Re: Bulgarica

--- Vassil Karloukovski <v.karloukovski@...>
wrote:
(GK) BTW in connection

> with
> > the preferred etymology of "Bulgar"("mixed") does
> the
> > recent literature address the possibility of an
> Ugrian
> > component?
>
>
>(VK) this "mixed" etymology is only one of the dozens
> proposed (and BTW
> rejected recently by Pritsak). There are several
> more Turkic as well
> as others. I can't recall an new Ugric one at the
> moment.

*****GK: No,no. I'm not asking about an "Ugrian"
etymology of "Bulgars", but whether there has been any
attempt to argue that the proto-Bulgars contained an
Ugrian element (i.e. associated Ugrian clans). Similar
claims have been made with respect to both Khazars and
Avars.*****

>
> > A third of all the graves in the northeast would
> imply
> > that even there the proto-Bulgars were in a
> minority,
> > though compact enough for ethnic survival (which
> was
> > my exact point). As the Bulgar state expanded
> > southward and southwestward, by the 9th century,
> they
> > became VERY MUCH a small minority compared to the
> > Slavs.
>
>
> (VK) that's not so clear. It is not as if the

Asparukh

> Bulgars of 680 AD
> were the only wave. Others were settled in Thracia
> as federates under
> Maurice if I remember. The Bulg. translation of the
> Chronicle of
> Manasius mentions settlement at the time of
> Anastasius, the Miracles
> of St. Demetrius - later ones in Macedonia. For
> northern Bulgaria
> there were at least two other waves after 680 AD
> from the northern
> Pontic region.

******GK: Yes but Rashev's 29% + 2-3% would include
those wouldn't it?******

>
> (VK)And apart from Slavs and Bulgars, there were

other

> barbarian(s) /.../ Not everything revolved around

some

> titanic or
> fateful Bulgar-Slav confrontation.

*****GK: "everything" never revolves around etc.. But
that was the major one. And we shouldn't forget the
Vlachs...Unless you don't consider them "barbarians"
(:=)))Note also that the Slavs assimilated a lot of
previous "locals".*****

>
> (GK)And after the implosion of the 2nd half of the
> > 9th c., they were done as a significant ethnos.
>
>
>(VK) pure speculation. What is the evidence for an
> 'implosion' in the 9th
> c?

*****GK: The civil conflict at the top between "pagan"
and "christian" Bulgar aristocrats on two occasions.
There was a lot of blood spilled in these battles,
with the tertium gaudens looking on. This is not
speculative unless you deem chronicled accounts to be
such.*****

(VK) If you are looking for something like a

> catastrophic event, the
> Magyar or the later Rus' invasions in the 10th c.
> qualify better.

*****GK: By then these catastrophes were experienced
by the new, Slavic and Slavonized Bulgarian complex.
There is no evidence that it is the remnants of the
proto-Bulgars that especially suffered through
them.****

>

(GK) The capital of my

> home
> > province in Canada (Winnipeg) has an "aboriginal"
> > name. Does that mean that aboriginals were a
> > determining and significant part of its original
> > population?
>
>(VK) hardly a provincial capital would be the right
> comparison.

*****GK: I guess you don't know the Canadian
constitution. Sovereignty is divided between the
federal and provincial branches of Government. You
must have heard about the "province" of Quebec.
Manitoba is also a province possessing much power
under the Constitution. So a provincial capital in
Canada is not the same as a provincial capital in
Bulgaria or Ukraine. The comparison is quite
appropriate.****


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com