Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBulgarian origins
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 30>
Poll Question: Bulgarians =Thracian descendants?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
9 [13.85%]
21 [32.31%]
4 [6.15%]
16 [24.62%]
4 [6.15%]
11 [16.92%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Tyranos View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 246 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Bulgarian origins
    Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 00:56
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Tyranos

Modern day Bulgarians are mainly made up of Pre-Turkic peoples, similiar situation with the Hungarians. There was mainly linguistic and cultural changes.
 
Well, I do not know. It is supposed nowadays that Bulgars were much more numerous than it was thought before. Than I would be carefull to call Slavs as pre-Bulgar since they started to play role in south of Danube earlier than Slavs.
 
What is meant by Pre-Turkic, is indigenous peoples, namely Romanized Thracians and such. Slavs came around the time of Turkic migrations into the Balkans and Eastern Europe, they too were mainly linguistical and cultural more than genetic.


Edited by Tyranos - 07-Oct-2007 at 00:57
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 01:05

This is correct. The Thracians and Slavs were both mainly tall, blue eyed and red haired../.by the way similar in this respect to the other big groups -Germanics and kelts/...Linguistically they belonget to the same branch of I-E languages... The Ancient Greeks were of the same looks as late as the Trojan War time...



Edited by londoner_gb - 07-Oct-2007 at 01:22
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 09:14
Originally posted by londoner_gb

This is correct. The Thracians and Slavs were both mainly tall, blue eyed and red haired../.by the way similar in this respect to the other big groups -Germanics and kelts/...Linguistically they belonget to the same branch of I-E languages... The Ancient Greeks were of the same looks as late as the Trojan War time...

Do you have any evidence that proove that ancient Thracians were mainly tall, blue eyed and red haire ?
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 09:24
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by akritas

You have the tendecy to mix all the writers when you have a lack of arguments.
 
looks like this is you lacking arguments.  
 
 
Gimbudas.............not a sinle reference
 
Gimbutas write about fuses of Thracians and Slavs (not in Balkans as I found now) in "The Origin of Indo-Europeans". Let us forget about her then.
 
Jirecek..................your link is in an language that I cant read
Tht is your problem. I provided you adequate translation with his conclusion about grammatics of Balkan languages including Bulgarian. We are not in a trial, we have friendly discussion.
 
Charanis..............Thracian(as also Illyrian, Isaurian, Lycaonians) term has provincial meaning and not racial.(page 31,Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the 7th Century)
 
Charanis speaks about Avars and Bulgarians mixed with population of Byzantine Empire in the same article Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the 7th Century:
Originally posted by Charanis

An episode described in the Miracula indicates that other invaders who Iwere not Slavs settled in the region of Thessalonica later in the seventh century. This is the episode involving Kouver a Bulgar whom the Khagan of the Avars had placed at the head of a mixed group under his domination. This group consisted of the descendants of Christian natives whom the Avars had carried away many years previously (about sixty years before, we are told) and the Avars, Bulgars, and other barbarians under the domination of the Khagan with whom these Christians had intermarried.

This is what I consider a support of your "amalgamation theory" by Charanis.

You make circles in an pointless arrgument. The question was.... why the "medieval" Bulgarians  not considered themselves "Thracians" when establish the Bulgarian Empire ?
 
There is a not a single historical reference or archaeological finding that proove any king of connection between ancient Thracians and Bulgarians.Bulgarians cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs-Avars-Bulgars entered in the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Thracian kingdom.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 10:22
Originally posted by akritas

There is a not a single historical reference or archaeological finding that proove any king of connection between ancient Thracians and Bulgarians.Bulgarians cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs-Avars-Bulgars entered in the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Thracian kingdom.
 
This is pointless for you but not for any reasonable man. These are examples of how Slavs and Bulgar came to newlands and mixed with local populations which led to creation of new nations with different roots -- Thracians, Slavonic, Bulgarian and others.  This happened with your own nation too. I know you hate this German guy but upcoming Slavs heavily intermixed with Greeks and changed their culture and genotype. The same can be said about Turks thousand year later, thay came and changed your culture and genotype (by changed I mean heavily influenced).
 
The question was.... why the "medieval" Bulgarians  not considered themselves "Thracians" when establish the Bulgarian Empire ?
 
The question was that you said that "amalgamation theory" is  supported by nobody. However, quick view showed that such giants as Chranis and Jirecek show examples of these mixings of local and upcoming tribes. Genetical research shows the same. Linguistic too. Who did Medieval Bulgarians consider themselves is a different story. Nation was not that important as state. That was in Roman Empire, that was in Byzantine Empire and that was in Bulgarian state too. And don't tell me that  Byzantines considered themselves as descendants of Ancient Hellenes (I mean in national meaning). These fairy tales were designed by Greeks much much later.


Edited by Anton - 07-Oct-2007 at 10:32
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 10:28
Originally posted by akritas

There is a not a single historical reference or archaeological finding that proove any king of connection between ancient Thracians and Bulgarians.
 
Actually there are plenty (10-20) of historical references that call Bulgarians Mysians. This does not mean anything, but this shows how  quickly you jump into conclusions.


Edited by Anton - 07-Oct-2007 at 10:38
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 10:37
Originally posted by londoner_gb

This is correct. The Thracians and Slavs were both mainly tall, blue eyed and red haired

This is not actually true. The were different :)
 
.
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 11:43
And my last question,  since the other is still unanswerable,  was or  is  any serious scholar or prestigious academaic community (e.g. university)  mentioned en passant that Bulgarians were desecents of the ancient Thracians ? Smile
I like to read theirs arguments(if there are)ConfusedShocked
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 11:48
It seems that Thracians and Dacians were both blond and dark haired. In Bulgaria have been discovered some burials were the human remains were containing a high level of melanine in hair.

Also, in the tomb of Aleksandrovo, Zamolxis, the supreme Thracian god is depicted dark haired:




Other image from the same tomb (4th century BC):







And my last question, since the other is still unanswerable, was or is any serious scholar or prestigious academaic community (e.g. university) mentioned en passant that Bulgarians were desecents of the ancient Thracians ? Smile
I like to read theirs arguments(if there are)ConfusedShocked


Ofcourse. In Romania is well know that Bulgarian language is close to Romanian and this is explained by the common Thracian heritage.


What do you think, that Bulgarians are descendants only of Slavs?



Edited by Menumorut - 07-Oct-2007 at 12:29

Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 227 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 12:43
Originally posted by Anton


The same can be said about Turks thousand year later, thay came and changed your culture and genotype (by changed I mean heavily influenced).

Anton, usually the flow of genes is from the conquered to the conqueror, not the opposite. The Greeeks were heavily influenced by the turkish culture (the opposite is also correct IMHO). But not the greeks were that had many turkish girls in their harems. The children of a turkish father became muslim and were considered turks not greeks. The genetical influence of the Ottoman turks is very limited in the nawadays Balkan nations - simply because all of the offspring of mixed marriages became Turks and now are proud members of the Turkish nation.
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 227 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:01
Originally posted by Menumorut

It seems that Thracians and Dacians were both blond and dark haired. In Bulgaria have been discovered some burials were the human remains were containing a high level of melanine in hair.
...
Ofcourse. In Romania is well know that Bulgarian language is close to Romanian and this is explained by the common Thracian heritage.

I don't know exactly why, but in Bulgaria the thracians are generally considered to be with light curly hair and blue eyes. Probably they were lighter than the greeks, but with blond hair?
Also the closeness between the Romanian and Bulgarian could be easier explained by common slavic, not Thracian heritage .

Edited by Desperado - 07-Oct-2007 at 16:33
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:09
Originally posted by akritas

Originally posted by londoner_gb

This is correct. The Thracians and Slavs were both mainly tall, blue eyed and red haired../.by the way similar in this respect to the other big groups -Germanics and kelts/...Linguistically they belonget to the same branch of I-E languages... The Ancient Greeks were of the same looks as late as the Trojan War time...

Do you have any evidence that proove that ancient Thracians were mainly tall, blue eyed and red haire ?

In a well-known fragment, Xenophanes comments:

Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair.
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:22
Originally posted by akritas

You make circles in an pointless arrgument. The question was.... why the "medieval" Bulgarians  not considered themselves "Thracians" when establish the Bulgarian Empire ?
 
 

The Greek historian Strabo describes the Thracians living in twenty-two tribes. [6]

Josephus claims the founder of the Thracians was the biblical character Tiras, son of Japheth:

Thiras also called those whom he ruled over Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians. AotJ I:6.
 The names the different Thracian Tribes gave themselves is one thing,the names givent to them by their different neighbours is another...
Especially those dwelling in the steppes and moving more frequently...Let us remind the case with Koubrat's subjects known at the same tame as Onogurs and Bulgars...
With the same logic I can tell that Danaians,Acheans and Hellenes means 3 different peoplesLOL
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:22
Originally posted by Menumorut


What do you think, that Bulgarians are descendants only of Slavs?
 
Because he will have to accept that not only Greeks have "shining past" as it was written in his weird website.  That will make to feel himself worse.
.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:26
Originally posted by Desperado


I don't know exactly why, but in Bulgaria the thracians are generally considered to be with light curly hair and blond eyes. Probably they were lighter than the greeks, but with blond hair?
Also the closeness between the Romanian and Bulgarian could be easier explained by common slavic, not Thracian heritage .


About the Dacians too there is the prejudice that they were blonds. But on the Trajan's column it seems that the Dacians were rather of Dinaric constituion, than of Nordic.

As I sayed, I think that even in Antiquity, the Dacians were mixed, some tribes were blond, some dark-haired, like the Romanians today.

The closeness between Romanian and Bulgarian I mentioned is linguistic and is not of Slavic origin, but of substrat, Thracian.

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:33
Originally posted by akritas

And my last question,  since the other is still unanswerable,  was or  is  any serious scholar or prestigious academaic community (e.g. university)  mentioned en passant that Bulgarians were desecents of the ancient Thracians ? Smile
 
Tell me mate, are you reading what others are writing? First you ask me to show you exactly that authors support your "amalgamation theory". After I pointed Jirecek and Charanis you ask me to show you the term ("amalgamation theory") that you designed yourself in theirworks. After I fail to do so, you state that your question remains unanswered. Then you ask me to show you that Bulgarians (or Bulgars) declared continuity with local population and I demonstrate (although without the source, but I can do it if you wish) that they sieged "fathers cities" and you are unsatisfied again because you want me to show you something from the sort of "we are descendants of the Ancient Thracians", although Thracians never used this word describing themselves. Third you show your ignorance claiming that there is no a single source where Bulgarians are called Thracians and after you realize  that you are not right, again you make me responsible for this. Gosh, man! I wish I would have your way of discussion. Dead 


Edited by Anton - 07-Oct-2007 at 15:55
.
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:33
Originally posted by Desperado


I don't know exactly why, but in Bulgaria the thracians are generally considered to be with light curly hair and blond eyes. .
-I have never seen a blond -eyed human!
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:35
Originally posted by Menumorut


The closeness between Romanian and Bulgarian I mentioned is linguistic and is not of Slavic origin, but of substrat, Thracian.
 
Menumorut, I generally agree with you, but don't you have many words of slavonic root?
.
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:41
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Menumorut


What do you think, that Bulgarians are descendants only of Slavs?
 
Because he will have to accept that not only Greeks have "shining past" as it was written in his weird website.  That will make to feel himself worse.
 -The only shiny thing is their skin and hair under direct sunlight! Of course I rather envy them for that...Other races often have to spend long time in the beach at summer and use plenty of cremes and balsams trying to achieve the same effect....
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 13:50
Originally posted by Anton



Menumorut, I generally agree with you, but don't you have many words of slavonic root?


Yes, and the linguists established that:

-the Slavonic fund of Romanian language is of Bulgar origin
-this fund entered the Romanian language after 9th century.


So, it was an effect of the using of Slavonic as oficial language of documents, court and church services.

So, this liuguistic fund is not from the time of Romanian-Slav cohabitation (5-7th centuries in Moldavia, 7th and 8-9th centuries in Transylvania, 6-7th centuries in Wallachia)

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 30>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.