|
Post by Neman on Mar 8, 2010 14:02:15 GMT 3
Steppe peoples in the territory of Russia at the end of the IX century. Help !!!!
Hello I need help in the study of history of steppe peoples, namely, very little I found on the steppe peoples who have had contacts with the Russian cities of Kiev and Novgorod in late ninth century.
I need help about these people, what were their relationships with these cities? Whether in this period (about 860 years) still existed Alan and Avars in Europe and whether they had contacts with the Slavs. I know that later come Percenegs and Cumans but after a period in which i study.
Thank you very much:)
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 8, 2010 14:47:24 GMT 3
Hi neman, welcome aboard The Avar Qaghanate in Pannonia was destroyed by Frankish emperor Karl the Great (Charlesmagne, Carolus Magnus) during his campaigns between 796-805. The Avars ceased to exist as a state after 805 and I don't know anything about their activities after that date. The major power at the Pontic-Caspian Steppe during the 9th century was the Khazar Qaghanate.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Mar 8, 2010 17:17:34 GMT 3
Well, there is no much detailed information on that.
As, Ihsan mentioned Khazars were the dominant force in the region at that time. In fact, it's most likely that Kiev was founded by Khazars as their customs outpost.
Russian primary chronicle writes that Khazars were collecting tributes from local Easter Slavic tribes, particularly Polans. The interesting fact about the tribute was that according to Primary Chronicle Khazars collected it in a form of swords (that in fact was an effective measure that was popular among different steppe people; it served both two purposes i.e. depriving a potential enemy of its weapons and providing such weapons to their army, many centuries later Jungars would use this principle to collect "arms tribute" from Khazakhs.). Also there is an interesting passage in the chronicles when Khazars are surprised that swords that Polans gave them were double edged. After receiving that tribute Khazar elders concluded that such tribute is a bad omen, since they such superior swords (the chronicle writes that Khazars had single edged swords) meant that in time Polans would subjugate Khazars and make them to pay tribute.
Khazars apparently had a strong influence on Kiev, since even the first Rus rulers are called "Khagans of Kiev" (the title they adopted under Khazar influence).
The other peoples in the Prepontic steppe at that time were Magyars and Pechenegs who also were Khazars tributaries. Varangian princes very often included Magyar and Pecheneg merecenaries in their ranks during their campaigns against Khazars and Byzantines.
As for Novgorod, it didn't have such direct interaction with Steppe people as Kiev, but, apparently they also visited the city at some times mostly as tradesmen and travelers.
Russian Primary Chronicle has a very short passage about Avars, which it calles "Obry." It says that Obry were great people of unusual pride, strength ans statue (it also mentiones that sometimes plowed the earth or rode their carts using their slaves as horses), but now they ceased to exist and are extinguished from the face of Earth. So, according to the chronicle there was a proverb "extinguished as Obry" "sginuli kak Obry (in Russian)."
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 8, 2010 18:29:34 GMT 3
Don't know how true it is... One theory is that Magyars camped near Kiev. There's supposed to be seven hills there named after the Magyars. The so-called "Sword of Kiev" looks like a viking sword with Magyar ornamentation and I think is from this period. The Russian name for the Magyar were Ungri after the Onoghurs.
|
|
|
Post by MagyarTanhu on Mar 8, 2010 18:57:32 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Mar 8, 2010 19:16:34 GMT 3
Don't know how true it is... One theory is that Magyars camped near Kiev. There's supposed to be seven hills there named after the Magyars. The so-called "Sword of Kiev" looks like a viking sword with Magyar ornamentation and I think is from this period. The Russian name for the Magyar were Ungri after the Onoghurs. Yes, that is true. They were later replaced by Pechenegs.
|
|
|
Post by Neman on Mar 8, 2010 20:17:20 GMT 3
Thank you very much for your help, really are all you've given in a lot of very useful information. Your forum is excellent and very useful so I'll stay here
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Mar 8, 2010 21:35:52 GMT 3
You are very welcome, Neman ! :-)
|
|
|
Post by benzin on May 30, 2010 1:02:42 GMT 3
Don't know how true it is... One theory is that Magyars camped near Kiev. There's supposed to be seven hills there named after the Magyars. The so-called "Sword of Kiev" looks like a viking sword with Magyar ornamentation and I think is from this period. The Russian name for the Magyar were Ungri after the Onoghurs. The name Ungri is from the river Ung, its in eastern Ukraine now. Hungarian tribes settled there before the conquest of the Pannonia basin.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 30, 2010 4:22:38 GMT 3
"Ungri" comes from the corrupted "Onogur." River Ung which is a Hungarian name for the river Uzh, is in Western Ukraine, more precisely in Subcarpatian region of Ukraine, since Subcarpatia's history was quite different from the rest of Ukraine and rather connected to Hungary and Transilvania than anything else...
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 31, 2010 19:05:39 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 31, 2010 21:13:09 GMT 3
This books states that Volga Bulgars called "Bashkirs." This is the first time I see this information and would very much like to see more sources for this claim.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 31, 2010 23:59:59 GMT 3
It lists the various names other nations called Magyars by. The Volga Bulgars called Magyars "Bashkir" and is one of the reasons some scholars investigate potential connections between Magyars and Bashkort. Some have looked at the tribal names of the Bashkort in an attempt to see if they are just Turkified Magyars. This book has a whole chapter devoted to "The names of the Magyars before the foundation of state". Pages 289 to 294 describe "Bashkir". It looks like Google has almost all pages available for preview and only two paragraphs on page 294 are unavailable. "Here it will only be stated that the ethnic name Bashkir was the designation of the Magyars used by the Volga Bulghars, and that the land they inhabited in 922 is given exactly from Ibn Fadlan's account of his journey. This is also the earliest authentic mention of the ethnic name Bashkir.
There remains the question of when the Volga Bulghars started calling the Magyars Bashkir. As was discussed earlier (see pp. 220-227), this was the 8th century at the latest. As more exact answer can only be given when we discuss the ancient history of the Magyars. In principle, it could be when the Volga Bulghars first came into contact with the Magyars, or became neighbours with them."
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jun 1, 2010 0:10:50 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 1, 2010 4:58:54 GMT 3
It lists the various names other nations called Magyars by. The Volga Bulgars called Magyars "Bashkir" and is one of the reasons some scholars investigate potential connections between Magyars and Bashkort. Some have looked at the tribal names of the Bashkort in an attempt to see if they are just Turkified Magyars. This book has a whole chapter devoted to "The names of the Magyars before the foundation of state". Pages 289 to 294 describe "Bashkir". It looks like Google has almost all pages available for preview and only two paragraphs on page 294 are unavailable. "Here it will only be stated that the ethnic name Bashkir was the designation of the Magyars used by the Volga Bulghars, and that the land they inhabited in 922 is given exactly from Ibn Fadlan's account of his journey. This is also the earliest authentic mention of the ethnic name Bashkir.
There remains the question of when the Volga Bulghars started calling the Magyars Bashkir. As was discussed earlier (see pp. 220-227), this was the 8th century at the latest. As more exact answer can only be given when we discuss the ancient history of the Magyars. In principle, it could be when the Volga Bulghars first came into contact with the Magyars, or became neighbours with them." This is a bit confusing cause Ibn-Fadlan wrote that "Bashkirs are the most savage and wild tribe of Turks." I don't really see the connection here.
|
|