From: george knysh
Message: 24645
Date: 2003-07-18
>*****GK: Indeed. And Vassil mentioned two further
>
> > GK: Yes but Rashev's 29% + 2-3% would
> include
> > those wouldn't it?
>
> Weren't Rashev's comments based on excavations in NE
> Bulgaria?
> presence of Protobulgarians in Macedonia before 681******GK: No. I'll take your word for it. It's really
> is confirmed by
> the old sources which led to some consensus on the
> subject among
> Bulgarian scholars (including such as Zlatarski,
> e.g. what you would
> call "mainstream"). Beshevliev makes a good summary
> on this in a book
> that I have at hand. Do you want a translation?
>history
> > >
> > > (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".
>
> (ET)George, I also notice that your comments on
> revolve around******GK: I can't help what you "notice". But setting
> ethnicity, sometimes connecting ethnicity,
> self-determination and
> language as though automatically. This is, indeed,
> outdated and
> unproductive.
> all too important*****GK: The word "confrontation" is not mine but
> confrontation between Protobulgarians and Slavs a
> bit weird.
> think any serious Bulgarian scholar ever stressed*****GK: I trust the witness of our Old Ukrainian
> such a
> confrontation, not to mention giving it such a big
> name. Most of
> those scholars would write about the Slavs being
> integrated in the
> Protobulgar state from the very beginning. If you
> are arguing about
> the opposite, you will have to offer something
> substantial as a proof.
>*****GK: Again it is Vassil who used the term
> As to your reference to the Vlachs, I do not
> remember calling them
> barbarians (or Vassil, for that matter), so I guess
> the authorship of
> this statement should be limited to its actual
> source. The whole
> point of the debate is to look closely at some
> details pertaining to
> our history and not to divide people into ethnoses
> that were
> supposedly civilized or barbarian (or other).
>*****GK: As far as I know, if youre talking about the
> > >
> > > (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.
>
> The question is about the value and importance you
> attribute to those
> details, calling them such big names, btw. is this
> your term applied
> to the events?
> parallel between*****GK: Bulgar or proto-Bulgar.*****
> Bulgarian
> it the opposite?*****GK: As Bogart said to Bacall in an early scene of
> I don't like it in both directions.
>*****GK: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH....******
> > 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.
>
> Where is the evidence for your statement in the
> first sentence? You
> met those Slavs and had a coffee with them?
> indeed, very******GK:Very admirable sentiments. But latter day
> important in the 20th century to connect politics
> with language and
> ethnicity, and write our history in this spirit
> (look who we were, the
> rest were assholes, except for the Greeks, they
> could write). We
> were, indeed, supposed to be like our forefaters
> 1000 years ago, not
> having mixed with anyone, not to mention barbarians.
> The purer our
> blood, the better. And so on. I live in a country
> which has a lot of
> experience in this direction. I prefer to learn
> from it and so do
> young people around me.
>******GK: See above re "confrontation". Aren't you
> > 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.
>
> I am not sure. We are talking about much older
> times, when people
> could have thought otherwise in naming or not naming
> their capitals
> with aboriginal names. And I do not think analysing
> the toponymy is
> unusual in historical analysis. At least it it
> better than relying on
> conjecture and so not worth such a suspicious
> reaction. Which brings
> me to the question why the suspicious reaction? Why
> are the
> Protobulgarians supposed to have confronted with the
> Slavs? Do you
> really believe something that survived for more than
> 13 centuries
> later was based on confrontation?
>******GK:Into what exactly? ******
> It is July 17, 2003. I wish we would look at the
> calendar and note
> that 60-70 years have passed and we are supposed to
> have evolved.