In Balkans we have?

Is there an english version of this study?

Originally posted by Anton   Originally posted by akritas Originally posted by Anton IMHO -- if you are talking about Calabria (not Calbaria ) -- this part of Italy as well as Northern part of Italy was inhabited by Protobulgarians (according to D'Amico).    Excuse me ?? They came with langobards and a bit later. Actually I took a look and sow that toponyms are found in northern Italy and Sicily but not Calabria. That is my mistake.  http://ziezi.net/amico/amico.htm   Why should I excuse you?

Originally posted by Anton Where did you find inaccuracy?

I don't have read any essay as about the Bulgarian apeareance in North Italy.Can you tell me the names of the toponyms in Sicely and the South Italy ?

I hace received various complaints about this thread. Could you all please discuss in a civilised manner, otherwise it will be closed.

I think it is a bit far from the topic, nikodemos. Anyway, I could agree with that if somebody provide convincing explanation how could it come from greek language to Russian. Superiority of Greek culture over Russian at that time in this particular case could hardly be an explanation because horovod is somewhat very basic and danced by regular people not knowing about that superiority :)

No, nikodemos, pain was my speculation. Sten -- is a root of word "groan". Like in Greek.  

Originally posted by theMacedonian Macedonia is a historical continuty... from the first ancient king to Phillip II to Alexander III to Tzar Samoil to Goce Delcev, to all the revolutionaries to Cento...

Take a look at the sky my friend...
there , between the clouds you ll see them!

Yeah...They are...

Alexander,Samuil and Goce Delcev hughed...holding each other tight ,
looking down to their Nation !

()

    Ah, ya 'll gonna make me stay up late at night again. I hate when I "jump" on threads late but sometimes you gotta grab your balls and jump, as they say.
    Knowing that I'm facing experienced and well-informed chums, I dug up John  V. A.  Fine  Jr.'s  "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelth Century" so I will at least appear to know what I'm talking about.
In it Fine starts by stating that prior to the arrival of the Slavs three dinstict groups--based on archaeological and linguistic records--inhabited the peninsula: Illyrians (NW Greece, Albania, large  portion of present-day Yugoslavia),  Thracians  (Thrace, much of modern Bulgaria, eastern Macedonia),  and Dacians who dwelled in Moesia (roughly N. Bulgaria  and NE Yugoslavia) and Dacia (present-day Romania).

"Linguistically these three peoples were all IE and some scholars believe that the Thracians and the Dacians  untill  a millenium or so earlier had been one people. Various linguists disagree.  Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Romanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. Perhaps (keeping in mind frequent ethnic mixing as well as cultural and linguistic evolution) we should retain this view. However, from timeto time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons. For example, if the Illyrians were the ancestors of the Albanians, then the Albanians, as original inhabitants, have some historic right to that region [one mentioned above] and possibly rights to other regions which had been settled by Illyrians. And their Illyrian ancestry has been important in Albanian nation-building myths. In the same vein, if the Dacians were proto-Romanians then they were the original settlers and have historic rights to Romania, particularly in the mixed region of Transylvania against claims of late arriving (end of ninth century) Hungarians. Not surprisingly Hungarian scholars have been the leading critic of the claim that Dacians are Romanians and argue that Vlachs (or Romanians) arrived in the eleventh and twelth centuries when Vlachs first appear in written sources.
    Recently the Albania-Illyrian identification has come under more serious challenge from linguists. Before turning to the arguments, it should be pointed out that Dacian, Thracian, and Illyrian are not only dead languages but languages in which no texts have survived. Thus all that is known about these languages comes from personal and place names mentioned in classical texts or surviving place names (toponyms). V. Georgiev argues that Illyrian place names are found in a far smaller area than I have given above for Illyrian settlement.  Secondly, he argues that, though the Albanians now live  in what was Illyria,  they themselves come from part of  Moesia, from the Morava region  of eastern Serbia. This was ethnically a Dacian region and thus he argues for a Dacian ancestry for the Albanians. These conclusions, he believes, are shown by the following:[listing of 6 linguistic reasons ending with the assumption], Georgiev concludes that the Albanians came from what is now Romania (or the region of Yugoslavia close to modern Romania) and that their language developed during the 4th-6th c. when proto-Romanian was formed. Romanian he sees as a completely romanized Dacian-Moesian language whereas Albanian is a semi-romanized dacian-Moesian language.
     These are serious (nonchauvinistic) argumants and cannot be easily dismissed. Furthermore, during the 4th-6th c. the Romanian region was heavily affected by large-scale invasions of Goths and Slavs and the Morava valley (in Serbia) was a main invasion route and the site of the earliest slavic sites. Thus this would have been a region from which an indigenous population would naturally have fled."

The author goes on to state that the evidence is non-conclusive, that more evidence is needed and that we may simply never know the answer.
On Bulgarian origins:

"From the late 5th c.the Bulgars, a Turkic people, had been living in scattered tribes north of the B. Sea and the Sea of Azov and along the lower Don. They were in two major groups: Kutrigurs who had moved west of the B. sea in the 490s and Utigurs to their east. In the first half of the 6th c. both groups raided the Empire [E. Roman] from time to time, and Justinian was fairly effective at either buying them off with tribute or playing off one group against the other. In the second half of the 6th c. both of these groups were subjected by other nomads, the more westerly Kutirgurs by the Avars and the more easterly Utigurs by a group known as the West Turks. By the 630s the sources mention a group of Onogur Bulgars living in the region between the Caucasus and the Sea of Azov under a ruler named Kovrat. He had already established good relations  with the Empire. Two 9th c.historians, Theophanes and Nikephorous (probably from a common source, however), report that in 619 an Onugur Bulgar prince Organa (Orhan) and his nephew Kovrat had come to Constantinople, made a treaty with the empire, and accepted Christianity. After a lengthy visit in the capital, the two Onogurs returned to their people in the east.
    Soon Kovrat became the ruler of the Onogurs and in 635 he threw off Avar rule, drove the Avars from his lands, and once again concluded an alliance with the empire. He also succeeded in uniting all the eastern Bulgar groups who were living north of the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and the Caucasus. Kovrat died in roughly 642 leaving five sons. No sign of Christianity is seen among any of them. Each of the five sons, probably around 660, migrated to a different place with a following. Two of the five are important to us. First, an unnamed son with his supporters moved west and settled in Pannonia, accepting Avar suzerainty.  Second, another son, Isperikh (or Asparukh) moved into what is noe Bessarabia, and then in the 670s crossed the Danube into Bulgaria. He conquered the Slavic tribes there and eventually established a Bulgarian state. It was centered in the NE of present-day Bulgaria, stretching along both sides of the lower Danube, and extending south to the Balkan mountains. In passing, we may note that a third son established the Volga Bulgars who eventuallu accepted Islam and acquired an important role in that region."

Kostantinius, the theory of Georgiev about the moesian origins of the albanians of course is a serious argument (linguistical mostly). But if we supose that the moesians fled to escape the serbs and settled in todays albania, what did they find there? was this country empty? where did the population go? How could it be assimilated by an inferior culture (if we suppose that they were hellens or romans? If they were illyrians (which were known as strong warriors) dont you think that the moesians would find a hard time. And more, some scientists argue that the moesians were northern illyrians, or the link between the illyrians and daco-thracians. I find this thesis reasonable, of course illyrians from the north came into today albania, but they found here people of the same ethnic linguistic background.

An something more, the fact that the slavians and the hungarians arrived later in the balkans is not at all an argument to claim their lands. They have the right to live wherever they live, and to organise their national states. It would be stupid to say that I claim bosnian land because 15 centuries ago there were illyrians.