Re: Djilas

--- tolgs001 <george_st@...> wrote:

> >No, it isn't. Learn something about medieval
> onomastics.
> >
> >Brian
>
> And especially given the fact that all documents
> pertaining to those
> people and events in that European region were
> written in Latin.
>
> Let alone the history facts that the region came
> under the rule of two
> military and political powers that had: the title
> "gila" or "djila"
> (perhaps number two in the hierarchy after the
> "duke"), and the
> second one (the Petcheneks/Betcheneks) had an
> important tribe
> called Gila orYula.
>
> In the second half of the 10th century and the first
> half of the
> next one, Petcheneks were the de facto political and
> military power
> in Transylvania, being able to snub the suzerain,
> the Hungarian king
> (whose court was in another "fehérvár"/"white
> citadel"/(Belgrade),
> namely in Székesfehérvár ("the white citadel where
> the see is"; szék
> in Hungarian means "chair; see").

****GK: George, I agree with the thrust of your basic
argumentation, and the following comment is strictly
from memory. Acc. to De administrando imperio, the
Pecheneg province of "Gila" adjoined "Turkey"
(Constantine's name for the Turkic (perhaps largely
Khazar/Kabar though also "Kun") component of the
Hungarian complex at the timed). This important (at
the time largely autonomous and later assimilated)
Turkic component, rather than the Pechenegs,
controlled Transylvania in the late 10th c. AFAIK. The
Gila Pechenegs were then in Moldavia I think. The
whole Hungarian complex was separated from them by the
"Ugrian Mountains" (the Old Ukrainian term for the
Carpathians.) Thank you for your interesting
ethnographic/ethnolinguistic Romanian accounts. Carry
on.****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ