gknysh wrote:
>Neither Cumans nor Pechenegs were in the habit of founding
>cities.
But once that these and others (Khazars & al. Türklar) took
possession of them, and became the rulers/overlords, esp.
the "senior" clans/bosses as compared with other hordes/uluses,
their habit of calling hierarchic "senior" and "junior" as
"white" and "black" could well have been used in the new
territories too. So, not only the color of the walls and
soil used to play a role.
>In any case I see no argument at all for the Thracian or
>Getan Alb- being the basis of today's Bilhorod.
The only relationship is the mere fact that Bilhorod in
today's Ukraine, Belgrad (capital of Serbia) and B&lgrad
(yesterday Gyulafehérvár, today Alba Iulia, a former
capital of Transylvania & a few kilometers away from
the Sarmizegetusa, the capital of the ancient Dacian
kingdom)..... have the same name, in Slavic, meaning
"Whiteborough". (I'm using borough in the sense of
Burg.)
>It certainly wasn't for the Bilhorod founded by
>Volodymyr just west of Kyiv in 991.******
Bilhorod, Kyiv, Kharkiv etc. reflects the today's
Ukrainian pronunciation habits. I expect however that
all these names had pronunciations a bit different
800-1000 years ago.
George
PS: Is there no document referring to AkKerman in the
13th century? (I mean under the Cuman and then Tartar
domination.)