêàÿ, Ì.-Ë. 1963, ò. II, ñòð. 240 First cossacks, mob originated from mountain Circassians appeared first in Kurks principality in the 14th century, where they built Cherkassy settlement and were engaged in robbery and thief under protection of Tatar governors, then they crossed Dnieper and built the city of Cherkassy on Dnieper. V.N. Tatishev, Russian history, M.-L. 1963, volume II, page 240 i personally find no compelling evidence in any of that. byzantines earlier called the region of the Pontic Steppe as Scythia logn after the actual Scythians were goen and Turkic Nomads were in their place. the Kuban area became only Cossack after settling the remnant Zaporozhians there as Black Sea Cossacks in the late 18th century. it was already suggested that Brodniki might have been the Cossack ancestors but apparently that theory is no longer popular because Brodniki doesn't sound like Kozak/Kazak but it is a Turkic word and Brodniki not and it rather describes their nature instead of their self-designation (which they might not had). Tmutarakan was a tiny outpost of Kiev located on the Taman peninsula, everything around it was controlled by Steppe people. also Cherkasy was not a Cossack town, the earliest Cossack Voiskos existed along the lower Dniepr, the lower Don and the lower Volga, but it might be an explanation for the Don Cossack capital Cherkask. Cherkassy if anything could be an explanation for the Chernye Klobukiye.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 2, 2009 19:33:31 GMT 3
There's a drinking horn with a supposed image of a Khazar warrior with a twisted lock of hair (Jewish style) coming down the side. not necessarily, Khitans were depicted with quite similar locks:
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 2, 2009 23:35:56 GMT 3
i personally find no compelling evidence in any of that. Well. It's fact that we don't have compelling evidence at all regarding the early Cossack history. byzantines earlier called the region of the Pontic Steppe as Scythia logn after the actual Scythians were goen and Turkic Nomads were in their place. the Kuban area became only Cossack after settling the remnant Zaporozhians there as Black Sea Cossacks in the late 18th century. The information I gave on Kassogia actually just supported the fact that Kassogians-Circassians were numerous and occupied a substantive portion of land along the Eastern shore of the Black Sea. It's not related to the things you wrote. it was already suggested that Brodniki might have been the Cossack ancestors but apparently that theory is no longer popular because Brodniki doesn't sound like Kozak/Kazak but it is a Turkic word and Brodniki not and it rather describes their nature instead of their self-designation (which they might not had). What we know is that Brodniki were Slavics and that they were in the Prepontic region in the 13th century. Tmutarakan was a tiny outpost of Kiev located on the Taman peninsula, everything around it was controlled by Steppe people. Yeah, but it was inhabbited by Slavs while you said that there were no Slavic people in the Pre-Pontic region at that time. also Cherkasy was not a Cossack town, the earliest Cossack Voiskos existed along the lower Dniepr, the lower Don and the lower Volga, but it might be an explanation for the Don Cossack capital Cherkask. Cherkassy if anything could be an explanation for the Chernye Klobukiye. Well. I don't really undersand what you're trying to say. Because, Tatishev clearly wrote that the first Cossacks that appeared in Kursk principality were Circassians. Also, it's a fact that another name for Cossacks in Muscovite state is Cherakassy which also means Cirkassians. It's also evidence that there was a huge presene of Circassians/Kassogs in prepontic region and particularly in Crimean in the 13th and 14th century. Even more interesting is that those Cirkassians were mainly Orthodox Christians which might explain why Cossacks were Christians as well if the Kassog hypo is true of course.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 3, 2009 22:01:59 GMT 3
Well. It's fact that we don't have compelling evidence at all regarding the early Cossack history. exactly why not, there are no facts at all in here we cannot take the byzantines geographcial names as hard evidence because of what we know of "Scythia". what you do is Cyrus' methodology, playing with words. there were also Armenian and Jewish merchants and god knows who else, are they worthwhile to mention? hardly so and the Slavics themselves were also a minority. or what's wrong with my wording, would you agree calling the Pontic Steppe Jewish inhabited? probably not. Tmutarakan was nothing but an outpost like the previous Greek merchant towns that doesn't make the Crimea Greek nor the Pontic Steppe Slavic inhabited. what's so hard to understand here? don't you see a difference between Cossacks and Kazakhs? if so, no need to continue. if yes you have to realize that the first Qazaqs were tatar mercenaries. there's no implication that those Qazaqs and the later Qazaqs were related in any way. it was a popular generic term for free bands of warriors at the time which existed from the Pontic Steppe via Central Asia well into Southern India. Babur was Qazaq two times in his early career. just because some Qazaqs were this or that at one time in the past doesn't have anything to do with the ethnogenesis of THE Cossacks. what i said about Cherkassy is valid. its location corresponds with the southern parts of the Kievan principality, they themselves had a frontier defensive zone of Steppe warriors called Chernye Klobukiye (black hats) whose origins are not so very certain. it was not and never a region inhabited by THE Cossacks so the hypo of Cossacks being originally Kassogs/Circassians is not true here but it could give insight into the ethnic makeup of those Chernye Klobukiye. however the capital of Don Cossacks WAS called Cherkassk but it also corresponds with the geographic location of the Brodniki who were however Slavs so we cannot assume that a Slavic population first became Circassian and then Slavic again.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 3, 2009 22:27:52 GMT 3
also, when i first read your post two thigns immediately sprang to midn which made me rpetty much reject the whole hypo from the beginning. first, the name similarity of Kassogs & Cossacks is if anything purely coincidental. secondly, and more importantly. why am i to be made believe that the Cossacks udnerwent so much transformation during their hiostory and the Circassian remained static? there are similarities between Circassians and Cossacks, but as we all know Cossacks of the Kuban and Terek heavily adopted the natvie costume, so how would be a headgear liek papak be compellign evdience? isn't it that both groups could be influenced by the same group? or plaina nd simple geographic proximity? wasn't the now russian ushanka itself not a borrowing from similar steppe headgear? Circassians also share many similarities, even mroe so than with cossacks, with their other neighbours of the Caucasus. again isn't it simply a matter of geographcial proximity and general cultural influence by bigger forces (like tatars etc).
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 3, 2009 22:29:05 GMT 3
Well. The whole point of that theory not is that Cossacks just were Circassians. It's that Circassians may be played a more important role for in the genesis of Cossacks then was previously thought. Other two components besides Cirkassians (if the theory is true) apparently were Slavic and Turkic.
Now, regarding the numerous Circassian tribes in Pontic region. There are many works on this including also Arabic, Georgian and Russian chronicles.
Russian prince Mstislav fought Kassogs near Tmutarkan. If you just look at the map, you'll be able to see where Caucasian mountains are and where is Taman peninsula to realize that Circassians occupied much more territory in prepontic region in 10-13 century AD then they do now. Also, there were many Circassians in Crimea there is enough works on this in Russian. In fact, Crimean Tatar culture is very influenced by Circassian culture.
So, all the comparisons with Cyrus don't work here.
You also compitely ignored Tatishev'w words that clearly wrote about "Mountain Circassians" and the fact that Cossacks were some times called Circassians.
We can't say that local Slavs became complitely Circassians or something. But it makes sense in my opinion that local Brodniks mixed with Circassians and may be remnants of Chernye Klobuki and later Tatars and that mixture later became known as Cossacks.
There is also nothing supernatural in the idea that the work "Kassog" might have been confused with "Qazaq" by neighboring Turks.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 3, 2009 22:35:03 GMT 3
also, when i first read your post two thigns immediately sprang to midn which made me rpetty much reject the whole hypo from the beginning. first, the name similarity of Kassogs & Cossacks is if anything purely coincidental. secondly, and more importantly. why am i to be made believe that the Cossacks udnerwent so much transformation during their hiostory and the Circassian remained static? there are similarities between Circassians and Cossacks, but as we all know Cossacks of the Kuban and Terek heavily adopted the natvie costume, so how would be a headgear liek papak be compellign evdience? isn't it that both groups could be influenced by the same group? I'm not talking about later Kuban and Terek Cossacks. I'm talking about original Cossacks in Don and Dnieper regions. They already were wearing Papakhas, while their dierect Tatar neighbors were not. And that is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 4, 2009 13:44:19 GMT 3
also, when i first read your post two thigns immediately sprang to midn which made me rpetty much reject the whole hypo from the beginning. first, the name similarity of Kassogs & Cossacks is if anything purely coincidental. secondly, and more importantly. why am i to be made believe that the Cossacks udnerwent so much transformation during their hiostory and the Circassian remained static? there are similarities between Circassians and Cossacks, but as we all know Cossacks of the Kuban and Terek heavily adopted the natvie costume, so how would be a headgear liek papak be compellign evdience? isn't it that both groups could be influenced by the same group? or plaina nd simple geographic proximity? wasn't the now russian ushanka itself not a borrowing from similar steppe headgear? Circassians also share many similarities, even mroe so than with cossacks, with their other neighbours of the Caucasus. again isn't it simply a matter of geographcial proximity and general cultural influence by bigger forces (like tatars etc). Dude, were you drunk when you wrote this post? ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 4, 2009 15:54:13 GMT 3
Poor spelling, inability to use the shift key properly to make capital letters, and it seems he even forgot to press the enter key! Even I when I'm drunk I type better! ;D LOL sorry but now that you mentioned it, it's kinda hard not to comment on ;D
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 4, 2009 21:22:17 GMT 3
actually i wrote that pretty fast as an afterthought, i rarely if ever use capital letters in my post and typos are quite natural if you've ever talked to me via MSN or other chat programs you'll be familiar with that
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 4, 2009 21:33:38 GMT 3
Well. The whole point of that theory not is that Cossacks just were Circassians. It's that Circassians may be played a more important role for in the genesis of Cossacks then was previously thought. Other two components besides Cirkassians (if the theory is true) apparently were Slavic and Turkic. i don't see the importance of that at all, like i've pointed out at leats in my opinion, what we call Cossacks are Salvic people of various/unknown background with Turkic/Tatar Steppe culture. but apparently not in Cossack regions, i've delt with that in my previous post. there were no Cossacks near Tmutarakan, and between Tmutarakan and the Caucasus THERE WERE NO COSSACKS IN THAT TIME. (for people who like capslock) of course i do, i also ignore that Medieval Middle Easterners called all Christian Europeans as Franks and all Medieval Christian people called the Muslim Middle Easterners as Saracens. i also ignore Brits calling Germans as Huns in ww1. i ignore a lot of that stuff, what i don't ignore is how people call THEMSELVES. why Chernye Klobuki? i only brought them up because you brought up Cherkassy. again, THERE WERE NO COSSACKS ANYWHERE NEAR CHERKASSY EITHER. do you think Turks are confused? i suppose Turks aren't that stupid to 'confuse' Qazaq with Kassog. which language is "Kassog" anyways, Byzantine, Russian? and i don't see why it is surprising that Crimean Tatars had no Papakha, that's no evidence for nothing. lambskin hats are popular headgear all over the place. and some people don't. and i don't see why Slavic people would get assimilated but Circassians not, usually migrating people adopt to the region and people they move in and not vice versa. again Caucasian Cossacks as evidence.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 4, 2009 22:26:55 GMT 3
Well. Either way you're not reading my post or you do not know what you're writing about which is quite obvious IMHO.
Did I write that Circassians assimilated Slaves or something? I never wrote about that.
Yes, Circassians lived in the Don region and even in Crimea. They lived in the whole prepontic region. And also frequently migrated to Rus.
Tatishev perfectly knew who were Tatars, who were Russians and who were Ukrainians and he perfectly knew who are Circassians as well. That's why his words are of some value.
And why would also people in Muscovy call Cossacks Circassians?
Cherkassy is not a Cossakc town??? ;D ;D ;D
It's an ancient Cossack town. The man who built Zaporozhian Sich Dmitrii Vishenvetsky was in the beginning the leader of the Cossacks from Cherkassy (which was a traditional center of registered Cossackdom) and Kanev he brought Cherkassy Cossacks down to Dnieper where he founded Zaporozhian Sich on Hortitsa island. Even on the coat of arms of Cherkassy there is a Cossack due to the fact that this place was an important center of Cossackdom.
And finally, Papakha means something, because Slavic or Tukic people wouldn't just took this unusual headgear out of nowhere. It makes perfect sense that that was in fact Circassian influence.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 5, 2009 21:38:17 GMT 3
Did I write that Circassians assimilated Slaves or something? I never wrote about that. of course you did, that's the whole point of your thread or what do you think "Cossacks adopted Papak" and "Cossacks were originally Circassians" means? redundancy galore, a whole lot of people lived in Eastern Europe. i already poitned that out in almost all my previous posts. ignorance, racial slur... just two possibilities. doesn't fit with their later runaway-serfs claim either. according to Poles, registered Cossacks were not Cossacks but simply Tatar-like mercenaries like those of Muscovy. people who later became free Cossacks came from such Polish 'Cossack' border towns. Kaniv was also such a town and it was neither founded nor primarily inhabited by Cossacks. many things developed independently of each others besides i've seen contemporary pictures of tatars with papak. and there's still trade. even Poles adopted the Cossack lock. and there are just as many contemporary pictures of Cossacks without Papak so we can rule this out as any eveidence.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 5, 2009 22:42:38 GMT 3
of course you did, that's the whole point of your thread or what do you think "Cossacks adopted Papak" and "Cossacks were originally Circassians" means? Ok. May one quote from there was misleading, But I didn't mean that Circassians just assimilated the others, neither that theory said this. I mean that "may be" Circassians played an important role in the genesis of Cossacks, were the other two important components were Turks and Slavics. redundancy galore, a whole lot of people lived in Eastern E urope. i already poitned that out in almost all my previous posts. Hmmm... Well, in fact, I don't know what other similar kind warlike people besides Turkic nomades, and Slavic and Circassians settlers could be there? ignorance, racial slur... just two possibilities. doesn't fit with their later runaway-serfs claim either. Ignorance... Like I said, Tatishev was not idiot, as well as the rest of Muscovites. If they wanted to use something "ignorant" it would be "khokhly," and "Circassian" has been never used as racial slur in Muscovy and Russia. You're just trying to find any alternative explanations because u even don't want to consider this theory but I don't understand why? according to Poles, registered Cossacks were not Cossacks but simply Tatar-like mercenaries like those of Muscovy. people who later became free Cossacks came from such Polish 'Cossack' border towns. Kaniv was also such a town and it was neither founded nor primarily inhabited by Cossacks. According to the information I have, Cherkassy was founded by Circassians later known as Cossacks and the city continued to have predominant Cossack population most of the time of its history. many things developed independently of each others besides i've seen contemporary pictures of tatars with papak. and there's still trade. even Poles adopted the Cossack lock. and there are just as many contemporary pictures of Cossacks without Papak so we can rule this out as any eveidence. Yeah... May be it developed independently. But in my opinion it's rather likely that it also could be influence of Circassians. Besides Papakhas, another interesting thing is the Cossacks' proficiency in piracy. Neither Tatars, not Slavics had the piracy tradition, while Circassians certaintly had from the very ancient times.
|
|