|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 7, 2009 20:52:44 GMT 3
i think this theory is unlikely because Cossacks won't adopt elments from the same culture twice. we know for certain Caucasian Cossacks in the 19th century conquest of the Northern Caucasus adopted from Cherkess, now it is claimed they already adopted elements in the 16th century...we also have to considder that Circasisans themselves didn't remained static, who knows if we can considder the Papak or even the Cherkesska as originally Cherkess items? as you pointed out Cherkess apparently migrated north in some numbers but why they only influenced Cossacks? i have to say i already wondered myself why town names like Cherkassy and Cherkassk came into beign and that seems a logical explanation. however to conclude that Cossacks were to a significant degree Circassians is going too far imho. there's also no evidence in regards to Cossack names, which Cossack has a Circassian name? i also don't believe anymore that the original Cossacks were Tatars to any significant extent. maybe only a few but not many. all those early "Cossack" mercenaries of Muscovy etc were tatars but they had no connection to later Cossack peoples who were Slavic, it was a common generic name at the time for unassociated warrior bands. Cossacks over time of course adopted a lot of Tatar culture, particularly due to their brides, which also adds to their gene pool but that's it. that's why they were initially river pirates and fought as infantry but later primarily horsemen. i still find the Brodniki hypo the most convincing.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 8, 2009 2:13:37 GMT 3
i think this theory is unlikely because Cossacks won't adopt elments from the same culture twice. But why? History is not physics there are no some unbreakable laws that wouldn't allow that. we know for certain Caucasian Cossacks in the 19th century conquBut est of the Northern Caucasus adopted from Cherkess, now it is claimed they already adopted elements in the 16th century...we also have to considder that Circasisans themselves didn't remained static, who knows if we can considder the Papak or even the Cherkesska as originally Cherkess items? as you pointed out Cherkess apparently migrated north in some numbers but why they only influenced Cossacks? Because, Chisrcassian migration was also a kind of migration of most mobile and warlike elements of Cirkassians. Most of those who resettle to the north were warriors and mercenaries. But they didn't influence only Cossacks, right now since began researching this problem I have been discovering that Circassian influence is also visible among Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in general. i have to say i already wondered myself why town names like Cherkassy and Cherkassk came into beign and that seems a logical explanation. however to conclude that Cossacks were to a significant degree Circassians is going too far imho. there's also no evidence in regards to Cossack names, which Cossack has a Circassian name? You raised interesting point. And... There were Cossacks with Circassian names ! Some Ukrainian names are believed to originate from Circassian names like Shevchenko-(Sheudshenko- son of a priest in Circassian), Chevchuk originates from Cirkassian last name Shevatsuk. Those Ukrainian historians that believed that Cossacks originated from Circassian claim that Hortitsa island, originate from Circassian "Hortits" that means a "place of man gethering." Ukrainian scholar Afanasii Shafonskii who was of a direct Cossack desent wrote the following in the 18th century: "Modern Mountain Circassians by their outlook, clothes and all the behavoir are very similar to the Ukrainians in the lower Dnieper, especially to the Cossacks, who have been named by all Ukrainians "Cherkassy" from the old time as they learned from Russians." In the 16 the century there was a famous Zaporozhian ataman Mishka Cherkashenin who became a part of Zaporozhian Cossack folklore. There are following Cossack names which are claimed to originate from Circassians: Lazuka, Toka, Guseim, Zhchalach, Neliston etc. i also don't believe anymore that the original Cossacks were Tatars to any significant extent. maybe only a few but not many. all those early "Cossack" mercenaries of Muscovy etc were tatars but they had no connection to later Cossack peoples who were Slavic, it was a common generic name at the time for unassociated warrior bands. Cossacks over time of course adopted a lot of Tatar culture, particularly due to their brides, which also adds to their gene pool but that's it. that's why they were initially river pirates and fought as infantry but later primarily horsemen. i still find the Brodniki hypo the most convincing. I also agree that Brodniki, perhaps, formed the core of future Cossacks, but I also believe that Tatars and Circassians made a significant contribution to the formation of Cossackdom. But, I don't know any discription of Brodniks as river pirates. But Circassians were famous through their priate raids through the whole Black Sea until that became the fame of Cossacks in the 16th century.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 8, 2009 2:30:44 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 8, 2009 20:09:51 GMT 3
but that can all be explained by geographical factors, like proximity and economy. i don't think Cherkess need to "teach" Cossacks how to be river pirates or to be "warlike". for me it is still a matter of coincidence. then later when those Cherkass-Cossacks met with their brethren again they adopt their dress and weapons again? that is hardly believable. how did Cherkess of that time looked anyways? when was the Shashka, Cherkesska etc all introduced? when did it spread to other Caucasian tribes like Georgians? this requires further studying of Cacuasian culture and Cherkess themselves. and i also know of one more modern Kuban Cossack of Cherkess heritage: www.peoples.ru/military/commander/sergey_ulagay/but as i understand those other Cossack names you mentioned are only possibly of Circassian origin but not prooven? what do typical Cherkess names look like? i alwways thought thsoe names with -chuk and -shenko at the end are typically Ukrainian...?
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 8, 2009 20:54:55 GMT 3
but that can all be explained by geographical factors, like proximity and economy. i don't think Cherkess need to "teach" Cossacks how to be river pirates or to be "warlike". for me it is still a matter of coincidence. I don't think it's simply a matter of coincidence. I mean there simply wasn't a Slavic or Tatar tradition of piracy. Why would Cossack go for piracy? I still found it's quite likely that some Chircassians settled among the Cossacks and brought their skills with them. Besides, Circassian vessels and their navigation techniques were complitely the same with Cossacks if you took a look at the article I referenced it talks about that. then later when those Cherkass-Cossacks met with their brethren again they adopt their dress and weapons again? that is hardly believable. I still don't understand what is the problem with that. There were centuries between those original Circassians who moved to the northern Black Sea and Circassians of the 18th century that stayed in Caucasus. I mean, like there was a story of Circassians that were settled in Kosovo when it still was an Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. And recently their descendants repatriated back to Russia. So, those, "Kosovo Circassians" already didn't speak any Cirkassian, forgot the language and most of the customs, they even looked rather "Yugoslavian" than "Caucasian" and now they are learning everything "Circassian" from the scratch. Apparently, Circassians that settled among Cossacks brought some important influences with them, but they were not overwhelming. And in any case in 100 years they were complitely melted in Slavic Cossacks, may be only a name "Cherkassy" stayed for a while. But culturally they were already quite remote from the brethren in Caucasus, just like those "Kosovo Circassians." Moreover, Circassia itself changed significantly, it complitely Islamicized, but when those earlier Circassians migrated there still were Orthodox Christians and so on... Yes, but this guy was a "new Cherkess" from the 19th century. but as i understand those other Cossack names you mentioned are only possibly of Circassian origin but not prooven? what do typical Cherkess names look like? i alwways thought thsoe names with -chuk and -shenko at the end are typically Ukrainian...? The first names I mentioned are Circassian. The last names... Are very probable hypos. Though, I discovered that suffix "ko" actually means "son" in Circassian so, some Ukrainian scholars claimed that the Urkainians last names with "ko" are formed based on that Circassian suffix. But regarding the latter, I'm not sure how reliable it really is.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 8, 2009 21:07:23 GMT 3
Why would Cossack go for piracy? but it is very obvious, all Cossack Voiskos without exception were centered around big rivers, without those rivers there would have been no Cossacks in the first place, those rivers formed the economic basis of their very existence. i have the feeling you assume Cossacks lived along those rivers and only became river pirates after the Circassians came along. in fact those Cossacks went there with the intent of becoming freebooters of thsoe rivers which were rich of trade since early medieval times. and you make it sound like Circassians invented seafaring and navigation. from whom did the Circassians learned their trade? i can't quite describe it well in English but this is similar to the question of hen and egg, which was first? we see a lot of common stuff because we know what Cossacks are and who Circcasians are, they are distinct but share same things. but that doesn't have to mean there was a linear continuation of development, one passing on stuff to the other, there must have been times of parallel development and sometimes periods of singular development and so on. this is also the argument of those who believe there was an ancient super civilization because of pyramids and other random similarities. you know what i mean? and as far as i know Brodniki have been river pirates too already.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 8, 2009 22:10:34 GMT 3
Why would Cossack go for piracy? but it is very obvious, all Cossack Voiskos without exception were centered around big rivers, without those rivers there would have been no Cossacks in the first place, those rivers formed the economic basis of their very existence. i have the feeling you assume Cossacks lived along those rivers and only became river pirates after the Circassians came along. in fact those Cossacks went there with the intent of becoming freebooters of thsoe rivers which were rich of trade since early medieval times. and you make it sound like Circassians invented seafaring and navigation. from whom did the Circassians learned their trade? i can't quite describe it well in English but this is similar to the question of hen and egg, which was first? we see a lot of common stuff because we know what Cossacks are and who Circcasians are, they are distinct but share same things. but that doesn't have to mean there was a linear continuation of development, one passing on stuff to the other, there must have been times of parallel development and sometimes periods of singular development and so on. Well. It's just much more natural that Cossacks learned it from Circassians than that they developed it by themselves, by analogy, don't we know that Cossacks took all their steppe warfare stuff and customs from the Steppans and not developed it by themselves "parallelly"? In fact even Tatars who also usually lived around big revers robbed river caravans, but they didn't develop such an elaborate culture of piracy and navigation. Why? The Cossacks were not just river pirates, but, in fact, Sea pirates as well. Besides, all those direct indications: the name "Cherkassy," outlook, occupations, contemporary evidence etc. Why would going that far and theorize that they developed it by themselves? Yes, of course, in theory they could develop it by themselves. But, it's much safer to say that they took it from Circassians, bearing in mind that Circassians contributed to much to the formation of Cossackdom. this is also the argument of those who believe there was an ancient super civilization because of pyramids and other random similarities. you know what i mean? and as far as i know Brodniki have been river pirates too already. Can you give me a reference for that... But may be even if they were, Cossacks made much more significant sea expiditions to Crimea and Anatolia and there was only one similar pattern for that in the region - Circassians. I still don't understand, why are you trying to find flaws in this theory ? This hypo is quite logical IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 9, 2009 21:20:23 GMT 3
but Cossacks were river pirates FIRST and only then changed to a Steppe-like culture, so we can easily assume that they didn't developed it themselves. the same is not true for river piracy. in this case they must have been river pirates ever since, whether Circassians or not. in the Osprey Campaign book about the battle of Khalkha river the author mentioned the Brodniki allies and also that they were river pirates and therefore might have been the prototype for Cossacks.
but all those "evidence" you presented is really just superficial and i don't understand why you don't see that. did all seafaring nations in the age of explorations learned their trade from Portuguese? and even Balkan bandits like Haiduks etc were very similar to Cossacks, from dress to using small river galleys and so on. there's nothign really unique about Circassians besides Circassians stilll remained a distinct ethnic, otherwise the Caucasian Cossacks couldn't borrow from them again in the 19th century. and two city names don't mean anything, particularly because one of them isn't really a true Cossack town but Polish/Kievan border town. from your description you make it sound liek half or Ukraien was inhabited by Circassians but in fact any northwards migration must have been light because they didn't left much tracebale "fingerprints" why only in the 21st century did historians came up with an explanation? what other obvious examples are in those regions beside some vague connections to Cossacks? until the Russian conquest non-Steppe influence on the pontic Steppe was insignificant other than those trading cities along the black sea coast.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 9, 2009 23:33:45 GMT 3
in the Osprey Campaign book about the battle of Khalkha river the author mentioned the Brodniki allies and also that they were river pirates and therefore might have been the prototype for Cossacks. Just a small correction: Kalka Калка is in Ukraine, whereas Halh Халх (Khalkha) is in Mongolia
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 10, 2009 20:47:28 GMT 3
oh well. and furthermore, the rivers like Dniepr were already navigated by Vikings and Rus themselves when they raided Byzantium, so seafarign is nothing new or itnroduces with the Circassians at all. again, from whom did Circassians got that? and actually i don't recall Circassians being such excessive river pirates as you claim at all.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 10, 2009 21:54:35 GMT 3
but Cossacks were river pirates FIRST and only then changed to a Steppe-like culture, so we can easily assume that they didn't developed it themselves. the same is not true for river piracy. in this case they must have been river pirates ever since, whether Circassians or not. in the Osprey Campaign book about the battle of Khalkha river the author mentioned the Brodniki allies and also that they were river pirates and therefore might have been the prototype for Cossacks. Doesn't matter. Even if I use your logic. "They never were sea pirates" and then they became sea priates, so "we can easily assume that they didn't develop it themselves." Besides, as I said, even Turks and Khazar were river pirates... So, "river piracy" proves nothing. but all those "evidence" you presented is really just superficial and i don't understand why you don't see that. Superficial? A dozen of books, written by Urkainians and Russian historians. Direct quotes with names and years. Direct evidence of Circassian migration to the North of Black Sea... I gave several quotes of historians with names and even pages. And what is your supporting material, besides, just that "you don't agree" ? Sorry, but my claims are just much more grounded than yours. did all seafaring nations in the age of explorations learned their trade from Portuguese? and even Balkan bandits like Haiduks etc were very similar to Cossacks, from dress to using small river galleys and so on. Not even closer similar to the similarity between the discussed aspects of Circassian and Cossack culture. Besides, Cossacks were directly called Circassians, I even read one 18th century Russian general memoirs were he wrote that Don Cossacks insisted to him that they originate from Circassians.. (his name was Alexander Rigelman and he wrote one of the first histories of Don Cossack Host) And how do this striking evidence is even comparable to a general similarity of appearance of Haiduks and Cossacks and that "seafaring nations leard trade from Portugues (which is not correct BTW but it's outside of scope of this dispute)" there's nothign really unique about Circassians besides Circassians stilll remained a distinct ethnic, otherwise the Caucasian Cossacks couldn't borrow from them again in the 19th century. Well. As I said, historians and people who really studied the subject disagee with you. and two city names don't mean anything, particularly because one of them isn't really a true Cossack town but Polish/Kievan border town. How can a town founded and populated by Cossacks like Cherkassy called just "Polish border town"? Perhaps you mean that Sich was a real "Cossack town" but you know, officially that Cossack town was also within the Polish king jurisdiction, so what? from your description you make it sound liek half or Ukraien was inhabited by Circassians but in fact any northwards migration must have been light because they didn't left much tracebale "fingerprints" why only in the 21st century did historians came up with an explanation? Are you reading my posts or not? That explanation was there from the 17, 18th century. It's just simply not discussed so often as let's say "Cossack-Tatar" connection. And it's not my description, regarding the Ukraine I was quoting Ukrainian-Cossack ethnographer of the 18th century what other obvious examples are in those regions beside some vague connections to Cossacks? until the Russian conquest non-Steppe influence on the pontic Steppe was insignificant other than those trading cities along the black sea coast. Well. This simply false. Non-steppe cultural influence coming from those "trading cities" was very significant for the pontic Steppe. Beside, this is another question. The history of Cossacks is much more complicated than just "pre Pontic Steppe culture."
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 10, 2009 22:00:48 GMT 3
oh well. and furthermore, the rivers like Dniepr were already navigated by Vikings and Rus themselves when they raided Byzantium, so seafarign is nothing new or itnroduces with the Circassians at all. again, from whom did Circassians got that? and actually i don't recall Circassians being such excessive river pirates as you claim at all. When was the last Viking raid on the Black Sea and when was the first Cossack raid? It explains everything... By contrast, Chercassians had been doing it from Antiquity (the were named Zygii and the Heniochi by Ancient Greeks) up until the 19th century AD.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 11, 2009 3:38:32 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 11, 2009 21:02:06 GMT 3
but Cherkassy was never part of any Voisko and the only Cossack connection is that it was a garrison of Polish registered Cossack (which, again, are not considdered real Cossacks by Polish historians). your source also says that Circassians didn't passed the Don nor Crimea. it also suggests that the terminus "Cossack" was loosely and carelessly applied to all sorts of peoples and therefore cannot be accepted as hard fact. you also poitned out river piracy was not unique which weakens your argument that Cossacks became river pirates because of Circassians but because it was a natural thing to do at big rivers. again hen and egg, please note that all Cossack Voiskos were situated at rivers.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 11, 2009 21:03:59 GMT 3
you also need to realize that there is a difference between simple "Cossacks" as border-protection mercenaries and "Cossacks" as in ancestors of the 'modern' Cossack people.
|
|