From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 30 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <372a059b.1677401@news.yale.edu>
References: <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$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <371e5362.14471999@news.yale.edu> <7fs1j8$brv@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3722705D.B10E96BA@montclair.edu> <37228395.105363334@news.yale.edu> <7g2adc$qkv$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <3724c639.8283551@news.yale.edu> <372792ce.17040963@news.yale.edu> <3728f548.21087652@news.yale.edu>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

I recieved the following reply from Stephan Nikolov

==================================

Cluster User wrote in message <3728f548.21087652@news.yale.edu>...
>from vassil's web page, dobrev has:
>
>>The determination of exact meaning of the term
>>ELEM (tenth) and its derivation ENIALEM (or ENIELEM) -
>>eleventh, was very important for the solution of another
>>mystery of the Nominalia. The Chatalar inscription
>>from Omurtag says that it was made in the year
>>SIGOR ELEM (written with Greek letters), i.e. in the year of
>>the bull and the month ELEM. The Turkologists mistranslated
>>SIGOR ELEM as the year of the bull, the first
>>month - the first month of the bull corresponded
>>to January of 821 AD; at the same time the inscription in
>>Greek read that it was made in September of 821
>>(the 15th Byzantine indict began in September 821). The
>>Greek date clearly showed that ELEM was not the first
>>month and the solution of the mystery was quite simple
>>- SIGOR, that is - SHEGOR ELEM, was October 821
>>and that is exactly the second month of the Byzantine
>>15th indict.
>
>I have some questions concerning this.
>
>1. "september" is reinterpreted as "october." is it the first or
>second month of the byzantine indict? (I gather the byzantine indict
>starts in september).
>

Depends on the case. Still in the beginning of the ninth century, the
both chronologies were used -- the september one and the march one.
But the more popular one was the september one.


>2. why should the bulghars use a chronology out of synch with the
>byzantines, at least the chronology in the insciption) and instead use
>the familiar roman chronology (beginning january) which I gather was
>more common in the west (corresponding to the western or western part
>of the roman empire).
>

The Chatalar inscription follows the system of dating accepted by the
imperial chancelary in Constantinople already in the 6th century. It
is obvious that Omurtag was following the Byzantine mode of
representation (see the title, the calcatio, the wish for a hundred
years of life, God mentioned, etc. -- even the lions mentioned in the
inscriprion might have been the lions taken at the devastation of the
suburbs  of Constantinople under Krum). I do not see the deal
of the indiction dating.

>3. the "turkic" interpretation on the other hand would be consistent
>with the greek inscription.
>concerning this.


Would you explain. I somewhat fail to understand you.

SN