New Fantastic theories about Bulgars

Dear, barbar,
as I see You are probably the man with most historical knowledge in this forum. O.K. But I can see also, even You don't know some things. I am bulgarian and I can tell You what kind of people was (h-)ono-gun-durs, (h-)onno-gurs, kuti-gurs, utti-gurs, vahan-durs and etc., because they was taking part in ethnogenesis of my own people, which was of tocharo-sarmatian origin, by the way. You must know that chinese transcription was changing in time. For example chinese "yui/yue" from the time of Han dynasty should sounds actually "ghur/hur/ur". See "Yue-zji", which was some tribes: "Kuchi-Yue-zji", "Da-Yue-zji", "Hyao-Yue-zji"; also "Kan'g-yui" and etc. Some centuries later at the time of dynasties Wey, Suy and Tan You can see kow the transcribtion is changed for the same people. You can see how for example persians, greeks and outher sources transcribed "Kan'g-yui": "Kangar", "Kongur", "Kangaraye"... Also You can find thesame "Kuchi-Yue-zji" as "Kucha-giri" in later medieval Europa. "Da-Yue-zji" became "Da-hya", and after that "Du-ho-lo"/"Tu-ho-lo", transcribed by the outher sources as "Thaghar"/ "Toghar"/ "Tohar"/ "Tudjara". It means "bright head" (if we in general can use a tranliteration for ethninims), and it is absolutely identical to their self-name "Arsa/Arsha". The problem is that chinese chronists ussualy tryed to transcribed and transliterated meanwhile. That's why sometimes they received some strange meanings in the chinese language, because of sound like or yerogliph's meanings. You can see also hw a partian name was changing of "Yan-tsay" to "An-si", which is also "Arsa/ Arsha", a typical sarmatian self-naming. The word "-gur/ghur/hur/ur", which means "a man/ a group of men/ a tribe", had very old roots in the hurrian's ethnical name, and IT IS NOT INDO-EUROPEAN, BUT NOT ALTAIC TOO. Probably it has a subarean origin. Later the turcik tribes use this words also as "ghuz/guz" besides "ghur/gur" and it was mean "arrows" in sense "tribes". The kuttigurs and uttigurs You wrote was described by ancient akkadian and assirian  chronicles, they (the kutti/ kuttigurs) even destroyed the mighty Akkadian Empire about 2200 B.C. The uttians was described by Herodotus as one of the tribes of Persian Achaemenid Empire. Procopius from Cesaria wrotes about this tribes that in ancient times they was named "cimmerians". I see at the last time some speculations about some hipothetical "jew's" origin of the cimmerians, but they exist in Subartu and Zagros mountain as "kittii/guttei" since 2200 B.C. and maybe earlier, when there was no jews/hebrews yet. If You are interesting of archeology You should know about the messopotamian culture which appears in the Central Asia region around the town of Merw (todays Mari) about III-II millenium B.C. The bringers of these culture probably was this noble part of the hurrians (haru), which the medieval arabian chronist Al-Chamidani/Hamdani calles "Balhari". I have no idea how he can knows about that so many years later. They found the kingdom of Balhika/Bahlika in Baktria and northern india and in this time (a little bit later) appears the toponim "Haryana" in the nothern India. But if we talk about the huns, You' ve got to know the assirian sources talk about "Hun-huri", "(H-)Un-ki", so You can see this mythical "(h-)ono-gurs". It is not just the  ethnonim. This messopotamian culture spreads step by step to the north and east and appears again in some local forms in the northern China and Mongolia. By the way, in Afganistan people still say "ziarat/ziurat" (like "zikurat") to the stone towers in the mountain, where worshippers goes to pray alone in seclusion. I see there's lot of people in this forum, which have some "pan-turanist's" ideas, but they can't understand they are descendents of a lot of different tribes (mostly scitho-sarmatian), which was conquered and turkizited in short time. I offer to them to take genetical analyze, to see they own who in fact they are. The real early turks was mongoloid people. I have seen a hundred of pictures and anthropological materials about that. If You go to turkey today, You will see no mongoloids there. Maybe only a small group in the Karaman province. That is a fact. I had disputes many times with my friends about "huns". Is this ethnonim, or not. The most of them agree the same theory as You. But I' d like to tell You, there's no society which comes from nowhere. There's always a state-establishing element. That's why, the word "Hun" (actually "Hon"), must be something like ethnonim, nevermind the mongols use, or not. In fact, the ethnonim means "a man/people" wasn't "Hun", but "gur/ghur/hur". "Hun" means "noble", "kingly", "higher" (as a place in the yerarchy).
Sorry again about my english! I will be happy if I succeed to help You about this this questions. If I was wrong somehow, excuse me! Best wishes!
Todor Panayotov/Balkh-Aryan

...Sandilkh, Altsek, Kormisosh, Sevar, Sabin/Sabinian, Zvinica, Mortagon, Rasate...
All the words in saved proto-bulgarian texsts, exept a small part of titles, was not a turko-altaic origin. No relations in folk music (and our is very very old), in ornamentation, in anthropology... By the way, we have had more than 40 titles in our early medieval kingdom to 9th century. Turks not so much. All this can show You that proto-bulgarians had an advanced state system long time before the turks to appears in the historical scene. Actually, the Indian sources talk about that very accurately. Thanks to them!