Question to Iranians!

OK, but they are genetically close to Mediterranians not to Altaic people and have dead many iranian words in their language. Actually, Chuvash language is sort of mix between Turkic and Iranian.

 

Firstly I personally make absolutely no connection between "genetics" and ethnicity/nationhood.

 

But if you want to use the "genetic" argument have you actually seen any Chuvash-Tatar Bulgars? they look nothing like mediteranean people, if your going on look's they actually look more Altaic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, Chuvash language is sort of mix between Turkic and Iranian.

 

No its not and I've never heard any linguist claiming it either.

 

 

Bulgar's were connected to the Oghuz,  today's Bulgarians havn't retained Bulgar language, culture, identity but the Bulgar's of Volga Bulgaria have and they're Turkic.

 

 

 

I know

 

 

Anton:

 

First of all, trying to relate genetic structure and phynotype is ignorance. Phynotype is determined by more other chromosoms not only Y-chromosom.

 

Altaic (I think you meant people who belong to Altaic language group) people have quite different genetic structure. So your generalizing them using one genetic structural type is baseless.  Some altaic people who still live around Altai have prominant common genetic mark as those of the eastern Europeans.

 

Now back to the origin of Bughars: like any of the nomadic group along Euroasia steppe, they can't be composed of a single ethnicity, they definately absorbed many other groups around them. The question is who were the core people?

 

Bulgharian history was well documented by Persian and Arabic travellers, and we still have access to these records.

 

We all know the well established historical fact that how onoghur tribes united under Qubrat, then splitted into Qutoghur and Utoghur, and then futher into four groups, one of them were under Asparuh. We know quite well the governmetal structure and titles they used. Through Ibn Fazlan and other travellers' records, we know how they were dressed and how they greet each other. We have records by Arabic historian how the Bulghars (during Muqtedir) who came for Haj claimed they were people mixture of Turks and Slavs.  We have records also to confirm that they spoke similar language to that of the Hazars.  How can we neglect all these facts relating proto-Bulghars to Turkic people?

 

Oghur tribes were the earlier Turkic tribes migrated to the west. Oghur and Oghuz is just dialectic diffrence.  Chuwash indeed kept the archaic form of oghur dialect, which the linguistists call "r" Turkic, and other Turkic languages are "z"  Turkic, also confirming the unity of the terms "Oghur" and "Oghuz"

 

I tell that to my colleagues.

Haplotype is only about the male/female denominator, there are other more than forty chromosoms to determine the phenotype, and we can't also neglect environmental adaptation. So you can alway find various phenotypes among similar haplotype groups. This is basic knowledge you and your collegues should know.

 

 

Why don't you provide the research results on the Chuwash genetic structure? Genetic mutation can happen similarly within neighbour groups again due to environmental factors. What I'm refering to is more older genetic marks of the groups, like R 1a or R1b, not their branches.  

 

 

Another pure ignorance. Nomadic people did build great cities. According to one Arabic traveller, Qarabalasaghun built by Uyghurs were the second largest city all over Asia (After Chang'an) during 9 th century. You can still see the remnants of the city. Bulghars were nomadic as clearly recorded by the travellers.

 

BTW, Uyghurs are Uy-Oghurs, another Oghur tribe.

 

 

But we know Volga Bulgharians and Danube Bulgharians came out from one stock.  

 

 

Wrong, Qutoghur and Utoghur were the names of the two sons of Qubrat.  Notice the meanings in Turkic:

 

On---- ten

Qut----luck

Ut ----- win

 

 

What we are talking about is 10th century, I'd be happy to see any large Iranic nomadic groups by then there.

 

 

I'm pretty sure from the record they said they were the decentants of Turks and Slavs. 

 

 

No it's Istehri's record. He clearly mentioned Hazar.

 

 

I hope you can learn, since it was a language that your great ancestors spoke.

 

 

 

Just becasue the Bugarian were nomadic horsemen we can not consider them Turkic. Iran still have one of the largest nomadic populations, qashqay, Bakhtiyari, Kurds.For example qashqayee a large nomadic people living in Iran speak a mixed persian and Turkic language, but look like Iranian, have iranian culture and identity, bulgars could be same an iranic tribe , with a mixed language, landed in modern Bulgaria and mixed with larger slavic population.