From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 27 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <36af5752.1195388@news.yale.edu> References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$qi0$1@whisper.globalserve.net> <369F52FE.2B6@sbu.ac.uk> <77rc86$auj$1@brokaw.wa.com> <36A444B3.F3B70F1C@alum.mit.edu.-> <7827sb$269$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A52D70.9E372DD2@alum.mit.edu.-> <36A556AB.9927BD29@montclair.edu> <36a63533.58309714@news.yale.edu> <7866ud$i9m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36cdb21e.883120019@news.wxs.nl> <36A7FCC8.79790A6B@earthlink.net> <36d77e23.1000882888@news.wxs.nl> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <36AC3460.856801F6@earthlink.net> <36ae814d.4306061@news.yale.edu> <36AEE9D8.4A3F8755@earthlink.net> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:26:32 -0800, Robert wrote: >Cluster User wrote: > >> > In addition, it's generally accepted that the culture possessed by >> >the Bulgars was a heavily sarmaticized one with Kushan elements as well. >> >> fine. on linguistic grounds such a substratum can be assumed as well. >> this does not mean that there was not a later turkic migration. > > > If this were really the case, wouldn't this mean that the original >Bulgar component was "turkicized?" This might make more sense than the >sarmaticized turks scenario. After all, what has been identified as >typical of the material culture of the Bulgars derives from the I find this specualtive and somewhat pointless. I guess we missed the chance of asking them what constituted the most important element of "being a bolghar". most likely they didn't care. most likely they were a mixed tribal confederation and didn't worry about modern nationalist notions. >Kushano-Bactrian area from a period predating Hephthalites, Chionites, >Kidarites, etc. Bulgars were later under turkic vassalage at one >point, until Khan Kubrat's successful revolt against them which resulted >in Great Bulgaria. Perhaps this was a period of turcification? > > > >> >until centuries later. Some scholars have maintained that turkic Bulgars >> >swept into Bactria from the Northeast and mingled with the population, >> >adopting the local cultural markers. They find evidence for this sort of >> >intrusion in about the 2nd century B.C. However, this is precisely when >> >the Yueh-Chih are thought to have entered Bactria, forming the Kushan >> >empire. Last I heard, most scholars lean towards regarding the Yueh-Chih >> >as Indo-European rather than Turkic people. Coincidentally, they, like >> >> OK. >> >> however all this does not necessarily mean that there was no later >> turkic invasion. > > > If I'm reading you correctly, you are opening the door for >turkification, or am I completely missing your point here? > I am not "opening the door", I am repating the usual view that the area was -r turkified from a previously sarmatian population. > Regardless of what language the Volga Bulgars might have been >speaking or what script they were writing it in on the Volga, Bulgar >inscriptions found throughout Bulgaria, the Ukraine, and the Azov area >(which Dobrev also claims exist in the Pamir region) still merit some >research. I sincerely hope Dobrev's effort in this area aren't >underestimated, or worse, ignored by western scholars altogether. A good >starting point would be his interpretations and counter-arguments >against the claims of the turcologists that the Nominalia of the Bulgar >Khans is full of mathematical errors, which he argues is based on >erroneous translations using faulty turkic cognates. > > >Robert >