Bulgarian origins

Well ethnically they are ,of course not culturally and linguistically because that has changed enormously for such a large time span...with this logic I can say that the population in the cyclades or Crete is not the same because other nations called them with different names and were under different suzerainty during these 3000 years!

 

Off course if by mythical you mean a people that has never existed I will not argue any further because we will be having different starting points!

I call the divine origin of Achilles mythical but not the existence in the past of Trojans, Danaians etc...

 

londoner_gb (aka, gone bonkers) states:

Sheding light upon some Bulgarian habitats beyond the Thracian Bosporus/in Asia Minor/ altogether with the European Paeones/Tzetzes says: "  Paeones aca Bulgares Pyrehmes led the Paeones or Bulgarians, from the river Axios,which is Vardar, the strategos Pilemen led the Paphlagonians. Dios and Epistroph led the Bythinians.

 

First of all, lgb, Tetze's works were from the 12'th century. Not a primary source of either the Trojan war or Bulgar entry into Thrace. Second, Paionia is a historical term representing the area of Macedonia and its inhabitants, the Paeonians. Who was Pyrehmes btw?

 

Accordin to wiki: By AD 400 the Paionians had lost their identity, and Paeonia was merely a geographic term.

 

Whether they were known as Thracians fighting for Troy is speculative.

 

 

In Tzetzes time (12'th century) there were peoples known as Bulgars who lived in the area where the older Paeonians once lived in Macedonia. The name Bulgar was not present during the Trojan wars. That being the case you enacted some fancy leg work. You also purposefully ignored the part where Tzetzes calls them Huns. Even if that were true (the Huns did have Kutrigur and Onoghur tribes with them, aka Onuoghur who were porto-Bulgars) Tzetzes was still not a primary observer/source.

In physical appearance, the Bulgarian population is characterized by the features of the southern European anthropological type with some additional influences. Genetically, modern Bulgarians are more closely related to the other Balkan populations - Macedonians, Greeks and Romanians, than to the rest of the Europeans.^[2][3] On the other hand they are closely related to some Mediterranean islanders as Cretans and Sardinians.

 

just cant find Mnemorut's post We happen to have almost the same story as the Romanian about the old woman Dochia that froze with her goats

it's here ih the tale called:"Why March has 31 days":http://www.spellintime.fsnet.co.uk/Tales.htm#Marta

 

 

Of course in a way they seized to exist loosing their language with the times. I think its true that the  populace, that lived on the Bulgarian teritory, was romanized in the north and helenized in the south...BUT it was till the arrival of the slavs and the bulgars.

The bulgars gave us their nomadic state organization, the slavs: their language and the thracians: their genes (mainly). But how did the language become slavic one would ask, if we didnt bath in the slavic sea (as its obvious by the Bulgarian look today). Due to Boris I. He welcomed the students of Cyril and Metodius (after they were forced out of Velikomoravia - a true slavic country). Here Boris had few people with an alphabeth of a language, spoked by some of the people in his country (and the whole of Velikomoravia): bam he makes it a state language (and a church one) to differ his state from the ERE. Then u have years when the correspondense and the church and the administrative language is slavic: so in the end, the lands near the capital become slavisized due to the state policy. We forget that the whole of Romania was part of the Bulgarian state for a long time. How did it have the fate to not become slavized (as were the other part of the empire)? I think its due to the long distance of the capital (and the river), thus the people saved their language. But then again one would ask how did the hellenized tracians become slavised? I think its due to intermarrages, also I could see why some of the hellenized people in the south would want to become part of the bulgarian empire (and in this way slavized, because that is the empires official language) (the taxes in bg state at the beginning werent that big, compared to East Roman Empire).

I know that this theory is simplistic, but its the only logical we ve got. The proove is the genetic researches (we are mainly related to the Romanians and to the Greeks).

 

Ok, I'll explain that.

 

We know Greek civilization for: Aristotle and Plato, Pifagor and Akrhimedus, Greek alphabet, Herodotus, creation of science, art, theater, olimpic games and blah-blah-blah. In summary, Greek civilization is a foundation of all the Western and perhaps even some other Civilization like Islamic etc.

 

I don't think the myth of Orpheus is occupies a large room on this list. If you took Orpheus and Dionisios out of the known data about the Hellenic civilization would our perception about it change a lot?

 

No, not at all. However, if you took out of the list GREEK philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, scientists like Pifagorus, authors like Sophokles it will indeed change the whole picture. Those people and their achievements don't have any thing to do with Thracians.

 

Orpheus and Dionisius are just a small, insignificant parts of the massive picture of Hellenic civilisation. That's why I said that that civilisarion is not primarily because of them. And the roles they played in the Greek world were too small to claim that ancient Thrace is the root of Ancient Greece.