Re: [tied] Re: Help with ban_Banat

----- Original Message -----
From: <andelkod@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:49 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Help with ban_Banat


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
>
> > BTW, the "ban" is in Serbian and Bulgarian old stories allways in
> > relationship with Romanians, I am wrong here?
>
> Yes, I think you are wrong.
>
> There is evident some confusion about who and when used the title of
> ban. First documented use of that title in Balkan area was by Croats
> in X. century. Some parts of Croatia had been ruled by ban which was
> person second to king. Later the title was introduced to Bosnia
> probably when it was incorporated in Croatia. Serbs never used it
> When Croatia entered personal union with Hungary in 1102. the title
> of ban was used only with connection to croatian lands where bans
> ruled as viceroys (very often they where Hungarian royal princes,
> but not always, sometimes they were of local croatian noble families
> or even zagreb bishops)

Well, let me tell you just what I know:
in Serbocroatian in the region Kraziste-Vlasina ( see vlasi= valah) you
have the toponym "BaniSor" which seems to have a romanian form.
My own opinion is that this a loanword in Romanian since this is
regarded to "ruler" and "ruler" should have other cognates if this would
be a autochton word. In my opinion it is not a Rom. word but a word
which entered the languages trough the rulers of that time. If this is
an avarian word as suppodes by other scholars or a bulgarian word ( from
the turkish roots) I don't care too much:-)

> Expansion of the title into other parts of Hungary, was slow and was
> usually closely connected with the property interests of individual
> croatian bans
>
> I prefer opinion that Banat have no connection with bans, but rather
> with bulgarian use of "ban" meaning "mountain", because in slavic
> the term would be then "Banovina" and not "Banat"

The Banat is shared in parts . For one of them the Romanians say
"Banatul Sârbesc"= The Serbian Banate. If this expresion is regarding to
the region inhabitet by serbians or the region ruled by serbians, or the
region given to the serbians in the XIX century, I am not sure how to
interpret this. There is tough no connection with bulgarians. If there
should be one, it should have been very long time in the past.

>
> >
> > As for the another meaning of "ban"= money, I have had with Piotr
> one
> > discution about regarding the german pfening, english pence, polish
> > pieniadz, and so on. It waas a discution regarding a time where
> people
> > payd with texture and such stuff, maybe he will remember what
> about. The
> > rom. word for "ban"= money is given with an unknown etymology
>
> Croatian bans made coins begining from XIII. century, which name
> was "moneta banalis" or "denarii banales", because bans had had the
> right for coinage. First known ban who used that right was Slavonian
> ban Stjepan Guthkeled (1248.-1260). Coinary was in Pakrac. Later it
> was moved to Zagreb and that Zagreb coins where called "denarii
> zagrabienses"
> Moneta banalis was widely used in whole of Hungary because of his
> value

Rosetti see it too as a loan from hungarian. In other ways we can say
the word "ban"= money= short form of "banalis"?
Ivanescu means that after the invasion of tartars, the hungarian money
dissapired and then begun to appear the money of the Bans from Croatia
and Slavonia (1270).This money should have been in use until 1365 when
the King Vlaicu Voda made his own coins, but they were called too "ban".