Was Haplogroup R originally mongoloid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahliski

Well modern Bulgarians barely have any East Eurasian which means that the population that settled there only were an elite or the population they brought with them were mostly non-Mongoloid admixed

---

Yes. There are many proofs who relate Bulgarian language with other Iranics. Literally, Slavic nations and Iranic nations are historical brothers. Specially by origin and language.

Turks are some different civilisation from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahliski

It was possibly their elite that was speaking Turkic, the main population could easily have been a mix of Turkic, Iranic and Slavic that later got completely slavicized.

---

Yes, something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlatko Vukovic

Yes. There are many proofs who relate Bulgarian language with other Iranics. Literally, Slavic nations and Iranic nations are historical brothers. Specially by origin and language.

Turks are some different civilisation from them.

---

Only Scytho-Sarmatians are responsible for the linguistic and cultural connection to the Slavs in terms of borrow words, other Iranic populations were way too remote.

By linguistic terms, older Iranian dialects have a good share of similar words, don't remember them all but there are quite few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlatko Vukovic

It is not unknown fact. That Bulgars are slavicized turkic tribe.

But you must admit that they don't look today as Turkics. They have more Slavic genes and Thracians.

---

its because they settled there many millenias before modern era.

http://alterling2.narod.ru/English/Maps/BulgarsE.PNG

http://alterling.ucoz.de/_si/0/s08183770.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/TYUauXa.png

On the map, purple dots mark localities with Bulgarish origin of the name, which may correspond to the times of CWC or close to them. Maroon – the later, of Scythian period. Asterisks mark known single or group sites of CWC. Browns show the area of Indo-Europeans, and green is the territory of the spread Fatyanovo and Balanovo cultures. Hydronyms of Bulgarish origin are indicated by turquoise dots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan

its because they settled there many millenias before modern era.

http://alterling2.narod.ru/English/Maps/BulgarsE.PNG

http://alterling.ucoz.de/_si/0/s08183770.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/TYUauXa.png

On the map, purple dots mark localities with Bulgarish origin of the name, which may correspond to the times of CWC or close to them. Maroon – the later, of Scythian period. Asterisks mark known single or group sites of CWC. Browns show the area of Indo-Europeans, and green is the territory of the spread Fatyanovo and Balanovo cultures. Hydronyms of Bulgarish origin are indicated by turquoise dots.

---

So what is Turkic evidance about it? Does proto-Bulgars looked similar to other Turks in ancient time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlatko Vukovic

So what is Turkic evidance about it? Does proto-Bulgars looked similar to other Turks in ancient time?

---

look at the Chuvashs, they speak a modern Bolgar-Turkic language but no Turk understand them. Bulgars do have much IE Germanic parallels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahliski

Only Scytho-Sarmatians are responsible for the linguistic and cultural connection to the Slavs in terms of borrow words, other Iranic populations were way too remote.

By linguistic terms, older Iranian dialects have a good share of similar words, don't remember them all but there are quite few.

---

Yeah. I am speaking about similar nature of language, between Slavic and Iranian. Words are today of course very different. 2 different civilisations, 2 different continents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan

look at the Chuvashs, they speak a modern Bolgar-Turkic language but no Turk understand them. Bulgars do have much IE Germanic parallels.

---

IE yeah. But Germanic? I don't see any Germanic connection with them in history and migrations.

but please note - those similarities only between Iranic and South Slavic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlatko Vukovic

IE yeah. But Germanic? I don't see any Germanic connection with them in history and migrations.

---

Klyosov from the same paper: "Те же языки, в своем развитии, составляли неИЕ языки древней Европы, которые от современных молодых тюркских, конечно, ушли уже очень далеко, и которые до сих пор составляют мощный «доИЕ субстрат» в европейских языках, в частности, в германских."

Google Translate: "The same languages, in their development, were the non-IndoEuropean languages of ancient Europe, which of course from the modern young Turkic countries have already gone very far, and which still constitute a powerful "pre-IndoEuropean substratum" in European languages, in particular, in Germanic."

look up: --> Chuvash-Germanic lexicon