From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 06 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <36bcbb6a.86280875@news.yale.edu> References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$qi0$1@whisper.globalserve.net> <369F52FE.2B6@sbu.ac.uk> <77rc86$auj$1@brokaw.wa.com> <36A444B3.F3B70F1C@alum.mit.edu.-> <7827sb$269$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A52D70.9E372DD2@alum.mit.edu.-> <36A556AB.9927BD29@montclair.edu> <36a63533.58309714@news.yale.edu> <7866ud$i9m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36cdb21e.883120019@news.wxs.nl> <36A7FCC8.79790A6B@earthlink.net> <36d77e23.1000882888@news.wxs.nl> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu> <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36bb9684.197081548@news.yale.edu> <79hqua$2a2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On 6 Feb 1999 16:34:18 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote: >In article <36bb9684.197081548@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says... >>On 5 Feb 1999 21:36:41 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote: > >... >>>Ok, an altaic or uralic or even tungus component among the danube bulgars >>>should not be denied, Mr. cluster_user also doesn't mind an iranian >>>component on volga. The 'contested ground' as I see it is whether the, >>>let's say, still hypothetical 'original' bulgars were eastern iranian >>>or turkic. Here it should be noted that the stress on their 'turkicness' >>>misinterpreted completely the material and other records left by them >>>on the balkans and, in fact, the whole early bulgarian history. For >>>example, several pre-christian buildings-sanctuaries, resembling >>>zoroastrian temples of fire had been excavated in bulgar fortresses >>>(near the Throne palace in the capital Pliska, in Preslav and Madara, >>>also in Humarin in Karachaevo-Cherkessia). They were labelled 'strange' >>>and remained unexplained, out of context, as the 'turkic' bulgars were >> >>I have a feeling that you are being a little unfair as you are dealing >>with a relatively obscure field of both turkic and iranian studies. >>unless specifically interested (as a specialist) in the bulgarians >>neither a turkic nor an iranian scholar would attach much importance >>to these. > > >I don't follow you. You are not attaching much importance to the material I didn't say they were unimportant, but in the field of turkic or iranian studies, they might be consdiered peripheral. >and other evidence from the much earlier and much better documented balkan/ >southern european region (byzantine and latin texts, epigraphical,toponymical, so as you see there is nothing to disagree about. I was talking from the viewpoint of the psychology of scholars. >etc. evidence, much better knowledge of the earlier roman, hellenistic, >etc. history and peoples), and prefer to base your argumentation on the >much later and obscure evidence from volga instead!? What can I say? the evidence from the volga is not obscure, but as I said the compostion of that horde might be different. > > >>>not 'supposed' to do such things... >> >>I would still have some doubts that these were alanic - at least in >>the sense of being brought from central asia. they very well could >>reflect middle persian influence in the kuban region. after all, >>azerbaiyjan is known for its fire tempels and I heard that it even got >>its name from them. > > >So, you would regard them are not being characteristic to the bulgars and I didn't say so! it just might be acquired while in the kuban region, perhaps with persian influence and not brought from central asia whether they were turkic or central asian iranic. >would attribute them to some other culture instead? And, at the end, we >will have some "crypto"-turkic bulgars who have hidden their "true" turkic >identity and have prefered to appear under the disguise of non-turkic >names, non-turkic language and cardinal numbers, non-turkic culture and as I said, this is not the issue I was talking about and I am just waiting for a review of dobryev's work to say one way or the other about it. >customs. Who must have even abandoned their true turkic style of writing >from right to left and must have switched to solar from the turkic lunar >calendar they should have, but who remained in essence turkic? Is it? I'll check some of the issues you have raised here. BTW who said that the turkic calender was lunar? the only thing I know about it is that the few month names listed by ka*sh*gari suggest a solar or luni-solar calender. >Then one may ask what does the very word "turkic" mean here. It sounds in this context -r turkic. >like some uncurable, unwashable infection, genetic trait or who knows >what... > I am not interested as to what constitutes being bulgar or turkic or iranic. I am mostly using them as linguistic categories so some of the things you mentioned are not that crucial. there is a group of people and it is interesting to sort out the various linguistic elements among them, as well as the various cultural. you are raising a needless polemic. > >>>Similar was the story with the rock relief from Madara (NE B-ia), the so >>>called Madara horseman. At first, it was pronounced to be a persian work >>>done in the 5th c. BC during the Darius campaign against the scythians, >>>or a work of the thracians who adopted the iconography from these >>>persians. The presence of 8th c. AD inscriptions of bulgar khans around >>>the horseman was attributed to their fascination by the 'persian' relief. >>>The khans supposedly fancied it so much that they even built the whole >>>religious complex of Madara (the same zoroastrian-type temples, cloisters >>>in caves, etc.) around the relief!? But it was more difficult to suppose >> >>again, if there is great similariy to persian works, the prudent >>approach is to ascribe it to their influence, as nomadic people, >>whether iranian or turkic are unliekly to have such a strong >>tradition. > > >And now it is me who has a feeling that you are being a little unfair >because the prudent approach you advocate contradicts to the documentary >evidence: > > "... Beyond the [Capsian] gates (i.e. Derbend) live the Burgars > (Bulgars), who have their language, and are people pagan and barbarian. > They have towns. And the Alans - they have five towns. ... Avnagur > (Aunagur) are people, who live in tents. Avgar, sabir, burgar, alan, > kurtargar, avar, hasar, dirmar, sirurgur, bagrasir, kulas, abdel and > hephtalit are thirteen peoples, who live in tents, earn their living > on the meat of livestock and fish, on wild animals and plunder." > ('Church history' of Zachariah Ritor, mid-VI c.AD) > >Here the bulgars of Dagestan are described as people living in towns as well >as having a nomadic component > but the central asian iranians were nomadic, at least originally described as being so. >------------------------ > > " ... [during the rule of the Armenian king Arshak] great disturbances > occurred in the gorges of the great mountain of Caucasus, in the 'Land > of the Bulgars'. Many of them parted and settled for a long time in the > foot of Kol, on a fertile soil, in abundant and grain producing areas." > ('History of Armenia' of M. Horenaci, record of events from IV or I c. AD) > > >These bulgars who came from mountain gorges and settled in feritle, grain >producing areas couldn't be nomads. This is also supported by the second >account of Jovannes Draskhanakertaci about the same migration to Armenia: > > " ... during the rule of Arshak some of the Jews living in the Land of the > Bulgars, which was situated in the gorges of Caucasus, separated and > settled at the foot of Kol. Two of them were subjected to tortures because > they refused to worship idols and were slain." > > >The additional point here is that Jews do not live among nomadic tribes. > >And the reference to the pre-christian times in Armenia ('worshiping of idols') >tends to exclude the IVth c. kings Arshak II and Arshak III from consideration >and makes the Ith c. a more plausible date for the migration. > > perhaps it is true. one word of caution: later accounts sometimes attribute names to the past based upon their current situation. for example, many arab historians use the word "turk" to describe people known to have been iranic or persian speaking in the period they were writing about. in sources actually dating to the events in question the ethno-linguistric situation becomes clearerr > >Regards, >Vassil K. >