From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 21 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <371d2390.84564126@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$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <371a3f79.4770940@news.yale.edu> <7fhmfc$h91@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On 20 Apr 1999 10:55:40 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil
Karloukovski) wrote:

>In article <371a3f79.4770940@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>>VassIl Karloukovski communicated to me:
> 
>>>Next, if there is a non-iranian layer, why compare it only to turkic? 
>>
>>this is not true.
>
>I meant that you compared it only to turkic. Probably they could be other,
>closer parallels to those non-iranian, turkic-like words you found.
>

first of all, they mostly weren't *my* comparisions.
secondly they don't constitute a problem inexplicable
just within og~ur turkic. the only one is tele~ga,
which seems to betray a form that developed later
in mongol. hence menges' conclusion that 

>...
>
>>>not in 
>>>any way contradict to the history of central asian peoples moving into 
>>>Bactria, etc. (the formation of the kushans).
>>
>>? interesting. please elaborate.
>
>
>I meant these other, non-linguistic similarities - the artificial skull 
>deformation in up to 70% of the skulls in bulgar necropolises from the Balkans,
>and the similar practice among the Kushans. V. Nikonorov in "The armies of
>Bactria, 700 BC - 450 AD" (1997) has a nice picture of a kushan warrior with
>a melon-like, conical head. :-)) Next, the peaked caps, apparently characteristic 
>both to the danube and volga bulgars, and similar high caps among some of 
>the saka tribes (up to the sakas of the state of Kroraina in the Tarim basin). 
>Further similarities in drawings/rock reliefs of bulgar and kushan warrior
>costumes - short caftans fastened by horizontal braids, etc. 

?

what does that (neccesarily) have to do with the tungus?

>
>Having in mind this as well as that the Kushans might have had some central-
>asian components, the result of the chain reaction and the migrations triggered 
>by the hsiung-hu, why not consider that some of these central asian words in 
>bulgar (bulgar "somor", mouse - turkic "sIchkan", but also the tungus "szomor"; 

here there are two different words. sIc,qan is a specialized
"meaningful" word (defecator). somor is associated with
(pritsak p. 69-70) chuvash sa~va~r (field mouse) which may go 
back to sug~ur < su*ng*ur. there are some alternative explanations
concerning the weasel family with words that may or may not
be cogante to this.

in this case another word made it into the tu"rku"t calendar.
the other turkic languages display uniformity because the
tu"rku"t were able to establish a central authority there.

>bulgar "eth", dog - turkic "it", but also tungus "etek"; bulgar "toh", cock - 

toh representing tox

this is discussed by pritsak in his work on the nominalia. (p. 60)
chuvash has yIta~, which may point to a lost velar (in this
case q > x). the suffix (or word ending) is discussed and
compared to ju"rjen *indaxu*ng* and manchu indaxu:n, which
the other tungus forms are based.

>turkic "tauk", but also the tungus "togo"; etc.) could have been a north 

in this case the contraction is quite common in turkic (the form 
above is a contraction itself, as well as the common development 
from the diphthong au > o), especially in northwestern languages. 
nevertheless the tungus forms, as well as the mongol) are mentioned 
by prtisak p. 60-61. the word seems to be quite common in altaic.

>central asian legacy?

if so it forms a peculiar subset of tungus in common with turkic!
however, it is not unusual for the og~uric group to display
many characteristics that form a bridge between common turkic 
and the other altaic languages.

>
>I don't understand this your fixation on the Kuban basin as the place of contact,

if there was no evidence of -r turkic in that region then there is 
indeed a problem associating the bulghars with turkic peoples.
any similarity would then be peripheral, associated with
contact in central asia.

>of acquisition of these r-turkic or tungus, whatever, words. The slight mongoloidity 
>among the bulgars was an old central asian trait, well before their movement to
>Kuban.
>

it is not neccesary to assume this. if one assumes this
what one has to explain is why the altaic element in
bulghar just happens to be the one most common in
eastern or easternmost europe before the arrival
of qypchaq. this also happens to be assocaited with
bulghars in some way or the other.

thus the conclusion would be that at least an important
constituent of the bulghars were og~ur turkic. the
genetic physical traits would even make it likely that
og~ur turkic *came along* with the bulghars.

>
>VK
>