History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedEthnic Origins of the Bulgars

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
Author
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1381
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ethnic Origins of the Bulgars
    Posted: 29-May-2007 at 14:18
Could someone show me:

1)Chuvash phenotype,
2)Chuvash folkloric clothing and music.
Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 239
Post Options Post Options   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 14:39
Originally posted by Anton

Here is the list of known old Bulgarian words.
 
That revisionist list is not a credible source. 
The list goes to such extremes to disprove a Turkic origin that it claims the Bulgaric language is related to Talish, Celtic, Georgian, Sumerian (theres a suprise haha), Eastern Caucasian, Kati, Pashto, Sogdian, Pamirian, North Indian, Hungarian, Tadzhik, Vejnakh, Persian, Prakrit, Dardic, Urartian, Chuvash, Sanskrit, Accadian, Alanian, Armenian, Mari, Pamiro-Dardic, Parthian, Assyrian, Ugric. Kabarda dialects and Ossetian.  Pretty much ever language under the sun that has superficial similarities to the words on the list.  
Selective Turkic words however are labeled "Ottoman parallels" Confused  The intent is quite obvious.

The problem with Bulgarian revisionists is that they dont have an alternative narrative that makes any sense, so they clutch at straws and come up with such fantasist lists.  The main theme is disprove Turkicness at all costs no matter how daft the alternative may seem


Edited by AyKurt - 29-May-2007 at 14:41
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 15:30
Originally posted by AyKurt

 
That revisionist list is not a credible source. 
The list goes to such extremes to disprove a Turkic origin that it claims the Bulgaric language is related to Talish, Celtic, Georgian, Sumerian (theres a suprise haha), Eastern Caucasian, Kati, Pashto, Sogdian, Pamirian, North Indian, Hungarian, Tadzhik, Vejnakh, Persian, Prakrit, Dardic, Urartian, Chuvash, Sanskrit, Accadian, Alanian, Armenian, Mari, Pamiro-Dardic, Parthian, Assyrian, Ugric. Kabarda dialects and Ossetian.  Pretty much ever language under the sun that has superficial similarities to the words on the list.  
No, actually author of the list suppose that Bulgars spoke language close to Iranian. Most of the words found paralelles with Iranian languages. Except Celtic of course. If  you suppose that lovers of Turkic version of Bulgarian origin search paralells with Bulgar language only in Chuvash you are wrong.
 
Selective Turkic words however are labeled "Ottoman parallels" Confused  The intent is quite obvious.
 
Ottoman parallels is a long story. Initially author found paralels in modern Bulgarian language with Iranian language. Which did not come with Ottomans. Hence they might come either with Bulgars or Slavs. He found more than 1000 such words. Ottoman paralelles were done by Turkologist.   
 

The problem with Bulgarian revisionists is that they dont have an alternative narrative that makes any sense, so they clutch at straws and come up with such fantasist lists.  The main theme is disprove Turkicness at all costs no matter how daft the alternative may seem
 
You forgot to mention that those attempts are made by nationalistic Bulgarian historians together with American imperialism, Russian communism and George Soros himself. LOL Those people do not try to disprove "Turkikness" of Bulgars, they just illustrate that this "Turkicness" is not proved. They propose alternative hypotheses, like Bulgars were Iranian speaking people close to Sarmats or Baltoslavic people close to Antes. To my opinion the truth is somewhere in between.
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 15:32
Originally posted by The Hidden Face

Could someone show me:

1)Chuvash phenotype,
2)Chuvash folkloric clothing and music.
 
I don't know about their appearance but it was shown that they are genetically close to Balkan and Caucassus nations but not Altai nations. As for their clothing and music -- I found some similarities between them and Bulgarian ones.
.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 15:36
Aykurt
That revisionist list is not a credible source. 
The list goes to such extremes to disprove a Turkic origin that it claims the Bulgaric language is related to Talish, Celtic, Georgian, Sumerian (theres a suprise haha), Eastern Caucasian, Kati, Pashto, Sogdian, Pamirian, North Indian, Hungarian, Tadzhik, Vejnakh, Persian, Prakrit, Dardic, Urartian, Chuvash, Sanskrit, Accadian, Alanian, Armenian, Mari, Pamiro-Dardic, Parthian, Assyrian, Ugric. Kabarda dialects and Ossetian.  Pretty much ever language under the sun that has superficial similarities to the words on the list.  
Selective Turkic words however are labeled "Ottoman parallels" Confused  The intent is quite obvious.

The problem with Bulgarian revisionists is that they dont have an alternative narrative that makes any sense, so they clutch at straws and come up with such fantasist lists.  The main theme is disprove Turkicness at all costs no matter how daft the alternative may seem.
 
 
Exactly, its pathetic, the entire motive of this small group of pseudo-historians is to try and proove a non-Turkic origin of Bulgars, they'd take anyone aslong as they have absolutely no Turkic connection.


Edited by Bulldog - 29-May-2007 at 15:38
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 15:49
Originally posted by Bulldog

Exactly, its pathetic, the entire motive of this small group of pseudo-historians is to try and proove a non-Turkic origin of Bulgars, they'd take anyone aslong as they have absolutely no Turkic connection.
 
My pathetic friend, could you kindly stop spaming and show me your arguments about ethnicity of Bulgars, so that we can discuss them one by one?


Edited by Anton - 29-May-2007 at 16:01
.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:04

Chuvash dress the first ones are from Cuvas state's official homepage

 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 29-May-2007 at 16:14
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1381
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:29
Originally posted by Anton

 I don't know about their appearance but it was shown that they are genetically close to Balkan and Caucassus nations but not Altai nations. As for their clothing and music -- I found some similarities between them and Bulgarian ones.


Please clarify what these similarities are, so that we could see them as well. Your personal observation is also important.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:44
Here is the conclusion of Soviet archeologists Artamonov about Bulgars:
One cannot doubt that Bulgar population in the north of Black Sea contained not only Turkic tribes who appeared during and after Hunns. To signifficant extent it appeared as a result of Turkization of local Alano-Sarmatian population andinherited many traditions of its culture.
Arkheologiia, 1969,3
It is interesting to mention here that Penkovskaia culture believed to be created by Ants contains many elements of Alano-Bulgarian population.
(for. instance Rusanova IP, Slavianskie drevnosti VI-VII v., Moscow. 1976).
 
 
Russian historian Nikolay Derzhavin is more strict:
Bulgars are not Turks, Hunns, Chuvash, Finns or Slavs. They are separate indoeuropean people.
 
sorry I cite it from my memory
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:48
Bulgarian Archeologist Rasho Rashev have different opinion on the Bulgarian ethnicity:
 

This mixed population, speaking most probably Slavic, was prepared for an expansion to the south-west, as shown by isolated finds of Penkovka pottery in early Byzantine forts [32]. Forced soon after that to leave in its entirety its Dnepr settlements, most probably as a result of the expansion of the Khazars, it was content to find itself under the control of the group of Asparukh, looking for assurances of its safety. Asparukh had probably brought (or swept along) much more Indo-European than Turkic speakers, and that is why the Türks proper had easily lost their language in such an environment. The Turkic tradition, chiefly in its spiritual forms, military-administrative structures, names and titles was preserved by the ruling elite, who occupied predominantly the Pliska plain. A massive presence of proper Slavic and Slavicised Iranian population can more convincingly explain some widely known by unconvincingly interpreted so far facts of the early stage of the Bulgarian culture:
  1. The ubiquitous Slavic toponymy of the central region of the Bulgarian state;
  2. The Slavic names of the capitals Pliska and Preslav;
  3. The few Turkic remains in the Bulgarian language;
  4. The non-conflicting bi-rituality of the Bulgarian burials of the VIII-IX c. AD;
  5. The rapid consolidation of the Bulgarian ethnos which was a reality long before 865 AD and which was only formally legitimised by the adoption of Christianity.

 
Here is the English translation of the paper by Rushev:
.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:53

If were to believe "soviet" historians, calling Azeri Turks Tatars but then they changed their mind and made other people Tatars LOL

Your source is referring to Bulgar's of North of Black Sea ie Batbayan's hordes which today make up some of the Crimean Tatars. Bulgars migrated there, obviously they mixed with locals already there.

Bulgars of Volga Bulgaria were the Turkic On-Ogour tribal confederation, even they mixed with the Uralic tribes who were there before them.

But that's how nations grow, people's in the regions they conquer are assimilated, join or through time become part of the dominant nation, adopting its language, identity, history and culture. Having various groups of people who become part of a nation, doesnt change the nations identity.
Like today, it doesn't matter if people of Bulgaria are made up of Turkic, Thracian, Greek speaking peoples, they're Slavic today and that's the most important factor, the rest doesnt matter.


Edited by Bulldog - 29-May-2007 at 16:57
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:58
Originally posted by Bulldog

If were to believe "soviet" historians, calling Azeri Turks Tatars but then they changed their mind and made other people Tatars LOL

If you have anything to say about particular opinions of Derzhavin and Artamonov, their argumentation and conclusions you are very welcome to share them with us.
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 17:01

Another interesting opinion of Walter Pohl about Bulgarians and Avars:

 

In the world of the steppe warriors, Avars and Bulgarians represent complementary principles of organization. It is pointless to postulate any homogeneous ethnic substrate as a basis for these differences, for both gentes were the heirs of the polyethnic barbarian environment of the sixth century that had split up into so many bands and petty kingdoms. Of course, organizing a large group of warriors and their following always meant setting off an ethnogenesis; only ethnic bonds, supported by traditional myths and rites, could be strong enough to hold such a group together, to give it a structure that could resist failure. But even

so, it was by no means invulnerable. Misfortune led to erosion; after 626 many "Avars" turned to the new Slavic regional powers at the periphery of the Khaganate, or they became Bulgarians. Only in exceptional cases can these phenomena of migration and change of ethnic identity be traced in our sources as in the famous Kuver story in the Miracula Sancti Demetri (c. 2, 5; cf. Pohl 1988: 278ff).

 
 
 
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 17:13
Originally posted by Bulldog

Bulgars of Volga Bulgaria were the Turkic On-Ogour tribal confederation, even they mixed with the Uralic tribes who were there before them.

Ibn Fadlan call Volga Bulgarians Sakaliba. It is supposed to mean "Slavs". 
 
"Onogurs" is only one version of their ethnonym. Another -- "Unogundurs" -- is kindof forgot by Turkic fans because  it is much more difficult to find Turkic etymology for this word. Tongue
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 17:15
Originally posted by Bulldog

Like today, it doesn't matter if people of Bulgaria are made up of Turkic, Thracian, Greek speaking peoples, they're Slavic today and that's the most important factor, the rest doesnt matter.
 
They are not slavic today they are Bulgarians.
.
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2007 at 23:00
Originally posted by Jagiello

Originally posted by Bulldog

Bulgars were and are Turkic people.

 
 
I don't know what made you think like this but it is really a very stupid statement.Yes,bulgars might have come from a turkic tribe but it wasn't more than 10 000 bulgars that crossed the Danube with Asparuh and founded Bulgaria.Those 10 000 bulgars which MIGHT have been of turkic origin mixed with hundrets of thousands of slavs through the centuries and you can imagine how much turkic blood (if there was any) is left now.Both look and language of bulgars is slavic and both in Bulgaria and all european countries they are considered "southern slavs".I never heard anyone say todays bulgarians are turkic and you are very wrong.
 
Not a stupid statement at all. He is talking about "Bulgars" not "Bulgarians" i.e. the tribe that founded the medieval Bulgarian state. Your own post confirmed the main theory that they were Turks, or a Turkic tribe, therefore, if they were, they still are. A language change does not change your entire genetic make up, many Native American groups are losing their grasp on their own traditional languages in favour of English, however, that does not make them Anglo-Saxon, or any type of European descent, the ones that aren't largerly mixed at least. They still are Native Americans. That same goes for many other groups, including Bulgarians, they are Slavic now, but Slavic is a linguistic grouping not much of a ethnic term as it is claimed by some.

Back to Top
Tar Szerénd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 385
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tar Szerénd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 04:37
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Bulldog

Bulgars of Volga Bulgaria were the Turkic On-Ogour tribal confederation, even they mixed with the Uralic tribes who were there before them.

Ibn Fadlan call Volga Bulgarians Sakaliba. It is supposed to mean "Slavs". 
 
"Onogurs" is only one version of their ethnonym. Another -- "Unogundurs" -- is kindof forgot by Turkic fans because  it is much more difficult to find Turkic etymology for this word. Tongue
 
The old hungarian (onogurian:-)) name of every "danube-bulgarians" was nándor (from (o)no(gu)ndur). The hungarian name of todays Belgrad was Nándorfehérvár (Onogundur-whitecastle), because it was under bulgarian rule when the hung-s came here.
 
Other interesting hungarian (and old TURCIC) word: komondor, from kuman, 'kumundur' (kun/kipchak dog).
 
Bulgarians: the first saragur, ogur and onogur diplamats came to Constantinple in 463. They defeated the hun vasall akatirs (so these bulgars weren't huns, I think). The saragurs became bizantine allies in 466.
The "bulgars" became sabirian rule between 506-557.
 
Teophylaktos wrote that the bulgars got in the past a large city, called Bakath. That name has sogdian origin, so maybe their old territory was by the banks of the Sir Darja, in the South of the Kazakh steppe.
 
This was the territory since the 3. Cent. BC of the laaaarge:-) tingling (tili) tribe union. From the 4. Cent. AC their were called tielö, their state was called kao-kü. The tribe union/state got from the beginnigs to parts: the western and the easter(south of the Bajkal). The wester part (they lived near by the Irtis) got a main language closed to the nowdays chuwas. The whole state was in every time enemy of the asian huns.
 
After the 350's, when the huns moved into the European steppes, the western tielös moved into the empty lands (or maybe they occupied it, I don't know) and they lived there until the 450-460-s, when the sabirs moved into this lands. (interesting: the other name of the sabirs was savards, and on of the old name of the Chaukasian hungarians in the time of Const Perf. and Leo was savardoi)
 
The juan-juans got big war with the east tielö tribes because of the East-turkestanian cities in the 450's, so maybe that war was the reason of the west moving of the first bulgars.
 
In 557 the sabir rule was crashed by the european avars, and in 567 the first türk armies arrived, and they took under control the sabir and ogur (bulg). tribes. The Pseudo-Zakharias script (in syrian language) mentions the onogurs, ogurs, saragurs and sabirs north of the Chauk. in 555. After this mainly just the name of the onogurs (the largest tribe in that time) was in use.They lived somewhere between the Don and the Kuban. They got some cities, and they were fishing and made trade with leather. They got a bishop in the Krim.
 
The name "bolgar" or bulgarian is known since the 5. cent. AC, in the 6. cent they attacked several times the Balkan, Thrakia and Moesia. Their homeland was somewhere by the north coast of the Black sea.
In 713 they were called onogur-bulgars in a greek script.
 
In the beginning of the 7. cent tere was a tielö uprise in the western turk empire, probably the bulgarians achieved the independence in that time (Kuvrat kagan). After this a chinese tribe list mentioned between the west tielö tribes the vuho-s and the jüanho-s (ogurs and onogurs).
 
In the 650-s the khazars became the control of the bulgarians, but after a few years a part of the bulgarians moved in 679-680 with Asparuh to the Danube, to Moesia. (maybe in that time took the hungarian tries their empty place in Khazaria) They nearly completly got slavized in 200 years. They got the other, onogundur name too.
 
 
The "kotrags" are mentioned (as the related tribes of the onogurs, living in Magna Bulgaria) in the greek scripts of the 6. Cent, they attacked several times the byzantine Krim, so the greeks engaged the utigurs to defeat them. After this 2000 kutrigur familys were settled down by Justinian in Thracia. Bajan avar kagan got 10 000 kutrigug horse arhers after 568, they fought with the sabre instead of the avarian ring-sword, and with the bow. They were living east of the Tisza.
 
Some of these kutrigurs moved from Avaria in the 630's into Italia and to the bayuwars, but they were killed.
 
The Volga-bulgarians moved from Kazaria to the north in about 800. Some tribe names: eskils (eskels, probably the relatives of the hungarian seklers), barsula, suvars (probably cames from savir).
 
And several parts of the bulgarians continued their life in khazaria, with (f.e.) the kazhars, with horezmians, alans and hungarians. Some parts moved into  Levedia, Etelköz and into the Carp. basin with the hungarians, with the pechenegs, and some parts stayed after 963 in the Pecheneg land and in Kumania (dasti kipchak) etc.
 
TSZ


Edited by Tar Szerénd - 30-May-2007 at 05:12
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 05:30
Good post, Tar. I found some minor mistakes.
 
Originally posted by Tar Szerénd

 
 
Bulgarians: the first saragur, ogur and onogur diplamats came to Constantinple in 463. They defeated the hun vasall akatirs (so these bulgars weren't huns, I think). The saragurs became bizantine allies in 466.
 
 
They were called huns many times by Byzantine soruces however there is no direct evidence that they were under Hunn rule. The only source that points to this is Nominalia of Bulgar Knjazes where first knjaz was called Avitohol (supposed to be Attila) and the second -- Irnik (supposed to be his son Ernak). 
Bulgars allied with Byzantines first time in 473 when Zeno asked their help against Theodorih.
 
Teophylaktos wrote that the bulgars got in the past a large city, called Bakath. That name has sogdian origin, so maybe their old territory was by the banks of the Sir Darja, in the South of the Kazakh steppe.
I do not agree with this conclusion.  
 
 
 
 
 
The name "bolgar" or bulgarian is known since the 5. cent. AC, in the 6. cent they attacked several times the Balkan, Thrakia and Moesia. Their homeland was somewhere by the north coast of the Black sea.
In 713 they were called onogur-bulgars in a greek script.
 
 
No actually name "Bulgarian" is known from 354 in the Ravena Chronograph ("Zieze ex quo Vulgares"). And later many authors refer to Bulgars as their present name (for example Ennodius). 
 
 
 
 
 
Some of these kutrigurs moved from Avaria in the 630's into Italia and to the bayuwars, but they were killed.
No, that is mistake. These were Bulgars that competed with Avars for the title of Avar's khan. They moved to Bavaria where most part of them was killed. The survivors went to Italy where the preserved their identity uintil 10-11 century. These are so called Alceko Bulgarians.
 
 
And several parts of the bulgarians continued their life in khazaria, with (f.e.) the kazhars, with horezmians, alans and hungarians. Some parts moved into  Levedia, Etelköz and into the Carp. basin with the hungarians, with the pechenegs, and some parts stayed after 963 in the Pecheneg land and in Kumania (dasti kipchak) etc.
 
They are also known as black Bulgars.
.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 782
Post Options Post Options   Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 10:57
If we can agree to some extent on the proto-bulghar tribes, then here is the quote from O. Maenchen-Helfen , "the world of the Huns"
 
 
To judge by the tribal names, a great part of the Huns must have spoken a Turkish language. Ultinur and Alpilur are as Turkish as Bug-or, the Pecheneg tribal names ending in , and the Kirghiz tribal and clan names ending in oro. Another common ending in Turkish tribal names, -gur, occurs in Kutrigur, Utigur, Onogur, Bittugur, *Tongur, and *Ugur. On the analogy with Ultinur, Ultingir, ending in -gir like other definitely Turkish ethnic names, must likewise be Turkish. The same is true for Bardor = Var-dor and Ultindur.
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 782
Post Options Post Options   Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 11:07
Originally posted by Anton

Here is the list of known old Bulgarian words.
 
Anton, I can't believe you are using a layman work as a credible source.
 
Interestingly I have found the following comment from some known professors from the same site:
 
 

"It is of course well known that Iranian vocabulary was borrowed into Turkic
and Slavic (e.g. BAG/BOG) at a quite early stage, so there's nothing
surprising in principle about finding cognates. Nothing in principle,
either, to preclude the possibility that the original Bulgars were
ethnicaly/genetically Iranians. But to prove it would take a much more
professional investigation, and I doubt if there's the data to support it.
 

John R. Perry
University of Chicago
CMES
5828 S. University Av.
Chicago IL 60637 "

"

I am a native speaker of Pashto and also know Urdu and Persian.  Your list
is quite long and I do not know what kind of comments you would prefer.  I
have no direct knowledge of Turkish and its spread into the Balkans, but I
know that Persian (and Arabic) words did spread there through Turkish.

Farooq Babrakzai "

 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.