[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 2 Page 2 of 7add up to 515 we must alter the length of Irnik s into 150 years.[3] But nothing elsecan be done until we discover the significance of the Bulgar words.As they stand,there is no means of finding out their meaning: though the Bulgarian, TudorDoksov, writing early in the tenth century, apparently used the same system.But,though a few scholars [4] attempted to bring Turkish and Mongol philology to bearon the question, they could evolve no definite equation between this dating and anyknown dating.It was not till some thirty1.From the photographs of both the MSS.I read here e? which must be intended for 15; but Bury,Marquart, and Mikkola all take it to be 5.2.This rendering is a little doubtful; after Dulo the text goes Vrekshevi Khtun.3.Jirecek, Geschichte, pp.127 ff.: Bury, however (op.cit.below), thinks the change unnecessary.4.e.g.Kuun (Relationum Hungarorum) and Radloff (Die Alttürkischen Inschriften).274years ago, when Russian excavators discovered the Chatalar inscription, that a pointof contact was found; Omortag s foundation of Preslav was dated in the 15thIndiction (i.e.September 821-September 822), or the Bulgarian date s????e?eµ,shegor alem.It would take too long to give a detailed account of the results that savants haveevolved from this additional evidence.I shall merely deal generally with the chiefinvestigators and state which I follow.Bury was the first serious investigator.In1910 he published a clue to the Bulgar words, [1] which, he declared, fitted allknown facts, though he emended the text with regard to the later princes, toreconcile it better with the data of the Greek chroniclers.His theory demanded acycle of 60 lunar years a cycle not unfamilar among Oriental tribes the first seriesof figures e.g.dilom represented the units, the second the decades.He claimed forthis system that it was free from the dangerous trap of linguistic similarities.Unfortunately the dates that he thus evolved upset known history, as Marquartpointed out.[2] In particular, the Bulgars had to cross the Danube 20 years earlier.Marquart s criticisms were damaging, but not constructive.However, in 1914,Professor Mikkola of Helsingfors fell back on to the help of philology, and evolved akey, [3] which provided a twelve-year cycle, in which each year was given the nameof some animal the first Bulgar word being therefore a name, not a number asuggestion that had already been tentatively put forward by Petrovski.Analogies S.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 2 Page 3 of 7with Turkish and Cuman words (e.g.dvansh = Turkish davaan, a hare; tokh = Cumantaok, a hen) and the order of the years in their cycles enabled Mikkola to translatethese Bulgar names and fix their order in the cycle.The second Bulgar words hetook to be the ordinal numbers of the months, and, on analogous linguisticcomparisons, he arrived at an order for them.1.In the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol.xix., pp.127 ff.2.Marquart, Die Altbulgarische Ausdrucke, pp.I ff.3.Mikkola, Tyurksko-Bolgarskoe Lietochislenie, pp.243 ff.275Mikkola s philological arguments are convincing and have now generally beenaccepted.But his dates do not fit with the dates known from our Greek sources,particularly with regard to the Khans living in the time of Copronymus.To producebetter results, Mikkola made one or two later emendations, but ineffectively.[1] Thematter remained unsatisfactory till Professor Zlatarski set to work on it.Zlatarski, who had first accepted a modified form of Bury s theory, [2] now [3]followed Mikkola s first key: i.e.somor = rat, the 1st year of the cycle, shegor = ox, the2nd: beri = wolf, the 3rd; dvansh = hare, the 4th; dilom = snake, the 6th; tokh = hen, the10th; etkh = dog, the 11th; dokhs = pig, the 12th.The months were alem, 1st; vechem,2nd; tutom, 4th; altom, 6th; ekhtem, 8th; tvirem , 9th.These words involve one or twoalterations in the text, all very plausible, e.g.tekuchitem is shortened to etkh.TudorDoksov s bekhti is taken to be the 5th month.But Zlatarski has two importantemendations to make to Mikkola s and previous theories.First, he reverts to asystem of lunar years; secondly, he begins a new era in A.D.680, when the Bulgarsestablished themselves south of the Danube.It would take too long to discuss his arguments in detail.I can only say here thatthey seem to me to be sound in themselves and justified by their results.Till A.D.680 he accepts an era of cycles beginning at the year of the Incarnation: e.g.Avitokhol began to reign in the lunar year A.D.150, which is the 6th year of a cycle.From John of Nikiou we can place Kubrat s death about 642, i.e.662 lunar.ThereforeBezmer ended in 665 lunar; and, if we subtract 515, for the length of the 5 reigns, wereach the year 150 lunar.The coincidence of the first year of a cycle with the birth ofChrist seems to me arbitrary and may be quite fortuitous; though it is curious thatA.D.679 solar (the year of the Invasion) = A.D.700 lunar a mystic S.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 2 Page 4 of 71
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]