Bulgarica (Was Re: [tied] Re: Yers)

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

> on the basis of the archaeological continuity with the
> older Sarmatian cultures of the Pontic region, the
> Bulgars have been regarded outright as Sarmatians by
> a number of archaeologists and historians (A. Smirnov,
> V. Sirotenko) since the 40's-50's of the 20-th c.

> *****GK: The difference between the Alanic and Bulgar
> sites of the Saltov-Mayaky culture (7th-10th cs.) is
> nevertheless very clear. There is mutual influence of
> course, but hardly identity. *****

the observed continuity is with Sarmatian pit-burials, and not with
the Alan catacombs. The origin of the latter I understand is not so
clear as they appear nearly simultaneously not only amongst the
Alans, but also in Crimea (Taurica?) and elsewhere.

> *****GK: I take it that the ethnonym "Bulgar" (while
> still not fully explained) is considered Turkic by a
> great majority of commentators? BTW in connection with
> the preferred etymology of "Bulgar"("mixed") does the
> recent literature address the possibility of an Ugrian
> component?

this "mixed" etymology is only one of the dozens proposed (and BTW
rejected recently by Pritsak). There are several more Turkic as well
as others. I can't recall an new Ugric one at the moment.

> A third of all the graves in the northeast would imply
> that even there the proto-Bulgars were in a minority,
> though compact enough for ethnic survival (which was
> my exact point). As the Bulgar state expanded
> southward and southwestward, by the 9th century, they
> became VERY MUCH a small minority compared to the
> Slavs.

that's not so clear. It is not as if the Asparukh Bulgars of 680 AD
were the only wave. Others were settled in Thracia as federates under
Maurice if I remember. The Bulg. translation of the Chronicle of
Manasius mentions settlement at the time of Anastasius, the Miracles
of St. Demetrius - later ones in Macedonia. For northern Bulgaria
there were at least two other waves after 680 AD from the northern
Pontic region.

And apart from Slavs and Bulgars, there were other barbarian (Hunnic
in NW Bulgaria, Gothic in central/eastern N B-ia) and Byzantine
components - Latinised/Hellenised or not Balkanic natives, plus the
Armenians/Syrians in Thrace who replaced the Slavs that were
transferred to Asia Minor, etc. For example, the mother of tsar
Samuel was called Hripsimia, an exclusively Armenian female name.
Neither did any of her sons have anything Bulgar or Slavic in their
names - David, Moses, Aaron, Samuel. Nonetheless, Samuel was said to
have come from the line of the old kavkhans, the second in command
after the khan. Not everything revolved around some titanic or
fateful Bulgar-Slav confrontation.

And after the implosion of the 2nd half of the

> 9th c., they were done as a significant ethnos.

pure speculation. What is the evidence for an 'implosion' in the 9th
c? If you are looking for something like a catastrophic event, the
Magyar or the later Rus' invasions in the 10th c. qualify better.

> Nothing you have adduced so far denies this scenario.
> So where exactly is it "outdated"? *****

> *****GK: Vassil, we know very well that many Slavs
> inhabited the territory occupied by the proto-Bulgars.
> We know that some of them (not all)were removed to
> "make place" for the newcomers. The capital of my home
> province in Canada (Winnipeg) has an "aboriginal"
> name. Does that mean that aboriginals were a
> determining and significant part of its original
> population?

hardly a provincial capital would be the right comparison.

Hardly. Scratch the argument. Surely you

> are not contending that the Slavs of NE Bulgaria were
> known as "Bulgars" already in the 7th c. ???!!! The
> Siveri certainly weren't.*****

what I am saying is that labels such as "Slavs", "Bulgars" are not so
absolute. As for the Severi, from the beginning they were the most
trusted Slavic tribe, at moments solely responsible for the defence
of the state, and this is one of the reasons why they are suspected
to be of Eastern Slavic origin, to have come to the Balkans together
with the Asparukh Bulgars.

> *****GK: Let me give you the latest update on this.
> First of all, one now speaks of the
> Pastyrs'k-Volyntsev culture, with Pastyrs'k referring
> to the elements west of the Dnipro, and Volyntsev to
> those east of the Dnipro. The culture dissipates in
> the 8th c. Volyntsev evolves into the Romenian c.
> associated with the Sivera Slavs, while Pastyrs'k is
> replaced by Luka-Rajkovets'ka, shared by a number of
> Slavic groups. We won't go into all these details now.
> The main fact to remember is that Pastyrs'k is NOT the
> culture of the Slavic Antes, or at least not primarily
> and definingly. It is PEN"KIVKA which is associated
> with these Antes.

OK, I have probably mixed it up whilst trying to review Rashev's
paper. Better wait and see its full translation. The Pastirsk type
pottery was associated exclusively with cremations as far as I can
remember. The way you lump Onogurs and Unogundurs together and after
that generalize that whatever is right for one of them should apply
for the other is strange. Mikulchik's book is on the archaeology of
the R of Macedonia only. So 'Western Macedonia' = Ochrid, Struga,
Tetovo, etc. I think this thread is becoming increasingly irrelevant
to cybalist. Shouldn't it be moved it elsewhere?

Regards,
Vassil

> *****GK: When you say "West" do you (and your source)
> include the current FYR of Macedonia? I ask because
> there was a strong Cyrillomethodian mission there,
> headed by Clement and Naum (around Okhrida). They
> certainly had churches.******

yes, they did, here and there, near the administrative centres -
Ochrid, Belgrad/Velegrad (Berat). And Boris I paid for them. That's
even documented :).