Alexander Savelyev
@santaar-s.bsky.social
Comparative-historical & areal linguistics; ethnic history, toponymy, epigraphy.
The Volga-Kama region, Southern Siberia, and whatever lies in between.
The Volga-Kama region, Southern Siberia, and whatever lies in between.
His cautious advice: do not merge the roles of historian and nationalist. 36 years later — has much changed? Only partially, largely due to individual scholars. Systemically, the paradigm remains firmly in place — and this is to a great extent true for other peoples of the Volga–Kama region as well.
January 26, 2026 at 7:58 AM
His cautious advice: do not merge the roles of historian and nationalist. 36 years later — has much changed? Only partially, largely due to individual scholars. Systemically, the paradigm remains firmly in place — and this is to a great extent true for other peoples of the Volga–Kama region as well.
To sum up, none of the proposed Chinese loans stands up. They provide no evidence for long-term Bulghar residence near China. Early Bulghars must be sought elsewhere.
January 19, 2026 at 1:33 PM
To sum up, none of the proposed Chinese loans stands up. They provide no evidence for long-term Bulghar residence near China. Early Bulghars must be sought elsewhere.
Finally, Vovin proposed Rus. слон ‘elephant’ ← Chuvash сăлан (~ сăлун) ← Chinese 象. This collapses too: Rus. → Chuvash borrowing is perfectly regular. Chuvash -a- ~ -у- as substitutions of Rus. -o- are well attested, cf. Rus. запон ‘apron’ → Chuvash саппан ~ саппун.
January 19, 2026 at 1:32 PM
Finally, Vovin proposed Rus. слон ‘elephant’ ← Chuvash сăлан (~ сăлун) ← Chinese 象. This collapses too: Rus. → Chuvash borrowing is perfectly regular. Chuvash -a- ~ -у- as substitutions of Rus. -o- are well attested, cf. Rus. запон ‘apron’ → Chuvash саппан ~ саппун.
Chuvash çыр- ‘erode (riverbank)’, compared by Vovin to Chinese 溢 ‘overflow’, also has clear Turkic parallels — contrary to his claim.
January 19, 2026 at 1:32 PM
Chuvash çыр- ‘erode (riverbank)’, compared by Vovin to Chinese 溢 ‘overflow’, also has clear Turkic parallels — contrary to his claim.
Instead, çын(ă) has a perfect Turkic etymology (Mudrak 1993), corresponding regularly to Old Turkic jalŋuq ‘person’.
January 19, 2026 at 1:32 PM
Instead, çын(ă) has a perfect Turkic etymology (Mudrak 1993), corresponding regularly to Old Turkic jalŋuq ‘person’.
In any case, both alleged Late Middle Chinese loans collapse. Chuvash çын ‘person’ cannot derive from the LMC form of 人: its possessive çынн-и requires earlier çынă, incompatible with Vovin’s ad hoc *ǯin.
January 19, 2026 at 1:31 PM
In any case, both alleged Late Middle Chinese loans collapse. Chuvash çын ‘person’ cannot derive from the LMC form of 人: its possessive çынн-и requires earlier çынă, incompatible with Vovin’s ad hoc *ǯin.
This is already absurd: Late Middle Chinese dates to around the turn of the 1st–2nd millennium CE. Were the Chuvash still near China then, arriving on the Volga with the Mongols?
January 19, 2026 at 1:31 PM
This is already absurd: Late Middle Chinese dates to around the turn of the 1st–2nd millennium CE. Were the Chuvash still near China then, arriving on the Volga with the Mongols?
In 2011, A. Vovin tried to prove the presence of early Bulghars in East Asia by proposing a few Chinese loanwords in Chuvash: one Old Chinese (≤1st c. BCE) and two Late Middle Chinese (!).
January 19, 2026 at 1:31 PM
In 2011, A. Vovin tried to prove the presence of early Bulghars in East Asia by proposing a few Chinese loanwords in Chuvash: one Old Chinese (≤1st c. BCE) and two Late Middle Chinese (!).
Thus, “East Asian Bulghars” are an extremely ephemeral construct, and attempts to give them substance usually fail.
January 19, 2026 at 1:31 PM
Thus, “East Asian Bulghars” are an extremely ephemeral construct, and attempts to give them substance usually fail.
As noted by E. Helimski, all peoples securely identified as Bulghar-speaking are localized in Europe, whereas all historically attested Turkic languages of Siberia and Mongolia are Common Turkic.
January 19, 2026 at 1:30 PM
As noted by E. Helimski, all peoples securely identified as Bulghar-speaking are localized in Europe, whereas all historically attested Turkic languages of Siberia and Mongolia are Common Turkic.
However, rejecting this fantasy does not imply that the East Asian localization of the early Bulghars is without issue. It relies not on specific Bulghar data, but rather on the assumption that Proto-Turkic was East Asian and the transparent continuity from Proto-Turkic to Proto-Bulghar.
January 19, 2026 at 1:30 PM
However, rejecting this fantasy does not imply that the East Asian localization of the early Bulghars is without issue. It relies not on specific Bulghar data, but rather on the assumption that Proto-Turkic was East Asian and the transparent continuity from Proto-Turkic to Proto-Bulghar.
Salmin’s works are scarcely distinguishable from pseudohistory. Yet in 2014 his monograph appeared in English, edited and introduced by Peter Golden — a curious episode in modern Turkology.
January 19, 2026 at 1:28 PM
Salmin’s works are scarcely distinguishable from pseudohistory. Yet in 2014 his monograph appeared in English, edited and introduced by Peter Golden — a curious episode in modern Turkology.
What seems clear, however, is that yupa is neither a recent internal formation nor an obvious borrowing. It is likely very old, reflecting Proto-Turkic—or perhaps even deeper—realities.
January 18, 2026 at 6:06 AM
What seems clear, however, is that yupa is neither a recent internal formation nor an obvious borrowing. It is likely very old, reflecting Proto-Turkic—or perhaps even deeper—realities.
By contrast, the origin of Chuvash yupa ‘grave post’ remains uncertain. Existing proposals compare it with Narrow Turkic qa:p-a ‘thick, swollen’, o:p-uz ‘mound, uneven ground’, Mongolic obuɣa > oboo ‘ritual stone heap’, yet none is free of semantic or formal difficulties.
January 18, 2026 at 6:05 AM
By contrast, the origin of Chuvash yupa ‘grave post’ remains uncertain. Existing proposals compare it with Narrow Turkic qa:p-a ‘thick, swollen’, o:p-uz ‘mound, uneven ground’, Mongolic obuɣa > oboo ‘ritual stone heap’, yet none is free of semantic or formal difficulties.
Whether such a sacrifice actually took place is another matter (Theophanes was a Byzantine author). But the Khazar term for the rite itself is genuine. This allows us to treat Chuvash śăva ‘cemetery’ as related to Khazar δογ and Old Turkic joγ ‘funeral feast’.
January 18, 2026 at 6:05 AM
Whether such a sacrifice actually took place is another matter (Theophanes was a Byzantine author). But the Khazar term for the rite itself is genuine. This allows us to treat Chuvash śăva ‘cemetery’ as related to Khazar δογ and Old Turkic joγ ‘funeral feast’.
In the 6th century, Menander uses the form δόγια when describing a funerary rite of the Western Turkic Khaganate. In the early 8th century, Theophanes reports that at the δογ held for their tudun, the Khazars sacrificed 300 Byzantine captives together with a tourmarchēs.
January 18, 2026 at 6:04 AM
In the 6th century, Menander uses the form δόγια when describing a funerary rite of the Western Turkic Khaganate. In the early 8th century, Theophanes reports that at the δογ held for their tudun, the Khazars sacrificed 300 Byzantine captives together with a tourmarchēs.
One such term is Chuvash śăva ‘cemetery’, which appears to be related to Old Turkic joγ ‘funeral feast, commemoration’.
January 18, 2026 at 6:04 AM
One such term is Chuvash śăva ‘cemetery’, which appears to be related to Old Turkic joγ ‘funeral feast, commemoration’.
As is well known, much of the Chuvash terminology related to the afterlife and funerary ritual is borrowed from Arabic and thus Islamic in origin. Against this background, the few clearly pre-Islamic terms are especially valuable.
January 18, 2026 at 6:03 AM
As is well known, much of the Chuvash terminology related to the afterlife and funerary ritual is borrowed from Arabic and thus Islamic in origin. Against this background, the few clearly pre-Islamic terms are especially valuable.
More generally, it is hard to see why the Strahlenberg–Müller theory is any better than E.A. Malov’s 1882 suggestion that the Chuvash worshipped the biblical Golden Calf (Aram. Tōrā ‘bull, ox’), revered by the apostate Israelites of the Old Testament.
January 17, 2026 at 9:05 AM
More generally, it is hard to see why the Strahlenberg–Müller theory is any better than E.A. Malov’s 1882 suggestion that the Chuvash worshipped the biblical Golden Calf (Aram. Tōrā ‘bull, ox’), revered by the apostate Israelites of the Old Testament.
Scandinavians did reach the Middle Volga in the Bulghar period, of course. Still, borrowing the name of the supreme deity—in the near absence of other Norse loanwords in Chuvash—remains difficult to imagine.
January 17, 2026 at 9:05 AM
Scandinavians did reach the Middle Volga in the Bulghar period, of course. Still, borrowing the name of the supreme deity—in the near absence of other Norse loanwords in Chuvash—remains difficult to imagine.
A.V. Golovnev’s version is more restrained, yet the core idea remains the same: Thor is said to have crossed ethnic boundaries and expanded his sacred domain eastward, into Bjarmaland.
January 17, 2026 at 9:04 AM
A.V. Golovnev’s version is more restrained, yet the core idea remains the same: Thor is said to have crossed ethnic boundaries and expanded his sacred domain eastward, into Bjarmaland.