From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 27 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36d758d6.92149463@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$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36d4af09.200065368@news.yale.edu> <7b3nct$c6s@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On 02 Feb 1999 Vassil Karloukovski wrote:

going back a bit ...


>In article <36b61035.22226830@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>>On 1 Feb 1999 14:37:56 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote:

>...
>>>I couldn't deny that but the question is how relevant are these rather late
>>
>>they show that the -r turkic component of the volga bulgars, which
>>seems to be old,

>... and the south slavic component in the danube bulgars was as old (VII-VIII c. AD)

> was important enough as to establish itself as their
>>dominant local langauge.

>... and was important enough to establish itself as a dominant language, in fact,
>was adopted as a language of the state and the church, although the court and the
>administrative titles remained iranian. This -r turkic "volga bolgaric" probably

actually the turkic element of danube bulgar is best evident in the
titles.regardless of whether all of them have a turkic (or altaic)
etymology or not (and some of them may ultimately have an iranian
etymology) they were mainly titles used by turkic people. soem may
have simply been due to tu"rku"t influence, others may be older.
menges seems quite succesful in his articles in byzantion. also with
some military jargon. perhaps it was an -r turkic ruling clan with
alanic soldiery?

>corresponds to the old proto-bulgarian as much as the south slavic "old bulgarian"
>does.

>Let me also say that I wouldn't reject any possible turkic traces or involvement and
>I am quite happy with this chuvashian-like turkic on volga. At the end, we in Bulgaria
>share some folk traditions, folk embroidery patterns, etc. with the chuvash. It is
>a part of some common heritage that should be treasured. But the blind belief in the
>"turkic origins" impeded the research in and the more correct interpretation of our
>history.

>Regards,
>Vassil K.