This article attempts at identifying the enigmatic Seawordik’ people in mediaeval Armenian history. The ethnonym which first occurs in Patriarch John’s Chronicle in the 10th century, will be analysed from the viewpoint of the history of nomadic peoples. The investigation of the Seawordik’ people in the Armenian sources naturally leads to the well-known problem of the Sabartoi Asphaloi occurring in Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s works, De Administrando Imperio and De Cerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae. I try to prove that the Armenian name Seawordik’ can plausibly be related to the names Sabartoi Asphaloi and Serbotioi (another ethnonym in Constantine’s works). Considering the large number of the sources, and the intricate questions involved, a relatively brief article like ours cannot give solutions to all problems raised by the Armenian sources concerning the history of early Hungarians. Rather, it must be regarded as a first step in a new attempt to reevaluate the evidence of the Armenian sources and their bearings for early Hungarian history.
The interwar period was crucial for the development of Polish–Ukrainian relations in the following decades. Political commentaries, studies in linguistics, social sciences, and legislative acts from this period reflect the changes of Polish attitudes towards the Ukrainian minority. In the late 1920s and 1930s, the traditional and exonymic terminology Rusin and ruski was gradually replaced by the new forms Ukrainiec and ukraiński.
This paper attempts to give new explanation for the ethnonyms bẄklI and čẄlgl (or čẄlgIl) occurring in the Türk inscriptions of Kül Tegin and Bilgä Kagan. After a thorough survey of former research the author comes to the conclusion that the two names must be treated separately, both indicating a separate country. Bökli or Bökküli (bẄklI), as was correctly supposed formerly, is undoubtedly identical with Goguryeo, a Korean state of the period. čẄlgl (or čẄlgIl) must be read as Čülüg el which may be a Turkic name for the Chinese state of Northern Zhou of Tuoba origin. On the other hand, a third ethnonym of the inscriptions, Tabgač, refers to the Northern Qi state of Tuoba origin. So it is certainly inaccurate to translate Tabgač, in a simpflified manner, as ‘China’ or ‘the Chinese’ as most researchers have done until now. Čülüg el and Tabgač were two separate Chinese states of the period.
The author suggests new etymologies for two well-known Old Russian proper names. The god name of Simarĭglŭ/Semarĭglŭ is loaned from East Iranic (Scytho-Sarmatian) of the Alanic Caucasian period and corresponds to Ossetic xī/xe ‘oneself’ and maræg ‘murderer; killing’, xemaræg ‘suicide (person)’ and the Russian participle suffix -l-. The motive of god’s suicide is extended in mythology, including the Nart epic. The ethnonym Khinova mentioned in “The Tale of Igor’s campaign“ is of Baltic origin and comes from IE *skū-n- ‘asylum, shelter; shield, etc.’ and the suffix -ava/-uva, very frequent in the Baltic ethnonymics.
devotes a special study to the ethnonym Chuvash (pp. 8–10). The Old Turkic yuγač ‘from the opposite bank’ has three variants in Volga Bulgar dialects: in the form of śuwaś , it was copied by the Cheremis and preserved as suas meaning ‘Tatar’, as
The first part of this essay deals with the difficulties created by the rarity of indigenous, written sources and the multiplicity of languages used in external sources. The ethnonyms and administrative terms these contain cannot be relied upon to determine the language spoken by a given people. Archaeological data are seldom convertible into historical terms. The second part examines the characteristic features of Central Eurasia as a historical entity. Emphasis is given to pastoral nomadism and its application to warfare. The third part deals with the question of long-distance, quasi transcontinental migrations, a much abused, unjustified cliché.
an interpretation of the plethora of ethnonyms preserved in historical accounts (pp. 189–205) by distinguishing umbrella terms, ethnic and political identities, as well as self-designations and outside identifications. Late Antiquity witnessed the
The historical work of Miklós Oláh, the Hungarian humanist, was first published in Latin in Basel in 1568. In 1574 it was already translated into Polish by Cyprian Bazylik and published in Cracow. The only existing copy of this edition is a defective one with 4 pages missing at the beginning and 4 at the end of the book. Fortunately, in 1580 an Old-Belorussian manuscript translation was made which closely follows the Polish text. In our study we reconstruct the missing parts of Cyprian Bazylik's Polish translation by using the original Latin and Old-Belorussian texts. The importance of this reconstruction for the reception of the work in Poland is that Cyprian Bazylik translated the ethnonym Hunni (Huns), used in the Latin original, with the Polish word Wegrowie (Hungarians) and in this way in the Polish text “Attila the King of the Huns” is transferred to “the King of the Hungarians”.
-Sprachen: SEC 1: 91-115. STACHOWSKI M. &W druku w SEC] - Das Ethnonym Zigeuner sein slawisch-türkischer Hintergrund
BALOGH J. / BANCZEROWSKI J. / POSGAY I. 2000 - We_gierskie elementy leksykalne w je_zykach re-gionu karpackiego (w