Talk:Dulo clan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bulgaria (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Link to Dulo[edit]

@PavelStaykov: I saw that you relinked Dulo. Since that goes to the disambiguation page Dulo, how does that help the reader? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@PavelStaykov: Changing the link to Dulo clan is circular. It goes back to the same page, taking the reader nowhere. In fact the software recognizes that and doesn't even show it as a link.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Some comments about the truth on Wikipedia and the Truth[edit]

obviously it is not worth writing articles on Wikipedia. There are too many wooden philosophers that intentionally use Wikipedia to spread wrong and prejudiced ideas. Knowledge is not a water to pore it into a bucket.

About the so called original research :  - p. 62

The Utigurs of this message (J. R. Hamilton identifies this name with the name of a tribe Utiger in the Rashid ad-Din list of nine Uigur tribes) [Hamilton, 1962, p. 35, 38, 42] are mentioned by Pliny (VI, 39) as the Uti tribe, associated with Aorses. E. Pulleyblank identifies Uties as Uechji (Pin. Yuezhi) tribe [Puleyblank, 1966, p. 18]. There are parallel records about Uechji (Pin. Yuezhi)/Uti far in the east, in the basin of the Edzin-gol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 15:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The so called editors here even don't read carefully the cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 15:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Editors don't always and immediately have time reading the sources when are working also on other articles, and your unrespectful behaviour towards other editors (also discussion on your talk page) and improper citing of sources is not helping a thing. That are just scholars theoires and need to be treated so, and the whole topic about Bulgars origin is far more complex than you can grasp without obvious dull simplification. Moreover, the article is about the Dulo clan, not Bulgars per se, and actually is significantly written as an original research. I advise to stay away from the article for a period of time, and let other editors to properly review the article.--Crovata (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Staykov, the Bulgars, and the Dulo, were part of the left division of the Western Turkic Khaganate, while the Khazars, led by a member of the clan Ashina, were associated with the right division of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, i.e they had common roots and common Turkic origins. Check: The Making of the Slavs, Florin Curta, Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 1139428888, p. 209. By the way, the population ancestral to the Turkic language speakers is thought to have included the Xiongnu as known from historical sources. The Han Dynasty chronicle of the Xiongnu of the 2nd century BCE, traces their legendary history, back a thousand years before the Han, to a legendary tribe called Chunwei, that is often identified with the proto-Huns. (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

on this page (209) there is no such information - they (Bulgars) had common roots and common Turkic origins. On which line exactly are you reading this? It says that Bulgars lead by Dulo..., the leading clan of the West divinsion and.... - the meaning is obvious - it says because Bulgars were subjugated by the West Turks, they form the left division of this qaganate. It is the same as if to say that because the Greece were conquered by the Ottomans in the 16 CAD and form the western part of their empire, that the Greeks are Ottoman Turks. This is a manipulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 01:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also check this this footnote 37:

Given the MC forms of Dulu, it is highly unlikely that it has any association with the ruling clan of the Bulğars, the Dulo (Доуло) of Qubrat, the founder of Magna Bulgaria, noted in the Bulgarian Prince List. ...... but a Dulo-Dulu connection, however appealing as a legitimating source for Bulgar kingship, cannot be established on the basis of our current data.

Making associations based on similar sounding of the words is called SPECULATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 01:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Dulo -> Bulgars->Huns->Yuezhi connection is missing.[edit]

To Croata ( and probably others)

Your version of the article does not serve the main purpose to which every Encyclopedia should stick : to tell the reader the truth. You are circling around the well-imposed wrong thesis that:

  Bulgars(and Dulo) were Huns and hence they were Turks from Xiongnu, a small nomadic war-
  like group that came from Mongolia and dissolved into the Slavic sea.

However this hypothesis is wrong because it can't explain several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader:

1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars and Dulo) were Xiongnu, you have removed that information :

   Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and ethnographic proximity 
   between European Huns and Xiongnu. 
   Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the continuity of 
   European Huns from Xiongnu.


2. There is no convincing evidence that the language was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived, indeed, they seem to be Turkic, but to judge from this that the hole nation was Turkic is too naive. You are telling me that I confuse the reader, but I don't think so. The readers are not weak-minded. You have removed this information. WHY?

3. You have removed the connections Vokil->Yuezhi, Utrigurs-> Yuezhi supported by academic sources. WHY?

4. You have removed the information that in modern Bulgarian language there are many tocharian words. WHY?

5.You have removed the information that European Huns can be traced back to North China by artificial circular type cranial deformation. WHY? It is supported by reliable sources. Both Yuezhi and Bulgars did practice circular type cranial deformation.

6. You have removed the information about the genetic tests from a reliable scientific source. It clearly states:

   A) a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian people
   B) paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Central Asian Turkic-speaking 
   populations either did not exist or was negligible  

Encyclopedia Britanica do states this information. WHY it shouldn't be presented to the readers of Wikipedia?

7. You have removed the information about archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and similar necropolises in Kazakhstan dated from I BC till III AD when Yuezhi lived there. WHY ?

Summing all these 7 points taken together show that:

   European Huns (and Bulgars and Dulo) originate from the pre-Turkic Indo-European   
   population from northern China and particularly from the people known to the Chinese as     
   Yuezhi. During their movement (from 2 BC till 4 AD) to Europe they were influenced by 
   different groups of people, especially Turkic and Iranian groups. 

Readers are not foolish and and they will make their own conclusions if the proper information is presented. And that is the purpose of Wikipedia - to present all available information, not to hide it.

I agree that this information is relevant for the article "Bulgars", but it is also relevant for the article "Dulo". This information is not my original research, it is presented in this book

Because you are more experienced in Wiki I will leave you to write the article including all the 7 points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 23:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavel, half of the text you mentioned was original research (or looked like due to bad citing), or from unknown scholars, or minor hypothesis, or just a scholars POV of many scholars POV, everything against WP:NPOV how the article on Wikipedia actually should be written. The article was in a bad shape, it dealt more about Bulgars then the Dulo clan. For the Bulgars (and Utrigurs) and their origin there exist Bulgars and related articles. The article was not concise and to the point, it was a mess without the basic form from which could have been further constructively work upon. I already answered you on all this 7 points. They are loose and highly speculative evidence for such a direct association. They tell more about the heterogeneity of the Eurasian Steppe people (and Huns, Bulgars) than the fictive homogeneous direct ancestry of the Bulgars from the Yuezhi which scholars have yet to confirm and generally accept as a plausible theory.
Yes, the purpose of Wikipedia is to present the available information according its weight and relation, and the readers, in the search to more information, will read the article on Bulgars and related topics where their origin and other aspects are further explained. Those 7 points won't be added here because are not related anyhow with the Dulo clan. There is almost no information on the Dulo clan, what it was, from where and whom it originates, and the exact connection and meaning of the relation with the Bulgars. For now, in the current revision basic lines, it only points again back to the Western Turks and Xiongnu. You're contradicting yourself as far I know, on Yuezhi article there's no mention of Yuezhi cranial deformation practice, there's evidence and space to associate the Huns with Xiongnu, and that the European Huns can be traced back to North China just furtherly proves the Eastern (Turkic, Mongoloid) origin of both Huns and Bulgars (watch what you say!).
Further information, which deals only about the Dulo clan, is being searched and will be added to the article. Those 7 points, as well other about "sticks" being "arrows", etymology of the Bulgars name, will not be added, but neither forgotten and soon when will have time will be accordingly cited and corrected in the related articles. Please don't post this same wall of information on related articles talk page. If you have any further question, or better to say, saw a reliable source, theory, or some info correction of the Bulgars article not mentioned before, mention them on your talk page. I will read them and reply.--Crovata (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have have questions. You should have. Obviously you have little knowledge on the history of Central Asia. Or, better to say - you intentionally pretend that you don't have this knowledge. Why should I not post these 7 points? Are you afraid of the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 01:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't have any questions or constructively and politely to say, then refrain from such statements.--Crovata (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The first known mention of the term Turk applied to a Turkic group was in reference to the Göktürks in the 6th century. The Göktürks rulers originated from the Ashina clan, who were first attested to 439. (Wikipedia) Bulgars (Utrigurs and Kutrigurs and their rulers from Dulo) were present at that time in Eastern Europe, 10 000km away, as part of the European Huns. Stating in the articles intro that there is a connection, without proving it, is speculative and misleading to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 05:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavel, what your edits and behaviour became is just pure abuse and vandalism of Wikipedia. You don't know anyhow Wikipedia works, or even normal and simple essay. Your edits are nor proving nor helping the reader, or students and scholars. Those source considerations are fringe or with loose reliability, and there exist beter sources by more relevant academic scholars. And what's more important, what those sources say is totally unrelated to the article!--Crovata (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Crovata, I can say the same for you. I don't deny that my essay writing is not very good, I am a physicist after all. But I am good in research and I think I have found your "Turkic" connection. I wonder whether to tell you, it is much back in time, when there were no Turks and Bulgars. If you are so concern about the reader, then tell me how it helps to state in the article intro euphemistic phrases like "activity of the western Turks" and "tribes of Turkic extraction" (in Bulgars article)? Bulgars appear after the crumbling of Attila's empire as a union of Hunnic tribes Utrigurs and Kutrigurs (and possibly other tribes) and the only certain connection with the western Turks is that Utrigurs were conquered by Western Turks for 30-40 years period in the beginning of the 7th century AD. I suggest to remove this from article intro, and also the connection with Attila - it is not known for sure. Such hypothesis exist, they are widely discussed in the literature and should be presented to the reader, but not in the article intro. Your way of presenting the information is also not very correct : the royal family of Bulgaria ...claimed Attilid descend. How do you know that they were claiming Attlid descend? It is only an assumption. If they were claiming this, at least they would try to write the precise name of Attila in the Nominalia, not to put the meaningless (for us) name Avitohol.

The next "constructive" thing I have objection : the sentence (in the first paragraph in Research history) :

   Steven Runciman considered the connection possible, but suspicious and 
   unimportant if the link between Irnik-Ernak is confirmed.

No such thing in the Runciman book. Runciman clearly states that he thinks Avitohol as mythical ancestor, and there hardly be any doubt that Irnik and Ernak are the same person. This sentence is confusing to the reader.

Next, second paragraph in Research history, the sentence

     Vasil Zlatarski thought the identification between Irnik and Ernak 
     pointless, and they were two different persons.

Related information is only on pages 79-80, not pages 68-76 (incorrect citation), nowhere Zlatarski says he thinks identification is pointless, also he doesn't state that he thinks they were two different persons, what he says is that "Irnik is a descendant of the old Bulgarian kin Dulo, and if he was a son of Attila it would be written (somewhere) and vise-versa - we would know that Attila was from Dulo kin" The logic of quoted sentence is good but not justified, or as Runciman says, there is no reason why we should know Attila’s surname. Anyway, Zlatarski, on the cited pages actually states that we don't have documents stating that Attila belonged to Dulo family, it is obvious that he has doubts if Attila belonged to Dulo, but he doesn't actually state he thinks them (Irnik and Ernak) different persons, what he says, in a nutshell, is that there are no documents about this. I would suggest to paraphrase this sentence according to this information, possibly this way:

   Zlatarski thinks that if Attila was from Dulo familly we would have       
   documents survived ( or sth like this)

The word "allegedly" in the second paragraph should be removed - if it is used in connection with Zlatarski - on the same page 80, lines 5 and 6 Zlatarski clearly says: "the Bulgarian state on the Balkan peninsula was founded from the eastern branch of the Bulgarian Huns, Utrigurs, a fact that is accepted by everyone".

Here is my Personal Point of View ( I admit) : Zlatarski is beating around the bush and he tries to connect Attila's Huns with the Kutrigurs, not the Utrigurs, as if Utrigurs were some noble Huns (because they founded Bulgarian state), and Kutrigurs, the bad Huns, are not so very important to us, after all they stayed in Pannonia in the 8th century and joined Bulgarian state in the begging of the 9th century. Many Bulgarian historians, and common people, do not accept the connection with Attila (and with the Huns) because they think it is shameful, after all, Attila was a war-like idiot, a marauder who extorted gold from the Romans. The truth cannot be shameful - Vandals were no better than the Huns.

The information from the 3rd paragraph in Research History should be moved into articles intro - it is well established and documented. Also it tells the reader about the later rulers from the Dulo family, it is important and it should be extended even further with more facts. Avitohol and Irnik, no matter how interesting they are, are only two names in the Nominalia, there are other names also.

The information in the paragraph Origin is presented in a bias way, accentuating on the Turkic hypothesis too much. It even conclude in the end that "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" as if it is known for sure. Just to start with, this article is about Dulo, not the Bulgars (your own point). Second, there are other theories, why don't you try to present them in a proper way? I agree to some extent that Iranian Theory is somewhat based on anti-Turkish sentiments in Bulgaria, but such connection exist, many of the names of Huns have Iranian origin, and you cannot deny this. And, since you concluded with so bold statement "Bulgars were Turks", try to explain the genetic test, not to hide them, and to say that I vandalize the article. They are presented in Encyclopedia Britannica. This paragraph should be connected with the origin of the Huns, Bulgars were Huns, and the early rulers of Dulo family were Huns. The Turkic connection exist, but it is through the origin of the Huns. Also, your presentation is equating Volga Bulgars with Danube Bulgars, and there are many differences between them (as Volga Bulgars didn't practice artififcial cranial deformation). It is possible that the language of Volga Bulgars was quite different from the language of the Danube Bulgars. As Maenchen-Helfen says (page 378)

  " Utigurs and Kutrigurs spoke the same (Hunnic) language. Same does not      
  necessarily mean identical. Vandalic was certainly close to Gothic
  but not the same"

The sacred animal was not a dog, but a similar animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 00:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also cited sources 19,20 and 24-28 are unaccessible online, can you kindly post here the paragraphs proving that there is a connection dulu tribes(of Western Turks) - Dulo clan of Bulgars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavel, when someone is good in research then he has a substantial knowledge about the topic, and knows the difference between fringe, outdated or unreliable sources and theories, or in short, has a neutrality criteria and does not abuse Wikipedia with his own POV. As first, you added those sources by Zlatarski (1918) and Runciman (1930). Their thoughts can be considered outdated, for example their considerations of Utigurs Bulgars founding First Bulgarian Empire or Old Great Bulgaria is wrong (Onogurs Bulgars did), or arguing securely how Onogurs, Kutrigurs and Utigurs were Hunnic tribes, while there were known circa 4 Hunnic tribes among which those weren't included and appeared much later. You removed what modern scholars generally consider (calling that junk), yet left outdated Zlatarski and Runciman considerations, do you know how delusional and wrong that is? Yes, their considerations can be paraphrased in short like that, and instead of citing "impossible" I wrote "pointless" due to copyright and that "impossible" is just too overwhelming. You obviously don't know what Turks mean, from where those Turkic-speaking warrior tribes came and their relation to Altaic-Turks, neither about genetics and how it is important compared to culture, politics and its role within tribal confederations. You don't accept that modern scholars emphasize relation of Dulo clan with the Dulo Turkic tribes, a problem far more complex that you can imagine besides stupidly oversimplifying and relating Bulgars with everyone else besides Turks or Huns. There's almost none evidence that proves Bulgars were anything else as much as Turks by culture. That's a fact. Genetically, they were a heterogeneous confederation which included a mass of different clans and tribes. That's a fact. Your own original research and personal POV, especially if is wrong and narrowed, as fringe theories like Kingdom of Balhara, have no value and importance for discussion, far from it for Wikipedia. You were lucky administrators were busy with other more serious cases to no be blocked, and if you continue to unconstructively edit Wikipedia and waste everyone's time you'll be reported again.--Crovata (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Crovata, all this is just a general speech, things that you guys with humanitarian education are used to. Since you are so versed in this matter, then explain to me with 10-20 sentences who were the Bulgars and from where they came? I don't deny that modern scholars emphasize relation of Dulo clan with the Dulo Turkic tribes, I simply think it is wrong. Or paste here paragraphs from these books that you are citing - they are not accessible online. What you call my original research is presented in the books of Stamatov and Voinikov -they are available online and you can read them with Google Translate ( I suppose you don't know Bulgarian). They are not very famous, esp abroad, but they are Historians after all with 20-30 years experience in this field. There are fringe theories and fringe theories. This kingdom of Bulhara is not even a fringe theory, it is too childish. What's wrong to be presented here with 7-8 sentences? Similar ideas were proposed by Yu. Zuev long time ago. This theory could explain all 7 experimental facts, including the Turkic substrate in Bulgarian culture. And what you are calling Turk culture is actually nomadic culture. What do you care more - to present the most generally accepted theory, or one that is not accepted but probably true? And don't threaten me that you will report me, I get stubborn in such cases. What is this? A couple of guys are writing Wikipedia, A Wiki clan, and no one else is supposed to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 16:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavel, there's no simple explanation. Read the whole Bulgars article and you will (hopefully) understand something, and do not even try to edit and add those fringe, unreliable or simply unrelated original research to that article! We, editors on Wikipedia including You, do not care what is our personal POV, we do not care and edit article according our personal POV and if find something wrong or right, we compare cites according general truth and modern scholarship, we cite what reliable academic scholars wrote about the topic according its weight. Editors on Wikipedia, at least with good intentions, care about neutrality, reliability and general truth, everything contrary of your personal "probably true". Your personal "truth" shows more about your symptomatic behavior than the origin of the Bulgars. Those books are avaliable online. I lost too much time discussing with you. Two months passed by explaining you how Wikipedia works, what "help articles" to see for better editing, what is wrong with those edits, your behaviour and personal POV. If you have a personal identity crisis then don't cure it on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you care about the neutrality, then put the words Iranian and Tocharian alongside with Turkic. Your information is here:

Dulo/Tulo was a mythical bird. Pay attention to the she-Dragon-she-wolf myth. These two animals are on the Madara horsemen. You can see them on the picture. Bulgar article is a huge improvement compared to what it was before. Good work. Yuezhi means Moon clan, Bulgar calendar was a Moon calendar; they shaved their heads to resemble the Moon:

 These five princes ruled the kingdom over the other side of the Danube for 
 515 years with shaven heads and after that came to this side of the Danube 
 Asparuh knyaz and until now 

I am tired of this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 01:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This information will be added to the article - you are not my boss, nor you are the owner of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 07:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally something useful, how many times have I told you to mention if you found an interesting source? The source will be first read, see if the author is reliable (probably is, Yury Zuev), check other sources to see if those words and considerations are mentioned and shared by other academic scholars, and only then (today) will see how to include it, don't do it by yourself due to insufficient editing skills.--Crovata (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The info by Zuev cannot be added to both Dulo clan and Bulgars article as that's a typical example of Wikipedia:No original research. Zuev did not mention the mythical bird Tulu/Dulu (for similar name see Hungarian Turul) nor she-Dragon - she-wolf in relation with both Dulo clan, Bulgars and relief of Madara Rider. The relation between "Yuezhi means Moon clan", "Bulgars Moon calendar", and "they shaved their heads to resemble the Moon" is your personal original research. This kind of original research is useless for an encyclopedia.--Crovata (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's do it together and I will show you step by step my logic. Actually it is Zuev's logic, it is not my original research, everything is in the book. Open his book and go to pages 56,57. Please, try to forget Wikipedia for a while, how it works and how we, or you, will present this information later, simply concentrate on it. At the bottom of page 56 we read :

  The transcriptions Hutsze and Utsze reflect the original ethnonym 
  Uokil/*Uogil. Dinlins, near whom Uokils lived in the Baikal area, were
  possessors of “high wagons" Gaoche (Khocha, Tochars) It can be assumed 
  that   Uokils in the Baikal area also belonged to Gaoche (Khocha,Tochars). 

At the beginning of page 57 we read:

   The traces of ethnonym Uokil are found in the East Mongolia and Manchuria 
   territories during Syanbi, ancient Türkic, and Mongolian time. Far in the 
   west, between the Danube Bulgars of the eighth century, the Uokil (Vokil) 
   clan was one of the dynastic clans, whose ancestors “ruled on that side 
   of Danube for 515 years with shaved heads"

Now, let's take a little break and think what we have here. At first glance we have a pile of unknown names. But not exactly - we have a direct connection of Danube Bulgaria early rulers and some unknown tribes far in the East, actually - in Northern China. But hey, no one knows from where Bulgars have come. What's is going on here? Who are these Hutsze/Utsze? The explanation is on page 45, line 9:

   These are the Oguz successors of the Tocharian Utsze - “Augals" (the 
   ancient Central Asian Tocharian Augals become the 8th century
   Igils/Chigils, and branch up as 7th century Uokil/Vokil royal clan of
   European Bulgars and handed-down traditional Chigil ancestors of 18-19th 
   century European Gagauzes - Translator's Notes).    

Ahaaaa, these Utsze are the same as Augals, who, obviously, are some Tocharians. To admit, back in time, I didn't know who the Tocharians were. I had to read about them. Anyway, what we have here, is an amazing FACT, I will call it F1( Fact 1) - we know that Bulgarian Dynasty Vokil was a tocharian tribe from North-West China. And we know it from a reliable source. All this information is on Wikipedia, article Vokil.

But we have more in the Zuev's book. Go to page 38, line 6, we read:

  The Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, associated with Aorses of the Pliny 
  “Natural history" (VI, 39). The word Uti was a real proto-type of a  
   transcription Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti [Pulleyblank, 1966, p. 18]. In 
   parallel, a tribe Uti existed in the east, in the valley of the river         
   Edzinagol and lake Sihai and Salty (Sogo-nur and Gashiun-nur 

and more on page 61, line 9:

   Crossing Itil and Yaik, on the northern coast of Aral they came to the possessions of a queen Akagas, whose reign was awarded by Anagai, a king of the Utigurs [Chavannes, 1903, p. 240]. The king Anagai was known to the Chinese under a name Anaguai. He was a Kagan-emperor of the huge Avar confederation that terrified peoples from Manchuria to the Cimmerian Bosporus, but fell from the blows of the Türks. Anagai committed suicide in the 552. As a supreme ruler of a large number of subjugated tribes, he was a guarantor in preservation of the existing order within the controlled areas, and his “appointments" formalized the existing status. The territory of the Utigurs, alongside with the Aorses in the Aral area, was just one of such territories, which name under a pen of a Byzantian writer was transformed into a name of the queen Akagas.
  The Utigurs of this message (J. R. Hamilton identifies this name with the 
  name of a tribe Utiger in the Rashid ad-Din list of nine Uigur tribes) 
  [Hamilton, 1962, p. 35, 38, 42] are mentioned by Pliny (VI, 39) as the Uti 
  tribe, associated with Aorses. E. Pulleyblank identifies Uties as Uechji
  (Pin. Yuezhi) tribe [Puleyblank, 1966, p. 18]. There are parallel records
  about Uechji (Pin. Yuezhi)/Uti far in the east, in the basin of the Edzin-

So, we are on the verge to establish our amazing FACT 2. Here is a catch though. Are these Utigurs the same Utigurs that we expect and need? I mean, the familiriar Utigurs-Bulgars? I will be very amazed if they turn out to be some other tribe. I haven't checked this, and I expect that you will help me with this. Also this source: Hamilton, 1962, p. 35, 38, 42 should be checked. So, on this assumption, we have our F2 : Utigurs are a tribe from the Yuezhi confederation.

Next, go to page 71, line 4, we have:

   "White-headed”,i.e. with completely shaven heads were the seven-tribe 
    Uechji (Pin. Yuezhi)-"Tochars”."Shaved hair on their heads the “seven-
    tribe Ephtalites or “White Huns" ("It is a tribe of Great Uechji  (Pin. 

From page 74 on, the section is called "Detour about Moon and Hare." Zuev explains this custom and that they wanted to resemble the Moon. Here I agree with your point - it is not mentioned directly in connection with the Bulgarian clan Dulo(or Voki). But only 14 pages before that, Zuev quoted Bulgarian Nominalia, very shortly, with this exact phrase “ruled on that side of Danube for 515 years with shaved heads". The implication is obvious, you don't think he has forgotten what he had written in his own work just only 14 pages before that, do you? He wasn't an idiot. And we have our F1+F2 to support this.

We will discuss she-Dragon-she-wolf myth later, it concerns Usuns, who they were and what was their language. Shortly, until recently it was thought they were Turkic. Now it is accepted they were Tocharians, but Turkisized very early- 4 BC or even earlier. I came across a paper discussing this. Back in 1960 Zuev didn't know this and considered them Turkic. Mind this when you are reading his next book to which I am posting a link here:

read carefully from page 22 to the end, it is important - he explain his views about the appearance the European Huns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 05:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavel, that's not how editing is done. You are not an academic scholar to intepret Zuev words and considerations, ie. review and use them in a scientific paper. You're twisting Zuev considerations, not evidence, just considerations according your own belief and assumptions. His views, for example the mythological interpretation of ethnonyms, could shed some new light, but that's the task of scholars to do, not our. And yet again, all the cited text is almost with no relation or loosely related with Bulgars and Dulo clan as is almost exclusively related with Yuezhi, Utigurs and Uokil. Yours assumption belong to Wikipedia:No original research, deal with it.--Crovata (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

well, at least you should be convinced by now that Yuezhi(+Wusuns)->Huns->Bulgars connection is not my (delusional) idea; it is well-justified and currently is a mainstream topic of research in Bulgaria. You shouldn't equate all Bulgarian scientists with Peter Dobrev, he is a kind of ridicule also in Bulgaria. I think his motivation is not based on anti-Turkish sentiments, it is even worse - he is simply trying to get attention imposing his childish ideas in order to make profits and make money (probably by selling more of his stupid books). The authors I have mentioned (Voynikov, Stamatov and others) are serious enough and their work is not intended for the general audience. Unfortunately they publish mainly in Bulgarian language but you can take a look here:

in English

In Russian

these are in Bulgarian ( if you are willing to use google-translate)

this one is interesting, it is about the Вulgarian words with Tocharian origin — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 18:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not convinced and there's nothing I have to be about. It is quite delusional to connect those unrelated scholars considerations and few words with not so significant meaning as proven evidence. Those information actually say more about the heterogeneity of communities and cultures, and the complexity of the political and social events of the time, than loose simplified direct "→" relation or descending from Yuezhi or Tocharians and so on. The links with Bulgarian or Russian script are unreadable to me, and neither seem enough interesting and well written to read (besides the first, which read, and fourth link, which couldn't). I already said, what are the Tocharian words? The Tocharian words, and their meaning, as well the scholar considerations from the first link didn't say anything about the Bulgars and Dulo clan. Until now I did not find a single scholars' reliable consideration and evidence for the "Dulo->Bulgars->Huns->Yuezhi" connection. Who and where mentioned this connection? Not only that seemingly does not exist, but it is not missing at all. With all this text you only proved it's your personal WP:OR, or someone WP:FRINGE theory, which according WP:NPOV: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all".--Crovata (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a group of 20-30 scientists, most of them professors and PhD's a tiny minority. Considering that outside of Bulgaria probably there are 5-10 people who are doing research in this area (the origin of the Bulgars) actually they are a majority. The first site is partially available in English:

I asked D-r Voynikov (via emails, I don't know him personally) to help me with the article Dulo but he refused to get involved in these discussions on Wikipedia. Anyway, he read the article in its version with the Yuezhi, and he told me that there are many mistakes, on the first place - there are no documents to connect Attila with Dulo. He didn't object anything about including the Yuezhi in the article. His views, on the hole, are supported by the majority of the Bulgarian scientist, and are summarized in this book,( the latest book is not available on the Internet):

With 2-3 sentences, they think that the ethnogeneses of proto-Bulgarians(we don't use the word Bulgars) was formed 2 BC-2 AD as a result of mixing between Tocharian tribes of different origin (mainly Wusuns and Yuezhi) with Scythians tribes of different origin ( mainly Saka of Iranian origin) on the territory of modern day Kazakhstan. It is difficult to say what was the language of these Tocharian tribes, despite the fact that they were Tochars, some of them probably spoke proto-Turkic (Wusuns), some of them were bi-lingual, and some even spoke proto-Mongolian language. I have translated the summary of the book ( pages 436-439) for you: ( sorry if the translation is bad, but I used google-translate, I hope that the overall meaning is clear):


We can formulate the main stages in the ethnogenesis of our ancestors:

1. The most ancient Tochari-Yuezhi, Kansuysko-Tyanshanski period. The name Bulgarians is fixed at the east from the Chinese chroniclers under the form bulotszi / bulodzi, part of the small tribes of Yuezhi, who stayed in the "old country" - the slopes of the Tian Shan, or "gorge Imeon." Yuezhi were ruled by the tribe Hune - Honi and dynasty Wen / Wynn - Vnanduri. This indicates that their formation has its roots in the three most ancient Indo-European Communities that penetrated the Altai-Xinjiang region: afanasievtsi, okunevtsi and karasuktsi, who built the core of Tocharian tribal community and became known to the Chinese under the names Juny and Di. Yuezhi resp. bulotszite originate from the group of tszyanzhunite. Bulotszi originally appeared in the Chronicle "Han Shu" as Bilu and Ichzhi as part of tribal formation of six related tribes inhabiting the lands north of the East Tianshan and west of the Xiongnu and east of Wusun, Karashar (ch'i) and ez.Barkul. The center of this Federation are the lands Cheshi (viewed by the Chinese as a Cheshi -front and Cheshi-rear). These lands are the easternmost center of the Tocharian languages , which indicates that the neighboring tribes were also Tochari. In later chronicles Bilu and Ichzhi are listed as Bulotszi tribes, part of the tribal group Tse, resp.hanskoto Ichzhi.

2. Kangyuyski period. As a result of large-scale migrations and the defeat of the Tocharian communities by Xiongnu, near Central Asian Mesopotamia in the 3-2 century BC was formed the nucleus of the future East-Iranian nations by mixing the tocharian Yuezhi and Wusun with Iranian-Sakas, descendants of Andronovo culture. Here our ancestors, together with the proto-Alans (Asi-migrated Wusun) form Iranian-like communities. One part of this community goes south and conquered Greco-Bactria (Kushans). Another part conquered the steppe space around the lake Aral and Caspian Sea (Kangar or Kangju). It is in Kangju (not in Bactria as wrong thoughts P. Dobrev) our ancestors remain. They are set around the Aral Sea, together with future- Alans, or in the lands of Yantsay that get double name Alanya / Uananshana, because it is inhabited by a binominal but monolingual people Honi and Alans.

3. Caucasus period. As a result several stages migrations in the period 2 BC-6 AD in the lands north of the Caucasus, different but closely related tribes are settled down. First are satarhite-Tochari , Siraks and apparently related to them Vnanduri, future bearers of statehood unogundurite, bearing the name of ruling Yuezhi dynasty VEN / VON and kinship Siraks, aorsi, roksolani, yazigi and other early Alans. In the beginning of 1 AD a large Alano-Honska wave moves to Caucasus due to the migration of a large amount Wusun in Kangju due to Hun pressure or the conquering hike of the yarkendskiya ruler of Xian, as Gabeuv thinks. Appear the "classic" Alans, olondi-olhontori-haylanduri, Barca, Hazrs and other tribes collectively referred Uni / Honi, people of Scythian origin, as D.Periget call them. During the 2-3 AD the new large-Alano-Honski waves come , poorly fixed by the chroniclers, documented mostly on archaeological data showing clear parallels with the culture kenkolskata, and with the population of the Pamir-Fergana region. One part of these tribes reach far to the west in Pannonia, where they enter in close contact with Germanic tribes and Rome. Around 463, the new great wave of migration reaches Aral lake region and Ustrushana reaches Kazkaz, appear nations Onogur, Saviri, Magyars, and a century later, come Avars - a remnant of Asian Eftalits. In the genesis of Ephthalites state also participate tribes called Bulgarians, the Kidarites-bolo, which Chinese historians unanimously defined as "small Yuezhi ", ie are Tochari-Yuezhi, migrated bulotszi, after the extermination of Chi Minh City. Some of them were resettled later by Khosrov I Anushirvan in Dagestan and are known as chdar (guitar) and -bolgar vuruguni - laktsi / Lezghins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 12:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if don't believe me, you can write personal emails to Stamatov, or Voynikov or someone else from the site I have provided, and they will explain to you with details the origin of Bulgars, much better than I could do this. Also I noted that you don't have even a single book which is particularly for the origins of the Bulgars, these books are for everything else, but not for the Bulgar's origin; they are about Multicultural China, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, Byzantium and Bulgaria, Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages and so on. If you are interested in Elementary Particles, you need a book about Particle Physics, books that are about Solid State Physics or Spectroscopy are of little or no use, no matter how reliable they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 17:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to say anything more on this discussion. Fistly, your persistence and incomprehension of what I said, and how Wikipedia, any other common encyclopedia, or relevant scientific paper is written, points out that probably you are not a PhD student because you don't have a basic knowledge of common scientific study, or(!), you are so delusional about the idea that you are not aware of the reality and what modern scientific community generally considers. I am asking you again, what are these "20-30" reliable (!) scholars and their work in which is considered the "Dulo->Bulgars->Huns->Yuezhi" connection? The view from the book, about the origin of the Bulgars, is just one of many fringe hypothesis about the origin of every single tribe or ethnic group. Nothing more, nothing less. And yet again, there's no mention of the Dulo clan in that wall of information, and again you didn't cite the Tocharian words.--Crovata (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


  Bulgars (and European Huns) were not Turks or Xiongnu, they were a  
  conglomaration of Ases-Tochars tribes.

YOU HAVE 7 EXPERIMENTAL FACTS STATED ABOVE IN THIS TALK THAT TURK/XIONGNU HYPOTHESES CANNOT EXPLAIN, WHILE ASES-TOCHAR THEORY EXPLAINS THEM SUCCESSFULLY. According to DELUSION is a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Who of us is stubbornly resistant to understand that his belief is confronting the actual facts(7 of them)?????


Prof Aтанас Стаматов, personal website with email: Book:

D-r Живко Войников, personal website with email: - more than 100 works can be found here books:

check again Zuev: indisputable identifications Vokil->Yuezhi, Utigurs->Yuezhi

Zuev: VERY clear statement: European Huns were Ases-Tochars:

Tocharian words in contemporary Bulgarian Language: - you have to download it first and translate with google translate manually after that, cannot be translated directly in your browser

Artificial cranial deformation

   The Huns traveled from north China to the Central Asian steppes and subsequently to the southern Russian steppes.

Circular modification appeared for the first time in Central Asia in the last centuries BC as an ethnic attribute of the early Huns. The peoples of the southern Russian steppes had not practiced cranial modification during the early Iron Age until the appearance of the Huns. During the first centuries AD, after the Hun invasion of Eurasia, circular forms of modification spread throughout the steppe from the Ural Mountains up to the Danube River., page 20: Especially widespread ACD, obtained after 2 BC when under pressure from the Xiongnu, the bulk of the Indo-European tocharo- usuns population of Xinjiang Altay and moved to Central Asia. After mixing them with Saka give early Kushan, Kangar, Ephthalites Avars, Hion, Alans and Bulgars. The percentage of ACD reaches 80% of the buried. 6. With the turkicisation of Central Asia after the collapse of Ephthalites state, the phenomenon of ACD gradually subsides and disappears after the Islamization of region. 7. In Europe, the main carriers of ACD were Alans, Bulgars and Avars Artificially Deformed Crania From the Hun-Germanic Period Results: The aggregate data of the crania are presented in Table 2. According to the taxonomic analysis, all 9 of the skulls indicated the main characteristics of the Europid "great race." None of them showed any Mongoloid features, which also appeared in the ancient population history of the Carpathian Basin, especially within the Huns, Avars, and ancient Hungarians. Due to the combination of different race characteristics within the Europid great race, more precise determination was not possible.

And sth more: there is a second Madara Rider in North Afghanistan and it is not studied yet. There was the center of Kushan Empire. Again coincidence? Unfortunately Bulgarian state expedition couldn't reach it a few years ago. It is on Youtube:

You cannot tell me that I don't know how to write scientific papers, because I have many of them published, and you probably have none. Check here:

What is the purpose of Wikipedia - to present one point of view and suppress the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 03:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your symptomatic behavior for all these three months instructs you do not understand the basics of writing an encyclopedia, thus Wikipedia, and acceptance of general rules of behavior on editing and discussion. You just copy and repeat one and the same links and POV, trying to push forward your own personal belief (POV), ie. original research. You do not follow the discussion and questions, neither the editor remark he cannot read the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet, it would take a huge amount of time to read that scientific paper. This kind of wall of text held by a minority of scholars which "explain" the origin in the same time it does not explain anything (and it's useless to paste it every time), as is just a theory for now not generally discussed by modern scholars. Every theory needs critical analysis by the scholars and time to be considered, currently it is not, and it is not your business or by any other editor to do so and emphasize it as the truth, to take it for granted. Your consideration "BULGARS WERE YUEZHI-USUNS TRIBES AND HENCE DULO WAS" is not how science works, neither amateur science. That's the worst possible conclusion, and do you know why? Because it is by an editor who is not a historian or relevant scholar in the field, nor any scientific paper support and mention this connection, nor is it the job of an editor (read WP:OR), and that conclusion is made upon none evidence or primary source. Do you know why I couldn't find anywhere anything about such a prolific scholar as Zhivko Voynikov? Because he is a simple amateur who finished medicine, and is not a professional and educated anthropologist, historian or linguist. No, you simply do not understand or want to understand how to write an encyclopedia, what are the rules, how to edit, or even to do a plain signature at the end of comments. Even if those papers were written by you, then please, stick with physics and stay away from anthropology and history as you cannot refrain from personal and subjective delusional inspiration. Such delusional inspiration is harmful and unconstructive, seen in your edits when removed relevant considerations by modern and reliable scholars (calling it junk), and added unrelated or loosely related considerations and fringe theories and info according your own pleasure (original research). That kind of delusional inspiration is turning the world within the constant unrest and conflict, and you are not even aware of what your behaviour has become. There's no use of such a behaviour on Wikipedia, and in the world.--Crovata (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I DO understand how you write Wikipedia: according to your own belief that Bulgars were Turks, which is only Hypothesis, you search google books, find some book like Multicultural China, where on page 123 there is a statement like

.....Bulgars, who were Turks, bla bla bla bla sth else....

and you pile all this in one place to foist your own beliefs on the readers. Actually the article in its present form is very badly written as a content - it is a random heap of information. If you are interested in our history you will find the works of other Bulgarian scientists, Voynikov just happened to published a book recently. Also, your remark is again not relevant - do you really belief that if s.o. doesn't have formal education in some area, he cannot become a good specialist in that area? I will not argue with you any more because it is a waste of time. I will simply revert the article to more neutral form, and I will keep your information in a separate section. Readers are not stupid and they will make difference between parrot repeating THEY WERE TURKS and some real explanation. If they were Turks prove it :

 which tribes, why they moved to Europe, when, what happened exactly?

you cannot answer these questions because Turkic hypotheses is wrong, it is a concocted story for political reasons, no better than Peter Dobrev theory. Also Turks will oppose to admit the truth because it turns out that their ruling dynasty Ashina is not even Turkic, it originates from Usuns, who were Tochars. By that logic we can say that Turks were Bulgars, at least Ashina Turks, not the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talkcontribs) 07:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You're calling renowned modern academic scholars consideration, especially of those who are cited on Bulgars article, and the general scholarship and public view, as mere junk, while outdated and new fringe theories by non academic scholars, who are according your personal belief and are not generally accepted, as the ultimate truth. No, that is not science, that is stupidity (behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment). I already answered your thesis and questions a few times and will not repeat them because you do not read with comprehension. You didn't even read the WP:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Several times you've been warned about the policy violation, even you personally admitted! The Dulo clan, and what we know about it, is related to the activity of the Western Turks, Huns and Bulgars, and what is the origin of those communities is unrelated and irrelevant for this article. That is explained in the respective articles, and what by the "Turks" is ethnogenetically considered, again, you do not get it. But what's worse, not that you simply do not get that, but you do not even understand what's "neutral form". Indeed, readers are not stupid, but look who appears and says such things. If you "simply revert" the article, then you know the consequences.--Crovata (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

and what will happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

activities western Turks[edit]

no such thing, Bulgars were of hunnic origin, not Turkic188.254.217.159 (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

yep Crusador2000 (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not used for useless commenting like on a blog or forum, and multiple WP:SOCK accounts are not supported.--Crovata (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Manafs also are not supported! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talkcontribs) 21:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

August 2016 - Disruptive editing[edit]

As protection expired on 23 August, on same day the OR and SYNTH information was re-edited by previously blocked IP .--Crovata (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Dulo should be called noble house or noble family as the members have te title Knjas[edit]

   noble house
   noble family  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 

Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans[edit]

As the first ruler of Danube Bulgaria and his five predecessors have the slavic title Knyaz, which is actually the first mentioning of this title in the written history, how could we call Bulgarians Turks? The same question why some historians call the rulers khans as there is no historic evidence on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)