I found this great website showing similarities between Kuper Bulgars and Asparukh Bulgar languages with Pamiri languages (Eastern-Western Iranian  & Dardic Languages such as Pashto, Yazgulami, Wakhi, etc.) of the Hindu Kush Mountains in Central Asia.

Very interesting find:

http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/b_lang/index.html - http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/b_lang/index.html

Browse this portion (screenshot) of the website:

I can't believe u guys are taking this seriously...Certainly the bulgars as all steppe nomads had some iranian "blood'' and were influenced by iranian to some degree.This doesn't mean they were iranics.If u read some objective history books, u'll find that their language was turkic, as well as their appearance, and social stratification.

I'm sure u could find the huns and avars to be influenced by iranian languge,too- that is if there are written records of their language.Here's a "surprise":all steppe nomads probably adopted the lifestyle of iranian nomads. Surely, many of them had direct/close contact with iranian nomads...

And if u compare polish or russian and especially ucrainian to iranic languages, u'll find many more quite obvious similarities. Many toponymus all over eastern europe are unquestionably of iranian origin.Serbian has a few striking parallels-not found in other languages, like azdaha(serbian) and ezdeha(persian)-meaning dragon.Or Kurosh (Cyrus) and Urosh (common name in serbia-not found anywhere else, i think).However, even if the original serbs were sarmatians (it's very likely), their ''genetic print'' to us modern serbs is rather poor ( even the slavic one is questionable, although serbs feel as slavs) and their language was lost in just a few centuries-if not even sooner. 

Based on this claims by bulgarian nationalists, the slavs could claim they're germans, based on a great number of loan words from germanic languages-or better yet-turkic for the same reason...

Where do you come off to think that I believe they are Iranians?  Bulgarians are a mix of many different peoples, but thei biggest influence today is the Slavs.  I didnt mention anywhere that they are Iranians, I said that Old Bulgar and even Bulgar today has words that are found even in remote peoples (some numbering less than a million) living over 3,000 Miles away in the Pamir Mountains of Afghanistan-Tajikistan-Pakistan. 

Well if you actually read something on the website, it also makes references to Turkish words used as well.

Well I found one similarity talking to my Bulgarian friend.  The name "Vladmir" means King of Cities or King of a territory.  Vlad can be translated to Vilayat (province or territory), and Mir as King. 

i think you misunderstood me, i wasnt saying the bulgarians are iranic.

what i meant was that im not surprised to seet his relationship, because iranic peoples have lived in the are for thousands of years, and things probably got mixed together.

do you understand now?

the bulgarians are definetly not iranic, but they probably have some iranic influences.

No ,slavic influence is not that significant.They’re mainly of east mediteranian stock.This means that they assimilated the natives, like all south slavs did.As for those ’’3000 miles words’’-u’ll find a whole heap of them in serbian-and in south-slavic in general.They can be found also in english and other ’’western’’ languages which makes them ’’4000-5000 miles words’’ Iranian influence reaches further then bulgaria.Give me some of those commonly used words from afghanistan,tajikistan and pakistan and i’ll find u parallels in serbian.

Btw, maybe u don’t know, but slavs lived near and with scythians\sarmatians\alans for more then a millenium.All linguists agree that their influence on slavic languages was significant.Like bog ( in iranian means good, in slavic it means god) or ray –paradise.So, what u need is a more striking iranian\bulgar parallel.Like my examples from serbian (azdaha and urosh)-something unique.

Actually, i did read it.And it only further confused me.

Well I found one similarity talking to my Bulgarian friend.  The name "Vladmir" means King of Cities or King of a territory.  Vlad can be translated to Vilayat (province or territory), and Mir as King.

You see, this is what happens when u do not have any knowledge of slavic languages and  jump to conclusions.VLADIMIR in russian means the ruler of the world ( MIR means world in russian and some verb form of VLAD means to rule).In serbian (south slavic) Vladimir means something like the one who preserves peace –or the ruler of peace-if u take it by the word (VLADATI-to rule, MIR-peace).Here’s some similar examples: BRANIMIR-( braniti-to defend)-the defender of peace; BORIMIR-the one who fights for peace; RATOMIR-the one who enters in war for peace etc,etc. As u can see, it’s very easy to manipulate linguistics-but only to some extent-any skilled and objective linguist would reject your etymology as false.

Like my examples from serbian (azdaha and urosh)-something unique.

I don't know about the origins of the word "uros", but azdaha is of Turkish origin, I beleive. I am sure it's not a Slavic word.

Where do i start...Well, by saying: WHAT A LOAD OF C..P!!!

And I also guess that all Arab and Armenian chroniclers (from the period before Danubian Bulgaria, i.e. in the Eurasian steppes) always mention them as different people than the Turkic only by coincidence or mistake (or fraud?)... So I'd say that the Iranic influence in the Bulgars is much more stronger than in the other steppe nations, although I agree that the Bulgars were most probably a mix of Iranics and Turkics, probably with a ruling Turkic elite and Iranic-Turkic common people

Why would the chroniclers lie??Why,why and WHY?And WHY ALL OF THEM??Or maybe they didn't have their glasses on? Once is a mistake or coincedence, twice, well we can accept it, three times-ok...tolerable- but all chroniclers to lie, make frauds and mistakes.Dear boy,what possible reason did the arabs have to lie?They didn't care if bulgars were chinese or africans or nordics.They wrote of what they SAW-not what they presumed or imagined.

.If u know some history, u’ll know that the wife of serbian emperor Dusan was bulgarian-there’s a fresco depicting them two-and it’s clear enough she’s got slanted eyes.Even the description of her mentions ’’asiatic eyes’’.Where did she acquire these eyes? From iranians? Bare in mind that we’re talking about 14th century here-so after hundreds of years of mixing with slavs, more or less oriental look was still present not in all bulgarian slavs,very probably, like today. I know some bulgarians-they all look more or less like other balcan slavs.Some of them could easily pass as austrians, poles or northern italians.Some got slanted eyes, but as I see it, majority doesn’t.I can only guess that the upper classes in the medievals were made of bulgars and slavs, but more bulgars.And nobody said that old bulgars were fully mongoloid-they were more of ’’semi-oriental’’ stock.It’s a possibility that they assimilated some iranics-like all steppe warriors-but that’s it.There’s nothing more to connect them to iranics.

  And btw even today modern Bulgarian is closer to the Iranic languages than to the Turkic languages (despite of the strong Turkish influence during the Ottoman times), as in this order: 1. Slavic languages, 2. Baltic, 3. Germanic, 4. Iranic languages. But this question is so disputable that it's extremely hard to come to a final conclusion! All I can say is that there's a strong mix of Iranics and Turkics, but we can't be absolutely sure to what degree...

That proves absolutely nothing-it's absolutely absurd!!The germans or italians or scots or russians (etc,etc,etc) can say the same thing-and vice verse!!Those are all INDO-EUROPEAN languages!!Of course there's more or less similarities...and even today there are many speculations and uncertainties about them.And of course you're language is most similar to other slavic languages-and after them to baltic ones...is it possible that u don't know that the subfamily is called balto-slavic??And if u knew some further history, you would know that before balto-slavic, there was germano-balto-slavic.And the similarity to iranic languages is explained in my previous post(irano-slavic connection)+they're both SATEM languages.

.S. To some degree it's also understandable if there's an Iranic linguistic influence on Serbia too, even if there's no direct Iranic influence - the Serbian language (as well as the Russian) was quite heavily influenced by the old-Bulgarian during the middle ages and some things could've passed. But, of course, that's just my hypothesis...

What?? Bulgars influnced serbs and russians with iranian words? If I were u I'd be seriously ashamed.What about the scyths, sarmatians, alans: the influence of iranian to slavic lasted for 1200 years!!! At least-if your starting date is the arrival of scyths in todays ucraine in the 7th century BC.The sarmatians are mentioned even in the early middle ages.You do the exact maths.Sarmatians are even mentioned in old russian folk tales-as warrior women spreading fear and horror.have u ever heard of ANTES?This is how the east slavs were called in first few centuries AD-the ethymology of the word ANTES is iranian,and they r thought to be a confederation of slavo-sarmatian tribes-many artifacts from that period are infact sarmatian. And what about the original serbs mentioned by pliny and ptolemy (sarmatian tribe)?Hmmm...could it be that they influnced serbian language-not bulgars?I mean-it does appear to be a more logical explanation wouldn't u say?

No it's not-it's persian.Ask some Iranians if u don't believe me.And Urosh is easily comparable to Kurosh (the name of Cyrus The Great).Neither of them are slavic.

Ezhdeha means dragon in Persian. Th zh sound being equivalent to the J in French "Jaques"

Same case in serbian.Originally it's azdaha where z pronounces as j in jacques (although this is a bit more archaic form - today it's azdaya-y instead of h, although both variations are in everyday use).

I beleive you, I wasn't sure of it myself, I just didn't read through carefully so I thought you meant that it was of Slavic origin. But persian words, as well as Turkish and Arabic, are not so unusual in South Slavic languages since Ottomans ruled over the Balkans for 500 years. So foreign words like azdaha comes from them.

How can u be shure?Why is it that only serbs of all slavs use it?All the other turkish words are found in other south slavic languages.Apart from this we use zmaj(slavic) and ala (turkish?). Besides, turks finished conquering serbia in the 15th century-this word is older then that.And Urosh was the name of our medieval kings-long before turkish conquests.

In Bosnia it's also used, but it's an old word. It's used only to offened someone. Like "hajvan", for example. Maybe it exists in Albanian also.

Namaz is also a persian word, right? What about the name Mirza?

I mean that words like azdaha and hajvan are not frequently used. Hajvan, for ex., means animal, but it's almost only used when intention is to offened someone.

I am not sure about Namaz, I think it's Arabic, and Mirza definately is.  These words must be from the Ottomans.

It's Salat in Arabic.

My point was that Turkish, Persian and Arabic words that are common in South Slavic languages are from the Ottomans. I didn't say I was sure, but that is what comes to my mind when i think about the origins of these words.

It is possible to tell by what kind of words they are.

namaz isnt iranian?

i'm glad that one is finally solved. That means azdaha came to serbian from sarmatian, not turkish.

Once again-no it doesn't( at least concerning iranian).There were slavic-iranian close contacts way before ottoman conquest.However, it is true that there is a number of turkish words in south slavic languages...

I am sorry to all for going off topic again, but I have to ask Sokrates something.

Are you talking about all words that have Persian roots or just that one (azdaha)? Because it sounds more logical to me that you got it from the Ottomans (especially since it's also used in Turkish language), since back than Ottoman-Turkish was a mix of Persian, Arabic and Turkish. What about the words that have Arabic roots?

Sorry again, this is my last post here, you two can continue with your discussion.

If you actually read the website you would see its not the common words that are that striking, and its not with Persian that the website is trying to make a similarity with, its with remote Eastern Iranian languages of the Pamirs and Hindu Kush Mountains.  They dont speak Persian there.

Theres a very easy way to not confuse yourself, and that is to not to make preconcieved notions about a post without even reading the content.  NO where was I trying to say that Bulgarians are Iranians , nor did I have any agenda to prove that. 

That wasnt my etymology that was my friends, so I guess he is wrong.  On a sidenote, wouldnt that make Vlad the Impaler an oxymoron? 

There is another interesting thing also about the name Vladimir.  In Arabic it can be translated to:  Vlad e Mir (Son of the Great/King).

I'm aware there's a no. of persian words in serbian we picked up from ottomans...but azdaha couldn't be one of them-as day I said-in turkish it's erdeha-note that the serbian version is almost identical with the persian one containing z instead of turkish r-if we borrowed it from turkish, we'd say erdeha, too-not azdaha.Makes sense to me... 

Well,if u tried hard enough, u could find the same parallels between german and those languages u mention-i'd say that's even more striking.

I was too hasty to make early assumptions...and i understood u when u said so the first time...My posts were aimed more toward that silly (now there's an understatement) bulgarian propaganda so desperate to prove that they weren't turkics-and as u saw for yourself-they are even ready to suggest that medieval historians were conspirators who deliberately portraited them as turkics instead of iranics...when those same historians couldn't care less who they were...they were simply writing of what they saw and of tales they heard... 

Well, i was a bit surprised with your vilayet example...u don't strike me as being that superficial.

On a sidenote, wouldnt that make Vlad the Impaler an oxymoron? 

Well, i don't know his full name...if it's just vlad-then no it wouldn't.Besides, i don't know if it's derived from vladimir- u should ask some romanian guy.

There is another interesting thing also about the name Vladimir.  In Arabic it can be translated to:  Vlad e Mir (Son of the Great/King).

I don't see how that could come to slavic -with ottoman conquest?-but the name is attested as early as early medievals.I think it's more likely to be connected to scandinavian valdimar\valdemar.

It seems south slavic(serbo-croatian at least) is more influenced by iranian then i presumed.It could very well be it's due to scytho-sarmatian close contacts with slavs in general; although, as i said, there are unique examples that could be connected to original serbs and croats...

Zagros also noted similarities in appearance of some kurdish and slavic children...but  he'll explain it a lot better...if he wants to of course...

Excuse me Sokrates!!!I know that some of the Greeks are trying to prove that the other Balkan nations are inferior to them calling them Asiatic ect.(which is ridiculous since some of the Asians have had extrimly sophisticated culture),but can you explain the fact that there isn't even one Byzantian autor(from the first encounters of the Byzantians with Proto Bulgars in the IV-Vth century AD to IXth century,when the Proto Bulgars were finally assimilated by the Slavs and the Thracian,that had stated that the Bulgars look mongoloid?If they really were mongoloid I think that the Byzantians would have noted that,don't you think???And there are no Bulgarians that "got slanted eyes" 

And the Bulgarian language is neither Turkic nor Iranian-it's Slavic and it is such for the last 1200 years.The presence of some Turkish words is due to the 490 years of Ottoman rule over Bulgaria.

1. Historical Data

Thirty years ago there were no reliable data whether the Asparuh Bulgars had their own alphabet. Since then, a multiplicity of inscriptions written in peculiar characters were discovered in the most important areas of the Balkan Peninsula, that were once were settled by them. Some of these inscriptions were carved on the walls of the first Bulgarian capital Pliska, others were discovered in Madara, in the villages of Krepcha (Targovishte district), Ravna (Provadia district), Popina (Silistra district), and Bjala and Asparuhovo (Varna district). Particularly rich are the finds from the village Murfatlar in the Northern Dobrudja. Dozens of inscriptions of this type were found there.

These inscriptions are most common for North East Bulgaria, i.e. exactly in the areas once most densely populated by the Asparuh Bulgars and which in the VIII-IX century formed the central area of the first Proto-Bulgarian Empire. Isolated inscriptions of that type were found outside this territory - for example in the village of Shudikovo (Eastern Serbia) and on the island of Pakujul lui Soare in Romania. Another alphabet bear inscriptions to the south of the Balkans mountains: in the village of Sitova (Plovdiv district), in the city of Parvomai and in the village Krushevo (Demir Hissar district). As this second alphabet is not attested in the earliest Proto-Bulgarian centres one can assume that it was of local importance and was developed parallel to the writing used in the central Bulgarian areas.

The early Middle Ages were a very interesting period in the history of the alphabets. Various alphabets developed at different places of Eastern Europe at that time, some of them later spread at thousands of kilometres by the large migrations of peoples. During this period in in Caucasus and in its bordering areas were developed almost simultaneously quite different alphabets  - the Armenian alphabet, the Georgian alphabet, the alphabet of the Caucasian Albanians, the Alanian and Kassogian alphabets, as well as the special alphabet of the inscription from the ruins of Humarin. In the areas to the north of Romania was developed the writing of the so called Seklers and even later - the special runic letters of the treasure from Nagy Saint Miklos. Far to the east at the same time appeared two other writings - the Manihean alphabet that was characteristic of the former Sogdiana, and even further to the east - the Orchono-Enissean writing which reached the areas next to China.

In this sea of writings it is not easy to determine the exact position of the inscriptions discovered in Pliska, Madara and in other VII-IX c. Bulgarian settlements. That is why in the first decades of their discovery the researchers compared them mechanically with most diverse Alphabets: the Orchono-Enissean Turkic alphabet, the Seklerian one from Hungary, the Gothic runic writing, the inscriptions from the ruins of Humarin, etc. The result of the comparing was that none of them could help in deciphering the inscriptions from Pliska, Madara and Murfatlar.

The concentration of the inscriptions to the areas once settled by the Asparuch Bulgars clearly shows they were left by the founders of the Bulgarian state. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the same characters were discovered on the territory of the former Kubrat Bulgaria.

II. PROTO-BULGARIAN RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS

2. Details about the Largest Finding ot Proto-Bulgarian Runic Inscriptions

More than thirty years ago in the small village of Murfatlar (today Bessaraby) in Northern Dobrudja were discovered inscriptions, written in unknown writing - different from the Greek, from the Cyrillic and from the Glagolic alphabet. They came from a former spiritual centre - today lifeless, as attested by the four rock churches. A bronze bronze rosette with fourteen characters of the same unknown writing was discovered almost at the same time in Preslav.

A number of Bulgarian and foreign scholars became immediately interested in the problem. Acad. V. Beshevliev visited the village in Dobrudja and took pictures of large section of the inscriptions there. The Romanian historians Ion Barnia and Pavel Diakonu reported these finds in the magazine "Dacia". The Polish scientist Edward Triarsky undertook the attempt to interpret part of the inscriptions and published a special study over on this question. Thus from a Bulgarian, the problem of the writings in Northern Dobrudja became international, with scholars from several Eastern European countries involved in working on it (see the bibliographical information in Supplements http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/suppl3.html#SUPPLEMENT 3 - 3 , http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/suppl4.html#SUPPLEMENT 4 - 4 , http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/suppl5.html - 5 ).

Notwithstanding the great interest, the interpretation of the writing of Murfatlar proved difficult. So far we could be confident only about the date of the inscriptions. According to opinion of the researchers they were produced during the epoch immediately after the adoption of Christianity in Bulgaria - the end of the IXth and the beginning of the Xth century. The dating is based, first, on the fact that part of the inscriptions were carved on the walls of small rock churches, where inscriptions with Cyrillic letters are also to be found. They were written during the epoch immediately after the christianisation of the Bulgarians  - only this could explain the symbiosis between the two writings. Secondly, the Cyrillic inscriptions from Murfatlar  also contain characters characteristic to the other, non-Cyrillic writing. The "inclusion" of non-Cyrillic letters into the Cyrillic inscriptions took place at the time when the use of Cyrillic was still in its embryonic stage. There is no other reliable explanation for that symbiosis. Both writings were in use at the same time until only one of the them - the Cyrillic writing, continued to exist.

The finds of Murfatlar lead to a still little known period, a period when the Slavic alphabet made its first appearance and when besides it existed other, arrived from elsewhere and already disappeared alphabet. The mixing of Slavic and not Slavic characters in the inscriptions from the old churches in Murfatlar is hardly coincidental, and it would be appropriate to clarify the origin of the already disappeared other writings, in order to reveal clearer the secret of the Slavic alphabet.

Let us look at some interesting examples from Murfatlar, which show the influence of a still unknown writing in an unknown language on the Slavic inscriptions and which in some places lead to mixing of Slavic with non-Slavic words. Here are some special characters, which are appear among the Slavic letters: 

There are two inscriptions, numbered 63 and 63a in the collection of Barnia and Shtefanescu, which are not noticeable by their special letters, but which contain many apparently non-Slavic words, mixed with Slavic words, and which render the text difficult to understand.

First of the inscriptions reads:

ZHUPAN I IMAET GEORGE ONC TEBE TAM ESTEK KRAIN I REZHET,

and the second:

A TONAGN IZ POLOU TUBA OBASA ES APE.

Beside the second inscription, which contains the special words "tongan", "obasa", "es", "ape" and "tuba", is drawn a bird, which, according to the opinion of the previous researcher, was connected to the word "tongan" - meaning most likely "falcon" or "hawk". The inscription will be translated in the sixth paragraph of this section, here we want to lay stress on the strong admixture of non-Slavic characters and words - most probably the result of a Proto-Bulgarian influence. This influence is felt both in the language and in the writing, which although Cyrillic, differs from the Slavic traditions and is in many places is a mixture of Cyrillic and non-Cyrillic characters. How strong was the influence of this factor can be seen from the more than thirty inscriptions, written from the start to the end in specific yet not interpreted characters. They show quite clearly that during the IX-X c. AD a Proto-Bulgarian runic writing was still in use in our lands parallel to the Slavic one. Altogether, the Romanian, Bulgarian and Polish publications about Murfatlar contain 26 inscriptions of this interesting type. The rest are still inaccessible to the Bulgarian researchers, because of the difficulties imposed from the Romanian side. But if even incomplete, the material available allows us to draw a number of important conclusions.

8. The Proto-Bulgarian Inscriptions from Old (Kubrat) Bulgaria and from the area of the Imeon mountains

Of special importance for the correct interpretation of Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions is the fact that similar inscriptions were found in the areas of the former Kubrat Bulgaria. They appear in every big centre, settled by the Proto-Bulgarians, and they cover a large area between the central courses of Don and Kuban rivers. http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/suppl4.html#SUPPLEMENT 4 - Supplements 4 and http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/suppl5.html#SUPPLEMENT 5 - 5 contain all finds of this type. Here are some particularly characteristic examples:

 
In the first of the three inscriptions discovered in Sarkel, at the river Don (see http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/suppl4.html#Supp. 4, 1. - Supplement 4, inscription 1 ), practically all characters have counterparts from the Proto-Bulgarian inscription from Bulgaria. The second character coincides with the Proto-Bulgarian character in the inscriptions from Krepcha and Ravna, the rest are still better known - similar characters frequently occur in the inscriptions from Murfatlar and Pliska. But the most interesting in this inscription is probably the character, which resembles the Cyrillic letter SHT (). It is the earliest example of the use of a character of this type. As the inscriptions from Ukraine and North Caucasus are older than those from Bulgaria, it can be assumed that they represent an archaic version of the Proto-Bulgarian writing. But the history of the Proto-Bulgarian bibliography does not end with these finds from former Kubrat Bulgaria.

A particularly old inscription of this type was discovered near Imeon, it contains only six characters:

Although short this inscription is nevertheless indicative and has priority in the study of the Proto-Bulgarian alphabet. All its characters have parallels both from Kubrat Bulgaria and from the territory of Bulgaria. Especially the first, fourth, fifth and sixth character have close analogies in Kubrat Bulgaria and in our lands. The Proto-Bulgarian alphabet has very old traditions, its old character alphabet is confirmed by the fact that in Kubrat Bulgaria writings of that type are to be found on various articles - weapons, amphorae, water jugs, and even spindles:

The first inscriptions is written in old Bulgarian runic characters, the other one, containing both runic characters (for example the first character) and Greek letters, reads quite clearly: OI ANDET E (see V. Drachuk, On the road of the millennia, Moscow, 1971, S, 223). (The Greek letter H (eta) was read in very early times as E, only later it became to express I. Therefore the inscription  must be read not as OI ANDET I, but OI ANDET E). It can be translated with the help of the eastern Iranian languages as "MY DEAREST THIS SPINDLE". On another spin weight, likewise discovered by V. Drachuk (Op.cit., p. 223), is written with Proto-Bulgarian characters the following expression "OF KUJA THE SPINDLE".

 
It is interesting that the letter ZH ()is written in the same way as in Murfatlar. The letter E is similar to that from Murfatlar as well as to that from the monogram of Kubrat.

These assorted finds point out that the runic writing was used not only in the spiritual but in the everyday life as well. There were other people, besides the priests and the clerks, who knew and used this writing.

. PROTO-BULGARIAN INSCRIPTIONS IN GREEK LETTERS

3. The Golden Cup of Friendship

The http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/suppl1.html#7. - inscription from Nagy Saint Miklos is the second largest inscription in the Proto-Bulgarian language with Greek letters. All translation attempts in the past were based on the Turkic languages. Perhaps this was the reason why the inscription remained practically untranslated. It can be safely stated that science paid a very high price for this blind faith - 70 years of arduous research work could not produce a convincing translation. Only a year ago the Turkologist Baichorov rejected all previous translation attempts as completely groundless and tried to arrange the words of the inscription in a completely new pattern which, however, proved likewise little convincing.

The inscription from Nagy Saint Miklos, as well as that from Preslav, mentiones two Proto-Bulgarian dignitaries - BOILA ZOAPAN and BOITAUL ZOAPAN:

BOILA ZOAPAN TESI DUGETOIGI BOITAUL
ZOAPAN TAGROGI ITZIGI TAISI

TAGROGI leads to the Sumerian root DINGIR - God, of which was derived a multiplicity of spiritual terms, including a wish for health (tagra in Pamir) and royal sceptre (takra in Old Syrian) among others. In our case TAGROGI meant most likely an oath, vow. The next word ITZIGI means 'holy' from the ancient root IS, which in many languages (for example in Sanskrit) meant God, light. The Tuvians still call the holy sacrifice IZIK, ISHIG is the sun shine in some Pamirian and Caucasian languages, for the Indo Iranian peoples IS and ISI were words for holiness since earliest times. Therefore, the expression TAGROGI ITSIGI contained a combination of the type TAGAROX ISHIG (sacred vow), developed most likely on Iranian base. The repeated case ending -I is particularly typical for the eastern Iranian and to a certain degree for the Celtic languages.

The last word of the inscription - TAISI, is likewise very characteristic. Nobody tried to interpret this word yet probably because such a word is missing in the Turkic languages. It is, however, still to be found in some Iranian languages, where the epilogue TAISI means "in the name of", "in the honour of", "because of". As an epilogue, the specific expression TAISI is placed after the word it explains. Thus the expression TAGROGI ITSIGI TAISI can be translated as AS A SIGN OF THE SACRED OATH. It is interesting that one finds a similar epilogue in some Caucasian languages, for example in Chechen, where it sounds as "taihe". The whole inscription is translated as:

BOILA ZOAPAN TESI DUGETOIGI
BOITAUL ZOAPAN TAGROGI ITZIGI TAISI

BOILA ZOPAN HAS GIVEN YOU THE CUP
AS A SIGN OF THE SACRED OATH

Here is the explanation of the rest of the words:

BOILA SOAPAN - name and title in nominative. The title is Iranian.
TESI - Iranian (Pamirian) form for the Dative of the word TES (a cup, glass) with the ending I, characteristic for the Pamir languages.
DUGETOIGI=DUGE-TUGI - an eastern Iranian expression derived from the verb DUGE (to give) and the pronominal form TUGE (you). Also possible is the combination DUGE TUK with the suffix for past tense (TUK), which is characteristic for example for the Ishkashimi language in Pamir.
BOITAUL ZOAPAN - construction in nominative.
TAGROGI - Iranian dative of TAGAROH with the ending -I.
ITZIGI - Iranian dative of ISHIG with the ending -I.
TAISI - Iranian epilogue, which means "as a sign of", "because of".

The golden drinking cup with Greek inscription from the gold treasure of Nagy Saint Miklos is a very interesting article in both linguistic and cultural points of view. It was a gift from a Proto-Bulgarian dignitary to another dignitary as a symbol of a sacred oath. In the area the Proto-Bulgarians originate from, there existed a custom known as "fraternization". The main feature of that custom was a sacred drinking vessel, and the blood drops of the fraternizing in it sealed the eternal brotherhood.

All points that the inscription from Nagy Saint-Miklos is connected with such a ritual. There is a sacred oath between two men. On that occasion one gave to the other a golden cup. The cup was connected with the oath, it was a pledge for the oath. The fraternization oath, that age-old custom of our people, was still to be found until the last century under the Bulgarian sky.

The root of this custom goes back into the centuries. It already existed in the Proto-Bulgarian epoch as shown by the find from Nagy Saint Miklos.

. PROTO-BULGARIAN INSCRIPTIONS IN GREEK LETTERS

http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/index.html - http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/index.html

Yes merced 12 this "theory" that presents the Proto Bulgars as some barbaric tribe is really funny-in fact they have quite a sophisticated culture-their own runic letters,a calendar,built stone cities ect.

I am also supporter of the theory about the Iranian origin of the Proto Bulgars-it's so obvious.Just the fact that the inscriptions that they left aren't written in Turkic language says it all.And all these speculations about their mongoloid look-ridiculous There isn't a single source that backs this up

iam sorry for you proto bulgars are turkic.

wait i post some article

Weapons Used by the Bulgars

The success of the Bulgars from the 4^th century AD to the 9^th century AD was made prevalent by their use of force from horseback.  Most valued by the Bulgars in this application of force were a warrior's cunning, skill, and fierceness in battle.  Furthermore, a warrior would amount to nothing without their weapons.  Whether in the Balkans, the Northern Caucasus, or along the shores of the Volga River, the Bulgar warriors chose weapons that would bring them victory.

Widely accepted amongst the light and heavy cavalry of the Ancient Bulgars were the usage of the spear, the hand ax, the knife, and the lasso.  To a lesser extent the usage of the short sword and javelin were found amongst these horsemen.  For the light cavalry, the main weapon however was the recurve bow and an assortment of arrows to do different jobs.  For the heavy cavalry, a larger spear was the preferred weapon of choice while javelins were used to make up for the lacking of missile weapons.

In regards to the recurve bow and the arrows shot from this, the first wave of any attack would be carried out.  The bow itself was highly prized by the warrior because it could outshoot and outperform others of its time.  As with the Hunnish methodology in making a recurve bow, the Bulgar recurve bow took over five years to make through an exacting curative process.  Hence, like modern ICBM technology of today, the secrets in making these bows was heavily guarded as well as the trading of the bows themselves.  A unique format of resins, wood, sinew, and composite materials such as horn blended together gave this recurve bow a notorious reputation for striking down Byzantines, Franks, and Arabs.  Arrows sent at a given enemy would be made with tips of bone or iron complete with designs for different functions.  These designs could involve a smaller head for better penetration of an opponent wearing metal armor, or a wider head of iron for causing more hemorrhaging upon entry.  They could also be designed to fly further by modifying the shaft length or the feather construction in the tail.  Some arrows might even be made to send communications on the battlefield by making noise through flight.

Both the recurve bow and the arrows would have been a nuisance if it weren't for the mechanisms in controlling these wile galloping on a horse.  Such equipment included the iron stirrup introduced by the coming of the Avars in the mid-6^th century AD, the leather bow case kept usually behind the rider on the right side of the horse, and the leather or birch bark quiver for carrying arrows on their left side.  Also a strap of leather would keep the warrior's spear directly on their back when working with the recurve bow.  All of these gave the Bulgar greater versatility in shooting targets in a number of otherwise awkward angles while mounted.

For the heavy cavalry, a larger, longer spear was incorporated into weapon design for the purpose of breaking enemy formations what much easier.  More weight and support behind the spear meant more impact especially if one considers the heavier armor the rider would wear.  If the enemy was not maimed or killed by the second wave consisting of a charge of thrown javelins and the impalement with the handheld spears, the lasso would be considered.

The Hunno-Bulgar warriors would use the lasso where other direct weapons had failed.  Made for the purpose of entangling, the lasso would be thrown over a given victim, and then they would be dragged impacting with stones, trees, and other horses hooves.  If the enemy were not thrown off their balance, the Bulgar would then proceed to come at them with hand axes, swords, or knives (with the knife being the last offense besides fists, kicks and wrestling).  As Ammianus Marcellinus, the famous Roman historian reported of the Huns that came before the Bulgars (Hunno-Bulgars), "They fight from a distance with missiles having sharp bone instead of their usual points, joined to the shafts with wonderful skill, then they gallop over the intervening spaces and fight hand to hand with swords, reckless of the own lives; and while the enemy are guarding against wounds from saber-thrusts, they throw strips of cloth plaited into nooses over their opponents and entangle them."

Uuuh there is a little difference between Volga Bulgars and Bulgarians you know.Modern day Bulgarians have nothing to do with Proto Bulgars Volga... whatever.

We are a mix of Slavs,Thracians and some Proto Bulgars.

i know today bulgars slavs

here is a site i found, dont know if it will be useful or not:

http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/b_lang/bl_a_v.html - http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/b_lang/bl_a_v.html

There's no need for insulting my intelligence.You're obviously not in touch with the latest genetic results.Bulgarians are as slavic (genetically) just as serbs are-meaning 10-20 %.Majority of your genes are native to balcans-they were there before bulgars or slavs arived-which means that both slavs and especially bulgars were low in numbers, and that the natives (with thracians among them) were simply assimilated by the more powerful newcomers.. As i said - it's the same case here in serbia...Look at your countrymen-do they look like poles or czechs?Maybe some do, but a majority is clearly different.And when I said that part about mediteranians -i didn't mean to offend anyone (btw-why would anyone be offended when you call him ''mediteranian''- a number of serbs has got mediteranian appearance-what's wrong with that?).This is what C.S Coon said about the anthropological type of bulgarians:

"The Bulgarians are a composite people, with the following racial elements easily discernible: (a) a medium to tall-statured Atlanto-Mediterranean; (b) a partially blond Neo-Danubian, of typical snub-nosed form; (c) a Nordic; (d) a Dinaric, with the usual Alpine corollary; (e) a brachycephalic central Asiatic Turkish or Tatar form. The basic element is the Atlanto-Mediterranean, which probably goes back to the Neolithic; the Neo-Danubian is probably of both Slavic and Ugrian introduction, although some of it may be older; the Nordic may be of several origins, including Thracian; the Dinaric is simply the result of Bulgarian admixture with local elements in Macedonia; the Turkic is found mostly in eastern Bulgaria, and then among townsmen and shepherds rather than among agriculturalists. Of these varied elements, the first two are the most important, and the first more than the second. The presence of a strongly entrenched Atlanto-Mediterranean population of Neolithic date in all of the lowland Balkans south and east of the Iron Gate is becoming increasingly evident. In Bulgaria it is geographically most concentrated along the southern ethnic periphery, and among Bulgarian colonies abroad, as in the Crimea..."

Source: http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII15.htm - http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII15.htm

In case you don't know about Coon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon

As you can see - eventhough you're slavs culturally and linguistically, like all balcan slavs - you're genetically not particulary "slavic"-  meaning that the presence of ''slavic'' (indo-european?) marker-haplogroup hg3 is not that strong among balcan slavs.Infact,even the poles have got only around 50 % of hg3 ( highest in europe).To conclude-there's no ''genetic'' slavs, germanic, romanics- most of the genes in modern europe existed before the IE invasion.

However, you should bare in mind the fact that genotype should be separated from the phenotype- you could be of hg3 haplogroup, but that doesn't mean you look like a swedish, kurdish or pakistani kashmiri guys, who are also of the same haplogroup.I hope things look clearer to you now. 

Absolutely true - there isn't a nation in europe (except for the basques, maybe) without any near eastern/north african or central asian admixture-it's a fact- even those who like to think of themselves as of a ''pure race'' have got some ''cowboy genes".

Because Bulgarians have noting to do with Volga Bulgars-Proto Bulgars have had(but modern Bulgarians have may be 3 or 4% of the genes of the Proto Bulgars-wow what a close genetical relation)

A number of those words are not of ''exclusive'' bulgarian origin-they're pretty much in common to all south slavs-which couldn't be associated to bulgars.Like ZHIVOT-I mean-it's pronounced excatly the same in serbo-croatian...and it's not very likely that we picked it up from the bulgars- i mean, it's pretty sure we had the word personifying life before bulgars-don't you think?- i mean-it's one of the most frequently used words in every language (and one of the basic ones).Or SHUMA- which means forest in serbo-croatian.You should know that old slavs were the people of forests and rivers-they had countless no. of names for them-just like persians had for mountains...SHUGAV-again excatly the same in serbo-croatian (from SHUGA-mangy)-btw english synonymus is shebby-sounds  similar-now that couldn't be associated with old bulgars-can it?Even SHUNDA is doubtful - we serbs say SHUNDAV-the one who has a speech flaw.

THen TIGAN- we serbs say TIGANJ-also means frying pan.SVILA is in common to all south slavs;SABL(j)A also.PYRKHA - in sebian it also means to flit.SIROMA(K)H-in common to all south slavs.PRLJA- in common to all south slavs-means to make something dirty(serbo-croatian).PAPLI can be compared to serbo-croatian PIPATI- to touch (delicately) or PIPAVO - something delicate. PUG is comparable to PUKNUTI - also means to crack.PSUVAM-in common to...PSOVATI in s-c.PITA-also in common...(i had one few days ago ).PESHKIR-excatly the same in serbian-could a turkish loanword...PECHURKA- mushroom in serbo-croatian-in common to blah, blah...PELERINA-??? same in serbian...btw, very spread out -so it's  not a very good specimen.PAS (after in pashto)- in serbian it's POSHTO.MRCINA - it's used (in serbia) as an expression for a corpse-mostly animal ones-it's pretty clear it's derived from MRTAV - dead.MERA means measurment in serbian-it can be easily connected with land and pastures ( in the sense of measuring).MARTAK sounds similar to serbian ORTAK - a partner (in business usually).LESH means corpse (a human one) in sebian.KUTRAJ (pashto) is comparable to serbian KUCHE (small dog).KUKER ( a cry in pashto) is similar to serbian KUKATI-to cry, to moan.KACURA (a hood in pashto ) is comparable to serbian KACKET (hood).KOTURA (‘a type of big wooden vessel’ in pashto)-almost the same as KOSHARA or KOTARICA- wooden baskets in serbian.KOKICHE ( a small flower in pashto) - we use the word KOKICE for popcorn- they look like small flowers when they're done-i'd say there's a connection.ZER in bulg. is almost the same as ZAR in serbian-also used when u want to stress something out.VEZHDA (an eyebrow) in bulg. is similar to serbian VEDJA.VADJA (bulg), WADA (pashto)0comp. to serbian VADITI-to pull out.BAKHTJA SE is almost the same as serbian BAKTATI SE (to labour...)-once again-SOUTH SLAVIC...

So-the case is clear- a no. of words are in common to all south slavs, some are similar due to common IE roots, a no. could be loanwords., and a few could really be connected to pashto-which doesn't proove much-since all steppe warriors were more or less influenced by iranics (linguistically and genetically).There's a no. of chuvash words comparable to english ones- I wonder... .

Anyway Afghanan,-since u're fascinated with long-distance connections, here's one even further then the bulgar-pashto one:

*klipa is used in all three genders-it is used as a noun ( mostly in comical conotation)

**pretvarati is a verb-means to turn into (like turn into stone),and it also means to pretend-however it’s obviously somehow connected to pretvira and pret vara.

***Slaviti-derived from slava (glory)-or is it vice verse?However, it could be connected to the ethymology of Slaven,Sloven-Slav.

If i was to be politically correct, i should put serbo-croatian instead of serbian...but i'm not....

Socrates,

Thank you for your post, and yes I love to see more similarities between all languages in the region.  Some of the words you mention also have parallels in Pashto as well.  Alive in Pashto is Zhwande and Live is Zhwand.  Also the word "When" is Kale/Kaleh.  It is also typical of Scythian languages to replace the letter "D" to "L" and Kale instead of Kade.  Three in Pashto is Dre, you get the point. 

Who are Slavs originated from?  Scytho-Sarmatians?  Avars?  Or did they just arrive as their own identity?

The last remark is closest to the truth.And Avars?They weren't even IE's-and looked nothing like the description of slavs from the early meadievals-very tall and well-built,ruddy in the face and fair-haired. It's not even an option.Avars imposed their rule on a part of eastern and southern slavs in the early medieavals (7th-9th century)-they were remembered as bloodthirsty savages-that's about all there's to say about them.And slavs are more ancient then that - Tacitus(1st century AD) mentions them as Venedi living in the east Germania.He says that they're acting as ''bandits'' - he says it's because they took over sarmatian mentality  .Interestingly-he also mentions people called Peucini (Balts?) who are also mixing heavily with sarmatians by intermarriages.He notes that their appearance has ''roughen'' greatly because of that.So i guess the sarmatians weren't excatly "nordics''-as they are depicted by nordicists .

Basically, slavs seemed to be a part of a larger IE group sometimes called germano-balto-slavic (based on lingustic and archeological? grounds).But-what's more certain is that balts and slavs seem to be closely connected (in the IE tree).It appears that they separated somewhere around 1500 BC.Trzinec-Komarow archaeological culture between the Oder and the Dnepr rivers is a candidate of proto-slavic homeland(according to Gornung and Rybakov). All the hydronyms and toponyms of that area seem to witness that it was so.

What's more interesting for you is certainly that  it appears slavs had close contacts with scyths and sarmats (since the 7th cen. BC at least).This is one of the explanations of similarity of slavic and iranian languages.Slavs were probably the ''scythians'' mentioned by herodotus that are not engaged in warfare, but are farmers that provide for scyths proper - royal scyths..Their contacts with sarmats were even closer.German maps from the early/middle medievals still depicted ''sarmatians'' in parts of todays poland - which means they had significant influence on slavs.They certainly had a significant lingustic and genetic influence at least on ucranians and south-eastern russians.However, most historians agree that they influenced all slavic languages-most common examples are words bog (god) and ray (paradise) undoubtedly of iranic origin.

Thank you for your insight!

I was at a Bulgarian Wedding a few months ago, and this older Bulgarian man said something about Slavs being Farmers and more sedentary people, and the Bulgars being more Warlike and nomadic.  He also mentioned a collective story of how they all joined forces together against common enemies and somehow in the process they fused together to become the Bulgar nation today.

How much truth is in this?

How much truth is in this?

That's about it - bulgars and slavs joined forces to protect themselves from avars (that's how it started)...however, there wasn't any mixing between them for the first 200 years – each stuck to their own.But, when both slavs and bulgars accepted christianity, process of assimilation of bulgars began – they accepted slavic language as their own-so all that was left of them was the name...

And that old man is right – slavs were mostly peaceful farmers...And if u’re interested in the description of south slavs- try to find De bello gotico by Procopius of Cesarea – the part is Gotica 38.8. III (i think so at least).

Socrates mate ...... the bulgarians do not have much to do with mediteranian people who were already living there. In south eastern and eastern bulgaria yeh there might be more mediteranian influence.

But amongst the Bulgarians the dominant gene is EU7 ..... Germany has the largest percentage of EU7 (37.5%).... and clearly influence in germany is not mediteranian .......the that suggests that serbs, bulgarians, croats are more arayan than slavic which i dont beleive   .....

we also have 12% of the HG3 wchich is most comman in poland.

we dont even look mediteranian,mediteranians have darker skin than us.

Why be ashamed of the Volga Bulgars and Bulgars, they were great people, great warriors. They were also taller than Europeans wen they came, their average height was 175m and were physically very strong. While the rest of Europeans measured an average height of 160m

Little is left of our Bulgar ancestors in the Bulgarian population today though.

In fact it does and it is written in the same exact way - "j".

The english "j" -  is spelled as "c".

You should read Ibn Fadlan a bit closer because such a confusion is not made.

Bulgarians should be proud of Volga Bulgars, its where their name derives from for goodness sake, you cannot deny history just because you don't like to admit the ancestors of your nation's name were Turkic. Let's face it that's the only problem you have with it, if they were Slav's you'd be singing out loud with pride about the Volga Bulgars