One of the problems with the Slavic toponyms in the Balkans is that the isogloss dividing the South Slavic language into two groups, the Bulgarian on the one side and Serbo-Croat, Slovenian on the other side, form this very odd shape, because the Western branch dents the Eastern. Dialects which are spoken in West Bulgaria (Belogradchik and Trn) and North Macedonia (Kumanovo, Tetovo, Skopska Crna Gora, Kriva Palanka, Kratovo and Ovce Pole) actually belong to the Western Branch, because they have typical West South Slavic characteristics like tj that became soft k and dj that became a soft g, as well as “u” change for the original Slav “ǫ” or “u” for the word “in”, instead of “v” which is used in Bulgarian, as well as “njega” instead of “nego” and “mi” instead of “nie”.
the dialects of Trъn, Belgoradchik and Breznica in Bulgaria (+ Knjazhevac, Pirot, Leskovac and Vranje) are regarded by the Bulgarian dialectology as transitional, i.e. exhibiting mixed features. You listed some of the Serbian ones,
here is the Bulgarian view.
On the other hand, archaic toponyms testify that East South Slavic dialects were spoken in South Kosovo and Metohija and as far as Pirot, where West South Slavic dialects are spoken now, which shows that Slavs speaking Western Dialects migrated into this region. The prominent Serbian Linguist Pavle Ivic explained this problem and the fact that the West/East isogloss forms an unexpected geographical shape, as a consequence of a long divide between the two branches of the South Slavic ethnos, who were separated by Vlachs and Albanians that lived in that area, for the first couple of centuries after the Slavs settled in the Balkans; professor Ivic goes on to say, that once the Vlachs migrated to Romania and elsewhere, and the Albanians to Albania, Slavs speaking Western dialects moved into this area, and thus this “dent” was formed.
what I have read from Bulgarian side (Gavriil Zanetov, Anastas Ishirkov) is that they regard the Morava valey being depopulated 200-300 years ago, after the Austro-Ottoman wars and local uprisings and migrations in the XVII-XVIII cc. The old inhabitants moved to the Austrian lands. So new people came to area later, from the west, south and east, and what the Bulgarian historiography claims as "Bulgarian" are the migrants who came from Macedonia and Western Bulgaria. But almost all villages were mixed, with people arriving from everywhere, so this way a new, mixed dialect was formed.
But West/East isogloss divide has no impact on National or Ethnic conciseness, because the speakers of the Western dialects both in Macedonia (at least the Egzarhists until 1945) and in West Bulgarian, as well as the South Slavs east of the Juzna Morava (which some use to call B’lgarska Morava) until they were integrated into the Serbian state during the second half of the 19th century, regarded themselves as B’lgari.
you are right, but this was the situation in pre-modern times. In the era of modern national states in the Balkans what you get is that almost all Orthodox Christians in: Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece started identifying as: Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks, regardless of their ethnic affiliations and history.
One also has to keep in mind that the Early Serb principality bordered Bulgaria in the 9th century near the town of Ras, close to today’s Novi Pazar, West South Slavic dialects were already spoken by the Slavic tribes on the Bulgarian/Eastern side of that border;
how do you know that, are there real data? Didn't tsar Simeon resettle the Serb people
within the borders of Bulgaria according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus?
as the early Serb state expanded towards the East, into the region of Ras, Ibar and Toplica, as well as Lepenica (todays Sumadija), and Kosovo, during the 11th and 12th century, the local South Slav population stopped calling themselves B’lgari, a name which was imposed on them by the Slavicised Turk-Bulgars during the 10th century, with the name Srb.
I don't think the process worked like that in medieval times. Provided they were Christian, the local population, Slav or not, would identify themselves as 1. Christians first, and 2. as subjects to a certain state/kingdom, and 3. as belonging to a certain tribe. If the people of Ras, Ibar, Toplica, Lepenica in X-XI c. identified as Bulgarians/Serbians/Martians, whatever... (are there any data really?) it would have been not because of some Slavicised Bulgars/Slavicised Serbs/Croats, etc. of time bygone, but because there were Christianised/were members of a certain church.
On the other hand this process was never achieved in other South Slavic regions that the Medieval Serb state controlled, like Macedonia and the region east of the Juzna Morava, where the local South Slavic population continued to use the Bulgarian ethnonym, regardless of the dialect which they spoke, Western or Eastern.
The penetration of the Serb state to the south/Macedonia in the XIII-XIV cc. would never lead to changing the identity of the local population as these lands had old, established church structures. The identity of the "original" Bulgars from a millennium or half a millennium ago was not important whatsoever.
Despite this, Bulgarian historians hold that the Eastern South Slavs in symbiosis with the Proto-Bulgars became Bulgarians, although this is false, because both branches of the South Slavs under Bulgar rule became the Superstratum of the Bulgarian ethnos.
? at some point medieval Bulgaria extended to the Adriatic (somewhere to the north of Drach), but nobody claims that the Slavs there became Bulgarians. The standard view of the Bulgarian historiography is:
- that the "Eastern South Slavic" initially occupied large areas - Dacia, Moesia, Thracia, Macedonia and further to the south in Greece,
- but in many of these areas the Slavs were Romanised/Hellenised. Add Albanised if you like.
- So only these areas that were long enough under Bulgarian rule/Bulgarian church were the areas where the Bulgarian ethnos developed.
Bulgarian historians tend to propagate an ancient ethnic division between the Serbs and the Bulgarian Slavs, on the basis of this isogloss, but at the same time they don’t take into account that fact that the Eastern South Slavs were more closer to their Western South Slavs kin, in language, origin, race, beliefs and culture, then they were to the Turkic non-Indo-European Bulgars.
It would be better to leave the old Bulgars alone. They may have been Indo-European or not, doesn't matter. We know very little about them and even less about the old Serbs or Croats, so it is better not speculate.
how were the migrating Vlachs, who settled the territories of today’s Romania between most probably 11th and 13th century, able to assimilate a compact Bulgarian-Slav population in such a short period of time?
First, Magyars, Uzes, Pechenegs devastated Wallachia much more than the areas to the south of Danube. Then the Cumans came to rule in Wallachia in the XIII c. Plus, the anti-Orhodox policies of Hungary in the XIV c. led to a migration of Vlahs from Zagore/Transylvania. It was a gradual process and Slavic was still in use till XIV-XV cc. in the court.
