From: Vassil Karloukovski
Message: 24539
Date: 2003-07-15
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > >(PG) They were not Iranian. They were linguistically
> > Turkic, speaking a language related to modern Chuvash.
the above is too strong a statement - the encyclopedia and other
historical introductions usually are more cautious, e.g. "The Bulgars
__probably__ originated as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia..."
(Britannica). From there on the references in the thread to "Iranian"
elements amongst the Bulgars were treated with undeserving suspicion,
when in fact they are found in mainstream western studies as well.
Thus, Maenchen-Helfen in the concluding paragraphs on the Hunnic
language, names in his book "The World of the Huns" (1973) contrasts
the situation in Hunnic with that in Bulgar:
****
"To judge by the tribal names, a great part of the Huns must have
spoken a Turkish language. ... The distribution of the Iranian and
German or Germanized names is very instructive. No Germanic names
occur among the non-Attilanic Huns. ... In contrast, no less than six
of the Attilanic names are Germanic or pseudo-Germanic. ...
In view of the absence of definitely Iranian and the preponderance of
definitely Turkish names among the Attilanic Huns, they (the names of
Charaton รจ Ernac) must be transferred ... to the Turkish names. ...
In the V-th c. the Alans played no political role in the life of the
Huns. None of their nobles was accepted as equal, none rose to any
prominence.
The absence of Iranian names before the VI-th c. speaks against
strong relations between pre-Attilanic Huns and Parthians, Sasanian
Persian, and Middle Asiatic Iranians. The Iranian names of the
Caucasian Huns were no doubt borrowed either from Persians or from
Armenians and Georgians under strong Persian influence.
Of greater interest are the Iranian names in the Byzantine army, but
they concern first of all the students of the proto-Bulgarians.
Asparukh-Isperikh, Bezmer in the Princes' List, and Rasata in the
list from Cividale are also of Iranian origin. To analyze the Iranian
Hunnish names must be left to Iranian scholars. Some of these names,
as, for instance, B(V)alas, are almost certainly Persian; others may
be Sarmatian. Whereas there is very little archaeological evidence of
Persian influence on the nomads between the Volga and the Crimea, the
presence of Sarmatian elements in the culture of the proto-Bulgarians
is well attested. ..."
****
In fact, on the basis of the archaeological continuity with the older
Sarmatian cultures of the Pontic region, the Bulgars have been
regarded outright as Sarmatians by a number of archaeologists and
historians (A. Smirnov, V. Sirotenko) since the 40's-50's of the 20-
th c. To add a Turkic flavour to the story, M. Artamonov, whilst not
being able to question or add significantly to the archaeological
picture, invented for them the term "Sarmatised Tjurks" (? an
archaeologist deciding, opting for a particular linguistic
affiliation of an archaeological culture?). The Sarmatian theory has
been resurrected in the 90's by R. Rashev, currently the leading
authority on Bulgar archaeology, and by other archaeologists in
Bulgaria. A monograph of S. Vlaklinov from the 70's, the only concise
study of the Bulgar art and culture so far, advocates for strong
connections in this respect with Sassanid Iran and Caucasus.
On the linguistic side, there are the studies of two French
Turkologists: of J. Deny on the Preslav inscription, the longest
Bulgar inscription in Greek letters, who claims that as if we are
dealing with unknown language, peppered with Turkic military
terminology, and of R. Bazin who in a PhD thesis on the Turkic cyclic
calendars classifies the Bulgar calendar outside the Turkic ones on
the basis of the fact that half of its calendar terms are not found
in the Turkic.
Now, to turn back to a representative of the official, 'Turkic'
school such as D. Ovcharov. His main interest lies in reconstruction
of the Bulgar religion on the basis of the material remains, with
heavy stress on the Turkic Tengrism, Khakassian, Altaic shamans, etc.
In his recently reprinted collection of articles ("Prab&lgarskata
religija, proizhod i s&shtnost, S., 2000) he again speaks of,
according to him, the three-layered religious beliefs amongst the
Bulgars: 1) shamanism (amongst the common populace; attested by
numerous graffiti), 2) Tengrism (the supreme god Tangra; attested in
a single inscription), and 3) the religion of the court, which was in
the prerogatives of the 'kolobri' (next to nothing is known about
them). Nevertheless, whilst assuming unreservedly their Turkicness at
the time they reached the Balkans, D. Ovcharov's view on the Bulgars'
origins is more complex, in fact too complex when compared to
Dobrev's Central Asian-Iranian hypothesis that was ionized on this
forum. Here is an excerpt from the introduction paper in his book of
2000 about "the earliest stage in the development of the proto-
Bulgarian material and spiritual culture":
****
During the first, earliest stage which spans the II-I m. BC, the
forefathers of the later Bulgars inhabited the regions of Middle Asia
(Minusinsk and the regions around Altay). It is difficult to
distinguish them ethnically from the other tribes. It has been
proposed, on the basis of onomastic data, that they were part of the
Wu-sun, that they had eastern Iranian origin and were related to the
Alans and Ases, together with whom they later reached Volga and the
Balkans. During this movement they mixed with tribes of Turkic origin
and acquired their Turkic-language features. This hypothesis recently
found support in a number of monuments in Western Mongolia, attesting
to the presence of Iranian-speaking tribes there in the I m. BC.
... A number of archaeological finds point to the close link of these
tribes (the Dinlins) with the Bulgar group which later founded Danube
Bulgaria in 681 AD. It is still a matter of debate whether some of
the known archaeological cultures: Andronovo, Afanasievka, Karasuk or
Tagarsk, have something in common with the Bulgars. On the other hand
a number of the features of the so called Tashtuk archaeological
culture, which blossomed during the first centuries AD in the valleys
around the Altay mountains, are very close to the Bulgar culture on
the Balkans [10]. There include a number of elements of the
settlement layout (concentric system of planning), the religion
(Tengrism), the art (the presence of stone gravures), the beginnings
of runic writings, the burial rites, etc., as well as in the pottery,
which was decorated by shiny, smoothed stripes, the custom of burying
of animals (mainly horses) next to the dead, the presence of
distinctive bronze amulets dedicated to the supreme god Tengrikhan,
striking analogies in the tamga-like signs, etc."
****
Next, Ovcharov speaks of a second, Turkisation stage, triggered by
the Hunnic advance/retreat towards Europe, and of a third, "neo-
Persian" stage, when the "culture of the nomads of Middle and Central
Asia and the art traditions of the Near East were actively
interacting". The third stage supposedly accounting for the Middle
Eastern/Caucasian parallels in the Bulgar culture from the Balkans.
Regards,
Vassil
> *****GK: Has there been any attempt to inform the
> international scholarly community of this esp. via
> conferences? What has been the reaction? Are all
> Bulgarian scholars convinced by the new knowledge? Are
> there serious non-Bulgarian scholars who are? It's
> been ten years you say. Any progress?******