What are you arguments?

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Nonsense. In fact some of the name you posted are Slavic: Tudor, Soian, Yavor, Grod, Zapryan, Penko etc. all these are Slavic names, why do you have to go to India and Shumer?   In Russian there are: brat, matka, sestra, shurin, dever, deda (grandfather) etc. Don't make this ridiculous conclusions by attributing Slavic word to Ancient Shumer etc.   May be you should look for the origins of Bulgarians in the outer space perhaps they are even more Ancient than Shumer   Be healthy!

Of course, you have some. As an indoeuropean nation you should have some of them. But all the similarities between us are in result exactly of these origin. But, don't tell me, please this are slavic words, because this words are in use also in Pamir and Caucas by people which never been slavic. And this terms are in use from the deep antiquity., when the slavic group of the indoeuropean race wasn't formed yet. You may say, "Thank You" for example, about we give you our cultural heritage, as we told you "Thank You" about the liberation in 1878. (Never mind of the political ignorants in our and your country, which was in conflict.) But I know very well You will never do it. Why? Why You need to produce us turks (and because there is no kind of turkish origin in today's bulgarian people, this is a very good explaination to steal our culture, which you know very well to who's people belongs.) or slavs, if it is easy visible we are not any kind of this? I understand, is is very uncomfortable for the Great Russians to explain how  they  became a civilized people  because  of the acceptation of christianity  from (today's)  small Bulgaria. You should be the first and the best, and You need to  reject any information which  is possible to deny this version. I am really sorry about our dissolved connections, but if you want to have friends, you must respect them, never mind how large is their country today.

I realize, as a moderator You are able to restrict my access to this forum and I apologize  about my expression, because I am not here to hurt anybody, but You really made me angry, men. If You decide to do it You will have one knowledgeable man less in the forum, just because I have a different point of view. But if You decide to give me answers, please make it seriously with no radiculation. If You don't accept "Jagfar Tarihi" as a historical source (I agree there is problems with this), You should reject all the sources which are late copies, but not the original. I was use "Jagfar Tarihi" just as a contra argument to the Volga-Bularia teory of the turcik origin of proto-bulgarians, because it is their own book (or creture of F. Nurutdinov, which is most unlikely). I know the book very well. I have it. And I know that in the book is written that bulgars are turks. But it is later. In the beginning, in the "gazi Baraj tarihi", when is quoted "Kadi Kitabi" of seid Jakub and "Hazar tarihi" of Abdullah Ib'n Michail Bashtu is written about the roots and origin of the bulgarian people and in the text these roots according to the cimmerians and massagetae. Isn't it so? And just a lot of time after that comes the huns. Isn't it so? Well who of us don't know well "jagfar Tarihi" (never mind is it a real source or not) me or You? And I have also a lot of sources that You maybe never hear about. So, when You dispute with me,please, be a little bit more accurate and don't ridiculate me. I was watching with a great interest your dispute with barbar. The talking was in high professional level. If You can keep these level now I will be grateful to You. If I don't know something I am not shame to ask about it. If You don't know something, You can ask too, and it will not undermine your authority, I assure You. Because there's no human been who knows everything. That's all.
Be healthy!
Todor Panayotov/Balkh-Aryan

uuuuuuuuuuf! Bulldog, I am so tired to explain one and the same things again and again.
O.K the situation at whole is this:
I the lexical fond:
  1. about 50 % of the words in modern (literary) bulgarian language have slavic parities or counterparts
  2. the rest about 50 % have no parities or counterparts with the slavic languages
  3. and no parities or counterparts with the altaic languages, not only with the turcik
  4. some of these words (in the literary language) have great similarities with the thracian language or/and the scyto-sarmatian and tocharian language (the literari and mostly the dialects); (the slavic languages also have this ralations or some of them);(in other point of view the altaic language also have some scitho-sarmatian influence )
  5. in the modern bulgarian language there is some words (may be about 100) with osmano-turkish, but not old turcik origin, which are in use predominantly in jargons
  6. the old altaic influence in our lexical fond is presented of about 20 words which have predominantly origin by the time of the Great Khaganat and kiptchak's origin too
  7. if these words was a native proto-bulgarian, from where is comming these about 50 % which are not slavic, altaic or thracian kind, but have there high relativities with the east-iranian languages?
II the grammar:
  1. of cource, if today's bulgarian language is a slavic one, it should not have an altaic grammar, but it have a completely different grammar than the slavic languages and this grammar is not altaic. So where does it come from?
  2. grammatically our language (especially the literary one) have much relativities to the ancient thracian (as in lexical fond), but this is a little bit strange, because the thracians was a substrat, conquered (?) by the bulgarian superstrat. 
  3. If the superstrat was assimilated by the substrat, why the superstrat (east iranian bulgarians), still exist in a very high persentage? Why their language is not an official one?
  6. It is absolutely clear that this today's literary language is unnatural in contrast with the dialects (not at whole), so how the thracians rise from the death? How their language became an official if there is no thracians, but the iranian bulgarians exist  very obviously?
  4. the dialects (which suppose to be the real living language) shows much more relativities to the scitho-sarmatian, and especially to the tocharian language. So how they became dialects, but not an official language?
III the anthropology:
  1. the ancient and modern bulgarians shows the one and the same anthropological look. These look is a tippical mezocephalic and a little bit dolihocephalic.
  2. the thracians shows the same look.
  3. the tocharians also.
  4. the slavic population  is  a mostly  dolihocephallic air
  5. the altaic is mostly brahycephallic air (except the dinlins, for whom is not proven they was altaic population,  linguistically of course, geographicaly they was)
IV DNA Researches:
  1. the modern bulgarian population shows about 38 % relativies with the local ethnical groups, as greeks, romanians and albanians, which shows the most of bulgarians are probably autochtonic population.
  2. the ancestors of the tocharians in the modern uygurs (speeking an altaic language), tajiks and etc. as also the population in the altai region (where was the dinlins) shows extremely percentage of R1a (which is a tippical for the eastern/"satem" group of indo-aryan nations) in contrast of modern turks from republic of Turkey
   ...and many more questions. I don't think that is necessary to have a controversy here, we just disputing. Isn't it? But try to look a little bit more seriously for that what I am telling You. It is not a result of my own imagination, but of gathered information from a lot of sources of a different kind. I understand many people will dislike this information, but the science is not what we like, but what is truth. Isn't it? I also can't  find answers to some questions, and that's why I write here. You can check this information before to ridiculate me. But, of course it is much more easier to leg and jeer at somebody. Do You really sure You know everything? Because I know very well all this sites and the official version you show me to prove me I am wrong. But yet, Why don't You check the possibility if I am not wrong? So, what will happened after all, if you will find that I am wright?
O.K., may be I am a paranoid man. Is it more important than the truth? Just check.
Todor Panayotov/Balkh-Aryan

Thank You, Sarmat12. I can understand You. I have had the same problems. "Jagfar Tarihi" was not a pan-turkistic source. They was tried to make it. From the other point of view, which is more important - the political result or the truth? You must know "Jagfar Tarihi" was written and rewritten and expanded again and again for a long time. So, it is unusable for the political aims, but it is valuable in an ethnographic and cultural aspect. That's why don't reject it at whole. There is a lot of information (I wrote yet), which is very uncomfortable for the pan-turkists, so it is a sure indicator this book is not just a false. And after all I think mister Farghat Nurutdinov (sorry, Farghat, I just reed some your book, which in my opinion is bla-bla, not  well grounded with facts, only your myths and presumptions. As a bulgarian I have a claim to know better than you who am I actually. That what is sure is the bulgarians never been turks, but you may be are. It is your right.) is not so smart to create a book like this. If he really did it, he is genius and he is able to rewrite the Holy Koran or the Bible. Good luck! 

I'd like to see some linguist (but well-known every bulgarian dialects) to stand here and to say "Guys, the bulgarian language is a slavic language." I don't believe that will ever happen if this man realy knows our language. You just have no idea how different are these language one to another, even they have some analogies and similarities. Yes we have a lot of slavic words. do You ever admit the possibility your own and the rest of the slavic languages to received the half of their lexical fond from the bulgarians? What do you know about us except the ordinary textbook information? Do you know we had our common state (under bulgarian rule) and live together between the end of 5th century and the middle of 6th century and again between 626 and 680 A.D. (the time 559 -626 was the time of the avars, which had no demographic, cultural, iconomic and etc. potential enough to survive longer.)?
Do you know how many bulgarian books and priests comes to Russia? Do You ever here about akademic Lihachev, which is a russian and described a medieval Bulgaria as "The state of spirit"? All this theory about the turco-slavic bulgarians doesn't work. Yes we took a part in the Great Khaganat. Nobody ask us do we wont that or not. And it falls. Before to determinate the bulgarian history and origin, look in your own history for bulgarian contributions and influences and You will find they are not a small number. May be you should dislike this, but You will become a little bit more educated, about your own roots.
Have a nice day!
Todor Panayotov/Balkh-Aryan

Here is some link to Prof. Petar Dobrav works: http://www.salagram.net/VWHEurope.html
http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/pb_lang/index.html
http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Petar%20Dobrev%20-%20prabaalgars
http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalia_of_the_Bulgarian_khans
http://www.answers.com/topic/bulgars
http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=47349&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
http://panbulgar.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=3

I post here some more links to works of our historian prof. Petar Dobrev. I don't know are this materials good or bad, but as I know his works it should be O.K. You can see What I mean, because My knowledge and the point of view is a little bit different than his, but it doesn't matter. You can find here what you don't want to believe by my words. As you wish .
Todor Panayotov/Balkh-Aryan

The relations between the easter branch of Indo-aryans can be presented for example like this:
 1.slavs                ABCDEFGHIJ
 2.dako-gets          BCDEFGHIJK
 3.thracians              CDEFGHIJKL
 4.cimmerians             DEFGHIJKLM
 5.tocharians                 EFGHIJKLMN
 6.balkh-aryans               FGHIJKLMNO
 7 sarmatians                    GHIJKLMNOP
 8 scithians                          HIJKLMNOPQ
 9. parthians                          IJKLMNOPQL
10.medians                             JKLMNOPQLR
11.persians                              KLMNOPQLRS
So, the genetic relations beetween the slavs and the proto-bulgarians is:"FGHIJ", which is 5 of 10, and it is not a small number. (Well I agree, the slavs have a higher relations with the thracians, than the bulgarians, but we have a higher relations with the cimmerians, than the slavs.) So it is more than the relations between the proto-bulgarians a the turcik tribes, which is for example 2-3 of 10. The scythians and sarmations heve a relations with proto-turks for example 4-5 of 10, and this is a really a high persentage, for people from two different language's families. be happy!
Todor Panayotov/Balkh-Aryan

The Idea was to show You where the balkh-aryans was in the indo-aryan family. Here is another one shows the relation with the proto-turks. And don't  forget it is just an example.
 1.slavs                 ABCDEFGHIJ
 2.dako-getians      BCDEFGHIJK
 3.thracians               CDEFGHIJKL
 4.cimmerians              DEFGHIJKLM
 5.tocharians                  EFGHIJKLMN
 6.balkh-aryans                FGHIJKLMNO
 7.sarmatians                     GHIJKLMNOP
 8.scythians                          HIJKLMNOPQ
 9.dinlins                                 IJKLMNOPQL
10.huns                                    JKLMNOPQLR
11.proto-turks                            KLMNOPQLRS
I have no claim this table is showing the truth absolutely, more over, the most of these questions are in discus still. I for my own view am not sure there is a very high relations between the dinlins, (for example) and the proto-turks, because of extremely big differences in anthropologycal aspect. Have a nice day!
Todor Panayotov/Balkh-Aryan

Две гаплогруппы (E3b1a2-V13 и J2b1-M102) после нескольких последних исследований (Кручиани, 2007) гипотетически можно считать, что в древности могли составлять единую племенную группу, или несколько племен сконцентрированных в районе современной Албании и на территории древних Иллирии и части Фракии. Их пиковые частоты именно там. E3b1a2 в Алабани (Косово) имеет частоту около 32% (и с некторым понижением в Македонии - 18%), а J2b1 в Албании - 17%. Области с пониженными частотами - Македония, Болгария также связана с фракийскими племенами и подвергалась многочисленным вторжениям, вытеснениям со стороны готов, аваров и гунов. Процент J2b1 также достаточно высок в турецкой части Фракии. Можно предположить, что J2b1 гипотетически является "прото-фракийской генетической подписью", вто время как E3b1a2 можно назвать "илирский". Известно также, что население Фракии по сути были смесью из иллирийских и фракийских племен и составляли частью смесь более ранних ИЕ-племен с изрядной примесью местных мирных автохтонных племенных групп. К этим группам, по-моему и относились упомянутые выше гаплогруппы, которые внесли свой веский вклад в генофонд вновь образованных племен. На их долю приходится не меньше половины.

Asen Zlatev1, Milena Ivanova2, Snejina Michailova2, Anastasia Mihaylova2 and Elissaveta Naumova2

(1) University Hospital �Alexandrovska�, 1 Georgy Sofiisky Street, Sofia, 1431, Bulgaria
(2) Central Laboratory of Clinical Immunology, University Hospital �Alexandrovska�, 1 Georgy Sofiisky Street, Sofia, 1431, Bulgaria

Received: 15 November 2006 Accepted: 5 May 2007 Published online: 2 June 2007

Abstract Recently Bulgarian Bone Marrow Donors Registry (BBMDR) has been established and since August 2005 it has been a member of Bone Marrow Donors Worldwide. Currently the number of healthy donors included in the BBMDR is relatively low. All donors included in the BBMDR are typed for HLA-A, -B, -DRB loci. Phylogenetic analysis based on HLA allele frequencies shows that Bulgarians were characterized with closest genetic similarity to Macedonians, Greeks, Romanians, Cretans and Sardinians in comparison to the other European and Mediterranean populations. On the contrary the second largest ethnic minority�the Roma were the closest to the other Roma populations and North Indians. These differences were due to the predominance of alleles and haplotypes that are specific for the Asian and the other Roma populations. These specific genetic profiles in the Bulgarian ethnic minorities justify the need of an adequate representation of minorities in BBMDR. Future directions for BBMDR development are discussed, including an increase of the total number of donors and these for ethnic minorities, as well the enhancement of the level of resolution of the HLA typing for the donors in the registry.
Keywords Bulgarian Bone Marrow Donor Registry - Bulgarians - HLA alleles - HLA haplotypes - Roma
HLA polymorphism in Bulgarians defined by high-resolution typing methods in comparison with other populations.

Ivanova M, Rozemuller E, Tyufekchiev N, Michailova A, Tilanus M, Naumova E.

Central Laboratory of Clinical Immunology, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.

In the present study we analyzed for the first time HLA class I and class II polymorphisms defined by high-resolution typing methods in the Bulgarian population. Comparisons with other populations of common historical background were performed. Most HLA-A, -B, -DRB alleles and haplotypes observed in the Bulgarian population are also common in Europe. Alleles and haplotypes considered as Mediterranean are relatively frequent in the Bulgarian population. Observation of Oriental alleles confirms the contribution of Asians to the genetic diversity of Bulgarians. The use of high-resolution typing methods allowed to identify allele variants rare for Europeans that were correlated to specific population groups. Phylogenetic and correspondence analyses showed that Bulgarians are more closely related to Macedonians, Greeks, and Romanians than to other European populations and Middle Eastern people living near the Mediterranean. The HLA-A,-B,-DRB1 allele and haplotype diversity defined by high-resolution DNA methods confirm that the Bulgarian population is characterized by features of southern European anthropological type with some influence of additional ethnic groups. Implementation of high-resolution typing methods allows a significantly wider spectrum of HLA variation to be detected, including rare alleles and haplotypes, and further clarifies the origin of Bulgarians.

PMID: 12542743 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Division of Clinical and Transplantation Immunology, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.

We describe for the first time the use of PCR based techniques to analyze the MHC class II polymorphism of the Bulgarian population. The present study provides the HLA-DRB, DQB1 allele frequencies in 116 Bulgarian individuals and DQA1 alleles frequencies in 100 subjects. DNA from these individuals was typed for DRB and DQB1 typed by the PCR-Allele Specific Amplification (PCR-ASA) method and DQA1 by PCR followed by hybridization using Sequence Specific Oligonucleotides (PCR-SSO). Allele and haplotype frequencies and linkage disequilibria are computed by the standard methods used for the XIth International Histocompatibility Workshop. The highest frequencies are 0.159, 0.109 and 0.085 for DRB1*1101, DRB1*1601 and DRB1*1301 respectively. Among the eight DQA1 alleles detected, DQA1*0501 (0.344) is found to be much more frequent than the two most frequent alleles DQA1*0102 (0.225) and DQA1*0101 (0.151). Twelve DQB1 alleles are found and three of them, DQB1*0301 (0.280), DQB1*0502 (0.153) and DQB1*0201 (0.133) showed the highest frequencies. The haplotype DRB1*1101-DQA1*0501-DQB1*0301 (0.079) predominate clearly, followed by DRB1*1601-DQA1*0102-DDQB1*0502 (0.055) and DRB1*0101-DQA1*0101-DQB1*0501. These results indicate that the Bulgarian population is characterized by features representative of the European anthropological type with a substantial contribution from the Southern Belt of Europe. The frequency of the proposed Slavic Haplogroup R1a1 ranges to only 14.7% in
Bulgaria.

Bulgarians:

- East Mediterranean 60% (източносредиземноморски тип - траки)
- Neodanubian 20% (новодунавски тип - славяни*)
- Dinaric 10% (тип динарик - илири)
- Nordic 5% (нордически тип - скандинавци) 
- Turanid 5% (туранид - тюрки)

Any comments?