The Spread of the Slaves.- Part IV. The Bulgarians Author(s): H. H. Howorth Source: The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 11 (1882), pp. 219-267 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2841751 . Accessed: 16/06/2014 04:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheSpr7ead of theSlaves. 219 This table also brings to light some points of difference betweenthe two groups in the index of height,in the orbital index,and especiallyin the nasal index. In referenceto the last feature,however, it may be remarkedthat thereis a con- siderablerange of variationwithin the series of Chinese skulls, and while the tendencyundoubtedly is towards the narrow formof nose,and thereare some which agree closelywith our skull A, both in the nasal index and in the prominenceof the nasal bones,there are, among the eighteen,four which are to a greateror less extent platyrhine; and of these,one, No. 691 may be particularlymentioned, since it has a nasal index of 58 7, thus equalling our little groupof B, D, and E (the skull shows altogethera great resemblanceto D and E), and this is associatedwith an extreimelylow orbitalindex, viz., 75. Thus a platyrhineform of skull with a microsemeorbital index is not unknown,at least in individual cases, in an undoubtedlyMongolian family,but the question whetherthis is the prevailingcondition amongst the inhabitantsof the Naga Hills mustremain to be settledby furtherobservations. The measuirementsin the appendedtable have been made in the mannerrecommended by ProfessorFlower, to whose kind assistanceI am mainlyindebted for the opportunityof making this communication. A full explanation of the terms and methodsemployed, in so far as they differfrom the French " Instructions,"is containedin ProfessorFlower's memoir already cited,"On the CranialCharacters of the Natives of the Fiji Islands." THE SPREAD of the SLAVES.-PART IV. THE BULGARIANS. BY H. H. HOWORTH,Esq., F.S.A.. M.A.I. THE termBulgaria has a twofoldconnotation which it is very necessarythat we shouldkeep constantlyin view. There is a politicalBulgaria, and an ethnographicalBulgaria. These twoare essentiallydifferent in boundariesand otherwise. The former includes all the countrywhich was subject to the Bulgarian Crownin the days of its greatestprosperity, the latter includes the area peopled by Bulgarians properlyso called. The boundaries which separate them are not always easy to fix, forwe mustremember that, although the Bulgarians are a mixed race of Slaves and Turco-Ugrians,yet that in their language and othermore readilydiscriminated characteristics they have This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 220 H. H. HOWORTH.-The Spreadof the Slaves. retained but few traces of the latter elementin their com- position,which has been absorbed by their formerone. So thatsuperficially the Slaves of Macedonia or Rumelia and the Bulgarians of Bulgaria proper northof the Balkans are now very nearly related indeed. So nearly related, that if the question of nationalityis to governthe solution of political problems,it seems pedantic to separate them when we are treatingthe problem,not as one of ethnology,but as one of politics. This, however,is complicatedby anotherdifficulty. It is comparativelyeasy to draw a line which shall separate the Slaves of Macedonia and Thrace from the litoral population which,whatever its mixedorigin, is chieflyGreek or Turkishin language. It is similarlynot difficultto definethe correspond- ing boundarybetween the MacedonianSlaves and theAlbanians. Northof the Balkans, the problemis a more difficultone. If we accept the position, that whatever was subject to the Bulgarian Crown in the days of the Tzar Sirneon,is to be included withinthe limits of Bulgaria,we must detach from Servia a very considerablearea, and carry our boundary at least as farwest as the Ibar and the Morava,and not merelyto the Timokas is generallysupposed. But lettingthis pass as one of the difficultieswhich prevent the recreationof the Bulgaria of Michael Boris and of Simeon in its integrity,and whichhas to be solved by a compromiseinvolving a sacrificeon the part of Bulgaria, it will not be unprofitableto try and definethe limits of thispolitical Bulgariatowards the west and south. Acceptingthe test of language,and the postulatethat prettynearly all Slaves southof the Balkans were (as I believe they were) subject to the Tzar Simeon,we may accept the boundaryline as fixedby the treatyof Saint Stephanoas giving a veryfair representation of the facts. This line no doubterrs on the side of includingtoo little,for there can be verylittle doubt that, as we shall show in the next paper, even in Thessaly in the centuriespreceding the 12th, there was a largeeleiment of Slavic origin,which has been absorbedby the more civilised Greeks. This boundary,however, represents very fairly the limitsof what we may style Political Bulgaria. It has been admirablydrawn in map Ila ofPetermann's " Mittheilungen" for 1878. By Article 6 of the treatyof St. Stepharno,the bouii- daries of the proposedBulgaria, commencingwith the north- eastern cornerof the rectifiedfrontier of Servia followedthe eastern boundaryof the Kaza Wrania districtas far as the rangeof Karatagh,then bending south-westwards, ran along the eastern boundaryof the Kazas of Kumanovo, Kotshani,and Kalkandelen as far as the mountainKorab, and thence along This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarians. 221 the riverWeleshchitza until its junctionwith the Black Drin. Then turning southwardsfollowing the Drin, and along, the westernverge of the Kaza Okhrid towardsMount Linas, then followingthe western limits of the Kazas of Gortchaand Starovo, as faras the mountainGrammos. Thence it passed by the Lake of Kastoria. The frontierthen joined the river Moglenitza, and followingits course south of Yanitsa to its outfall into the IEgean, past the mouth of the river Wardar to Galliko,past the villagesof Parga and Saraikoi. Thence throughthe centre of the lake Beshikgol,and on again to the sea, thus cuttingoff the peninsulaof Salonica,then along the coast past the mouths of the Strumaand the Karasu as faras Burugol. Then turning to the north-westto the mountainChaltepe, crossing the range of Rhodopeto the mountainKrushovo, past the Kara Balkan, the peaks Eshek-Kulatshi,Chepeliu, Karakolas, and Ishiklarto the river Arta. Thence past the town of Chirmen,leaving Adrianople on the south,past the villages of Sugutliu,Kara- hamza,Arnautkoi, Akardshhi and Yenidshe to the river Teke- deressi,following the courseof the Tekederessiand the Chorlu- deressias faras Luleburgasand thencepast the riverSudshak- dere to the village of Sergen,whence the line went in a straight line to Hakim-tabiassiwhere it reachedthe Euxine. Such was the boundaryof Bulgariatowards Turkey, as fixed by the treatyof St. Stephano. East and northof this limit, with the exceptionof some sporadic colonies of Ylakhs and gipseys, and of a certain partial elemenltof Turkish and Circassian blood, the populationis tolerablyhomogeneous in language,religion, and manners. I say tolerablyhomogeneous, meaningsufficiently so to satisfypolitical exigencies. Ethnologically the population here referredto is not so homogeneous. As is well known,European Turkeywas during the sixth centuryoverrun by various Slavic tribeswho settled therein great numbers,and extendedtheir colonisation, in fact, as faras the Morea. This migrationof Slaves will occupyus in the next paper of this series. Sufficeit to say herethat its result was that Mcesia and Thrace became virtually Slave countries,as theyso largelyare still. This earliermigration, as I shall show in the nextpaper, took place chieflyunder the leadershipof Huns and Avars. It was when Mcesia was in this way settled by Slaves, and while the empire (especially its possessions on the Adriatic),was being devastated by the Avars that the EmperorHeraclius inviteda bodyof Slaves led by Bulgarians,who wverecalled Khrobati(vidle infra.),to attackthe latter,and allowedthem to settlein Croatia. Shortlyafter, the Sabiri,another Hunnic race closelyallied to the Bulgars,also settled southof the D)anubeunlder the auspices of This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 222 H. H. HOwoRTH.-The Spread of theSlaves. the Emperor,and as I believe secured all the countrysouth- east of the Croats, and as far as the Euxine, so that the districtsnorth of the Balkans became virtuallydivided between