>In 1796, LEHÓCZKY/LEHOCZKY/LEHOTZKY/LEHOTSKÝ
>[Lehortzky?], András/Andreas [15.09.1741,
>Pozsony; 23.04.1813, Pozsony]
Oh boy, is that an old source! (Contemporary with
Pazvanoglu a.k.a. Pazvante the One-Eyed. :-)
>Now, the Bojan/Bajan theory [implying an avar/persian
>ancestry] is not possible because:
>
>1. the BOJAN word/adjective is still present today in
>Croatian language [as BAJAN] with the meaning of:
>charming, pleasing illustrious, rich, beautiful
It doesn't matter: the Turks might have had their
bayan signifying something, and the Croats can have
their own boyan meaning something else. (Romanians
also have many toponyms "Boian", which can be
different from the afore-mentioned.) (One can also
speculate on the Celtic Boii, who once lived in
Boiohemum = Bohemia, didn't they, Alex? :-)
And in the primeval dynastic genealogy both
of the Hungarian and Bulgarian ruling houses there
is mention of a high-rank ancestor called Bat-Bayan.
>2. the BOJAN_ban contraction is not possible.
Of interest would be whether "ban" matches at all
with the Turkic "bayan"/"Bayan".
>we will find the first BAN_BANAT(E)_BANOVINA in the
>X century/ie 945 [when the Turks are still far, but
>very far a way from Europe!].
Your impression is induced by history taught in
Romanian schools, where one isn't told that Huns
(if not the Huns proper, then at least various
tribes within their union of tribes), then Avars,
Khazars (in chronicles on the Huns they are mentioned as
underlings of the Huns: "Akatzirs", that's Ak Hazar
in Turkish, "white Khazars"), Petchenegs, Uz (Oguz),
Cumans, Onogur-Bulgars, Tatars spoke all dialects
of the Turkish language. They were Turks speaking
one language - as the Turkish world is today, from
Istanbul to China (a Turk doesn't need a translator
in order to chat with an Uygur of Ürümchi or Kash-
gar). From the viewpoint of Tartar-Mongolians of
the Golden Horde as well as that of the Ottoman
Turks, these late conquerors merely... "inherited"
Atilla's and his successors kaganates. (Atilla is
the Turkish spelling, Attila the Hungarian. In
Hungarian Attila means nothing, in Turkic it is
the diminutive of "ata" = father, that translates
into Hungarian as "apuka".)
Not only that the Turks were present in the Eastern
part of Europe with the advent of the Huns, but those
regions were haunted by successive Turkish waves up
to the mighty Ottoman Empire. Moreover, the "upper
crust" of the Bulgarian and Hungarian newly
emerged nations in the 8-10 centuries in E-Europe
were Turkish as well, of the Onogur & Khazar branch.
It took a while until Turks were completely
Slavicized, Magyarized and Romanianized (the Cumans
were one late branch in this respect).
The area between the Black Sea and Austria and the
Adriatic is full of Turkic toponyms and anthroponyms.
And all those waves also included Iranic and Slavic
elements too (not to mention the Hunnic federation,
that comprised a great part of the then Germanic
forces, Goths, Gepids etc.).
>The rest of the western Balkans/SE Europe's banate
>[7-8 of them] are only copies of the Croat one made
>by the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom after 1102/Pacta
>Conventa
If that's correct, then you've already got a
partial answer.
>So, it rests only the third possibility: BANNO with
>roots in the Carolingian Empire where the meanings of
>BAN are:
>
> 1] A King's power to command and prohibit
Indeed, in German, "Bann; bannen; verbannen"
does have that meaning [also contained in Engl.
to ban]. But is there any evidence that Ger.
Bann > Cr. & Hung. bán meaning a certain title/rank?!)
>Now, these franks are a germanic people which use B
>where in Old-High-German is used P.
Call them simply Germans, because Franks have always
been die Franken, speaking Mittel- and Oberdeutsch.
And in all German three branches of dialects (Nieder-,
Mittel- and Oberdeutsch) the p,t,k<->b,d,g has always
been "unstable" (as one can see even in family names,
such as Beyer, Baier, Bayer versus Paier, Payr; Berger
versus Perger; numerous jokes have been made based
upon these consonantic confusions, esp. as far as
people from Sachsen/Saxony are concerned).
>This is why I asked about the etymology of PAN in N
>Slavic languages.
Slavic "pan" has a far more general meaning than
"ban". While "ban" is a specialized term (sort of a
regional earl or lord), "pan" means "Herr", "signor",
"úr", "domn", "sir".
>More, it seams that we find administrative regions
>and rulers [of these regions] with this name/caring
>the title BAN only where the Carolingian Empire was
>in close contact [ruled] with the Slavic world
The relevant Slavic world in question is even more to
be located in former Yugoslavia and the (now Romanian)
Banat esp. since the Hungarian-Polish historian Imre
Boba wrote his works on the so-called Moravian Empire.
Boba and other historians reanalysed the sources.
Their conclusion is that the ephemeral Slavic
statehood was between Bulgaria and Frankenreich
(with its "Moravian" power center in Serbia and
Banat, esp. in Cuvin (Hung. Keve) on today's
Serbian-Border and in Morisena-Csanád on today's
Romanian-Hungarian border, and not in Moravia as deemed
by a mainstream of historians. The name Moravia is based
on the hydronym Morava. South of Belgrad there are three
important rivers Morava, in Moravia only one. :)
And that the Frankish-Moravian wars chiefly
took place on what's now the Hungarian and Serbian-
Croatian territories. The Hungarian invasion only destroyed
and/or subjugated remnants of that ephemeral "Moravian"
structure. (After all, the Hungarian oldest chronicles
based on internal royal sources also show that the
Hungarian conquest chiefly had to do with Slavs and
Bulgaroid Slavs in the territory from what's now Slovakia
down to what's now Croatia and Serbia.)
> S o r i n
George