nik1

И защо ми пробутваш историите и фантасмагориите на Закиев? Аз приличам ли ти на идиот? Я вземи прочети какво пише в този сайт за аланите, или и аланите, и те са тюрки според теб? Това ли научи от бакалавръка си по история? Вземи чети източниците моля ти се.. Кипчаците в Рисаля въобще не се споменават, и няма ка българите да бъдат кипкчаци, защото в девети век кипчаците са още в центарлно-азиантската си прародина!! И освен това поне до средата на 11 век кипцаци и българи се описани разделно (и вкл езикът им. има един средновековен автор който се кава Махмуд Кашгари, ако нямаш досатъп до него, ще ти пейсна сканирани страници

Ето една монография ("Военна история на българите от древността до наши дни", от Г.Бакалов), в която е описано по-подробно и обзорно въоръжението на българите. На страница 59 започва главата "Въоръжение и фортификация" (включва и част "обсадна техника" http://books.google.bg/books?id=HDQn3tJkyUcC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%82+%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B0+%D0%B4%D0%BE+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8+%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8&source=bl&ots=qdE9w2zNcW&sig=fG6GmewEDP2AFm3PGhZ6z7e1j7g&hl=bg&ei=Irp8TNWyCYS6OMrKvYUE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Какви кипчаки има в девети век, приятелю? -- Виж сега, не знам откъде черпиш сведенията си, но от източниците (Инб-Фадлан, Ибн Руста, Ал Масуди, Ел-Бекри, Персийската география и други) става ясно че: До края на 10 век, средата на 11 век, тюрките от региона (башкири, узи, печенеги, кипаки, буртаси - последните са смесени някакви тюрки с угрофини), и българо-есегело-савирската общост, са разделени и ралични общности във почти всяко едно отношение (бит, стопански поминък, социано и политическа организация, местоживеене и местобитание). Наистина, тюрския език става "лингва франка" за региона, така че в средата на 11 век българо-есгелската общност се тюркизира езиково.. -- Сакалиба не значи кумани, С това име Ибн-Фаблан, като арабин, назовава белокожото население от Източна Европа, неговорещо тюрския език на познтите му като "тюрки" - "узи", "башкири", "печенези" (които тюрки племена той познава като дипломат).. Може би ще се изненадаш, но българо-берсило-есегело-савирската общост са точно общост от европеиди..Дори и да не сме чели антропологически и археологически статии, можем да се досетим за последното че ако видим и съвременни чуваши на снимка (разбира се при тях има и слаб монголоиден компонент, дошъл вероятно чрез тюрките и татарите, или е пък този компонент е с по-ранно проникване)

Опс, в изложението има и една "томахавка"..Питам се от какъв материал е изработена брадвичката: желязо(стомана), или бронз?

На мен ли предлагаш да оставя "настрана" нещо си? Ако е така - то отговорът ми е: Ще приема да ми предлагаш да оставя настрана нещо си, когато ти пуснеш тема, и аз започна да ти пренаписвам заглавието и тезата, ясен съм, надявам се? -- Дали предположението, че социалната, и военно-политическа структура и организация на обществото на прабългарите, отговаря на структурата "народ-войска", има или няма връзка с темата за въоръжението, е дискусионен въпрос.. Аз предлагам за оставим дискусиите за друго място и друга тема. -- Благодаря за информацията за въоръжението. Ще допълня: 1) Ранносредновековните българи изполват аркани (имаше нещо записано за византийски стратег, когото прабългарите са хванали с аркан и влачили по земята, или греша?) 2) Въоръжени са и с топори/брадви, някои от тях ("Чудото на Свети Георги с българина"). Топорът е част от въоръжението и на волжско-камските българи (това ми е известно, доколкото съм чел публикации по тази тема). 3)От "Отговорите на Папа Николай до българските запитвания" става ясно че българите се заклеват на/посредством мечовете си. 4)Написаното от Лъв Шести: „Те се въоръжават с меч, броня, лък и копие. Повечето носят два вида оръжие: закачено на рамото копие, а в ръцете си държат лък и съобразно нуждата си служат с едното, или другото. Като са преследвани извличат по-голяма полза от лъковете си.” „Но не само те сами се въоръжават, а и конете на знатните са облечени в предните части с желязо, или плъст.”

Това чрез кой език го преведоха? Жунанът, дето има един шлем, ..е като "разбойник без чекия", май? --- "Купе" в аварския тунгусоманджурски език значи "облекло"..Запитвам се дали в надписите не става дума за наличността на облекла (шуби, и др),.. които според мен се явяват "консумативи", за разлика от допехите, които, пак според мен, следва да са в притежание на собствениците си, и да се намират при тях самите (поне е така при волсжко-камските българи!)

"За въоръжението на дунавските прабългари/българи от 7 век до края на 9 век. Извори и артефакти, хипотези" Отдавна желая да дикутираме по-обширно и обзорно такава тема и тематика.. Бих желал първо да разграничим периодите и тенденциите доколкото е възможно, и ако мнозинството форумци имат такива виждания (че е необходима периодизация) . Смятам, поне в началото на дикусията че хипотетично да предложа 2 основни периода или тенденции - единият е периодът на използване на предимно или единствено на конници (от пост-аварския период до условно и хипотетично времето на Пресиан-Борис I) и периодът в края на девети век по времето на Симеон, когато във войската започват да се изполват и пехотни сили*(?) * С вероятност такива да са използвани в някои от сраженията при Симен I (например в битката при Булгарофигон), не визирам в тези в които той "разорява с 50 000 конници околностите на Констинопол", или войните му с маджарите, при които българската войкска се състои от конници На второ място ще предложа (чисто хипотетично и дикусионно засега), че българите от поставарския период предствляват нещо като "народ-войска" , което смятам е различно от "народ от индивидуални воини", каквито са почти всички известни ни варварски народи (вкл. тюрките), с изключение на Европейските авари (които и да са те), и донякъде или напълно - язигите, аланите, и късните сармати. За това че аварите следва да се разглежат като "народ-войска" ,а не като народ от недостатъчмно организирани , обучени и дисциплинирани воини-варвари (номади или полуномади), съдя по така записаното за тях в "Статегикона" на Маврикий/Псевдомаврикии; За аланите - съдя по написаното от Ам.Марцелиан например, а за късните сармати, съдя по антропологичните възстановки на социалата им организация (вижте изледванията на Балабанова). Язигите са тези, пък които компакно формират военна част в Британия в състава на Римските армия.. При българите имаме преки аналогии в организацията им с тези на аварите, така че смятам че българите се приближават по-скоро до модела народ-войска.. В действителност, смятам че част от източниците донякъде дават представа за способностите на бъллгарите (включтелно и волжско-камските) да се държат като "войска" (вместват се донякъде или напълно в този модел) - визирам способностите им за пълно и бързо (най-вече) мобилизиране, и голямото внимание, което отделят върху въоръжението си и конете си.. --- Въоръжението на българите? Ще продължа по подробно по-късно, но смятам (за началото на дискусията) че основното въоръжение на българите (да кажем - "среднозащитените" конници) се състои от копие, лък (?)**, и топор (брадва) или меч за най-близък бой, аркани, и няколко вида защитно облекло/брони (включително и изцяло метално) : **по спомените ми - в Статегикона за аварите липсват упоменавания за наличие и изполване на лъкове, упомявнава се че при тях войската се състои от сравнително тежковъоръжени и защитени с доспехи конници и коне, а конниците са въоръжени с по две дълги копия (имаме подобна такитика и начин на бой, описани за сарматите) Лека вечер засега.

По първата точка: Относно къде и кога е изпозлзван езика, аз не знам, защото нямам необходимите знания да преценя доколко езикът от архаичноморавските текстове и древнобългарския (изполваният в България) са едни и същи езици, но имам твърде големи съмнения че в моравските текстове присъстват типичните българизми (гърцизми като "събота" и други, китаизми като суфикса "чии/чия"), които присъстват в по-късните руски и сръбски текстове/редакции (ще ти дам източници за последното - ако проявиш желание, и ако си забравил че сърбите се християнизират в пределите на българската държава, по времето когато се християнизират и българите). Така че ако съмненията ми/предположенията ми са вярни , то имаме самостоятелен език, оформен на българска почва, различен от езика моравските архаични текстове, които език става основа за други езици (демек имаме "първо използване на език-майка"). По вторатата точка: Латинският език като писмен език е употребяван от почти всички централно и западноевройпейски народи (в по-малка или по-голяма степен; с малки изменения, с никакви, или по-големи такива) - следва ли че името "латински" не е научно и политическото коректно, и трябва да заменено със "европейски", "европейски романски", "древноромански", "административен романски" или друго? http://www.promacedonia.org/pdf/mirchev_starobalgarski_ezik.pdf http://bme-pb.blogspot.com/2008/04/blog-post_12.html http://www.promacedonia.org/pdf/mirchev_starobylgarski.html

?!? Нали разбираш че не казваш нищо конктретно?

?!? К'ви са тези щуротии?!? Какво му е "по-коректното", и какво му е "политически по-коректното" да няма наименование зa "старобългарски език", но да има средно- и ново-български, или езикът да не се припознава и свързва с българската държава? Дайте да видим един "старославянски текст" от Византия, щом като смятате че езикът е наложен и разпространен във Византия и от Византия? Стига с тази политическа коректност, тук е форум по история.. Утре поради нея сигурно ще започнете да наричате и средновековните българи (повтарям българи!, de genero bulgarorum), и възрожденските българи от Македония - "етнически македонци"?!? Светът се променя, и на хората започва да им дреме на "патките" за политическата коректност.. Ето ви една съвременна енциклопедия/учебник (о, каква изненада, написан от руснаци, на руски), в която се пише за старобългарски думи, вместо за "Old Church Slavonic" (стр. 175, вижте "хотѣти" и "рабъ тъ") http://www.llsh.ru/books/llsh0506/llsch_2005_2006.pdf

По-горе констатирах само проблемите, без да коментирам "разумността" или "неразумността" на синдрома. -- Ти какъв се явяваш тук да говориш за "разумност" и "рационалност"? Пишеш и пропонираш глупости, приятел - и ето ти доказателство, за да не излезе че говоря празни приказки: Израелците, никога не приеха и не се съгласиха с доктрината на нацизма, така че има народи и нации, за които такива нагласи не са "рационални" и "разумни"..Каква гражданска война, какви пет лева? Источически става дума за културен геноцид/етноцид - българите на са имали възможността да декларират и запазят българските си корени и същност по време на югосоциолиалистическата мелачка и пропаганда; въпросът е защо сега вече, когато са свободни - те не приемат българските си корени? -- Синдромът съществува при фиромците, и той е продукт на съчетания между културни особености на македонците (на българите в Македония) и на исторически особености, а това е друга тема, доста обширна, и е за дискусия на друго място..Но щом си започнал в този дух, да продължа и аз... С това, че ти смяташ македонизма за "разумен", доказваш тезата, че всъщност синдромът и нагласите на фиромците са причинен от "микса" - от определените културни особености на балканците - имам в предвид микса от високите проценти (нива) на "колективизъм", на "неравновластност", и на "високата тревожност" (високата степен на избягване на риска), и на т.н. "дългосрочната ориентация" в тези общества. Забележка - ние, българите от България, по тези културни особености (културни измерения по Ходстеде - Минков) не се различаваме от фиромците...Историческите особености (в тяхната история), могат да се свържат/опишат най-вече и преди всичко с периода на югосоциалистическото тоталитарно минало, защото антибългарски нагласи сред огромното мнозинство от македонците преди 1944 г. няма.

Подкрепям те. Нито пък австрийците отричат немските си корени и същност, както и немския си език.. "Най-трудно се признава регегатството", казва един познат македонец (под "македонци" имам в предвид българи, родени в Македония)за/на ФИРОМ-ците.. Тази нагласа - нежеланието или по-скоро страхът им да признаят регенгатсвото си, т.е предателството спрямо идеалите на техните деди, заедно с фактът че братовчедите от ФИРОМ все още преживяват своя "Стокхолски Синдром" - т.е съгласието с тезите на мъчителите им, е причината за това че светът им е измислен, и абсурден..Тази абсурдност, очевидно съответства на/поражда/ крайният им ревизионизъм им и агресивност, и е причина за нелеките проблеми и конфликти със съседите им, чиито историческо и културно наследство и същност те засягат, отричат, или присвоявят.

Близо до сармати и алани - добре, ама далече от късните сармати: няколко нишови погребения, и малък процент изкуствени деформации..

Благодаря, че отговаряш вместо мен (задължен съм ти).. Нямах нерви да се обяснявам с фрустирани и агресивни хора, които не четят и не мислят, ами намират първо гледат да намират проблеми там (и в другите), които проблеми ги няма --- Да, доматите са късно навлезнали, дори предполагам че са били почти или напълно непознати в земите в които се населяват от славяноезичните..Т.е. за тези хора доматите са били екзотични, колкото за нас сега са екзотични артишока, и мангото..В северните страни доматът е бил смятан за отровен или незравословен (вижте демонстрацията при изяждането на 1 килограм домати от Робърт Гибън Джонсън през 1820 в Бостън, когато тълпата се е събрала да гледа как човека ще умре)..За разлика от тях - картофите, кукуруза, и боба, са храни с които хората са се прехранвали масово (вижте историята на картофите наприемер в Русия), заради тяхната непретенциозност към условията (картофите и боба) и/или по-големи добиви които са извличани спрямо зърнените просо, пшеница и овес (при кукуруза).. --- Перко, има ли такова нещо като "навлизане от несамосебе си"???, и кой твърди че има такова? Какво като материалът е славянски? Не четеш ли че анализите се правят за всеки един от тези славянски езици поотделно, и че там където нямат връзки, няма и такива предложени връзки от авторката..Не четеш, очевидно!

Може би си прав..Нямам мнение по въпроса, просто симпатизирам на Шклифов (като на егейски македонец).. -- Чудя се все още защо хубавото Наде "шъкаше" като тракийка? Казваше "ша/шъ (направим)", вместо "ще (направим)"? Тракийски корени, или някаква вторична диалектизация на Софийска почва?

Божа работа, някой ден може да припознаем наследството си като общо, а фиромците да припознаят българските си корени (защото на македонистката лъжа краката са къси, и не се простират извън Фиром/Част от Сърбия), но мисля че и отдалечаването на езиците с нищо не помага тези проблеми да намалеят.. -- И в какво се състои тази балансираност на езика ни? Искаш да кажеш че нямаме паралелени названия от различни корени (хетероними), или че техния брой/вид прави езика ни балансиран? Или какво друго? -- Ами езикът се моделира, ти самият посочваш че имаме западнобългарски влияния, какво пречи да се разширят тези влияния, по начина предложен от Шклифов?

"За разширението на диалектната основа на българския книжовен език и неговото обновление" От Благой Шклифов http://bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/Bl_Shkliov_ZDOBE.pdf Какво мислите за идеите на покойния Шклифов?

В авестийските текстове съществуват имената "Tuirya" и "Danus от Tuirya" (Avesta's Farvardin Yasht 13.143 & 144,13.38), така че ако приемем това име за основа на името Туран, то трябва да приемем че всякакви връзки с тюрките са изключени..Очевидно името в първозначнието си се е отнасяло за ираноезичен (авестийскоезичен) народ от индоиранския период. "143. We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Aryan countries; We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Aryan countries. We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Turanian countries; We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Turanian countries. We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Sairimyan countries; We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Sairimyan countries."

Българите няма как да са наричани "торки" (от тюрки), защото етнонима "тюрки" произлиза от монголското "turgut" (пазач).. Това е име което възниква по време на съществуването на жуан-жуанския каганат, и става известно на персите едва след експанзията на тюркутите (тези които са му носители) от първия тюрски каганат.. Името "Туран" във поемата на Фирдоуси означава "земята на Тур или на Турите".. Името Туран/Тур е непознато до 10 век (непознато е в Авестийските по-ранни текстове), очевидно е име на измислен митичен/приказен герой, съответно народност, и означава "смел" (дали името има нещо сходно, или е свързано с името на познатите в десети век "торки/торкани", само един бог знае). ---

"-гир" е родово название при нашите приятели Т@М Вижте "Кучагир" стр. 85 от ПДФ http://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/TMS/I/k.pdf ---- Мудрак беше предложил т.н. инвентарни надписи да се четят като надписи на занятчии или нещо такова... По тази логика бихме могли да ги четем и като "еди кои си, има еди колко си шуби, еди колко си дрехи и т.н."? (вместо традиционото тюркскоезично четене за разни въоръжения - и разчетено със аналогичии значения, с малки вариации, но чрез ирански, и от П.Добрев.) Защо шуби и дрехи ли? Тази интересна думичка "купе" в ТМ значи точно дреха, шубка, покривало (и може би следва да се отбележи - коренът на думата е тунгусоманждурски - със значение покривам, покривало.. стр 79 на ПДФ http://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/TMS/I/k.pdf --- Майтап, не майтап, май едни от нашите предци ще излезнат братовчеди по език (пък и ние де - като далечни полубратовчеди) с древните пра-тунгусоманджури

А китайски космонавти от праболгарски произход, има ли? --- Смята се в най-разпространеното виждане, че "болоджи" са хунизирани по време на хунската епоха остатъци от юеджи.. С това, което сте написал по-горе професоре (за императора с праболгарски произход , забележка които е "Боло"), ударяте шамари на другите си откровения.. Бей-ши” посочва че „на запад от Ию е на север от Янци /Карашар/, до планините Байшан обитават циби, булочжи, иде, супо, нахе, уху, хегу, еде и юйуниху”. /АМ-ТХ,стр.119/ Ясно виждаме булоцзите като обитатели на земите северно от Карашар, редом с ефталитите /йеда, иде/, протоуйгурите /уху/, протокиргизите /хегу/, протокипчаките циби /по-старото ханско кюеше/. В “Суй-шу” също се споменават племената сродни с болудзите и техните локализации: На запад от Иу /Хами/ и на север от Янци /Карашар/ близо до предгорията на Белите планини /хребеда Актаг, част от Тяншан/ живеят циби, болочжи, иде, супо, нахе, уху, хугу, еде, юйниху и др. Разполагат с 20 хилядна армия. В късния текст „Венсянтункао” от Ма Дуан-лин, се изброяват част от племената влезли съюза теле: „На запад от Иу, на север от Янци, по склоновете на планината Бо [Бай]-шан, обитават шиби, боло, чжии, чжи, субо, наге, уху, гухе, учжи, ниху и др. [племена], имат войска от 20 000 войни” . Преписвачът е разделил названието булоцзи на две части, което е явна грешка. Яо Вей Юан, по-късен автор в своето “Изследване за племената ху” пише че племената цзе са потомци на юечжите, грешка е да се смятат за част от хунну! В 329 г. булодзите цзе унищожават хунската държава Младша Чжао в Северен Китай, но в 348 г. са победени от Ши Мин, наследник на управляващия род в Чжао. Тогава загинали много войни цзе. Именно за тях Яо Вей Юан пише да не се бъркат с хуните, защото са юечжи. ------------ SANPING CHEN SOME REMARKS ON THE CHINESE “BULGAR” (Ottawa) The ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity of the Buluoji, an ethnic group in China during the Northern dynasties, is examined to show that it represented the Altaic remnants of the Xiongnu confederation with an Iranic/Caucasian admixture. The author solves an age-old puzzle regarding the name Buluoji which exemplifies the epochal three-way interactions between Chinese, Altaic and Iranic cultures. Evidence suggesting possible connections between the Buluoji and the European Bulgars is presented, with implications for other issues, particularly the long-hypothesized Xiongnu-Hun equation. Introduction In the early sixth century when the Tuoba Wei dynasty disintegrated in the wake of the Six-Garrison Revolt, there appeared in northern China a Hu “Barbarian” group with the name Buluoji (middle Chinese pronunciation b’uo lak-kiei)[1], also known as Jihu. The late Peter Boodberg was the first to identify this ethnonym with that of the Volga and Danube Bulgars[2]. Boodberg’s insightful paper unfortunately does not seem to have attracted much attention.[3] At the time, the etymology bulga, “to mix, to become mixed” for the ethnonym Bulgar, which Boodberg followed regarding the Buluoji in China without providing substantiating data, was well-entrenched. Boodberg took Bulgar as a generic name, and considered the Bulgars in northern China just another “mixed” race, not at all related to the other Bulgar groups. Given the generally accepted view that various Bulgars groups in Europe and Inner Asia were not only related but also of the same origin, it seems worthwhile to reexamine this issue of the Bulgars of China, which also has implications for several topics related to the Xiongnu. The origin and ethnic/linguistic affiliation A summary account of the Buluoji is found in Chapter 49 of Zhou shu,[4] which has been copied or abridged by several classic encyclopedic sources, namely Tong dian, Taiping huanyu ji, Tongzhi, and Wenxian tongkao.[5] Other brief passages related to the group are scattered in Bei shi, Bei Qi shu, Zhou shu and other minor sources. Lin Gan’s compilation of Xiongnu materials [6] represents perhaps also the most complete collection of Buluoji data, while Zhou Yiliang and Tang Changru - have each done an extensive study on the Zahu, of which the Buluoji was regarded as a component [7]. According to Zhou shu[8], the Buluoji were minor or subordinate tribes (bie zhong) of the Xiongnu, and were the descendants of the followers of Liu Yuan, the founder of the Former Zhao Dynasty (304—329), generally regarded as a Xiongnu regime. This earliest account appears to be at least partially accurate, namely in that the Buluoji contained in great part the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that had not been absorbed by the Xianbei. Besides the Zhou shu testimony, additional evidence includes: (i) As convincingly demonstrated by Tang Changru [9], the geographic distribution of the Buluoji as reflected in various records well matched that of the Southern Xiongnu during the Western Jin. (ii) Several Buluoji clan names, particularly that of the leading clan Liu, plus Huyan and Qiao , were well-recognized Xiongnu names [10]. (iii) The Bei Qi shu biography of Poliuhan Chang, whose surname was but a variant of Buluoji, states unambiguously that the clan descended from the Xiongnu [11]. (iv) As will be further examined, the Buluoji belonged to a group or groups of “barbarians” loosely called Zahu during the Northern dynasties. According to Tang Changryu, the name Buluoji actually superseded the use of the latter. Tang therefore concludes that the Buluoji represented the final amalgamation of the Zahu [12]. Most Zahu groups can be linked with the Xiongnu in Chinese records. Indeed this old Xiongnu connection will have other implications to be discussed later. On the other hand, to judge by the Zhou shu’s biezhong characterization, it is difficult to argue that the Buluoji represented the original core clans of the Xiongnu or their direct, “pure-blood” descendants [13]. On the racial side, there were strong indications that the Buluoji included a conspicuous European or Caucasian admixture: (i) Taiping huanyu ji quoted a Sui source on a contemporary popular saying about the Buluoji being “Hu-headed but Han-tongued” [14]. This shows that, after apparent sinification (Han-tongued), the Buluoji still maintained their distinct physical appearance. (ii) Several Buluoji and Shanhu (see later) clan names like Bai and Cao were of typical Central Asian origin [15]. (iii) If as Tang Changru has concluded that the Buluoji was the final amalgamation of various Zahu tribes, then it naturally included the Jie, well known their Caucasian physical features [16]. (iv) Another argument for the Buluoji’s Caucasian traits is the rather sudden change of the primary meaning of the Chinese character hu from referring to the Xiongnu to designating the Caucasian Central Asians, which happened to coincide with the appearance of the Zahu. This issue will be examined later. On their lifestyle, the Zhou shu account showed that the Buluoji were mostly settled at the time, and partly engaged in agricultural pursuits. However, one may not attribute this entirely to their apparent sinification (adopting Han dress and burial customs, etc., as reported by Zhou shu), or the Central Asian elements among them. Modern archeology has revealed that, contrary to classical records, both the Xiongnu and European Huns had maintained substantial agricultural activities[17]. Despite the conspicuous Central Asian elements, we have solid evidence for the Buluoji’s steppe cultural heritage: Tang huiyao, Jiu Tang shu and Xin Tang shu all classified Buluoji music as belonging to the Beidi “Northern Barbarians”. Further, it was grouped together with that of the Tuyuhun and the Xianbei[18]. The latter two groups’ Altaic affinity is beyond doubt. Moreover, Tang huiyao and Jiu Tang shu both noted that the music was of the “cavalry” genre. Given the familiarity and popularity of Central Asian music during the Tang era[19], these official records separating Buluoji music from that of the “Western barbarians” are strong proof of the Buluoji’s nomadic past. The Buluoji’s steppe cultural identity is further strengthened by the limited linguistic data. A few surviving words of the Chinese Bulgars all seemed to be Altaic, Turkic in particular. Boodberg had identified kuli “slave”, and keye “fort”. This author notes that the Buluoji word weiya (jwei-nga), referring to some kind of wetland tree[21] can be identified with middle Turkic yiγac “wood”, “tree or shrub”[22]. Another toponym Kutuo, identified by Boodberg with Mongolian word kuda ,[23] was also from the area populated by the Buluoji[24]. We may add yet another piece of data: in describing the music of the “three northern-barbarian states” namely the Xianbei, Tuyuhun and Buluoji, Jiu Tang shu states that their songs sung the name kehan “khaghan” frequently, and this was particularly the case with a chapter called Boluohui an apparent variant of the root buluoji.[25] Thus we learn that the Buluoji called their ruler khaghan, a distinct Altaic trait, though the title itself may not be of Altaic origin. To summarize, the Buluoji/Bulgars of China appear to be a group consisting of the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that were not absorbed by the succeeding Xianbei conglomerate, with a conspicuous Europoid admixture. Their cultur and linguistic affinity seems mostly Altaic. The ethnonym Buluoji Boodberg listed some ten attestations of this name in Chinese records, to which we can add many more. Karl Menges, in a rare citation of Boodberg’s work (in a foot note!), pointed out that the Chinese character ji showed a terminal -r in the last syllable (which he again attributed to an oral communication from Boodberg)[26], in support of Menges’ proposed archaic Altaic collective suffix -gir, attested most prominently by tribe and clan names. The ethnonym Bulgar represents but a variant of this suffix. We would like to point out more prominent evidence for the -r ending in the name Buluoji, which in fact creates a direct correspondence between the names Buluoji and Bulgar/Bular. This is the –n ending in the variants Poluohan/Poliuhan, Buliuhan, Buluojian and Bulugen, attested mostly in personal names. It is well-known that Chinese -n was frequently used to transcribe a foreign – r/l.[27] The most prominent example is perhaps the ethnonym Xianbei, widely believed to be a transliteration of *Srbi or *Serbi.[28] For example of terminal -r, see Pulleyblank’s reconstruction *Taxwar of the name Dayuan.[28] To the argument that this usage may have “died out” in the Middle Ages, let us point out numerous medieval attestations like “Samarkand” in Wei shu and “Farghana” in Tongdian.[30] In fact such usage continued to be observed during the Yuan and the Ming, in names like for Altai and for Altan Khan. Even today, it is still seen in modern Cantonese, amply demonstrated by the official Chinese transcription for the Timor Islands, and for Brunei. Also in our particular case, we note numerous -han endings, who medieval pronunciation directly indicates a consonant or gh in the final syllable. Because they lived in mostly mountainous areas, the Buluoji was also known as Shanhu, “Mountain Barbarians”. The direct evidence for this designation is that Bei Qi shu consistently uses this name to identify the Buluoji figures and tribes mentioned in the Zhou shu. Hu Sanxing, the Yuan historian and annotator of the masterpiece chronicle Zizhi tongjian, also made this observation.[31] This identification later provides an interesting piece of data on the Buluoji’s possible connections beyond China. On the origin of the name Bulgar/Buluoji, since the early days of the seemingly unanimous opinion on bulga meaning “to mix, to become mixed”, several alternative etymologies have been proposed.[32] Of particular interest is the etymology “Aufwhler, Aufwiegler” (подстрекатель, смутьян), now preferred by J. Nmeth who had earlier advocated the “mixed” theory. One notes that the Buluoji and in general the Zahu (see below) had been a perpetual “security problem” for the Tuoba Wei dynasty and its successors, namely the Northern Zhou and the Northern Qi (also the Sui and the early Tang) to control. The histories of these dynasties were filled with incidents of the Zahu insurrections and revolts, as well as the government’s continued efforts to subdue or pacify them. Indeed even during the early Tang, the appearance of the name Buluoji was almost always related to such upheavals. The fact that the tribes were constant “trouble-makers” was expressed explicitly by Zhou shu. The perennial strife between the Zahu/Buluoji and the Tuoba (including its successors the Zhou and the Qi) appeared to be a carry-over of the old Xiongnu-Xianbei rivalry.[33] In this connection, “trouble-maker” in the eyes of the rulers of the Northern dynasties seems a plausible etymology for the name Buluoji too. However, the Buluoji belonged to a group or groups of “barbarians” loosely called Zahu during the Northern dynasties. There are precedents for zahu to mean “miscellaneous barbarians”.[34] But in our case, Zahu was evidently the short for zazhong hu[35] which in all likelihood should be understood in the context of “mixed races”. The best example is the case of An Lushan, a self-acknowledged son of a Turk father and an Iranic/Sogdian mother.[36] An was thus called a zazhong hu, translated by Pulleyblank to none other than a “hu barbarian of mixed race”. This plus the observation that the Buluoji represented the final amalgamation of such “mixed barbarians”[38] leads the author to submit that Chinese data strongly supports the traditional “mixed race” etymology for the ethnonym Bulgar/Buluoji.[39] One may note that this etymology is still preferred by a great many authorities, including the acclaimed Russian dictionary of Old Turkic Древнетюркский словарь and The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia.[40] The rooster puzzle A perplexing story recorded in Bei Qi shu shows a peculiar explanation of the name Buluoji. Gao Zhan, the ninth son of Gao Huan and the fourth sovereign of the Northern Qi, had a xiaoming “childhood name” Buluoji. Around the year 561 while Gao Zhan was in a precarious position of Right Chancellor under his elder brother Emperor Xiaozhao (Gao Yan), the following children’s ballad reportedly circulated in the Northern Qi: There lives in the Zhongxing Temple an old white fu bird Whose harmonious singing was earnestly listened to everywhere. A monk rings the bell at night after hearing it.[41] As the spin doctors of the day explained in Bei Qi shu, the Chancellor’s residence was exactly where the Zhongxing Temple used to be, and the fu bird, “meaning rooster”, referred to Gao Zhan’s childhood name Buluoji. The ballad was therefore an omen of Gao Zhan’ s ascendance to the throne. Divination based on children rhymes was a time-honoured tradition (or much-exercised political manoeuvre) in China. Of particular import in this case is the political connotation of the rooster. Starting in the Northern dynasties, a golden rooster became a token of the imperial voice, especially in proclaiming an imperial amnesty a standard act to celebrate the enthronement of a new emperor.[42] Actually there was a similar story during Gao Zhan’s reign as the Northern Qi emperor in which one of his prince nephews was similarly linked with a rooster in a children rhyme, presaging the latter’s imperial fortune. Not to take any chances, Gao Zhan had the nephew immediately put to death.[43] On this key link the rhyme allegedly prophesying Gao Zhan’s enthronement has two difficulties. First, character fu “duck”, or more generally “water bird”[44] has never been attested as referring to a rooster — there does not appear any way to explain this peculiar allusion within classical Chinese literature and linguistics.[45] Secondly, if Zhan’s childhood name Buluoji was to serve the allusion, as Bei Qi shu explicitly stated, an extensive search of ancient and modem Turco-Mongol sources yields no clue to the word implying or pertaining to “rooster”. Despite his examination of the case of Gao Zhan regarding this xiaoming, as well as his other detailed study of the Gao regime, Boodberg completely avoided this “rooster story”, which had a conspicuous appearance in Bei Qi shu regarding Gao Zhan’ s accession to the throne. This author admits to have been too baffled for years for a solution to the aforementioned double puzzle until he realizes the Central Asian elements in both the Northern courts and the Buluoji. We submit that an answer to both difficulties is found in the Iranic root mwr for “bird”.[46] In old and middle Chinese, labials m- and b- were often interchangeable, particularly in transcribing non-Chinese words and names. Examples include muxu <*buxsux “alfalfa”, moheduo “hero”,[47] Pojie (b ‘uo-tsia) mole (mualk) wan (miwan) became Turkic ban and wu (mu) became bou.[50] In our particular case, at least four Chinese transcriptions of the root bula start with m- . The bul- > mwr- equation leads to the identification of fu “water bird” with buluoji, partially answering our double puzzle on linking fu with Gao Zhan’s childhood name. Here mwr- is a fairly general root for “bird”. What about the specific “rooster” insinuation which in fact was the gist of the prophecy? The answer lies in the twelve- animal cycle, widely in use in Inner Asia at the time. Corresponding to the Chinese year of rooster, the Sogdians used none other than the word mryy.[51] This point makes the Iranic/Sogdian equation a perfect answer to the original double puzzle. It is both intriguing and telltale that the fu’s “rooster” allusion would be derived from an Iranic word. Despite the popularity of the twelve-animal cycle among the steppe people within the sphere of Chinese cultural influence (an issue to be further examined later), and the above Iranic equation, Gao Zhan’s childhood name Buluoji was not chronographic, as he was recorded to have been born in 538, a “horse” year.[52] In other words, though the contemporary “campaign managers” went to an Iranic/Sogdian word in order to demonstrate the divine political message, Gao Zhan’s “barbarian” name derived from elsewhere, perhaps either in Gao clan’s questionable ethnic background, or that Gao Zhan himself had been a “trouble-maker”.[53] While this case is an interesting example of the three-way interaction between the Altaic, Iranic and Chinese cultures, it does not seem to suggest yet another etymology for the ethnonym Bulgar. A related issue is the heavy Iranic elements in the ethnic northern regimes of the era, which were largely ignored by the sinocentric classic historiography.[54] Were the Buluoji related to European Bulgars? If the name Buluoji is a cognate to Bulgar as Boodberg has proposed, then a natural question is: were the Bulgars of China in any way related to their European and Inner Asian namesakes? Boodberg apparently did not think so. However, we think there are several indications suggesting such a link: (i) The use of the animal cycle as shown by the famous Bulgarian Prince’ List.[55] Though the underlying dizhi cycle was attested as early as in Shang oracle bones, there has been some doubt on the true origin of the animal “mapping”. However, in addition to the observation that some of the dizhi names appear to be pictographs of the corresponding animals,[56] recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the animal cycle had been in use in China no later than the Warring States era, much earlier than what was thought before.[57] The Austroasiatic link uncovered by Jerry Norman[58] further makes the China-to-steppe transmission route beyond dispute. The apparent historical fact remains that other Inner Asian peoples namely the Turks, the Tibetans, the Mongols, and various ancient Indo-Iranic groups in the region who used the animal cycle had all been in direct contact with the Chinese cultural world. Louis Bazin for example has documented this fact in the case of the Turks.[59] It would be very hard to explain why the Bulgars, of whose calendar the animal cycle was a centerpiece, should be an exception. (ii) The Arab author al-Nadim’ s statement on the Bulgars having once used the Chinese script,[60] suggesting again that they had had direct contact with the Chinese. Indeed this testimony corresponds well with the Zhou shu description that the Buluoji leaders knew quite a bit of [Chinese] writing, yet their language was “like that of barbarians”.[61] (iii) Chinese data suggest Central Asian elements in the Buluoji, which is further strengthened by this author’s Sogdian solution to the “Rooster puzzle”. Given the prominent role the Sogdians and other Central Asians had played in the spread of Manichaeism, particularly to the Turkic-speaking people,[62] al-Nadim’ s statement of the Bulgars having used “Manichaean scripts”[63] now has added implications. (iv) Omeijan Pritsak has suggested that the most prominent “Geschlecht” (род) Dulo on the Bulgarian Princes’ List be identified with the Xiongnu clan name Tuge (Old Chinese pronunciation *d’o-klak).[64] The leading clan of the Buluoji in China was repeatedly identified as Liu. This clan name among the Xiongnu and the Zahu has been proven to refer to none other than Tuge.[65] The prestige carried by the clan name Tuge may indeed be partially based on this connection, for Liu was the name of the Han imperial house and the Xiongnu nobles’ adoption of the name was allegedly based on them being the descendants of some Han imperial princess. Bei Qi shu which was compiled during the Tang). Along this line we have identified an intriguing datum. In the year 751, Tang troops led by Korean general Gao Xianzhi suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of the Arabs and local Turk groups on the banks of Talas River.[66] As a result, many Chinese became prisoners of war and were sent to the heartland of the Abbasid Arab empire. According to Joseph Needham, this event much accelerated the spread and transmission of Chinese technologies and inventions, paper-making in particular to the rest of the world.[67] One such prisoner Du Huan eventually made it back to China via the ocean trade route and recorded his travels based on this extraordinary experience, which included, inter alia, an eyewitness report on Chinese craftsmen working in the Abbasid Arab capital Aqula (Kufa).[68] Among a few precious remaining pieces of Du Huan’s since lost memoir Jingxing ji preserved Tongdian compiled by Du Huan’s clansman Du You, we find the following passage: In the countries I traveled through overland [Central Asia to the Abbasid capital], there was but one kind of Mountain Barbarians, yet several different religions.[69] After years of living in Central and West Asia, Du no doubt was very familiar with the cultures and linguistics of this region.[70] Therefore his choice of the name Shanhu instead of the standard Tang-time designation Hu for Iranic Central Asians is intriguing. In our view Du’s wording has both racial and linguistic underpinnings, and very possibly reflects the flourishing of, if not the Buluoji/Bulgars per se, at least many Turkicized Iranic groups in the area,[71] which was consistent with the subsequent Turkicization of much of the region. On the other hand, we indeed have an earlier record on Buluoji persons travelling westward into the Ruanruan (Jua Juan) territories,[72] demonstrating the Buluoji’s exchanges with people beyond China The above items may not be conclusive, but they suggest that the issue merits further study. As for long-distance migrations undertaken by the Inner Asian nomad tribes, the Tuyuhun and the Volga Kalmyks are two well-known examples,[73] among many others. The Xiongnu and the ethnonym Hu Despite centuries of extensive interactions with the two Han dynasties and their successors, both in violent warfare and through peaceful exchanges, the ethnic and linguistic identity of the Xiongnu has remained to this day an enigma. The question is: Were the Xiongnu Mongols? Or Turks? Or neither? Ever since Shiratori Kurakichi started the research on this subject early this century, the issue for quite some time was the choice between a Mongolian and a Turkic identity for the Xiongnu.[74] But Edwin Pulleyblank in 1963 advanced the theory based on linguistic data that the Xiongnu might not be Altaic at all. Likely enlightened by Otto Maenchen-Helfen’ s earlier observation,[75] Pulleyblank proposed that the Xiongnu language belonged to the Yenissei group, with Kettish as its modern relative.[76] Related to this issue is an old yet eclusive puzzle in Xiongnuno-Chinese relationships, namely the change of the primary meaning of character hu. From the two Han dynasties on down until well into the Southern-Northern dynasties, Hu as an ethnonym had primarily referred to the Xiongnu (and members of their confederation).[77] But during the Tang, Hu became largely reserved for Central Asians. This issue has attracted the attention of several prominent scholars. None has provided a satisfactory explanation for this rather sudden change in the meaning of character hu.[78] Though the Buluoji could not with certainty be traced back to the “hard-core” Xiongnu, the disintegration and dispersion of the latter under the growing Xiabei pressure and dominance apparently resulted in the appearance of various Hu groups leading to the summary Zahu designation with the Buluoji as its last representative. This process is relatively well documented in Chinese sources.[79] While we still cannot answer with certainty the question of ethnic identity, the reconstruction of the process of its break-up inevitably leads to the inference that the original Xiongnu federation had a major Europoid component.[80] Maenchen-Helfen has also demonstrated the increasing Caucasian elements in the Xiongnu during and after the Han Dynasties.[81] At least, we can conclude with much certainty that the end-product of the break-up of the Xiongnu Empire included many Altaicized Caucasian groups. The Hephthalites, the War-Huns and/or the White Huns, etc., represented perhaps such groups who migrated westward,[82] whereas the Buluoji (and other Zahu groups) remained behind. It is worth noting that from early on, the Turks were also known to have descended from the Zahu.[83] We submit that the ethnonym Buluoji/Bulgar may serve as the missing link for the change of the primary meaning of the hu designation, which happened to coincide with the appearance of the Zahu in the Northern dynasties. The fact that Buluoji/Bulgar was the last name for the Zahu was not a mere accident. As we have examined earlier, the evolution of the Zahu included the increasing Caucasian elements in the former Xiongnu groups. With the continued intermixing between the Xiongnu remnants and the Indo-Europeans both native in northern China and from Central Asia, coupled with the westward movement of many such groups, the name Hu acquired in a relatively short time its new primary designation. Besides, this may also have been a harbinger of Central Asia’s turkicization. The Xiongnu and the Huns Another related topic is the enormously popular identification of the European Huns with the Xiongnu in Chinese records. W. B. Henning’s study of the “ancient Sogdian letters”,[84] particularly about the Sogdian name xwn, was once acclaimed as having finally proved such a link.[85] But Maenchen-Helfen soon pointed out the problems in this “final proof’.[86] Denis Sinor has also discounted this evidence and considers the theory yet unproven.[87] The possible connection between the Buluoji in China and the European Bulgars may provide some fresh arguments on this old question. As we have demonstrated, the link between China’s Bulgars and the Xiongnu confederation is well-substantiated. On the other hand, the European Bulgars’ connection to the Huns has also been recorded ever since the nomad’s first appearance in European history. In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns.[88] At the very least, the Hun-Bulgar connection was much more tangible than the Hun-Xiongnu identification. Therefore, if the Buluoji in China can be successfully identified with the European Bulgars, the prolonged controversy on the Hun-Xiongnu identification may for the first time be examined using more than just a plausible phonetic correspondence. Final remarks In addition to their connections and implications beyond China discussed in this essay, the Buluoji also had an enormous impact on Chinese history, political as well as cultural, which went largely unrecognized in the traditional sinocentic historiography. We have already touched upon the Buluoji’s political role. The best example must’be the Six-Garrison Revolt which eventually brought down the Tuoba Wei regime. It was first started and led by a person named none other than Poulihan Baling.[89] What may have been neglected even more was the Buluoji’s significant contributions to China’s cultural and religious heritage. For example arguably the most prominent real-life figure in the vast Dunhuang grotto arts the Buddhist monk Liu Sahe who was of well-documented Buluoji ethnicity.[90] But perhaps the least noted case was the author Lu Fayan of the single most important historical treatise on Chinese phonology, namely Qieun.[91] Here the clan name Lu was but the sinified form of Buliugu, yet another variant of the root Buluoji. Even today, one cannot but marvel at the great accomplishments of such a presumably “marginal” “barbarian” group in medieval China. ________________ [1] The old and middle Chinese pronunciations are largely based on Bernhard Karlgren Grammata Serica Recensa, Stockholm: The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Bulletin No. 29, 1957; reprint, Goteborg, 1964. [2] Peter Boodberg, Two notes on the history of the Chinese frontier — II. The Bulgars of Mongolia, HJAS, 1 (1936) 291—307. [3] To this author’s knowledge, Karl Menges appears to be the only scholar to quote Boodberg’s said work in two essays: Etymological notes on some Pacanag names, Byzantion 17 (1944-45) 256—280, and Altaic elements in the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions, Byzantion 21(1951) 85—118. [4] Beijing 1971 edition, pp. 897—99. [5] Du You, Tongdian, Shanghai 1935, 197.1067; Yue Sh , Taiping huanyu ji, Taipei 1963, 294.646—47; Zheng Qiao, Tongzhi, Shanghai, 1935, 200.3208—09; Ma Duanlin, Wenxian tongkao, Shanghai 1936, 342.2686. [6] Xiongnu shiliao huibian , Beijing 1985 [7] Zhou Yiliang, Beichao de minzu wenti yu minzu zhengce, in Wei-Jin Nanbeichao shi lunji, Beijing 1963, 116—176. Tang Changru, Wei-Jin za-hu kao, in Wei-Jin Nanbeichao shi luncong, Beijing 1962, 382—450. [8] Zhou shu’s other theory, namely that the Buluoji descended from the Rong and Di of the Spring and Autumn period, can be disregarded. See Zhou Yiliang, op.cit., p. 151. It was popular among the Chinese historians of the time to trace the Northern nomads back to ancient “barbarians” in early Chinese records. As Pulleyblank has stated in The Chinese and their neighbours in prehistoric and early historic times, in David N. Keichtley ed., The Origins of Chinese civilization, Berkeley 1983, 411—66, such claims usually had little substantiation. See also Jaroslav Prusek, Chinese Statelits and the Northern Barbarians in the Period 1400—300 B.C., Dordrecht 1971, 222—23. [9] Tang Changru, op.cit., p. 443. [10] Yao Weiyuan Beichao huxing kao, Beijing 1958, pp. 277 and 288. [11] Li Baiyao, Bei Qi shu, Beijing 1972, 27.378. [12] Tang, op.cit., p. 444. [13] However, Jiu Tang shu, Beijing 1975, 29.1072, did call the Tuyuhun “Murong biezhong”. [14] Taiping huanyu ji 35.292. [15] Zhou Yiliang, op.cit., pp. 151—53, went as far as to conjecture that the Buluoji were originally Central Asians from the Western Regions. Tang Changru pointed out that Zhou’s claim could not be supported by the Buluoji’s geographic distribution and numerous old Xiongnu clan names. [16] The Jie people were said to be “high-nosed and heavy-bearded”. See Sima Guang, Zizhi tongjian, Beijing 1956, 98.3100. For an exposition of the Jie’s Central Asian traits, see Tan Qixiang, Jie kao, in his Changshui ji, Bei 1987, 224-33. [17] On the Xiongnu, see Nicola Di Cosmo, Ancient Inner Asian nomads: their economic basis and its significance in Chinese history, JAS 54 (1994), 1092—1126. About the Hun agriculture, see Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, Berkeley 1973, pp. 174—78. [18] Tang huiyao, Taipei 1963, 33.621; Jiu Tang shu, 29.1027; Xin Tang shu, Beijing 1975, 22.478—79. After the completion of this essay, the author has uncovered an interesting archeological datum regarding the Buluoji. A Tang tomb inscription, dated 705, quoted the following “old Buluoji tradition: “Watering sheep must not to be disturbed, whereas a trouble- making horse ought to be quickly eliminated”. (Zhou Shaoliang et al. comp. Tangdai muzhi huibian, Shanghai 1992, p. 1044.) Among other things, this old saying corroborates the notion that the Buluoji had a nomadic past. [19] Xiang Da, Tangdai Chang’an yu Xiyu wenming, Beijing 1957. [20] Boodberg, op.cit. p. 297. [21] Taiping huanyu ji, 35.293. [22] Mahmud al-Kashghari, Compendium of the Turkic dialects (Turk Siveleri Lulgati), edited and translated by Robert Dankoff and James Kelly, Cambridge, Mass. 1982—1985, 111. 225. [23] Peter Boodberg, An early Mongolian toponym, HJAS, 19 (1956) 407—08. [24] Please note that Pulleyblank has raised doubts on the claim that the leading elements of the Xiongnu were Altaic. See later. [25] Jui Tang shu, 29.1072. [26] Karl Menges, 1951 op.cit., p.87n3. [27] Edwin Pulleyblank, The consonantal system of Old Chinese: Part II, Asia Major, n.s. 9 (1963) 206—265, in particular pp. 228—229. [28] See for example Peter Golden, An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples: ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Wiesbaden 1992, p. 69. [29] Edwin Pulleyblank, Chinese and Indo-Europeans, JRAS, 1966, 9—39. [30] See Feng Chengjun, Xiyu diming, 2nd ed, Beijing 1980. One may also see another Tang time attestation transcribing the Gandhari word *sakala, according to John Brough, Buddhist Chinese etymological notes, BSOAS 38 (1975) 581—585. [31] Zizhi Tongjian, 150.4709. That the Buluoji were also known as Shanhu has been pointed out by every author we have cited here: Boodberg, Zhou Yiliang and Tang Changru, as well as the modern encyclopaedia Cihai, Beijing 1980, p. 1755. [32] See for example, Paul Pelliot, Notes sur l’histoire de la horde d’or, Paris 1949, pp. 224—230; Otto Maechen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, Berkerley, 1973, p. 384; J. B. Rudnickij, An etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language, Winnipeg 1962, 1.164—65 and Julius Németh, The meaning of the ethnonym Bulgar, in A. Rona-Tas ed., Studies in Chuvash etymology I, Szeged 1982, 7—13. [33]Fang Xuanling et al., Jin shu, Beijing 1974, 63.1707, for example, has a telling incident showing the traditional enmity between the Tuge and the Xianbei. [34]Chen Shou, Sanguo zhi Beijing 1959, 16.512. On p. 513, this was changed to zhuhu, or “miscellaneous barbarians”. [35] For example, Fan Ye, Hou Han shu, Beijing 1965, 76.2463, specifically called the Xiutu cavalry zazhong huqi. The Xiutu, also known as Tuge later was identified as one of the Zahu groups. [36] Jui Tang shu, 104.3213, and Zizhi tongjian, 216.6916 [37] Tang shu, 150a. 5367; Pulleyblank, The background of the rebellion of An Lu-shan, London 1955, p. l04nl. However, Paul Pelliot in his Note sur les T’ou-yu-houen et les Sou-p’i, T’oung Pao 20 (1921) 323—331, translated in Shen Yue, Song shu 96.2370, to “les tribus mélanges du Nord-Ouest”. [38] Tang Changru, op.cit. p. 444. [39] We may further observe that many newer “revisionist” etymologies for the name Bulgar seem to have been partially motivated by a sense of “political correctness” to avoid the negative connotations of the notion of a “mixed race”. But as Boodberg pointed out, this feeling was absent among the ancient steppe people. [40] For the DTS explanation, see Nmeth’s quoted article. For the other, see Denis Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Cambridge 1990, p. 258. [41] Bei Qi shu 14.183. [42] Xin Tang shu, 48.1269. [43] Bei Qi shu, 11.146. See also Feng Yan, Fengshi wenjian ji, 4.26—27 in Jin-Tang zhaji liuzhong, Taipei 1963. [44] Shi jing, Ode 258. [45] Ci Yuan, Beijing 1988, p. 1917, in fact, can only cite the Gao Zhan story to substantiate this allusion. [46] For ancient attestations, see Harold Bailey, Dictionary of Khotan Saka, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1979, p. 336, and Ilya Gershevitch, A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian, Oxford 1954, p. 8. [47] Lin Zhengtan et al., Hanyu wailaici cidian, Shanghai 1984, pp. 249, 246. [48] Feng Chengjun, op.cit., p. 64. [49] Peter Boodberg, An early Mongolian toponym, HJAS 19 (1956) 407—08. [50] Annemarie von Gabain, Altturkische Grammatik, 3. Auflage, Wiesbaden 1974, pp. 107 and 326. [51] Harold W. Bailey, Hvatanica, BSOS 8 (1935—37) 923—34. [52] As Boodberg discussed the case of Gao Yang in his Marginalia to the histories of the Northern Dynasties, II, HJAS 3 (1938) 225—235, errors in these dates were common. [53] The Gao clan claimed a Han ancestry. But the family was repeatedly identified by the contemporaries as Xianbei. See Yao Weiyuan op.cit. pp. 135—37. Tan Qixiang has suggested the possibility that the Gao was of Korean descent. See Miao Yue, Dushi cungao, Beijing 1963, pp. 93—94. [54] Both Northern Qi and Northern Zhou courts were under some form of Zoroastrian influence. See Chen Yuan Huoxianjiao ru Zhongguo kao, in Chen Yuan xueshu lunwenji, Beijing 1980, 1:303—328. Please note that the powerful Northern Zhou regent Yuwen Hu’s style Sabao (Zhou shu, 11.165) was likely of Zoroastrian origin too. For the bias in classic historiography regarding ethnic regimes in China, see this author’s essay Succession struggle and the ethnic identity of the Tang imperial house, JRAS Series 3,6,3 (196) 379—405. [55] See Omeijan Pritsak’s famous study Die Bulgarische Furstenliste und die Sprache der Protobulgaren, Wiesbaden 1955. [56] Zhai Hao, Tongsu bian, Taipei 1963, 38.22. [57] See, e.g., Yu Haoliang Qinjian Ri shu.jishi jiyue zhu wenti in Yunmeng Qinjian yanjiu, Beijing 1981, 315—357. [58] Jeny Norman, A Note on the Origin of the Chinese Duodenary Cycle, in G. Thurgood et al. ed., Linguistics of the Sino—Tibetan area; the state of the art, Canberra 1985:85—89. [59] Louis Bazin, Man and the concept of history in Turkish Central Asia, Diogenes, 42 (1962) 81—97, and lately his Les systèmes chronologiques dans le monde turc ancien, Paris, 1991. [60] Bayard Dodge, ed. and transl. The Fihrist of al-Nadim: a tenth-century survey of Muslim culture, New York 1970, 1:37 [61] Zhou shu 49.897. [62] Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the later Roman Empire and medieval China 2nd ed., Tubingen 1992. [63] Bayard Dodge op.cit. 1:37. [64] Pritsak op.cit. p.64. This suggestion may require some qualification: Chinese data suggests an original name Xiutuge or *cio(g)-d’oklak for the name Tuge, and one may need a c-/g- >‘ change of the initial. But Xiutuge may well be a short form of Xiuzhu Tuge. See Hou Han shu 90.29 83 and 90.2990. [65] Yao Weiyuan Dugu ji Tuge kao, in Lin Gan, ed. Xiongnu shi lunwen xuanji, Beijing 1983, PP. 69—74. [66] For a most extensive examination of this battle and its consequences, see Bai Shouyi Cong Daluosi zhanyi shuodao Yisilan zhi zuizao de Huawen jilu, in his Zhongguo Yisilan shi cungao, Yinchuan 1982, 56—103. [67] Joseph Needham, Science and civilization in China, Vol. 1, London 1954, pp. 236—37. [68] Paul Pelliot, Les artisans chinois a la capitale abbasside en 751—762, TP 26 (1928) 110-12. [69] Tongdian 193.1041. [70] For example, Du’s accurate comments on Iran having been conquered by the Arabs for more than a hundred years were quoted by Du You to correct the out-of-date Chinese account of the old Sasanid Persia. See Tongdian 193.1042. In addition, Du’s brief descrition of the three major religions current in the region appears quite accurate also. Two of the religions namely Daqin and Dashi can be easily identified as (Nestorian) Christianity and Islam, respectively. The third namely Xunxun (Middle Chinese pronunciation zim zim), requires some erudition. Cihai, Shanghai 1989, p. 2788, suggests that it was likely to refer to Zoroastrianism, claiming, without providing its sources, that the Arabs had called Zoroastrians “Zemzem”. This author has indeed found that the famous early Arab author Abu-l Hassan aI-Mas’udi had reported that a vulgar name, not for Zoroatrians but rather for their sacred book the Avesta (Bestah), was zemzemeh. See Muruj al-Dhahab wa Ma ‘adin al-Jawhar (The meadows of Gold), edited with a French translation by C. B. de Maynard and P. de Courteill, Paris 1861—77, II.123. In view of this evidence, Du’ s accusation of the Xunxun being the worst offenders of sexual morality leaves little doubt that he was indeed talking about Zoroastrianism, which was famed for practicing xvaetvadatha, “next-of-kin marriage”. See for example Mary Boyce, A History of Zoroatrianism, Vol. II, Leiden 1982, P. 75. In fact, the pre-Islamic Iranian tradition of consanguineous marriages had been observed from Herodotus (3.31) on down including Chinese historians. Zhou shu 50.920 has a similar passage on Persians having “the most immoral” marriage customs among the “barbarians”, whereas Sui shu, Beijing, 1973, 83.1856 states specifically that Persians “marry their own sisters”. [71] In fact, Du had also accurately recorded the location of the Kharzar “Turks”. See Tongdian 139.1044 [72] Li Yanshou, Bei shi, Beijing 1974, 98.3264. [73] Thomas D. Carroll, Account of the T’u-yu -hun in the history of the Chin dynasty, Berkeley 1953, and Stephen A. Halkovic, The Mongols of the West, Bloomington 1985. [74] Shiratori himself seemed to have hesitated between the two characterizations. See K. Shiratori, Sur l’origine de Hiong-nu, JA 202 (1923). G. I. Constantin’s work Were the Hiung-nu’s Turks or Mongols; regarding some etymologies proposed by Shiratori, Bucarest 1958, is inaccessible to this author. [75] Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Huns and Hsiung-nu, Byzantion 17 (1944—45) 222—243. On p. 224, Maenchen-Helfen observed that there lived in Xiongnu empire the ancestors of the present-day Ket or Yenissei-Ostiaks, and some of the Xiongnu words might have been borrowed from the Proto-Ket. See also L. Ligeti, Mots de civilisation de Haute Asie en transcription chinoise, AOH I (1950), 141—185. [76] G. Pulleyblank, The Consonantal System of Old Chinese: Part II, Asia Major n.s. 9 (1963) 206—65. It is of particular interest to note that the same Yenissei groups have also been linked, with some degrees of succeess, to the Sino-Tibetan linguistic family. See Sergei A. Starostin, Praeni seiskaia rekonstruktsiia i vneshnie sviazi eniseiskikh iazykov, in E. A. Aleksenko et al. ed., Ketskii sbornik III. Leningrad 1982, pp. 144—237, and Starostin, Gipoteza o geneticheskikh sviaziakh sino tibetskikh iazykov s eniseiskimi i severnokavkazskimi iazykami, in Lingvisticheskaia rekonstruk tsiia i drevneishaia istoriia Vostoka: tezisy i dokiady konferentsii, IV. Moscow 1984, pp. 19—38. The Xiongnu language problem would therefore seem to have come full circle. Indeed in another essay Sino-Tokarico-Altaica: two linguistics notes, to appear in CAJ, this author has observed possible proto-Sinic linguistic connections of the Xiongnu. [77] For Xiongnu data, see the explanation for the clan name Tiefu in Wei shu Beijing 1974, 95.2054. For hu being the general name for the Beidi “Northern barbarians”, see Jin zhongxing shu (quoted in Lin Gan, ed. 1988, 11.1046). [78] Wang Guowei, Xihu kao and Xihu xukao, in Guantang jilin, Beijing 1959, 13.606—19. For the essays by Cen Zhongmian and Lu Simani, see Lin Gan, ed., 1983. Both Wang and Cen tried to explain for character hu’s double meaning by alleging that the Xiongnu were largely Caucasian or had an Iranic origin. [79] For example, Jin shu, 56.1533-34 stated that the Hu of Bingzhou “had in fact been the Xiongnu”. See Tang Changru and Lin Gan for other well-documented cases. [80] For instance, the largely Indo-Iranic Central Asian states had for a long time been under the Xiongnu’s direct control. Some had demonstrated unwavering loyalty to the Xiongnu under the Han pressure. See Denis Sinor, ed., The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, London 1987, p. 128. Also of interest is the “blue-eye” Xiongnu portrait. See Lin Gan, ed. Xiongnu shi lunwen xuanji, p. 81. This author thinks that a potentially fruitful direction for addressing the Xiongnu ethnicity problem is to follow up on Owen Lattimore’s ingenious notion of “progressive barbarization” (a fine elaboration of this theory is given by Peter Boodberg in a 1942 lecture, in Selected works of Pete A. Boodberg, Berkeley 1979, 1—23.), and to examine the great economic and social changes in nothern China in the second half of the last millennium BC which led to the simultaneous advent two empires, one agraric and one nomadic, in East Asia. Along this line, it would seem natural to find among the Xiongnu, not only Altaic and paleo-Asiatic components, but also (native) Indo-European and proto-Sinic elements (cf. note 73) which had been “progressively barbarized” and forced into nomadism by the ever-growing intensive farming in the Chinese heartland. [81] The world of the Huns, pp. 369—74. [82] For a recent survey of some of these groups, see Peter Golden, op.cit., pp. 79—83. [83] Sui shu 84.1862. This Zahu origin of the Turks was maintained or copied by Bei shi (57.3286) and Tongdian (197.1067). [84] The date of the Sogdian ancient letters, BSOAS 12 (1948) 601—15. Please note that Henning’s dating of the letters to be after the sack of Luoyang by the Xiongnu Liu Cong j (311), once universally accepted, now seems untenable after J. Harmatta’s meticulous studies The archaeological evidence for the date of the Sogdian letters, in J. Harmatta ed. Studies in the Sources of the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia, Budapest 1979,75—90, and Sogdian sources for the history of pre-Islamic Central Asia, in J. Harmatta ed, Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia, Budapest 1979, 153—65. As Harmatta has argued, the letters were more likely to describe the events of 193 when the generals of the murdered warlord Dong Zhuo called in the (Southern) Xiongnu troops for the fightings in and around Chang’an. [85] Read for example Prusek op.cit. p. 16 [86] Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Pseudo-Huns, CAJ I (1955): 101—106. However, Maenchen’s use of the Tuyuhun as yet another “Hun” group in his arguments after taking his cue from the Tang period shortened appelation for the group is misplaced. Chinese records have shown unequivocally that, unlike the Zahu, the Tuyuhun had an unmistakable Xianbei origin. At any rate, the Tang time pronunciation of the character hun is certainly quite different than that of xiong . [87] The Cambridge history of early inner Asia, p. 179. [88] See for example Maenchen-Helfen, The world of the Huns, pp. 164, 199, 381 and 43 1—32. Please also note the identification of the name Irnik on the Bulgarian Princes’ List with and the youngest son Ernach of Attila. See Steven Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire, London, 1930, pp. 279—81. [89] Zizhi tongjian 149.4674. This somehow can be viewed as the final revenge the former Xiongnu groups took on the Xianbei who had earlier replaced the Xiongnu as the dominating power on the steppe. [90] Read for example Hlne Vetch, Lieou Sa-ho et les grottes de Mo-kao, in Nouvelle contributions aux etudes de Touen-houang, Genve 1981, 137—148. Vetch unfortunately was otherwise uninformed about the Jihu, as shown by her speculation that ji in Jihu referred to Kashmir (p.147n34). Liu Sahe’s reported pilgrimage to India and/or the Western Regions may provide further evidence for the Buluoji’s links with Central Asia. [91] Chen Yuan, The Ch’ieh-yun and its Hsien-pi authorship, MS 1 (1935—36) 245-52 Copyright©elbilge 2003-2004

Баника от рум. Banice – от *ban* “големец, богаташ” Поздрав за всички съфорумци и съфорумки с летния хит на Андреа Баника: http://vbox7.com/play:4f273934

Тези май не са западни, ами са източни индоевропейци .. Количките и каруците са известни на китайците, на дравидите и на всички древни народи, изполващи/отглеждащи едри домашни животни ..Тук по-скоро се има в предвид тази колесница, която изполва коня като теглителна сила, така ли е?..Да вярно е, китайците се запознават с коня (в този му вид на опитомено едро животно) за първи път през 18-16 век преди новата ера.. (Вероятно от тези същите "Ронг"?? или от други централноазиати).. Дравидите не познават коня в този му познат сега вид, преди арийското завоюване - количките им са теглени от волове и магарета.

Ами китайците оказват влияние на всички номади от Централна Азия (вижте анализа на Полосмак за пазирикското облекло и тъкани) и мисля нямаме причини да изключваме т.н. юеджи (бъдещите кушани)и ефталитите .. Има дори теза че т.н. "Карасукци" са мигранти от северните простори на Китай - една от тезите е че са китаизирани по език белокожи.. Във всеки случай Китай се среща и граничи с белокожо население (вкл. индоевропейско). Искаше китайски автори, ами ето тук една интересна разработка. Идеята на автора е че китайското наименоване на номадите и номадизма ("Ронг" в китайския), произлиза от индоевропейския коренна дума за "номади": Str.34 http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp175_chinese_civilization_agriculture.pdf 8. The Original Meaning of “Rong 戎” According to Professor Yu Min: “ … [The word ‘Rong 戎’] was meant to indicate a style of life—nomadism—in the spoken language of the Zhou dynasty. The seed of agriculture was germinated in the period of Shennong (神农Holy Peasant). Whoever reverted to the life of the nomads could be called ‘Rong’” (Yu Min 1999: 210). Accepting the meaning “nomadism” for the word “Rong戎” in archaic times, we now turn to the corresponding word “Rong” in the Proto-Indo-European languages.45 The origin of “nomad” is quoted from The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (p. 613): nomad adoption of French nomade, Latin Nomad-, Nomas, pl. Nomades pastoral people wandering about with their flocks. Adoption of Greek nomad-, nomás roaming about, esp. for pasture, pl. Nomádes pastoral people, formed on *nom-, *nem- (némein pasture)… Rong 戎, Old Chinese *num > *nung, Middle Chinese nžong, Mandarin rong. Shuo Wen Jie Zi (The Analysis and Annotation of Characters, Xu Shen, 121 AD): “Qiang羌, the western Rong people who live on pasturage of sheep (or goats).” (羌，西戎牧羊人也。) It is clear that the root of Proto-Indo-European *nom- is a cognate of OC *num. The sounds and the meanings are both equivalent. This is a good example of the fact that there were PIE words in the Old Chinese language. We need to revise the conventional definition of Rong. If Rong and Qiang were regarded as two different nations, it would be a matter of great confusion why Qiang was also Rong at the same time, according to the explanation of Shuo Wen Jie Zi. Now we know that Rong was the name of followers of the nomadic way of life, and Qiang was the name of a nomadic tribe. So the exact translation of the explanation to Qiang羌 in Shuo Wen Jie Zi should be this: “Qiang, the western nomadic people who live on pasturage of sheep.” There were the compound words “Qiang Rong 羌戎” and “Shan Rong山戎” in classical Chinese documents. They can be understood more exactly now as “the nomads who pasture sheep and goats” and “the nomads who live in a mountainous (山) area.” Shuo Wen Jie Zi: “Rong戎 means arms. The character consists of a spear and a loricate” [from the item戎, Shuo Wen Jie Zi]. Xu Shen (the author of Shuo Wen Jie Zi) probably was not unaware that Rong invariably meant nomads. But he had to abide by his rule of deriving the meaning of any characters from the several parts of which the character consists, a rule he followed in all of his works from A to Z. He had no choice but to set aside the earlier and obvious meaning of Rong because the structure of Rong means military affairs.46 The meaning derived from the pictorial structure of a 45 The large number of corresponding words between Old Chinese and ancient Indo-European languages can be pursued in my book Comparison of Words between Old Chinese and Indo-European (Zhou 2002). But “rong戎” and “nomad” are a new pair that were not discovered before its publication. 46 Shuo Wen Jie Tsi: “Qiang羌, the west Rong people who live on pasturage of sheep (or goats).” This shows that Xu Shen certainly knew the meaning “nomadic people” of the character Rong. Zhou Jixu, “The Rise of the Agricultural Civilization in China,” Sino-Platonic Papers, 175 (December, 2006) 28 Chinese character certainly was not the original meaning of the word, though the character was created in very early times.47 Enough evidence shows that the original meaning of Rong is “nomads,” and the meaning of “arms” is only a derivate meaning due to the warlike nature of the nomadic people in the early ancient period. The name "Rong" (the chineese name for a nomadic tribe) derives from Proto-Indo-European *nom- (kochevnik). Zhou Jixu wrote: "It is clear that the root of Proto-Indo-European *nom- is a cognate of OC *num. The sounds and the meanings are both equivalent. This is a good example of the fact that there were PIE words in the Old Chinese language." 8. The Original Meaning of “Rong 戎” According to Professor Yu Min: “ … [The word ‘Rong 戎’] was meant to indicate a style of life—nomadism—in the spoken language of the Zhou dynasty. The seed of agriculture was germinated in the period of Shennong (神农Holy Peasant). Whoever reverted to the life of the nomads could be called ‘Rong’” (Yu Min 1999: 210). Accepting the meaning “nomadism” for the word “Rong戎” in archaic times, we now turn to the corresponding word “Rong” in the Proto-Indo-European languages.45 The origin of “nomad” is quoted from The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (p. 613): nomad adoption of French nomade, Latin Nomad-, Nomas, pl. Nomades pastoral people wandering about with their flocks. Adoption of Greek nomad-, nomás roaming about, esp. for pasture, pl. Nomádes pastoral people, formed on *nom-, *nem- (némein pasture)… Rong 戎, Old Chinese *num > *nung, Middle Chinese nžong, Mandarin rong. Shuo Wen Jie Zi (The Analysis and Annotation of Characters, Xu Shen, 121 AD): “Qiang羌, the western Rong people who live on pasturage of sheep (or goats).” (羌，西戎牧羊人也。) It is clear that the root of Proto-Indo-European *nom- is a cognate of OC *num. The sounds and the meanings are both equivalent. This is a good example of the fact that there were PIE words in the Old Chinese language. We need to revise the conventional definition of Rong. If Rong and Qiang were regarded as two different nations, it would be a matter of great confusion why Qiang was also Rong at the same time, according to the explanation of Shuo Wen Jie Zi. Now we know that Rong was the name of followers of the nomadic way of life, and Qiang was the name of a nomadic tribe. So the exact translation of the explanation to Qiang羌 in Shuo Wen Jie Zi should be this: “Qiang, the western nomadic people who live on pasturage of sheep.” There were the compound words “Qiang Rong 羌戎” and “Shan Rong山戎” in classical Chinese documents. They can be understood more exactly now as “the nomads who pasture sheep and goats” and “the nomads who live in a mountainous (山) area.” Shuo Wen Jie Zi: “Rong戎 means arms. The character consists of a spear and a loricate” [from the item戎, Shuo Wen Jie Zi]. Xu Shen (the author of Shuo Wen Jie Zi) probably was not unaware that Rong invariably meant nomads. But he had to abide by his rule of deriving the meaning of any characters from the several parts of which the character consists, a rule he followed in all of his works from A to Z. He had no choice but to set aside the earlier and obvious meaning of Rong because the structure of Rong means military affairs.46 The meaning derived from the pictorial structure of a 45 The large number of corresponding words between Old Chinese and ancient Indo-European languages can be pursued in my book Comparison of Words between Old Chinese and Indo-European (Zhou 2002). But “rong戎” and “nomad” are a new pair that were not discovered before its publication. 46 Shuo Wen Jie Tsi: “Qiang羌, the west Rong people who live on pasturage of sheep (or goats).” This shows that Xu Shen certainly knew the meaning “nomadic people” of the character Rong. Zhou Jixu, “The Rise of the Agricultural Civilization in China,” Sino-Platonic Papers, 175 (December, 2006) 28 Chinese character certainly was not the original meaning of the word, though the character was created in very early times.47 Enough evidence shows that the original meaning of Rong is “nomads,” and the meaning of “arms” is only a derivate meaning due to the warlike nature of the nomadic people in the early ancient period. ------- The name "Rong" (the chinese name for a nomadic tribe) derives from Proto-Indo-European *nom- (kochevnik). Zhou Jixu wrote: "It is clear that the root of Proto-Indo-European *nom- is a cognate of OC *num. The sounds and the meanings are both equivalent. This is a good example of the fact that there were PIE words in the Old Chinese language."

18. тюркск. jabγu ~ žabγu 'правитель, вождь', предполагаемое заимствование из иранск. кушанск. санскритск. jawγu (Golden, 1980) < кит. djan-giwo > современ. šan-ju /23/ 'титул верховного правителя' (Menges, 1968, 88; Gabain, 1974, 381). Китай оказва голямо влияние на съседите си. Не можем да смятаме, че тюрките са заели десетки или стотици думи от китайците (щото това са само една част) , а кушаните и ефталитите са били толко велики, че не са заели от китайците такива думи (кушано-ефталистското "тарконо" най-вероятно произлиза от китайското та-куан "таркан", и май няма нищо общо с алтайците, или с иранците) ----- Говорихме за "кавхан" - титлата се извежда май през сино-корейското kap-kuan, i.e. qap. " the first, the best. " + kuan. " official" демек "Премиер", което еднозначно покрива функциите на кавхана при българите и аварите. При тюрките от каганата тази дума е непозната (имаме лично име Капкан, но то има съвсем друго значение в общотюркския език).