Re: Ban_Pan

----- Original Message -----
From: tolgs001
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003
Subject: [tied] Re: Ban_Pan

>In 1796, LEHÓCZKY/LEHOCZKY/LEHOTZKY/LEHOTSKÝ
>[Lehortzky?], András/Andreas [15.09.1741,
>Pozsony; 23.04.1813, Pozsony]

Oh boy, is that an old source! (Contemporary with
Pazvanoglu a.k.a. Pazvante the One-Eyed. :-)

"din vremea lu' Pazvante Chiorul" is actually the expression in Romanian
language and has the meaning of OBSOLETE/SUPERANNUATED.
Pazvante/ie Pazvanoglu/Pazvantoglu/Osman Pasa, was a pasha in Vidin which in
1797 rebelled against the Sultan and between 1797-1812 his mans/ie the
pazvangii will robe heavily the 2 shores of Danube river.

Please tell me why do you think that in this case [when I used him only to
point out the 3 main theories regarding BAN] LEHÓCZKY is obsolete?
In fact, he was probably the first -I would love to find an even "older"
author!- quoting all the main theories in a very concise and exact way.

>we will find the first BAN_BANAT(E)_BANOVINA in the
>X century/ie 945 [when the Turks are still far, but
>very far a way from Europe!].

Your impression is induced by history taught in
Romanian schools, where one ISN'T told that Huns
(if not the Huns proper, then at least various
tribes within their union of tribes), then Avars,
Khazars (in chronicles on the Huns they are mentioned as
underlings of the Huns: "Akatzirs", that's Ak Hazar
in Turkish, "white Khazars"), Petchenegs, Uz (Oguz),
Cumans, Onogur-Bulgars, Tatars spoke all dialects
of the Turkish language.

Well, I can assure you that in the history books for the VI class [children
12-13 years old!] this point is very clearly underlined in Romania!
In fact, I just used probably carelessly the word TURK(S). Sorry.
...

But is there any evidence that Ger. Bann > Cr. & Hung. bán meaning a certain
title/rank?!

If you are asking for written evidence; there is [probably/I did not find it
yet] none obvious. As is no obvious written evidence for either of the
theories !
But I can tell that, for example, the Croats were subjects of the
Carolingian Empire for almost a century. The Carolingian influence in all
the domains was major even if "few if any Franks actually settled in the
regions" (Fine).
But all the "proves" are only "indirect" ones.

>More, it seams that we find administrative regions
>and rulers [of these regions] with this name/caring
>the title BAN only where the Carolingian Empire was
>in close contact [ruled] with the Slavic world

The relevant Slavic world in question is even more to
be located in former Yugoslavia and the (now Romanian)
Banat esp. since the Hungarian-Polish historian Imre
Boba wrote his works on the so-called Moravian Empire.
Boba and other historians reanalysed the sources.

I am familiar enough with the theory/theories of Imre Boba, Charles R.
Bowlus, and Martin Eggers. The "best" [I had tears in my eyes!] part is when
Eggers sustain that Mojmir/Rastislav's Moravia was located not where Boba
put it [in his work published in 1971/at S of Danube River], but in the
Great Hungarian Plain/Alföld and that the capital was "urbs Morisena" [ie
today Cenad, Ro.].
But are you familiar with the works of the critics of these authors?

> S o r i n
George

S o r i n