The Bulgars

[Asparuh]

Pic5

Attachments:

[Asparuh]

Pic.6

Attachments:

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Nice pictures dude

[Asparuh]

Thanks mate,Took me long time to find them,

[massaget]

Can someone tell me wich is the earliest written source wich mentions the name bolgar in any form of it like balkar, etc. ?

[Asparuh]

Hello Massaget,Me personally i support the theory that the Bulgars were first mentioned in the beginning of the 1-th century of our age.Some sources mentione they have existed long before that time,but i am not shure in this.There is a name of an Ancient city called Balkaria,somewhere in Central Asia,and there is republic in Russia,called Kabardino-Balkaria,probably these places and names are somehow related to the Bulgars.The Bulgars or Bolgars were migrating tribes from Central Asia and eventually they settled down on the lower flank of the Danube river,where today Bulgaria is still presently located.Another Bulgaria existed called : Volga Bulgaria all along the upper Volga and Kama rivers,but it lasted until 13-th century.Funny how the Balkans also probably got its name from Balkar or Bolgars,but this is my presumption,I will try to get you some information about this soon.

[Ardavarz]

The earliest source that can be said to mention the name "Bulgar" for sure is probably "History of the Armenians" by Movses Khorenats'i (if it was really from 5th century, not 7th-9th century as some scholars have thought). Khorenats'i tells a story about the settling of a group of Bulgars led by Vund in the Armenian province Upper Basean called later Vanand (from the Vund's name). This has happened either in 2th century B.C.E. or 4th century C.E. according to different calculations. Since Khorenats'i refers to the lost work of Mar Abas who supposedly lived in 3th century (if he was the same person that is), the earlier date seems most probable. (But it could be also anachronistic use of the name, just as a Georgian history from 11th century mentions Khazars while speaking about the Scythian invasion in 7th century B.C.E.).

An anonymous Latin chronograph from 4th century is often quoted in this regard, but I doubt it actually mentions Bulgarians. It is actually a list of names of the ancestors of different peoples from the ancient and medieval world enumerated as sons of the three mythical Noah's sons as most of those names are fictional and not taken from Genesis. There amongst the sons of Sem (i.e. the Semites!) is mentioned (and only in one of the three existing copies of the Chronograph!) some "Ziezi ex quo Vulgares" - "Ziezi from who the vulgars [descend]" (from Latin vulgus - "rabble") which could mean anything while the phonetic similarity is a mere coincidence. For all these reasons I don't think this could be considered as serious evidence.

There is also a mentioning of some people called Bulouji in Chinese sources from 4th-6th centuries identified as a mixed tribe amongst the remnants of Xiongnu. Peter Boodberg and other scholars have suggested they could have been Bulgars. They were referred to also as Shanhu or "mountain barbarians".

Since there is not a decisive evidence that the name "Bulgar" was in broad use before 5th century C.E., I am prone to think that it was a later alloethnonym, while the early Bulgars have called themselves otherwise as actually their own legends suggest.

[massaget]

Thanks for the answers guys. Ardavarz : are you talking about the syrian Mar Aba ? He lived in 6th century. He has some historic works, for example Martyrologium about the history of the 6th century.
Anecdota Syriaca mentions the bulgars wich is a 6th century source as well among the tribes lives in tents in the north caucasus region.
The text is the following : Ungur tribe lives in tents, Ugr, Sabat, Burgar, Kurtargar, Abar, Kasar, Dirmar, Srorgor, Bagarsik, Kulas, Abdal, Aptalit tribes lives in tents.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Feb 22, 2012 21:32:29 GMT 3 Asparuh said:

Funny how the Balkans also probably got its name from Balkar or Bolgars,but this is my presumption,I will try to get you some information about this soon.

Actually the name Balkan derives from the Turkish name of a mountain east of the Caspian Sea, in modern nortwestern Turkmenistan (the mountain is still called with the same name).

[tangriberdi]

Feb 23, 2012 20:12:22 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Feb 22, 2012 21:32:29 GMT 3 Asparuh said:

Funny how the Balkans also probably got its name from Balkar or Bolgars,but this is my presumption,I will try to get you some information about this soon.

Actually the name Balkan derives from the Turkish name of a mountain east of the Caspian Sea, in modern nortwestern Turkmenistan (the mountain is still called with the same name).

I heard that there is also an administrative division with the same name in Turkmenistan

[Ardavarz]

Feb 23, 2012 12:15:49 GMT 3 @massaget said:

Thanks for the answers guys. Ardavarz : are you talking about the syrian Mar Aba ? He lived in 6th century. He has some historic works, for example Martyrologium about the history of the 6th century.
Anecdota Syriaca mentions the bulgars wich is a 6th century source as well among the tribes lives in tents in the north caucasus region.
The text is the following : Ungur tribe lives in tents, Ugr, Sabat, Burgar, Kurtargar, Abar, Kasar, Dirmar, Srorgor, Bagarsik, Kulas, Abdal, Aptalit tribes lives in tents.

If he has lived in 6th century, his works couldn't be quoted in a 5th century book. There are some problems with the chronology of those reports in the history of Movses Khorenats'i. I've read some things about that, but it was long time ago - a friend of mine wrote a book I was editing and there he cited some of these works. In short - it is supposed that this was another person with the same name - Mar Abas Katina - who lived in 3th century and whose works are completely lost except for the quotes in that Armenian history.

Something else though - the name "Burgar" as it is cited here reminds me of the tribe Burgi mentioned by Ptolemy (2nd century) in the region of modern Afghanistan. It could be related to the later Burjān used by Muslim authors for Danubian Bulgars. Could it be another form of the name "Bulgar" or is something different? Recently I came across a Middle Persian geographical treatise from Sasanian times - it mentions the name of the former Parthian capital Hecatompylos ("[City of] hundred gates") or Šahr-e Qumis near modern Qosheh as "Kūmīs-ī Panj Burg" (or "Bulg" since the Pahlavi alphabet hasn't distinguished R and L). This is interpreted as "Kumis of the Five Towers" (burj - "tower"), but could it be also "Kumis of the Five Burg [tribes]" referring to those Burgi of Ptolemy? If we assume that this "Burg/Bulg" had something to do with Bulgars, then perhaps that five tribes could be the five royal clans mentioned in Bulgarian List of the Rulers (Dulo, Ermi, Vokil, Ukil and Ugain).

My hypothesis is that early Bulgars were related to the Asoi/Asians of the Kushan era (maybe also to Wu-Sun from the Chinese sources), while Pasians (another of the Kushan tribes) were most probably the Parthians. (The founders of the Kushan empire were union of four tribes most probably of Xiongnu and Saka origin). That information would suggest that the alternative name "Bulg/Burg" (and Chinese Bulouji) could be also known as early as 2nd century. But it's only a conjecture, of course.

[Asparuh]

Very useful information,Thanks,I did thought about some relation with the Kushan empire too.

[Burgas]

Sept 24, 2007 23:51:50 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

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.

''(the other branch are today's Macedonians who got nothing to do with the ancient Makedon tribe).'' LoL Atleast you agree that these people have nothing to do with Alexander of Macedon. Most of the population in the so called ''Macedonia'' was and still are bulgarians.