| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 164 Given: 205 |
So were the Bulgarians or Bulgars or whatever Turkic or Slavic? I remember one time talking with a bulgarian nationalist friend of mine who told me that bulgarians were Saka Aryans.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 152 Given: 156 |
"Настоящее издание представляет собой полный перевод с арабского оригинала первого в истории тюркской лексикографии словаря «Диван Лугат ат-Турк», составленного в XI веке Махмудом ал-Кашгари."Originally Posted by Chelubey
Yep, Volga Bulgaria. Anyway, yesterday I found some interesting info about Bulgar symbols found in North-Eastern Bulgaria - http://macedonia.kroraina.com/sv/sv_3_3.htm
There are some symbols which look just like Orkhon, but are in a different orientation. I don't know what to believe at this point. There are things like this which look like 100% concrete evidence of Turkic origin. Then, there are the things that PAGANE posted and also make sense... http://kroraina.com/pb_lang/pbl_3_4.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina...ulgarian_khans
The Chelubey mongol said that the calendar is a joke because it contains Slavic words. The translation is based on the Bulgar words, not the Slavic ones... From the wikipedia page :
"...dilom tverim...dokhs tvirem...shegor vechem...vereni alem...tekuchitem tvirem...toh altom...shegor tvirem...(imen)shegor alem...somor altem...dilom tutom...
The italicized words are in the Bulgar language as given in the original manuscript and represent the year and month of ascending to the throne of each ruler according to the Bulgar calendar. Their translation is uncertain, but there appears to be a consensus that they are based on a system similar to the Chinese calendar (which was also adopted by many Turkic peoples and by the Mongols), with a cycle of 12 years, each bearing the name of an animal. The first word in each date is the name of the year, the second is an ordinal number designating the month.
There are widely diverging translations of the nominalia and especially of the Bulgar dates. This is partly due to the difficulty in identifying word boundaries, but the greatest differences today are due to the contrast between the traditional analysis of Bulgar as a Turkic language and historian Petar Dobrev's recently advanced proposal that it was an Iranian, more specifically Pamiri language. The "Turkic" reading, along with the "cyclic calendar" interpretation itself, was originally proposed by Finnish Slavist Jooseppi Julius Mikkola in 1913. Later, there have been various modifications and elaborations during the 20th century by scholars such as Géza Fehér, Omeljan Pritsak, and Mosko Moskov. Dobrev's "Iranian" reading actually preserves all but one of the previous translations of the year names, arguing that the Turkic names of the animals, far from proving that the Bulgars were Turkic, show that the Turkic peoples had borrowed these words from the Bulgars. He does change the numbers of the months. Dobrev backs his linguistic analysis with a thorough mathematical analysis to find no errors in dates and time spans,[2] contrary to Moskov's claim of erroneously rounded time spans like the strange-looking some years and 15 months rounded down to some years."
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,896 Given: 1,003 |
The names of the years and months are taken from the Name Book of the Bulgarian rulers
Авитохолъ житъ лѣт. ҃т. рѡд ему Дуло. а лѣт ему дилѡмъ твирем. Ирникъ. житъ лѣт. ҃ри. рѡд ему Дуло. а лѣт ему дилом тверимь. Гостунъ наместникь сьď два лѣта. рѡд ему. Ерми. а лѣт ему дохсъ. втиремь. Курт: ҃ѯ лѣт дръжа. рѡд ему Дуло. а лѣт ему шегоръ вечемь. Безмеръ ҃г. лѣт. а рѡд сему Дуло. а лѣт ему шегоръ вемь. сii ҃е кнѧз. дръжаше кнѧженďе обону страну Дунаѧ. лѣтъ. ҃ф.҃еі. остриженами главами. И потѡм пріиде на страну Дунаѧ. Исперих кнѧз тожде и доселѣ. Есперих кнѧз. ҃ѯа лѣт. рѡд Дуло. а лѣт ему верени алем. Тервен. ҃ка. лѣто. рѡд ему Дуло. а лѣт ему текучитем. твирем. ҃ки. лѣт. рѡд ему Дуло. а рѡд ему дваншехтем. Севаръ. ҃еі. лѣт. рѡд ему Дуло. а лѣт ему тохалтом. Кормисошь. ҃зі. лѣт. рѡд ему Вокиль. а лѣт ему шегоръ твиремь. Сďи же княз измѣни рѡд Дулов. рекше Вихтунь. Винех. ҃з. лѣт. а рѡд ему Ѹкиль. а лѣтъ ему имаше Горалемь. Телець. ҃г. лѣта. рѡд Ѹгаинь. а лѣт ему соморъ. алтемь. И сďй иного рад. Ѹморъ. ҃м. днďи. рѡд ему Ѹкиль а ему дилѡм тоутѡм.
This Name Book strikes us most with the fact that the years when the heirs took possession are given in Proto-Bulgarian, with a dating system applied, which we find in two or three earlier Bulgarian written monuments, and was also used. and by Tudor Doksov, an author from the time of Tsar Simeon. Among people who do not yet have a written language, the tradition of law is historically credible.
We know from Byzantine sources that Kubrat died around 642. We know that Asparuh crossed the Danube in 680. We also know that Taurus ascended the throne in 761-762. But the greatest help is one side evidence, namely the inscription found during excavations near the village of Chatalar in 1905, which describes the founding of Preslav by Khan Omurtag, dating to the 15th indiction, or September 821 - September 822, and added the Bulgarian dating "Shegor Alem". We must also mention Tudor Doksov, according to whom the christening of the Bulgarians took place in the year "eth behti". In the last years of the last century, philologists interested in the Ugric-Mongolian group of languages paid attention to the Name Book for the first time. But the first historian to attempt a full interpretation was J.W. B. Bury In it he makes the assumption - accepted by most historians - that the dates written in Bulgarian reflect the year when the ruler ascended the throne, noting that Kubrat's reign lasted 60 years and that he and his successors on the throne have the common date "fagot already", Bury proposes a cycle of 60 years - based on the arbitrary assumption that this is a cycle common among most Asian peoples - and then concludes that the first word means units, and the second - decades. On the basis of all this he constructed an original system with the only drawback, as Marquart was quick to point out, that the dates obtained as a result deviate from the historically well-known ones. In that case, the Bulgarians should have crossed the Danube twenty years earlier.
Bury published his theory in 1910. Four years later, Prof. Mikola offered a key to the Name Book. A few years earlier, Petrovich, a Russian scientist, had argued that a series of twenty-year cycles could be spoken of, each year bearing the name of an animal, a system very common among Asian peoples. Mykola identifies the animals whose names are contained in the first part of each date, and here are what they are in numerical order: somor - rat, shegor - bull, veri - wolf, dwansh - rabbit, dilom - snake. The seventh, eighth and ninth years are unspecified. Then: toh - hen, eth - dog. Mykola believes that flowing from the text is an abbreviated form of eth, which we find in the text of Tudor Doksov; and finally dohs is a pig. According to him, the second word is numerically correct, denoting the individual months in the calendar: alem - first, vechem - second, tutom - fourth, ehtem - eighth, tvirem - ninth. Behti, which appears in Tudor Doksov's text, is fifth.
“ ...Even if a man lives well, he dies and another one comes into existence. Let the one who comes later upon seeing this inscription remember the one who had made it. And the name is Omurtag, Kanasubigi. ”
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 265 Given: 11 |
In the end, this is a matter of methodology.
You can take information from classical sources - such as Divan Lugat at-Turk and draw the right conclusions.
Or you can hold on to an strange detective document of unclear anonimous origin (who are the first authors of this information : Greeks, Proto-Bulgarians or someone else?) and draw conclusions you like.
Last edited by Chelubey; 06-02-2020 at 05:19 PM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 95 Given: 0 |
Yakut language:
Four - Tuert
Five - Bes
Six - Alta
Seven - Sette
Eight - Agys
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 95 Given: 0 |
Yakut language: Dog - Yt, Wolf - Bere. In some Mongolian and Turkic peoples, the bull is designated by the word uker, we don't have that word.
Word dulan we mean the danger, the horror. In Chuvash the snake is designated by the word selen (çĕлен).
The word Dohs is similar to the designation of Tungus. Tongus it's a pig. The Chinese called the ancestors of the Mongols as Donghu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donghu_people
Last edited by Nykyus; 06-05-2020 at 04:00 PM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 152 Given: 156 |
I've read a lot of stuff in the last hours that made me come to this conclusion - the Bulgars were descendants from the Huns. There are just too many thing that point to this conclusion.
Atilla dies in 453 and his empire is split to his three sons - Ellac, Dengizich and Ernak. Ellac dies 1 year after getting the throne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Ostrogoths
"Following the death of Attila and the defeat of the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454, the Ostrogoths broke away from Hunnic rule under their king Valamir.[178] Under his successor, Theodemir, they utterly defeated the Huns at the Bassianae in 468,[179]"
In that same war Dengizich dies in 469.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernak
"While Dengizich died in 469, it is considered that Ernak managed to maintain peaceful relations with the Romans living in the Dobruja region.[13][14] It seems he was content, compared to Dengizich, with the limited land he was given.[15] The fate of Ernak is unclear.[16]"
"Ernak has often been identified with Irnik from the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans, who is noted as a descendant of the Dulo clan and leader of the Bulgars for 150 years, starting approximately from 437 AD.[3]"
Of course "starting approximately" and "ruled 150 years" are signs of unclear translation and probably some mythical nature attributed to that 150 year ruler. Anyway, guess who was mentioned for the first time in 480 and who did they fight - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars
"The first clear mention and evidence of the Bulgars was in 480, when they served as the allies of the Byzantine Emperor Zeno (474–491) against the Ostrogoths.[29]"
"In 505, the alleged 10,000 Hun horsemen in the Sabinian army, which was defeated by the Ostrogoths, are believed to be the Bulgars.[62] In 515, Bulgar mercenaries were listed along with others from the Goths, Scythians and Hunnic tribes as part of the Vitalian army.[63] In 539, two Hunnic "kinglets" defeated two Roman generals during the raid into Scythia Minor and Moesia.[64] A Roman army led by magister militum Ascum and Constantiolus intercepted and defeated them in Thrace, however, another raiding party ambushed and captured two Roman generals.[65] In 539 and 540, Procopius reported a powerful Hunnic army crossed the Danube, devastated Illyricum and reached up to the Anastasian Wall.[65] Such large distances covered in short time indicate they were horsemen.[65]"
"Jordanes described, in his work Getica (551), the Pontic steppe beyond the Acatziri, above the Pontic Sea, as the habitat of the Bulgari, "whom the evils of our sins have made famous". In this region, the Hunni divided into two tribes: the Altziagiri (who trade and live next to Cherson) and Saviri, while the Hunuguri (believed to be the Onoğurs) were notable for the marten skin trade.[35][66][67] In the Middle Ages, marten skin was used as a substitute for minted money.[68]
The Syriac translation of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor's Ecclesiastical History (c. 555) in Western Eurasia records:
"The land Bazgun... extends up to the Caspian Gates and to the sea, which are in the Hunnish lands. Beyond the gates live the Burgars (Bulgars), who have their language, and are people pagan and barbarian. They have towns. And the Alans - they have five towns... Avnagur (Aunagur, considered Onoğurs) are people, who live in tents".
Then he records 13 tribes, the wngwr (Onogur), wgr (Oğur), sbr (Sabir), bwrgr (Burğa, i.e. Bulgar), kwrtrgr (Kutriğurs), br (probably Vars, also known as the Avars), ksr (Kasr; possibly Akatziri), srwrgwr (Saragur), dyrmr (unknown), b'grsyq (Bagrasir, i.e. Barsil), kwls (unknown), bdl (probably Abdali), and ftlyt (Hephthalite). . They are described in typical phrases reserved for nomads in the ethnographic literature of the period, as people who "live in tents, earn their living on the meat of livestock and fish, of wild animals and by their weapons (plunder)".[35][69]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saragurs
"Around 463 AD, the Akatziri and other tribes that had been part of the Hunnic union were attacked by the Saragurs, one of the first Oghur tribes that entered the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the result of migrations set off in Inner Asia by the Hephthalite Uar attacking the Kidarite Xiyon.[5] The Akatziri had lived north of the Black Sea, west of Crimea.[6] According to Priscus, in 463 Ernakh and Dengizich sent the representatives of Saragurs, Oghurs (or Urogi,[6] perhaps a Byzantine error for Uyghurs[7]) and Onogurs came to the Emperor in Constantinople,[8] and explained they had been driven out of their homeland by the Sabirs, who had been attacked by the Avars in Inner Asia.[9][10] In 469, the Saragurs requested and received Roman protection.[11] In the late 500s, the Saragurs, Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Onogurs held part of the steppe north of the Black Sea.[12]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ono%C4%9Furs
"The Onogurs were one of the first Oghuric Turkic tribes that entered the Ponto-Caspian steppes as the result of migrations set off in Inner Asia.[5] The 10th century Movses Kaghankatvatsi recorded, considered late 4th century, certain Honagur, "a Hun[nb 1] from the Honk" who raided Persia, which were related to the Onoghurs, and located near Transcaucasia and the Sassanian Empire.[8] Scholars also relate the Hyōn to this account.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutrigurs
"Grousset thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns,[7] Procopius recounts:
in the old days many Huns,[nb 1] called then Cimmerians, inhabited the lands I mentioned already. They all had a single king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one called Utigur and another called Kutrigur. After their father's death they shared the power and gave their names to the subjected peoples, so that even nowadays some of them are called Utigurs and the others - Kutrigurs.[10][11]"
So the 3 major tribes that formed Old Great Bulgaria were Huns. We can even go a little further in history to that formation and the legendary Kubrat :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria
"Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Byzantine Greek: Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Voulgaría), also often known by the Latin names Magna Bulgaria[3] and Patria Onoguria ("Onogur land"),[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubrat
"Theophanes the Confessor called him "king of the Onogundur Huns".[5] Patriarch Nikephoros I (758–828) called Kubrat "lord of the Onuğundur"[6] and "ruler of the Onuğundur–Bulğars".[7] John of Nikiu (fl. 696) called him "chief of the Huns".[6] D. Hupchick identified Kubrat as "Onogur",[4] P. Golden as "Oğuro-Bulğar",[6] H. J. Kim as "Bulgar Hunnic/Hunnic Bulgar".[8] According to H. J. Kim the Onogundur/Onogur were evidently part of the Bulgar confederation.[9]"
At this point I think it is safe to say that the Onogur/Kutrigur/Utigur/Bulgar rulers were descendants of Huns. Then arises a new question. Who were the Huns? After looking at many theories very similar to the Bulgar ones, the most logical explanation to me is - Their early history and roots obviously come from Turk/Mongol background and if the Xiongnu connection is real(which it looks like) they are the OG Turks. As they conquered lands and people on the west they assimilated many Iranic people and even some of their traditions and names. When they reached West Asia and Europe they started to assimilate some Uralic, Slavic and Germanic people. From the 4th century when the Huns that we know entered Europe till the creation of Old Great Bulgaria in 7th century we are talking about 300 years of mixing with the people of the Pannonian/Pontic-Caspian steppes. To make a comparison, I would imagine any European people who settle, for example, in Western China for 300 years to become way more Eastern Asian genetically and to some extent culturally.
One tradition that was originally practiced by Iranic people but later adopted by the Huns was the "artificial cranial deformation". Here is a study on the topic of the practice - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5289542/
"The practice of intentional cranial modification was prevalent among the Indo-Iranian nomads such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans and Gepids in the region of the Hungarian Plains, Eurasian Steppes and the Caucasus, prior to the arrival of Huns in Europe. After the arrival of Huns and with the start of the Migration Period the practice became far more common across Europe. Given the strong influence of the Huns on the events of the Migration Period, it is often assumed that modified skulls in Migration Period Europe signify the presence or the cultural influence of the Huns. "
And because they compared a skull from Hungary with a skull from Georgia :
"Our study finds little evidence for Huns or direct Hunnic influence in Georgia, but we suggest that existing nomadic groups such as the Alans and Sarmatians were responsible for the modified crania here. This conclusion also fits with the absence of textual references for Huns settling in Georgia, but can be accounted for by ample textual references for the presence of Alans and Sarmatians in the region. The Alans and Sarmatians were not immune to the influence of Huns, however. The Huns subjugated many, but not all, of them in the Hungarian plain. If there was any Hunnic influence in Georgia it was in the heightened uptake of the existing social custom of cranial modification in the Georgian nomadic groups."
The same practice was also done by Bulgars - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21121717/
"However, little is known about the artificial skull deformations of the Proto-Bulgarians, and what information exists is mostly due to anthropological studies."
As far as Hunnic genetics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#Genetics
"A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined the remains of twenty-three Tian Shan Huns buried between ca. 100 AD and 500 AD. The six samples of Y-DNA extracted were four haplotypes of R (including one sample of R1b), and one sample of L. The twenty samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to G2a1d2, C4, N9a9, H6b2, M11a, U5b2a1a2, C4a1a, A16 (two samples), M10a, G2a1, H7b, A1a, K2a5, D4j5, J1d6, C41b, F1b1 (two samples) and D4b1a2a1. It was found that the Tian Shan Huns had more European ancestry than the Xiongnu. The authors of the study suggested that the Huns emerged through the conquests of Sakas by the Xiongnu, which is evident in the increased levels of East Asian paternal ancestry among the Tian Shan Huns. Later Turkic peoples of Central Asia displayed higher levels of East Asian ancestry than the Tian Shan Huns, indicating that the Turkification of Central Asia was carried out by dominant minorities of East Asian origin.[49] The results of the study were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns.[49][50]
A genetic study published in Scientific Reports in November 2019 examined the remains of three males from three separate 5th century Hunnic cemeteries in the Pannonian Basin. The males studied were found to be carriers of the paternal haplogroups Q1a2, R1b1a1b1a1a1 and R1a1a1b2a2. In modern Europe, Q1a2 is rare and has its highest frequency among the Székelys. It has earlier been found in the Okunev culture, the Karasuk culture, Tian Shan Huns and Sarmatians, implying a Hunnic origin of this lineage in Europe. R1a1a1b2a2 is today most common in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, and was very common in Bronze Age cultures of Central Asia such as the Sintashta culture. It has also been found among the Xiongnu. R1b1a1b1a1a1 is strongly associated with Germanic peoples, and has its highest prevalance in Northwestern Europe. Its ancestral branch is believed to have emerged on the Pontic-Caspian steppe and to have entered Europe through Bronze Age migrations. The sample of R1b1a1b1a1a1 from the Hunnic cemetery possibly belonged to a Goth, Gepid or some other Germanic ally of the Huns. All of the Hunnic males studied were determined to have had brown eyes and black of brown hair, and to have harbored both European and East Asian ancestry. The results were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns.[50]"
Both studies solidify the Xiongnu connection. First study links the early Huns to later Turkic populations and the second one shows the genetic diversity of 5th century Huns in Europe. Add 200 more years of mixing and you have the remnants of these European Huns in Old Great Bulgaria. Add 1400 more years and you have the modern Bulgarians with 1,5% Turkic DNA. That explains some of the Iranic traditions and names of Bulgars and also shows that they didn't just disappear in the "sea of Slavs and Thracians", but it's very likely that their people(not the ruling class) had a significant contribution to the modern Bulgarian gene pool. They just weren't the same nomads who fought ancient China, but the ancestors of those people who mixed on the border of Europe and Asia with other nomads and natives for approximately 300 years before forming the Bulgar confederation. Another thing that points towards that direction too is the "Bulgar" name itself, considered to come from the Turkic "mixed people".
I don't say that this is the absolute truth. I just read stuff and connect the dots. That's what made most sense to me out of all these theories. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,157 Given: 6,705 |
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 152 Given: 156 |
Another thing that I found interesting is connected to Avitohol - the first ruler mentioned in the Nominalia of Bulgarian Khans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina...ulgarian_khans
"Avitohol lived 300 years. His clan was Dulo and his year (of ascending to the throne) dilom tvirem."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avitohol
"Avitohol (153?–453?) is the first name in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. Little is known about him. According to the document he is from the Dulo clan and most probably was considered and respected as the forefather of the khans. Some researchers claim that Avitohol is Attila the Hun who was succeeded by his son Ernak or Irnik (the second name mentioned in the Nominalia). Others suggests that Avitohol was a semi-legendary ruler who may have been either a descendant or an ancestor of Attila (see Dulo clan)."
The translation that is most accepted and makes most sense is this one :
"In fact, Dobrev repeats entirely the earlier opinion of J. Mykola and H. Houssig that Avitohol originates from the Hunno-Altai avit (ata), aba - ancestor (father, grandfather) and ogul - son, a descendant whose proto-Bulgarian form is ohol. So thinks B. Simeonov. "
So, looks like Avitohol is a mythical ruler who had the title of the "Godfather" of Bulgars and he started his rule in ~150 year. Obviously he didn't rule 300 years, but here is something interesting about Xiongnu in the 1st century on page 60 of this book - https://books.google.bg/books?id=jTD...attila&f=false
Around the 1st century China conquered the Xiongnu people and some managed to escape to north-west and probably were the same ones who formed the Huns we know later. The mythical forefather of the Bulgars is also dated approximately to the 1st century. At this point I may be talking out of my ass, but it makes sense
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 95 Given: 0 |
Yakut word Bulkas is mixed. The Yakut word ogur means arkan, the Yakut word uon means ten.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Türkiye
Türkiye
Heathenry
Posting Permissions
България
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks