From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <36bf48b3.12101160@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> <36bb9684.197081548@news.yale.edu> <79hqua$2a2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36bcbb6a.86280875@news.yale.edu> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang Cluster User wrote: > >On 6 Feb 1999 16:34:18 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil >Karloukovski) wrote: > >> >> >>I don't follow you. You are not attaching much importance to the material > >I didn't say they were unimportant, but in the field of turkic or >iranian studies, they might be consdiered peripheral. > >>and other evidence from the much earlier and much better documented balkan/ >>southern european region (byzantine and latin texts, epigraphical,toponymical, > >so as you see there is nothing to disagree about. I was talking from >the viewpoint of the psychology of scholars. > >>etc. evidence, much better knowledge of the earlier roman, hellenistic, >>etc. history and peoples), and prefer to base your argumentation on the >>much later and obscure evidence from volga instead!? What can I say? > >the evidence from the volga is not obscure, but as I said the >compostion of that horde might be different. > >> >> >>>>not 'supposed' to do such things... >>> >>>I would still have some doubts that these were alanic - at least in >>>the sense of being brought from central asia. they very well could >>>reflect middle persian influence in the kuban region. after all, >>>azerbaiyjan is known for its fire tempels and I heard that it even got >>>its name from them. >> >> >>So, you would regard them are not being characteristic to the bulgars and > >I didn't say so! it just might be acquired while in the kuban region, >perhaps with persian influence and not brought from central asia >whether they were turkic or central asian iranic. > >>would attribute them to some other culture instead? And, at the end, we >>will have some "crypto"-turkic bulgars who have hidden their "true" turkic >>identity and have prefered to appear under the disguise of non-turkic >>names, non-turkic language and cardinal numbers, non-turkic culture and > >as I said, this is not the issue I was talking about and I am just >waiting for a review of dobryev's work to say one way or the other >about it. > >>customs. Who must have even abandoned their true turkic style of writing >>from right to left and must have switched to solar from the turkic lunar BTW with this sentence you have just removed the turks of republican turkey from being turkic! >>calendar they should have, but who remained in essence turkic? Is it? > >I'll check some of the issues you have raised here. BTW who said that >the turkic calender was lunar? the only thing I know about it is that >the few month names listed by ka*sh*gari suggest a solar or luni-solar >calender. the calendar, as it was during the 11th century is discussed by kashgari (p. 174 - 175 of the facsimile, vol. I 347 of atalay's translation). he states that according to the nomads and the pagans the year is divided into four sections of three months each and that the first month is the first month of spring, the third is at "the threshhold of summer". this suggests a solar or mainly solar calender. maybe there is iranian influence but the names of the three months he gives is turkic. the 12 year animal cycle, shared by the mongols, agrees with the chinese which use a luni-solar calender. actually the only major entirely lunar calender is the islamic calender. before muhammed, even this intercalated a month to keep it in step with the solar year. islamic people have generally used a local solar calender along with the hijri year. the saljuks even commissioned omar khayyam to reform the persian solar calender, and called it the jalali year. it was used during the following turko-mongol dynasties together with the twelve year turkic animal cycle until some changes made by the last persian pehlevi dynasty. thus I don't see a solar year contradicting being turkic. > >>xThen one may ask what does the very word "turkic" mean here. It sounds > >in this context -r turkic. > >>like some uncurable, unwashable infection, genetic trait or who knows >>what... >> > >I am not interested as to what constitutes being bulgar or turkic or >iranic. I am mostly using them as linguistic categories so some of the >things you mentioned are not that crucial. there is a group of people >and it is interesting to sort out the various linguistic elements >among them, as well as the various cultural. you are raising a >needless polemic. > >>