Macedonian and Bulgarian historians agree to “share” Tsar Samoil, Clement and Naum of Ohrid

[xripkan]

E1b is not "Thracian native", wtf are you smoking. Thracian/Hittite/Dorian-proto-Hellenic were Indo-european languages and their populations were associated to R. Also, Greeks are not predominately J, they are predominately R (R1a+R1b).

R1b in Greece is mostly Dorian/Proto-Greek or it can be from Illyrians and Proto-Thracians. But J2 can be also ancient Greek. The ancestors of Myceneaens were a mix of steppe population with Pre-Indoeuropean populations they met leaving the steppes with haplogroup J2. So many of Myceneans were J2. R1a is ambiguous since a big part of it is Slavic. On the other hand some R1a is possibly from Proto-Greeks. I asked the author of haplogroup articles in eupedia and he told me that R1a-M458 maybe a clade some Proto-Greeks had.

[Dianatomia]

They are not. R haplogroups are low in Greece. R1b is 15,5%, R1a 11,5%. E+ J is much more. J2 itself is 23 %, E1b 21%. J1 3%

So if you do the math R is 27%, J is 26%, E is 21%. I is relatively low. This means Greeks are predominantly R.

Ofcourse Greeks are mostly EEF, but R is their most dominant haplogroup on average.

[Crn Volk]

So if you do the math R is 27%, J is 26%, E is 21%. I is relatively low. This means Greeks are predominantly R.

Ofcourse Greeks are mostly EEF, but R is their most dominant haplogroup on average.

By 1% according to those numbers. Cutting it a bit fine, no?

[DarknessWin]

E1b is not "Thracian native", wtf are you smoking. Thracian/Hittite/Dorian-proto-Hellenic were Indo-european languages and their populations were associated to R. Also, Greeks are not predominately J, they are predominately R (R1a+R1b).

E1b1b is Thracian but also Illyrian and Greek too

[Mingle]

Do you have a link?

If the theory is correct and proto-Bulgars were of Iranic descent rather than Turkic, then this still doesn't connect proto-Bulgars genetically to modern Bulgarians.

Here's a genetic comparison of Iranian and Bulgarian populations;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneti...lgarians#Y_DNA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics

Modern Bulgarian Y DNA is mostly E1b1 (Thracian native) and I2a (brought by Slavs), whereas Iranian peoples are mostly J2 and R1a, which are in minority in Bulgaria.

1. The Old Bulgars being of Iranic origins is a fringe theory that shouldn't be entertained. It's based on some superficial similarity to the name Balhara, which was a kingdom in the northwestern part of modern day Afghanistan. There's not much more to it.

2. Modern Iranians (West Iranics i.e. Persians & Kurds) don't have much Proto-Iranic blood. They're genetically more different from Proto-Iranians than South Slavs are from Proto-Slavs.

3. Modern Bulgars are mostly native Southern European with minor (albeit significant) NE European/Proto-Slavic admixture.

[bulgar]

E1b1b is Thracian but also Illyrian and Greek too

The Thracians were a mix of Early Neolithic Farmers and Proto-Indo-Europeans, so they most probably had R.

1. The Old Bulgars being of Iranic origins is a fringe theory that shouldn't be entertained. It's based on some superficial similarity to the name Balhara, which was a kingdom in the northwestern part of modern day Afghanistan. There's not much more to it.

They didn't come from Afghanistan/Central Asia, but they were still Iranics from the Pontic steppe with Turkic influence.

[Mingle]

They didn't come from Afghanistan/Central Asia, but they were still Iranics from the Pontic steppe with Turkic influence.

The whole basis of the Iranic theory is that Balhara is Proto-Bulgaria and that Balhara/Central Asia is where the original Bulgars come from.



The above map shows that the Bulgars originated in Central Asia as an Iranic-speaking people before moving to the Pontic Steppe and then getting Turkified before moving to the Balkans and Volga. There's 0 proof that Bulgars were Iranic before they got Turkified.

This is where the theory comes from:

Kingdom of Balkhara is the subject of a fringe theory[1] on the originating homeland of the Bulgar people. It is popularised by some Bulgarian historians (for example: Georgi Bakalov, Petar Dobrev, Ian Mladjov) to have been the earliest known state[2][unreliable source?][3][unreliable source?] of the Bulgars, situated in the upper course of Oxus River (present Amu Darya), and the foothills and valleys of Hindu Kush and Pamir Mountains (ancient Mount Imeon).[4][unreliable source?] Peter Dobrev places the date of the kingdom around the 12th century BC.[5][page needed]

The theory is based on the presumed relationship between the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex and the Bulgars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Balkhara

There's no evidence that the "Kingdom of Balkhara" ever existed. It's just nonsense pseudoscience from communist times. The historians that came up with this theory looked at the region in Afghanistan called Balkh and thought that if they added "-ara" to "Balkh" and turned it into "Balkhara", then it would sound similar to "Bulgara" and thus a theory was born (the map in the link above shows the Balkhara was based in modern Balkh). The Wikipedia page above only mentions that some Bulgarian historians believe in it and its considered very fringe.

Regarding the etymology of the word "Bulgar", there are a few theories listed here. Not a single one of those gives it an Iranic etymology. The Bulgars aren't even from that far back in history. If they spoke Iranic before Turkification, then it would have been noticed.

[Crn Volk]

The whole basis of the Iranic theory is that Balhara is Proto-Bulgaria and that Balhara/Central Asia is where the original Bulgars come from.



The above map shows that the Bulgars originated in Central Asia as an Iranic-speaking people before moving to the Pontic Steppe and then getting Turkified before moving to the Balkans and Volga. There's 0 proof that Bulgars were Iranic before they got Turkified.

This is where the theory comes from:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Balkhara

There's no evidence that the "Kingdom of Balkhara" ever existed. It's just nonsense pseudoscience from communist times. The historians that came up with this theory looked at the region in Afghanistan called Balkh and thought that if they added "-ara" to "Balkh" and turned it into "Balkhara", then it would sound similar to "Bulgara" and thus a theory was born (the map in the link above shows the Balkhara was based in modern Balkh). The Wikipedia page above only mentions that some Bulgarian historians believe in it and its considered very fringe.

Regarding the etymology of the word "Bulgar", there are a few theories listed here. Not a single one of those gives it an Iranic etymology. The Bulgars aren't even from that far back in history. If they spoke Iranic before Turkification, then it would have been noticed.

It's important for Bulgarian nationalists to distance themselves from Turks and so they come up with these Iranic theories as they are scared of the Turkic truth.

[bulgar]

Regarding the etymology of the word "Bulgar", there are a few theories listed here. Not a single one of those gives it an Iranic etymology. The Bulgars aren't even from that far back in history. If they spoke Iranic before Turkification, then it would have been noticed.

The etymology of a lot of proto-Bulgarian names is actually Iranic. For example the etymology of Asparuh(who established Dunabe Bulgaria) is Scythian.
The Pontic Steppe just before Old Great Bulgaria was established was inhabited mostly by Iranic people.
New genetic studies proved that the proto-Bulgarians had no relation to the Turko-Altaic people.

[bulgar]

It's important for Bulgarian nationalists to distance themselves from Turks and so they come up with these Iranic theories as they are scared of the Turkic truth.

And what is your truth, diaspora boy?

Worshipping that gypsoid Macedon king from Pakistan?



Building that gypsy kitsch Disneyland "Skopje 2014"?