Re: [tied] Re: Bulgarica

From: george knysh
Message: 24645
Date: 2003-07-18

--- fortuna11111 <fortuna11111@...> wrote:
>
>
> > 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?

*****GK: Indeed. And Vassil mentioned two further
proto-Bulgar waves coming in after 681.******

The
> presence of Protobulgarians in Macedonia before 681
> 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?

******GK: No. I'll take your word for it. It's really
quite beside the point, since the "Macedonian"
proto-Bulgars were a tiny minority there.*****
>
> > >
> > > (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
history
> revolve around
> ethnicity, sometimes connecting ethnicity,
> self-determination and
> language as though automatically. This is, indeed,
> outdated and
> unproductive.

******GK: I can't help what you "notice". But setting
up straw men is never a productive exercise. "Bulgars"
"Slavs" etc. are labels of convenience hiding a much
more complex and perhaps elusive historical
reality.******

I also consider your theory about the
> all too important
> confrontation between Protobulgarians and Slavs a
> bit weird.

*****GK: The word "confrontation" is not mine but
Vassil's. But there is no way around the fact that
they are the major groups mentioned in connection
with internal Bulgarian developments in the last
centuries of the first millennium AD. It's probably
best to stick to the sources that we have and try to
figure out what they mean rather than attempting to
fit these ancient times into some very modern
perspective.******

I don't
> think any serious Bulgarian scholar ever stressed
> 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: I trust the witness of our Old Ukrainian
Chronicle (11th c.) more than the views of 20th c.
Bulgarian scholars. "Integrated" is a neat euphemism.
I would be interested in any substantial proof that
the "coerced" Slavs [that's what good old "Nestor"
said. Was he weird?(:=))]of the early Bulgar state
were the equals of the proto-Bulgars.******
>
> 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: Again it is Vassil who used the term
"barbarians". I wondered if he also meant this of the
Vlachs.******
>
> > >
> > > (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?

*****GK: As far as I know, if youre talking about the
word "implosion".*****

And again, you are drawing a weird
> parallel between
> Bulgarian

*****GK: Bulgar or proto-Bulgar.*****

vs. Slavic and Christian vs. pagan, or was
> it the opposite?
> I don't like it in both directions.

*****GK: As Bogart said to Bacall in an early scene of
"The Big Sleep": OOOOOOHHH...******
>
> > 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?

*****GK: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH....******

It was,
> indeed, very
> 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:Very admirable sentiments. But latter day
political correctness is no substitute for competence
in source interpretation.*****
>
> > 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: See above re "confrontation". Aren't you
being a bit anachronistic in implying that the
"something" which survived for 1300 years is the state
founded by Asparukh?*****
>
> 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.

******GK:Into what exactly? ******


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