From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 28 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <36b0d1b1.748416@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> <36AC3460.856801F6@earthlink.net> <36ae814d.4306061@news.yale.edu> <78pov2$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On 28 Jan 1999 13:33:22 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote: >In article <36ae814d.4306061@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says... >>On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:07:44 -0800, Robert >>>inscriptions? There have, however, also been other Arab sources who >>>claimed that the Bulgars spoke a language all their own unrelated to >>>that of their neighbors. I'd go through the trouble of looking it up and >>>citing it, but I'm guessing you're probably more knowledgable of this >>>than myself (I don't know what your backround is, but I'm just a >>>hobbyist). Ibn-Fadlan(sp.?) himself mentions and describes a variety of >>>Turkic tribes by name on his way to Volga Bulgaria, but when he arrives >>>there, he only speaks of the saqaliba. Why the dichotomy? How sure are >> >>saqa:liba means the slavs, but it was used for other people amongst >>them as well. > > >The terms 'saqaliba' and 'bulgar' are used interchangably by Ibn-Fadlan >when (and only when) referring to Volga Bulgaria - the king is called >either 'king of the bulgars' or 'king of the saqaliba' . > >ibn fadlan's rendition is not that surprising, as it >>was a multi-ethnic region. fadlan simply wasn't a philologist of >>turkic languages, as bolgaric is divergent. > > >Ibn-Fadlan was well aware of the Turkicness of the tribes he met on his route, >his frequent usage of words such as 'Turk' and 'Turkic' when describing the >Oghus, the Pechenegs and the Bashkirs is even annoying - why "annoying"? > > ... we entered the lands of the tribe of the Turks, known under the name >Al-Ghuzia [i.e. the Oghuses]' > ' ...these [the Bashkirs'] are the worst/most fierce among the Turks and the >most dirty/dishonest ones.' > >In the Eniclopedia of Nadzhib Hamadani which draws heavily from Ibn Fadlan, the >Pechenegs are described as: >' This is a Turkic people. They are pagans and posses many sheep. The show is > permanent in their lands. It is said, that the messenger of al-Multafir-bi- > llaha [i.e. Ibn Fadlan] saw there sheep, who cleared the snow with their legs > and searched for fry leaves and ate the show,...' > >On leaving Bashkiria and entering Volga Bulgaria Ibn Fadlan stops mentioning >any Turks. He speaks only about 'bulgars' and 'saqaliba', and to him these terms >indeed seem to be interchangable, equivalent (?). > because those in the east are -z turkic, and also the ones that had participated in the confederation of the "turk," and were going under that name when arabs had first entered central asia. -z turkic, or common turkic, was at the time was differentiated from -r turkic, whereas the rest were relatively similar to each other. however, it seems that authors more familiar with old (-z) turkic or speaking it as their native language caught on to the relationship. >>>we that the inscriptions don't belong to the ancestors of the turkic >>>chuvash as a tribe apart from the Bulgars? When the Bulgars arrived on >>>the Volga, there were finnic and turkic people already there, weren't >> >>certainly finnic, but most turkic settlement was along the kuban >>(which you dispute!). for the kuban region we know that the tribes >>that migrated along with the magyars were turkic, > > >Indeed, Bulgars and Turks are mentioned as living in the north-western Caucasus >in Armenian sources but, again, as in the case of Ibn-Fadlan, they are clearly >differentiated. Here is the account in the late VII-th. c. Armenian geography >'Ashhracuic', attributed to Ananij Shirakaci: > > "In Sarmatia are situated the Keraunian and the Hipian mountains, from which > 5 rivers, flowing into the Sea of Meothida (the Sea of Azov) have their sources. > Two rivers flow out from the Caucasus - Valdanis, from the mountain of Kraks; > it starts from Caucasus and lay in north-west between the Meothida and the Pontus. > The other river - Psevhros - separates the Bosporus from the lands where is the > small town of Nikops. Northward from this place live the tribes of the turks and > of the bulgars, which have their names after the names of the rivers: Kupi-bulgar, > Kuchi-bulgar, Onoghontor-blkar (immigrants), Chdar-bolkar. These are present names > which had no been known to Ptolomeus. The son of Hudbbad (Asparuh - the son of > Kubrat) run away from the Horse Mountains (Dziakan) . Between the bulgars and the > Pontus are situated the tribes of gash and kurt, also the suans......". > >The 'Onoghontor-blkar (immigrants)' here are most probably the Unogundurs/Unogurs, and there is good reason to believe these were -r turkic. >the 'Kupi-bulgar' are these along the Kuban (Kuphis) river, the 'Kuchi-bulkar' are >those along the Dniepr (Kocho) river, etc. > >... >>>Physical type (brachiocephalic Europoids with rarely expressed weak >>>mongoloid characteristics) as well as cultural elements point to a >>>genesis in the Pamirs around southern Tajikistan and northern >>>Afghanistan. There is some evidence in the archaeological record that a >>>people left this region bearing stong Bulgar cultural elements (burial >>>practices as evidenced by necropolises) in the 2nd century for the sea >>>of Azov area. This, incidentally, fits in perfectly with Dobrev's >> >>on the other hand the name is recorded late 5th century, after >>the assumed turkic migration with the huns. > > >Leaving aside the disputable account about the Bulgars ("Ziezi ex quo Vulgares") >in the Anonymous Latin chronograph of 354 AD, the earliest account would refer to >the battle between Bulgars and Langobards that took place somewhere on the northern >slopes of the Carpathians and was recorded by Paulus Diaconus and Fredegarius. >The battle took place in the early V-th c. - most probably 422 AD. > >But all this would refer to their appearence in the West. The Bulgars seem to have >been recorded much earlier in the Armenian historiography, long before the coming of >the Huns. > > >Regards, >Vassil Karloukovski >