[Preview] The Kievan Rus'

[NikeBG]

Nottice that Byzantines NEVER called Bulgarians as slavs!
Croats,Serbs,Moravians and so many others were slavs but not Bulgarians.
Mistake? Modern "historians" tried to fit bulgarians in to the panslavic movement. But when Leo VI describes the enemies he has a unique description for Bulgarians.

I'm not fully sure about the Byzantines, but it's interesting that in our relative period (i.e. TGC's times), "Bulgarian" and "Slav" in the Bulgarian sources is one and the same thing - Bulgarian means Slav and Slav means Bulgarian (usually). F.e. when Chernorizets Hrabar refers to the old Bulgar runes, he says that "the Slavs" used to write with them, i.e. for him even "Slav" and "Bulgar" (Proto-Bulgarian) are the same.

I'm a pure Slav and my beard is blond (to be precise blond-red)

Funny though, because the actual Slavs (i.e. South Slavs; as Scolot implied, the early Eastern Slavs were called Anti, while the Western Slavs were called Venedi) were described by Procopius of Caesarea as "being neither blond, nor dark-haired, but rather "reddish" (not sure if "reddish" is the correct translation though, because reddish hair is very rare here - I would've guessed something more like my hair-colour, "dirty blond").

The Rus' of Sviatoslav were often called Tauroskythae and Skythae by Byzantines.

I've mentioned it before (somewhere else though), but the term Scythian, IMO, doesn't necessarily denote an "ethnic" origin, but also a geographical one. Thus, since the Rus lived in the region which the ancients call Scythia (and since the Byzantines loved using ancient names for current peoples), they were also called Scythians. Similarly, the Bulgars were first called Scythians and eventually, as they gained a lasting control over their Balkan lands - Moesians.

But at the same time some Arab writers directly or indirectly rank Rus' as Slavs. So you are a little disingenuous saying so categorically.

Interesting. Which writers did you have in mind and did they refer to the Rus as "Saqaliba" or something else?

[Denkron]

Simply Awesome.

[Heathen Storm]

Funny though, because the actual Slavs (i.e. South Slavs; as Scolot implied, the early Eastern Slavs were called Anti, while the Western Slavs were called Venedi) were described by Procopius of Caesarea as "being neither blond, nor dark-haired, but rather "reddish" (not sure if "reddish" is the correct translation though, because reddish hair is very rare here - I would've guessed something more like my hair-colour, "dirty blond").

I've always seen it translated as "ruddy" which I believe means dirty blond somewhat in between blond and brunette, so I would say your assumption of dirty blond is correct. I think reddish is more common for the way northern folk, like the Norwegians and Gaels (although that could be due to the intermixing of the Norwegian gene pool into the Irish and Scottish).

[NikeBG]

I've always seen it translated as "ruddy" which I believe means dirty blond somewhat in between blond and brunette, so I would say your assumption of dirty blond is correct. I think reddish is more common for the way northern folk, like the Norwegians and Gaels (although that could be due to the intermixing of the Norwegian gene pool into the Irish and Scottish).

Ah, "ruddy", that's the word (I keep forgetting it). Though my dictionary translates it in a similar way, as "reddish" (which is obviously wrong in the case of that description). Can some Greek-speaker (Anthonius?) please check the original text from my link ("Procopius of Caesarea")? It should be near the end, a bit before the Masagetae mention.

[AnthoniusII]

Koultouras is language teacher and he can give a more accurate translate but i can give a try.
"they are tall and strong and their bodies and their hair are not white or blond nore very dark but they are ultraredish".
Possible expanations:
That redish though could mean that under the sun (horde people) their lightly colored skins became more like burned.
See how north people change their skin color in the summers!
Its quite bizzare for a number of people to have not blond hair but only red ones.
An unlikly explanation could be those tribes horde's starting point.
The only races that much to ultra red skin and hair are the native americans and the tribes of sibiria that those tribes are part of.
Indians came to america from siberia.
Also north mongol tribes (very close to siberia) are dark red skined and haired.
Siberia is the mother land of "red" or ultra red people.
Maybe many centuries before slavic tribes came from west siberia to eastern and north europe and spread out ...

[NikeBG]

Maybe many centuries before slavic tribes came from west siberia to eastern and north europe and spread out ...

Nope, according to contemporary researches on the Slavic genesis, Siberia is pretty much out of the question, AFAIK.
Interesting that the Bulgarian word ("vazcherven", a rather odd word, meaning "most red") is actually correctly translated though. I guess you might be right that it has more to do with skin-burns (I know from personal experience how pale skin can turn quite red - quite painful).

[Hrobatos]

well that is why sun is avoided between 11am and 5pm in Croatia...

[Majkl]

lol
Maybe it is not about burned skin from sun. I watching at myself have light brown skin with awesome pink tone mixed in. The more of pink and less of brown I can see on openhand (fistful?) ,an end of fingers and an upper part of my hand. Closer to body it is more brown with really awesomely mixed pink tone in. It really makes nice colour. xD

[NikeBG]

Yeah, though by burned skin I don't mean tan, but (white) skin that has had too much sun in too short a time (imagine a Scandinavian staying on a Greek beach for a whole day, during the summer, without sun-protecting cream).
Or maybe the Southern Slavs Procopius was describing were Slavicized Thracians (they were known to have been redhaired)? I don't know... That "ruddy" thing is certainly quite puzzling in any case.

[Wareg]

The only races that much to ultra red skin and hair are the native americans and the tribes of sibiria that those tribes are part of.

What do you mean? Native ameicans with red hair?

[AnthoniusII]

What do you mean? Native ameicans with red hair?

Native americans are not americans at all!
Their tribes belong to east siberian tribe leaque.
Even today there are a couple of such tribes living in east siberia.
Some thousands of years ago most of them passed to Alaska and then spred out in all america.
But they are -in real- siberians!
See that east siberia and the mongol area gives people with similar skin and hair color...
Link
Link

[Hrobatos]

that indeed is one of theories, far from proven do. And your claim work for northern Indians such as Eskimos but alredy American and Mexican Indians look completely different not to mention the Mayans or Incas or ones from Patagonia, they differ among themselves a lot.

[Wareg]

I know that theory but you misunderstand me, Anthonius-I see that Siberian people and Native Americans have similar ''red'' skin and black hair. I were only suprised of ''ultra red skin and hair'' (red hair!) of Native Americans. Of course in Syberia or East Asia there were groups of red haired people (Scyths, Ainu people, Tocharians) but red haired ancestors of native Americans...?
I guess that you mean only skin colour, not hair?

[Heathen Storm]

Native americans are not americans at all!
Their tribes belong to east siberian tribe leaque.
Even today there are a couple of such tribes living in east siberia.
Some thousands of years ago most of them passed to Alaska and then spred out in all america.
But they are -in real- siberians!
See that east siberia and the mongol area gives people with similar skin and hair color...
Link
Link

Native Americans must have lost that red-haired trait long, long ago because all sources and most Native Americans today (that are at least predominantly Native) have black or brown hair. The only tribe I know of with red hair is the Mandans and even then thats just a story - many were wiped out long ago and so we have no idea.

that indeed is one of theories, far from proven do. And your claim work for northern Indians such as Eskimos but alredy American and Mexican Indians look completely different not to mention the Mayans or Incas or ones from Patagonia, they differ among themselves a lot.

Well the problem with that is most modern Native Americans in America are mixed with European blood. In Mexico and south of that, there is a large amount of mixing Spanish blood.

I know that theory but you misunderstand me, Anthonius-I see that Siberian people and Native Americans have similar ''red'' skin and black hair. I were only suprised of ''ultra red skin and hair'' (red hair!) of Native Americans. Of course in Syberia or East Asia there were groups of red haired people (Scyths, Ainu people, Tocharians) but red haired ancestors of native Americans...?
I guess that you mean only skin colour, not hair?

It's certainly possible to have mutated genes that changed red hair to dark hair. Hair color depends much on melanin, a type of pigment in skin and hair. In the northern parts of the world, where there is not much sun, there is much less pigment, causing blonde or red hair. When you get closer to the equator, more pigment is necessary to reduce sunburn which causes for darker skin and darker hair.

[neoptolemos]

Melanin, which is the main pigment of the skin and its quantity determines the tone of skin and color of hair, as heathen storm correctly mentioned.
The lighter skin of the Northerners made easier the utilization, of the much less sunshine of Northern parts,for the human body

[Scolot]

I've mentioned it before (somewhere else though), but the term Scythian, IMO, doesn't necessarily denote an "ethnic" origin, but also a geographical one. Thus, since the Rus lived in the region which the ancients call Scythia (and since the Byzantines loved using ancient names for current peoples), they were also called Scythians. Similarly, the Bulgars were first called Scythians and eventually, as they gained a lasting control over their Balkan lands - Moesians.

My apologizes for the delay. Was on vacation.
Yes. Ancient and early-medieval writers were not worried about ethnicity of some people. And often these authors when referring to that people using geographic criteria, not ethnical.

Interesting. Which writers did you have in mind and did they refer to the Rus as "Saqaliba" or something else?

Actually, many Arab evidences come from just three different sources:
1) Ibn Khordadbeh. The Rus' is a kind of Saqaliba, 850 AD
2) Inb Haukal. three groups of the Rus: Kuyavia, Slavia, and Arcania, 920 AD
3) I do not remember exactly . Maybe Ibn Fadlan and Ibn Rustah, 10th AD
And all other evidences of Arab writers are derived from these ones.

[Heathen Storm]

My apologizes for the delay. Was on vacation.
Yes. Ancient and early-medieval writers were not worried about ethnicity of some people. And often these authors when referring to that people using geographic criteria, not ethnical.

Actually, many Arab evidences come from just three different sources:
1) Ibn Khordadbeh. The Rus' is a kind of Saqaliba, 850 AD
2) Inb Haukal. three groups of the Rus: Kuyavia, Slavia, and Arcania, 920 AD
3) I do not remember exactly . Maybe Ibn Fadlan and Ibn Rustah, 10th AD
And all other evidences of Arab writers are derived from these ones.

Neither of those last two. Ibn Fadlan never indicates anything of Slavs or Saqaliba when he met the Rus', and Ibn Rustah went as far as to distinguish the Rus' from the Slavs by saying:
"They harry the Slavs, using ships to reach them; they carry them off as slaves and … sell them. They have no fields but simply live on what they get from the Slav's lands …"
(Just a quick little search. If the translation is wrong, well... Damn.

[NikeBG]

Hmm, and Ibn Haukal's note doesn't necessarily equate Rus with Slavs, as the latter could be included as Rus' subjects. Like f.e. Ibn Rustah, al Gardizi, Ibn Dastah and others say about the early Bulgars and later Volga Bulgars that they're divided to three clans: Bersil, Esegel and Bulgar (the former two of which are not originally Bulgar, but became subjects of the Volga Bulgarian state). Though "Arcania" sounds quite Latin to me - any ideas what it could be (Kuyavia is in Poland, as far as I see)? Edit: It seems it's not Arcania, but Artania or Arsania.
As for Khordadbeh - as I said, the meaning of Saqaliba isn't certain. F.e. Ibn Fadlan calls the ruler of Volga Bulgaria "King of the Saqaliba", although the Volga Bulgars were (most probably) not Slavs. Thus, it's believed Saqaliba can generally refer to "Eastern Europeans", as we would say today, the majority of which were Slavs, but of course not all of them were such. And since the Rus lived in that area, it's normal that they would be "a kind of Saqaliba", no matter if they were Slavic or not.

[Scolot]

Neither of those last two.

Let me disagree with you with #2. Because it is very difficult to see under group Slavia other people than the Slavs.

Ibn Fadlan never indicates anything of Slavs or Saqaliba when he met the Rus',

Yes. Ibn Fadlan never indicates anything of Slavs or Saqaliba when he met the Rus'. But about Varangians he told nothing too. Anyway, three points I've posted above are three main sources about Rus', not about Slavs. Sorry if I confused you.

and Ibn Rustah went as far as to distinguish the Rus' from the Slavs by saying:
"They harry the Slavs, using ships to reach them; they carry them off as slaves and … sell them. They have no fields but simply live on what they get from the Slav's lands …"
(Just a quick little search. If the translation is wrong, well... Damn.

Mmm. Saqaliba my friend, not Slavs. You may ask what the differenc is. This question is answered very well by NikeBG

As for Khordadbeh - as I said, the meaning of Saqaliba isn't certain

Yes, you're right. But pls look here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...86#post8768086
(my third comment)

[NikeBG]

Let me disagree with you with #2. Because it is very difficult to see under group Slavia other people than the Slavs.

Which doesn't necessarily mean the Rus are Slavs. As I said, a number of Arab authors say there are also three groups of (Volga) Bulgars, only one of which is actual Bulgars and the other two (Barsil and Esegel) are non-Bulgar subjects (later two more such groups are added by other authors, btw). IMO, it's neither a proof for or against.

Yes, you're right. But pls look here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...86#post8768086
(my third comment)

Does the original text use "knaz" or is that from the Russian translations of the text? Btw, keep in mind the Danubian Bulgars have used the similar title "kanas" ("kanasubigi", which gets divided to "kanas ubigi", since one inscription uses the form "archonubigi").