# Were Bulgarians originally Turks?



## Outsider

choppy seas said:


> Also I find your perspective on Bulgarians interesting,when we note that these are originally a Turkish tribe which were subsequently Slavicised.


That's the second time I've read that claim here in the forum. What, exactly, made the Bulgarians "Turks"?


----------



## choppy seas

Outsider said:


> That's the second time I've read that claim here in the forum. What, exactly, made the Bulgarians "Turks"?


  Thankyou for your invitation! I am no specialist on the subject,but I have heard the Bulgarians originally migrated,for whatever reasons,from Turkey.Perhaps you could or others could provide more info.on this...
   Another bit of knowledge I have on these matters,is that the gypsies of Hungary have many traits in common with South Asians. Perhaps there is some connection between this and the Bulgars migration. Again I am not a specialist and this is all I know on the subject!


----------



## Outsider

I was very surprised to hear this. I am well aware that the gypsies are originally from South Asia, but I had never heard about a connection between the Bulgarians and the Turks. I'm sure there was extensive Turkish migration into Bulgaria in the later Middle Ages and afterwards, but the first Bulgars show up in history much earlier than that.


----------



## Maja

Outsider said:


> What, exactly, made the Bulgarians "Turks"?


As far as I know, their origin.


----------



## beclija

Well, in my opinion such generalizing claims do not make much sense anyway. As a matter of fact, the word "Bulgar" was originally used for a (probably) Turkic tribe that was settled on the shores of the Wolga. It is believed that a part of the tribe's nobility invaded the Balkans when their sovereignity was crashed by the Khazar expansion, somewhere in the ninth century. But they were always a small elite, and must have were christianized and submerged in the local Slavic speaking population rather quickly. The only thing that survives of their language is the name "Bulgar" and a few names of their Khans. Some of these names apparently have plausible etymologies in Turkic, but as it is the only thing surviving from the language, the exact classification remains unclear/disputed. It does appear to have been an Altaic language, though. See also In Wikipedia.

There is no close connection with the Turks of Turkey from this period. Only much later did Bulgaria become part of the Ottoman empire, and, as in other countries and languages of the region, a lot of "Turkish proper" influences from that period are visible today - for example Turkish loan words even for some rather basic vocabulary. Today there is a rather large Turkish speaking ethnic minority in Bulgaria (9,4% according to Wikipedia), plus a somewhat smaller Bulgarian speaking Muslim minority. 

But that is basically two different stories that do not have much to do with each others.


----------



## Outsider

This is very interesting. I see that my knowledge of the history of the Balcans is shamefully lacking. Thanks.


----------



## beclija

Actually, I got some details wrong (I wrote my post rather from memory): The Bulgars actually came to the Balkans in the 7th rather than 9th century, according to that linked article, which also claims that a few inscriptions survive - besides the list of Khans' names. 

Even before their venture into the Balkan, the Bulgars must have been a rather "mixed" people. Some claim that the Huns, after receeding from central Europe, formed a large part of their stock, and apparently (I didn't know this either, but there are some comments in the Wikipedia article) there were not only Turkic/Altaic but also Iranian contributions.


----------



## Outsider

It reminds me of the history of Hungary. What confused me was that I was looking at Bulgaria from a Byzantine perspective -- the first "big" Slavic adversary they had.


----------



## divina

I associate Bulgaria more with Albania than Turkey; I don't know why.


----------



## Maja

divina said:


> I associate Bulgaria more with Albania than Turkey; I don't know why.


As far as I know, they are not associated to Turks in today's  Turkey, at least not closely! They were a Turkic nomadic tribe (a light year ago   ). But they suffered under Ottoman's rule just like Serbs or  Greeks... They were  never Muslims (apart from those who converted to Islam during Ottoman empire).  They were  monotheists, until they came to the Balkans  and received Christianity!


Outsider said:


> This is very interesting. I see that my knowledge of the history of the Balcans is shamefully lacking. Thanks.


Nothing to be ashamed of! I thought so too, until I was told differently by my History professor and then talked to some Bulgarians who confirmed it. 
Cheers!


----------



## spakh

Yes, Bulgarians and Turks have the same Turkic origin. But after immigrating to the south-eastern Europe, they were assimilated in Slavic people. And originally 'bulgar' derives from a Turkic word meaning 'to mix'. They immigrated to the SE Europe but not all of them. Some (they are the ancestors of the Chuvash)remained where today there's modern Chuvashia (near Volga River) in Russia. 
After immigration Bulgars were christianized and founded Bulgarian states.
To sum up today there is no relationship between Turks and Bulgars.


----------



## übermönch

The name of the people is turkic, and it was brought by Bulgars; Bulgarians themselves were originally Dacian, Greek and whatnot. Those Bolgars who remained on the Volga river converted to Islam and after the Tataromongol invasion, Russians started refering to Bolgars and all other nomad peoples as Tatars.


spakh said:


> Yes, Bulgarians and Turks have the same Turkic origin. But after immigrating to the south-eastern Europe, they were assimilated in Slavic people. And originally 'bulgar' derives from a Turkic word meaning 'to mix'. They immigrated to the SE Europe but not all of them. Some (they are the ancestors of the Chuvash)remained where today there's modern Chuvashia (near Volga River) in Russia.
> After immigration Bulgars were christianized and founded Bulgarian states.
> To sum up today there is no relationship between Turks and Bulgars.


Tatarstan is actually closer to their original settling space - Beliar (prior to the destruction by Batu Khan it had more than 100.000 inhabitants. Now it barely has 3.000), Kazan' & Bolghar were originally Bolgar cities.


----------



## ronanpoirier

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

Genetically, we can see a number of genetical marks on Bulgaria, which also exist in Turkey, however they are not restricted to Bulgaria only. But there is one mark which seems to have originated in Turkey and it gave origin to the two genetical marks which seems to be the "European marks". So, since Bulgaria is closer to Turkey, their genetical marks didn't have so much modification. However the same gene may be another one in France, for example, because it passed through several modification in its long trip from Turkey to France. 

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
A good map with the haplotypes from the Y-chromossome and the mtDNA, so you can see what is related to what.


----------



## robbie_SWE

übermönch said:


> The name of the people is turkic, and it was brought by Bulgars; Bulgarians themselves were originally Dacian, Greek and whatnot. Those Bolgars who remained on the Volga river converted to Islam and after the Tataromongol invasion, Russians started refering to Bolgars and all other nomad peoples as Tatars.
> 
> Tatarstan is actually closer to their original settling space - Beliar (prior to the destruction by Batu Khan it had more than 100.000 inhabitants. Now it barely has 3.000), Kazan' & Bolghar were originally Bolgar cities.


 
That could actually be discussed Übermönch. Some specialist sat that the Dacians inhabited the region were Romania is today long before the arrival of the Bulgars and that they are a separate tribe of people. That the Bulgars mixed up with the Dacians south of the Danube and lived in symbiosis is the most accepted hypothesis. But I think that if you ask the Bulgarians today who they think their ancestors were, they would probably say the Bulgars and not the Dacians. 

For more information, see this: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia

 robbie


----------



## evilponger

I stumbled on this thread while googling for some information on the "bulgars", please note the lack of a proper transcription for the distinct "ъ" vowel, as it is nothing like the turk "bulga".

What most people would point out as "proof" of the Bulgarians being an originally Turk tribe, comes from the Czech Tomashek who, confronted with the title of the Bulgarian ruler КАНАСЮВИГИ, managed to conjure the turk "khan" by applying greek grammar to Bulgarian in a rather frivolous way. The proper division would be into "kana" and "subigi"...

Read the "Bulgars" article on wikipedia as well as the reference posted there. The discussion page itself is also quite interesting. Check out the materials by Peter Dobrev at the end of the article.

Recent studies contradict the turk, khazar, and "what not, mixed lot" theory. And yes, Britannica did get it wrong.

-------
I want to point out that I have no time/incentive to participate in a discussion, I just think that when considering history one should be acquainted with the sources and (possibly) most interpretations. I have made my choice based on this information, and only wish to make you aware of an alternative... So all replies will be disregarded. If you want to argue, look up the facts, and argue with the interpretations.

Best Regards
or
mfg. if you will


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Hi you theare.
I am Bulgarian and first i want to apologize for my bad english.I heard for this topic in some Bulgarian forums, so i want to give you some answers to the questions - "Were Bulgarians originally Turks?".
NO, defenetly not.We are european people as a rase and we have nothing common whith turks.Actualy we always are been enemys with turks, even in central Asia before our ancestors to came in Europa.This turk theory is from the time of USSR and communism end it says thath Bulgarians are been small turk tribe (no more than 10 000 mans) who are make Bulgarian contry and are been asimilated for less than a century in a whole see of slavs, who are been in the Balkans in this time (so called south slavs or Bulgarian slavs).Of course this is tottaly unproff and full bullshits and the reason for this theory is to hide the fact thath Russia itself in the past is 
successor of old Bulgarian country in nort of the black see, known to Bysantiums as Old Great Bulgaria and Black Bulgaria latter.The mix of scandinavian and Bulgarian royal famillis (Rurichy) are the first guvernors of so called Kiev Rus.And the hospital of this contry - city of Kiev is made not from vikings, but from King of Old Great Bulgaria - Kubrat (also known as Hor-bat (bat=the older brother) and Kurt) and his brother Samo (also known as Sham and Kiu(the smith)).And the second reason is the second Bulgarian country in Europe - so called Volga Bulgaria, which is old mediaval enemy of Tzars Russia and this Bulgarians are fight even in Russian revolution against communist but this is another story.

So, who were Bulgarians originally?Maybe the right answer is that we are the subsequent Scits (Sacas).This is the name, used from meny medieval chronists for Bulgarians.And our name Bolg-Arians talk for itself.Bolg in the past is articulated as Blag and on Bulgarian language this mean noble.And Arians i think you all know whats mean, its mean people on old persian.In our own sources is writen that the first name of our nation is Syri.Our first location is somewhere in Tarim valley and/or west Altai, as to the whole Arian nations in BC era.But latter we where inhabit to the south in country known on diferent languages as Balgara/Balhara/Bahlika/Burgian/Baktria, whit capital - the city of Bolg (Zaraspa) (the city with the same name lies in Volga Bulgaria even today) also known as "the city of thousand kings" whit guvernor named Tarkan (there were the same title with the same meaning in the Danube Bulgaria).

pridnestrovie.net/images/scythia.jpg

There are many hypothesis when the first Bolgarians are move to north Caucasus mountins where is the first Bolgarian country in pact with Alans (Sarmatians/Savromatians) located in Europa (first findings for this country with name Bolgaria - arround III-th AC).Maybe because of Alexander the I, macedonian invasion in central Asia.Because of Kushans invasion, because of Huns invasion (definitely some of Bulgarians are came whit Huns and are settled in Panonia (Hungary), but this Huns are not turks too, they are been White Huns, that means Arians (the name of Hungary came from Hung-Aria)), because of Yellow Huns invasion (the ancesors of turks).There are no sure sources.First informations about Bulgarians in Europa (north Caucasus) is from the III-th century.In IV-th century are the first findings for Bulgarian settles from Panonia to the south of Danube in Dalmatsia and Keramisian field (Macedonia) during the wars against Byzantium empire in pacts whit Huns firs, Gepids and Avars latter.But in the VII-th century the Kniaz (king) Kubrat of the Caucasus Bolgarians - Onogonduri (Huno-Gond-Ari) manage to unite two other Bulgarians tribes in the north of black sea and in the Кrim peninsula - Kutriguri and Utiguri after victories against Avars and west turkutes and made huge country named from Byzantines (two cuntries are allyes in this time) Old Great Bolgaria with capital of Fanagoria.But after his dead, his sons separate the Bulgarians and the country again.After Hazars invasion one of the sons - Kotrag go to north-east and with his Bolgarians made Volga Bolgaria, other - Kuber go to Panonia and became federat of the Avars, but latter cross Danube and settle Keramisian field becaming federate of the Byzantines.The biggest son bat-Baian became vassal to Hazars, but latter his country became independent as the name of Black Bolgaria with capital of Batavil and after the Bulgarians became minority toward slavs they lose the power in country and it become so called Kiev Russ whit capital of Kiev.The smallest son - Isperih go to south west and begin war with Byzantium empire.After great victory against Konstantine IV lead himself all Byzantium army, his Bolgarians in today Vlasia, Basarabia and part of Ukraine settle also Mizia and Scitia minor (Dobrudja) and latter this country unite with Bolgarians of Kuber in Macedonia and counquer Tracia and allmost all salavs tribes on central and east Balkans during many successful wars agains Byzantium.This people and this country are today Bulgarians.In VIII-th century there where three empires in Europe - Byzantium, Franks and Bulgarians empires.
The fate of Volga Bulgarians is diferent.After mongol-tatar invasion in X-th century they are partial assimilated from turks-tatars and today they speak turkish language and in the time of communism in USSR they are been forsibly transformed to "tatar" nation (before then they call themselves Bulgars) and their republic today is called "Tatarstan".From this Bulgarians forsibly transformed to tatars is delusion of the turkish origin of Bolg-Arians  .But this Volga Bulgarians and Danube Bulgarians have around 13 centurys devision and different fate.Afret many falsification of our history and origin from USSR, Tatarstan and many other with some interests, the facts are what they are.

Bulgarians are old indo-european nation, we had Kniazes and Tzars named Isperih, Persian, Krum, Boris (Bogoris) and others, and before Christianity, our ancestors are build Zoroastrians temples.And we are also one of the oldest nation in Europe, but turkish invasion in 14-th century change many things.This are 500 years of isolation.This 500 years still have their influence in Bulgaria and the Balkans at all.
But whathever we are today, we have a glorious descent and history.So please dont jeer whit this.
At last i want to thank to anybody who have patience to read all this  .


----------



## avok

BuccaneerBG said:


> NO, defenetly not.We are european people as a rase and we have nothing common whith turks.Actualy we always are been enemys with turks, even in central Asia before our ancestors to came in Europa.This turk theory is from the time of USSR and communism end it says thath Bulgarians are been small turk tribe (no more than 10 000 mans) who are make Bulgarian contry and are been asimilated for less than a century in a whole see of slavs, who are been in the Balkans in this time (so called south slavs or Bulgarian slavs).Of course this is tottaly unproff and full bullshits and the reason for this theory is to hide the fact thath Russia itself in the past is
> successor of old Bulgarian country in nort of the black see, known to Bysantiums as Old Great Bulgaria and Black Bulgaria latter


 
It seems to me your English is much better than your history. Gee, now I feel sad (  look, I feel sad ) if you still believe that there is such thing as European race  
By the way, with my fair hair and green eyes I look more European than half of the Europeans  What happened to my Central Asian genes ?  Is it ever possible that the only Asian feature that I have is my native language ! Is it ever possible that there are millions of people who are Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Macedonian origin in my Turkic speaking Asian land ! Is it ever possible that you have never heard of these in your history classes in your European raced country " just by chance" ?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



BuccaneerBG said:


> Bulgarians are old indo-european nation.


I'm so sorry, but what does 'indo-european' has to do with it? Indo-European is a word coined to denote a _language family_, and certainly not an ethnic group (or race, whatever that is). If the word 'Indo-Europeans' is used in serious literature, then it simply means 'speakers of IE'.
The fact that Bulgarian is an IE language doesn't mean that the speakers are 'Indo-European', for the simple reason that, by definition, IE is a linguistic notion, not an ethnic one.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Ok.
About the race, i meaned, europeid race, not language family.As i sad, my english is not very good and maybe some time i use wrong words.About the race, antropologist are define this very long time ago, but some pseudohistorians still talk about turk and mongolian look of ancient Bulgarians.This is based on assumption for their old language who some historians define as turk "R" language, speculation from the turk language of today tatars in republic of Tatarstan in Rusian federation, some of who are heirs of Volga Bulgarians.But they speak this language after XIII-th century under influence of mongol-tatar Golden horde, conquared them.In III-th century and before there are still no turks at all, anly turcutes who are not actualy turks.
There are many evidence that the language of old Bulgarian (people who are call themselfs Bulgarian before establish of Volga and Danube Bulgarian countries) is close to iranian speeches fron medle Asia and is indo-european language not turk too.

*avok,* i dont understand what you ask me for.You talk about some macedonian, there is no such etnic group nor a language in present days, Bosnian too.I dont know for what "Central Asian genes" you talking about.Allmoust all of European people came from central Asia in antiquity.Maybe scandinavians and ugro-fins are the only native population of Europa.Slavs came from Asia, Germans, Sarmats (Sacas, Alans), Kelts before them, and Bulgarians, Hungarians and others too.They are all Arians, and they speak indo-european languages from this region, exept of Grees and some other nations who came from Afrika and Middle East.Ofcourse this were millenias ago and now there lives other ethnic and language groups.And if you are from Turky as i suspect you have nothing common with these old inhabits of central Asia if you think youreself for real turk, not for armenian, grees, bulgarian, other slavs etc, asimilated from them in Anatolia.
You can be sure i have heard many things and not in history classes, anyway you opinion for my history knowledge is not inportant for me.I am clear about that many things i say sounds strange.This is because of clishes in history and the fact that most people dont know enything about my nation and even are able to belive in such nonsenses as turk origin of Bulgarians and Bulgarian language, no mather in present days or thousands ago.Maybe the things i say, sound too nationalistic, but as i sad these are the facts, no mather what we are today.


----------



## Athaulf

beclija said:


> Even before their venture into the Balkan, the Bulgars must have been a rather "mixed" people. Some claim that the Huns, after receeding from central Europe, formed a large part of their stock, and apparently (I didn't know this either, but there are some comments in the Wikipedia article) there were not only Turkic/Altaic but also Iranian contributions.



I checked out some online references for this question (unfortunately not available for free -- one of the perks of working in the academia ), and it seems like the available historical and archaeological information is insufficient for any reliable answers to the questions of the ethnic origin of the ancient Bulgars (more precisely, several distinct peoples who were called by that name in various early medieval sources), as well as the origin of their language (of which only a few inscriptions have survived, none of which have been deciphered satisfactorily). Of course, the fact that it's a hot issue for nationalists from various sides doesn't help either. What seems certain is that they were a quite heterogeneous ethnic mix, and apparently expert opinions are divided over whether the language was Turkic or Iranian (my impression is that the latter hypothesis is favored primarily in Bulgaria itself, which itself might be a clue of sorts ).

I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind, however, when you're describing the language as possibly "Altaic." From what I know, the Altaic theory is quite controversial, and rests on some dubious comparisons  between very different languages. Are there actually any proposed "universal Altaic" features that would make it possible to characterize a language as "Altaic" even if in some cases when it can't be established that it belongs to a specific non-controversial sub-Altaic family (i.e. Turkic, Mongolic, etc.)?


----------



## Abbassupreme

Iranian? Which Iranian language?  Old Persian?  Middle Persian?  Kurdish?  Mazandarani?  What?  (assuming, of course, that this is true)


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


BuccaneerBG said:


> About the race, i meaned, europeid race, not language family.As i sad, my english is not very good and maybe some time i use wrong words.


Weird, as far as I know, 'Indo European(s)' means exactly the same in _any_ language. So your use has nothing to do with 'bad English'...


> About the race, antropologist are define this very long time ago,


Which modern day anthropologists use the word 'race'? And if any, how do they define it?



> Allmoust all of European people came from central Asia in antiquity.


What do you mean by this? I have the impression that you're using and mixing a set of terms (e.g. European, people, antiquity) which results in a highly anachronistic and very idiosyncratic account.



> Maybe scandinavians and ugro-fins are the only native population of Europa. Slavs came from Asia, Germans, Sarmats (Sacas, Alans), Kelts before them, and Bulgarians, Hungarians and others too.


This would imply (hi)stories of massive depopulation and repopulation, invasions, mass-slaughters and the like. I have again more than just the impression that you're mixing up labels for languages with ethnic labels.
BTW, what are your sources for all this? What do you consider to be Skandinavians, for example? People who live(d) there, who migrated to that region, who spoke a 'skandinavian' language (be it North Germanic or anything else)? Which period are we talking about? You mentioned 'antiquity'... how 'antique' is antiquity?

Just wondering.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## beclija

The parallels between the different "Altaic" languages (at least the core language families Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusian; the inclusion of Korean defended by some is far more speculative) are quite established. What is, to my knowledge, controversial is the interpretation as a group of languages descending from a common proto-language or as the result of a close Sprachbund. Either the way the concept "Altaic language" has a meaning.

Anyway, saying that "people X were originally Y" is pretty much contentless, even more so when X lives at a historical crossroads. Migratory movements targeting present-day Bulgaria during the last 3000 years include minimally: Greek colonisation at the black sea cost (cca. 700BC), Celts (400BC), Romans (+/-0), Jews, Goths, Slavs, Bulgars, Pečenegs, Ottomans, Roma. For none of these we have reliable demographic data on how large there numbers were compared to the old inhabitants, or how quickly they mixed with them. Many of the newcomers had lived at similar crossroads before the reached Bulgaria, so whatever their language (we may never be able to establish) we can not but conclude that their make-up must have been similarly complex already at their "origin". Not a peculiarity of Bulgaria, of course.


----------



## Athaulf

Abbassupreme said:


> Iranian? Which Iranian language?  Old Persian?  Middle Persian?  Kurdish?  Mazandarani?  What?  (assuming, of course, that this is true)



None of the known Iranian languages, of course, nor anything particularly similar to them -- otherwise, it would be more or less clear what exactly those ancient Bulgar inscriptions say, and their interpretation is still a matter of controversial guesswork. From what I've read, the proponents of the Iranian theory claim that it's a distant relative of the Pamir languages.


----------



## barkley04

well, as far as i know the bulgarians are not turks. it is quite obvious that there is only one clear fact is that the turkish civilization and the bulgarian one were in a crash during the ottoman reign and thre was a contact between two different civlizations. that's all.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator Note:  If people are unable to maintain a respectful dialogue, this thread will be closed.  Discussion, including disagreement, is welcome; but attacks on members or cultures are not tolerated here.


----------



## Maja

barkley04 said:


> well, as far as i know the bulgarians  are not turks. it is quite obvious that there is only one clear fact is that the  turkish civilization and the bulgarian one were in a crash during the ottoman  reign and thre was a contact between two different civlizations. that's  all.


 I can't see this as a proof that  they had no common origin many centuries ago! I am not saying they had (although  that is the theory I am familiar with), I am just saying that it is not enough  of a proof. Besides, Bulgarians fully assimilated with Slavs  and had their own Empire. Bečlija provided the  link. 
See the map of Ottoman's conquests. They invaded many  countries, including Islamic ones. Hunger for power and domination sees no  "common origins". There are countless examples of it, including the Soviet  Union. 

Regardless of  different theories, one thing we can all agree upon is that they are not of  Slavic origin. They came to the Balkans in the 7th century and successfully  assimilated with Slavs (accepting their language, customs and  religion).

A question for our Bulgarian peers:
What do Bulgarian  scholars say about Bulgarian origin? What is the officially accepted stand on  the issue, or to rephrase it: what do your historic books say about it?


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Maja said:


> A question for our Bulgarian peers:
> What do Bulgarian scholars say about Bulgarian origin? What is the officially accepted stand on the issue, or to rephrase it: what do your historic books say about it?


This is a good question dear neighbour, even if its provocative.I think i already answer to this questions and i think you are not very familiar with this as you think, but maybe you are familiar with the same USSR (pseudo-panslavic) and communist propaganda for which i already wrote.
Defenetly in our historical books is not writen for any "bugari-tatari"  on what Macedonian Bulgarian are were learned from serbs "historical" textbooks.
So, in our historical textbooks is not endorse mutch on ancient Bulgarians and accents are thoroughly on Danube Bulgarian history after battle against Konstantine IV Pogonat in 680AC and doings after Bullgarians settles in Mizia and Scytia minor in the government of Kniaz Isperih (probably Isper (silver, shining) + Rih (King)), after devide of Great Old Bulgaria of Kniaz Kubrat, his father.
The suppositions for Bulgarians before this were that they are small nomadic turk or mixed turk-iranian tribe for less than a 10 000 people (10 000 nomads against whole Byzantium empire army (wined persians and arabs armys before then) and even win , this sound very logical  ).They create Bulgarian country and for less than a 2 centuries they are assimilated from slavs and their language is replaced by slavic one, only 12 words and the name of Bulgaria remain.And these slavs are have nothing oppose to call themselve Bulgarians .This is the turk theory if it have some weight as a theory, which was let down to as from the big red brother of USSR.All contradict facts for this madness was simply ignored.Of course this is questions of Russian panslavic politic which hade function to make from Bulgarians the most possible slavs stamped with some doubtfully proofs and to belittle Bulgarians element declare it as most possible disgusted origin for contemporary Bulgarians.Of course Bulgarians are very simmilar to slavs because of theirs common ancestors - Scyth-Sarmatians and the language are very simmilar too.With the diferens that in Bulgarian language have many ancient iranian words which are not find in other slavs languages.The problem for russians is that these Bulgarians are been match more developed in medieval time and antiq than russins (Ants/Anetes) and slavs at all and the Bulgarian descent of their own medieval country (Black Bulgaria first, later Kiev Russ).So this was cursorily mentioned in our historian textbooks before 10/15 years and mostly in the time of communism when Bulgarian histiryografy aunt followed russian.
Now after many facts and documents are shown openly our history is in procces of particularization with unison of the old ignored and new facts.

And the seccond part of your question.About our home historical books and documents.First about 7-th century becoming of Bulgarians on Balkans - this is not true.According to our documents, our Tzar Kaloian (Kalo=handsome Joan=Ivan) in letter to pope Inokentii the III-th arround 1202AC, indicate his noble right to own Bulgarian country from the Bulgarians passage of Danube from IV-th century at Budin (today Vidin).This is baccause of Latin empire pretentious for Bulgaria and non-recognition of royal origin of Tzar Kaloian for which he asked from papasy.
And for the same reports Manasian chronicle (14-th century):

_"In the time of emperor Atanasii_ (491-518AC),_ Bulgarians begin to capture this land after they passage at Budin, and firstly they start to conqure the lower land Ohridian _(Keramisian field/Macedonia/Kutmitcevitsa) _and after then the whole land.From the becoming of Bulgarians until now there are 870 years._
_._
_._
_In the time of this Tzar Constantine_ (Emperor Constantine IV Pogonat) _the Bulgarians cross Danube and deptive from greeks_ (Byzantines)_ after defeating them (the doings in 680/681 year), this land, in which they live during until now.Early this land was called Mizia.As they were nomerousness, they fill not even this side of Danube _(land south of the river),_ but the other too _(north of the river) _and the land beside Drach and further."_(sorry if the translation is not very exact, its written on old (medieval) Bulgarian in original)

So, as you see its not 7-th century, but many early, before slavs too.And Bulgarians are not 10 000, but "nomerousness".And there are other documents too, but this are home sources from our hronists even if they are not remain in Bulgaria now (papasy and other country museum).
About Bulgarian origin we have home document too:
Early, anonimmous chronicle, found in Russia about Bulgarians settle on the Balkans:

_Numerousness, even countless, they_ (Bulgarians) _fill all the land beside Drach _(city in today Albania), _bacause Bulgarians and Persians and the Magi are the same and all of them are new-comers to this land._


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Athaulf said:


> What seems certain is that they were a quite heterogeneous ethnic mix,


Well this is just one of the theoris for the proto Bulgarian origin (before their establishing on the Balkans), there are 16 other theoris  .This theory is produced from turk theory in attempting to elucidate some of the many inaccurasies of turk theory, still thinking proto Bulgarian language for turkic.It is baced only on the turkic word of "bulga" which mean "mixed".But as i allready mentioned the medieval form of Bulgarian self name in our own inscriptions is Blagarians and the closest meaning on Bulgarian, even today language is Blag=noble + Arian=man/fanner.Actualy it is not Blag too, but there is no sound of "Ъ" in english language, not in any tutkic too, only in some indo-european languages.It is BlъgArians and today name of Bulgarians is actualy Bъlgarians as we articulate it, but as you cant say that the closest meaning to write it is to replace "Ъ" with "u" or "a", or something between them.So we have nothing common with turkic word of "bulga", its just coincidence with the form of our name to other languages which have nothing common with the form used from ourself, which have no meaning on turkic languages, but have axact meaning on Bulgarian lnguage even modern, and many other ancient iranic languages from middle Asia with the same meaning of noble/royal.
There are no evidence for "mixed" origin of ancient Bulgarians, but they are mentioned in every document as detached ethnic group with own language who is not like language of their neighbours (slavs, turk, ugro-fins), but is the same as the language of Hazarians.And this language is calles "syrian".Kiril Philosopher (the creator of slavo-Bulgarians alphabets of "Glagolitsa" and "Kirilitsa" (Syrilitsa???) during visitation of Hazarian country in IX-th century, bear record for using of "Surian" language from Hazars.He write that Bulgarians and Hazarians spoke the same language, which have nothing commons with the languges of their neighbour nations.Our medieval cronist Chernorizets Hrabar (in direct translation - brave monk) write obout Bulgarian language as a "Sirian" language, who he publish for one of the oldest languages of the world, and this is again in IX-th century.And this is in IX-th century when is supposed that Bulgarians are allready asimilated by slavs and speak slavs language.But documents say other.This "Surian" language were very similar to slavic languages, because alpfabets created from Kilil Philosopher, his brother Metodi and their pupils for slavs in Velikomoravia is used in Bulgaria too and actualy is developed there from Kniaz Boris before to be spread among slavs.The newest research of our historians (Petar Dobrev mostly) show that in modern Bulgarian language there are only 12 words with some turkic meanins.But even if our language is slavic it have houndreds words with exact meaning to languages of some isolated ethnic groups in norht of Afganistan and Tadjikistan and in old persian languages.And this words are not met in other slavs languages so if Bulgarians are originally turks speaking (for ethnic and race later) who are asimilated from slavs as some said, from where this words came from?And where are the turkic words of ancient Bulgarians (most of these 12 words are titles, who are assumed in turks from other nation, mostly iranian, like Bagatur, Tarkan, Kan etc.)?
So this is about the laguage.For other things next time.


----------



## Athaulf

BuccaneerBG said:


> The newest research of our historians (Petar Dobrev mostly) show that in modern Bulgarian language there are only 12 words with some turkic meanins.But even if our language is slavic it have houndreds words with exact meaning to languages of some isolated ethnic groups in norht of Afganistan and Tadjikistan and in old persian languages.And this words are not met in other slavs languages so if Bulgarians are originally turks speaking (for ethnic and race later) who are asimilated from slavs as some said, from where this words came from?And where are the turkic words of ancient Bulgarians (most of these 12 words are titles, who are assumed in turks from other nation, mostly iranian, like Bagatur, Tarkan, Kan etc.)?


Wait a second... You're claiming that there are _hundreds _of cognates between _modern Bulgarian_ and those Iranian languages?! Could you please provide some reference for this extraordinary claim? Furthermore, from what I've read, the supposed Iranian etymologies of those ancient words you mention are pretty much a matter of controversial guesswork; the available sample of the ancient Bulgar language is just too small to allow any firm conclusions or reliable deciphering. 

By the way, I'm sure there are far more than 12 Turcisms in modern Bulgarian, but I suppose you meant the ancient words that existed even before the Ottoman conquests.


----------



## Maja

BuccaneerBG said:


> This is a good question dear neighbour, even if  its provocative.


 The question was really _not  _meant to be provocative and I am sorry if you took it that way. I think it  was a very logical question regarding the subject in question. You can just as  well claim that Bulgarians are in fact Germans, but with absolutely no  disrespect intended, I would still take Bulgarian scholars' opinion over  yours! 


BuccaneerBG said:


> I think i already answer to this questions and i  think you are not very familiar with this as you think, but maybe you are  familiar with the same USSR (pseudo-panslavic) and communist propaganda for  which i already wrote.


 Familiar with what? I  already said that the only theory I 've heard of was the one with nomadic Turic  origin and assimilation with Slavs!  



BuccaneerBG said:


> Defenetly in our historical books is not  writen for any "bugari-tatari"  on what Macedonian Bulgarian are were learned from serbs  "historical" textbooks.


 I don't follow you?  


BuccaneerBG said:


> _Numerousness, even  countless, they_ (Bulgarians) _fill all the land beside Drach _(city in  today Albania), _bacause Bulgarians and Persians and the Magi are the same and  all of them are new-comers to this land. _


 So *Bulgarians are Persians*? Is that the suma sumarum of  your posts?


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Athaulf said:


> By the way, I'm sure there are far more than 12 Turcisms in modern Bulgarian, but I suppose you meant the ancient words that existed even before the Ottoman conquests.


You are right of course.I had to specify that.
About "_hundreds _of cognates between _modern Bulgarian_ and those Iranian languages", there are many researches, but they are on Bulgarian language and i am not sure, if i can find somethin on english.But as you are slav maybe you can find out something understandable for you on this site:

protobulgarians.com

You hane to seaarch for - "Ирански суфикси в езика на древните и съвременни българи".And the site have russian version too, and is one of the places where are gather many of the new researches about our ancient history, not just the language.You can check-out some of the pictures too, for seeng obout commons between Bulgarian and other Arian runes and signs:

protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Simvoli%20na%20drevnite%20baalgari.htm

like the sun god sines and triunhy sine, there are many swastikas too.

And something more about the origin of Bulgarians self name.In "Djagfar Tarihi", history of Volga Bulgarians (Volga Bulgarians accept islam religion in IX century in contrast of Danube Bulgarians who accept ortodoxy earlyer, and their official records are on arabian) in 1098AC is directly written:

_The word of Bulgarian mean merited, wise man_

So this have nothing to do with turkic word of "bulga".As one Hungarian professor say:

"We do not know cases when any people apply their own ethnonim with plural affix from another language."

I write this because of impossibleties of any turk to pronunctiation our sound of "Ъ".


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Maja said:


> So Bulgarians are Persians? Is that the suma sumarum of your posts?


No, the suma is that Bulgarians are actualy Arians, not turks.And this is medieval document where Bulgarians are compare with Persians, who are Arians too, and The Magi, who are ansient rulers of Babylon.But the last thing is another case.You can check-out what is written in the Cronicles of Konstantsian ecclesiastical concil in south Germany in XV-th century, about The Magi, but let's not divert the thread.


About the theories you've heard defenetly in our historical textbooks is not written only about turk theory.It's just one of the possible theories mentioned and i dont know why you are so impress of that.As it's very insolvent theory, sccourdind to new researchis, soon it will not be mentioned at all.Even if the Russians, Serbs and some other historians still hold on it for some unknown reasons (actualy very known, but lets not go deep through it).But as i said in our textbooks is mostly accept on our history after 680 year.And the thins i write are not invented by me, but by very serious and reputable historians, not only Bulgarian ones.And if you dont belive me, ore the documents i show, maybe you'w belive to this:

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/70_Dateline/bulgar%20datelineEn.htm

Of course it is about history of turks and there are many wrong conclusions, as to declare many nations for turks with no real evidens fot that.But there are somethings that can't be neglect.Just a few citations:



> 310 BC
> Sirac(i), a Sarmatian tribe occupied Kuban region north of Caucasus shortly
> before 300 B.C. (Tr. Sarig=yellow, blond, Sirs are ansestors of Cumans
> 150 BC


Sirs is the ancient name of Bulgarians too, and in this region is officially documented the first Bulgarian country in Europa.And Kumans are circumstription later, the same way from their neigbour - Russians - as "Polovians, tall and blond mans".Cumans in X-th/XII-th century are permanentle allies of Bulgarians army in every battles with 20 000 cavalry.And there is document that their language is the same as Bulgarian, who is decided that their language in this time is turkic i dont know (after IX century every Bulgarian document is written on slavic alphabet and no one doubt about its slavic-common origin, distinction of old Bulgarian runes, which are not transated yet).Of course later Cumans language is turk transformed by the influence of Golden Horde as to Volga Bulgarians.


> 150 BC
> Migration of a part of Sarmats (Bulgarians) from Northern Caucasus to Cis-C
> aucasus.
> 334
> First mention of Bulgars, they live in basin of Tanais and Cuban
> 354
> Earliest known European record about Bulgarians is "Anonymous chronograph",
> a list of tribes and peoples in Latin. He mentiones a certain 'Ziezi ex quo
> Vulgares'.


The last thing is very interesting, because its put Bulgarians as one of the biblical nations, who are desandents of Noah, of course in "biblical style".


> 360
> Huns cross Volga and attack Alans. Part of Alans retreat to N. Caucasus, pa
> rt is absorbed in Hun's Horde, part retreat to N. Donets. Most likely, after
> conquest a part of Bulgars joins Huns, and a part remains
> 370
> 2 migrations of Bulgarians from Caucasus to Armenia. 1st during Armenian ru
> ler Vaharshak, immigrants of Vh' ndur Bulgar Vund, lands named Vanand.
> 370
> 2nd migration during Armenian ruler Arshak, disturbances ... in land of Bul
> gars, many of whom migrated and settled south of Kokh, because of expansion
> of Huns in E European steppes


Some said that Bulgarians where Huns, but if they wrere, why they save themself in Armenia from Huns invasion?And just part of them are joining Huns to the west (not known if it where voluntarily).As is known in Huns union of Atilla there are many non Huns tribes, as Germanian, Tracs, Ugro-Fins nad others.And why after death of Atilla, when his sons try to devide, non Huns tribes between themself as a slaves in 454AC, they revolt and the united armyes of Gepids, Bulgarians, Heruls and others, under leadership of Gepid king Ardarih defeat huns at river Nedao?What doing "Hunno-Bulgarians" in this union?No meather what are the Huns (actually Arians who conqure north India are called "White Huns"), Bulgarians are not Huns, as they are not turks too.
End in the end we have to turn attention of this "conclusion":


> Huns were a genetic hybrid between Mongoloid, Altaic (Siberian), and Centra
> l Asian TЁ№rkic stocks. Typical Hunno-Bulgars probably had a squarish face,
> high cheekbones, and slanting eyes. Term 'Bulgar' comes from TЁ№rkic 'bulgha
> ' = 'to mix'. These nomadic horsemen groups were mainly composed of As - Oss
> etians, Eastern Antes - Iranian-Slavic blend, Khazars - a mixed TЁ№rkic grou
> p, and a people known as Sarmatians, an Iranian group.


"Hunno-Bulgars", what the f**k  ?And about "genetic hybrids", these people are not ever seen Bulgarians i think.And are not seen Bulgarians skulls from medieval time and antiq, but just writte nonsence.Turks are genetic hibryds.
The graves of Bulgarians (yes they graved their deaths, not burn them as turks do) are the same style as in Sarmatians.For Bulgarians in graves of IV/VI-th century in north of the Black see steppes is typical skull deformation maked with tighten band to babys, which is symbol for nobility for Alans, Sarmats and other Arian nations.And the antropological type of these Bulgarians is firmly evropeid - basecally Mediterran and others.There are no signs for mongoloid, as to modern Danube Bulgarians where turk antropological types are less than 3% (in Volga Bulgarians there are about 15% of mongolian types, but this is because of mixes with theis neighbour nation - turk, mongols and ugro-fins).

So this is about free compositions about Bulgarian origin and language.Jast stories, no evidence, and the facts are clearly deferent and exact.


----------



## Outsider

How do you explain the fact that a predominantly Aryan people (according to you) ended up trading their presumably Indo-Aryan language for a Slavic one?


----------



## Athaulf

BuccaneerBG said:


> You are right of course.I had to specify that.
> About "_hundreds _of cognates between _modern Bulgarian_ and those Iranian languages", there are many researches, but they are on Bulgarian language and i am not sure, if i can find somethin on english.But as you are slav maybe you can find out something understandable for you on this site:
> 
> protobulgarians.com
> 
> You hane to seaarch for - "Ирански суфикси в езика на древните и съвременни българи".



I checked out the link, and I can easily get the gist of what's written there, but I must admit I'm not impressed. It's basically a list of Bulgarian words with pairs of similar-looking words in various ancient and modern Iranian languages, with most of the comments saying little more than that the pair is "probably" related. Proving the existence of cognates is a much trickier problem than just presenting a list of similar sounding words; there are many complex issues that have to be addressed before one can claim such things with any certainty. By simple lexical comparison, it's easy to produce plenty of plausible-looking, but entirely false cognates between any languages. 

Have any of these claims been independently verified? It's not like the linguistics of Bulgarian is something only Bulgarians do; for any Slavic language, there are many experts around the world. However, I haven't been able to find any independent opinions about these claims.



> So this have nothing to do with turkic word of "bolga".As one Hungarian professor say:
> 
> "We do not know cases when any people apply their own ethnonim with plural affix from another language."
> 
> I write this because of impossibleties of any turk to pronunctiation our sound of "Ъ".


Well, the word _българи _has a Slavic plural affix attached to an obviously non-Slavic root, so I'm not sure what the point of this Hungarian professor is supposed to mean. And as for the Turks supposedly being unable to pronounce "Ъ", I can easily point out plenty of phonemes in various Slavic languages that are impossible for me to pronounce, even though they are very closely related to  my native one. This certainly doesn't prove anything about what might have happened millenniums ago. Phonology can change very rapidly.


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> How do you explain the fact that a predominantly Aryan people (according to you) ended up trading their presumably Indo-Aryan language for a Slavic one?



As an interesting parallel, during the heyday of wartime and post-war nationalism in the 1990s Croatia, proving a supposed Iranian origin of the Croats was a very fashionable activity among all sorts of "patriotic" intellectuals. The reason was the desire to present our nation as something else than a part of the South Slavic linguistic and cultural continuum. Unsurprisingly, all kinds of silliness abounded.  Considering this experience, and with all due apologies to our Bulgarian friends, until I see some independent confirmation of these findings, I can hardly take them very seriously.


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Outsider said:


> How do you explain the fact that a predominantly Aryan people (according to you) ended up trading their presumably Indo-Aryan language for a Slavic one?


Explain what?Who said that slavic language is not indo-Aryan too.Slavs have legend abot their origin.According to this legend they think themself as the heirs of the sower Arij who is became from region known as "Seven rivers" in Pamir.


----------



## Outsider

BuccaneerBG said:


> Who said that slavic language is not indo-Aryan too.


Linguists do.


----------



## Athaulf

BuccaneerBG said:


> Explain what?Who said that slavic language is not indo-Aryan too.



Anyone who has any clue about Indo-European languages in general.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


BuccaneerBG said:


> Explain what?Who said that slavic language is not indo-Aryan too.


Who said so? Every single person on this planet who is not involved in revising Bulgarian history, who is not involved in a _bricolage_ of pseudo-arguments, based on the literal (?) interpretation of  'ancient chronicles', bible stories, legends.
If the stuff you presented to us would, by any means, be a reflection of the history courses in Bulgaria, then I can only conclude that Bulgaria is in bad need of historians...

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Outsider

Well, maybe *BuccaneerBG* was confusing "Indo-Aryan" with "Indo-European". Both the Slavic (Eastern Europe and northern Asia) and the Indo-Aryan group (Middle East and northern India) are part of the Indo-European family, but each is a separate branch of it.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> How do you explain the fact that a predominantly Aryan people (according to you) ended up trading their presumably Indo-Aryan language for a Slavic one?



Although that same question has to be answered if the Bulgars were originally a Turkic people. Actually, the Bulgarians were the example I always used for conquering peoples that abandoned their own language in favour of their subjects', and I'm not sure I can think of any other ones -- maybe the Normans in both France and Italy.


----------



## Outsider

At some point, I began to get the impression that Buccaneer was identifying this medieval band of Bulgars with the bulk of the Bulgarian people, hence my question.



modus.irrealis said:


> Actually, the Bulgarians were the example I always used for conquering peoples that abandoned their own language in favour of their subjects', and I'm not sure I can think of any other ones -- maybe the Normans in both France and Italy.


The Germanic peoples that first invaded the Roman Empire (except for the Anglo-Saxons).


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Who said so? Every single person on this planet who is not involved in revising Bulgarian history, who is not involved in a _bricolage_ of pseudo-arguments, based on the literal (?) interpretation of 'ancient chronicles', bible stories, legends.
> If the stuff you presented to us would, by any means, be a reflection of the history courses in Bulgaria, then I can only conclude that Bulgaria is in bad need of historians...
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


"'ancient chronicles', bible stories, legends", this is actually history dude, together with antropology, linguistics, genetic researchis, monuments, excavations and other.I think i show both of this and i can show you more, but if you annonce averything i show for my "literal (?) interpretation", no mather of the sources, i cant help you, and i dont want to content with you.If you think i am not wright, refute me, not just make gimnastic with fingers on keyboard.This are not my "literal interpretations", this are serious researchis from many experts, not Bulgarians only.I just have difficults to find sources on english, because most of the things i have access to are intelligibly on Bulgarian.Turk theory is "literal interpretation" from the past when because of lack of evidenses and researchis for ancient Bulgarians some short-story writers like K. Irechek are decide they are good and for historians.Later this stories are been very handy for some political needs of some nations.There is even most stupid theories than turk, like those pearl - Bulgarian word been derive from burglar, because ancien Bulgarians are been nation of thiefs  .And i am very suprised of that, there are many people who are able to belive in such manifestly insults to our nation, instead of real arguments and evidense.


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Outsider said:


> Well, maybe *BuccaneerBG* was confusing "Indo-Aryan" with "Indo-European". Both the Slavic (Eastern Europe and northern Asia) and the Indo-Aryan group (Middle East and northern India) are part of the Indo-European family, but each is a separate branch of it.


I guess i mixed up again.Of cource i meaned indo-european as language family, actually i was not even heard for indo-aryan language group, and i thought for it awlays as for ethnic group.I am not linguist and i only remember now, that in some past time germanians and slavic languages are been one, like other languages from same group.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> At some point, I began to get the impression that Buccaneer was identifying this medieval band of Bulgars with the bulk of the Bulgarian people, hence my question.



I see now.



> The Germanic peoples that first invaded the Roman Empire (except for the Anglo-Saxons).



Thanks -- that's an even better example.


----------



## übermönch

BuccaneerBG said:


> Explain what?Who said that slavic language is not indo-Aryan too.Slavs have legend abot their origin.According to this legend they think themself as the heirs of the sower Arij who is became from region known as "Seven rivers" in Pamir.


 Awww, mixing the 'myseriously lost' Book of Veles in makes the ideal cocktail of this thread 
But hey, that what the thread was rollig to from the very beginning.


			
				BuccaneerBG said:
			
		

> No, the suma is that Bulgarians are actualy Arians, not turks.


Just in case someone still doesn't get: Bulgarians are Arians with a  capital A, not some *t*urks.


----------



## Athaulf

BuccaneerBG said:


> If you think i am not wright, refute me, not just make gimnastic with fingers on keyboard.This are not my "literal interpretations", this are serious researchis from many experts, not Bulgarians only.I just have difficults to find sources on english, because most of the things i have access to are intelligibly on Bulgarian.



As I've written in my previous post, I looked at the stuff in Bulgarian that you cited, which is mostly intelligible to me, and I'm still not impressed. I set forth some concrete objections in my post above, which you haven't answered. 



> Turk theory is "literal interpretation" from the past when because of lack of evidenses and researchis for ancient Bulgarians some short-story writers like K. Irechek are decide they are good and for historians.Later this stories are been very handy for some political needs of some nations.There is even most stupid theories than turk, like those pearl - Bulgarian word been derive from burglar, because ancien Bulgarians are been nation of thiefs  .And i am very suprised of that, there are many people who are able to belive in such manifestly insults to our nation, instead of real arguments and evidense.


The "burglar" stuff was obviously made up by someone as a lame joke. However, you have no rational basis to consider various Turkic theories as "insults" just because Bulgarians and Ottoman Turks (the latter being just one out of many branches of Turkic peoples) were in conflict at certain periods in their history. It's as silly as those Croats who are making all sorts of silly efforts to deny that we are South Slavs just because this fact was used as the ideological basis for some very unfortunate political experiments in the last century. 

You should realize that people in the outside world won't have any more or less respect for you just because they believe in this or that theory of your nation's ethnogenesis.


----------



## BuccaneerBG

Athaulf said:


> As I've written in my previous post, I looked at the stuff in Bulgarian that you cited, which is mostly intelligible to me, and I'm still not impressed. I set forth some concrete objections in my post above, which you haven't answered.


I dont know why you are doubful about the "stuff" in this site.It's just a collection of very serious researchis which are shown, with not very impresive design, but perfect as a contents.Like the original looking of ancient Bulgarians, which togeder with antropological findings show no mongoloid view of them, as the turk theory proclaim:

protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Antropomorfen%20obraz.htm

Like the look of one 100% ancient Bulgarian who have to be with mongoloid looking according to turk theory - Kniaz Omurtag from the clan of Dulo, who is even be at war with slavs and publish slavs as enemies of Bulgarian country in this period because of religiousness causes:

protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Antrop11.jpg
protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Antrop10.jpg
protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Antrop12.jpg

As i said turk thery is mostly free compositions with no evidens.The evidence shown something else.


Athaulf said:


> Well, the word българи has a Slavic plural affix attached to an obviously non-Slavic root, so I'm not sure what the point of this Hungarian professor is supposed to mean. And as for the Turks supposedly being unable to pronounce "Ъ", I can easily point out plenty of phonemes in various Slavic languages that are impossible for me to pronounce, even though they are very closely related to my native one. This certainly doesn't prove anything about what might have happened millenniums ago. Phonology can change very rapidly.


About the language you approach with the same mistrust and just dont accept hard to contestable facts.Phonology can't change so rapidly and conductive to so serious alteration as the dessappearing of whole sound.And you miss the fact that this sound and letter witness in the very first Bulgarian records on Glagolitsa and Kirilitsa, the slav alphabets in IX-th century.So as the first settles of Bulgarians south of Danube river are from IV-th century, and officialy Bulgaria as a country with territory south of Danube, exist after VII-th century (680/681 year), how the whole language can be replace with another for less than a 1/2 centuries?
"Well, the word българи has a Slavic plural affix attached to an obviously non-Slavic root" - this is not correct.I already explain the meaning of our etnonim on old iranian languages.Ari/Ари is defenetly slavic plural affix, but you can't be sure if it expel, old Bulgarian and iranian origin too.As it's defenetly with iranian descent too.And the word of Бълг, or Блъг in medieval variant have meaning of noble and white in the meaning of shining from old iranian languages.It have the same meaning in slavic languages and Bulgarian too - бел and бял have the same meaning and origin as блъг but coresponding only for collor.In Bulgarian teritorries have many White cities (Белград, Бялград, Белоградчик) with this name from medieval time, built from Bulgarians, like the modern capital of Serbia - Belgrad.So you can't declare the words of Бълг and Блъг for non slavic as they actualy are slavic and have iranian origin.


Athaulf said:


> It's basically a list of Bulgarian words with pairs of similar-looking words in various ancient and modern Iranian languages, with most of the comments saying little more than that the pair is "probably" related..


Not only modern.And how can you explain the fact that most of those list of words and affixes missed in other slavic languages, have no turk similarity and have similarity in even modern iranian languages with the same meaning?Your arguments don't look seriously, actualy you don't have arguments, you jast...... deny.I think the name of s. r. c. Petar Dobrev from BAS (Bulgarian academy of sciences):

sarakt.org/biiliodobrev.htm

is serious enough to turn some objective attention on his researches and on other serious historians, liguists, antropologists and others.


Athaulf said:


> As an interesting parallel, during the heyday of wartime and post-war nationalism in the 1990s Croatia, proving a supposed Iranian origin of the Croats was a very fashionable activity among all sorts of "patriotic" intellectuals. The reason was the desire to present our nation as something else than a part of the South Slavic linguistic and cultural continuum. Unsurprisingly, all kinds of silliness abounded. Considering this experience, and with all due apologies to our Bulgarian friends, until I see some independent confirmation of these findings, I can hardly take them very seriously.


I have heard about this but you can be sure this is diferent case.Iranian, turk and avtohton theories of ancient Bulgarians origin exist from many years ago.Non of those is anybody passing whim, just the turk theory was very popular during comunism because of most of russian historians (but not all of them) hold on it.


Athaulf said:


> You should realize that people in the outside world won't have any more or less respect for you just because they believe in this or that theory of your nation's ethnogenesis.


Yes i am clear about this.But the thread is for Bulgarian origin so i just show evidences and facts which refute one wrong theory or rightly - one silly Comintern propaganda.


----------



## BuccaneerBG

übermönch said:


> Just in case someone still doesn't get: Bulgarians are Arians with a capital A, not some *t*urks.


Your sarcasm is funny but no more than this. I don't desrespect most of Turk nations and have nothing against them, but we Bulgarians are not Turks.But I acknowledge, I am a bit of reserved toward Ottoman Turks, today Turkish, for known reasons and because of this I will write them with any letter I want.


----------



## Athaulf

BuccaneerBG said:


> I dont know why you are doubful about the "stuff" in this site.It's just a collection of very serious researchis which are shown, with not very impresive design, but perfect as a contents.Like the original looking of ancient Bulgarians, which togeder with antropological findings show no mongoloid view of them, as the turk theory proclaim:
> 
> protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Antropomorfen%20obraz.htm
> 
> Like the look of one 100% ancient Bulgarian who have to be with mongoloid looking according to turk theory - Kniaz Omurtag from the clan of Dulo, who is even be at war with slavs and publish slavs as enemies of Bulgarian country in this period because of religiousness causes:
> 
> protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Antrop11.jpg
> protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Antrop10.jpg
> protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Antrop12.jpg
> 
> As i said turk thery is mostly free compositions with no evidens.The evidence shown something else.



I'm now utterly puzzled... since when do the Turks, or any other Turkic peoples, look like Mongolians? 

By the way, those images to which you gave links were painted several centuries after the events in question, so that their worth as evidence on what proto-Bulgarians looked like is absolute zero. 



> About the language you approach with the same mistrust and just dont accept hard to contestable facts.Phonology can't change so rapidly and conductive to so serious alteration as the dessappearing of whole sound.


Oh yes it can, and I know that first-hand when I compare my own language with some closely related ones. Polish or Russian, for example, contain plenty of sounds that are entirely alien to me and utterly impossible for me to reproduce, despite the fact that our languages are very closely related. Of course, sounds don't change entirely randomly, and there could indeed be some valid theories along the lines you mention, but they would have to be much more elaborate and grounded in real scientific linguistics than the simplistic observation that someone nowadays can or cannot pronounce this or that. 

As for the disappearance of individual sounds, that can easily happen on timescales as short as a century or two, and sometimes even faster. 



> And you miss the fact that this sound and letter witness in the very first Bulgarian records on Glagolitsa and Kirilitsa, the slav alphabets in IX-th century.So as the first settles of Bulgarians south of Danube river are from IV-th century, and officialy Bulgaria as a country with territory south of Danube, exist after VII-th century (680/681 year), how the whole language can be replace with another for less than a 1/2 centuries?


Well, that's a question that _you _have to answer if you deny that proto-Bulgarians were a relatively small group (of whatever origin) that was quickly assimilated into the local Slavic population after migrating to the East Balkans, and kept little more than its name.



> And how can you explain the fact that most of those list of words and affixes missed in other slavic languages, have no turk similarity and have similarity in even modern
> iranian languages with the same meaning?You arguments don't look seriously, actualy you don't have arguments, you jast...... deny.I think the name of s. r. c. Petar Dobrev:
> 
> sarakt.org/biiliodobrev.htm
> 
> is serious enough to turn some objective attention on his researches and on other serious historians, liguists, antropologists and others.


In linguistics, there are very well defined standards for what constitutes valid evidence that languages are related. Presenting lists of similarly sounding words does not satisfy these criteria, however suggestive such lists might look to a non-expert. It's easy to construct manifestly absurd theories based on such lists. Ask any linguist if you don't believe me.

As for my "denying," the burden of proof is on those who are claiming to have firm evidence for spectacular theories like this one.  Although I'm not an expert in any of these areas, I have a pretty accurate idea of what constitutes valid evidence for scientific theories in them, and what you've presented so far falls far short of that.


----------



## Binapesi

“By the Ottoman-Russia War in 1877-78, almost one million Turks had been had to leave their home (Ottoman Tuna province) in a bloody way and half of them had been murdered by genocide and heavy nature conditions. Through what happened to Turks, there have been formed a country for Bulghars who were a minority in the Ottoman Tuna province countries.”

That’s how the Bulghars have been nationalized.

And this is an answer to the thread;

“In 453, after a very little time that Attila died, a great variety of tribes that were parts of The Great Hun Empire had been broken up. We know that the tribes based on Turk had come back to the south Russia plains. These tribes have formed a new Turk tribe called Bulghar by mixing with Onogur Turks that had settled in the same area coming from the east. Anyway _Bulghar _comes from a Turkish verb “Bulga-mak” means “To Mix.” “Mixed.” ..”

Then they were splitted into two parts. Tuna Bulghars (Balkans) have chosen Christianity, Volga (İdil) Bulghars have chosen Islam.

In the area that Tuna Bulghars were rulling, there was a great number of Slavish population. Bulghars had kept their Turk identity for almost two hundred years. In 864, with Boris Khan on their head, they have accepted Christianity. Then after the 14th century, Ottoman Turks come and rule in this area *WITH PEACE**. (* this is an attribution to Maja.) 

And BuccaneerBG, what you’ve done is a disrespect. I dont take it on me but as a Bulghar, you dont draw a nice profile of your own. And even if you refuse, your ancestors are *T*urks. Actually, it doesnt matter who your ancestors are. Because you're very different from them.

I'd like to insert a link but I'm not allowed because I don't have 30 or more posts. Sorry ..

( And sorry for any grammar mistakes.)


----------



## badgrammar

Wow, I've been following this thread with interest, as I find it a fascinating subject but can add little in the way of real information.  I can however add that Buccaneer, you seem to be showing great disrespect that even borders on contempt for Turkey, the Turkish people and anything that might even suggest you share a common ancestry!  You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but it is quite impossible to take it seriously when you seem only to have 1 goal in mind:  Proving that there is absolutely no common heritage between you, your countrymen, and "otoman turks, today turkish, for known reasons and because of this i will write them with any letter i want."

Do you feel so much rancor for anything Turkish that you refuse to write the name of the language, the country and the people with a capital "T"?  I have read almost all your posts, you are well aware that it should be capitalized, as you do with all other nations, languages and people.  To refuse to do so in this case would seem to be an effort to insult and belittle.  That is sad, sad for you, and your countrymen, because it is an awful reflection on you to speak that way.  It certainly gives me the impression that hating Turks and Turkey must be a national pasttime.


----------



## konungursvia

Well the Turks are relatively recent arrivals to Anatolia; perhaps the Bulgars are descended from the Hittites, an Indo-European population that inhabited the area a few thousand years ago. Just my two cents.


----------



## übermönch

Perhaps, however that would not fit to Buccaneer's description of the Bulgarian ethnicity as


> We are european people as a rase and we have nothing common whith turks.Actualy we always are been enemys with turks, even in central Asia before our ancestors to came in Europa....
> About the race, i meaned, europeid race


Hittites however, as both archeological(1, 2) and phonological (*Moo*-rsulis, *Moo*-watali) evidence clearly points out, were, in fact, of bovine race.


----------



## cherine

Outsider said:


> What, exactly, made the Bulgarians "Turks"?


This lucky thread seems to have managed to evolve and receive posts each time there were no moderators around !

Now, it's time to remind everyone with the forum's guidelines:


GenJen54 said:


> b) Remember the Cultural Discussions Forum is basically just that: a place for discussions. Formulate questions that are _open-ended_ and _promote thought-provoking, insightful conversation_;
> 
> c) Please *do not* start threads
> -- that ask for homework or* research* help, or where to find a resource;


*Asking about the origin of a nation or people is not really a discussion topic, it's a matter of research. Answers may be found in encyclopeadias, books, academic studies...*
*It's not for us, common language lovers, to say where does a nation come from, or talk about its History. It's the work of scholars, in my very humble opinions.*

*So, I'm closing this thread and ask you to please take a few minutes to look up the answer in reliable works.*

*Thanks.*


----------

