Re: Toponymy and ethnic Realities [...]

"gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
>
> > george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm. "Isteon, oti enqen tou DanastrewV potamou proV to
> > apoblepon merosthn [...]". It still looks like Dnister,
> > not like Dniepr. Are you suggesting that Constantine was
> > plainly wrong writing down "DanastrewV" for the other river?
>
> &&&&&&******: What I am suggesting is that the manuscript
> evidence for Dnister is ambiguous, and that other manuscripts
> have "DanaprewV". What you should do is consult the Moravcsik-
> Jenkins edition in the apparatus, where you will find the variant
> in question. We have similar mixups between "Dnister" and
> "Dnipro/Dnieper" in manuscripts of the Rus' Primary Chronicle. I
> prefer the "Dnipr" reading in DAI for a number of reasons.******

For the edition used by Brezeanu, I fail to see any ambiguity. I
take for granted that Moravcsik-Jenkins edition is unambiguously
pointing towards the other river. The mixups in Nestor's text are
not so relevant for this matter, I'm looking forward to find out
which are your reasons to prefer the "Dnieper" reading.

> > From the text one can infer only that the city of Aspron
> > had white stores, not the shore itself. The argument with
> > "Bi(e)loberezhya" looks doubtful since having a white city
> > on a white shore is not so striking,
>
> ******GK%%%%: As explained below, the "white shore" meant not
> colour but location, here the right bank of the Lower Dnipro,
> towards the west.******

I'm OK with this meaning. Consequently there is no connection
between the shore being called "white" for geographical reasons
and the white colour of Aspron's stores mentioned by Constantine.
So this argument has little value.

>> [...] the emphasis should lie on the shore, not on the city as in
>> Constantine's text. OTOH, Cetatea Alba/Bielgorod Dnestrovskij
>> has had always a striking effect on first-time viewers by its'
>> white appearance.
>
> ******%%%%%%GK: I doubt very much the appearance had anything to
> do with the original name. Note that as to Bilhorod Dnistrovs'kyj,
> there is good evidence that at one point there were two fortresses
> in the area, a "white" one and a "black" one. Here the colours
> refer to geography, "white" indicating "west" (quite proper for a
> right bank location) and "black" east. When Moldavians and Turks
> built up Bilhorod, they may well have given it that "white"
> appearance you mention. I don't think this was the case in the
> 10th century.

Why? Normally one should have used the same available stones for
building up the city. It looks more likely from my point of view
that city's Moldavian shape continued a white-colour tradition,
independently on geographic reasons. In other words, city walls
could very well have been white also in the 10th century -- which
doesn't obviously contradict its' "white" location. Where the name
did really come from (geography or colour) doesn't look clear. If
the city was white-coloured since the beginning, it could have been
both -- and I don't find any valid reason to dismiss this idea.

> > So what city would you propose for Constantine's Aspron?!
>
> *****GK;%%%%% If it's a question of a "ruined" city on the Lower
> Dnipro, my guess is that it might have been the same one that
> Ptolemy called "Metropolis", the first Scythian city on the Dnipro
> to the east of Olbia. *******

Does it have white walls?

Regards,
Marius Iacomi