Bulgarian epigraphic monuments

Bulgarian epigraphic monuments (Chuvash: Пăлхар эпиграфика палăкĕсем, Tatar: Болгар эпиграфика табылдыклары) – tombstones with inscriptions (epitaphs) of the 13th–14th centuries on the territory of the former Bulgarian ulus of the Golden Horde. The identified gravestones can be divided into several categories. From a "civilizational" point of view, there are such:
Muslim tombstones, in turn, can be classified according to language:
Depending on the type of Turkic language, the last group of monuments is divided as follows:
There is also a classification based on the appearance of monuments, in accordance with their artistic features – 1st style and 2nd style.
Tombstones of the 1st style usually have text in z-language, and 2nd style – text in p-language. Therefore, it was initially believed that such a classification covers all the characteristics in a complex. However, there are exceptions to this correspondence.
The study of Bulgarian epigraphic monuments has a three-century history. The beginning was made by the decree of Peter I in 1722, after he personally visited the Bulgar settlement.
In 1831, the orientalist J. Klaproth first published Bulgarian epitaphs. And in 1863, Kh. Faizkhanov read the inscriptions, relying on data from the Chuvash language. This is what it looked like in his article:
Despite the fact that he actually revealed the “blatant Chuvashness” of the texts, Kh. Faizkhanov continued to consider the epigraphic monuments "Tatar" (this can be seen from the given fragment of his article). But this is not the main thing here.
The incident in the course of attempts to translate the expression JIATI JUR was described by A. I. Artemyev (1820–1874) in 1866 in a book published in St. Petersburg; he actually supported Kh. Faizkhanov and showed the fallacy of his predecessors (the aforementioned Y. Klaproth, F. I. Erdman, I. Berezin and others). The mentioned year 623 AH according to the usual chronology is 1226, therefore, with the old interpretation, it would turn out that the tombstone is from the pre-Mongol time. In fact, all the monuments date back to the Golden Horde era. Kh. Faizkhanov's discovery was also supported by N.I. Ilminsky, although he argued that "the venerable mullah expressed... the idea not specifically, but in passing,... and therefore hesitantly and incompletely.”
Subsequently, the work "Bulgarians and Chuvashs" (1902). of N.I. Ashmarin played a particularly important role in revealing the essence of epigraphic monuments.
As for the quantitative side, Nikolai Ashmarin considered only 93 tombstones. There is an erroneous opinion that the later researcher G.V. Yusupov considered 200 such monuments, but only 40 of them belonged to the 13th–14th centuries. The remaining monuments are of later origin. However, the total number of known r-language monuments by that time was also more than 200, it's just that G.V. Yusupov did not thoroughly study all of them, so it should be understood.
In the tables compiled by D. G. Mukhametshin, one can already count 362 pieces. Another source, citing the same D.G. Mukhametshin, gives a different number of the total number of gravestones examined (274) and some other figures – perhaps these are earlier data.
In the XX century, Bulgarian epigraphic monuments in linguistic also analyzed N.F. Katanov, N. Poppe, S.E. Malov, O. Pritsak, Róna-Tas and Fodor S., F.S. Khakimzyanov, T. Tekin, M. Erdal and others.
Most of the identified monuments are now in museums. Including in the funds of the Bulgarian, Bilar, lawsuit-Kazansky museums-reserve, in the National Museum of the Tatarstan, in the Museum of Fine Arts of the Tatarstan, Chistopol, Tetyushsky museums of the Republic of Tatarstan, in Gima (Moscow), in the Ulyanovsk Museum of Local Lore, in the National Museum of Chuvash Republic.
But this is not exhausted by this. For example, there is an appropriate monument in the school museum of the village of Kurmanaevo Nurlatsky district of Tatarstan. There are those who continue to remain in their places of identification.
Bulgarian monuments with only Arabic inscription, which are not very many, occupy a special place among the entire Bulgarian epigraphy. It is difficult to judge the ethno -language belonging of people, but you can learn about their social and personal life.
A completely different thing if the monuments are bilingual, having, in addition to Arabic, and text in Turkic. There are even tombstones of single-speaking-Turkic (there are few of them), as well as one three-and-language-with Arabic, Turkic z- and r-linguistic texts.
It is not known what their carriers on the Volga and Kama in the XIII -XIV centuries called their Turkic languages. In any case, the R-language of this period and the region in science is called the Middle Bulgarian, Volga-Bulgarian or simply Bulgarian.
At the same time, as if as synonyms, the concepts of "old chuvash language" (L. S. Levitskaya) and "Middle Chuvash language" (A. V. Dybo) are found, which completely correlates with the periodization of the history of chuvash language proposed by A. Rona-Tash. According to G.V. Yusupov, "the ancient Bulgarian language", which, partly, echoes the term "Hunnic-Bulgarian language" by O. Pritsak. In a wide context, diachronically covering the entire history of the language, they say "Bulgar-Chuvash language".
As for the z-language of some monuments, D. G. Mukhametshin calls him "Volga-Tourk language", but he is also the "Tatar language". Some others resort to the last name. O. Pritsak defines it as a z-language of the common-Turkic type, standard-tulle language or "Turkic Muslim language of the Oguzo-Kypchak coinage." V. G. Rodionov defines this language as the Oguzo-Kypchak language.
They can say Kypchak, if there is confidence that this language refers exactly to this Turkic subgroup, or even in the absence of such confidence («for the sake of brevity and convenience», as A. A. Chechenov writes). In the terminology of G.V. Yusupov – «Newbulgar language». N. I. Ashmarin defines this language as a Chagatai.
In quantitative terms, the identified monuments by their types (say, language) are not represented equally and unevenly. The largest group is r-speaking. Some researchers, according to various prepositions, tend to avoid such a question. At the same time, as G.V. Yusupov clearly pointed out this fact. And who is skeptical of this, still implicitly agree with this, indicating what language the text on the monument is written.
Sometimes among the r-monuments two varieties are seen in relation to their language, thus distinguishing, in the full set, only three idioms (ǯ-dialect, j-dialect and t-dialect), but this does not change the overall picture, because the fundamental division into r- and z-languages remains unchanged: ǯ- and t-dialects belong, according to the feature of rhotacism, to the Bulgar r-language, the j-dialect, according to the feature of zetacism, to the standard Turkic z-language.
First of all, of course, rotacism and zetacism. Examples: Bulgarian وطر ‘wutur’ <(thirty)> ~ Chuvash vătăr ~ Common Turkic otuz; bulg. سكر ‘säkir’ <(eight)> ~ Chuv. sak(k)ăr ~ common Turkic. säkiz. They also differ in lambdaism and sigmatism: Bulg.بيالم ‘biyelem’ <(fifth)> ~ Chuv. pillĕkĕm ~ common Turkic. bešim; bulg. جال ǯāl’ <(year)> ~ Chuv. çul / çol ~ common Turkic. yes. This example, like the previous one, is taken from an encyclopedia. The same encyclopedia article also provides other most characteristic phonetic and morphological differences between the Middle Bulgarian r-language and the common Turkic z-languages.
Add to this that when N. I. Ashmarin investigated, not yet knew such an important morphological feature of the Middle Bulgarian language, as the formation of the plural by means of the suffix -säm (if more specifically, then "mesh"), which corresponds to modern Chuvash -sem. This follows from the tomb text from Bulgar town, dated 1308.
It is impossible to confuse this with anything else, because this inscription is quite similar to the texts of at least two other epigraphic monuments (from Chistopol 1311 Tagovki igoda Bhol performed in the common Turkic language with the suffixes -lar/-lär. A certain standard was observed, regardless of the type of monument. On another z-monument, dated 1317, from the co. Bulgaria, the goldsmiths of the master Shahidulla, the analogy is half-hearted – about "respect of scholars" is said, but "elevated mosques" are not mentioned. Increasingly-??? profession buried not such, to erection mosques has little relationship.
Bulgarian epigraphic monuments of the XIII-XIV centuries. It should be considered as documented sources of the Middle Ages. Therefore, these objects, in their "undeniable authenticity", nothing can cancel.
From an archaeological point of view, they are artifacts, written sources. First of all, they allow us to judge the language (languages) of people of the era.
True, there is a theory about the «particular"», «special», «functional», «ritual», «sacred» and «cult» character of the then Turkic r-language (G.V. Yusupov, F. S. Khakimzyanov, I. L. Sometimes such a thought is carried out without the use of such high -profile terms: “The quantitative predominance of monuments and style written in the ancient Bulgarian language, when this language has already become used as a conversational, is only an indicator of the survivability of the old tradition and affection of Bulgar to its ancient language,” said, for example, the same G.V. Yusupov. But, in any way, in this, clearly stretched, proposed, case, with inevitably the question arises: where does it come from, this "functional" language? After all, then, in the XIII-XIV centuries, could not be dead, because the language of this type exists now, in the 21st century. And in almost the same region. We are talking about Chuvash. It is the current, current state of the Middle Bulgarian language. A. A. Chechenov subjected the “functional” theory of sharp and extensive criticism. Long before him, the same thing was done by V. D. Dimitriev.
In addition to resolving language issues, monuments give, despite the poverty of texts, rich material about different aspects of the material and spiritual (social) life of people of that era. After all, the names, titles, spiritual titles, professions, the genealogies of the buried, toponyms and other related circumstances are indicated there.
The tombstones under consideration are recognized by works of art. This is what D. G. Mukhametshin writes about this:
.
Art critic S. A. Chervonnaya about tombstones:
.
The main part of this phrase, word for word, is repeated by L. Yu. Braslavsky
The same S. M. Chervonny considers it necessary to emphasize the presence in the epitaphs of "the beginnings of fiction, which includes both scientific (historical, geographical, tendoil) and inspirational-poetic, and fantastic principle. She also notes the presence on the monuments, along with solarm, astral and plant ornaments, and zoomorphic elements ("animal style"), which indicates the connections of the Bulgarian art of that period with more ancient pre -Islamic traditions.
Bulgarian epigraphic monuments were also considered from the point of view of artistic value by N.F. Kalinin (it was he who introduced the concept of "first and second style"), F. Kh. Valeev, D.K. Valeeva.
Before the Mongol invasion, the Volga Bulgaria did not know stone tombstones with inscriptions. In any case, no such monuments were revealed. Archaeologist E.A. Khalikova, who studied the regional Muslim monuments of the XI-XII centuries, notes that "there are still no pronounced traces of tombstones on the graves".
As you know, orthodox Islam does not welcome the structures of any tombstone over the grave; however, nevertheless, such a practice and tradition existed, up to the present day. D. G. Mukhametshin claims:
True, the pre-Mongol Volga Bulgaria was already considered a Muslim country. However, for the appearance of this tradition, an impetus was needed from the outside, we needed a seed. The decisive role of Islam is also recognized by those researchers who are inclined to see other factors.
N.I. Egorov noticed a very important circumstance: the Tahals of buried, drawn at the Bulgarian epitaphs, directly indicate the Central Asian or Caucasian origin of those who are resting under the tombstones; Compare: Hassan al-Samarcandi, Haibetel ibn Muhammad al-Genti, Shah Kurasan ibn Muhammadshekh al-Cherdari, Ismagil of Esh-Schemakhi, Mobarak Shah Kurasani, Sadreddin Esh-Shirvani, Ash-Semahi district, etc.
D. G. Mukhametshin also agree with this:
Or here, he also:
Next:
Here, in addition to the surname-Tahalusov, another-titles join the traditional argument. The fact of the presence of Central Asian and Caucasian migrants is also noticed by S. M. Chervonnaya, it also calls their alleged ethnic origin. So, speaking the words of A. A. Chechenov:
The Volga Bulgar did not have the tradition of establishing stone epigraphic monuments; This tradition is brought by Muslim migrants from the outside, mainly from Central Asia (Khorezm).
And only during the period of the Kazan Khanate does a "new wave" arise, now alone z-speaking, monuments. It is possible to discuss how much it is specifically specifying about the presence or absence of continuity, but it is impossible to deny the existence of a simultaneous temporary gap between the "waves", it is evident.
The end of the Bulgarian erigraphic tradition was associated with the devastation of the Volga-Kama lands in the late XIV-early XV centuries and their turning into the so-called Wild field.
Language: Arabic.
Languages: Arabic and Bulgar.
Russian:
in other languages: