From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 08 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <370d1b92.17434118@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$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <370296ad.69443734@news.yale.edu> <7dvofs$ai0@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <370a6f59.1892451@news.yale.edu> <7efi7l$trh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <370d1b3e.17350739@news.yale.edu> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 21:10:59 GMT, cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) wrote: >On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 12:14:49 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > >>... > >> >>No, I meant that "burdzhan" was an arabic name for the bulgars. Thus this >>town of Burzan-dzhirt (today - Bursan-dzhirt) in the oasis of Merv could be >>translated as "bulgarian town". This fits to the account of Al-Bakuvi that >>the bulgars (burdzhans) inhabited (before their migration?) fertile southern >>fields "where there were a lot of grape, figs and plums" [R. Kuzev, >>Proishozhdenie bashkir, M., 1974, 35-36]. >> > >as I said before this may be reference to the relatively balmy climate >of the northern black sea region. > >>The point was that some islamic authors connect the bulgars and the khazars >>but say their language wasn't either turkic or persian. The persian At-Tabari >>wrote in 915 that in 556-571 the turkuts occupied the eastern Northern >>Caucasus by defeating the khazars and the people "b-n-dzh-r" (belendzher, the > >yes. this is established. -r turkic and common turkic had separated >before (possibly with the dissolution of the hsiung-nu). > >>pahlavi form of "bulgar" according to V. Gening and A. Khalikov). The danube > >apparently a town of that name remained. > >>bulgars are called "burdzhan" by Al-Fazari (772/73 AD). Al-Masudi (20-30's of >>the X c.) calls the volga bulgars "burdzhans", and the danube - "bulgars". He >>describes as turkic the nogays, the pechenegs, the badzhards (bashkirs), but > >yes. these were the tribes closely associated with the tu"rku"t >confederacy (or trivbes derived from them). -r turkic had seperated >before. the tu"rku"t used their language as a formal court language >and wrote it down. thus they established a certain amount of >linguistic uniformity (until their breakup) and a uniformity in >customs, beliefs etc.. they also gave their to the tribes at the core >of the confederacy. thus it is not surprising that the above mentioned >tribes were readliy identified as turks. the -r turkic people in the >west >were not part of the core of the confederacy and were only briefly >conquered by it. thus their language diverged and would not have been >readily identified as turkic by one who is not very well familiar with >"standard" turkic. > dobrev seems to make a polemic based on glossing over the difference between the linguistic group "turkic" and people generaly known as "turks" (i.e. turkic, before the exclusive use of "turk" for anatolain turks). >>not the bulgars. Ibn-Fadlan (921-922) says that the language of the volga >>bulgars didn't resemble either turkic or slavic, while Istahri, Haukal, Bekri > >I'll look at the last names at little more. > >>and Jakut find similarities between the khazar and bulgar l-s, but say they >>didn't resemble either turkic or persian. > >yes. it didn't resemble *common* turkic. > >on the other hand, the known handful of khazar words are turkic. >moreover, a section of the khazars and onoghurs established >dominion over the magyars and brought about a bilinguilaism >(this is recorded). we know their language from the considerable >loans in hungarian - not identifiable with either qypchaq or >ottoman turkish - but showing great similarity to volghabulghar >and chuvash. > dobrev hasn't satisfactoraly answered this point. >> >>Abu al-Rashid al-Bakuvi (XV c.) [Kitab talhis al-asar, M., 1971] in an >>abridged copy of the geographical treaty of Zakharija al-Kazvini (1203-1283) >>relates that the city of Bolgar (on Volga) was ... at two months journey from >>Constantinople and that around it lived a multidute of turkic peoples, which > >this is quite an accurate description of the situation at the time. > >>indirectly shows that for Al-Bakuvi the bulgars were not a turkic people. > >it is pointless to speculate what is meant by this, as it is now well >established what the situation was for this time. for the 13th >century there was the indiginous (at least relatively speaking) >volgabulghar, -r turkic speaking population and qypchaq an some >central asian turks using the eastern turkic standard as their >written language. this one gets from direct epigraphic material. > this is another point not addressed to by dobrev. nor is their any record of a dramatic linguistic shift of volghabulgars from an iranian or other language to -r turkic. >>Al-Kazvini describes the people of Bolgar as being among those who "believed > >i.e. believed in God, were muslims. the perso-arabic words in chuvash are for the main part quite old as can be seen from sound shifts that occured within chuvash but not in tatar. > >>in Khuda" and run away in the northern countries, where they reached > >you mean <> the northern countries and there was -r turkic speech, with chuvash charcteristics, at this end as well, as evidenced from hungarian. > >>prosperity. > >this is probably a reflection of the bulghar migration from >the kuman region. > >> >>Another author - Dimashki, met in Bagdad several bulgars, pilgrims to Mecca. >>They said to him that they "were born between the turks and the slavs". > >well, this is quite an accurate description, "from the horse's mouth" >(without disrespect for the chap who said it!) of the ethnic anscestry >of the chuvash, if by "saqa:liba(t)" one means a collective term >of slavs and uralic people of the north. yet no mention of the alans and As (speaking an east iranian lanugae and presumabely close to that of dobrev's iranic bulghars) . these people the arabs had heard of. > >>"Huzhat al-Kulub" of Hamdallah Kazvini (1280-1349) probably points to the >>region inhabited by the bulgars, khazars before their migration to the west: >>Kazvini puts Khoresm, Saksin and Bulgar to the east of the Khazar (Caspian) >>sea, while for Al-Bakuvi Saksin was a "populous town in Khazaria". This >>evidence could be explained by the assertion of Al-Khvarismi (a persian from >>Khoresm, who between 836-847 AD drew a geographical map of Central Asia, >>Caucasus on the basis of older, pre-islamic sources) that the starting point >>of the khazar migration to the west was Khoresm [Kalinina, T.M., Svedenija > >as an eastern origin for the khazars is generally agreed upon, >a passage through khwarezm or the eastern caspian region would >be likely in any scenario. > >>rannih uchenIh Arabskogo khalifata, M., 1988] > > >>Al-Biruni (973-1048), however, thinks that the language of the volga bulgars >>was a mixture of khazar and turkic. yet, he was a kwarezmian, and the east iranian language of the region had been preserved. no mention of any similarities of bulghar to east-iranian. > >he also refers to the "khazar turks" (at least the the royal house >seems to have had dynastic relations to the tu"rku"t). > >again, see above for the khazars. > >> >>VK >> >>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own >