12 Hayvanlı Türk Takvimi

Source: Khanslist and http://www.zompist.com/asia.htm Bulgarian year had 12 or 13 months in a 19-year lunisolar cycle. In that cycle, 7 of the 19 years had additional leap month. It is likely that the decision to add a leap month was quite arbitrary, decided by the Khan himself, who also was a chief religious clergyman, or by his boyar subordinates, and was based on the status of the roads, fields, etc. That allowed a flexibility in the timing of the religious holiday celebration, tax collection, and a room to maneuver for good year/bad year superstitions. The months had sequential month-names, like the October, November and December used now in the Gregorian calendar. The year started in March with the beginner, “Alem” month. In Türkic languages, “alem” is not a number, but an adjective with a meaning of “starting, initial, breakthrough” and the like. The comparison below is using present dialectal form of the Suvar (Chuvash), Balkar, and Tatar (Itil Bulgar) numbers as the closest descendents of the Middle Age Suvar, Caucasus and Itil Bulgars. The Bulgarian ordinals of Khanslist are extracted from the manuscript, and may be somewhat distorted. The Bulgarian cardinals of Khanslist are deduced from the ordinals by dropping suffixes. In spite of the obvious, there are quizzers claiming that no discernable connection can be detected between the Bulgarian and Türkic numerals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bulgar cardinales of Khanslist - - vech tut beh alt(i) chit(i) shekht tovir - Balkar cardinales bir eki yuch tyort besh alti cheti segiz toghuz on Chuvash cardinales per ik vish tavat pilek ult shich sakar takhar vun Itil Tatar cardinales ber ike öch dürt bish alti jide sigez tugiz un Karachay cardinales Bulgar ordinales of Khanslist - - vechem tutom behti altom jitem shekhtem tovirem - With shaven heads, they reigned for 515 years before we parted our ways The haircut of the Huns and Bulgars was a celebrated symbol of a caste, carried through the millennia, known from China to Europe, and abundantly documented. The men of the ruling caste had their heads shaved, with a single braid of hair left. The laymen had their hair braided. We can see this “shaven heads” hairstyle in the 1878 picture of I.E.Repin “Letter of Zaporojie Kazaks to Turkish Sultan”. The Scythian pointed hat and haircut survived well into the 20eth century. To see the model of the Türkic royal haircut, click on the thumbnail (112K). Khanslist interpretations, controversies and ambiguities 1. Source There are two theories about the source of the Khanslist. One, advanced by M. Moskov among others, is that the Khanslist originated as an inscription in Greek and was later translated into Slavic and rendered into Cyrillic, the Slavic text is a clumsy translation from the Greek (M. Moskov, Imennik na bylgarskite hanove, Sofia, 1988). The other is that the Khanslist originated as an inscription in the Bulgarian Türkic, and was later translated into Slavonic and rendered into Cyrillic. In favor of the Türkic origin point a number of telltale signs preserved in the manuscript. The most prominent feature preserved in the manuscript is the phenomenon of dot separators between the words. This is a unique and well documented aspect of the Türkic writing. In the Greco-Slavic theory, the dot separators are ignored and skipped without analysis. The second prominent feature is the location of the first word, Atilla, in respect to the rest of the manuscript. It indicates that the original was written right-to-left, distinctive for the Türkic writing and opposite to that of the contemporary Greek and later Cyrillic. The third is the placement of the title “Khan” following the name “Atila”. Unlike the Greek and Slavic, where the title would precede the name, in Türkic the title follows the name. Customarily, the title is agglutinated to the name, creating a myriad of well-known composites like Chingizkhan, Batu-khan, Kur-Batyr, Kur-Amir, Kurbat, Shambat, Aley-bat, Jani-Bek, Berdi-Bek, Gali-bey, Elchibey, Malikshakh, etc. In contrast, the concoctions like Charles-king, Michael-basileus, or Nicolay-tsar do not exist. The fourth feature is the absence of the space separator convention traditional in the Greek and passed on to Slavic Cyrillic. While the Slavic portion of the translation shows space separators, the Bulgarian un-translated sections retain no separation, like in “dilomtrvirem”, or use a dot separator. What looks like a clumsy translation from the Greek would make a natural translation from an agglutinative language, where the fifth feature mirrors the brevity and expressiveness of the agglutinated words, with indicators “emu = his”, “imya = has” suffixed to the root and not forming separate words, unlike the texts rendered into Greek or Slavic. The use of the word “imya = has” in Slavic is well illustrated by the phrase “Произошла от сих двух братов фамилия очень многочисленная, которая наложила себе имя (name) от поколения Ченассов, для того что их предки имя (had) прозвище Чена” (“Descended from these two brothers family very numerous, which imposed on itself a name (imya) from the generation of Chenasses, because their ancestors had (imya) a name Chena”) [Russian translation of Abulgazi “Genealogy of Tatars”, original publication, 1778, Vol. 1, p. 195]. The sixth feature is the trace of the syllabic writing, where the vowels are included in the consonants by convention, and only those vowels that are needed for clarity are indicated, like the initial “A” in Atila or “E” in Esperikh. Once a first vowel is indicated, the trailing vowels follow the law of the vowel harmony, and customarily are not indicated. However, to render the word in Greek or Slavic, the translator would have to “re-invent” the missing vowels. A quick look at the Baichorov's table would suggest how that dynastic name could be spelled in Türkic. Two consonants, “ql”, would adequately represent “Ukil” in Bulgarian, but would be rendered as Ukil, Ugil, Vokil, Oukil, Ougain and Uokil in Greek and Slavic. Another trait of the syllabic writing, the indiscriminate carryovers to the next line resemble little the tidiness of the Greek inscriptions, but are conspicuous in the syllabic Bulgarian Türkic inscriptions. The diacritic marks are typical for the syllabic writing and do not have explanation as Greek or Cyrillic ”ö” and “ü”. The diacritic location of some consonants may be explained as typical for Greek or Cyrillic, but it also may be a close rendering of the Türkic syllabic words. The Bulgarian Türkic writing employed non-alphabetical symbols and conventional abbreviations which could have been used in the slab inscription. The equivalent of the “rule, ruled, ruler” could be one of these signs. In that case, the translation “khan, knyaz, khyaz'ed” would not be a literal translation, but a semantical rendering. The same type of convention could be used to write “Kurbat” as “Kur(ba)t”, with the “ba” syllable omitted in written, but not in the spoken language. An interesting feature that would suggest a Greek original is the use of the “ou” diphthong. I. Mladjov provides the following explanation: “OU” (“OY”) is the standard Greek way of rendering the sound “u” (as in sugar). The Cyrillic took over the entire Greek alphabet, the sound “u” was written as in Greek with combination “OU” (“OY”) or with a ligature which looks like figure “8” but is open on the top. Eventually this was simplified into the Cyrillic letter that looks like Latin Y. But that letter, used in the Middle Ages without “O” in front of it, would not give the sound “U”, but the sound “Y” (“I”, “EE”) as in Greek.” This explanation of the “ou” diphthong serving as a substitute for “u” excludes the necessity for a Greek intermediary, whether a Greek scribe for an oral narrative or a Greek inscription, and supports the concept that the translation was made directly from the Türkic original. The opinion of the experts that the manuscript is a translated copy of a stone slab inscription, and the first four uniquely symptomatic features discussed above lead to a conclusion that the source of the manuscript was a stone slab with Türkic inscription. One day, maybe, we will see the original slab in a museum. However, it can't be ruled out that the original of the manuscript was a parchment from the Danube Bulgaria state archives, which would be moved, together with the seat of the ruler, from Pliska to Bersula (Preslav), and on to Ohrid or Byzantium. 2. Readings and misreading. The most controversial readings are those of “Avitikhol” vs. “Atilla Khan”, then Ukil, Ugil, Vokil, Oukil, Ougain and Uokil representing one or a few clans, and “imenshegor” vs. “(emu) imya shegor” (i.e. “he has (his year) shegor”). 3. Lineage It is clear that the Khanslist inscription did not include all the rulers for the 515 years prior to the Asparukhid partition of the Kaganate, and detailed only the post-partition period. For the dynastic line as a whole, the Khanslist provides a partial insight, allowing to re-confirm the Gregorian calendar dates via dating in the12 year animal cycle calendar. Whether Vokil and Ukil are one and the same, since the two appear side by side in the same text, some experts argued that this is enough to deny the equation, yet just above them we have Isperih followed by Esperih (in one manuscript Espererih). The equation Vokil=Ukil is probably sound, for reasons stated above and also as detailed by other experts. The dynastic tribe of Uokil has a long historical trail extending from 2nd c. BC to 8th c. AD and from Balkans to Mongolia. 4. Calendar The controversy is whether the Bulgarian calendar was a 12 year animal cycle Türkic calendar or a 12 year animal cycle non-Türkic calendar. To substantiate a non-Türkic origin, a researcher needs to locate the elements of non-Türkism, and then propose realistic viable alternatives for these elements. The validity of the arguments for non-Türkic origin, hopefully, will be properly peer-reviewed, without being driven by enthusiastic nationalism. Kaynak: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/25Bulgars/BulgarianKhansListEn.htm 1. The Double Specification of the Events in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Princes and their Importance in Deciphering the Unclear Calendar Terms The Nominalia of the Bulgarian princes is a chronological list, in which each event (besides the first one) is specified twice - by the duration of the rule of the prince and by the specification of the year of his birth/the year of his ascension to the throne. This double specification makes it relatively easy to discover the points of accidental errors in the duration or in the year of ascension to the throne. Unfortunately, this possibility was not used in its full yet. The first year of the first prince - AVITOHOL, was DILOM, and the first year of the last ruler of this series - UMOR, was likewise DILOM. Fortunately to us, this last ruler is also mentioned in the Byzantine chronicles - the year of his accession is 765 AD. That offers us the possibility to locate the year of the eastern cyclic calendar to which the Bulgarian cyclic year DILOM corresponded. According to the eastern cycle 765 AD is the year of the Snake and therefore the legendary progenitor of the Bulgars Avitohol ascended the throne in the year the Snake. Thus, the beginning of the Bulgarian chronicle can be reliably determined. Like every progenitor Avitohol appears in the Nominalia with his full life span. Following the old tradition, he was attributed an unusually long life of 300 years. We can compare him with the patriarchs of the Bible, with the progenitors of the Celts and many other peoples. Avitohol is followed by another legendary personality - Irnik, whose life span was, likewise, unusually long - 150 years. The year of birth of this ruler was again DILOM (snake) and corresponds completely to the features of the Bulgarian cyclic calendar - adding 300 years to the year of birth of Avitohol (Dilom) we arrive to Dilom again. All calculations up to now were correct and it is easy to check them. Figure 6. The twelve-year animal cyclic calendar of the Proto-Bulgarians The successor of Irnik - GOSTUN reigned for only two years. He ascended the throne 150 years after Irnik and, accordingly, his starting year was not Dilom but DOHS. According to the cyclic calendar DOHS corresponds to the wild boar. Here, however, pops up an inaccuracy of half a year, which could not explained by the previous researchers. KUBRAT, called in the chronicle Kourt, follows after Gostun. His year was SHEGOR - the year of the bull after the cyclic calendar, because two years after the year of the wild pig starts the year of the bull. Kubrat's reign was followed by several years of disturbances, combined in the three years rule of BEZMER. BEZMER appears 60 after Kubrat - five full 12-years cycles. That is why his year is the same the Kubrat's - SHEGOR. ISPERIH is the next after BEZMER. He appears is the year VER, which is the year of the Dragon. Like the previous progenitors Isperih was listed on the Nominalia with his full life span of 61 years. But from the text it can be inferred that the year VERENIALEM against his name is not the year of his birth, but the year in which he crossed Danube and created Bulgaria. That is seen particularly clearly from the text preceding his name. In it it is reported that the five previous princes ruled for "515 years on the other side of Danube and then came Isperih on this side of Danube". The newest research points out that 680 AD and not 681 AD was the year of the foundation of Bulgaria. It is in agreement with the Nominalia as 680 AD, the year of the crossing of the Danube, was the year of the VER (Dragon). Isperih is the last ruler listed with his whole life span listed in the Nominalia, the next rulers are given with the span of their reign. That is quite logical since they did not resume the state but just governed. From here on the next periods of rule are likewise expressed correctly, and it was only the bad orientation of the previous translators, that tried to explain the whole Nominalia with the help of the Turkic languages, that led to the general conception that the data in this section were coincidental or false. In reality, there is a only one and insignificant copying inaccuracy in the whole second section. The inaccuracy in question is the the name of the successor of Tervel - Tvirem instead of TVIREMAK or TVIRELAK. Starting with DILOM the previous researchers had no difficulties determining DOHS to be the year of the wild boar, SHEGOR to be the year of the bull, VER - the year of the dragon, TOH - the year of the cock, SOMOR - the year of the mouse, and IMENSHEGOR - the year of the horse. But they have completely neglected the names of the months in the calendar. As a result the calendar terms remained generally untranslated. According the previous translations it followed that Gostun reigned for 1.5 years and Isperih at least 62.5 and not 61 years. Similar discrepancies appeared for Sevar, who was assigned to reign for 16 instead of 15 years, and also for Kormisosh, from whom they took one year off. Vineh was "deprived" of almost the whole seventh year of his rule. Great was also the confusion with the inscriptions from the village of Chatalar, whose datings deviated for almost an year from the Byzantine date of the 15th Indict. The result was a series of ambiguities in the translations of the Bulgarian Nominalia, the errors appeared in the Bulgarian history textbooks and created a distorted picture of history. In the case of the names of the months the translations were only hypothetic - the Bulgarian word TVIREM was, for example, equated with the Turco-Tatarian TOKUZINCHI (via the Chuvashian TAHARAMASH), CHITEM - with ETINCHI, VECHEM with JUCHINCHI etc. The months of the Proto-Bulgarian calendar obviously did not coincide with their Turco-Tatarian counterparts. In order to overcome this very serious problem it was necessarily to abandon the previous translation models and to look for another, more adequate model. As the possibilities of mathematics were not sufficiently used so far, we wanted to apply a purely mathematical interpretation of the names the years and months, relying on the relations between the numerical data of the Nominalia alone. kaynak: http://groznijat.tripod.com/pb_lang/pbl_3_1.html