From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 03 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <36b8c40f.73547756@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> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu> <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b61035.22226830@news.yale.edu> <797ik4$jo4@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36B7C8ED.F19FB4AC@earthlink.net> <36B7D5D1.283A0970@montclair.edu> <36B7DFE3.3F38CE52@earthlink.net> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:34:27 -0800, Robert wrote: >H.M.Hubey wrote: >> >> Robert character wrote: >> > >> > The Hubey character also made a reference to there being evidence >> > of Turkic peoples on the Volga as early as the 2nd century B.C., if I >> > recall correctly. If so, this wouldn't have been the original component >> > of the Bulgars, who, as you know, have been archaeologically traced to > > > One cannot make strong statements regarding >> language of people using archeaology. Most people who write on this >> have no idea of the latest developments. > > > I was referring to the material culture of said component. The area >from which this group is thought to have been derived, its earliest >manifestations around the 2nd century B.C.E., was populated by >Indo-Europeans. > > >> >> There is no evidence for Bulgaric anywhere except the west. The other >> Turkic language which is far off from others Khaladj is also in the >> west. >> Furthermore we see the r disappearing in Central Asia from the first >> time >> we see the writing. Instead of "ersem" today the languages are "esem". >> So it is pointless to try to prove that z-turkic became r-turkic via >> rhotacization. All the evidence points in the other direction. Turks (or >> at least one of their ancestors) got to Asia late. The problem is that >> historically and even today, "turkic" is identified with Mongoloid >> peoples and hence is always put beyond the Altays. > > > Significant, considering Dobrev does stress the Europoidity of the >proto-Bulgars as a counter-argument to the "mongoloid" Turkic >hypothesis. However, I confess your information is complete news to me. >I thought a Siberian/Altaic genesis for Turkic peoples was taken for what is debated is whether turkic, mongolic, tungus and for some korean and japanese are genetically related or that the similarities in this group is a result of prolonged contact. at any rate, it is generally agreed that these peoples have been together fro a very long time and certainly not at the late date that hubey suggests. >granted. Apparently even this isn't universally embraced. Then again, >aren't you the one who finds the theory offered by a Turkish scholar >that Sumerian and Turkic are related credible? Perhaps I'm confusing you >with someone else. Unless I'm really behind the curve on this one (after >all, I'm no scholar), this is a fringe theory, isn't it? Sort of like yes, it is a fringe theory. >L.A. Waddell's ideas once that Sumerian was the original Indo-European >language in a more primitive agglutinative stage. > >Robert >