From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 11 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <79vl9f$dub@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$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$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <79skrj$u81@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> 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 <79skrj$u81@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk says... ... >>I'll check it. menges in 1951 says that boodberg will be tackling the >>problem of the nominalia, do you know if he published and where? > > >No, I don't know. There is one recent bulgarian study of the nominalia done >by Mosko Moskov (M. Moskov, Imennik na bylgarskite hanove, Sofia, 1988) who >worked along the turkic hypothesis. According to him the original text of >the nominalia must have been written in greek and the present (slavic) text >we have is a rather clumsy translation from greek. So he, first, reconstructed >the 'original' greek text, and after that translated it back, as he claims, >correctly! a final note about the nominalia. - Before Asparuh, who crossed the Danube in 680 AD and settled in present Bulgaria, it lists the names of five rulers: Avitohol, Irnik, Gostun, Kurt, and Bezmer. The standard approach was to equate Avitohol to Atilla, and Irnik - to his son Ernah, and that was used to support the "Hunnic" origin of the bulgars. But in contrast to the following after them rulers, Avitohol and Irnik are attributed unusually long reigns - 300 and 150 years respectively, from ~150 to ~450 AD, and from ~450 to ~600 AD, and they appear more like progenitors. Also, the next notable ruler in the list - Kurt/Kubrat, is known to have thrown off the west turcute domination (at the end of the VI c.) and to have restored the "old Great Bulgaria" as it appears in the byzantine sources. And they put it near the Kuban river which is far away from the perimeter of action of Atilla and, especially, of Ernah: " ... and along the eastern coast of that lake (the Sea of Azov), around Phanagoria and the jews dwelling there, live many peoples. From the same lake up to the Kuphis (Kuban) river, where the bulgarian fish xiston is fished for, is situated the old Great Bulgaria and the so called Kotrags, who are also of the same tribe." (Theophanes the Confessor) " We must say something about the origin of the so called Huns and Bulgars and about their way of life. Around the lake of Meothida, along the Kuphis river, is situated the old Great Bulgaria and the so called Kotrags, who are of the same tribe" (Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople) Peter Dobrev (as well as earlier researchers) have proposed iranian etymologies for the name of Avitohol: from the wakhan awu, awi 'doe', the ishkashimi ahvi, ahui 'doe', the farsi kabuli afi, ahu 'the same'; and the wakhan tohol, tofl 'child, descendant', etc. Thas is, Avitohol corresponds to the persian name of Avituh, meaning 'doe's child'. This interpretation is supported by one XIV c. lithuanian chronicle, which narrates the miraculous ways in which the progenitors of various peoples had been saved: " Romulus and Remus were nurtured by a she-wolf. Astiag, the king of the medians, said to Gasparg, his secretary, to kill Cyrus so that he wouldn't reign after him, but Gasparg took pity on him. ... _Also, the son moesian, or bulgarian, was nurtured by a doe, after he was thrown in the woods to die._ Paris, the son of Priam, was nurtured by a bear..." Thus, Avitohol with his 300 years in the nominalia was not a historical personage but the progenitor of the bulgars. The next ruler after him - Irnik, was equated to Ernah, the son of Atilla, who moved with his tribe south of the Danube and settled in Scythia Minor (northern Dobrudzha) as byzantine federates. First, Irnik is an iranian name and corresponds to the persian name Yernik. Next, the nominalia explicitly states that the first five bulgar rulers prior to Asparuh lived _north_ of the Danube: "... These 5 princes reigned on the other side of the Danube for 515 years with shaven heads. And after that came to this side of the Danube prince Isperih, and the same is up to now." (" Sii 5 k'nenz dryzhashe knenzhenie ob onu stranou Dunaja 515 let ostrizhenniimi glavami. I potom pride na stranou Dounaja Isperih k'nenz tozhde i dosele.") On the other hand, there is the account of the armenian historian Egishe that around 427 AD a certain Eran, ruler of the hajlandurs (most certainly - the onogundurs-bulgars) was at the head of a hostile to the persians union of peoples who ravaged the persian territories up to the byzantine border. This Eran must have been famous enough in order to exert his authority and to unite the tribes and it looks plausible that the nominalia would use him in order to describe the next period of 150 years. There could be, of course, some later overlaping and interaction with the memory of the hunnic Ernah as Scythia Minor was also the first Asparuh's territory to south of the Danube. Regards, Vassil K.