From: "Stephan Nikolov" Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 29 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <7gamnd$evt$1@news.ox.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$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> <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$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <371e5362.14471999@news.yale.edu> <7fs1j8$brv@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3722705D.B10E96BA@montclair.edu> <37228395.105363334@news.yale.edu> <7g2adc$qkv$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <3724c639.8283551@news.yale.edu> <372792ce.17040963@news.yale.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@ox.ac.uk X-Trace: news.ox.ac.uk 925425197 15357 163.1.171.102 (29 Apr 1999 22:33:17 GMT) Organization: Ste Peter's College, Oxford Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Apr 1999 22:33:17 GMT Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang Cluster User wrote in message <372792ce.17040963@news.yale.edu>... >On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:04:21 GMT, cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) >wrote: > >>>>this thread quibbles about whether bulgars are turkic or iranians. for >>>>proto-euphratic matters see another thread "some turkic words" in >>>>sci.lang. >>> >>>This thread quibbles about whether Bulgars spoke Turkic or Iranian language, if >>>I am correct, or you have already established that the language = ethnicity. > >let me add that at first I trusted dobrev's interpretations but merely >felt that he was exagerating by denying a genuine turkic element. I >also felt that the volgabulghars were turkic speakers even when they >first came to their northern territory. now I have serious doubts >about dobrev's approach. there might be a number of alanic material he >has uncovered (as "pamiri"), and perhaps some of this comes from the >federated alans among the bulghars. they might have even been >particularly strong among the group that went to the danube. > > Well, I do not trust Dobrev instinctively. I never trust authors who use translated sources. Dobrev's approach is largely anachronistic. You can not interpret a word like "chorbadzhija" that is attested for the 17th century Bulgarian reality with a Pamirian word that is not mentioned in sources after the 10th century. I believe that the tsar etymology was even a more convincing example. Still, without being a linguist, I can figure out from your discussion that quite a few words were used by both Turkic and Iranian people in the period, say between 6th and 10th century. This is quite normal. The steppe mechanism of statehood building, presupposes mixing cultures and populations, so the linguistic interaction must have been inevitable. Further, the ethnogenesis is an ongoing process as well as the language is an open system. There have been a sizeable Gothic and Sarmatian community all along the lower and the middle Danube since the beginning of the 4th century, so they must have left their imprint on the Bulgars dwelling in the vicinity. The Alan-Bulgar connection was commented as well. SN