From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 02 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36b7878f.9848962@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>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On 2 Feb 1999 19:11:00 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil
Karloukovski) wrote:

>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 

as I said I'll wait for the reviews on that.

>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 

the difference being - if one accepts iranian origins - that the slavs
were native to the area but the -r turkic people were not. the iranian
stratum of chuvash would more likely be acquired in the kuban region.
what this would say about the composition of the horde that went to
the danube is a different matter. as for who first used in the name
bulgar, I am frankly less interested in that matter.

>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 

I don't consider it "blind".

>"turkic origins" impeded the research in and the more correct interpretation of our 
>history.
>
>
>Regards,
>Vassil K.
>