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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ethnic Origins of the Bulgars
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ethnic Origins of the Bulgars
    Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 16:45
No, because inscritpions of Danube Bulgars do not show that they were "MOST LIKELY" Turkic speakers.  Tongue This guy lived some 500 years after Great Bulgaria and might only speak about what language was in Volga Bulgars at his time.
.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781 		  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 17:22
Originally posted by Anton

True, they were called sakaliba by Arab authors. Did you read the whole article? Attepmt to prove that sakaliba is the same as Kipchak. You find his logic convincing? Also he absolutely does not explain how come that all Bulgarian inscription are close to Chuvash but not Tatar language. Moreover, most of the words had indoeuropean parallels. Anyway, I will try to find this book of al-Kashgari and read it.
 
In Oghuzhan legend, Saqlab is one of the tribal names Oghuzhan gave just as Qipchaq, Qarluq, Qalach.
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 18:53
Originally posted by barbar

 
In Oghuzhan legend, Saqlab is one of the tribal names Oghuzhan gave just as Qipchaq, Qarluq, Qalach.
 
Yes, but it is also well known that many arabian authors called sakaliba slavs. Also as far as I remember "saka" were skythian tribes.


Edited by Anton - 21-Jun-2007 at 18:58
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 19:42
Originally posted by Anton

No, because inscritpions of Danube Bulgars do not show that they were "MOST LIKELY" Turkic speakers.  Tongue This guy lived some 500 years after Great Bulgaria and might only speak about what language was in Volga Bulgars at his time.
 
What data do we have about Danube Bulgars inscriptions?
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2007 at 05:36
http://www.kroraina.com/b_lang/index.html
http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/index.html
keep in mind that this analysis is biased (as any other actually Smile)
.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 21:55
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by barbar

 
In Oghuzhan legend, Saqlab is one of the tribal names Oghuzhan gave just as Qipchaq, Qarluq, Qalach.
 
Yes, but it is also well known that many arabian authors called sakaliba slavs. Also as far as I remember "saka" were skythian tribes.
 
In fact, Arabic for Slavs is and used to be Slaviya. Sakaliba is a mixed term, it could denote different peoples, tribes or even social groups .
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 22:27
Originally posted by Anton

If he indeed wrote this it might be considered as an avidence that Volga Bulgars at his time (11th c.) spoke Turkic language. However he is never discussed by Turkologists in quesitons concerning the language of Ancient Bulgars. There should be a reason Smile
 
Kashgari in fact not only qoutes Bulgar words, he also cites a Bulgar verse, stating that Bulgar and Khazar (and Oghuz/Pecheneg) languages are "normal" Turkic just "with clipped endings". "Normal" was supposed to mean Kharakhanid lingo, of course, not "any" Turkic language.
 
Actually, nobody in his serious mind doubts that Volga Bulgars spoke Turkic language at the pre-mongol times since we posses plenty of data such as tomb inscriptions and even a book (or two, the second one is questionable though).
 
This is not to say that Volga Bulgars spoke the same language as their Danube brethren, that's still a question. On the other hand, the newly found Uighur runic incription in Mongolia do state that the Khazars and Bulgars were the westernmost part of the (First?) Turkic khanate. That of course gives us much closer date to Kubrat's Bulgar then Kashari or Volga inscriptions.
 
And if it really was so, we can immidiately confirm the old proposition that Buluoji of  Chinese sources were those early Bulgars near Chinese borders. In fact, the Buluoji had a fairly well documented history. They once were a part of the Xiongnu confederation and thus may very well be considered as the Huns by others.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 13:05
Which book do you mean? Jagfar Tarihi? As for the inscriptions, that kind of runes are met not only in Turkic nations, right?

Edited by Anton - 05-Oct-2007 at 13:06
.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595 		  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 16:08

When the Western Kok Turuk empire was in jeopardy Kubrat founded an Onogur (Ten Oguz or ten tribes) dynasty. He himself was from a Dulo clan of people (possibly mixed Avar, Bulgar-Utrigur/Kutrigur heritage). He united the 'pseudo Avars' (VarChonites), Bulgars and even Ephtalites (white Huns) into his domain. He actually freed himself and the Bulgars from Avar control. However, conflicts with the Khazars led to the destruction of Great bulgaria after Kubrat's death.

His son recognised Khazar overlordship. An intersting point, both the Bulgars and Ungars were part of the Onogurs. During this time of Khazar reign many of them were later called Magyars. The name of Hungary stems from this unity of Onogurs>Ungar(in german)>Hungar>Hungarian.
 
Kubrat's second son created the Volga Bulgars state.
His third son, Asparukh, opposed the Khazars around the Dnieper and eventually became part of the great Danubian Bulgars. This is where he and his immediate follwers assimilated with the Slavs of the area. Thus the ethnic composition added a European element that is predominant to this day.
 
In sum the Asian Bulgars came from the Western Kok Turuk empire. This was not one lineage, but many cosmopolitan tribes or nations within the border. In the process of moving west the Onogurs became the foundation of more nations (Magyar, Bulgar). The Ogurs themselves were the European Avars or Chionites.
 
That's my take on this bit of history. IMHO.
 
 


Edited by Seko - 05-Oct-2007 at 19:22
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 17:59
The Jafgar History is a well-known fake. And a very crude one I might add.
 
What I mean is of course Kissa-i Yusuf by Kul 'Ali. Any good textbook on the subject has a plenty of information. Critical editions and translations are also available.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 18:13

Ah, inscriptions... Sure enough you'd find plenty of inscriptions out there.

But I'm talking about inscriptions of the Volga Bolgaria. There's two kinds. 1. In arabic, which shows two distinct groups - one with "tatar" features and the other with "chuvash", very clearly ancestors of modern tatar and chuvash lingos respectively.

2. Runic inscriptions of the type similar or close to those one can find in the Don steppes and wider Khazar state and also probably with Khwarezmian runics. This kind of runic differs from Orkhon Turcic runic but derives from a common root of some Aramaic sriptures most probably via East-Iranian and Greek intermediares.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 22:33
Originally posted by groovy_merchant

Ah, inscriptions... Sure enough you'd find plenty of inscriptions out there.

But I'm talking about inscriptions of the Volga Bolgaria. There's two kinds. 1. In arabic, which shows two distinct groups - one with "tatar" features and the other with "chuvash", very clearly ancestors of modern tatar and chuvash lingos respectively.

 
Can you specify with examples these "chuvash features" -- some examples of inscriptions with translations etc.
 
2. Runic inscriptions of the type similar or close to those one can find in the Don steppes and wider Khazar state and also probably with Khwarezmian runics. This kind of runic differs from Orkhon Turcic runic but derives from a common root of some Aramaic sriptures most probably via East-Iranian and Greek intermediares.
Similar inscriptions can be found everywhere from Baltic to Mediterranian Sea from Westto the East.


Edited by Anton - 05-Oct-2007 at 22:43
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 22:36
Originally posted by groovy_merchant

The Jafgar History is a well-known fake. And a very crude one I might add.
 
 
That is why I am asking.
 
What I mean is of course Kissa-i Yusuf by Kul 'Ali. Any good textbook on the subject has a plenty of information. Critical editions and translations are also available.
 
I never heard about this book, could you kindly give some links about it? If I understand you correctly you reffered to it as a book written in Volga Bulgaria prior to Mongol times and it was written in Bulgar language.
 


Edited by Anton - 05-Oct-2007 at 22:47
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 22:49
Aha, I found some information! It is Arabian poem but translated by Kul Gali into some Turkic language in 13th century. And he lived in Volga Bulgaria. Thanks, groovy_merchant!
.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 23:12
Chuvash features are for instance -r insread of Commom Turcic -z, like Ch. "hyr" instead of Com.Tur. "kyz" - girl.  You'll find more features in any book on Turcic languages in general. I would specifically recommend the long preface to the Etymological Dictionary of Altaic languages published by Brill in 2003 since it contains all new concepts as well as old academic efforts on the field.
 
You can find not only examples but the whole corpus of Volga Bulgarian epitaphs, it's published in almost all entirety (they keep finding new exsmples every other year especially in Tatar Republic, Russia). I'd recommend "Vvedenie v bulgaro-tatarskuiu epigraphiku" by Mukhametzianov - with photos, transcriptions and translations into Russian.
 
On the inscriptions. I'm talking about very specific way of writing usually called - wrongly - Turkic runic script. There's two distinct variaties - Orkchon and Don. Both clearly comes from one root which was developed approximately in th 2-1 cent. B.C. or later. Both has nothing to do with Futharc or Meditteranian scripts or at least we can't establish any relations. Both are readable in Turkic languages, where used by Turkic peoples or states. There is extensive literature on this subject.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355 		  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 23:54
Both clearly comes from one root which was developed approximately in th 2-1 cent. B.C. or later.


Turkic proto-runic script in 2nd century BC? I have never heard of this. What is the proof of this claim?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 15:12
Did I say "in 2nd century BC"? I said approximately in th 2-1 cent. B.C. or later.
 
In fact, pretty long runic inscription of 1-2 AD has been found lately in Kazakstan.
 
As for shorter inscriptions - those are abundant in coin legends of Maverranakhr. They are too short to be read (or rather, they can be read in any language, be it east iranian or turkic). But this is very clear that these are direct predecessors of usual runic script.
 
And, of course, some 23 of runic letters are found among the Xiongnu's tamgas.  
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409 		  Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 13:07
Originally posted by Bulldog

 
 
 
If Bulgars wern't Turkic and Slavic instead, there would be no Bulgarian trying to distort this and use any kind of manipulated source to proove it wrong.
 
 
 
 
 
You hit the nail on the head LOL
 
Still,those S K ultra-nationalists were the worst kind of them all.They relentlessly terrorized many history forums ( include AE ) between 2005-2008.
 
Truth always prevails Angel
 
 
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 18:37
Originally posted by Anton

Basically the same, barbar, one can say for analyses made by Zlatarski and others who "proved" Turkic origin of Bulgars. Their linguistic analysis is ridiculous too.

I must disagree with some posts of mine in this thread, like the one above. Smile Apparently I spent too much time reading let me say, nonprofessional literature, at this period.
.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2009 at 20:34
And i'm thinking you people copy and paste too much.I bet half of you haven't even read one book on the Bulgar origin.Let me just say there are 20 different teories about Bulgar origin,and i don't think anyone here is qualified to call something with 100% accuracy.Historians haven't been able to do this for a 100 years,what makes you so special?Are you world famous historians?Oh,and on the Bulgar language topic,take a look at this link:

http://groznijat.tripod.com/b_lang/bl_phonet.html
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>

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 0.062 seconds.