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 78910>
Author
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ethnic Origins of the Bulgars
    Posted: 13-Jan-2010 at 13:45
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

او را درياي بنطس خوانند حد مشرق او حدود الان است و حد شمال جايها بجناک و خزران و مروات و بلغار اندروني و قلاب است و از حد مغرب او ناحيت برجان است و از وي حد جنوب ناحيت روم است
 
"In the north of the sea which is also called Bontus, there are the lands of Alan, Bejnak, Khazaran, Morvat, Bolghar andaruni (inner Bolghar) and Qalab, and in the west of it is the land of Burjan and in the south is Rum."
 
Interesting account from 10 century. Sea of Bontus - Pontus Euxinus (greek name of Black sea). Alans and Hazarans were well-known. They lived generally between Black sea and Caspian sea, north of Caucasus. Ossetians- successors of Alans live there even today. Qalab was Saqalaba (Slavs?). Morvat was may be finno-ugrian tribe known to Medieval Persians. It sound to me like Mordvins. I haven`t idea about Bejnak. Why inner Bolghar was name of Volga Bulgaria for persians? What can be outer Bolghar?
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jan-2010 at 13:54
C'mon Cyrus. Yes of course Bulgarians are Germanic Burgundians. You got it at least. And the Asiatic Burushaski as well, because it comes from Burgundisci and don't forget Burma, short for Burgundaheima :(
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jan-2010 at 15:14
Originally posted by beorna

Well, I am not sure if I just didn't read it, but your point of view isn't clear for me. I know what you deny, but not what hypothesis you prefer. Is it a Iranian origin? What sources do you have for it?
 
My point of view is very clear. Proto-Bulgarians was indo-europeans with scythian way of life and scythian culture traditions. I don`t talk about present day Bulgarians from Bulgaria, which are mostly Slavic (if we use this term) and lesser (but also important) Thracian. Proto-Bulgarians were may be close to Iranic group or to Tocharians group or something else, but we haven`t any reliable proofs that they were Turkic. For their indo-europeans stock we make conclusion by remain art-works (kurgans, animistic style,..), customs and anthropology. Aslo with some remain names which are indo-european.
 
Ancient Thracians were significant element about present day Bulgarian nation. For example KUKERI-ritual to scare away evil spirits take on this time of the year, have Thracian origin and date back to pagan times. Also skill of vine-produce came from Thracians.
 
 
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jan-2010 at 23:44
Originally posted by Kanas_Krumesis

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

او را درياي بنطس خوانند حد مشرق او حدود الان است و حد شمال جايها بجناک و خزران و مروات و بلغار اندروني و قلاب است و از حد مغرب او ناحيت برجان است و از وي حد جنوب ناحيت روم است
 
"In the north of the sea which is also called Bontus, there are the lands of Alan, Bejnak, Khazaran, Morvat, Bolghar andaruni (inner Bolghar) and Qalab, and in the west of it is the land of Burjan and in the south is Rum."
 
Interesting account from 10 century. Sea of Bontus - Pontus Euxinus (greek name of Black sea). Alans and Hazarans were well-known. They lived generally between Black sea and Caspian sea, north of Caucasus. Ossetians- successors of Alans live there even today. Qalab was Saqalaba (Slavs?). Morvat was may be finno-ugrian tribe known to Medieval Persians. It sound to me like Mordvins. I haven`t idea about Bejnak. Why inner Bolghar was name of Volga Bulgaria for persians? What can be outer Bolghar?

I have not found anything about Qalab, you are right it seems to be the same Saqlab and letter "s" (ص) has been dropped from the name, it can be also a mistake by someone who has read of the book.

This is a map from early 11th century (1015 AD): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khazarfall1.png
 
 
Bejnak were in all probability Pechenegs (Arabic has no letter for "P", "ch" and "g"), about inner Bolghar, the author of the book says that Bulghars have nomadic life and there is no big city in inner Bolghar, there are also a large number of Bolghars out of this region.
 
About the name of Bolghar, there are several mentions in the Persian sources from 9th to 11th centuries, most of them sat that the original name was "Bon-ghar" and certainly relates to Persian "Ghar" which means "cave, mountain", like "Ghor" in modern Afganistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gh%C5%8Dr_Province the famous Persian poet, Nezami Ganjavi (from Ganja, a city in the north of modern country of Azerbaijan), in Eskandar-nameh (The Book of Alexander) says that Bolghar is the only city in the north which was founded by Alexander, however it has a Persian name: http://www.parset.com/Culture/Poems/ShowPoem/?PoemID=10936
 
بن غار خواندش نگهبان دشت
به نام آن بن غار بلغار گشت
کساني که سالار آن کشورند
رهي زاده شاه اسکندرند
 
Bon-ghar khandash negahbane dasht
Be name Bon-ghar Bolghar gasht
kasani ke salare an keshavarand
zehi zadeh shah Eskandarand
 
It was called Bon-ghar (root of the mountain), ruler over the plain
The name of Bonghar then became Bolghar
Those who are the rulers of that country
are the descendants of the king Alexander
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 00:25
Originally posted by Kanas_Krumesis

 
My point of view is very clear. Proto-Bulgarians was indo-europeans with scythian way of life and scythian culture traditions. I don`t talk about present day Bulgarians from Bulgaria, which are mostly Slavic (if we use this term) and lesser (but also important) Thracian. Proto-Bulgarians were may be close to Iranic group or to Tocharians group or something else, but we haven`t any reliable proofs that they were Turkic. For their indo-europeans stock we make conclusion by remain art-works (kurgans, animistic style,..), customs and anthropology. Aslo with some remain names which are indo-european.
 
Ancient Thracians were significant element about present day Bulgarian nation. For example KUKERI-ritual to scare away evil spirits take on this time of the year, have Thracian origin and date back to pagan times. Also skill of vine-produce came from Thracians.
 
Thanks. Yes, I have not a single problem to support you, that a lot of Proto-Bulgarians were of an Indo-European origin. But that doesn't explain the Turk influence and that stands not in opposite to an Turk elite, because there are reliable proofs.
I don't think, we should name it Scythian culture, because they were wiped out a several centuries ago, then Sarmatian would be better. If you look to the ethnic situation, you'll find a lot of ethnic groups there after the death of Attila. Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, perhaps rests of Germanic groups, Chasaren, Eastern Slavs, finno-ugrian groups and a lot of different ural-altaic groups. among the early Bulgarians there were Kutrigurs, Utrigurs, Sagurs, Ogurs and Sabirs, which are all related with the Turk peoples.
Between 567 and 635 the Bulgarians and others lived under Awar supremacy. At 678 the Bulgarians crossed the Danube with people from all these North Danube nations under Asparuch.
 
South of the Danube there lived Slavs and befor them there lived there Thracians. But these Thracians have lost their independence already at those days of the Persians. The Greeks and Romans came, a lot of Germanic but even other groups were settled there. I won't say there were no Thracians at all, but to say the inhabitants of the provincia Thracia were Thracians like those of the old days is probably wrong.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 00:50
Originally posted by beorna

C'mon Cyrus. Yes of course Bulgarians are Germanic Burgundians. You got it at least. And the Asiatic Burushaski as well, because it comes from Burgundisci and don't forget Burma, short for Burgundaheima :(
 
The more interesting thing is that some people think that Burgundy in southern France could be related to Eastern Germanic Burgundians too!!! The fact is that Germanic tribes were going around the europe and settled everywhere, look at a map:
 
 
 
Burgas in the Gothic language means "city; fortified place; tower" and Burgia "citizen" (source) isn't it possible that Burgas, the second largest city of Bulgaria, was realted to this word?
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 01:07
some people think that Burgundy could be related? You are joking? Who doesn't?
 
*brg means at first a higher, safe place. Then the meaning was used for fortified places like the german "Burg" for castle. Around castles there developed often cities. these people were later called burgians like the German "Bürger"
 
Of course it is possible that burgas comes from an indoeurop. *brg but I am convinced *brg can be explained by a lot of different other language families as well. I give allways the example from the Japanese language: Ah, so desu. In German it is, Ah, so is das. And? Japanese are Germans or German Japanese? I don't think so, or do you?
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 01:38
As you read in the link that I gave above, "Burg" doesn't mean "a higher palce, tower" in all Indo-European languages but just in Armenian and Germanic languages, so Middle-Persian Burg which means the same (source) could be just a loanword from Armenian, even Aramaic Burgin and Arabic Burj (You know that famous Burj-Al-Arab in Dubai Wink), as you read Greek Purgos is certainly a loanword too, as it show phonetics.
 
I think you had said before about German Japanese thing, some coincidental similarities can't prove anything, unless you prove there were some relations between the Germans and Japanese in the ancient times, for example a group of Germanic went Japan and introduced these words.


Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 14-Jan-2010 at 01:41
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 01:51
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

 I think you had said before about German Japanese thing, some coincidental similarities can't prove anything, unless you prove there were some relations between the Germans and Japanese in the ancient times, for example a group of Germanic went Japan and introduced these words.
Yes, perhaps I did. You are absolutely right. Just an coincidental similarity. That is exactly what I wanted to say!
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 02:10
But Germanic people went to the region around the Black Sea and settled there from some centuries, as you read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Gothic Crimean Gothic was spoken until the late 18th century, if we don't want to believe what Jordanes said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothiscandza (According to a tale related by Jordanes, Gothiscandza was the first settlement of the Goths after their migration from Scandinavia (Scandza) around 1490 B.C.), about two thousands years of known presence of Goths in the north and west of the Black sea could have an effect or remnant in this region, don't you think so?
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 02:17
Well, of course it is possible, that Germanic groups settled in an place called something with *brg.
But there is a lot possible. Any Gothic or other archaeological proofs?
BTW the Goth migration to the east didn't start 1490 BC but around 150-200 AC
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 10:55
Originally posted by beorna

Thanks. Yes, I have not a single problem to support you, that a lot of Proto-Bulgarians were of an Indo-European origin. But that doesn't explain the Turk influence and that stands not in opposite to an Turk elite, because there are reliable proofs.
I don't think, we should name it Scythian culture, because they were wiped out a several centuries ago, then Sarmatian would be better. If you look to the ethnic situation, you'll find a lot of ethnic groups there after the death of Attila. Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, perhaps rests of Germanic groups, Chasaren, Eastern Slavs, finno-ugrian groups and a lot of different ural-altaic groups. among the early Bulgarians there were Kutrigurs, Utrigurs, Sagurs, Ogurs and Sabirs, which are all related with the Turk peoples.
Between 567 and 635 the Bulgarians and others lived under Awar supremacy. At 678 the Bulgarians crossed the Danube with people from all these North Danube nations under Asparuch.
 
South of the Danube there lived Slavs and befor them there lived there Thracians. But these Thracians have lost their independence already at those days of the Persians. The Greeks and Romans came, a lot of Germanic but even other groups were settled there. I won't say there were no Thracians at all, but to say the inhabitants of the provincia Thracia were Thracians like those of the old days is probably wrong.
 
Now I understand you. You have a conviction that Turks are born to rule elite about steppe nations. For your regret historic true was quite different, because turks arrived too late in western steppe to have role in formation of several indo-european steppe nations (include proto-bulgarian). I`m wait to your proofs about "Turk elite" from a few posts. I want real evidence, not a quote from someone`s turkology book. May be DNA tests...Wink
 
 Scythian culture didn`t wiped out, even continued through Sarmatian, Alans, Bulgarians, ... I met Kutrigurs, Utrigurs, Sagurs, Ogurs and Sabirs only in turkology books. Some of them written by Lev Gumilyov- most historic-fictional author than world ever know. As you say history is not just names.
 
I want you to make some comparison between original Turkic culture (remain in it`s clear form in Altai), and culture of Ossetians-direct successors of Alans and Scythians.
 
Honga-traditional ossetian folk song with traditional Ossetian (Alan) dance and clothes
 
Kаy kоjоn-traditional turk song from Altai with traditional for that region clothes and music instruments
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 16:15
Turks born to rule?????Confused Who said this?
Turks arrived too late? Well, we have a great problem. who are the Turks? it is the same with the Hunns, who were the Hunns or who were the Scythians. you spoke about a Scythian culture. To identify a Scythian culture with an indoeuropean ethnos is as correct as to claim the Sioux as the people of the Plains-culture in North America. we have Scythian culture from Moldovia in the West up to Mongolia in the East. And the people of those culture were of multiethnic origins. Of course at those far days the main groups of those Scythians seemed to be of an Indoeuropean origin but there were as well Mongolides.
It is the same with the Hunns. It is not clear which language the Hunns have spoken. Most scientist agree that is was an ural-altaic language, like Turks or Mongolians speak. But it is not clear at all if THE Hunns ever existed. So we have to expect again a multiethnic population and a lot of different groups including Indoeuropeans as well as Tungusians. But we can quite clear say that the Hunnic elite was Ural-Altaic.
When the Hunnic supremacy was ended, the Proto-Bulgarians filled up the vacuum that was left. They collected all the post-hunnic nations, Indoeuropeans, Ural-Ataics and Finno-Ugrians and what ever more under their leadership.
 
You wait for proofs? Look at Rashev's book I told you. Look at the known names. It is really difficult to be 100% sure, but the most scientists agree that the elite was of dominant Ural-Altaic or Turk origin. It is not my problem that you will not accept them.
 
and DNA-Tests? Are you serious or joking? Read above about all the interaction that happened in the Steppe belt and ask yourself if DNA-Tests can help us. There is no Turk DNA, neither a Hunnic DNA nor a Bulgarian DNA and not at all does DNA speak a language.
 
We speak about the times of the 5th to 7th century and you show movies from today? C'mon.
 
I can only repeat, you are Turkophobic, that's all and that's why you close your eyes.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2010 at 23:58
I'm sure if there were no Ossetians in the north of the Black sea, those scientists would deny the existence of any Iranian-speaking people in that region, maybe they don't know the meaning of "Turkification", for example Zanjan province in the northwest of Iran, some pan-Turkists try to say that they spoke Zanjani language, a Turkic language similar to Azeri language, from the ancient times, whenas Zanjan was Turkificated just 300 years ago, if you already go to some remote villages of Zanjan then you will see that they don't understand even one Turkic word.
 
I have talked several times in this forum about Saksin-Bulgar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqsin as you read people who have visited there, have never said that they were Turkic people but the article says "In actuality, they were probably Turkic" and then says "Saqsin may be an Arabized version of Sarighsin, Turkic for Yellow City.", Why an Arabized version of a Turkic word? Does no one really know Rostam the Saksi (Scythian), Iran's national hero? No one has read what ancient sources say about Scythians:
http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Strab.+11.8.4 as you read Strabo says that Scythians called themselves Saksin (Sacasene)?!
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2010 at 00:41
Term Ural-Altaic used by you about Turkic is not correct. Ural Mountain is home generally to Finno-Ugrians and 2500 years ago in Altai Mountain didn`t live Turks but Scythians ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazyryk_culture , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazyryk_burials ). I even posted on this theme. At this times proto-Turks lived with proto-Mongols probably in Manchuria and bigger part of Mongolia. 
BTW Pan-Turkist like you now try to present Finno-Ugrians also as Turkic.
 
If I must close my eyes to real things in attempt to be Turk or some else lover, I really wouldn`t.


Edited by Kanas_Krumesis - 15-Jan-2010 at 00:48
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2010 at 03:02
Pan-Turkists like me????ConfusedOuchDead
I was called a lot of things, turks once called me Racist or Nazi, but Pan-Turkist is completely new.
 
Mongolian, Tungusian and Turk belong to the Altaic linguistic family. Estonian, Finnic, Hungarian and others belong to the Uralic linguistic family. Both families Uralic and Altaic build an superfamily called Ural-Altaic.
I don't know whon lived in the Altaic mountains 2500 years ago, members of a Scythic culture? Yes, that's true. But perhaps you red my posting above. There were already monolides among those people. BTW, who can say, if Turks already existed as own liguistic family 2500 years ago.
 
Pan-Turkist????? UnbelievableCryCryCry
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2010 at 11:24
Originally posted by beorna

Pan-Turkists like me????ConfusedOuchDead
I was called a lot of things, turks once called me Racist or Nazi, but Pan-Turkist is completely new.
 
Mongolian, Tungusian and Turk belong to the Altaic linguistic family. Estonian, Finnic, Hungarian and others belong to the Uralic linguistic family. Both families Uralic and Altaic build an superfamily called Ural-Altaic.
I don't know whon lived in the Altaic mountains 2500 years ago, members of a Scythic culture? Yes, that's true. But perhaps you red my posting above. There were already monolides among those people. BTW, who can say, if Turks already existed as own liguistic family 2500 years ago.
 
Pan-Turkist????? UnbelievableCryCryCry
 
 I don`t know anything about your previous deeds and why then you were "honoured" by еpithets like Racist or Nazi. This isn`t my job and I don`t care. But I gotta feeling that you just want to nag at. Dispute without arguments is not my cup of tea. You are astonish why I called you Pan-Turkist. Because you spread Pan-Turkist myths, when we talking about serious science. I have a good opinion about your erudition and now I`m really surprised by your position for Ural-Altaic language superfamily. This idea has been rejected by nearly all specialists in Uralic linguistics (for critical reviews, see e.g. Aikio 2003; Bakró-Nagy 2003, 2005; De Smit 2003; Georg 2003; Kallio 2004; Laakso 2004; Saarikivi 2004). Culture (yes, even today`s culture) is also quite different between Finno-Ugrians and Turks.
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2010 at 15:08
Do you know why Turks called me so? I argued against their pan-turkist nonsense!
 
I must confess I didn't know that the Ural-altaic hypothesis was given up by a great number of Uralistic scientists. But I am not a linguist and I can't know everything. But as I can see even the Altaic hypothesis is given up by scientist while others include japanese and Korean to a Macro-Altaic family. If we look to linguistic science we must see, that this all is very speculativ and as you know the classification of the different linguistic branches and the connections between them changed all through the times. But if you are such a tremendous professional in Linguistic, then you must be honest, that Proto-Bulgarian, together with Chuvashian is placed within the Turk languages as own Oghur branch.
 
So even if I am wrong with a Ural-Altaic classification of those ethnoi, it doesn't mean I was wrong with my concept of migrating Altaian and Uralian population to the West.
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2010 at 00:44
Originally posted by beorna

If we look to linguistic science we must see, that this all is very speculativ and as you know the classification of the different linguistic branches and the connections between them changed all through the times. But if you are such a tremendous professional in Linguistic, then you must be honest, that Proto-Bulgarian, together with Chuvashian is placed within the Turk languages as own Oghur branch.
 
So even if I am wrong with a Ural-Altaic classification of those ethnoi, it doesn't mean I was wrong with my concept of migrating Altaian and Uralian population to the West.
 
Constrution about same Oghur branch with Chuvashian have one very weak link- we know only a few words from proto-Bulgarian and for many linguistic specialists this is a indo-european language. In the same way modern Altaic people claim the mummie of Ukok Scythian ice maiden as their ancestor, although DNA analysis show no connecton (original result, not official).
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2010 at 04:10
yes, you are right. but i wrote it before, that these branch is separated from the other turk languages. but that is exactly what i mean, your problem is just the term "turk". I don't think you had the same problem if i would use another term. it is quite clearly, that the proto-bulgarian "turks" have just a very little to do with those of Turkey.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>

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 0.063 seconds.