[tied] Re: Toponymy and ethnic Realities [...]

george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

> *****$$$$$GK: Brezeanu used the Moravcsik-Jenkins
> edition. This edition, in turn, relied for its
> critical text on a number of manuscripts, some of
> which had "Dnister" in the context we are discussing,
> while others had "Dnipro/Dnieper". M-J decided to
> adopt the Dnister reading. I decided to adopt the
> Dnipro reading.*******

OK, sorry about missunderstanding.

>> The mixups in Nestor's text are not so relevant for this matter,
>
> *******%%%%GK: Only to someone not particularly
> familiar with the problems of editing manuscripts. I
> mentioned it as an example of how ancient scribes may
> opt for reading A or reading B, thereafter providing
> textologists some interesting choices.******

I was aware on how ancient scribes may opt for reading A or
reading B. I pointed out that we were not talking about confusing
"Dnester" with "Dnepr" in Nestor's text but in DAI's copies, which
is a different issue.

>> I'm looking forward to find out which are your reasons to
>> prefer the "Dnieper" reading.
>
> ******%%%%GK: One of them is because that river is
> more important than the Dnister as a northernbound
> waterway (from the 10th century Byzantine
> perspective), and is more important within the
> parameters of Constantine's discussion and description
> of the Pechenegs and the Rus'.

I could agree that Dnepr is and was more important from the
10th century Byzantine perspective. Nevertheless, the point
is not which river was more important at that time but which
river was specifically designed by Constantine: he did not
spoke about that river being highly essential northernbound
(at least, it doesn't result from the quoted text). I think
he was fully entitled to describe any river pleased him, not
only the most important one.

> Another is that it is the location of the so-called "Ulch
> grads", the ancient Scythian cities.

This is related with the choice of the river. As you may see
from Brezeanu's text, there is also material support for those
cities being located on the "white" side of the Dnester.
Had those Scythian cities many things in common with Roman
settlements?!

> Note that Moravcsik-Jenkins give no reasons whatever for
> their choice of Dnister over Dnipro.********

But I bet they had some reasons, though.

>>> I don't think this was the case in the
>>> 10th century.
>>
>>(MI) 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.
>
> ******GK: The fact that there were a number of
> "Bilhorods" in the Slavic areas makes the geographical
> orientation somewhat more likely.

I should have added: "doesn't look clear and has little meaning
for the matter". "its stores look very white" tells us that the
emperor was specifically targeting a white-coloured city, not a
right-bank sided one.

> Your view about B.D. reminds me of a popular notion that the
> Belarusans were so called because they wore "white" clothes.*******

OK for the fun. But B.D./C.A. is still a white coloured city,
regardless its' side.

>> 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.
>
> ******GK: I assume that its sister fortress (the
> "black" city) would have been built with the same type
> of material originally, not with black stones...*****

That's possible. So, what does that imply?

>>> [...] 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?
>
> *****&&&&&:GK: I have no idea. I believe not much is
> left there except foundations. But it certainly was
> the westernmost city of the Old Scythian complex on
> the Lower Dnipro, and on that account deserved to be
> called "the white" (city)*******

OK. For geographical reasons, one might call "Metropolis"
(along with other cities, for in that area there is not only
the Old Scythian complex) "the white". There is still some
way to "its stores look very white" which doesn't appear as
a geographical description.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi