|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 24, 2007 23:51:50 GMT 3
Dear members, here is the thread where we can discuss about the issue regarding the ethnicity of Bulghars/Bulgarians.
First of all, I must admit that I am not that knowledged about this issue and my level of knowledge is rather basic than detailed, because my main area of interest and study is the Eastern-Central Steppe of Blue Turk period (6th-8th centuries AD).
The question is that, to my knowledge, the Bulghars were a Turkic people who broke off from the Oghur Federation (the Oghurs were a Turkic people, claimed to be the descendents of the Western Dingling [Ting-ling] people, and broke off into several groups of whom the On Oghurs were one, who created the Qazan Tatars after mixing with the Qïpchaq people, while those that did not mix became the Chuvash) and migrated to Roman Moesia, where they established a khanate. This Turkic people, who were speaking a dialect which was different from those of other Turkic dialects, and whose religion was slightly different from more easternwards Turkic peoples, ruled over the locals, who were the mixture of Romanised Thracians and Slavic tribes who migrated there in the 6th century (the other branch are today's Macedonians who got nothing to do with the ancient Makedon tribe). Eventually, this Turkic people became assimiliated among it's subjects and lost it's Turkic identity. The modern Bulgarians are the Southern Slavic speaking Thraco-Slavic subjects of the now non-existing Turkic Bulghar people who adopted the name of their rulers. Such examples are very common in the World, such as the Tatars (Qïpchaq and On Oghur Turks who adopted the name of their Mongol rulers), the French (Latinised Gaulish Celts who adopted the name of their Western Germanic rulers), the Tabghach (Tuoba [T'o-pa] Wei, Turko-Mongol people who ruled over the Chinese, who now label them as Chinese) and so on.
Now, please correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 25, 2007 0:14:55 GMT 3
the Tabghach (Tuoba [T'o-pa] Wei, Tabghach?  sorry it is off-topic but i heard this name for the first time... |
|
|
|
Post by Balkhani on Sept 25, 2007 15:35:52 GMT 3
Thanks for posting the topic!
Firstly - why do we call them Bulghars? The root of the name is Bulg + suffix(?) ar (Българ).
About the origin - it has been proven numerous times that the Bulgars are Scytho-Sarmatians(only Sarmatians if you prefer). Their(our) culture is the same as the scytho-sarmatian one.
The ancient Bulgars were highly Caucasoid and very tall (from the graves from northern Bulgaria - the tallest is 190cm.).Mongoloidness is rare - around 5%(same as the modern Bulgarians) in general. They were mostly of Mediterranean type(East Mediterranid, Pontid) and some Nordid and Pamirid.
Their pottery and gold is iranic as well as their language and runes.
The Bulgarian beliefs are different from the turkic ones(although our major God is Tangra,same as Tengri,but most Sarmatian tribes believed in the God of the Clear Sky too).
|
|
|
|
Post by Balkhani on Sept 25, 2007 15:48:19 GMT 3
The names of towns,regions,peoples and mountains in the regions Bulgarians inhabited point to Imeon(Pamir): Shuman(Bactria-Pamir) = Shumen(Dunabe Bulgaria) = Shumanai(east side of the Caspian sea) Ispara(Bactria) = Ispor(Bulgarian ruler) Balgar(Bactria) = Bolgar(Volga Bulgaria) = Bulgar
Balkh(Bactria) = Balkhar(Balkaria-Caucas) = Bulkar-Balkh(Balkaria-Caucas) Varnu(Bactria) = Varna(Bulgaria) Madar(Bactria) = Madara(Dunabe Bulgaria) Boil(Bactria) = Boil(Bulgarian title) Balkhani(Mountains on the eastern side of the Caspian) = Balk(h)an(Mountain range on the Balkan peninsula) Suvar(Bactria) = Suvar(Voga Bulgaria) = Suvar/Sevar(Bulgarian Ruler) Osh(Bactria) = Oshed(Volga Bulgaria) etc.  Map of Places and towns The names of the Bulgarian rulers were also Indo-european in origin and some were identical with the names of sarmatian kings - Asparukh(Ispor), Kuber, Kubrat, Suvar(Sevar), Gostun, Baian, Avitohol, Omurtag, Krum etc. Their language was also Indo Europen - from the Indo -Iranian group. Words such as Shar, Kushta, Kuche, Hubost, Zhena, Brat, Kaka, Kurpa, Chembas, Na, Nana, Khazna etc. have survived in the Bulgarian language to this day. Inscriptions from Murtaflar Bulgar: Lævur uijau shtesh puz Alan(Ossetian) Lævаr uыjаu stыn (persian - setaješ) buz It means "I give a gift/sacrifice to him(God) and praise him" or something like that.Not my best translation from Bulgarian. Bulgar: fыssæu sijutzon echeiju fsuzth Alan: fыssæn saudžin uысы fыst "A priest wrote this script" www.kroraina.com/b_lang/bl_oldwords.html (Words from archeological findings from Dunabe,Great and Volga Bulgaria and their analogues in Ramir,Persia,Caucas,Western Europe and Shumer) www.kroraina.com/b_lang/bl_double.html (Features of the old Bulgar language, preserved in the modern Bulgarian language) www.kroraina.com/b_lang/bl_phonet.html (A phonetic model of the language of the Asparukh and Kuber Bulgars) |
|
|
|
Post by Balkhani on Sept 25, 2007 15:56:15 GMT 3
Runes Sarmatian:  Bulgarian(Next to bulgarian alphabet - you could see the resemblance :Б,Ж,З,Ъ,Ь,У,Ф,Ц,Ш,Щ and е двойно(The last one) ar eof Bulgarian origin)  |
|
|
|
Post by Balkhani on Sept 25, 2007 16:00:47 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 26, 2007 2:33:06 GMT 3
Thank you for your posts. Tabghach is the name found in the Orkhon Inscriptions. It was probably the real name of this people, as Tuoba is the Chinese version. The Byzantine Romans and Muslims sometimes called China with the versions of this name (Tawghaj, Taugas, etc). Because the name is Turkic. There are two theories on the ethymology of this name: 1) It comes from the root Bulġa- which means "Mix" in Turkic (it's still used in Modern Turkish, in the forms Bulamaç, Bulanýk, Bulanmak, etc), with the suffix -r added to it, making it Bulġar meaning "Mixed", as it was formed from the union of several Oġur tribes. 2) Zeki Velidi Togan proposed that it is a variety of the name Biš Oġur meaning "Five Tribes" (there were other Oġur groups like the On Oġur [Ten Tribes], Šar/Sarïġ Oġur [Yellow Tribes], Utrigur [orginially Otur Oġur meaning "Thirty Tribes"], Kutrigur [probably originially Toqur Oġur meaning "Nine Tribes" - note that the sound 'z' turns to 'r' in Oġur or Western Turkic dialect). In some Turkic dialects, the sound S/Š changes to L and he proposed that Biš underwent a sound change in time, turning to Bul. Both theories show Turkic names and both are logical so I can not choose which one is correct. How? This is very understandable, because: 1) The Oġur people migrated to a region which was previously inhabited by Iranic nomads before the Huns came. 2) After the Bulġar people, which had broken from the Oġur Confederation, migrated to Moesia, they brought the Thraco-Slavs under their control, soon mixing with them and later getting assimiliated. It is very normal to find very rare Mongoloid features in such a region. Now I have much objections here. How can be the pottery and gold be Iranic? How is it prooven that their language and runes are Iranic? Talat Tekin has already prooved that the Bulġars in the Balkans were using the Turkic Runic Alphabet (those Sarmatian runes you posted are not runes, they are tamġas). Besides, it is very well known that the other Oġurs, especially the On Oġurs or the Volga Bulġars (the very name Volga comes from Bulġar btw) spoke a Turkic dialect, as you can see both from the Arabic sources like Ibn Faḍlān as well as from the language of the modern Chuvash. Yes but there is no evidence that the Sarmatians and Scythians called their Sky God as Täŋri (Tengri). Besides, Täŋri was not the Sky God, it was both the Sky and the God which were believed to be the same, while there were no other Täŋris (the other spirits were not called Täŋri; they all had their own names and they were not at the same level with the Täŋri). Finding non-Turkic beliefs in the Bulġars is normal because they might have been influenced by Iranic and Slavic peoples. Yet, as you pointed out yourself, their real cult was Turkic. That is a Sanskrit title, also found among the Blue Turks, so this does not proove anything. Plus, in the names and words list you gave us, I saw so many Turkic names and titles  Some of these names are Turkic. That is normal because they must have gotten under Iranic influece (note that they were late-comers). About the artificial skull deformation. That was a very common Eurasian practice so it can not be linked to a certain people. |
|
|
|
Post by Balkhani on Sept 26, 2007 12:45:03 GMT 3
The first Bulgars came to the Caucas mountains in the second century AD or earlier according to the Armenian and Syrian chroniclers.The Turkic people reached Eurasia in the 5th century.
The root of the name is Bulg, same as Iranic Bulg,Balkh(which is frequently used by the ancient Bulgars as we could see above),Bulh(in ancient/early medieval times the Bulgars were often called "the Bulh people") - all these words mean white(pure,bright) which is another link for most Bulgar cities to be called "white".
The Sarmatian runes I posted are just that - runes.The Bulgarian ones too.I've seen both Gokturk,Sarmatian and Bulgar runes and the analogies in the Bulgar runes from the Turkic are around five.I could post sarmatian tamgas and bulgar tamgas from caucas if you want?They're still the same.
The runic inscriptions are read using these "tamgas" and using iranic languages.
You mean Hunnic Tribe Union?
Yes,they brought them under their rule and moved them,didn't mix with them.Asparukh offered the slavs(who were alredy mixed with the thracians so no use to say thraco-slavs) new lands on the northern side of the Danube,on the boarder with the Avars(pretty much used them as a shield), then Krum did the same,he defeated the Avars and moved the slavs to the new boarder with the Franks;Omurtag chased the slavic people out of Bulgaria - they made rebellions and were mostly Christians.
That's why present-day bulgarians have only 20% thraco-slavic blood and the predominant gene was added when the Bulgars came.
There are types of pottery,gold and cultures characteristic for different groups of people. The Bulgarian culture,pottery and gold and is closer to those of the scytho-sarmatians than to those of the surroounding turkic people.
Which are the Turkic names?I mean with turkic origin.
The Blue Turks came to Eurasia even after the Danube Bulgarian state was formed.
As I said the mongoloidness was very weak.If they were originally turkic people who later mixed with iranic peopple the mongoloidness would be higher, because they couldn't have mixed so much for maximum a century and the mongoloid gene is stronger than the caucasoid.
For example - if I have only one mongoloid great-great-great grandfather(grandmother) there will be a obvious mongoloid admixture in my features.
About the lack of evidence about the belief in the Sky - read the Alan Epos.
P.S. In the present-day Bulgarian language there are over 2000 pre-ottoman iranic words and 10-20 pre-ottoman turkic words.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 27, 2007 3:51:41 GMT 3
Tabghach? sorry it is off-topic but i heard this name for the first time... Tabgach is the name of Xianbi people who settled in the northern borders of China and formed the Wei dinasty. They were a kind of mixture between Chinese and steppe people. First Tang dinasty emperors were Tabgach, their familiarity with steppe culture granted the success of Chinese expansion, since they were far liberal than ordinary Chinese rulers and knew how to deal with the Steppe people. In Orkhont script Tabgach is the name for China. Earlier Tang dinasty emperors are called Tabgach kagans there. |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 27, 2007 3:58:35 GMT 3
Thanks for posting the topic! Firstly - why do we call them Bulghars? The root of the name is Bulg + suffix(?) ar (Българ). About the origin - it has been proven numerous times that the Bulgars are Scytho-Sarmatians(only Sarmatians if you prefer). Their(our) culture is the same as the scytho-sarmatian one. The ancient Bulgars were highly Caucasoid and very tall (from the graves from northern Bulgaria - the tallest is 190cm.).Mongoloidness is rare - around 5%(same as the modern Bulgarians) in general. They were mostly of Mediterranean type(East Mediterranid, Pontid) and some Nordid and Pamirid. Their pottery and gold is iranic as well as their language and runes. The Bulgarian beliefs are different from the turkic ones(although our major God is Tangra,same as Tengri,but most Sarmatian tribes believed in the God of the Clear Sky too). I'm afraid this is just a Bulgarian propaganda. Some people there just can't except the Bulgars were Turkic. There are some remnants of Volga Bulgar language written documents which totally prove that the language was Turkic. The existence of Chuvash language is again a very serious proof that Bulgar language was Turkic. No serious scholarship doubts that. You shouldn't confuse Great Turk Kaganat with Turkic speakers. Turkic languages appeared before the great Turk Kaganat. Hunns who were Turkic speakers reached Volga region in 160 AD. Bulgars were a part of Turkic Hunnish confederation of Steppe tribes and their language was related to Hunnish and Khazar. |
|
|
|
Post by Balkhani on Sept 27, 2007 11:22:13 GMT 3
I showed two transcriptions from the runic inscriptions from northern Bulgaria above. Both are iranic.
The Chuvash language is a Bulgar-Turkic and has many iranic words that could be heard in Bulgarian too. Volga,Black(Caucasian) and Balkan Bulgarians adopted foreign languages because of the surrownding tribes(they mixed on some level but not a high level) - the volga and Caucas Bulgars adopted Turkic languages,because they were surrownded by turkic people,ruled by turkic people and got their religion from the turkic people.
TheBalkan Bulgars were surrownded by slavs and had to change their language on some level,although the present Bulgarian language has a non-slavic and more iranic grammar and many non-savic words.
But language doesn't matter here. What matters is culture and blood. As I said the Bulgarian culture and blood were and are NOT turkic. I'm going to post some things later.
May be, but the Bulgars reached SOUTHERN Caucas around this time and earlier(there is still a debate here.We know that the Bulgarian state Onoguria,later Great Bulgaria was formed in 165 but do not know where the Bulgars came as they lived in a province Armenia before they established the state).So this means that they cannot possiby be one of the Hunnic tribes.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 28, 2007 14:33:42 GMT 3
Well, my friend, I have checked Peter Golden's An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples and seen many evidences to proove that the Bulġars were a part of the Oġurs who were a Turkic people. There are just too many things to write, so just go find the book (which is easy) and see them yourself Just two examples: that the Bulġars were first mentioned in 480, and that the word Bulġar comes from Turkic Bulġa- meaning "Someone who creates havoc" (related with the word "mixing" in Turkic). Besides, you can check some of Omeljan Pricak's works too. Do not worry, he gives enough information about the Oġurs About the Turkic words in that list... Right now I tried to open the links you gave me but I could not - there must be a problem in that website. But I do remember quiet a few from the time I checked those pages... Titles like Kan (Ḳan, Qan, Khan meaning "Ruler"), Tikin (Tigin, "Prince", plus my nickname ), Boyla (a common Turkic title), Subigi (Sü Bägi, "Army Lord"), Tarkan (Tarḳan, "Knight"), etc are all Turkic or common Altaic. And about the language. Talat Tekin's work is enough for me to believe that the Moesian Bulġars were Turkic speakers, because Mr. Tekin is today the World's leading Old Turkic expert respected by everyone dealing with Turkology and Central Eurasian history. Plus, you said that the Volga Bulġars adopted a Turkic language later from other Turkic peoples who surrendered them - that is very incorrect, because the Volga Bulġars did not have many Turkic neighbors; in fact, most of their neighbors were Ugrians and Russians; they lived in a region which was rather isolated from other Turkic peoples who lived further southwards in the Steppe Zone, whereas the center of Volga-Kama Bulġar Khanate is located very northwards from the Steppe Zone, located at the same level with Moskva (Moscow). Plus, you claimed that the Bulġars sent the Slavs away from Moesia and Thracia. Than, how come today the Bulgarians are Slavic speakers? One final note... How can I reach the Alan Epos? And Sarmat, welcome aboard  |
|
|
|
Post by Balkhani on Sept 28, 2007 16:05:30 GMT 3
In Europen sources the Bulgars were first mentioned in 354 AD and earlier in Armenian and Syrian sources.
The name Bulgar cannot come for Bulga for some very simple reasons - the pronounsiation of the name is different, the structure is different - the root is Bulg and has suffix -ar. A suffix usually cannot consist of only one letter/sound.
The Bulgarian ruler was never called Khan (Khan - Su Bagi). In all inscriptions it's written Kanasubigi and then translated in Greek- ruler send from the Gods. Kana - ruler(some Persian dialects,Pamirian languages), Subaga - divine,from the Gods(Sanskrit)
Tarkan is actully mentioned in sanskrit too.
As I said we cannot judge by a few words as the bulgars were in a union with turkic speakers,so they adopted some words and terms, but a s whole their language was iranic as it is seen on most inscriptions.
About the Volga Bulgars - they had a link with bashkirs and Kypchak people and as I said, they were islamised by turkic people, not by Persians or Arabs.
Also Ibn Fadlan who travelled to the turkic people and the Bulgars(volga Bulgars) describes huge cultural and visual differences between the turkic people and the Bulgars.
I don't know if there's an online verson of the epos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Balkhani on Sept 28, 2007 16:28:29 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 28, 2007 21:00:35 GMT 3
mmh interesting, the lion (or else) killing a deer is a common theme among scythians.
|
|
sorry it is off-topic but i heard this name for the first time...
