[tied] Re: south slavic

From: Vassil Karloukovski
Message: 15679
Date: 2002-09-23

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

> *****GK: -CI will also do. BTW I'm not talking of
> tribal names but of toponyms. Are there many toponyms
> in -CI or -ICI?******

there are quite a few _modern_ toponyms in -CI: Chiprovci,
Radomirci, etc. Some of them do appear to be derived from
clan names. I cannot think of medieval examples right now.

> > 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).
> *****GK: Where was this published? In the MGH perhaps?

my reference is to a Bulg. compendium - "Latinski izvori za
b&lgarskata istorija". It would probably be easier for you
to follow this reference - Th. Momsen. Ueber den Chronographen
von Jahre 354. - Abhandlungen der phil.-hist. Classe der
kais. saechsischen Geselshaft der Wissenschaften. I, Leipzig,
1850, S. 547 flg.

> 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.

> *****GK: Sources of the 7th and 8th century providing
> "retroactive" information. What we need are
> CONTEMPORARY sources.******

I understand, but similar is the case with many other texts,
which have survived only in later copies.

> 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

> *****GK: Again, one has to check the specifics of
> these Armenian sources. They are not CONTEMPORARY.
> AFAIK the Bulgars enter history in the 6th c. AD under
> that name.

the Bulgars start to appear regularly in Western sources
from 480 AD on, as Byzantine allies in Pannonia or acting
on their own against the Goths, and in association with
the Gepids. And the sources are contemporary as well (e.g.
Ennodius of Pavia). It should come as no surprise that in
the East, in Armenia, they were registered earlier, before
the appearance of the Huns. The Vanandians who settled in
Armenia are mentioned by several 5th c. Armenian authors
and participated in a number of country's events. I told
you that 4th c. is a conservative estimate for the time of
migration of those Vanandians.


Some proto-"Bulgar" groups may have had a
> prior history as "Huns" or by other names, but that is
> a different issue.*****