Ethnic Origins of the Bulgars

Originally posted by Tar Szer�nd Yes:-)   Some hungarians think thant we are relatives of the mayas. ... (because of the life-tree symbols etc.)   Ungur, Ungarn, Hongrois(?) etc. Just our neighburs, and prob. the turks are calling us madjarski, wegier, majars (Madjarstan= Hungary):-).   I don't know how many per cent of our words have turkish origin, but there are some hundreds, surely. (some of them are chuvas (from the time before and in the Khazar kaganat), some of them have oguz related origin (from the pechenegs, from uz-s, from the kumans, from the ottomans))   You should searc on the net for a bulg-hung. dictionary, but I think that words like tarkan, or tarjan you can't find. You should search for agriculture words. (yes, by two nomadic tribe unions!! After 1945 we were called raw meat eater nomads, but we got 50-60 pre 896 agriculture-words...)    And many of the words in the hung. language have iranian origin, from the scythian and sarmatian periods (f.e. the second or third sarmatian wawe in Eu came from the Ural, from finno-ugric territ.)

Originally posted by Tar Szer�nd So it would mean that the two groups had common languages. So I don't understand your last post, too:-), but it doesn't matter.   My opinion about the question is written down some pages before.  The definitions of turcic, or finno-ugric is not adequate in Europe. All of the tribe Unions (wich were no nations with one origin) were military constructions made from dozents of gens and tribes with different (slavian, ugric, turcic, iranian(alan)) origins, with different originated leaderstuff. (f.e. in Khazaria the Dentumogers (Magyars from the Don) or H�tmagyar (Seven magyar) could had ogur turk leaders and ogurturk tribes, and the bulgars could had hungarians.    language: the hungarians spoke two different languages in the time of Konstantinos perf.genetos: their own language and kazarian (turcic). the kazars spoke two languages too, certenly kazarian and an other, not known language (atrabian authors wrote this. i think, it was hungarian, because  the arabians surely had known the iranian and heber language)   So bulgars could had known a lot of languages in magna Bulgaria, too. bulgar turk, oguz turk, hungarian, slavian etc.

Originally posted by Anton Their political leader (the khan)

In a PM Bulldog told me that more than 80 medieval sources name the Bulgarian leaders khans.I asked him to show one of them and it's been 5-6 days of waiting for reply


Edited by Liudovik_Nemski - 09-Jun-2007 at 03:47

Originally posted by Bulldog I said there are documents in Greek regarding the Bulgars reverence of "Tangra".

I apologise for the 80 part it was a mistake.Here's what you wrote:

By the way for the proof of their religion you gave me a link to the site of ziezi who claims that Napoleon Bonaparte is Bulgarian and that Dragan-a sailor on Columbus ship sighted America and he's the founder of the continent.

Edited by Bulldog - 09-Jun-2007 at 10:53

Where did this information about Musala-Tangra come from?

Edited by Anton - 09-Jun-2007 at 13:15

Flipper

Originally posted by Bulldog      The most widely accepted view is that the Bulgars were of Turkic-Hunnic origin, they then mixed with Uralic tribes in the Volga Bulgaria region. Most historical sources and the fact that the Bulgars of Volga Bulgaria ie Tatarstan/Chuvash peoples are Turkic and speak Turkic language today.

@ Anton & Bulldog

I completely understand...this actually happened everywhere if you go waaaaaaaaaay back in time. In Bulgaria it happened in a time where it was possible to record bits and peaces.

The result of all these, no matter which theory is correct is that Bulgaria has had a kind of continuity as a state with all its background since the 7th century. In 1000 years it won't really matter who was who at year 1 of that area.

Another theory suggests that all europeans are 10-30% neadartals. What effect does that have 30000 years later to our current european cultures? Nothing...Nations formed anyway.