Re: Ban_Pan

>Please tell me why do you think that in this case [when I used him only to
>point out the 3 main theories regarding BAN] LEHÓCZKY is obsolete?

I was merely joking, alluding a bit to the fact that I wish
I read something recent, with new insights on this.

>In fact, I just used probably carelessly the word TURK(S). Sorry.

There's no problem here. Only that, by and large, upon hearing/reading
"Turk" and "Turkish," most people tend to think only of those in
Anatolia. But the Turkish conglomerate is way bigger. (The Turks
themselves don't like the outsider word "Turkic": for them, they
speak dialects of one and the same language.)

>If you are asking for written evidence; there is [probably/I did not find it
>yet] none obvious. As is no obvious written evidence for either of the
>theories !

I'd rather doubt that the German(ic) word "Bann" prompted the
creation of "ban", as a title/rank/profession. I'd rather expect
the "ban" to be a mere variant of "pan" and "zhupan". (Didn't
zhupan also mean judex?)

>But I can tell that, for example, the Croats were subjects of the
>Carolingian Empire for almost a century.

Yes, but the Slavs who were within the Frankish empire, for
example those living among the Bavarian Germans (i.e. entire
Austria) and in Boemia & Moravia, AFAIK, never had this title.
Why only their southern cousins, the Croats? At the same time,
we've already seen that all Western Slavs have had the (other?)
word "pan."

>But are you familiar with the works of the critics of these authors?

A little bit (based on superficial reading).

>S o r i n

George