The History of Bulgaria

If we take the names of some Bulgarian rulers (and not only) and we accept the bulgars was actually hunns (as You say), the "turkic" version about the hunns became much more difficult to prove. Turn back to the beginning pages and see the early Bulgarian names which I posted. Analise them and tell me are these names "turkic" in your oppinion? 

Originally posted by Balkh-Aryan   There is no problem like that. Both dialects has equal relation to the other IE languages, except that perhaps dialect A was more "Turkicized," anyway it's also believed that A was just a liturgical language compare to vernacular B aka Latin and Italian. Regardless, both dialects are grouped as Centum but not Satem as Thracian is believed to be. Maybe You was reeding some articles about that. I saw the languages.

Edited by Sarmat12 - 04-Apr-2008 at 06:55

Originally posted by Sarmat12 http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22341&PN=1   I suggest you to check this thread where we discussed Tokharian language and ancient Turko-Iranic relations, there was a very knowledgeble guy groovy_merchant who is a professional historian and is very familiar with the subject. He gave a lot of insights on the Tokharian language and on the general problem discussed in the thread. I'm afraid the picture of glorious Balkharians migrating in large numbers and spreading their great culture everywhere in the form of Tokharians, Thracians etc. existed only in the violent dreams of some Indian Brahmins who had too much soma after reciting Vedas tonight.

You mean in the 13th - 8th century B.C. the drugged brahmins invented non-existing Balkh-Aryans. Very funny idea, don't You think so? Maybe Armenian writers also had this mania to invent non-existing people??? Probably, the ancient Irish Book "Labor Gabala Eren" is also work of some drogged brains? Or "The Chronical of Melch monastery"?
As for the "great Bulgarian culture", the russian medieval culture is a result of it. If You don't think it is great, this is your choise.
By the way, about this "misterious unknown Scytho-Sarmatian language" and Your competency to deny Abaev (Show me some better iranist, please!), I can tell You just some things. You say that the Ossetian language supposed to be descendent of the Scytho-Sarmatian but it is not sure. I am asking You from where is comming Ossetian language? You should know, in Ossetia the people is not absolutely homogenic. There are four peolpes. Three of them mentioned their self to be the descendent of Sarmatians. Their language is a little byt turkised. The fourth people calling their self "Ir" or "Iron" and claim they are descendents of the Scythians. The Scythianand Sarmatian languages was related, but not one and the same. This Scythian "Ir/Iron/Iran" is equivalent of Sarmatian "Al/Alon/Alan". It means "People", of course. The people "Ir" decline to be the same people with the rest of Ossetians, which are descendent of Sarmatians. But any historians, linguist and ethnologist can tell You the Ossetian people are Indo-european with a little bit (and late) turkic component.
If the Scythian and Sarmatian languages should be reconstructed somehow, the best way is to use Ossetian. Not Turkish. I have some friends from Ossetia, by the way, and I know something about their people.
Maybe I am not the most knowledgeable man here, but You just can not deny the sources I post. They are a lot. I have much more.
And I have a feeling You are irritate if someone knows something which You don't know. Why?

Originally posted by Balkh-Aryan You mean in the 13th - 8th century B.C. the drugged brahmins invented non-existing Balkh-Aryans. Very funny idea, don't You think so? Maybe Armenian writers also had this mania to invent non-existing people??? Probably, the ancient Irish Book "Labor Gabala Eren" is also work of some drogged brains? Or "The Chronical of Melch monastery"? As for the "great Bulgarian culture", the russian medieval culture is a result of it. If You don't think it is great, this is your choise. By the way, about this "misterious unknown Scytho-Sarmatian language" and Your competency to deny Abaev (Show me some better iranist, please!), I can tell You just some things. You say that the Ossetian language supposed to be descendent of the Scytho-Sarmatian but it is not sure. I am asking You from where is comming Ossetian language? You should know, in Ossetia the people is not absolutely homogenic. There are four peolpes. Three of them mentioned their self to be the descendent of Sarmatians. Their language is a little byt turkised. The fourth people calling their self "Ir" or "Iron" and claim they are descendents of the Scythians. The Scythianand Sarmatian languages was related, but not one and the same. This Scythian "Ir/Iron/Iran" is equivalent of Sarmatian "Al/Alon/Alan". It means "People", of course. The people "Ir" decline to be the same people with the rest of Ossetians, which are descendent of Sarmatians. But any historians, linguist and ethnologist can tell You the Ossetian people are Indo-european with a little bit (and late) turkic component. If the Scythian and Sarmatian languages should be reconstructed somehow, the best way is to use Ossetian. Not Turkish. I have some friends from Ossetia, by the way, and I know something about their people. Maybe I am not the most knowledgeable man here, but You just can not deny the sources I post. They are a lot. I have much more. And I have a feeling You are irritate if someone knows something which You don't know. Why?

Edited by Sarmat12 - 05-Apr-2008 at 02:58

Originally posted by Balkh-Aryan Originally posted by Tar Szer�nd Ok, sorry, than please remember on some turcic originated hunnic names what you have read here and there and don't ask such questions as above. For example, if names like : Balamir/Balamber, Donat, Haraton, Bleda, Irnik, Dincio/Dincig/Dinci-rig and etc. are "turkic" I am not sure for your standarts. O.K., maybe names like: Atilla, Mundjuk, Uzindur are "turkic", but Mundjuk is also known as Mundiuhos, Atilla is related to the name of the Pergamian king Atal (who was thracian), and there is a lot of problems to define this names only and strictly as "turkic". Isn't it? For example, the gothsand gepids and burgundians and etc. had many names ending to "-rig" and "-mer/mir". See "Akamer". It sounds "turkic", but it's not. In the final analysis the names are not a sure criterion to define someone's ethnical identity.

read NikeBG's post:
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=1722&KW=&PID=145233#145233

and read further trough this topic, it will be interesting for you.

Sarmat 12, I am discussing here with 6 -7 men. It is impossible for me to see all the links you post me. Moreover all of You are against me. O.K., I accepted that in advance.
When I came here in this site, I wished to share some information which I supposed most of You don't know (more correct - didn't ever assume that possibility). I posted a lot of sources and some my deductions about it. I simply could ask me why I think so and which are the sources I use. But not, all of You have biased theory about this problems, and came down on me as wolfs. O.K. May I am not wright for some things, but about non-turkish origin of Bulgarians I have so many evidences, so You are abolutelly unable todeny them.
There are radically differences between proto-bulgarians and turkic IN ALL ASPECTS. That is impossible to be denyed just so - in pressumption.
 Ussually, I don't use Bizantinian sources, because I know they are not very correct. But if You use some of them which show proto-bulgarians as a nomadic hord, why don't You accept this which show us as an ancient lokal people?
And here are some differences between proto-bulgarians and the proto-turks:
I GENETIC:
1. The tippical for the Altaic people haplogroup C3c in not presented in Bulgaria well. Only about 5 %. Afterthe common relationships since the time of Great Turkish Kaganat, Avarian Kaganat, medieval influences by petchenegs, kumans and usians, and after almost 500 years of Turkish domination in Bulgaria, I think this is too small percentage.
II ANTHROPOLOGICAL:
1. The tippical for altaic people brahicephal tipe is not well presented in Bulgaria.
2. It is not well presented also in proto-bulgarian excavations.
3. The proto-bulgarians practised a secondary skull-deformations, which was a practise of the hunns and sarmatians, but not practised by the turks.
III ARCHEOLOGY:
1. The proto-bulgarians inhumed their deadmen, the earlly turks cremated theirs.
2. The proto-bulgarians was builted strong guarded towns and castles of big stone "quadras", the turks was nomades.
3. The proto-bulgarians was agricultural-men, tradesmen and craftsmen, the turks was nomades and cattle-breeding men. In some of proto-bulgarian archeological objects was found (keeped in big jars) high yealds seeds, which by the scientiests opinion was sellected for hundreds of years.
4. Excavated products of proto-bulgarian material culture as jewellery and amunitios was of Sassanidian tipe.
5. Founded reliefs was of Sassanidian tipe.
6. The excavated proto-bulgarian tamples before the Christianisation (a lot of proto-bulgarians was Christian since not earllyer than 5th century) was Zorroastrian tamples. A lot of proto-bulgarians also was believers to the Sun, Moon and the stars (i.e. they was polytheists) The only one word founded in the territory of Bulgaria showing some relations with Tangrismus is a partial saved word "tagg...ran", which is not sure what means. "Tangra" is not originally turkic God. This name originated from Sumerian "Din - Gir" - "Gods".
 The early turks was believers to the God-mother "Ummai" (the Sky) and the gyant God of war "Erlik".
The Volga-bulgarians, according to Ib'n Fadlan called their god "Ed'fu", which I suppose is a derivative from Indo-european "Devu/ Dewa/ Dieu" and etc., meanin "Gods/Spirits".
IV TITULATUR ONOMASTIC:
1. The most of proto-bulgarian titles was unknown to earlly turks.
2. This which are simmilar, are not originally turkish, but recieved by the turks from the older people of Middle Asia: Scythians, Sarmatians, Tocharians. For example, the tytle "Kana" used by proto-bulgarians was used in Buhara 28 generations before 628 when it is evidenced by the Arabian geography "Hudud Al-Alam". It means this tytle was in use in the Buhara area not later than 1th century A.D. - the time of Tocharo-Kushanian dominance in the region. The tytles "kovhono (kavhan)", "bogono (bagain)", "torhono (tarkan)" and "zovogo (subigi ?)" was used by the Kushans, long before the turkic appearance. If we bear in mind that the Hunns vassals of the Tocharians before Mo-Tun. it is eassy to assume that this tytles was originally Tocharian, accepted of Hunns and recieved of Turks by the Hunns.
V LINGUISTIC:
1. The most of known proto-bulgarian words have relations with the languages of Thracians, Skytho-Sarmatians and Tocharians. It may not be well explained, but it is a FACT.
2. The modern Bulgarian language shows the same results, especially its dialects.
3. This characteristics are related to some small eastern Caucassian and Pamirian languages, which are Iranian, but not turkic.
VI SOURCES:
1. All the known souces related proto-bulgarians to scytho-sarmatians, but not to the turks. I will not use the Bizantine sources, because I accept they are not correct. The Arabian Sources ussually called proto-bulgarians "Saka-liba" or "Burjan", which is a derivative from Perssian "B'rsan" and it means "a head/ a wisdom/ a leader...".
Armenian sources called proto-bulgarians "Sarmatians".
Latin sources identified proto-bulgarians as one of the old Middle-Asian peoples descending by the Noah's son Sem (in their view about "semmites"). In this sources the most near to the proto-bulgarians are hymno-sophistes/brahmans, armenians, aranians, hirkanians, scythians, gedrosians, parthyans, mardians and gamerians (cimmerians ?). Not the turks.
The old Irish chronicles mentioned the "Fir-Bolg" people as a migrators from Thracia, and before to came in Thracia this people was a settlers of Scythia. Accordin to "Labor Gabala Eren" this evences was not later than 6th century B.C.
The Bavarian chronicles as "The chronic of the Melch monastery" and "The chronic of the monk Aventin" testified that the predecessors of the Bavarian people was called "Balgar" and the name of the fammily rulling Bavaria in the first ages was also "Balger" and this people migrated from the Scythia in the time of perssian king Cirrus the Great. It means - 6th century B.C. The first some centurys the Bavarian people was spoke some different language, after that they mixed with the Germanians and lost their language.
And many many other sources. If You wish I can post all of them.
Can You deny all of this?

You asked me if I am so knowledgeable why I discuss with You. Because I don't know everything, and as I wrote in the beginning of this letter I wished to share some information with You. I was hope some of You can help me to find the answers of some of this misteryes. Obviously You can't or You don't want. And after all I came because I saw this toppic is called "The History Of Bulgaria" and this concern me somehow. You are not obleged to reed my posts and to answer me.
Or If You prefere to not discussing this problems I can leave this forum. Will be more interesting for You then? To talk with your adherents how agree are you to each-other.
Very nice and very eassy.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 I also posted the article which criticized Abaev's analysis which you simply ignored I also posted the link where related problems are discussed which you also prefered to ignore.

I 'll write tomorrow references to this: a danube-bulgarian palace was excavated, with large wooden yurt fundaments and iranic (zoro.) sty-e gardens, or something like that.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 I think I made it clear that the article is "Panturkist." I posted this article because it uses almost the same approach as Balkh_Aryan's materials.

Originally posted by DayI so what? Arent we speaking of the ancient Bulgars?