From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$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>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

In article <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>On 30 Jan 1999 13:55:36 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote:

...
>>If Dobrev is to be believed, a number of agricultural and other terms in
>>Mari have Pamirian parallels but these words are not found in the other
>>Finno-Ugrian languages. So he identifies them as loanwords from the language
>>of the original Volga Bulgars. Another problem with the Chuvash being equated
>
>an iranic substratum for chuvash and the volga-bolgar inscriptions is
>not denied. however, an -r turkic migration into the region has to be
>accounted for and there are other reasons for believing such a
>presence in the kuban region. furthermore, we know the volga bolgars
>became muslim and we have such a muslim languange in the inscriptions,
>with chuvash its nearest modern representative and both are -r turkic.


I couldn't deny that but the question is how relevant are these rather late 
(XIth c. AD, pre-Mongol, or even post-Mongol (?)) examples of 'volga bolgaric'
to the earlier proto-bulgaric language. The evidence for an iranian influence 
on the Mari agricultural terminology is massive. It would be too far-fetched 
to suppose they were transmitted by some -r turkic migration as almost all of
the Mari words for the cereals and other cultures have (specifically) pamirian 
cognates:

 culture     Mari          Pamirian 

 wheat      shidan       zindan, shedim  (Shugnani, Sarikoli)  vs. the old iranian GANTUMA
 barley     shozh        chushch         (Shugnani, Sarikoli)  vs. the old iranian KASAKA
 rye        urzha        jurzhājn - millet (Shugnani, Sarikoli)
 hemp       kāne         kām             (Ishkashimi, Wakhi)  
 flax       jeten/kheten ketenek
 pepper     purājs       murch           (Shugnani, Sarikoli) 
 peppermint purtnājk     pudina          (Ishkashimi, Wakhi)
 wallnut    puksh        khuvz, fuvz     (Shugnani, Sarikoli)
 dock       cikura       shukri, shiiko
 sorrel     shinchalash  shilka      
 pumpkin    kavun        kafu, kadu      (Shugnani, Sarikoli)
 mulberry   tut          tut             (Ishkashimi, Wakhi)
 peas       kushsho      krosh

 ploughing   kuralash     kuram - Tadzhik
 bread       s(h)ājkār    zegar, zgara - Pashto, 
 ...

>>to Volga Bolgaric is the presence of the sound Z in many of the oldest Bulgar 
>>names - ZIEZI, ZENTI, ANZI, ZERA, IZOT, while in Chuvash ZIEZI, for example, 
>>would sound as SIESI (and in Mari it would sound as SHIESHI). 

>chuvash has a number of late developments. the language of the danube
>bolgars may be a different matter. 


There are bulgar names with Z from the time before the migration to the Balkans. For 
example, the mid-VIth century khan Zabergan, a leader of the kutrigurs north of the 
Sea of Azov. And it was exactly the kutrigurs who migrated to Volga. Besides, the
name of Ziezi in the latin chronograph of 354 AD, is probably much older and doesn't 
refer to the bulgars in Europe at all. In this chronograph Ziezi, the progenitor of 
the bulgars, is listed at the end of a list of names of progenitors of various middle-
eastern peoples, after a certain "Evilat, from whom are the gymnosophists (i.e. the 
indian brahmans)". 
(see http://members.xoom.com/alexvolk/stam/latin_chron.html for the full text)
Even if we accept that "Ziezi ex quo vulgares" was included additionally and that the 
earliest version of the chronograph contained the expression "all of whom are bactrians 
(hi omnes bactriani)" instead, still, it is quite indicative that the name of the bulgars
appears next to those of the bactrians, parthians, hyrcanians, armenians, etc.


Regards,
Vassil Karloukovski