From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 21 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <371e5067.13709162@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 21 Apr 1999 Vassil Karloukovski wrote:

>In article <371d2390.84564126@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>>On 20 Apr 1999 10:55:40 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote:

>...
>>>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?


>the point was that a plausible and consistent not only with the linguistic but 
>also with the material, historical evidence line can be built which links the 
>bulgars with southern central asia. Whether that altaic component was tungus, 
>or oguric turkic as you say, doesn't change the interpretation significantly.

? if it is impossible to associate this component with turkic and
dobrev is right about their origins then the turkic intepretation of
the bulghars is in trouble. then one can only say that they picked up
oghuric turkic in the kuban region region secondarily and one would
argue as to its significance.

>Regards,
>Vassil K.