Vassil Karloukovski <
v.karloukovski@...>
wrote:
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.
*****GK: The difference between the Alanic and Bulgar
sites of the Saltov-Mayaky culture (7th-10th cs.) is
nevertheless very clear. There is mutual influence of
course, but hardly identity. *****
(VK)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.
*****GK: I take it that the ethnonym �Bulgar� (while
still not fully explained) is considered Turkic by a
great majority of commentators? BTW in connection with
the preferred etymology of �Bulgar�(�mixed�) does the
recent literature address the possibility of an Ugrian
component? This has been done elsewhere with respect
to the Khazars and the Avars. Given the fact of an
Ugrian presence north of the Caucasus as early as the
5th c. it would seem logical to investigate this
possibility for the Bulgars. And see below about the
Onogurs.*****
(VK)while speculations with numbers may have been
unavoidable previously,
nowadays there have accumulated enough archaeological
evidence to say
something about the relative share of various
population. I will
quote R. Rashev in his 1992 paper "On the origin of
the proto-
Bulgarians":
�As for now, the inhumations,
which are the most reliable sign of Proto-Bulgarian
ethnic
affiliation, constitute 29% of all graves in the pagan
necropolises
of north-eastern Bulgaria. The figure will increase by
2-3% if we add
the inhumations from the necropolises yet to be
published and it will
come to represent a third of all graves. This is not a
negligible
share.�
(VK) And one must add that, apart from the common,
Slavic type of
cremations in NE Bulgaria, there is another, peculiar
type of
cremations which if associated with the Bulgar group,
would increase
the share even further.
*****GK: Instead of suggesting the same kind of
arithmetic for the inhumations, let�s stick to Rashev.
A third of all the graves in the northeast would imply
that even there the proto-Bulgars were in a minority,
though compact enough for ethnic survival (which was
my exact point). As the Bulgar state expanded
southward and southwestward, by the 9th century, they
became VERY MUCH a small minority compared to the
Slavs. And after the implosion of the 2nd half of the
9th c., they were done as a significant ethnos.
Nothing you have adduced so far denies this scenario.
So where exactly is it �outdated�? *****
(VK)There were two more questions from you elsewhere
in the list, which I
cannot find at the moment. One, about how does the
'Iranian' theory
deal with the Turkic name of the Onogurs, and a
second, on the light
side, along the lines of the distinctiveness of
Bulgars vis-a-vis
Slavs and how non-Slavic the Balkanic Bulgars have
been. On the
second one, you could not have been more wrong. The
Slavic names of
even the first Bulgar capitals - Pliska (Pl&skova,
assuming it is
Slavic) and Preslav, as well as of their pre-680 AD
Danubian
territory - Ong&l, speak for itself.
*****GK: Vassil, we know very well that many Slavs
inhabited the territory occupied by the proto-Bulgars.
We know that some of them (not all)were removed to
�make place� for the newcomers. The capital of my home
province in Canada (Winnipeg) has an �aboriginal�
name. Does that mean that aboriginals were a
determining and significant part of its original
population? Hardly. Scratch the argument. Surely you
are not contending that the Slavs of NE Bulgaria were
known as �Bulgars� already in the 7th c. ???!!! The
Siveri certainly weren�t.*****
(VK)There have been significant
contacts with Slavs even before coming on the Balkans.
Furthermore,
again citing Rashev's paper, there are finds of
Pastirsk-type pottery
in many VIII-IX c. sites and necropolises on the Lower
Danube, and
the original Pastirsk type in Ukraine is interpreted,
as you probably
know better than me, as belonging to a Slavicised
Iranian/Iranised
Slavic VI-VII c. population on the left side of Dniepr
(the much
beloved in Ukraine, no doubt, Antes).
*****GK: Let me give you the latest update on this.
First of all, one now speaks of the
Pastyrs�k-Volyntsev culture, with Pastyrs�k referring
to the elements west of the Dnipro, and Volyntsev to
those east of the Dnipro. The culture dissipates in
the 8th c. Volyntsev evolves into the Romenian c.
associated with the Sivera Slavs, while Pastyrs�k is
replaced by Luka-Rajkovets�ka, shared by a number of
Slavic groups. We won�t go into all these details now.
The main fact to remember is that Pastyrs�k is NOT the
culture of the Slavic Antes, or at least not primarily
and definingly. It is PEN�KIVKA which is associated
with these Antes. Pastyrs�k itself represents the
culture of a rather �mixed� (but not Bulgar (:=))
population. There are of course some Iranian elements
there, and also Gothic ones (both stemming from the
earlier Chernyakhiv), there are Slavic Pen�kivka and
(especially at Pastyrs�k itself) �steppe� components.
The latter are not Bulgar (these [e.g. Glodos et
sim.]are further south), but represent the
acculturating Ulch Huns (especially after the
destruction of the Late Hun state by the Byzantines in
533 AD). Some of the pottery styles of Pastyrs�k do
have affinities with Lower Danubian products, but they
visibly differ from the Penkivka pottery of the Slavic
Antes of the Danube. BTW is the Danubian
Pastyrs�k-type pottery found in inhumation graves,
cremation graves, or both? ******
(VK)As to how to deal with the Onogurs ('the ten
arrows') that dwelt
around Azov, the easiest would be to leave to question
to the
students of the Hungarian history. The Asparukh
Bulgars come from
another tribe of "Old Bulgaria" of Kubrat, the
easternmost
branch/group in the Caucasus, known as Unogundurs to
the Greeks, Vh(l)
ndr Blkar to the Armenians, v-n-t-t-r to the Jewish
Khazars.
*****GK: The �easiest� route is frequently wrong. I
tend to side with those who identify Onogurs and
Onogundurs. The associates of the Bulgars north of the
Danube in the 9th c. were the �Ungari� (Annales
Fuldenses s.a. 896) or �Ungare� (Bavarian Geographer
c. 844/862 AD). I view these as the Onogur/Onogundur
who arrived with Asparukh and continued to nomadize
north of the Danube. Most of them later joined the
Magyars, and it is their name which became the Western
appellative �Hungarians�. The Turkic element of these
Onogur/Onogundur is indubitable. I would be curious to
know if there was also an ancient �Ugrian� component
among them, which facilitated the later fusion with
the Magyar tribes. More on Kubrat and �Old Great
Bulgaria� soon.*****
(VK) In the west,
a much 'purer' Slavic territory, in contrast: "...
From this period
only one church have been found in the west - in the
Slavic
settlement above the ruins of the Roman town of Escus,
..., but it
was used mainly for fighting the Bogomilism ... as
evident by the
inscription on the wall - an anathema against the
Bogomil heresy.
Centuries after the establishment of Christianity must
had passed
before we observe the building of churches in the
west.". And another
quote: " ... during their settlement in the Balkans
the Slavs did not
carry building traditions and after their
Christianisation they did
not feel initially a strong need for temples".
*****GK: When you say �West� do you (and your source)
include the current FYR of Macedonia? I ask because
there was a strong Cyrillomethodian mission there,
headed by Clement and Naum (around Okhrida). They
certainly had churches.******
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com