From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <79n24d$58g@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$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> <36bcbb6a.86280875@news.yale.edu> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang In article <36bcbb6a.86280875@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu, says... >On 6 Feb 1999 16:34:18 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote: ... >>>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. or it might have been brought by the bulgars themselves from central asia. There is enough evidence to support this assertion. Nobody would mind a connection with caucasian albania (azerbaijan) and its fire temples but we have also sources speaking about one vassal to the hephtalites principality of Bulgar, which minted its own coins. It was probably situated along the middle course of Zeravshan as this information is supported by later arab accounts as well as, eventually, by earlier chinese and indian sources. If we are to cite again M. Lang, he also refers to one western researcher (sorry, don't have the book at hand) according to whom the architecture of these pagan sanctuaries in Pliska, etc. was reminiscent of that of the Kushan works. >>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. I have already seen Dobrev's results being utilised in chuvash and tatar publications. As for a general review of his work, I guess, we should wait for the works of some iranologists, outsiders to the bulgar thematic as the latter was regarded until recently as belonging to the domain of the turkic studies. >>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. As far as I know the turkic cyclic calendars were lunar and required the insertion of an additional thirteenth month every three years. Thus the positions of the months were not fixed and they could even change their places (?). ... >>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. yes, but the Dobrev's thesis is that the bulgars were formed as people somewhere in present tadjikistan and/or northern afghanistan and, most certainly, there was a mixing of nomadic and sedentary components. >>------------------------ >> " ... [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. yes, it is a nuisance and a far more detailed review of the problems around the migration to armenia is given at http://members.xoom.com/alexvolk/stam/armen.html The presence of a settled component in the caucasus and elsewhere is, however, supported also by persian ("Hudud al-alam"), armenian ("Ashharacuic") and other sources. Regards, Vassil K. 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 the same with the bulgarians on the balkans. The byzantines called them "scythians", "moesians", etc. even after it was clear they were a slavic people already.