Talk:Bulgars

Currently the article leaves the impression that Onogurs were non-bulgar tribe which Kubrat united with the bulgars. Is that so, or please rephrase! Koliokolio 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thing that the name Bulgaria is very simple. "B'L' - GR' " means "The Great Land" . B' - means Old, big, great, Older; L' means mountain, teeth etc.; GR' means land. And the apostrophe here is the active letter "Ъ" in bulgarian language. There is some other languages used the letter but not the "Latin" and "Greek" languages. From here the name Balkan means B'L'K'N' - "The Great Land/Mountain Keeper/fortress - (Khan or Tcar, or Shakh) - Balkhan - Великан, Balshah / Balhash - lake, Baltatcar or Baltazar - name

ROB, Dude, stop making up stories - please, leave this article alone and set us free from your annoying comments.

i don`t know who rights this stuff it`s so lame bulgarians are one of the 24 tribes that noa has spawn [and it is in the script!!!] owr home land now called pamir we setteled meny clans until we reached todays bulgaria there are bulgarians in russia ukrain italy [bulvari] etc.. bulgarians have fought bizantian empire for long centuries and were a great treaht for it and a lot of names come from our old language buda [awake] and budhha [the indian god] are too simular i don`t know many exaples because am not so intrested but this article is really lame

The above paragraph has the writing and spelling style of an 8-year old. idiotoff 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Bulgar" Etymology Guess

What on Earth is Varkun, and how could it be related to the word Bulgar? Furthermore, I believe the current view is that Bulgars were not originally Turkic (article seems to agree), so it does not make sense for the word to be derived from a Turkic language. According to Bulgarian scholars (who should care), the etymology of the name is somewhere between very controversial, and totally unknown. We should remove the whole name etymology sentence. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to throw wild guesses. Unless someone presents a viable referenced argument for the current etymology hypothesis, I will edit it out. --Bbugg 00:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bulgar (Bolgar) name seems to be driven from Volga river. I find the suggested etymology ("Bulgha" to mix) less likely.

NO. Volga comes from the Russian ways of pronouncing Bulga. The Bulgars settled there, hence the name. --Kaloyan* 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think etymologists agree that Volga is also derived from the Turkic for mix. Hope it helps.

Btw a friend of mine that graduated Turkology told me there is no word "bulgha" meaning "mix" in any Turkic language. In Bulgarian textbooks the name is explained with a totemistic origin. In Turkic languages bulga is a kind of small animal with valuable fur. So the "Bulgars" would be the "bulga hunters".

името българи има тотемен произход, т. е. свързва се с името на животното-прародител. Засвидетелствано е в различни варианти като булг-ан/а, булг-ин, булх-ън, булг-ар, бул-гачин, което на различни тюркски езици означава "белка, златка, самур". Или казано по друг начин, българи означава „ловци на самури" (История на България за 11 клас. С., Отворено общество, 1996 - автори: П. Делев, Г. Бакалов, П. Ангелов, Цв. Георгиева, Пл. Митев, Ст. Трифонов, Б. Василева, И. Баева, Е. Калинова)

Смешно е да се защитава енциклопедичността с голи гърди, а в същото време да се подхвърлят петърдобреви врели-некипели в стил "българи-арийци!". Само ще напомня, че ВСЕ ОЩЕ сериозната наука категоризира изследваните прабългарски глоси като тюркоезични и освен невежи спекулации, няма други доводи да се определи езикът на прабългарите като памирски или какъвто и да било друг.217.10.246.155 09:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would think twice before using "Отворено общество" (Open Society Institute) texts for anything, particularly concerning facts that might (or might not, as it usually is) have a "nationalist" ring to them. The institute is somewhat notorious for pushing their agenda when it comes to interpretations of history. It is very unfortunate, that such publications are actually used in some high schools in Bulgaria. On the subject of protobulgarian language, if you bothered to look at a list of non-slavic words, present in modern Bulgarian, you would discover that most words tend to appear much more closely related to Pashtu, than to any Turkic language. Refrain from posting in Bulgarian here, do so on my talk page. --Bbugg 19:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===================================

Otto Maenchen-Helfen: “The names of the Danube Bulgars offer an illustration of the pitfalls into which scholars are likely to stumble when they approach the complex problems of the migration period with their eyes fixed on etymologies. In spite of the labor spent on the explanation of Bulgarian names, since the thirties of the past century, there is hardly one name whose etymology has been definitely established. The name Bulgar itself is an example. What does it mean? Are the Bulgars "the Mixed ones" or "the Rebels?" Pelliot was inclined to the latter interpretation but thought it is possible that bulgar meant les trouveurs. Detschev challenged the Turkish etymology; he assumed that Bulgar was the name given to the descendants of the Attilanic Huns by the Gepids and Ostrogoths and took it for Germanic, meaning homo pugnax. Still another non-Turkish etymology has been suggested by Keramopoulos. He takes Bulgarii to be burgaroi, Roman mercenaries garrisoned in the burgi along the limes. Without accepting this etymology, I would like to point out that in the second half of the sixth century a group of Huns who had found refuge in the empire were known as fossalisii. Fossalum is a military camp.”

“In addition to the objective difficulties, subjective ones bedevil some scholars. Turkologists are likely to find Turks everywhere; Germanic scholars discover Germans in unlikely places. Convinced that all Bulgarians spoke Turkish, Nemeth offered an attractive Turkish etymology of Asparuch; other Turkologists explained the name in a different, perhaps less convincing way. Now it has turned out, that Asparuch is an Iranian name. Validi Togan, a scholar of profound erudition but sometimes biased by pan-Turkism, derived shogun, Sino-Japanese for chiang chun, "general," from the Qarluq title sagun. Pro-Germanic bias led Schonfeld to maintain, in disregard of all chronology, that the Moors took Vandalic names.” ---Sarmatian 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

İdel or Volga

Hi, I'm from Kazan and I can help you in this question!

Volga is Finnish for water. (Finnish tribes lived in Russia before Slavics and Turks). Tatars use İdel for Volga. So Volga is Finnish name. In native Tatar and Russian pronouncing bolğar do not sounds like volga^becose it's rr in the ending.

--Untifler 20:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I am a Bulgarian, who speaks Finnish, and I can tell you that Volga is not a word in Finnish. The Finnish word for water is vesi, and the sound combination lg is not present in Finnish at all. I'd bet on the Turkic origin of Volga.

--Bbugg 03:24, 30 Jul 2004 (EET)

I don't know about proposed etymologies for the name 'Volga', but what I do know is that although there is no such word as 'volga' in finnish, 'valka' is an old finnish word meaning something like 'to flow' or 'water' or the like, I'm not quite sure what. Although the word itself isn't in use in modern finnish, a derived word 'valkama', meaning something like a 'landing place for a boat' still sees some use, although many finns of today probably wouldn't understand it anymore. Similar words can, as far as I know, be found in related languages. Sorry for the anonymity, maybe I'll get bold and register myself and then come back to reference my claims, now you'll just have to take my word as a native speaker of finnish and student of general linguistics.

--85.156.175.175 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Kama river is absoulutely unclear. Some apologize that it derrivides from Komi ethnos. Intetrestingly, that Tatars foget their oun name for Kama (Çulman) and use Russian name Kama now.

--Untifler 20:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The name of Volga comes from the Russian/Slavic inability to pronounce the saound "shwa" in Bulga. That is how they pronounce Bulgaria even today. Volga was named after the Bulgars.

Madara horseman???

Da ne bi njakoj da e propusnal fakta 4e minalata godina arheolozi dokazaha trakijskija proizhod na madarskija konnik? Horata nameriha relef ot nadgrobna plo4a s absolutno syshtoto izobrazhenie. Taka 4e vyprosyt e priklu4en. Mozhe bi shte e dobre ako mahnete snimkata na konnika ot tazi statija i ja premestite v statija za trakite.

Ne si spomnqm da e dokazano sas sigurnost, 4e pametnikat e s trakijski proizhod, dokato tova ne stane, snimkata ostava. VMORO

Madara horseman should stay, unless hard references for alleged discovery of Thracian origins are presented. Please, use only English here! --Bbugg 00:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heil master, yes master... I can not imagine any "harder references" than having a Thracian tombstone with exactly the same image found. They had all this written in newspapers and shown on tv news last year. I believe the have the stelae in the National Museum right now. Come by and search for yourself. You don't expect me to snitch it and knock it in your forehead, do you?

See being arrogant would only bring you arrogance in exchange. I wouldn't use words like "alleged" when speaking to somebody about what he just said. 217.10.246.155 09:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We get the same sort of "discoveries" every year, some of them (few) end up accepted by science, however, the most of them do not. You heard something on TV a year ago and that is not an especially valid reason for changing the whole article. On top of it, it is quite hard to talk of any Thracians after 1 cent DC (as they were all Romanized) and the monument is officially dated to the 7th or 8th century DC. And, please, tone down your language, you are not at the market haggling about prices. VMORO

Sorry - wrong address. I am not the one that clumps legs and says what "should" and what "shouldn't". Anyway my tone is exclusively my concern. NOTE! I don't know you and I do not have any personal biases towards you.217.10.246.155 11:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Btw the market I go to has fixed prices, unfortunately ;)

With this attitude you are going straight towards being banned. You are in a public website where people are supposed to be polite to each other. If you have a problem with that, leave. VMORO

??? And what exactly in my words would you categorize as "rude"? To be banned or not is not my decision, yet my ban would be the most unfair ever on this site. I broke no rules, I ment to offend nobody. Or expressing disagreement is quite a reason for you? If people should be polite, make them ALL be polite. Being edifying is not a shortcut in that direction.217.10.246.155 12:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Btw I didn't even argue with you. Is jumping into fights your way to keep adrenalin high or what? :(

Pamirian origin

...a people of Central Asia, probably originally Pamirian, ...

I have the feeling (may be I'm wrong) that here Pamirian is reffering to some kind of ethnic group. If that is the case than the link should point to it and not to the mountain. Otherwise I don't see why it shoud stay there at all - they just stayed in Pamir some time or what? --Nk 12:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Pamirian version is absolutely inadequate - for centuries the Bulgarians lived in the area around the Black Sea - East, North and West of it.

--Shisharki 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Madara horseman is, beyond any doubt, early medieval relief and only vaguelly similar to Thracian horsemen. Thracians NEVER EVER had any rock reliefs where the Bulgars biult a whole city over the Madara cliff. Key argument of the Bulgarian origin of the Horseman is a/its close similarity to Sassanian horse reliefs b/ the ammunition of the horseman, which is not typical for the Tracian period - e.g. he has stirrup which was unknown to Thracians. Not to mention the fact that he has Persian haircut and the animals are depicted in Eastern manner, Thracians on the Balkans never met lions for example.[reply]

Madara horseman is, beyond any doubt, early medieval relief and only vaguelly similar to Thracian horsemen. Thracians NEVER EVER had any rock reliefs where the Bulgars biult a whole city over the Madara cliff. Key argument of the Bulgarian origin of the Horseman is a/its close similarity to Sassanian horse reliefs b/ the ammunition of the horseman, which is not typical for the Tracian period - e.g. he has stirrup which was unknown to Thracians. Not to mention the fact that he has Persian haircut and the animals are depicted in Eastern manner, Thracians on the Balkans never met lions for example.

Bulgars---originally Turkic or not Turkic

Wikipedia ,as a free encyclopedia, is used by many as a reference source. Thus, it should seek the objectivity and truth in its articles. However, in the article for Bulgars, the author, who I assume is from Bulgaria tried to impose his beliefs rather than the commonly accepted theory about the origin of the Bulgars. Even in the given external links, Bulgars or proto-Bulgars are described as a Turkic people, however according to the author they were most probably 'pamyrians'. I would like to ask what is the basis of these claims, are there any recent scientific and objective work which is strong enough to change the generally accepted view that Bulgars were Turkic? Otherwise, one may assume that this article is a product of so-called a "revisionist history", and serves the purpose of currently Slavic-speaking nation of Bulgaria to create a false history for the Bulgar tribe that they took their name from.

Occasionally I watch the debate here whether the Bulgars were Turkic or not. I'm wondering what evidence exists that indicates they were Turkic. Whatever evidence exists for that theory should be collected and put in the article. If no evidence exists, then it is hard to list Bulgars under the Turkic category. Decius 02:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is NO debate in serious scholarly circles. The early Bulgars were linguistically Turkic, regardless of whatever their genealogical origin may be. The works of M.I. Artamanov, Runciman, Peter Golden, David Christian, Omeljan Pritsak and D. Dmitrov (himself a Bulgarian) to name only a few, all conclude that the early Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, as do all serious linguists who have studied the topic. I have yet to see a single citation from VMORO or any other user to a serious work of linguistics that contains arguments for reclassifying the proto-Bulgar language as Iranic or part of any other language group. Unfortunately, the "debate", such as it is, is motivated largely by nationalist ideologues seeking to minimize Bulgarian associations with Turkic peoples. --Dzimmer6 02:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I often hear that "The Bulgars were Turkic", yet I rarely see evidence for that idea. It might just be an assumption. Unless many Bulgar names, etc., have been shown to be Turkic (which would be a strong indication). On the other hand, I have found a scholarly site that presents much evidence indicating that the Bulgars did not speak a Turkic language:[1]. This is based on a detailed study of old Bulgar inscriptions, which really are not apparently Turkic at all, except for some Turkic words thrown in here and there (and there are also Slavic words thrown in here and there). Decius 09:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are absolutely no evidences, no clues that the Bulgarians have any Turkic origin. But there are plenty of assumptions, drivven by different ideological goals for presenting the Bulgarians as a Turkic or Tatar or Mongol or Marsian tribe... --Shisharki 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree. Even Britanica states "...PROBABLY of Turkic origin". No hard evidence for the Turkic origin of the Bulgars. I have had lenghty discussion on this topic with people that know a lot. My conclusion is that they were both, as they assimilated various tribes along their migrations. Most importantly, the newer views on this matter are becoming increasingly accepted from contemporary scholars.

ooh Britanica, it must be true.. Not. I am not motivated by my religion to tell you that the Pro-Bulgars were not Turkic, whatever that means. They do however have a very strong connection with tribes that lived in that area around the 5 century. Originaly Bulgarians come from the west part of Tibet and are not related to Turkics. They did become related at a later time after they established the Great Bulgaria around the 6th century. For more info do your research and stop trusting internet sites. Me 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===================================

Refer to Ibn-Fadlan, 921AD: As participant in a diplomatic mission to the King of the Bulgars, Ibn-Fadlan provides detail account about the Bulgars, Vikings and Turkic tribes, among others. I this witness’ account there is noting to suggest any similarities between the Bulgars and the Turkic tribes.Sarmatian 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Turkic-Pamirian

Anthropological research of skeletons found in Bulgar burial mounds testify to an unusual diversity of anthropological types found there - roughly half of them are of Mongolian/Turanian origin, the other half are of Iranian origin + some are of Uralian/Finnish stock. Considering that the Bulgars evidently managed to assimilate a wide variety of other nomadic peoples (or may be they were themselves an amalgamation of different tribes), the question as to whether they were Turkic or Iranian becomes rather pointless. I am changing the article accordingly... VMORO 15:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they were Turkic or Iranian is not a "racial" classification; it is purely linguistic. And, as has been pointed out above, no competent linguist disputes that the Bulgar language was Turkic.--Rob117 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’m a professional linguist, now retired, and I am not in the least certain that the original language was Turkic. It was Turkic at one point, but many of us believe that it began as something else. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, claims the origin was Ugrian. In any case, no one is trying to rule Turkic origins out as a possibility ... but we believe there are other possibilities as well, some more likely than others. I don’t believe any competent linguist would support you and insist that Turkic was the only possibility. Moreover, it’s not really the linguistic question that you say it is. There is no proof that anything remains of the original language, whatever it may have been. The original language is a matter of conjecture, and the only thing that actually remains is DNA. In other words, nobody claims that the Modern Bulgarian language exhibits any Pamirian influence or retains any Pamirian features whatsoever (or Ugrian, as the case may be) ... the modern language developed out of Slavic, Turkic, and Balkan linguistic union influences, plus a few other minor sources that are well known. —Stephen 11:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. I was under the impression that the Iranian theory was a nationalist claim (as stated above) and I apologize.--Rob117 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From bulgaria.com:The origin and the homeland of the Bulgarian tribes have been an object of both past and present study and research. They have generated and are still generating many hypotheses and violent disputes. This is most likely to continue for a long time to come. The scarcity of clear and reliable sources could hardly be expected to be made up for. There is still one fool-proof fact which is that the Bulgarians' land of origin was in the highland regions of AItai in Siberia. Their language is related to the so-called Turko-Altai group. In other words, the Bulgarians belong to the same ethnolingual group as the Huns, the Avars, the Pechenegs and the Cumans, i.e., the peoples, parts of which are to flow into the Bulgarian nation between the 7th and 14th centuries. --Rob117 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROb, is this your last night's dream? There is no evidence supporting the pamirian story of the Bulgars. Are you saying that the Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Russian languages are also from that Turko-Altai group? Because I speak all of them - they are quite similar. --Shisharki 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no evidence. Read the whole discussion page and you'll see what I mean.--Rob117 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we can not be using bulgaria.com as it is not a valid sourse although I rather listen to them then some british writer. The probulgars come from western part of Tibet, and it is hard to prove so don't bug me on it. There is plenty on the internet about it. Me 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit the first paragraph yet...

While I'm pretty sure the Turkic origin is the most well-supported theory, if we put it up as the only possible one we're just going to get more nationalists who insist on an Iranian linguistic origin and no other putting up their unsourced POV. I've put up a tag asking for expert attention; if there are any professional historians or professional linguists who deal with this area, look over the article and correct as needed and cite your sources.--Rob117 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no evidences for Turkic or Tatar origin - just a bunch of bubble from some 'specialists' based on no real facts (artifacts or scripts) - just speculations and attempts for rewriting the history of the Bulgarians under the influence of the Soviet mission for placing all Eastern-European nations under a Slavic umbrella led by the Russians themselves. Yes, the article "Bulgars" needs a major repair. All pamirian-turkic-tatar-mongolian fairy-tales about the Bulgars' origin are not based on any true evidences or logical assumptions. Altering and rewriting the history is evident - it should not be allowed in this website. The article presents only one side of the story - the manipulated one and strongly misinformative. --Shisharki 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely ignorant statement. Will you at least bother to read the discussion above?--Rob117 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely ignorant comment - I don't read discussions based on altered and manipulated information - instead I'd prefer to make my own conclusions based on original sources, because i consider myself a human. As I said: There are no true evidences for turkic origin of the Bulgars - it is all manipulated information. Could anyone cite any source, please?--Shisharki 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy conspiracy theories, Batman! Sources are cited right at the bottom of the aricle.--Rob117 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the early Bulgars are not of Turkic origin why their leaders' title was "Khan" then? Bulgarians, Kazan Tatars, Chuvash and Bashkir people are all descendants of Bulgar Khanate, Bulgars were assimilated by Slavs, Finno-Ugric etc. people of the region. Chuvash language is accepted as a Turkic language and is seen as the only remain of the old Bulgar language. I can't understand why our Bulgarian fellows are being so quick-tempered about this issue, as a Turk, I don't see modern Bulgarians as Turks, it's clear that they are assimilated. Also there are some claims saying that "Bulgar" is derived from "Bel-Ogur" which is the western Turkic equivalent of eastern "Beş Oğuz" probably meaning a confederation Five-Tribes. I want to say a last thing, Turanism was popular among Bularian intellectuals after Balkan Wars. Orhanoglu 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Fellow, keep reading "sources" and believe them and accept them undoubtedly - I don't care how ignorant you will grow in your understanding of the History. Best Regards! --68.3.217.52 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bulgarile.narod.ru/

Orhanoglu, using the title 'Khan' in intself doesn't prove much. People borrow words and titles all the time. What makes you think that 'khan' was exclusively Turkic? Why did the Germans use the Roman title 'ceaser'(Keiser)? Note, that the Bulgarian rulers used 'khan' always in front of the name: Khan Asparuh, Khan Krum, Khan Sabin. Turkic rulers on the other hand always put it nehinf the name, i.e. Genghis Khan. --Kaloyan* 16:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to ask for an expert's opinion; however, I doubt that there is an expert who can decide the matter once and for all since there simply aren't enough fragments of the Bulgar language left to allow one or the other theory to be proven without doubt. I think all existing theories should be mentioned, with the possible addition that the Pamir/Iranian theory is more popular within Bulgaria, and the Turkic theory more popular outside. Preslav 13:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem lies on the fact that some people want to restrict their research according to their national instincts. Tt seems like they have this national pride which is affecting their further research by trying not to accept any theory that may link them to Turkic origins, or origins same with Turkic people. Bulgar people do not want to be referred as Turkic people (even EU legacy is linked to this notion) and all I read here is that there is no evidence. But also there is no evidence of them being not part of proto-Turkic people. If there was then there would be no discussion. In wiki it says "Bulgars are called as Huns, Sycthians but not as Turks" [[2]] but on the other hand if you read Turkish origins all these people are referred as proto-Turkic but again not accepted. We know that Huns had Turkic rulers but people doesn't have to be Turkic. If we take the ruling class as the origins of a nation then Huns should be Turkic. I am not sure about language theries but it seems like language now is the most relevant cultural identity to follow origins. If Bulgar language have Indo_european origin does it make them Indian origin. We have to look at other suggestions [[3]]that Indo-European language may derive from a super family such as Altaic Languages. I would assume migration routes, and place of origin is also a good argument since Hungarians like Bulgars are coming from Ural-Altay region and Hungarian is an Altaic language. Does anyone have an idea what writing system were Bulgars using prior to Greek or Cyrillic alphabet?--Kultegin 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title 'Khan' is totally invented. It was taken from the title “Canasjubigi” which was used only by 3 of tem, starting with Omortag of Bulgaria, and can be in an inscription with Greec letters. In the nominalia is used the title K’nas which everione can see is verry close to the title Knjaz. The title khan was invented form “Canasjubigi” only to fit in the turkish theory. Which, I must say, was serving a Soviet instruction to the Bulgarian Academy of Science from the year1948. I cannot citate it exactli ofcorce but the meaninng was ‘proto’bulgarians to be pronounced turkish under fier of lusing rights of partcipate in the academy. That’s how from “Canasjubigi” it became to Khan. The title khan exists in no historical documents. See please "The language of the Asparukh and Kuber Bulgars, Vocabulary and grammar" by Peter Dobrev http://www.kroraina.com/b_lang/index.html

He is a scientist in the Bulgarian Academy of Science and the last 30 years of his career he deals with the protobulgarians, their origin, language, habits and so on.

Peter Dobrev is not a scientist, he's a simple charlatan. The origin of the Bulgars is disputed, the Turkic hypothesis being so to say, traditional, and in addition there have been dozens of hypotheses of Finnish, Iranian, Pamirian etc. links. Strange nobody has mentioned Chinese and Sumerian yet, because I myself have heard 'scientists' claiming that it was Bulgars who buit the Great Wall and settled Messopotamia, so all Asia seems to have been populated by Bulgars once :) The point is, just make it clear in the article that there is a debate and that Turkic origin, while the most prevalent hypothesis, is still a hypothesis. And guys, why do you bother to read Wikipedia and post on the discussion page since you don't even speak decent English - 'under fier of lusing rights of particpate in the academy' is simply brilliant. Feanor

Your silly jokes are useless! Of course Peter Dobrev is a scientist! If specialists from BAS (“Bulgarian Academy of Science”) are not scientists then who is???

bulgars

I recomend the book Constantinople.It describes the bulgars fairly often. Much of the information can be used to enhance the article.

Chinese sources

I see this discussion is getting more and more interesting so I decided to put a link here to an article, published in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51(1998), 69-83, by Sanping Chen, a chinese scholar. Here`s the link: [4]

I think the article throws some light on the origin of the Bulgars, and at least presents the (ancient) Chinese point of view on this matter. Anyway, it`s worth reading.--Misho9991 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the server is down. Here`s another link: [5]--Misho9991 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic Fantasies of some extremist Nationalists have to stop, the Bulgar's were Turkic, let's stop the denial

-- Some Bulgarian extremist nationalists have come across a fact in their history which they just can't bare. As their nationalism is based upon anti-Ottomanism they find it hard to stomach that the "Bulgars" were Turkic.

Now, let's get down to the facts.

Bulgar's were and most importantly ARE Turkic and un-assimilated Bulgar's exist today in the Volga Bulgaria, they speak Turkic and retain their heritage. Just search Chuvash and Volga Tatar.

The origin of the "Bulgar's" is Central Asia.

Some Bulgar's spread and took control of the area of what is today modern Bulgaria.

Throughout time the Bulgar's were assimilated into the majority population and only the name Bulgar-ia remains.

The attempts of some extremist nationalists of the country "Bulgaria" is to try and create this long ancient glorious history in which the "Bulgars" are their ancestors. However, the Bulgar's being Turkic doesn't fit this ideal so they try to invent the most outlandish theories that the actual Bulgars, that the Turkic Bulgar's who still retain their history and heritage are actually "Iranic".

This theory has no credibility and no base. It revolves around the flimsy account of Herodotus calling some Bulgars Scythians, it is very well known that Herodotus lumped all Eastern Nomads into one grop called Scythians.

Wikipedia cannot allow this laugable theory to be included, it is nothing but pseudo-history.

--Johnstevens5 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth worth more than a thousand lies! You can’t generalize Origin based on no evidence and faulty information.

The subject of the Ethnic Origin of the Bulgars is been controversial for many years now.
However there are several different theories , and none of them have been proven definitive.

Some claim that they are of Turkic Origin ,which arose doubts and controversies, since there is no objective evidence to support it.

Other Historians lately claim that Bulgars are of Iranian descent, based on resent archeological research and facts.--Ortis12 03:50, 9 September 2007

I do not know who you are, but your anger is very suspicious. How can you be so sure? The Turkic “theory” is obviously wrong and is going to the past no matters do you like it or not! And the argument – “extremist nationalists” is just silly! And it is not the oldest theory! And the Iranian theory is not new at all! It is exactly your closed eyes that “Wikipedia cannot allow”!

Chuvash and Volga Tatar Are Chuvash and Volga Tatar not Bulgars!

“Some Bulgar's spread and took control of the area of what is today modern Bulgaria.Throughout time the Bulgar's were assimilated into the majority population and only the name Bulgar-ia remains.” This is nonsense – this is the Russian silly pan-Slavic version and it is political! It is time to go to the garbage where it belongs!

Remove the reference to the O. Maenchen-Helfen's book

This entire article is completely messed up. It contradicts one of the most diligent study of the subject, the work of O. Maenchen-Helfen. Sarmatian 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===================================

"Culture and society" blunders

“The Bulgars were governed by hereditary khans…” - No sufficient findings exists to conclude that the Bulgarian rulers used this title. “…the titles of the steppe peoples do not reflect the nationality of their bearers. A kan, kagan, or bagatur may be a Mongol, a Turk, a Bulgar; he may be practically anything.” - Maenchen-Helfen ---Sarmatian 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“the fact that the Bulgars had a typical Turkic religion (e.g. see Tangra)” and "... worshipping the Turkic Sky god Tangra." – What are the sources used to write such an ignorant conclusion? ---Sarmatian 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“artificial skull deformation” – such deformation had been practiced by many other tribes at the time, including the Goths, which suggests influence and certainly not origin. Sarmatian 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Bulgar’s language classification

Maenchen-Helfen provides an extensive analysis of the Bulgar-Chuvash language and his conclusion is exactly the opposite to “The oldest and more widely accepted theory” presented by Wiki’s writing. Some quotes: “In Hunnish, which developed into Bulgar-Chuvash, *iis-lil, *iis-til-a must have meant grosse Wassermenge, grosser Fluss, grosses Meer. The name Attila, for example, seems to offer neither phonetic nor semantic difficulties. Attila is formed from Gothic or Gepidic; atta, "gather," by means of the diminutive suffix -ila. However some scholars, impressed by the similarity of Attila to Atil, the Turkish name of the Volga, equated the two names without concern for their phonetic and semantic relationship.” and “…one cannot help marveling at the boldness with which the problem of the Hunnish language has been and still is being attacked.” ---Sarmatian 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===================================

Remove “migration form Central Asia” blunder

“migration form Central Asia” and “[Bulgars] Swept by the Hunnish wave … from their settlements in central Asia…” - here is a short story about the beginning of this confusion:

In the 1750’s, the French Orientalist Joseph de Guignes identified the Huns with the Hsiung-nu described in the Chinese records. Until the 1940’s, the identity of the European Huns with the Hsiung-nu on China’s borders was rarely questioned. As no one doubted that the Hsiung-nu were Mongoloids, the Huns must have been Mongoloids too. These assumptions however have never been proven by paleoanthropological finds to reconstruct the routs over which the Huns migrated into Eastern Europe.

The answer given by A. N. Bernshtam in 1926 was for widely accepted: In the last century B.C., Hsiung-nu were supposed to have moved to eastern Middle Asia and from there spread westward. Bernshtam’s thesis centered on a catacomb in the cemetery on the Kenkol River in the Upper Talas Valley. Bernshtam excavated kurgan 10. “In the catacomb,” he wrote, “lay two Mongoloid skeletons with deformed skulls; the skeletons in the dromos were Europoids, apparently slaves from the local population of the Pamiro-Fergana race.” Bernshtam was an excellent and indefatigable excavator, but he wrote in too great haste, reconstructing whole periods of world history on the narrowest foundations. His interpretation of the Kenkol finds is the telling example. The two Mongoloids became in no time Turkish-speaking Hsiung-nu, and the Europoids in the dromos Wu-sun slaves. Because the Mongoloids were buried in catacombs, all catacombs burials in Middle Asia were declared Hsiung-nu burials. The shepherds from Kenkol were the missing link between the Hsiung-nu in Mongolia and the Huns in Central Europe.

Later excavations made Berhshtam’s interpretation questionable as early as 1940. Gryaznov proved that the ‘slaves’ in the dormos belong to a secondary burial. A closer study of the Chinese annals also argued Bernshtam’s thesis and the assumed connection between Hsiung-nu and the Huns.

Bulgars were the brain and the generator behind the Hunnish associations and their migration paths should not and cannot be reviewed separately. It is certain that the Bulgars inhabited different areas around the Black Sea literal and it would be safer to stick around with opinions like 'Beyond them [the Acatziri] extend above the Pontic sea the territories of the Bulgars, whom the punishments of our sins have made notorious. After these the Huns, like a cluster of mighty races, have spawned twofold frenzied peoples.” – Jordanes, then jump bravely in the past with assumptions like the “Pamirian” one. From the Black Sea literal we have old enough knowledge about the Bulgars' adobe, as old as the origin of the Germanic and the Slavic tribes for example. ---Sarmatian 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===================================

The Bulgarian Princes’ List - remove "khans" from the reference

The Bulgarian Princes’ List is a very important document that provides detail information about number of the Bulgarian monarchs after the migration period. It I also know as “The Nominalia of the Bulgarian Princes” and the “List of Bulgarian monarchs”.

Some Wiki enthusiast however, desided to add the title “khans”. Please, remove that ridiculous invention. ---Sarmatian 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===================================

Or perhaps we should remove all the article :) Chapultepec 08:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian origin

I have been researching about the Iranic people and by chance I met some bulgarian people. Its very interesting that in the zhargon language which is the sreet language in bulgaria, too many Iranic words and frases are used. In some Iranian and Islamic works, Bulgars are related to the hephtalites. Hephtalites or the wite huns where a confedration of saka or scythian tribse with some hunnic or mongoloid. This has been told by travelers in the Balkh and Bactra aria at the time. In Iranian language when they want to indicate a home less person they say alakhon and valakhon, which is derived from the triball names of alxon an valxon, and as I read once thies names have been used by Bulgars. The same thing is about the word avare which has been taken from Avar. This is because when persian Shahanshah Khosro Anushirvan who grow up as a hostage at the hephtalites defeatet the heftalites, they fled westwards and did not settel for many years untill ther riched the northern black sea and eastern europe.

On the origin of the title Khan I have to say that it was driven from the word Ghan or gan like in khodaygan or bozorgan in persian, meaning graetnes. The turks where subjects to the hephtalites and they helped the persians to defeat the hephtalites.

The name Bulgar would be a transformation Of Bactra, Balhara, Balhar or Balkh, Indicating the aria in centralasia and northern Pamir. The bulgar words are too similar with the iranic and sanskrit.

Khan

My edit was meant to avoid the implication/statement that other forms of the title than "kanasubigi" are attested. While the form "kanasubigi" is generally assumed to mean/include "khan"/"kan", (hence Bulgarian rulers of the time are widely termed "hereditary khans" as the source states), "khan"/"kan" alone has not been attested as a title for the supreme ruler. If you believe that it has been attested, I think that claim needs to be sourced (one can only prove that something exists, not that something doesn't exist). The fact is rather well-known among Bulgarians discussing the issue. My secondary sources are in Bulgarian: first of all, this article and the Bulgarian wikipedia. While the fact is usually pointed out by opponents of the Turkic origin theory (such as the author of the first article), this and this chapter from a Bulgarian (pro-Turkic origin) historian show the same thing. The first one explains how "kanasubigi" was originally analysed as "kanas" + "ubigi", not on the basis of an attested Bulgar title kan, but on the basis of the general Turkic one. The same analysis is present here. The second one contains the author's own analysis as "kana" + "subigi". This shows that the title is not attested alone (even its form - kana/kanas? - is unclear). Finally, if you aren't satisfied with the above, here is a primary source: this is a complete list of Bulgar inscriptions in Greek (the Bulgar language ones are few and haven't been deciphered in a satisfactory way) with translations into Bulgarian. You are welcome to search through the list for occurrences of kana, without subigi, translated as "khan" (Bulgarian кан or хан), as a title for a Bulgarian ruler.

Note: considering your nationality, and to avoid unnecessary chauvinistic tensions, I want to point out that I, personally, am one of the few Bulgarians who are more inclined to accept the Turkic origin theory, as you can find out by looking at my previous edits to related topics. --91.148.159.4 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubts for your honesty. What we try to find is the truth only. But the source, namely "East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500", is reading that the title of khan was used until they accepted Christianity. Are you really sure that all these are based on the title kanasubigi? And, if it's possible, could you supply some serious sources in English that support the changes? Chapultepec 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, but I doubt I can find much in English (maybe some articles advocating Iranian origin). I agree it's pretty strange that people just took for granted that "kanasubigi = khan", but I am pretty sure it's true, having read most of the available sources and quite a number of articles. The Byzantines just didn't try to render the native forms of Bulgar titles, so we have no other knowledge about them but the one in the Bulgars' own inscriptions (see above).

When the source you are giving says that the title of khan was used until the adoption of Christianity, it merely repeats the most standard theory, which in turn is based on the assumption of Bulgarian historians that: 1. the title of those three guys (kanasubigi), attested in the inscriptions, was also the traditional Protobulgar title used by all Protobilgar rulers until the adoption of the Christian Slavic literature (where knjaz is used); 2. the title "kanasubigi" is equal to "khan". The reason I tried to edit this is that the previous wording suggested the existence of two separate titles - khan and kanasubigi. In fact, even in traditional Turkic-origin discourse, these were always assumed to be the same, and the usual forms were supposed to be "khan (s)ubigi" or something similar. --91.148.159.4 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems convincing. But I have an objection for a sentence you changed in your last edit. Before the change the sentence was:

"However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the term "Turk" was not used either exclusively, or particularly, for a certain, well-defined people, until much later".

After the change the new version of the sentence was:

"However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the use of the term "Turkic" in ancient documents does not necessarily coincide with its use in modern linguistics and anthropology".

Of course the second sentence is also true, but it differed from the previous version by meaning and it seems a bit gibberish. The previous version was more explanatory to my mind. Shall we make changes on that?

Chapultepec 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version seems a little ambiguous to me. It can be read as emphasizing that "Turk" didn't mean "citizen of Turkey/the Ottoman Empire" (a single people), and that it could also mean Turkmens, Tatars, and many other Turkic peoples. But how does this help us explain the fact that ancient historians differentiated between Bulgars and Turks? The only meaningful interpretation I can think of is that this is supposed to mean the same as my version. That is, "Turk" could be used in a way that didn't include the Bulgars. For example, the Bulgars presumably spoke a very special, divergent branch of the Turkic languages (perhaps they weren't mutually intelligible at all, as in the case of modern Chuvash) and this might have prevented ancient authors from identifying their language as Turkic. In contrast, modern linguistics can identify Chuvash as Turkic. --91.148.159.4 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Turk" is the nominal form not only of "Turkish" but also of "Turkic". It can be used for both. But if you like we can change the sentence to "However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the term "Turkic" was not used either exclusively, or particularly, for a certain, well-defined people, until much later". Or we can use the original version but link the term "Turk" to "Turkic peoples". Both of them is possible. Chapultepec 15:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "a certain, well-defined group of peoples"? --91.148.159.4 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, let me do it. Chapultepec 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure working with you. :) --91.148.159.4 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Best wishes... Chapultepec 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Picture

Is the first picture of Bulgars massacring pilgrims really appropriate as the first picture in a culture page? That would be tantamount to placing a KKK lynch picture on the WASP culture page.--Exander 08:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, and yes, you're right. Skitnik 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Dear Ortis12, please do not try to remove a large part of the article without giving plausible reasons, otherwise it is considered vandalism. And the theory you try to add already takes place in the article as the Iranian theory with a more serious and scientific writing style. Thank you. --Chapultepec 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One truth worth more than a thousand lies.

You cant generalise Origin based on no evidence and foulthy information. And the Bulgarian history is ancsient and glourious anyway ,there is no need to "create" that .It is already a fact accessible for everyone who can read!

The subject of the Ethnic Origin of the Bulgars is been controversial for many years now. However there are several different theories , and none of them have been proven definitive. Some claim that they are of Turkic Origin ,which arose doubts and controversies, since there is no objective evidence to support it. Other Historians lately claim that Bulgars are of Iranian descent, based on resent archeological research and facts.

--User:ortis12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortis12 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I try to say exactly. Here is not the place for romantic edits, only the serious and scientific-based edits should take place. And of course these theories should be well-referenced by serious academical sources. According to the current situation these two theories take place in the article along with their references. And the theory you try to add already takes place in the article as the Iranian theory with a more serious and scientific writing style. And if you have serious and unbiassed academical references you can come up with those ones. Thank you. --Chapultepec 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please discuss the matter here before reverting and adding information not referenced with serious academical sources? Thank you. --Chapultepec 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please discuss the matter here instead of writing the same things all the time? And would you please provide your scientific/academic references to support your claims? Thank you. --Chapultepec 04:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ill provide you with some of the academic sources as soon as some translation is made. Several of them are chronicles but I believe that those should be present as well in order to introduce the subject objectively. My point here is that the generalizing that you have made is outdated and completely misleading, peoples assumption it’s been changed and this is the actual vandalism!--Ortis12 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, then I can make some re-arrangements in the article until the translations are made. And I would much appreciate your proving me why my generalizing is outdated, of course with the help of third-party scientific/academic references. And I hope henceforth you will be more productive and positive instead of removing the whole section of the article. Meanwhile you can have a look at the newly added references, so you can easily catch that this generalizing is a common one. Thanks. --Chapultepec 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this article, here are some sources and reference materials. Also I am providing links to a resent documentary exploring the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, initiated from The Bulgarian Academy of Science and executed from The National Museum of History. The series present extensive research and facts that leads to overall Indo-European decent of the Bulgars.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mbDWxVHX2oE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FDP74VBLIRo

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3cRNhAFeK5E

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p9PKlMo8_f8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZLefXDENfjc

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b-dFsPKXX7I

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DdW6bj89VOQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=18-wn4eNb7c

http://youtube.com/watch?v=A_p610o_Ln4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5Koqz-tzDYw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vQHf8DKv-f8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ypmkd6BJFbg

http://www.ancient-bulgaria.com/index.php?s=Bulgars

http://www.historymuseum.org/collection.php

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42723/Bulgaria

http://www.rodoved.info/bg003.htm

http://www.search.com/reference/First_Bulgarian_Empire

http://www.mfa.government.bg/history_of_Bulgaria/

http://protobulgarians.com/

http://www.bgrod.org/sydyrjanie.php

--Ortis12 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ortis12, so far as I know YouTube is not a scientific or academic source. I watched the episodes. This is a Bulgarian documentary from the Bulgarian TV. And the other web pages except Britannica are all Bulgarian websites. What I meant was independent scientific or academic sources. I complied with this rule so far. And so far as I can see, only the Britannica link within your sources is an independent scientific reference. So I will take it into account. But let's not forget, these two are Britannica sources as well: Bolgar Turkic and Bulgar. Thanks. --Chapultepec 17:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]