The Bulgars Sept 29, 2007 0:53:31 GMT 3
Post by H. Ihsan Erkoc on Sept 29, 2007 0:53:31 GMT 3
balkhani said:In Europen sources the Bulgars were first mentioned in 354 AD and earlier in Armenian and Syrian sources.
Golden says that the sources before 480 are vague.
balkhani said:The name Bulgar cannot come for Bulga for some very simple reasons - the pronounsiation of the name is different, the structure is different - the root is Bulg and has suffix -ar. A suffix usually cannot consist of only one letter/sound.
It can be different in Modern Bulgarian but the description given by Golden is very logical. If you check the Orkhon Inscriptions, you can find the verb Bulġa-. It was that only an -r was added to that core verb to make it a name, which is very common in Turkic (another example is Ḳačar [Qachar/Qajar]).
balkhani said:The Bulgarian ruler was never called Khan (Khan - Su Bagi). In all inscriptions it's written Kanasubigi and then translated in Greek- ruler send from the Gods. Kana - ruler(some Persian dialects,Pamirian languages), Subaga - divine,from the Gods(Sanskrit)
But note that in Old Turkic, the sound KH did not exist (it was during the Middle Turkic [starting from the 10th century onwards] period when that sound appeared) and the title Khan was in fact Ḳan (Qan). You said yourself that Kana means ruler - it is obvious that it comes from the Altaic title meaning Ruler.
I have a Sanskrit dictionary and I checked for Subaga but such a word does not exist in Sanskrit, as I have seen.
balkhani said:Tarkan is actully mentioned in sanskrit too.
That title also does not exist in my dictionary. On the other hand, according to Annamarie von Gabain, the title Tarḳan (Tarqan) is Turkic, or at least Altaic.
balkhani said:As I said we cannot judge by a few words as the bulgars were in a union with turkic speakers,so they adopted some words and terms, but a s whole their language was iranic as it is seen on most inscriptions.
And vice versa. Plus, I still trust Tekin's work.
balkhani said:About the Volga Bulgars - they had a link with bashkirs and Kypchak people and as I said, they were islamised by turkic people, not by Persians or Arabs.
It is not clear if the Bashqurts (Bashkirs) were totally Turkic at that time, because it might be possible that they might have been Turkified Ugrians or a mixture of Ugrians and Turkics.
The Ḳïpčaḳs (Qypchaq, Kuman) did not arrive to the region before the 13th century. But we know that the Volga Bulġars spoke a distinct form of Turkic even before that.
Another note: it was the On Oġurs or Volga-Kama Bulġars who introduced Turkic Steppe culture to the Magyars, who were a forest-dwelling Ugric people before they started their migrations. That is why they adopted the name On Oġur (Ten Tribes), because they were also made up of ten tribes. Plus, it was after this when the Byzantine Romans started calling the Magyars as "Turks".
balkhani said:Also Ibn Fadlan who travelled to the turkic people and the Bulgars(volga Bulgars) describes huge cultural and visual differences between the turkic people and the Bulgars.
Because the Oġurs had come to the region in the early centuries of AD, whereas the Ḳasars/Ḫazars (Khazars), Pečeneks and Oġuz migrated there in the following centuries. Besides, it is normal for Ibn Faḍlān to show differences between the Volga Bulġars and other Turkic peoples, because the Pečeneks and Oġuz were still dominantly nomadic (even though the Oġuz had started to settle down on the banks of Jaxartes, but the majority were nomads) while the Ḫazars and Bulġars had become sedentary already.
balkhani said:I don't know if there's an online verson of the epos.
By the way, you still did not answer this question asked by me:
Plus, you claimed that the Bulġars sent the Slavs away from Moesia and Thracia. Than, how come today the Bulgarians are Slavic speakers?
About the art. You should have known that hunting figures and mythological scenes are very common in the steppes and they did not belong to a single group of peoples. Just like horse riding or archery