---
alexmoeller@... wrote:
> aaamm.. so bad the article is not in english to
> read. For the
> people who cannot beginn anything with russian,
> which should
> be the reasons of doubt for the relation
> Aspron=Bilhorod?I
> just would should like to put them in a paralel view
> with the
> arguments of Brezeanu.
>
*****GK: Shlapak's article is an abbreviated extract
from a larger volume (ISBN: 9975-61-180-X). She argues
that "it is essential to note that at the present time
we do not have precise scientific data which may
enlighten us concerning the history of Bilhorod from
the 7th to the beginning of the 13th centuries". The
sources (onomastic, textual, archaeological) are
contradictory, which allows for a profusion of
theories, the most important ones of which she
mentions. According to her "one may doubt the attempts
to identify the Bilhorod citadel with the abandoned
fortress of Aspron mentioned in the mid-10th century
by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. For even if one
assumes that Aspron is Bilhorod-on-the-Dnister, the
"abandoned" fortress in the 10th century would more
than likely have been the ancient fortifications of
Tira". In other words, Porphyrogenitus may have
confused an existing fort (Aspron) with nearby ruins.
(Unless he was talking about the Lower Dnipro and not
the Dnister-- GK) Shlapak also implies that this
possible Dnister Aspron would not have been under
Pecheneg control (but does not state whom it belonged
to), unlike the ruins of Tira. That's all one can
gather from the abbreviation.*******
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com