->****GK: I still have doubt as to whether actual
>Pechenegs formed part of the Hungarian complex prior
>to the destruction of the Pecheneg steppe empire by
>Yaroslav of Kyiv in 1036. Constantine P. mentions
>those Pech. who stayed behind with the Ghuzz Turks. He
>would have mentioned Pecheneg component in
>Pannonia/Transylvania had there been one.
But he did. That's what certain historians interested in
these details say. They maintain that certain data given
by the emperor as to how remote were some provinces,
namely how long it took to reach this and that journey
target, confirm that the location one of the provinces listed
in the text fits Transylvania.
On the other hand, there are other valuable data concerning
the Petcheneks presence as auxiliary army and frontier
defense forces employed by Hungary. This is beyond any
doubt, and well analysed and presented especially by
the Hungarian historiography (but also by the Romanian
one as well, since Romanian historians nilly-willy have to
deal with a considerable chunk of the territory of the
medieval Hung. State). Traces of border Petchenek "garrisons"
are scattered all along the old frontiers, but the Petchenek
wanna-be realm was in Transylvania, that is not beyond the
Tissa river plains (Alföld) Pannonia being way in the
western "half" of old Hungary. The actual Pannonia's eastern
border is the Danube which separates it from two eastern
provinces, that have to be crossed completely before one enters
Transylvania. (Between Budapest and the Romanian border
approx. 250 km.)
>However, after the disintegration of Pechenegia, many groups
>continued to thrive, well into the 12th c. I suspect
>that's when some were used by Hungarian monarchs as
>border troups, and left topnyms.
Yes. It seems that most or all of those who lived in Hungary
stayed and got assimilated there. (Quite many, BTW, were
settled in Bulgaria, in the region of Sofia, due to other war
circumstances.)
>A similar situation
>evolved in Ukraine. We had Pechenegs (and Berendeys)
Berendeys were relevant in Transylvania and Hungary too.
Unfortunately, many Hungarian historians seem to not have
Searched thoroughly Ukrainian-Russian-Turkic etc. sources
in order to get better information on the Berendeys. I've
noticed that some speculate the Berendeys to have been
even remnants of the Kavars. But I've read that the Berendeys
were some kind of Sabir-Cuman mixture, and their name
was actually that of a certain clan.
(BTW, I saw on the web some criticism of the historian
S. Pletneva's details re. the "Torks". What's your opinion
on her work? Is the criticism justified?)
on the frontiers of the Galician, Kyivan, and
Chernihiv states practically until the advent of the
Mongols. And toponyms also. BTW, a small aside: before
the advent of the Cumans,there was also what the Old
Ukrainian chronicles call a "Tork" invasion. These
"Torks" were likely Ghuzz (perhaps accompanied by
those "other" Pechenegs). The most successful "late"
Pechenegs were those who conquered the lands between
Danube and Haemus from the Byzantines in 1049, where
they were christianized and then amalgamated with
Bulgars and Vlachs (the territory was called
"Bolgarska Zemlya" by the Kyivan Chronicler of
1116).****
Yes. But on the other hand methinks it is no wonder that
one could (and still today may go on) get(ting) confused
by those numerous tribes and clans, since beyond their
different names, most of them spoke the same language
and had the same ethnic background. Between some of
them, the dialectal differences weren't bigger than between
British and American English, and between others as
big differences as between Czech and Slovak or betw.
Slovak and Ukrainian. (Even today, various kind of
Turkic people, incl. China's Uygurs and Uralic Tatar-
Bashkirs can easily communicate with Crimea and
Dobrudja Tatars and Turkey Turks and Afganistan
Türkmens without needing the help of dilmatches
(interpretes).
George