From: Robert Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 27 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <36AEE9D8.4A3F8755@earthlink.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 27 Jan 1999 10:17:57 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Wed Jan 27 02:25:02 1999 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang 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 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? 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