鳥取環境大学紀要
創刊号（2003.2）pp.1−11

The First Raid of Mongols on Russia

YAMAGUCHI Iwao

13 世紀モンゴル軍は中近東、ヨーロッパの一部を攻略したが、資料その他に基づく通説に従えば、1223 年 5 月乃至 6 月、その一支隊が初めてロシアに侵冦し、チュルク系遊牧民族であるポロベツ族と南ロシアのロシアの諸公との連合軍を、カルカ河畔の戦いにおいて完膚無き迄に撃破したとある。それが 5 月か 6 月かは依然議論の存するところであるが、年については一般に認められてきた。しかし最近モンゴル軍がカフカス山脈を越えたとされる時期と関連して、侵冦を 1222 年とする説が現れた。資料によりその可能性があるか否かについて論じるのが小論の趣旨である。
モンゴルのロシア侵冦、カルカ河畔の戦い、発生年
thAbstract ： In the early 13 century when Mongols invaded Middle and Near East and a part of Europe, its branch

intruded into Russia for the first time. According to the generally accepted opinion the invasion occurred in 1223.
However, some historians recently raise question to this point and insist that the incident must have occurred a year
before, in 1222. The aim of this article is to examine, whether such a view is possible or not on the ground of
historical sources.
Keywords Mongol invasion of Russia, Kalka river incident, year of the incident.

１．Introductory note
According to A. d'Ohsson 1), the battle on the Kalka river took place on May 31, 1223, in which Russian princes had been attacked
for the first time and defeated completely by the invading Mongols, lead by Jube (只別) and Subdai (速不台) --- famous among
Mongols for their audacity in mind and notorious among other nations for their atrocities in deed --- under the banner of Batu Khan
(抜都汗), the second son of Jöchi Khan (朮赤汗), who was in turn the eldest of the sons of Genghiz Khan the Great (成吉思汗).
Saguchi (op.cit.) comments on this point, however, that there exist also other sources dating the incident on 16 June, 1223.
On the other hand, L. de Hartog 2) raises question about these dates and insists, referring to the works of B. D. Grekov 3) and B.
Spuler 4), that the battle occured not on June 16, 1223, but in the middle of June, 1222.
L. de Hartog's argument based on two points:(1) If we take it for granted according to the opinion generally accepted hitherto, that the battle on the Kalka river took place in1223, be it in May or in June, we have to suppose, that Mongols had been somewhere in the South of Russia for as long as one
and a half year without any actions, after they had crossed Caucasian Mountains into Russia, which seems hardly credible.
(2) After the battle on the Kalka river, Mongols returned to join with the main forces of Genghiz Khan staying then on the left bankof Syr Dar-ya, where they had arrived in January 1223 on their way to Karakorum (Qaraqorum) and in the autumn of this year
they had already set out homewards. Therefore, according to L. de Hartog, if the attack was made in 1223, it is difficult for the
expeditory forces to have joined with the main forces during their stay on the bank of Syr Dar-ya.
Thus, concerning the date of the battle on the Kalka river there exist three possibilities: May 31, 1223, June 16, 1223 and the
middle of June, 1222.
Although 1223 seems to be widely accepted among historians 5) 6), as to its certainty, the author would say, the question is still open,
and the main aim of this article consists in the examination of the year of attack, putting aside for the moment the above threepossibilities, even though the author is well aware of the fact, that the final solution is not always available in view of the scarcity of−1−

鳥取環境大学紀要

創刊号

the source materials. He only wishes to show the reason why some historians are at variance in opinion about this question.

Table 1

２．Genealogy of the Russian Princes
It is very embarrassing to identify each Russian prince owing to the circumstances, that there are so many names identical evenwith patronymics (father's name); e.g. there are three famous princes among Ryurikids named Vladimir: Vladimir Svyatoslavich(Vladimir, the son of Svyatoslav), two Vladimir Yurievich (Vladimir, the son of George), two Vladimir Yaroslavich (Vladimir, theson of Yaroslav). Even one of the most famous princes in the Russian history, Ivan Groznyj (Ivan the Terrible), is but one of the six
illustrious princes called by the same name and the same patronymic of Ivan Vasilievich. To avoid this difficulty, Russians often callthe illustrious princes by their alias, or by byname, to identify them at once.
These circumstances in view, we, members of the Society for the Study of Old and Mediaeval Russia in Kyoto, gave numbers to

−2−

山口

The First Raid of Mongols on Russia

each descendant of Ryurik dynasty according to his lineage and according to his generation in the genealogy of Ryurikids, a part ofwhich is illustrated as Genealogy I and II (cf. Above).
Thus, Mstislav of Kiev, who took part in the battle on the Kalka river, can be identified with the Grand Duke of Kiev Mstislav III
Stáryj (the Old) (J12), a son of Roman and a grandson of Rostislav; and Vladimir of Smolensk with the Duke of Smolensk (J22), a
son of Ryurik and a grandson of Rostislav, that is, he is a cousin of Mstislav III.
We can find some other names of princes who participated in the battle on the Kalka river in the historical sources such as Russian
Chronicles. Namely, Duke of Galich Mstislav Udalój (the Bold) (J51), son of Mstislav Khrábryj (the Brave) (J5) and grandson of
Rostislav (D116=J); prince Daniil (I111), son of Roman (I11) and grandson of the Grand Duke of Kiev Mstislav II (I1); Duke ofChernigov Mikhail Svyatój (the Holly) (G41), son of Vsevolod Chérmnyj (the Ruddy-Faced) (G4); Vsevolod (J122), son of Mstislav,
grandson of Roman etc.
As to the prince whom A. d'Ohsson referred to as Daniyal the Duke of Galich, it is, in fact, no other man than that Daniil (I111),
whose father is, as above mentioned, the son of Roman (I11) and grandson of Mstislav II (I1). He was once elected to the throne of
the Dukedom of Galich in 1211, and from which driven in the next year, he was given the throne of Volyn. Then, having bestowed
the Dukedom of Volyn to his younger brother Vasilko (I112), recovered again the title of the Duke of Galich in 1238. Therefore, in1222 or in 1223 he was still a Duke of Volyn and was not a Duke of Galich.
Again, as to the person A. d'Ohsson identifies as Georgi (George), Grand Duke of Súzdal', it is in fact that Yurij 1 (K3), who was ason of the Grand Duke of Kiev Vsevolod III Bol'shóe Gnezdó (the Big-Nested) (D177=K) and a grandson of the former Grand Dukeof Kiev Yurij Dolgorúkij (the Long-Armed) (D17). He has become Grand Duke of Vladimir by succession after the death of his elder
brother Konstantin (K1), which means that he was the Grand Duke of Vladimir at the time of the battle on the Kalka river.
He himself did not participate in fighting although he was asked for aid in the battle with the Mongols. Instead, he sent his nephew
Vasilko (K11), a son of his brother Konstantin (K1), who was too late in coming to the battle field, and since at the report of thedefeat of Russians he was still on his way, soon turned back his men (viz. above, Genealogy of princes).
As a result, princes who fought with Mongols were those, who had their feuds in the South Russia, such as Kiev, Galich, Volyn,
Chernigov and Smolensk.
３．A brief outline of the incident
The vast space of plain that separates the West from the Eastern countries extending far and wide on the right bank of the River
Dnepr --- the Kipchak plain, or Desht Kipchak, --- was in those days peopled with tribes of the Turkish origin, Pólovets, each led bytheir own leaders, khans or khagans, forming a loose tribal union. In the year about 1222 or 1223, into this realm of nomads suddenly
intruded the above-mentioned Mongols, elsewhere pursuing and killing the defeated Polovets.
Some of the Polovets fled westwards and a khan, called Kotyak by name, came with his men bringing many gifts to the Duke of
Galich Mstislav Mstislavich (J51) calling him in aid, because he was the husband of Kotyak's daughter and stood, therefore, toKotyak in relation of son-in-law.
According to the Nikon's or Patriarchal Chronicle () , under the rubric of the year6733, Kotyak told to him and to the other Russian princes as follows:
Our land has been deprived of by Tatars today, they will come and plunder your land tomorrow. So we came to make you
known about this. You understand the situation and help us 7).
At this report Mstislav sent for his fellow princes to discuss with them about this danger. Finally they decided to gather forces andencounter the unknown enemy then called Tartars, after Tartarus, a mythical name of the infernal world. When they began to move
forth with a great number of men, the Mongols sent their envoys twice, persuading the Russians to lay down arms under the pretext
that they came only to punish Polovets, their own former stablemen , and never intended to attack Russians, and required them toexpel Polovets out of the Russian territory.

−3−鳥取環境大学紀要

創刊号

However, the persuasion of the Mongols answered by the death of envoys, and allied forces of the Russians and Polovets crossed
the river Dnepr with twenty thousand men in number, attacked and broke the outpost of the Mongols. When the allied forces came toand stood at a ford of the Khortitsa river, one of the tributaries of the Dnepr, there came the information that a Mongol patrol wascoming to reconnoitre the allied forces.
At this information, the Russian princes, mostly young and hot-blooded, rode off to attack the enemy heading the whole allied
forces. Some of the patrol men were killed on the spot, and the others turned to flight. The Russian princes went on after them eightdays pursuing and killing their foes, until they arrived at the bank of the river Kalka. Here, Mongols suddenly turned to attack. In
spite of the brave and valiant struggle of the Russians, they had been completely beaten mainly owing to the retreat of the flightened
Polovets forces. Captured princes were laid down to be suffocated to death under the planks on which Mongols held a banquet for
their victory over Russians.
According to this chronicle, this incident happened 16th day of June. Afterward, having devastated regions in the vicinity,
Mongols retreated from the Russian land to fall in with the main forces of Genghiz Khan at Sir Dar-ya.
４．Kalendar of the Mediaeval Russia
Nikon s Chronicle is a document dealing with incidents covering almost all over the whole Rus' and believed to have been
compiled in 16th century somewhere between 1539 and 1542, gathering a wide range of sources such as other local chronicles andhistorical documents, thus acquiring a character of the most copious and minute description of each incident.
However, minuteness does not always ensure the merits of a description: a wide collection of sources without careful evaluation
may only bring about a confusion in the whole process of the described incident, owing to the probable contradictions among
passages of which it is made. In this regard, we must be very careful in dealing with these materials.
According to this chronicle, the battle on the Kalka river is described, as already mentioned, under the rubric of the year 6733.
In the Mediaeval Russia, the Alexandrian Kalendar or Style (counting years since the Creation of the World) was adopted
according to the Kalendar, then currently used in the Byzantine Empire, but with only difference that the numbering of year in
Byzantine Style is by 8 years more in number than that of the Alexandrian.
The author does not intend to enter into this problem here though it has its own reason 5). Anyway, according to this calculation
mechanically applied, subtracting 5508 from the number of the year in Byzantine Style, we should have the number corresponding tothat of the dominical year.
In the Byzantine Empire, however, a year begins in September (so called The September Style of Kalendar), and in Russia in
March (The March Style of Kalendar,), and Russians did not change this principle at the introduction of the

Byzantine system. In consequence, there arises a problem, which consists in that, as the beginning of a year differs in both systems
just six months, in which of March, that is, in March before or after September, should be considered to be the beginning of the year
having the same numbering of year as that of the Byzantine system.
Usually, the begining of the Russian year is considered to begin in March after the beginning of the Byzantine year.
Accordingly, when the time occurred of some incident in the text of documents evidently contradict with the year it actuallyoccurred, for example, in case, if the date and the day of the week of happenings do not coincide with the year described, thediscordance used to be ascribed to the error of the chronicler.
Thus, in so called The Senior or The Synod Edition of The Novgorodian First Chronicle () under the rubric of the year 6716 we find the following article.
Lazor, Vsevolod's man, came from Volodimir , and ordered Boris Miroshkinits to kill Oleks Sbyslavits in Yaroslav's court;
and he was killed guiltless, on Saturday, March 17, St. Alexis' day 8).
If we suppose the year in which occurred this incident as 1208 subtracting 5508 from 6716, then the day of the week of March
17th must be Monday, and hence we should have to conclude this information unreliable.

−4−

山口

The First Raid of Mongols on Russia

According to N. G. Berezhkov 9), the phenomena have not missed the attention of the philologists in past such as, J. P. Klug 10), N. S.
Arcybashev 11), I. D. Belyaev 12), V. M. Undolskyj 13) 14), A.A. Kunik 15) etc., investigators from the beginning of thirties up to the sixties
in the 19 th century.
In the field of the historical sciences, there can be observed a controversy between P. V. Khavsky 17) 18) 19) 20) and I. D. Belyaev 12) as tothe chronology of the historical events: agaist Belyaev's traditional opinion Khavsky insisted, that the year must have begun in Marchsix months before the beginning of the Byzantine year. This controversy seemingly ended with the victory of the traditional point ofview, but no remarkable progress in the solution of the problem is said to have been attained from this rather sterile controversy.
Apart from these scholars, concerning this problem we can name, among others, J. P. Krug, E. Bonnell, A. Engelman etc.
But in recent years, in the course of investigation it has become more and more evident, that certainly there do exist cases, inwhich the Russian year must have begun six months before the Byzantine year (so called The Ultramarch Style,).
At the turn of the 19th century there appeared a series of studies by M. V. Stepanov 23) 24) 25). He proved that rubric of year in the
Russian chronicles has two kinds as to the numbering of the year concerned: while the one is customary numbering exactly
corresponding to the dominical year plus 5508, the other corresponds to the dominical year plus 5509. This conclusion was made on
the basis of his detailed examination of articles in the most important chronicles: The Russian Primary Chronicle () 26) which is also called, after its incipit, The Tales of Bygone) or The Laurentian Chronicle (Years (

) and includes in it The Suzdal' Chronicle (with the events up to the year 6813(op.cit.), Hypatian Chronicle (() as its successor, dealing)

27)

and The First Novgorodian Chronicle) up to the end of the 12th century.
He maintains, that this kind of phenomena have arisen neither by clerical errors nor by a mere chance, but have something of asystematic nature, and he called the latter Ultramarch Style in contrast to the ordinary March Style of the Kalendar. Since then among
the investigators has fixed the recognition, that in the Mediaeval Russia used two systems of year numbering in parallel, according to
the character of the article described.
It is also known, that apart from March Style and Ultramarch Style, in Mediaeval Russia sometimes used also Byzantine Style.
According to N. G. Berezhkov 9), until the 12th century both of the former two styles had been used in tandem, then came to be used,though sporadically, also the Byzantine Style of year numbering in the period between 12th and 13th century. Then about at the endof 15th century Byzantine Style has become predominant.

Table 2−5−

鳥取環境大学紀要

創刊号

５．Interrelation among different styles
There is still other system of defining New Year. According to this system New Year begins in January as we use it. Dionysius
minor, who contrived the Christian Era of Anno Domini at the request of pope Johannes I (523-526), determined the beginning of ayear in January in accordance with the reform of a legendary king of Rome Numa Pompilius.
Thus we have four systems or styles of Kalendar, and it is necessary to make clear the interrelationship among these systems.
Now, if we denote the September Style used in the Byzantine Empire as SS, the March style as MS, the Ultramarch Style as US,
and Dominical Style as DS or BC/AD, the interrelationship of these styles will be given in the table 2 (here, x=n-5508).
Therefore, it comes out that the year of the passage including the Lazor's case in The First Novgorodian Chronicle cited above, ismarked by US, because it is in the year 1207 that March 17 falls on Saturday (III/1, 6716-5509=1207). cf. Table 3 and 4.
An image of this relation may be obtaines from the example as follows.

Table 3Hence, we have following formulae to get dominical year numbers.

Table 4

−6−

The First Raid of Mongols on Russia

山口

６．Year numbering in each chronicle
Concerning the Kalka river incident it may be sufficient to examine year numbering of passages between 1220 and 1224 A.D. As
to this point N. G. Berezhkov summarizes as following:
Laurentian Chronicle. For 6714-6771 is basically used the March style except 6717, 6725, 6726 and 6740 9)(cf.p.25).
Radzivil Chronicle. He maintains, that in this chronicle there are two groups: the one, articles of 6619-6678, in which
adopted in principle the March Style, and the other, that is, those of 6679-6714, rendered mainly by Ultramarch Style(Berezhkov, ibid. p.25.).
Synod Edition of the Novgorodian First Chronicle. Among Russian chronicles, this edition most consistently uses the
March Style and is the most reliable one in this respect with only a few exceptions. While for the articles before 13th century the
March Style is applied exclusively, for the articles at the beginning of 13th century, namely those of 6714-6716, 6717-6919,
6731, 6732, the Ultramarch Style is used. After 6732, the Ultramarch Style is sporadically used also in the items of 6726, 6730,
6745, 6746, 6776-6780.
According to N. G. Berezhkov, an idea, unique as it was in 19th century, to fix the year of the Kalka river incident as 1222 wasventured by E. Bonnell on the material of Latvian Heinrig's Livonian Chronicles, dealing with the historical events from the end of
the 13th century up to the 18th. This fantastic view of Bonnell's 21) was, according to N. G. Berezhkov(op.cit. p.317), disputed by
S. A. Anninskij 28)(cf. P.565).
On the other hand, the numbering of the year in which this event occurred, is not always the same according to chronicles. Some,for instance, The Laurentian Chronicle etc., described this event under the rubric of 6731, whereas others, like The Synod Edition of
The Novgorod First Chronicle, under the rubric of 6732.
The Laurentian Chronicle does not give detailed information concerning this incident. Under the rubric of 6731 it informs simply
as follows:This disaster arose on May 13th, the day of the holy martyr Jeremiah.
The day of the holy martyr Jeremiah must be, however, May 31, as correctly noted in the Novgorodian First Chronicle.
According to the Laurentian Chronicle, in the year 6729, the people of Novgorod asked Great Duke of Vladimir' Yurij (K3) togive them his son Vsevolod (K31) as their duke.
On the other hand, according to the Synod Edition of the Novgorodian First Chronicle, in the year 6728 another Vsevolod (J122),
son of Mstislav staryj (The Old), came to Novgorod failing to punish posadnik, the mayor 2, of the city Tverdislav, met with theresistance of Novgorodians and finally gave up his plan.
At the end of this rubric there is a report on the removal of duke Vsevolod (J122) from the throne.
N. G. Berezhkov maintained from the context, that this year of 6729 was of the March Style, because if it had been of the
Ultramarch Style, it should have corresponded to 1220/1221 A.D., which would have contradicted with the fact, that in the year
1220/1221 Vsevolod (J122) was still on the throne of duke.
The Novgorodian First Chronicle differs from Laurentian in that the rubric of the year 6729 ends by the removal of Vsevolod(J122), son of Mstislav staryj, and the article, telling the invitation of Vsevolod (K3) again on the throne falls into the rubric of thenext year, i.e. into the year 6730, perhaps because the invitation was made after March, which begins next new year of the March
Style.
In the year 6730, The Laurentian Chronicle has only one article:
Grand Duke of Suzudal' Yurij (K3) rebuilt an old church of Theotocos 3 in Suzdal'.

−7−

鳥取環境大学紀要

創刊号

On the other hand, in The Novgorodian First Chronicle there are, apart from the invitation of Vsevolod (K31) already mentioned,
articles about the unsuccessful expedition of Jurij (K3) to Kesi, who sent his brother Svyatoslav (K6) to aid Novgorodians against theenemy; about the Vsevolod's secret flight from Novgorod in winter under the cover of night. Novgorodians sent for Vsevolod's
brother Yaroslav (K4) in place of him as the duke of Novgorod: Yaroslav's arrival is written at the top of the next year.
We have the same article in Laurentian Chronicle under the rubric of the year 6731. Taking into consideration temporal successionof these events and that Vsevolod's flight was in winter, it may be quite natural to think, that the Yaroslav's arrival was at the
beginning of the year 6731. After these articles follows the article about the battle on the Kalka river.
In the Synod Edition of The Novgorodian First Chronicle under the rubric of 6731 we have an article as follows:
In this year passed away Mitrofan, archibishop of Novgorod, July 3rd, on the day of the memory of the holy martyr
Hyacinthus (), at the dawn of Monday.

If July 3rd falls on Monday, it must be in 1223 A.D., and, therefore, here is used the March Style. As we have mentioned, in thenext year, in 6732, we are to meet with the narration of the Kalka river incident.
Articles belonging to the year 6733 do not carry any direct evidence as to the Style of Kalendar used. But under the rubric of thenext 6734 year we have:
In this year passed away Sabatius (), hegumen of St.Georgius monastery and archimandrite of Novgorod, on April

16th, on Maundy Thursday.
Before his demise he called together all of the Novgorodians and asked to elect next hegumen. They asked him who suits his heart,and according to his recommendation they apointed a Greek pope to this post.
... and they brought a Greek, very virtuous and pious man, tonsured him on the same day, on March 8th, in the memory ofholy Theophilactus, thus making him hegumen.
Maundy Thursday is the Thursday before Pasch (Easter), and if March 8th falls on Maundy Thursday, it must be in the year 1226
A.D. On the other hand, March 8th falls on Meeting Sunday (i.e. the first Sunday of Lent) also in thesame year. Hence we can conclude, that the March Style is used here.
The above examination makes clear, that chronicler(s) of these years consistently used the March Style.
７．The appearance of Halley's comet
According to Laurentian Chronicle, in the year 6731, after the narration about the Kalka river incident, follows an article, tellingof the appearance of a star in the west:
In the same year, a star appeared in the west, and though its light was not seen to the human eyes, in the evening aftersunset two (columns of light) ware seen rising upwards from the south: it (sc. the star) was far bigger in size than any other.
It remained there for 7 days and after that the light from the star moved towards the east and remained there for four days
until it disappeared.

−8−

山口

The First Raid of Mongols on Russia

This star is Halley's comet. N. G. Berezhkov wrote in this connection as follows:This star is Halley's comet, which appeared in Autumn 1222. Its passed perihelion September 15th. Therefore, thisarticle (chronologically) belongs to the middle of 6730 by the March Style. That is, this article should have to belong to therubric of a year earlier than it would actually belong to. The appearance of the comet is therefore nine months before thebattle on the Kalka river. The reason why this article falls into the rubric of the year 6731, can be perhaps explained by thenature of the original source which uses the September or Ultramarch Style, from which it was excerpted and compiled by
the chronicler. That is to say, the chronicler did not pay due attention to the difference of the Kalendar system of the source
document, and was satisfied with simply (or rather too naively, as I would like to say --- I.Y.) transplanting it under the
rubric which has the identical number of the year (cf. N. G. Berezhkov, op.cit. p.107).
However, if we take into consideration the situation, that all of the articles before and after the passages dealing with theappearance of Halley's comet, N. G. Berezhkov's argument seems to be less persuasive. Because it seems to be difficult to explain,
why this topic was inserted not before, but after the narration of the Kalka river incident. It may be necessary to remark, that evensuch a seemingly trivial change in the heavens, for instance, as a partial eclipse of the Sun or the Moon, was met with sensation andawe on the part of people as an extremely bad omen to mankind. To add to these circumstances, it seems to be the habitual fashion ofchroniclers to state first on the top of a rubric the appearance of omen in heaven and then a bad news (as if the omen foretold thedisaster that follows).
On the other hand, as for the appearance of Halley's comet there exist plenty of records in the historical documents since antiquity,
always stirring dread and horror among peoples. Even if this episode was originally rendered in the September Style or Ultramarch
Style, as Berezgkov maintains, why then the chronicler did not find in it an anachronism of such an evident and important incident as
the appearance of Halley's comet?
From the strictly logical point of view, however, there seems to be another explanation, equally possible and perhaps moreplausible than N. G. Berezhkov's.
If not to stick to an idée fixe that the Kalka river incident must have occurred in 1223 A.D., we can surmise, that the narration,
somehow numbered by the Ultramarch Style, was put into the passages elsewhere rendered by the March Style without the correctionof the year numbering itself. In this case, however, it may become necessary to explain the reason, why the narration was inserted not
after, but before the topic telling the appearance of the comet.
In our opinion, it may be more natural that in such cases the chronicler, well informed with the historical events, perhaps tried toarrange the passages not by the order of the year numbering, but according to the order of the actual occurrence of the events.
If this conjecture be true, the passages concerning the comet, originally put into proper place in the rubric of the year 6730, were
shifted to the rubric of the next 6731, because it had not proper numbering of the year because it begins the passage merely with thewords in the same year inserted and preceded by falsely numbered narration of the Kalka river incident.
All that the author wants to say by this argument is, that the year of the Kalka river incident cannot be, and yet has not been,
incontestably fixed only on the ground of the materials, available from Russian Chronicles.
Thus, in sum, there still remains another possibility, that the incident occurred in the year 6730 MS, that is, in 1222 A.D.
However, for reason of space assigned to the author, together with the theme of the exact date of the incident he would like todefer the matter to some future occasion.
I am very grateful to my colleague Mrs Bettina Begole, lecturer of our university, who kindly revised my English and gave me
useful suggestions.
NOTE
1

Yurij

2

Posadnik was originally a native patrician of Novgorod the Great, appointed by the Grand Duke of Kievan Rus' to support the duke,, is a russified name of George, which corresponds to the Greek name of Georgios

who was usually the eldest son of the Grand Duke. Later, when the city acquired independence from the rule of Kievan Rus',−9−

鳥取環境大学紀要

創刊号

posadnik became to be elected by veche, a meeting composed of all the free citizens of the city just like comitia centuriata in the
period of the Republican Rome. In accordance with its increasing degree of independence, the function of duke gradually became
nominal, thus finally having become to be elected in comitia, although still from the members of Ryurikids. He must abdicate fromthe throne, when they (i.e. veche) showed him the way . Thus, the city was legally personified, and began to act in the diplomaticaffairs under the official title of Lord the Great Novgorod (3

The title for Virgin Mary esp. in the Eastern Church.

).
(− 10 −), means a woman who gives birth to the god .

山口

The First Raid of Mongols on Russia（2002 年 11 月 20 日受理）

− 11 −