[tied] Re: south slavic

From: Vassil Karloukovski
Message: 15560
Date: 2002-09-18

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > Slavs were neither bound by any idea of common
> > origin, nor their
> > name "Slavs" proved stronger than their tribal
> > names, save the fact
> > that they had little idea of common history and
> > solidarity.
> *****GK: This is an important point. In fact one might
> argue even more radically. viz., that tribal names
> such as mentioned above (and many other similar ones
> in sources of later centuries) represent a
> consolidation of earlier small units ("rods"= the term
> stands both for something like "clan" and for "a
> combination of 'clans'"). These small units left a
> vast number of toponyms a la "-ICHI" scattered all
> over. I'm not sure about the situation south of the
> Danube in this regard, but on the territories of
> Ukraine and Belarus, for instance, the productivity of
> this suffix was enormous.(NB not to be confused with
> the rather later "-OVYCHI")******

I am not aware of Slavic tribal names or Sclaviniae in -ICHI
from the eastern Balkans. There were/are some in -CI, such
as RUPCI, B&RSJACI, M&RVACI, etc. Some other Sclaviniae/tribal
names are said to be non-Slavic, like those of DRAGOVITAI and
SAGUDATOI near Thessaloniki (Iranian?, O. Pritsak) or MILINGOI
in Peloponnessos (Gothic). And there are, of course, the SEVERI,
who it has been suggested were not Sclavini, that is southern
Slavs, but eastern Slavs. An on-line article of P. Koledarov
( http://vmro.150m.com/en/pk/pkoled.html ) is a nice review of
the regional names in the eastern Balkans in the middle ages.

> > The case with the Bulgars was similar, yet
> > different, to that of the
> > Slavs. The Bulgars appear on several occasions in
> > history before
> > they established their states in the Balkans and the
> > Volga-Kama
> > estuary. The first people called "Bulgars" appear
> > in the later 4th
> > century as a most probably non-Turkic tribe and we
> > see them acting
> > within Attila's steppe empire.
> >
> > With the end of the Hunnic empire in the 470's, the
> > Bulgars
> > disappear from sources
> ****GK: Could you develop the above? The information
> about "Bulgars" in the 4th century is news to me.*****

A copy of the Anonymous Latin chronograph from 354 AD
mentiones the Bulgars among the descendants of Shem - "Ziezi
ex quo Bulgares" (Ziezi, of whom are the Bulgars). There is
also an encounter between the Langobards and the Bulgars in
the Carpathians in the early 5th c., recorded by Paulus
Diaconus and Fredegarius. But probably the earliest record
is in the Armenian sources (Moses Horenaci, Jovannes
Draskhanakertaci) who speak of a migration of Bulgars to their
lands under the leadership of a certain Vanand, after whom they
became known as 'Vanandians'. The event took place at the time
of 'king Arshaces', usually taken to be Arshaces II or the last
Arshaces - Arshaces III, and thus - during the second half of
the 4th c. Others argue for Arshaces I (I c. AD). If interested,
check http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/armen/armen_2.html

Vassil K.