A map which shows the areas populated predominantly with pomaks (ethnic bulgarians (not turks) who are moslems). This map is about the middle of the XX century, but is still actual today:
I am not sure, that the information about the number of the pomaks today on this webpage is correct (in bulgarian language) - http://demos.hit.bg/pomaci.htm
The number of the pomaks who are living in Bulgaria today is approximately maybe 150-160 000.
It is interesting that the names of the towns are the Turkish ones. Today they are changed
Mestanli -> Momchilgrad
Egridere ->Ardino
Concerning the pomaks, they are distinct both from the Turks and the Bulgarians.
When pomaks are in mixed villages with Bulgarians, usually they emphasize their religion to differentiate from the Bulgarians, and when they are in mixed villages with Turks they emphasize their language to differentiate from the Turks.
When pomaks are in mixed villages with Bulgarians, usually they emphasize their religion to differentiate from the Bulgarians, and when they are in mixed villages with Turks they emphasize their language to differentiate from the Turks.
It is important to be marked the fact, that THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between the pomak - bulgarians and the other bulgarians is their religion.
In the old historical sources are preserved many pieces of information about the time and the methods of the forcible coversionto mohammedanism of these AUTHENTIC BULGARIANS.
A History of Oppression The plight of the Bulgarian Pomaks Shane Jacobs
The road south from Plovdiv into Bulgaria's Rhodope Mountains brings
its travelers back into a time before the creation of Mercedes Benz and
BMW. As the road twists higher into the foothills, Orthodox churches
are replaced by the minarets of mosques. Modern luxury cars are
replaced by outdated, smoke-spewing busses and mule carts.
Passing fields tended by women cloaked head-to-toe in multi-colored
garments, you are enveloped in the transition from modern Bulgaria to
the never-to-be-forgotten Ottoman centuries of the Turkish yoke.
Suddenly, a strange twist confuses the transition: everyone is speaking
Bulgarian-or a strange-sounding version of it-without a hint of a
Turkish accent.
It comes as a surprise as you realize that the humble, hard-working
inhabitants of these regions attend mosque rather than church. The lingua franca
is Bulgarian rather than Turkish. The contradictions abound and create
a piercing cognitive dissonance. They are not, in fact, Turkish, but
Slavs. They are one of many remnants of the former Oriental occupiers.
They are the Pomaks.
Uncertain origins
There is little more than speculation as to the origins of the
Pomaks as an ethnicity. Bulgarians, Turks, and Greeks all consider them
a component of their respective nations. Concentrated in the
mountainous region of Thrace in the Rhodope Mountains of Bulgaria,
Greece and Turkey, the Pomaks share a linguistic and religious
commonality. They are generally considered Slavic-speaking Muslims.
There are numerous theories as to the origins of the term Pomak.
From the Greek perspective, the term originates from the ancient Greek
word pomax (drinker) used to describe the known Thracian tradition of drinking.
Bulgarian historians have several theories. The first theory states that Pomak is derived from the term pomagach
(helper) in connection to an alleged collaboration with the Ottoman
government in order to maintain land rights. A second theory claims
that the term comes from pomachamedanci (Islamicized). A third theory connects the colloquial Greek term, Achrjani, which is often used in reference to the Pomaks.
The word can be traced back to its old Slavonic root, aagarjani (infidels). Yet another theory maintains that it is a corruption of the phrase po mka
(by pain [of death]), as Pomaks were Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox
Christians, who were allegedly forced to convert to Islam by the Turks
during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. According to this tradition,
refusal to convert meant summary execution.
The enemy within
Historically, the Pomaks have been considered undesirable or even
outcasts within Bulgarian society. As several interpretations of their
name suggest, they were seen as infidels and traitors to their fellow
countrymen.
At the onset of the Turkish invasions (at the beginning of what
Bulgarians still today refer to as the Turkish yoke), many landowners
allegedly opted to accept the Islamic faith as a means to maintain
ownership of their lands. It is also suggested that Pomak collaborators
led the 1876 massacre in the mountain village of Batak, where nearly
five thousand people were hacked to death or burnt alive. If these
reports could be proven accurate, the terms aagarjani and pomagachi (infidels and helpers) would be understandably appropriate.
Regardless of the accuracy of the latter allegation, the events at
Batak proved to the turning point for the Bulgarians and the Turkish
yoke (Bousfield and Richardson, 1996). Appalled by such atrocities,
Western journalists and governments began to focus on the Balkans as a
hot spot for human rights issues. However, when the Communist party
came to power shortly after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire,
the Pomaks continued to bear the brunt of their countrymen's
onslaughts.
Ethnic disharmony
Bulgaria's animosity toward its Muslim minorities is fueled by a
different source. Five centuries of Ottoman subjugation have done
nothing but create a backlash of revenge and reprisal. Also, the
Communist government justified its assimilatory methods by using the
ethnic unrest in neighboring Yugoslavia as a precedent. Ethnic tensions
between the Serbs and Albanians spawned fears that ethnic Turks and
other Muslim factions would openly rebel in the economically and
geographically isolated region of the southern Rhodopes.
Many ethnic Turks found that in Turkey, though it is held to be
their native culture, they are not readily accepted in mainstream
Turkish society. Dialectal differences reveal them as non-natives, and
they are generally regarded, as in Bulgaria, as second-class citizens.
The exodus to Turkey proved yet more difficult for the Pomaks. As
ethnic Bulgarians, they tend to share more cultural traits and general
way of life with Bulgarian Orthodox Christians.
Linguistically, however, in many Pomak villages, the languages
spoken are various dialects of Bulgarian, heavily influenced by Turkish
and Greek. Furthermore, though Muslims, the majority of Bulgaria's
Pomaks speak little or no Turkish beyond the words that have entered
their dialects over the course of the last five centuries. Thus, even
among other minority populations, they are considered second class.
The Bulgarian government itself began to deal with its intercultural
dilemma in 1948, when the Communist regime unleashed a number of
assimilatory measures aimed at eliminating all minority ethnicities.
These included the Turks, Roma, Armenians, Tatars and Pomaks.
A fake true identity
The first wave was the izselvane (resettlement) program
designed to relocate the Pomak population from Bulgaria's southern
border regions. The second major set of measures was aimed at the
assimilation of the so-called "national consciousness." In this
process, the Communist government forced all Bulgarian Muslims to
change their names from Arabic-Islamic names to Slavic-Christian
sounding names. This process came to be known as vzroditelen protses (the process of rebirth). Yulian Konstantinov explains the Communists' rationale with the following:
The nation-state had to 'explain' to the Bulgarian Muslims
who they really were and help them regain their 'true' identity. The
underlying proposition is that the Bulgarian Muslims have 'forgotten'
about the true facts, or have been 'misled'. In official discourse they
are presented as people whose 'national consciousness has to be cleared
up'. The Bulgarian Muslims are seen as living in some sort of communal
oblivion and ignorance and they need to be helped to get out of this
state. They have to be'born again'-a phrase that set the official
label of a whole process whichcame to be known as The Process of
Rebirth (vuzroditelen protses). [1]
The Communist government, to justify its attacks on the country's
minority groups, commonly used the term "national consciousness" as if
the existence of the nation and its people depended on ethnic and
religious homogeneity.
Rather than create a means by which to encourage intercultural
tolerance between the Communist State and its Muslim minority, Bulgaria
attempted to destroy its various non-conforming groups by forcing them
to change their names and abandon their religious beliefs.
The government hoped that by adopting conforming names, all
non-ethnic Bulgarians would both abandon their former values and
beliefs as well as unconditionally embrace the Bulgarian "national
consciousness" and value system. This practice extended to other
non-Christian minorities, as well. In 1984, the vzroditelen process was also perpetrated upon the Turks and Roma.
In June 1948, the Communists began to remove people whom they
considered disloyal to the Communist regime. Members of this group were
generally put in prison or into labor camps, while their families were
moved inland. The second and third waves, in November 1949 and between
1950-1951, were aimed at "less dangerous" members of the Pomak
population.
The eventual movement of approximately 30,000 people was, in part,
done in an attempt to insure the stability of the borders between
Bulgaria and its traditional and Cold War foes, Greece and Turkey. As
the southern border passed through the Rhodope Mountains, it proved
difficult to protect.
Also, many of the Pomaks in the villages along the border had family
in Pomak villages on the Greek side. As natives of the region, crossing
the border regularly (both to graze animals and to maintain contact
with relatives) was relatively easy. Such practices were viewed by the
Communist regime as an unacceptable threat to national security. At
this point they began their campaign to remove the perceived threat
from the area.
As a result of the izselvane, small pockets of Pomak
populations can be found today in the Balkan mountain range to the
north of the Rhodopes in the Lovetch-Teteven region. Pomak villages in
the region include Galata, Glogovo, Gradeshnitsa, and Babintsi. They
can also be found in the Veliko Tărnovo region, as well as Razgrad,
Shoumen, and Rouse to the northeast.
The demographic threat
During his years as Communist Party leader, Todor ivkov did little
to alleviate the cultural enmity felt toward Bulgaria's Muslims.
Following his ascension to power in 1956, ivkov made several
passionate speeches summoning the nation to improve on the conditions
of the country's Turkish language schools and to widen minority
cultural activities. However, this appears to have been merely a faade
to bolster Bulgaria's image as an 'enlightened' nation.
By the late sixties, the Muslim birth rate rose sharply in
comparison to that of the Bulgarians. Anxieties about a dramatic
demographic shift ignited dormant trepidation toward the country's
minorities. The demographic shift in question continued in this
direction even into the eighties.
By 1984, the birth rate among the Muslim
minorities was at 2.5 percent compared to the zero annual birth rate of
the Bulgarians (Bousfield and Ricardson, 1996). [2]
Another motivating factor for the forced assimilation was the rising
Albanian population in present day Kosovo. Ethnic conflicts in the
mid-eighties between Kosovar Muslims and Serb Orthodox Christians
fueled fears that Bulgarian Muslims would also have pretensions for
autonomy in the southeastern corner of the country.
Within this historical context began the name changing campaign of
the Pomaks in the mid seventies and eighties. Failure to accept the
Slavicized version of their Arabic names, Pomaks, Turks and Roma were
either killed outright, sent to forced labor camps such as Belene on
the Danube or deported. David Kaplan recounts one victim's tale:
It usually happened in the middle of the night. The rumble
of army half-tracks and the blinding glare of searchlights would
disturb the sleep of an ethnic Turkish village. Militiamen would then
burst into every home and thrust a photocopied form in front of the man
of the house, in which he was to write the new Bulgarian names of every
member of his family. Those who refused or hesitated watched as their
wives or daughters were raped by the militiamen. According to Amnesty
International and Western diplomats, the militiamen beat up thousands
and executed hundreds. Thousands more were imprisoned or driven into
internal exile. [3]
Between ideals and reality
ivkov's hard-line methods of resolving Bulgaria's ethnic dilemma
nearly cast the country into anarchy and pandemonium. In and around the
southern capital of Kardjali, where Muslim populations greatly
outnumber Bulgarian Orthodox Christians, Turks and Pomaks alike
protested the government's transgressions. Armed forces were deployed
from Sofia to maintain peace in the region.
International attention to the injustices perpetrated on the
country's Muslim minority resulted in Turkey opening its borders as an
offer of asylum. Reports from the Turkish government state that, from
May to August of 1989 alone, some 300,000 ethnic Turks crossed into
Turkey. Unable to support the unexpected influx of people, however,
Turkey eventually closed its borders in order to maintain the stability
of its own infrastructure.
Since the closing of the border with Bulgaria, population movement
in the area has become increasingly difficult. Despite this limited
movement, is said that there are currently over one million Bulgarian
Muslims living on Turkish soil.
The changes in the definitions of the Bulgarian nation generally corresponded and justified
the strategies adopted by the Bulgarian state to deal with its Turkish minority, although on a
number of occasions they acquired a force of their own. As was the case with most Eastern
European nations, Bulgarian nationhood was constructed through conscious elite action in the
19th century. The construction was based, however, on a number of primordial elements. In
1878-1944, the Bulgarian nation was generally identified in terms of language and religion, as
encompassing the Orthodox Christian Slavic speaking inhabitants of Bulgaria. The Turkish-
speaking inhabitants were excluded, as were the Pomaks, Bulgarian-speaking Muslims. At
least on two occasions, in 1912-13, and again in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Pomaks
were re-defined as ancestral Bulgarians who had been converted forcibly to Islam under the
Ottoman empire and who therefore needed to be reclaimed back by the Bulgarian nation.
State-sponsored efforts were made to change the Pomaks' Turkish-Arabic names to ethnic
Bulgarian ones, using both coercion and inducements. The first, but not the second
assimilation campaign also involved the conversion of the Pomaks to Eastern Orthodoxy. The
campaigns proved largely successful in the short term, at least in achieving their nominal
objectives. Bulgaria's unstable domestic politics, however, made it difficult for the state to
pursue a consistent policy, and both campaigns were reversed within a few years by
governments seeking to gain the Muslims' votes. The Turkish-speaking population was
regarded as descendants of colonists from Asia Minor, and was therefore seen as alien
element which was not liable to assimilation. Whilst tolerated, the Turkish speakers were not
seen as having a future in Bulgaria, and were expected sooner or later to emigrate to Turkey.
(Stoianov, 1993: 204).
Source:
http://www.ecmi.de/jemie/download/JEMIE01Dimitrov10-07-01. pdf
the methods of the forcible coversionto mohammedanism of these AUTHENTIC BULGARIANS.
The work begins with a well-informed discussion of the history of
Bulgarian nationalism and its impact on Muslim minorities, then traces the
history of Islam and Muslims in Bulgaria from the mid-14th century to the
present. Eminov's treatment of the Ottoman period places significant
developments of the era in historical perspective, emphasizing that
although "The Ottoman period in Bulgaria was not a golden age of
toleration and equality," it was not a centuries-long dark age of
unrelieved cruelty toward Bulgarians either (p. 47). He deconstructs the
myth of mass forced conversion, replacing it with a model of Islamization
as a gradual and mainly individual process and also shows the traditional
Bulgarian view of the devsirme (recruitment levy) system as "an
unmitigated demographic disaster" to be "a gross exaggeration" (pp.
32-48).
There are generally three different theories on the spread of Islam in the Balkans. The first
one suggests that the Ottoman conquest was followed by genocide over the indigenous
populations and, thereafter, by an intensive colonization by Turks from Anatolia.
(Zhelyazkova, 1997:14). Another thesis --supported by a number of nationalist Balkan
writers-- suggests that Islam was spread in a coercive way. This thesis puts a lot of
emphasis on the forceful recruitment of Christian boys (devshirme) to participate in the
Ottoman janissary institution (14th-18th c.) (Mutafchieva, 1994:10). A third thesis suggests that conversion took place only on a voluntary principle, because non-Muslim subjects had economic incentives to do so. By adopting the new religion, they eliminated several restrictions discussed below (Jelavic, 1983:40). This thesis is supported by a substantial number of western scholars.
A process of Islamization took place during the Ottoman period. Part of the indigenous
Slavs, Albanians and Roma were converted to Islam. The Ottoman state had a twofold
interest in that process: first, to increase the loyalty of its subjects on its European territory
and, second, to enlarge its army, which was required for its westward expansion.
Islamization was enforced usually in two ways -- through coercion and through the offer
of economic benefits. The first way is strongly emphasized by the national poetry and
literature of the Balkan peoples. A special attention is paid to the military recruitment of
Christian boys (devshirme) for the Ottoman janissary institution existing between the 14th
and the 18th centuries. The second way of Islamization is a subject of a relative consensus among more open-minded historians, who call it also a voluntary one. They agree that a Christian had interest to convert to Islam, since with the conversion, he was relieved from the cizye tax and got a chance to join and grow in the administration and the army (Eminov, 1997:33-48; Mutafchieva, 1994:9-10; Zhelyazkova, 1997:14). In line with these arguments, another thesis suggests that the Ottomans were even more interested in retaining their Christian population precisely because of the higher taxation rate. Conversion was generally discouraged. However, it waes not always possible for the central authorities to monitor this, since Istanbul lost ever-greater control over the provinces and the provincial governors, which projected a strong tendency to impoverish the Christians through over-taxation (Fraenkel, 1999).
A process of Islamization took place during the Ottoman period. Part of the indigenous Slavs, Albanians and Roma were converted to Islam. The Ottoman state had a twofold interest in that process: first, to increase the loyalty of its subjects on its European territory and, second, to enlarge its army, which was required for its westward expansion. Islamization was enforced usually in two ways -- through coercion and through the offer of economic benefits. The first way is strongly emphasized by the national poetry and literature of the Balkan peoples.
Yes, that`s right. I think, that the strongly emphasized in the historical literature of the balkan peoples coercion by the converting of the balkan christians to mohammedanism, is VERY justified/reasonable.
At least on two occasions, in 1912-13, and again in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Pomaks were re-defined as ancestral Bulgarians who had been converted forcibly to Islam under the Ottoman empire and who therefore needed to be reclaimed back by the Bulgarian nation.
In this sentence, the expression "re-defined" IS NOT THE RIGHT EXPRESSION. The bulgarians are bulgarians and they cannot be "re-defined" as bulgarians. THE POMAKS ARE BULGARIANS, WHETHER SOMEONE LIKE THAT OR NOT...
The Turkish-speaking population was regarded as descendants of colonists from Asia Minor, and was therefore seen as alien element ... Whilst tolerated, the Turkish speakers were not seen as having a future in Bulgaria, and were expected sooner or later to emigrate to Turkey.
Well, bg_turk, you copy and paste this text here, not me. What can i say?
IN EXAMPLE: all my friends, who are turks, loves Turkey much more, than Bulgaria. About Turkey, everyone of them relate only good storyes, but about Bulgaria their commentars are predominantly: badinage, joke, mockery and ridicule. They are praud of the history of Turkey, and for Bulgaria they learn more from the turkish medias, than from the bulgarian medias...
My friends - turks, acknowledge that they are bulgarian citisens by the coincidence of the historical events, but for them the true mother-country is not Bulgaria, but is Turkey. THEY SAY THIS TO ME, BUT FOR ME THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM...
AND ABOUT THE POMAKS:
I will say again:
It is important to be marked the fact, that THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between the pomak - bulgarians and the other bulgarians is their religion. In the old historical sources are preserved many pieces of information about the time and the methods of the forcible coversionto mohammedanism of these AUTHENTIC BULGARIANS.
The older pomaks call the christian bulgarians "kaur" which comes from Turkish "gâvur" (infidel). In Pomak dialects there is no word for "Bulgarian". So - those people don't have a sense of ethnic, but just religious difference with christian bulgarians.
Pomaks--a term that loosely translates as collaborators- -were the descendants of ethnic Bulgarians who accepted the Islamic faith during Ottoman rule, mostly between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1990 about 150,000 Pomaks lived in mountain villages in southern and southwestern Bulgaria. They were chiefly employed in agriculture, forestry, and mining. Because of their relative isolation in the mountains, the Pomaks did not become mixed with the Turks during the turkish rule, and because of that, one big part of them were not assimilated from the turks, and they retained their bulgarian physical features. Because the Ottoman Turks showed little interest in Pomak lands, and because the Pomaks were converted rather late, most of their traditional Bulgarian customs remained intact. Thus, for example, the Pomaks never learned to speak Turkish.
THE TRUTH FOR THE POMAKS (IN ENGLISH) :
The covercion to mohammedanism was not only "with sword". The other factor "was the economic pressure and the temptation of privileges and tax reductions received for adopting Islam" - this is one characteristic feature of the Turkish Empire.
Muslim Bulgarians (also Bulgarian Mohammedans, bul:-; local: Pomak, Ahrian, Poganets, Marvak, Poturnak) are descendants of Christian Bulgarians who were forcibly converted to Islam by the Turks, during the 16th and the 18th century. The word pomak is derived from Bulgarian dialectal pomaka (torture) and pomacen (tortured). Those who accepted Islam voluntarily are called Poturnak, meaning "One who turned into a Turk".
Muslim Bulgarians speak a variety of archaic Bulgarian dialects. Under the influence of mass media and school education, the dialects have been almost completely unified with standard Bulgarian among Muslim Bulgarians living in Bulgaria. As Greece has tended to regard its Muslim minority as only Turkish-speaking and has allowed only education in Turkish, the Muslim Bulgarian community in Greece has become largely bilingual and the mother tongue of some of its members now is Turkish. The spoken language of those members of the community who have preserved the dialect as their mother tongue has been influenced to a large extent by Turkish and Greek and shows many aberrations from formal Bulgarian.
Pomaks in Bulgaria do not represent a homogenous community. Pomaks living in the eastern part of the Rhodopes tend to be non-practising Muslims and usually have Christian names. A large number of them, especially those living in the municipalities of Zlatograd, Nedelino, Krumovgrad, and Kirkovo, converted to Christianity in the 1990s. Pomaks in the western part of the Rhodopes are, on the hand, strongly religious and have preserved the Muslim name system, customs and clothing. Whereas the majority of the Pomak community has identified itself as Bulgarian in the population censuses in 1992 and 2001, a certain minority in the western Rhodopes has opted for Turkish ethnicity although its mother tongue is also Bulgarian. The name Pomak is strongly pejorative in Bulgarian and is resented by most members of the community, especially by non-practising Muslims. The name adopted and used instead is Bulgarian Mohammedans (Muslim Bulgarians).
The Muslim Bulgarian community in Greece has been largely Turkified. Since the 1990sGreece has made tentative attempts to promote a separate "Pomak" identity, partly because of the advanced Turkification of the non-Turkish members of its Muslim minority (Muslim Bulgarians and Roma) and partly for fear of the growing percentage of Muslims in Thrace in the past couple of decennia. A Greek-Pomak dictionary has been issued and Muslim Bulgarians have frequently been described by Greek authorities as "an amalgamation of Bulgarians, Greeks and Turks" or even as "Muslim Slavophone Greeks".
There is also a substantial Muslim Bulgarian community in Turkey, estimated at some 120,000 people. These are not recognized by the Turkish government as an ethnic minority and have been largely Turkified. Some of them have Turkish or distinctive "Pomak" self-consciousness.
The British specialist in Balkan minority-studies Hugh Poulton writes: 'The Bulgarian Muslims (i.e. the Pomaks) are a religious minority. They are Slavic Bulgarians who speak Bulgarian as their mother tongue, but whose religion and customs are Islamic.' (Poulton 1994:111)
Arent Pomaks the descentants of Volga bulgars who settled down in bulgaria?
Also chargemaster, wich country would you sympatize? The one who give you rights to live with what you are or the one who's racistic towards you and did horrible things towards you in the near history?
DayI, with the last sentence I guess you mean Bulgaria and "some other state" in the same order, right? And btw - no, Pomaks are not descendants of Volga Bulgarians. You probably mistake them with the Gagauzi, which have some "similarities" with the Pomaks - the Gagauzi are Turkish-speaking Christians (i.e. full oposite to the Pomaks, but they're definitely not Turkish though - call a Gagauz that he's a Turk and then you can just run). They call themselves "Eski-Bulgar" and believe that they're direct descendants of the old Bulgars, thus maybe you connect them with the Volga Bulgarians. Btw they're an interesting topic and maybe we could speak about them too!
Arent Pomaks the descentants of Volga bulgars who settled down in bulgaria?
Also chargemaster, wich country would you sympatize? The one
who give you rights to live with what you are or the one who's racistic
towards you and did horrible things towards you in the near history?
DayI I think there is no doubt that the Pomaks were originally
Christian Slavs (I do not say Bulgarian because when the Selchuks first
arrived the cocept of a Bulagrian nation was not defined). There is no
doubt about this, what is arguable is whether their conversion
was forceful or voluntary. It is noteworthy that many of the pomaks
were in fact against the establishment of a Christian Bulgarian state
in 1878, and preferred to live as part of the Ottoman Empire, quite a
few of them fled to Turkey and became assimilated there. I would say
the difference between a Pomak and a Bulgarian is as great as that
between a Bosniak and a Serb. They speak the Bulgarian language, but
most of them do not define themselves as Bulgarians. They even had
Islamic-Arabic names, which were changed, but now quite a few of them
restored their original names. To date I have never seen a pomak who
has called himself a Bulgarian, only Bulgarians insist on this kind of
categorization. My dads best friend is actually a pomak, they are a
great people,
Concerning Volga Bulgaria:
Volga Bulgarians are in no way related to the Pomaks. Someone correct
me here if I am wrong, but Volga Bulgarians do not even speak a slavic
language as their native one, unlike Pomaks who were originally slavs.
The Volga Bulgarians are related to the original protoBulgars that
established the first Bulgarian state in 681. At the same time another
group settled around the Volga River and established Volga Bulgaria.
Volga Bulgaria adopted Islam as its official relgion, whereas Balkan
Bulgaria - Orthodox christianity.
Unfortunately Volga Bulgaria was destroyed by the Russian Empire. Today
Russians refer to Bulgarians simply as Tatars and they are gradually
being assimilated.
You probably mistake them with the Gagauzi, which have
some "similarities" with the Pomaks - the Gagauzi are Turkish-speaking
Christians (i.e. full oposite to the Pomaks, but they're definitely not
Turkish though - call a Gagauz that he's a Turk and then you can just
run). They call themselves "Eski-Bulgar" and believe that they're
direct descendants of the old Bulgars, thus maybe you connect them with
the Volga Bulgarians. Btw they're an interesting topic and maybe we
could speak about them too!
I have always been fascinated by the Gagauz, I never met any but I have
been told about them. Did the Eski-Bulgars really speak a turkic
language then, because I know many Bulgarians vigorously dispute that
the Bulgars were a Turkic people, rather they prefer to call them an
altaic people.
DayI, with the last sentence I guess you mean Bulgaria and "some other state" in the same order, right? And btw - no, Pomaks are not descendants of Volga Bulgarians. You probably mistake them with the Gagauzi, which have some "similarities" with the Pomaks - the Gagauzi are Turkish-speaking Christians (i.e. full oposite to the Pomaks, but they're definitely not Turkish though - call a Gagauz that he's a Turk and then you can just run). They call themselves "Eski-Bulgar" and believe that they're direct descendants of the old Bulgars, thus maybe you connect them with the Volga Bulgarians. Btw they're an interesting topic and maybe we could speak about them too!
Gagauz-Turkish is almost the same as Turkey's Turkish, i understand 99% of gagauz language. Also they have a big "oghuz khan" statue in their capital of their autonomic state. Gagauz derives from "Gk-oghuz", here is more info about them:
There is a related ethnic group also called Gagauz (or Gacal) living in the European part of northwestern Turkey and in the Republic of Macedonia, who are Muslims.
Ancestors of the Gagauz can be traced to the early nomadic tribes, Guzi and Uzi (also called Ghuzz and Uz which are branches of Oghuz). Byzantine written history records that in the 11th century the nomadic tribe Guzi crossed the Danube River and settled in the Balkan regions of Greece and Bulgaria.
Once settled in these new regions, the Guzi people shifted to a sedentary lifestyle and adopted Orthodox Christianity. The ethnic mixes of the Guzi with other Turkic tribes of the Pechenegi, Polovtsi and Kumani are direct ancestors of modern day Gagauzians.
Turkic-speaking tribes of the Nogai Horde inhabited the Budjak Region of southern Bessarabia from the 16th to 18th centuries. Before 1807, a portion of these tribes were forced to abandon Budjak by the czarist government of Russia and resettled in Crimea, Azov and Stavropol.
Between 1750 and 1846, the Russian Empire allocated them land and gave them financial incentives to settle in Bessarabia in the settlements vacated by the Nogai tribes. They settled in Bessarabia along with Bulgarians, mainly in Avdarma, Comrat, Congaz, Tomai, Cismichioi and other former Nogai villages located in the central Budjak Region.
With the exception of a five-day independence in the winter of 1906, when a peasant uprising declared the autonomous Republic of Comrat, the Gagauzian people have been ruled by the Russian Empire, Romania, Germany, and the Soviet Union.
Gagauz nationalism remained an intellectual movement during the 1980s but strengthened by the end of the decade as the Soviet Union began to embrace democratic ideals. In 1988, activists from the local intelligentsia aligned with other ethnic minorities to create the movement known as the "Gagauz People". A year later the "Gagauz People" held its first assembly which accepted the resolution to create an autonomous territory in southern Moldova with Comrat designated as capital. In August of 1990, Comrat declared itself an autonomous republic, but the Moldovan government annulled the declaration as unconstitutional. The Gagauz national movement intensified when Romanian was accepted as the official language of the Republic of Moldova. The multiethnic populations of southern Moldova regarded this decision with concern, precipitating a lack of confidence in the central government located in Chisinau. The Gagauz were also worried about the implications for them if Moldova reunited with Romania, as seemed increasingly likely at the time.
Support for the Soviet Union remained high, with an almost unaminous 'yes' vote to staying in the USSR in a referendum of March 1991 (Moldovans in Gagauzia boycoted the referendum however). Many Gagauz supported the Moscow coup attempt, further straining relations with Chisinau. However, when the Moldovan parliament voted on whether Moldova should become independent 6 of the 12 Gagauz deputies voted 'yes.' Gagauzia declared itself independent on 19th August 1991, followed in September by Transnistria. The moves prompted the nationalist Popular Front to tone down its pro-Romanian line and speak up for the rights of minorities.
In February 1994 President Mircea Snegur promised the Gaugauz autonomy, though he was against outright independence. He was also opposed to the suggestion that Moldova become a federal state made up of three republics - Moldova, Gagauzia, and Transnistria.
In 1994, the Parliament of Moldova awarded to "the people of Gagauzia" the right of "external self-determination". On December 23, 1994 did the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova accept the "Law on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia" (Gagauz Yeri), resolving the dispute peacefully. This date is now a Gagauzian holiday. Many European human-rights organizations recognize Gagauzia as a successful model for resolving ethnic conflict. Gagauzia was now a 'national-territorial autonomous unit' with three official languages (Russian, Gagauz and Moldovan (Romanian) ).
30 settlements, including 3 towns and 27 villages, expressed their desire to be included in the Autonomous Gagauz Territory as a result of a referendum to determine Gagauzia's borders. In 1995, George Tabunshik was elected to serve as the Governor (Bashkan) of Gagauzia for a four year term as were the deputies of the local parliament, "The People's Assembly" and its chairman Peter Pashali
You probably mistake them with the Gagauzi, which have some "similarities" with the Pomaks - the Gagauzi are Turkish-speaking Christians (i.e. full oposite to the Pomaks, but they're definitely not Turkish though - call a Gagauz that he's a Turk and then you can just run). They call themselves "Eski-Bulgar" and believe that they're direct descendants of the old Bulgars, thus maybe you connect them with the Volga Bulgarians. Btw they're an interesting topic and maybe we could speak about them too!
I have always been fascinated by the Gagauz, I never met any but I have been told about them. Did the Eski-Bulgars really speak a turkic language then, because I know many Bulgarians vigorously dispute that the Bulgars were a Turkic people, rather they prefer to call them an altaic people.
NikeBG had posted a list of first kings of Bulgarian empire, you should check it, you can see many similarities.
Bagain Lower noble rank, the so called fed people of the khan, used by the khans authority for restriction of the boils influence. The backbone of the armoured cavalry {2}; Lower officers (this title has many variations such as biri-bagain, batir-bagain, bagir-bagain, bagatur-bagain) {2}; Title from the time of the First Bulgarian state. Its met in the Bulgarian inscriptions from the IX century. It signifies a commander or a leader of a small military detachment. The bagains are bolyars, which stand lower than the boils. {3}; Bagatur - (Turkic) literally brave man. Title, given by the Bulgars to the representatives of the aristocracy, which have glorified themselves in battles. {1}; It literally means a brave champion, a hero. It was used as a lower noble rank, again under the khans auspices, basis of the unarmoured cavalry or the horse archers. {2}; A warrior caste, the heavily armed horsemen, the core of the army (as an analogy with the western knights and the Japanese samurais) {2}; A title from the ruling system from the time of the First Bulgarian state. Given mainly for military merits. Used in the Bulgarian inscriptions usually in combination with other titles. {3}; Bagatur-boila-kolober - (Bulgar) High post in the early-medieval Bulgarian state, which signifies a military leader, belonging to the class of the boils, who showed courage in battles. {1}; Boila-tarkan (vulias-tarkan) - (Bulgar) Title, given in the Bulgarian Khanate to a governor of a big border region. {1}; Bulgar title. It was given in the First Bulgarian state to the second son of the ruler. Together with the class belonging, it shows also ranking position, as the title tarkan signifies that its bearer is performing the duties of a deputy of the ruler in a particular region. {3}; Boils (bolyars) - (Bulgar) General name for the higher class of the Bulgarian aristocracy. It passed from medieval Bulgaria to other Slavic states (Serbia, Russia) and in the XIV-XV century also in Walachia and Moldavia. {1}; High noble rank, usually these families were 100 and every boil family governed one region of the khanate. After Kniaz Boris, who killed 52 boil families, these families decreased and gradually decayed. {2}; Bulgar title, equal to the Slavic bolyarin. Given to representatives of the ruling feudal class in the time of the First Bulgarian state. In some sources its mentioned in combination with other titles and shows the class position of the official person. From other sources: The title means notable, high-ranked and shows belonging to the highest class of the Bulgarian aristocracy. Its a hereditary title. {3}; Bori-tarkan - (Bulgar) An official title of a governor of a region in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. {1}; Commander of the heavily armoured cavalry, in later time a commandant of an aul (fortress) {2}; Bulgar title from the First Bulgarian state. Familiar is bori-tarkan Radislav, who welcomed the disciples of Cyril and Methodius after they were expelled from Velikomoravia. {3}; Chigot (Bulgar) literally sword-bearer. A warrior from the bodyguard unit of the early-medieval Bulgarian khans and tsars. {1}; Great boils There were 4 great boils (veliki boili on Bulgarian) according to Fadlan, respectively 6 of them according to K. Porfirogenet most probably their number was increased with the enhancing of the state. After the conversion the 4 of them were probably increased to 6, as by obvious reasons the khana-boila-kolober fell off. It could be presumed that the three new ones were the minik (head of the royal stables) and two, which bore the title sampsis (at the council in 869-870 there were two with this title Pressian and Alexius Hunol). {2}; 6 high counselors of the khan, they sit on his right side. {2}; Ichirgu-bagain Bulgar title from the time of the First Bulgarian state. It is mentioned for the first time in the second half of the IX century when it was given to an unknown military leader. {3}; Ichirgu-boila (churgubilia) - (Bulgar) High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state, governor of its interior region. It held the third place in the states hierarchy after the ruler and the kavhan. {1}; First and most important boil, taking care of the interior of the khanate. {2}; There are reports that he carried out internal political missions, as well as taking care of administering of regions. {2}; Bulgar title from the time of the First Bulgarian state. It is know in Slavic translation as churgobilia. Its mentioned in the beginning of the IX century. It was given to the closest persons to the Bulgarian ruler, which performed the duty of governing the inner fortresses of the capital. Except military, the bearers of this title performed also juridical functions and took part in diplomatic missions. At the time of Khan Krum (803-814) this title was given to the bolyar Tsok and in the first half of the X century the bolyar Mostich. {3}; Ichirgu-kolober Bulgar military title from the time of the First Bulgarian state. It is mentioned in one of Omurtags inscriptions. {3}; Kanasubigi, Iuvigi Khan Title of the Bulgarian rulers in the first half of the IX century. The name corresponds to the Slavic words velik (great), preslaven (most glorious). It is mentioned in memorial inscriptions from the time of Khan Omurtag (814-831), Khan Malamir (831-836) and Khan Pressian (836-852). {3}; Kanartikin (Kana-irthituin) (Bulgar) Title of the heir to the crown of the Bulgarian khan, also used after the conversion. {1}; The first-born son of the khan and the future successor to the throne. {2}; The eldest tarkan (its not a title of the heir to the throne by rule, but most probably it was given at the moment of the delegating of the heir (as for example Kniaz Kiril of Preslav was a regent of Simeon II, but regent is not the title of the kniazs brother)) {2}; Title of the Bulgarian heir to the crown in the period of the First Bulgarian state. {3}; Kana-bagatur - (Bulgar) Official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. {1}; Kana-boila-kolober (Bulgar) High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. It is presumed that it was given to a military commander, whose detachment enters first in a fight with the enemy. {1}; Kandidat Title in the First Bulgarian state, member of the personal guard of the ruler, institution, borrowed from Byzantium. From the time of Khan Omurtag it is known the kandidat Turdacis. {3}; Kavhan - (Bulgar) High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. Its bearer was the first assistant in the rulers governing and held the second place in the hierarchy. {1}; The highest title after the khans. First deputy and assistant. In a time of war he commanded the armies in the khans absence. This title is preserved until 1018. {2}; Bulgar title, given to representatives of the most notable Bulgar families. It was transferred also hereditary. Its bearer performed important administrative functions (usually as a governor of a region). In war times he was given command of parts of the khans army. In the time of Khan Omurtag (814-831) kavhan was now the second person in the state after the ruler. More familiar names, which bore this title, were Iratais (by Khan Krum), Isbul (by Omurtag, Malamir and Pressian), Todor (by Tsar Simeon I), Dometian (by Tsar Samuil) and others. {3}; Khagan - (Turkic) Title of supreme leader among the Turkic nations. Equal by importance to great khan (iuvigi khan), which was the title of the Bulgarian rulers in the pagan period. {1}; Khan The ruler of medieval Bulgaria. This title was until 864, replaced with the title kniaz and in 927 with tsar. {2}; Ruler, monarch. Originally the title signified a chief of a tribe. Later a kniazs (prince) title and subsequently rulers title of many eastern nations (Tatars and others). The power of the khan was given by heritage to the first-born son. His authority was unlimited. It was considered to have a divine origin. The Bulgar rulers kept the title until 864 (until the conversion to Christianity). Replaced with the title tsar. From other sources: In the latest researches its considered that the title is kan (from kun/кън blood) a leader of blood relatives. In line with this its now also considered that its not equal to the title khagan, meaning khan of the khans. The Bulgarian ruler bears the title khan, as in the inscriptions from the VII-IX century it is kanasubigi great khan. An older thesis exists, which spells out the title as kana su bigi the kana master of forces. In the foreign sources the Bulgarian ruler is mentioned as archon, igimon, rex, kirios, which are translated as kniaz, chief, master. The title kanasubigi disappears from the inscriptions after Khan Malamir. After the acceptance of the Christianity by Khan Boris the title of the Bulgarian ruler is replaced with the title kniaz, coming from the Indo-European kuneng tribal chief, elder. The power of the khan is practically unlimited, as he has the functions of a military leader, lawgiver, judge and high priest. The power itself is viewed as given to him by God, for which signifies the phrase ek teu archon put by God, but in the sense put by heaven a formula met also among the Turkic nations. According to the sources, the power by the Bulgarians is transferred by birth, i.e. by heritage and by the right of the first-born son. But in the Bulgarian history there are a number of examples, in which these rules were not followed. {3}; Kolober The priest society. Many ranks exist also of this title, but unfortunately there is no accurate data for their ranking. They sit on the left side of the khan. {2}; Komit [Note: This title was put to use in the time of Khan Omurtag, i.e. after the establishment of Danubian Bulgaria] Title, given to regional governors from the IX to the XI century. Borrowed from Byzantium at the time of Khan Omurtag (814-831). Its bearer combined both the administrative and the military power in his entrusted region komitat. Better known bearers of this title are: Taridin governor of the Bregalnitsa region, Dameta of the Devol region, Dristur of the Struma region, and Nikola of the Sredets region. {3}; Kopan Bulgar title, given to high military commanders, close associates of the khan. A bearer of this title in the time of Khan Omurtag (814-831) was Okors. {3}; Minik - (Bulgar) High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian khanate (tsardom). Its bearer took care for the rulers stables and commanded the cavalry. {1}; Oglu-tarkan (olgu-tarkan) - (Bulgar) High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state of a governor of a big region. {1}; Bulgar title, given in the time of the First Bulgarian state to the highest dignitaries. {3}; Sampsis At the council in 869-870 there were two with this title Pressian and Alexius Hunol. {2}; Bulgar title, given to representatives of the Bulgar aristocracy, performing diplomatic and other missions. {3}; Shaman - (Turkic) Priest in the pagan religions of the Turkic-nomadic nations, also by the Bulgars. {1}; Tarkan - (Bulgar) High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. Its bearer was usually a governor of a border region. {1}; Commander of 1 000 horsemen (thousander) {2}; The high officers (this title has many variations like bori-tarkan, tumen-tarkan, tarkan; probably every one of them was responsible for a definite number of sabers) {2}; Bulgar military title, given mainly to representatives of the high capital aristocracy. Its usually met combined with another title: bori-tarkan, zhupan-tarkan, oglu-tarkan etc. {3}; Tumen-tarkan Commander of a tumen (10 000 horsemen) {2}; Zera-Tarkan - (Bulgar) Governor of a border region in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. {1}; Official title of persons with military functions on the First Bulgarian state. Known is zera-tarkan Onegavon, who drowned in the river Tissa. {3}; Zhupan-tarkan - (Bulgar) Official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian khanate (tsardom) of a governor of a Slavic region. {1}; The zhupan K. Porfirogenet says that this was an elder by the Serbs. Therefore, the zhupan-tarkan is most probably an elder, who was approved by the khan to administrate his tribe (something like a vassal). {2}; Bulgar military title. According to the existing in the First Bulgarian state military hierarchy, it was placed second after the boila-tarkan. Known bearer of this title was Okhsun, whos mentioned in one of Omurtags inscriptions. {3};
High (administrative/official) ranking (the khan and the great boils):
Bibliography legend (secondary sources): {1} History textbook for 11th grade by publishing house Anubis {2} Internet (Military-historical forum Boina Slava ) {3} Electronic encyclopedia History of Bulgaria by publishing house Sirma
According to Petur Dobrev the Bulgars come to this side of the Danube with a developed state structure, in which there are 37 dignities. At least those are we know of, but they may have been more. We draw information about them from different stone inscriptions, in which Bulgarian officials are mentioned, as well as from foreign chroniclers. Unfortunately, their titles were written on Greek or with Greek letters and in the worst case they were translated according to their Byzantine correspondences. Thus for example the komits appear throught the Byzantine influence (from Latin comes) and the kandidats (spatarius or protospatarius). In other cases there are difficulties to determine whether it is a name or a title. For example, the title boritarkan of the governor of Belgrade, who welcomed the disciples of Cyril and Methodius coming from Velikomoravia to Bulgaria, is written by Teophilakt of Ohrid as a personal name Boritarkan. In another case it is not clear if tortuna pile zhoapan is a title or is it the pile zhoapan Tortuna. Despite these difficulties with a great accuracy could be restored the names and meaning of these 37 titles or dignities (ranks). It is also not completely clear if they are offices, classes, military ranks or combinations of the three. Their numeration is given by Beshevliev. The explanation of the titles is of Petur Dobrev.
Inscription № 59 of kanasubigi Omurtag: Kanasubigi Omurtag: the kopan Korsis was my fed man. When he went to the army, he drowned in the river Dniepr. He was from the Chakarar family.
Inscription № 60 of kanasubigi Omurtag: Kanasubigi Omurtag: the zera tarkan Negavon was my fed man. When he went to the army, he drowned in the river Tissa. He was from the Kubiar family.
Inscription № 64 of kanasubigi Omurtag: Kanasubigi Omurtag. The bagatur bagain Slavnas was my fed man and when he got ill he died.
Inscription № 66 of kanasubigi Omurtag: Kanasubigi Omurtag: the kandidat Turdachis was my fed man. He died inside. (Kandidat is a Byzantine title, given to spatariuses and protospatariuses.)
Inscription № 58 of kanasubigi Malamir: Kanasubigi Malamir, from God ruler. His old boila, kavhan Isbul, made this fountain and gave it to the ruler. And the ruler gave to the Bulgarians a lot of food and drink and to the boils and the bagains he gave large gifts. May God honour the ruler from God to live together with kavhan Isbul many years.
The Hambarli inscription № 47 of kanasubigi Krum: ...I made my brother, and the strategus Leon to be his subordinate. From Beroia Dultroini is first for the right side the ichirgu boila Tuk, and the strateguses Vardan and Iani to be his subordinates. For the left side of my sarakt [sarakt was the name for the Bulgarian state], for Anhialo, Debelt, Sozopol, Ranuli [Bulgarian fortresses and cities] chief is Iratais, the boila kavhan, and Kordil and Grigora his subordinated strateguses.
Inscription № 13 of kanasubigi Malamir: (Kanasubigi Malamir) from God ruler. My grandfather Krum found with us these works My father the ruler Omurtag, as concluding a 30 years peace, lived well with the Greeks. And I lived well, but the Greeks devastated our lands and the ruler Malamir, who ruled together with kavhan Isbul, went to war with the Greeks and destroyed the fortress of Provat and the fortress of Burdizon in the lands of the Greeks and acquired all glory. And he came to Philipopolis and the Greeks fled. And then kavhan Isbul, together with the glorified ruler made a meeting with Philipopolians.
Inscription №14 of kanasubigi Pressian at Philippi: Pressian of God ruler of the many Bulgarians sent kavhan Isbul, by giving him an army, the ichirgu boila and the kana boila kolober. And the kavhan at the Smolians
Inscription № 69 of kanasubigi Malamir: Kanasubigi Malamir: Chepa, bagatur boila kolober was my fed man. He got ill and died inside.
Konstantin Bagrianorodni [Mantle-born?] writes in For the governing for the war of Boris-Mikhail I with the Serbs: The Serbs inflicted upon him such a defeat that they captured and chained his son Vladimir and twelve great boils, but in his work For the ceremonies he writes only for six great boils.
Inscription № 48 from the village of Narush of tsar Simeon: In the year 6412 (904) from the Creation of the world, indiktion 7, a border between the Bulgarians and the Romeans by the from God ruler of the Bulgarians Simeon, olgu tarkana Teodor and komita Dristar.
From these inscriptions and from other data the assumption could be made that boils and bagains are honorary titles, showing the belonging to a certain class. The classes were probably four ordinary Bulgarians, bagains, boils and kolobers. At least thus are numbered the first three in the above quoted inscription № 58 of Malamir.
The kolobers were probably a priest class, but this assumption is based only upon the chronicler Teophilakt Simokata, who writes for one Avar priest, called on Greek βοοκολοβρα ς, translated by Ivan Venedikov as bu-kolober. Bu from the root boi (boila), which according to him means family of kolobers. To this uncertain assumption we could not give a confirmation from the Bulgarian stone inscriptions, because there the title kolober is given in a military or neutral context. This however does not exclude the priestly functions. It is possible that the kolobers were not a separate class, but a part of the bagain and boil ones.
The offices are in the same time military-administrative and political. The kavhan was the first substitute of the kanasubigi, co-ruler, as in the case with kavhan Isbul and is commanding the left part of the army, as with Krum. In the inscription he is called the boila kavhan. Probably the title boila shows the belonging to the class or rank of nobility, while kavhan the office of a first substitute of kanasubigi.
The ighirgu boila is next in rank after the kavhan, commanding the right wing of the army, and sometimes hes also a diplomatic delegate. Thus, for example, the ichirgu boila Stazis, who wrote in the Chividalsko Gospel the names of the members of kniaz Boriss family, so that they would be mentioned in prayers, was sent by kniaz Boris in Rome to the Pope.
The tarkans are probably governors, military and administrative. The boritarkan is chief of a city. According to P. Dobrev it comes from the Iranian boru (borui) fortress and tarkan (chief or judge) in the East-Iranian languages. For the olgu tarkan it is known only that hes higher than komita, maybe a regional/provincial governor over several komitats. Zhoapan tarkan is with a rank of governor he rules an independent region/province. Known are also zeratarkans, kalu tarkans and kulu tarkans.
Samuchii ( самъчий ) is a secretay of kanasubigi. There is one mentioned Eskhach [Есхач] in service of kniaz Boris. Kopan is probably a military office, chigot sword-bearer. The bagaturs are lower military ranks. Some consider them as an analogue of the knights. There are after all kana boila kolober and bagatur boila kolober. If for the first one it could be considered to be the personal priest of the khan from the class of the boils, then for the second one it could hardly be explained the title bagatur, if its given to lower warriors.
Some researchers believe that the dignity ichirgu is given to officials in service in the inner region/province of the state, while iuk is for those from the outer regions (komitats). And from there are the iuk-boil and the ichirgu-boil, ichirgu bagain and ichirgu kolober.
The heir to the throne is called kanartikin, while the second son is boila tarkan.
Kanasubigi is the title of the ruler. Because it is written on Greek as καναςυβίγ&a mp;# 953; the possible pronounciations are many: kanasiubigi and kanas iubigi, kanasubigi or kana siuvigi. According to Ivan Venedikov, unlike the Russian-Slavic kniaz, in Bulgarian the name is kunaz (къназ ( кънїз ). It could even be assumed that kniaz is a derivative from kanasubigi through kanas kunaz kniaz.
1. Kanasubigi Emperor 2. Kanartikin Heir to the throne 3. Kavhan First substitute of the khan, co-ruler 4. Boila kavhan 5. Ichirgu boil Probably minister for foreign affairs and commandant of the capital 6. Chitkoi ichirgu boil 7. Ichirgu kolober 8. Ichigu bagain 9. Kana boila kolober 10. Kana tarkan 11. Boil 12. Iuk boil 13. Boila tarkan The second son of the ruler 14. Boila chigat 15. Bagatur 16. Bagatur boila kolober High priest 17. Bagatur kana 18. Bagatur bagain 19. Bagain 20. Setit bagain 21. Iuk bagain 22. Biri bagain 23. Tarkan 24. Boritarkan Chief of fortress 25. Zera 26. Zeratarkan 27. Olgutarkan Governor of a region including komitats 28. Kalutarkan 29. Kulutarkan 30. Zhoapan tarkan Governor of a big region 31. Zhoapan 32. Tortuna pile zhoapan Military deputy for the region elder zhoapan 33. Chitkoimir 34. Kormuchii [кормъчий] Superior 35. Chigot (chigat) 36. Samuchii [самъчий] Secretary of the khan 37. Kopan 38. Imnik
=================================================
List of Bulgar names and the original titles of their bearers [Note that I havent included those names, which I believe to be of Slavic or Greek origing]
Alzek (son of Kubrat) Asparukh (Isperikh, Ispor) (680-700) (son of Kubrat, establisher of Danubian Bulgaria) Bayan (Bezmer, Batbayan, Boyan) (first-born son of Kubrat, khan of Old Great Bulgaria) Boris (852-889) (khan (later kniaz) of Bulgaria, Christian name - Mikhail) Chepa (bagatur boila kolober from the time of Malamir) Dizeng (regent of Omurtag) Dometa (komita) Dristar (komita) Dukum (regent of Omurtag) Eskhach (secretary at the time of Boris I) Grigora (subordinate to the boila kavhan in the time of Krum) Iani (subordinate to the ichirgu boila in the time of Krum) Iratais (boila kavhan at the time of Krum) Isbul (kavhan at the times of Omurtag, Malamir and Pressian) Kardam (777-802) (khan of Bulgaria) Kordil (subordinate to the boila kavhan in the time of Krum) Kormesiy (721-738) (khan of Bulgaria) Kormisosh (753-756) (khan of Bulgaria) Korsis (Okors) (kopan from the time of Omurtag) Kotrag (son of Kubrat, establisher of Volga Bulgaria) Krum (802-814) (khan of Bulgaria) Kuber (son of Kubrat, establisher of the Macedonian Bulgaria) Kubrat (Kurt, Kuvrat, Krovat) (632-663-668) (Leader of the Onogundurs (610s-632) and establisher of Old Great Bulgaria) Malamir (831-836) (khan of Bulgaria) Okhsun (zhupan-tarkan from the time of Omurtag) Omurtag (814-831) (khan of Bulgaria) Onegavon (zera-tarkan) Pagan (767-768) (khan of Bulgaria) Pressian (836-852) (khan of Bulgaria) Rassate (889-893) (kniaz of Bulgaria, Christian name Vladimir) Sabin (765-766) (khan of Bulgaria) Sevar (738-753) (khan of Bulgaria) Slavnas (bagatur bagain from the time of Omurtag) Stazis (ichirgu boila at the time of Boris I) Taridin (komita) Telec (762-765) (khan of Bulgaria) Telerig (768-777) (khan of Bulgaria) Tervel (700-721) (khan of Bulgaria) Toktu (766-767) (khan of Bulgaria) Tsog (regent of Omurtag) Tuk (ichirgu boila at the time of Krum) Turdacis (kandidat from the time of Omurtag) Umor (766) (khan of Bulgaria) Vardan (subordinate to the ichirgu boila in the time of Krum) Vinekh (756-762) (khan of Bulgaria)
According to Wikipedia: Kutrigur (western Bulgar tribe) leaders: Kutrigur (490s-510s) Khinialon (Chinialus) (540s-551) Sinnion (Synion) (551-550s) Zabergan (550s-582) Gostun (582-584)
Onogundur (federation of Kutrigurs and Utigurs) leaders: Houdbaad (Hudbaad, Khudbard) (c.581-c.600) Organa (Organ, Ornag; uncle and regent over the Onogundurs (617-630) of Kubrat)
From other sources (from the times the raiding period): Buzan (Bulgar chieftain around 488) Bulger and Drong (Bulgar leaders around 538) Odolgan (around 546)
Iranic. And even today Iranic languages are the 4th closest to modern Bulgarian after Slavic, Baltic and Germanic languages. That's the modern theory, Altaic is old. But, of course, my personal opinion of the ancient Bulgars is that they were a typical steppe mix and are definitely not "just Turkic" or "just Iranic/Persian" or "just Mongolic" or "just I-don't-know-what". They had Iranic elements, they had Turkic elements. And I believe that's relatively the same with most of the steppe people. And it's quite natural, I think, cuz the steppe nations are highly mobile and intermixing is much easier at greater levels than in Europe f.e. But if the Bulgars spoke a purely Turkic language then - I can't say, we don't have enough material. And even what we have could be disputed - like f.e. I've placed in the thread "Bulgaria" (in Medieval Europe, I think) a list with some Bulgar titles, some of which sounded Turkic. But then again, this can't serve as a proof to say that all Bulgars were Turkic, because there are many cases, in which one small ethnic group controls a larger and different one (like the Avars f.e.). So for me the distribution would be equal amongst all the different big ethnic groups, until we find something to direct us to one way or another. Btw Eski-Bulgars are the modern Gagauzi, afaik, there were no ancient tribes (at least not big and well-known) called Eski-Bulgar.
lol iranic? how's that? Is there any relation in language of old bulgars, i didnt saw any iranic tribe using bagatur as name, or Tumen as military ranking, or khagan, or even didnt heard of a Iranic tribe with name volga-bulgar let beside bulgar means mixing in old Turkic and current Uyghur Turkic language.
A interesting info to read,
Turkic background examined
Turkic invaders have been coming to Azerbaijan for centuries, but it remains unclear if all or most settled and remained in Azerbaijan (as opposed to other parts of the Caucasus and Southwest Asia) or simply came and went over the ages, until one group, the Oghuz remained in large enough numbers to alter the region. Morphological factors of the Azeri people in isolated rural areas appears quite similar to some nearby Turkic peoples, especially with regards to the Turkmen and Turks of Turkey.
According to Caucasus Albanian historian Moses Kalankatly, in the period between 191-200 CE, hordes of Barsil and Khazar Turks crossed the Kura river into what is today known as Azerbaijan.
Other noted historians include Tabari, who describes in detail various incursions into Azerbaijan by Ural-Altaic tribes (Huns and Khazars) in the 4th and 5th centuries CE. Tabari also states that by the mid-6th century, there was a significant Turkish presence in Azerbaijan and other adjacent regions.
Kalankatly also states that in the year 629, the army of the Gokturks as well as a series Khazar Turkic tribes entered Azerbaijan and declared the land to be the "eternal possession" of the Turks.
Byzantine sources of the mid-6th century refer to the "settlement of Khazar Turks" in the left bank of the Kura river and Kalankatly makes reference to a "Hun state" on the left bank of the Kura River in the 7th century.
According to Professor Peter B. Golden, "In the course of the seventh century, the two major tribal unions emerged in Azerbaijan under the Turk banner: the Khazars and the Bulgars...the Khazars formed the bulk of the Turk forces used by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (610-640) in his counter-offensive against the Sasanids (rulers) in Azerbaijan".
A pre-Islamic Turkic presence in Azerbaijan is evident in literature after the Islamic conquest of the region, in an era that was famous for its historical, geographical and scientific analyzations of the world by Muslim scholars. According to the 7th century work of Ubeid ibn Shariyya al-Jurhumi, the Muslim Caliph Mueviyyen (661-680) was told that Azerbaijan "has long been a land of Turks. Having gathered over there, they have mixed with one another and become integrated."
It must also be noted that the famous "Book of Dede Korkut" which is the epic of the Oghuz Turks (considered by Azeris to be their primary ancestors) was written in central-Asia in the 6th and 7th centuries.
What should be noted is that the demographics and social conditions are difficult to ascertain under 'Turkic' rule. Many question remain difficult to answer including whether the Turkic tribes replaced the peoples who lived in Azerbaijan before their arrival or simply mixed with them?
First, those titles, which I posted are far from certain. F.e. the tumen-tarkan is based only on a single statement of a poster in a forum (I wondered if I should include it or not, but...). The khagan is also under question or actually it's not under question - afaik, we have no information for Bulgarian khagans. If you had read more carefully, you would've noticed that khagan is placed only to show the difference between khagan and khan. And even khan is not a certain title for the Bulgar rulers, as from IX century stone-column inscriptions the title is "kanasubigi" (I don't have Greek letter to write the original). And I believe that Balkhara was in the region of the Persian Empire... And from your quote I see only one mentioning of the Bulgars when they were under the ruler of the Western-Turkic until 632, when Khan Kubrat (and according to some - with his uncle Organa) revolted against the Turkic and unified the Bulgar tribes into "Old Great Bulgaria" (as it is known from the Byzantines).
Btw, one even more off-topic question: Are the Alans Turkic? And are the Turkic nomads? Did they have (permanent) cities, agriculture, metal-casting?
P.S. This thread is becomming off-topic again! Could some moderator move the off-topic posts to the thread "Bulgaria" in Medieval Europe (or in a new thread about the Bulgars eventually)?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum