Are Bulgarian Turks really Turks

[Bugarash 1893]

Some deep shit said by the fat guy

[Hayalet]

The man is saying that they are. Are the Bulgarian subtitles saying something else?

[Bugarash 1893]

The man is saying that they are. Are the Bulgarian subtitles saying something else?

No,thats why I say the fat guy shits alot

[Onur]

No,thats why I say the fat guy shits alot

That fat man is one of the most prominent historians in the world.

[purple]

I remember Onur mentioning that over 30 million Turks in Turkey have Balkan roots.
Anyway, there might have been pure Turks (whatever this means nowadays), but today not so much. Deliorman - Turks, Tatars, Gypsy Muslims; Rhodope - most likely just Pomaks (surprising is the fact that if you travel through this region the majority of people are overwhelmingly blonde Muslims). I have been there a lot and met such people, yet they were Muslims and some of them claim to be Turks, but I dont believe them

Interesting topic

[ButlerKing]

Genetics don't show Bulgarians are Turks but closely related with slavs.

People always talk bullshit.

[adsız]

Genetics don't show Bulgarians are Turks but closely related with slavs.

People always talk bullshit.

Probably slavized Turks...

Bulgars, Bulgarians, Bulgaria

So, What is a "Bulgar" or a "Bulgarian" ?

Unbelievably, there is a lot of research done about this issue.

Some of the writing was written under political anxieties and are far from being scientific. I omitted the ones written by Turkisch Academicians to avoid accusation on being "proponent" .

The conclusion that I have come to is Bulgars (or "Bulgarians" as Trollhunter likes more to be called) are a nation with Turkic roots originated from Central Asia.

I must also add that modern Bulgars are assimilated completely by slavs so can not be Turkic anymore.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bulgar

Bulgar, also called Bulgarian , member of a people known in eastern European history during the Middle Ages.
A branch of these Bulgar's was one of the primary three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs).

Many scholars posit the origins of the Bulgars as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements_)and suggest that they arrived in the European steppe west of the Volga River with the Huns about 370 ce.

Retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and east of the Sea of Azov. Hired

by the Byzantines in 480 to fight against the Ostrogoths, the Bulgars subsequently became attracted by the wealth

of the Byzantine Empire. In the 6th century the Bulgars continually attacked the Danubian provinces of the

Byzantine Empire until, in the 560s, they were themselves threatened by the Avars, who were then advancing from

Asia into central Europe. The Avars destroyed one Bulgar tribe, but the rest saved themselves by submitting, for

two decades, to another horde of Turkic newcomers, most of whom then retreated back into Asia.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84067/Bulgar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminology: In the course of reinventing history, both Russian and Bulgarian scientists and scientologists had to invent a language suitable for their perch, which is confusing for anybody else. Here it goes: Bulgars are renamed Proto-Bulgars, which means that the Türkic Bulgars are Türkic, but without saying it, maybe you would not guess.

The modern Bulgars are named Bulgarians, or in Russian Bolgars. Thus made a distinction between the Türkic-speaking Bulgars and Slavic-speaking Bulgars. Dr. P.Tzvetkov follows the accepted nomenclature, but since ”Proto-Bulgars” does not make sense, he dubs it with the real term, Bulgars, like in Great Bulgaria, which seems to be never rechristened to Great Proto-Bulgaria.

The Slavic theory about the origin of the Bulgarians is based mainly on the argument that today the Bulgarians speak a Slavic language. Indeed, most philologists claim that about 80 per cent of the Bulgarian words have more or less identical Slavic counterparts. However, a closer look at these words leads to the discovery that too many words, existing both in Bulgarian and in all the Slavic languages, have a Ural-Altaic rather than an Indo-European origin, even though the Slavic idioms belong, no doubt, to the Indo-European family.

For instance, for a long time it has been established, that such words as ”tovar” (”load”, ”cattle”), ”kniga” (”book”), ”zhupan” (”governor”)

and ”otets” (”father”) are probably early Altaic loanwords in the Slavic languages. In the same vein the Bulgarian word ”dyado” and Slavic ”ded” (”grandfather”) may be related to Turkish ”dede”, while Bulgarian ”vrukh” and Slavic

”verkh” (”summit”) are apparently of the same origin as Chuvash ”vur”, Mongolian ”oroi”, and Hungarian ”orr”.
The Bulgarian and Slavic word for ”waler”-”voda” is clearly related to the German ”Wasser”, but it is even closer to the Mordvinian ”ved”'.

Practically none of the human skulls and skeletons that are found in Bulgaria or Macedonia have any Slavic features whatsoever.Moreover, the architecture of medieval cities like Pliska and Preslav has nothing to do with the Slavs, but it is related to the architecture of the cities, whose ruins lie basically in the lands once inhabited by the Bulgarians or ”Bulgars” in their long way from Asia to Europe.

PROF. DR. PLAMEN S. TZVETKOV
NEW. BULGARIAN UNIVERSITY
THE TURKS, SLAVS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE BULGARIANS
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...lgariansEn.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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" [Josef Benzing, 1986, p. 15-16]. On the Central Asian soil the ethnonym Uokil/Vokil/Augal probably left its trace in a name of the legion leader as forty Vekil in the Oguz epos “Kitab-i dedem Korkut”.

Yu. A. Zuev
EARLY TÜRKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BULGAR(IAN) DATE LINES :

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...eline_1_En.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html#2.
http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/tatar/bulgar.html
http://www.nada.kth.se/~dilian/bulgars.pdf

[ButlerKing]

Probably slavized Turks...

Bulgars, Bulgarians, Bulgaria

So, What is a "Bulgar" or a "Bulgarian" ?

Unbelievably, there is a lot of research done about this issue.

Some of the writing was written under political anxieties and are far from being scientific. I omitted the ones written by Turkisch Academicians to avoid accusation on being "proponent" .

The conclusion that I have come to is Bulgars (or "Bulgarians" as Trollhunter likes more to be called) are a nation with Turkic roots originated from Central Asia.

I must also add that modern Bulgars are assimilated completely by slavs so can not be Turkic anymore.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bulgar

Bulgar, also called Bulgarian , member of a people known in eastern European history during the Middle Ages.
A branch of these Bulgar's was one of the primary three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs).

Many scholars posit the origins of the Bulgars as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements_)and suggest that they arrived in the European steppe west of the Volga River with the Huns about 370 ce.

Retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and east of the Sea of Azov. Hired

by the Byzantines in 480 to fight against the Ostrogoths, the Bulgars subsequently became attracted by the wealth

of the Byzantine Empire. In the 6th century the Bulgars continually attacked the Danubian provinces of the

Byzantine Empire until, in the 560s, they were themselves threatened by the Avars, who were then advancing from

Asia into central Europe. The Avars destroyed one Bulgar tribe, but the rest saved themselves by submitting, for

two decades, to another horde of Turkic newcomers, most of whom then retreated back into Asia.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84067/Bulgar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminology: In the course of reinventing history, both Russian and Bulgarian scientists and scientologists had to invent a language suitable for their perch, which is confusing for anybody else. Here it goes: Bulgars are renamed Proto-Bulgars, which means that the Türkic Bulgars are Türkic, but without saying it, maybe you would not guess.

The modern Bulgars are named Bulgarians, or in Russian Bolgars. Thus made a distinction between the Türkic-speaking Bulgars and Slavic-speaking Bulgars. Dr. P.Tzvetkov follows the accepted nomenclature, but since ”Proto-Bulgars” does not make sense, he dubs it with the real term, Bulgars, like in Great Bulgaria, which seems to be never rechristened to Great Proto-Bulgaria.

The Slavic theory about the origin of the Bulgarians is based mainly on the argument that today the Bulgarians speak a Slavic language. Indeed, most philologists claim that about 80 per cent of the Bulgarian words have more or less identical Slavic counterparts. However, a closer look at these words leads to the discovery that too many words, existing both in Bulgarian and in all the Slavic languages, have a Ural-Altaic rather than an Indo-European origin, even though the Slavic idioms belong, no doubt, to the Indo-European family.

For instance, for a long time it has been established, that such words as ”tovar” (”load”, ”cattle”), ”kniga”
(”book”), ”zhupan” (”governor”)

and ”otets” (”father”) are probably early Altaic loanwords in the Slavic languages. In the same vein the Bulgarian word ”dyado” and Slavic ”ded” (”grandfather”) may be related to Turkish ”dede”, while Bulgarian ”vrukh” and Slavic

”verkh” (”summit”) are apparently of the same origin as Chuvash ”vur”, Mongolian ”oroi”, and Hungarian ”orr”.
The Bulgarian and Slavic word for ”waler”-”voda” is clearly related to the German ”Wasser”, but it is even closer to the Mordvinian ”ved”'.

Practically none of the human skulls and skeletons that are found in Bulgaria or Macedonia have any Slavic features whatsoever.Moreover, the architecture of medieval cities like Pliska and Preslav has nothing to do with the Slavs, but it is related to the architecture of the cities, whose ruins lie basically in the lands once inhabited by the Bulgarians or ”Bulgars” in their long way from Asia to Europe.

PROF. DR. PLAMEN S. TZVETKOV
NEW. BULGARIAN UNIVERSITY
THE TURKS, SLAVS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE BULGARIANS
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...lgariansEn.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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" [Josef Benzing, 1986, p. 15-16]. On the Central Asian soil the ethnonym Uokil/Vokil/Augal probably left its trace in a name of the legion leader as forty Vekil in the Oguz epos “Kitab-i dedem Korkut”.

Yu. A. Zuev
EARLY TÜRKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BULGAR(IAN) DATE LINES :

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...eline_1_En.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html#2.
http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/tatar/bulgar.html
http://www.nada.kth.se/~dilian/bulgars.pdf

Their Turk root is like less than 1-2%.

Why does Bulgarians have such high R1a and North European components like the Slavs? there genetically different from Turkey anyway who have more West Asian component. Also Turks in Turkey have from 2.5% to 18.5% Mongoloid admixtures but Bulgarians only 1-3% at maximum.

[adsız]

Their Turk root is like less than 1-2%.

Why does Bulgarians have such high R1a and North European components like the Slavs? if they were turks they should have more West Asian component but they don't. Also Turks have from 2.5% to 18.5% Mongoloid admixtures but Bulgarians only 1-3% at maximum.

"Turk root"

What is it ? Who is your reference as to original Turk while no one in the world is 100% pure genetically ?

[ButlerKing]

"Turk root"

What is it ? Who is your reference as to original Turk while no one in the world is 100% pure genetically ?

I know no one is pure genetically. What I'm trying to say is even in terms of Caucasoid components, Bulgarians have a different component in autosomal DNA to Turkish. Bulgarians are predominately North European, with some west Asian and little to no mongoloid admixture. Turkish are predominately West Asian with some European and little to somewhat Mongoloid admixture, Turkish also have little bit of every other components which Bulgarians lack.