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

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
>
>> Had those Scythian cities many things in common with Roman
>> settlements?!
>
> *****GK: Yes indeed, if by "Roman" settlements one
> means what Constantine Porphyrogenitus meant. Remember
> that to him "Romeans" were "Romans"! The architecture
> of Old Scythian cities is very close to that of Olbia,
> Tyras, and Chersonesos (though not as massive)******

OK. He writes down "Romaioi" which has to be seen as an
equivalent for Byzantine (Greeks), or I got something
wrong here?!

>> But I bet they had some reasons, though.
>
> *****GK: The only one I can think of is a reason
> common to textologists who simply prefer to follow a
> particular manuscript in all of its details. That is
> not good enough for historians. But since J/M kept mum
> about their reasons I won't discuss this point any
> more. Not enough data.******

I can think of another one: they compared several versions
and they followed the peculiar one which they estimated was
the closest to the original. But, as you said, not enough data.

>>>> 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?
>
> *****%%%%%:GK (:=))) My goodness... Why that if both
> were built with the same kind of stone, the "white"
> and "black" would have no relationship to colour as
> such since colour-wise the "black' fortress would have
> been as "white" as the "white" fortress...*****

:-)
Well, I've already had a thought on that. I think my first
phrase was ambiguous. The idea not to be dismissed which I
had actually in mind was actually "the city was white-coloured
since the beginning", not "it could have been both". I think
this misunderstanding originated some five messages ago, I
thought you were denying the possibility for the Xth century
city to be white-coloured.
Of course, if both cities were white-shaped, the dichotomy
in names could only arise from geographical reasons. However,
Constantine doesn't speak about a "Black" city, only about a
white one in a definitely colour-based interpretation. That's
why I think more plausible the "colour link" to C.A./B.D..

Summarizing, I think the material is still subjected to
one or another interpretation, and one cannot dismiss or
totally sustain any of the two possibilities previously
discussed (Dnestr/Dnepr). If you agree on this point, I
think it would be about time to finish this thread.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi