From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 24 Mar 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <36f85cea.1078314464@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> <36f597c8.18429910@news.yale.edu> <7d546l$1ev@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On 20 Mar 1999 11:40:14 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote: (I have onbtained some new information on these calendars, see the older issues of "britannica" - before micro/macro division, under calendar, chronology,and in very old issues "hindi chronology". see also encyclopedia iranica "calendar", howver, certain points will still have to clear up). >In article <36f29d1f.612930277@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says... > >... >>>fine, but this is not the bulghar calender, which is determined >>>from recursion to have a twelve year cycle. neither is there a >>>claim for dependence on jupiter. >> >>OK. sorry. jupiter has approximatly a twleve year period, and >>apparently the twelve year cycle was based on that. > > >11.86 years exactly. > >>this leads me to my next comment. > >... >>>>Next, Dobrev analyses some composite names of elamite kings (the transcription >>>>probably will differ from the english one): >> >>these are about two millenia before the saka calender, based on the >>apparent position of jupiter. now since the apparent position of the >>sun shifts with precession (a motion of the earth), > > >yes, like the fact that starting point in the calendar of Ur was Sun in Taurus, >where the vernal equinox was some four thousand years ago. > >I assume that the >>apparent poistion of jupiter does too. now it would indeed be >>unreasonable to expect their calenders to be following the apparent >>position of jupiter two millenia *later*. the chinese calender still >>continues because people have forgotten about it, just as contemporary >>(Ican't call it "modern") horoscopes depend on the apparent position >>of the sun in babylonian times (such things like the "age of aquarius" >>refer to the precession phenomenon). > > >The saka's cyclic calculations were also based on the year governed by Aquarius. apparently the new year starts when the sun enters pisces. thus the calender is siderial (i.e. dependant on the zodiac). one has to take into account precession as well as the orbital motion of the earth. this is the chinese calendar as well and apparently the chinese were celebrating the new year based upon the sun's entry into pisces since 260 BCE (this does not seem to be the current practice of "chinese new year, vietnamese "tet" etc., I'll have tyo clear up this point). I assume that this was based upon the fact that the vernal equinox, the beginning of spring was in pisces at the time, as it still is. I am however partially taking back my comment about precession. this calender would not be affected by precession, but the luni-solar calendars of the near-east would. >[The starting year of the bulgar calendar was also probably was that of somor >(mouse), as the turkic s@chkan and the chinese shu were, and they correspond to the starting year of chinese calendars (at least civil ones) was simply the year corresponding to the beginning of the emperor's reign. the animal cycle provided continuity. this may be the bulghar calendar as well, based upon the way the nominalia is worded. >Aquarius too.] Dobrev further remarks that the year somor occurred when Jupiter >was in Aquarius, but you touched a problem I was reluctant to go into. > >The saka era started in March 78 AD (Aries) but Al-Biruni's formula [1] makes by this time the vernal equinox was in pisces. march is said to be "aries" as a leftover from classical astrology, based on earlier times. the saka era was based on the sun's entry into pisces and this heralded the beginning of spring at the tiem it was formulated. >it clear that one should go 2.2 years back to January (sun in Aquarius!) 76 AD >(Jupiter in Aquarius!) (76 AD was also the year of the mouse) and from there - >start calculating which constellation would govern in a given year. Today the the reason for the start of the cycle in this year, in my opinion, is that jupiter and the sun were in conjunction. the reason for 78 AD seems to be political. >winter solstice is in the beginning of Sagittarius, but it was in Aquarius >between 2500 BC and 300 BC (the precession phenomenon you mentioned). > solictice calenders are not typical for iranians. at the time of biruni all were using either spring (persian) or autumnal (east iranian) equinox calenders. only mithraism made a major festival around the winter solictice (dec. 25 - the birth of the sun / mithra, later christmas!), but this was during the roman period. I think jupiter in aquarius was chosen because that's where a conjunction with the sun occured around the time of the formulation of the calendar. >Furthermore, as the Jupiter's period isn't exactly 12 years, there is one >Jupiterian cycle of 988 years during which Jupiter passes through all 12 >constellations. The periods in which Jupiter's real motion coincided with its >ideal calendar position were: between 636-660 BC, 1624-1648 BC, 2612-2636 BC. if this were so, it would be a strange coincidence that jupiter's position occurs in step just when we get a record of the calender. >And in the chinese variant of the saka calendar the year of 2637 BC was taken >as the starting point of the cyclic chronology (it was connected with the legendary >emperor Cin Shi-Huandi). As you see, the calendar could well have been around >since the time of the assyrians and elamites. [Although in 2637 BC the winter >solstice was already not in Aquarius but in Pisces (the year of the wild boar), wasn't it already off aquarius around 76 CE? >and Dobrev further speculates there was probably an earlier variant of the >cyclic calendar starting in Pisces and not in Aquarius (and that is how in the >bulg. folk tradition the New year is celebrated by the slaughter of swines)]. > > >Your earlier question whether Jupiter had any place in the bulgar cyclic calendar - >there is this runic inscription which Dobrev reads as: "The moving heavenly bodies >are seven. Their ruler is the Sun as well as Jupiter - the master of the time." >Furthermore, the first day in the bulgarian folk year is called Eninak, Ininak >(God's day, day of the heaven?), and the folk name of Jupiter is Enkul, Jankul >(ruler of the heaven?, there are words such as AN (heaven) in the bulgar inscriptions). > > >===== >[1]: "Take the year according to the saka era "shaka-kala" (i.e. determine how >many years passed since to coming of the sakas to India - March 78 AD). To this >add the quotient of the ratio 8189/3750 (=2.2 years) (i.e. go 2.2 years back). >Multiply by 9 and delete by 4, and delete by 27. The quotient of these divisions >will give you the constellation Jupiter will be at sunrise, if you start counting >from the constellation Dhahishta." > > > >Regards, >Vassil K. >