Revision as of 15:04, 9 September 2007 editOrtis12 (talk | contribs)36 edits →Recent edits← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:27, 9 December 2024 edit undoMellk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,294 edits →Language section | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
Currently the article leaves the impression that Onogurs were non-bulgar tribe which Kubrat united with the bulgars. Is that so, or please rephrase! ] 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{FailedGA|07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)|topic=Culture, society and psychology|page=1}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|hist=yes|ethno=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups}} | |||
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Romania}} | |||
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|date=July 15, 2015}} | |||
}} | |||
== Reliable sources and objectiveness == | |||
Greetings, | |||
I've been reading the discussion page about the Bulgars article and I noticed that editors tend to discredit any sources which are in opposition to the Turkic hypothesis (or in favor of the Sarmatian one) as unreliable purely on the basis that they're from Bulgarian authors. When an editor asks for reliable sources in English, "non-Bulgarian" is always a requirement, which I think implies that contemporary Bulgarian academia are all extreme nationalists who are writing out of "anti-Turkish sentiment", thus making them unreliable or incompetent. I find this completely false (not to mention offensive), for the following reasons: | |||
'''1.'''the Sarmatian/Iranian hypothesis exists long before the 90's - Russian historian Nikolai Marr was one of the first to propose a Sarmatian origin of the Bulgars in the early 20th century. Veselin Beshevliev wrote an article ''Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians'' way back in ''1967'', where he concludes that all personal names from the ''Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans'' are of Iranian origin and that this significant cultural influence has to be taken into consideration when determining Bulgar ethnogenesis. | |||
I thing that the name Bulgaria is very simple. "B'L' - GR' " means "The Great Land" . B' - means Old, big, great, Older; L' means mountain, teeth etc.; GR' means land. And the apostrophe here is the active letter "Ъ" | |||
in bulgarian language. There is some other languages used the letter but not the "Latin" and "Greek" languages. From here the name ] means B'L'K'N' - "The Great Land/Mountain Keeper/fortress - (] or ], or ]) - ] - ], ] / ] - lake, ] or ] - name | |||
'''2.''' the Turkic hypothesis was the official narrative about the Bulgars origin at the time of the '''Revival process''' and under Communist regime. So linking the Sarmatian/Iranian hypotheses of the 1990's with "anti-Turkish sentiments" and the Revival process in particular is simply absurd. Yes, there are many fringe theories in post-socialist Bulgaria which are nationalistic myths in their nature, such as the Bactrian hypothesis of P. Dobrev and the autochthonous hypothesis, but they emerge as a result of pluralism after the fall of old regime and cannot be linked to the Revival process when the Turkic theory was dominant. | |||
I would also like to point out something else - when talking about "reliable sources", I think its ridiculous to refer to the Oxford's or some others '''Dictionary of World history''' as they are not historical/archeological '''research''', but as dictionaries they themselves refer to previous research done mainly by '''Bulgarian''' historians such as Veselin Beshevliev (the first one to identify Bulgar inscriptions as Turkic), Vasil Zlatarski, Vasil Gyuzelev and others. Simply discrediting modern Bulgarian research made by serious academia as "nationalistic myths" or "anti-Turkish sentiments" without looking into the evidence itself is just lazy, anti-scientific and perhaps biased. | |||
ROB, Dude, stop making up stories - please, leave this article alone and set us free from your annoying comments. | |||
i don`t know who rights this stuff it`s so lame | |||
bulgarians are one of the 24 tribes that noa has spawn | |||
owr home land now called pamir | |||
we setteled meny clans until we reached todays bulgaria | |||
there are bulgarians in russia ukrain italy etc.. | |||
bulgarians have fought bizantian empire for long centuries and were a great treaht for it | |||
and a lot of names come from our old language buda and budhha are too simular i don`t know many exaples because am not so intrested but this article is really lame | |||
==Remove "Bulgar" Etymology Guess== | |||
What on Earth is ''Varkun'', and how could it be related to the word Bulgar? Furthermore, I believe the current view is that Bulgars were not originally Turkic (article seems to agree), so it does not make sense for the word to be derived from a Turkic language. According to Bulgarian scholars (who should care), the etymology of the name is somewhere between very controversial, and totally unknown. We should remove the whole name etymology sentence. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to throw wild guesses. Unless someone presents a viable referenced argument for the current etymology hypothesis, I will edit it out. --] 00:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
So, all that being said, I kindly ask the editors to review the sources below and finally do a fair edit on the Bulgars article as to represent the Scytho-Sarmatian hypothesis '''equally''' to the Turkic one. "Turkic semi-nomadic" has to be replaced with just "semi-nomadic". '''Britannica''' already edited their entry on the Bulgars in light of recent findings, so there's no reason for Misplaced Pages not to do the same. The fact that there is still an ongoing debate about the Bulgar origins amongst serious academia should be reason enough to edit the article, so I'm just appalled by the stubbornness of the editors here. | |||
Bulgar (Bolgar) name seems to be driven from Volga river. I find the suggested etymology ("Bulgha" to mix) less likely. | |||
NO. Volga comes from the Russian ways of pronouncing Bulga. The Bulgars settled there, hence the name. --Kaloyan* 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
'''Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian | |||
I think etymologists agree that Volga is also derived from the Turkic for mix. Hope it helps. | |||
origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians''' - | |||
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/194728109.pdf | |||
'''Genetic evidence suggests relationship between contemporary Bulgarian population and Iron Age steppe dwellers from Pontic-Caspian steppe''' - | |||
::Btw a friend of mine that graduated Turkology told me there is no word "bulgha" meaning "mix" in any Turkic language. In Bulgarian textbooks the name is explained with a totemistic origin. In Turkic languages ''bulga'' is a kind of small animal with valuable fur. So the "Bulgars" would be the "bulga hunters". | |||
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full | |||
'''Archaeological and genetic data suggest Ciscaucasian origin for the Proto-Bulgarians''' | |||
::''името българи има тотемен произход, т. е. свързва се с името на животното-прародител. Засвидетелствано е в различни варианти като булг-ан/а, булг-ин, булх-ън, булг-ар, бул-гачин, което на различни тюркски езици означава "белка, златка, самур". Или казано по друг начин, българи означава „ловци на самури"'' ('''История на България за 11 клас. С., Отворено общество, 1996 - автори: П. Делев, Г. Бакалов, П. Ангелов, Цв. Георгиева, Пл. Митев, Ст. Трифонов, Б. Василева, И. Баева, Е. Калинова''') | |||
https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians | |||
::Смешно е да се защитава енциклопедичността с голи гърди, а в същото време да се подхвърлят петърдобреви врели-некипели в стил "българи-арийци!". Само ще напомня, че ВСЕ ОЩЕ сериозната наука категоризира изследваните прабългарски глоси като тюркоезични и освен невежи спекулации, няма други доводи да се определи езикът на прабългарите като памирски или какъвто и да било друг.] 09:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
'''Еastern roots of the Madara horseman Chobanov''' - | |||
:::I would think twice before using "Отворено общество" (Open Society Institute) texts for anything, particularly concerning facts that might (or might not, as it usually is) have a "nationalist" ring to them. The institute is somewhat notorious for pushing their agenda when it comes to interpretations of history. It is very unfortunate, that such publications are actually used in some high schools in Bulgaria. On the subject of protobulgarian language, if you bothered to look at a list of non-slavic words, present in modern Bulgarian, you would discover that most words tend to appear much more closely related to Pashtu, than to any Turkic language. Refrain from posting in Bulgarian here, do so on my talk page. --] 19:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
https://www.academia.edu/44604518/%D0%95astern_roots_of_the_Madara_horseman_Chobanov | |||
'''THE LEGACY OF SASANIAN IRAN AMONGST THE BULGARIANS ON THE LOWER DANUBE''' (BG text) - | |||
=============================================== | |||
https://www.academia.edu/44902361/%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%9F%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%A3_%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%95_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%92_THE_LEGACY_OF_SASANIAN_IRAN_AMONGST_THE_BULGARIANS_ON_THE_LOWER_DANUBE | |||
Otto Maenchen-Helfen: '''“The names of the Danube Bulgars offer an illustration of the pitfalls into which scholars are likely to stumble when they approach the complex problems of the migration period with their eyes fixed on etymologies. In spite of the labor spent on the explanation of Bulgarian names, since the thirties of the past century, there is hardly one name whose etymology has been definitely established. The name Bulgar itself is an example. What does it mean? Are the Bulgars "the Mixed ones" or "the Rebels?" Pelliot was inclined to the latter interpretation but thought it is possible that bulgar meant les trouveurs. Detschev challenged the Turkish etymology; he assumed that Bulgar was the name given to the descendants of the Attilanic Huns by the Gepids and Ostrogoths and took it for Germanic, meaning homo pugnax. Still another non-Turkish etymology has been suggested by Keramopoulos. He takes Bulgarii to be burgaroi, Roman mercenaries garrisoned in the burgi along the limes. Without accepting this etymology, I would like to point out that in the second half of the sixth century a group of Huns who had found refuge in the empire were known as fossalisii. Fossalum is a military camp.” | |||
'''On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, Rashev Rasho 1992''' | |||
“In addition to the objective difficulties, subjective ones bedevil some scholars. Turkologists are likely to find Turks everywhere; Germanic scholars discover Germans in unlikely places. Convinced that all Bulgarians spoke Turkish, Nemeth offered an attractive Turkish etymology of Asparuch; other Turkologists explained the name in a different, perhaps less convincing way. Now it has turned out, that Asparuch is an Iranian name. Validi Togan, a scholar of profound erudition but sometimes biased by pan-Turkism, derived shogun, Sino-Japanese for chiang chun, "general," from the Qarluq title sagun. Pro-Germanic bias led Schonfeld to maintain, in disregard of all chronology, that the Moors took Vandalic names.”''' ---] 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html | |||
'''Archaeological overview on the formation of Asparukh’s Protobulgarians''' Todor Chobanov Ph.D.,Ass.prof., Svetoslav Stamov MA, Duke University | |||
== İdel or Volga == | |||
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/24/687384/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true | |||
'''Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians''' Veselin Beshevliev 1967 (BG text) | |||
Hi, I'm from ] and I can help you in this question! | |||
http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/V_%20Beshevliev%20-%20Iranski%20elementi%20u%20pyrvobylgarite.htm | |||
''Volga'' is Finnish for ''water''. (Finnish tribes lived in Russia before Slavics and Turks). ] use ''İdel'' for ''Volga''. So Volga is Finnish name. In native Tatar and Russian pronouncing ''bolğar'' do not sounds like ''volga''^becose it's ''rr'' in the ending. | |||
Thank you for taking the time to review this topic. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
--] 20:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
:{{re|188.123.127.19}} Turkic one is not a hypothesis, it is documented and majority of historians agree with it, thus a mainstream view. ] (]) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
::bulgars being turk is purely based on historical beliefs. It is very upsetting to see evidence and scientific facts are put under a rug to someone's favour. Truth will always come out ] (]) 12:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{re|Beshogur}} It's definitely not a theory amongst archeologists and it is considered an outdated theory amongst contemporary historians. That's why this article has to be revised so as to be more objective and up to date with modern research. | |||
== A lot of mistakes, outdated information and bias, needs a lot more work == | |||
:Hi, I am a Bulgarian, who speaks Finnish, and I can tell you that ''Volga'' is not a word in Finnish. The Finnish word for water is ''vesi'', and the sound combination ''lg'' is not present in Finnish at all. I'd bet on the Turkic origin of ''Volga''. | |||
:--] 03:24, 30 Jul 2004 (EET) | |||
Hello, I have made a few changes but there are a lot of other mistakes, I hope someone reads more on the subject and continues improving the article without a political bias. There are so many sources on the subject from foreign and Bulgarian scientists. If someone is interested, he/she may start from these scientific works. There is a lot of political bias on the subject which attracts a lot of factual mistakes and intolerability to change opinions according to the new research that has been done on the subject. | |||
:I don't know about proposed etymologies for the name 'Volga', but what I do know is that although there is no such word as 'volga' in finnish, 'valka' is an old finnish word meaning something like 'to flow' or 'water' or the like, I'm not quite sure what. Although the word itself isn't in use in modern finnish, a derived word 'valkama', meaning something like a 'landing place for a boat' still sees some use, although many finns of today probably wouldn't understand it anymore. Similar words can, as far as I know, be found in related languages. Sorry for the anonymity, maybe I'll get bold and register myself and then come back to reference my claims, now you'll just have to take my word as a native speaker of finnish and student of general linguistics. | |||
https://www.academia.edu/50741981/The_debate_about_the_origin_of_Protobulgarians_in_the_beginning_of_the_21st_century | |||
:--] 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ | |||
The name of ] is absoulutely unclear. Some apologize that it derrivides from ] ethnos. Intetrestingly, that Tatars foget their oun name for ''Kama'' ('''Çulman''') and use Russian name Kama now. | |||
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3 | |||
--] 20:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
https://www.academia.edu/49103702/Significant_Z_4_admixture_signal_with_a_source_from_ancient_Wusun_observed_in_contemporary_Bulgarians | |||
The name of Volga comes from the Russian/Slavic inability to pronounce the saound "shwa" in Bulga. That is how they pronounce Bulgaria even today. Volga was named after the Bulgars. | |||
https://www.academia.edu/30769850/Genes_found_in_archaeological_remains_of_the_ancient_population_of_the_Balkans | |||
== Madara horseman??? == | |||
Please, someone make the rest of the changes using the latest data and research and not outdated and disproved theories. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Da ne bi njakoj da e propusnal fakta 4e minalata godina arheolozi dokazaha trakijskija proizhod na madarskija konnik? Horata nameriha relef ot nadgrobna plo4a s absolutno syshtoto izobrazhenie. Taka 4e vyprosyt e priklu4en. Mozhe bi shte e dobre ako mahnete snimkata na konnika ot tazi statija i ja premestite v statija za trakite. | |||
:Hi, there is nothing new about this Bulgarian view. That problem has been analyzed in the text. It has been disputed many times here on the talk. However here is not the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. Just read carefully the text from the article: ''Among Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev,{{sfn|Sophoulis|2011|p=66}} a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the ] (]{{sfn|Karachanak, ''et al.''|2013}}) has been popular since the 1990s.<ref>Добрев, Петър, 1995. "Езикът на Аспаруховите и Куберовите българи" 1995</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Stamatov |first=Atanas |date=1997 |title=TEMPORA INCOGNITA НА РАННАТА БЪЛГАРСКА ИСТОРИЯ |chapter=ИЗВОРИ И ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ – І–ІІ ЧАСТ |chapter-url=http://www.protobulgarians.com/kniga_Atstamatov.htm |publisher=MGU Sv. Ivan Rilski}}</ref><ref>Димитров, Божидар, 2005. 12 мита в българската история</ref><ref>Милчева, Христина. Българите са с древно-ирански произход. Научна конференция "Средновековна Рус, Волжка България и северното Черноморие в контекста на руските източни връзки", Казан, Русия, 15.10.2007</ref> Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate.<ref name="Rashev"/><ref>Бешевлиев, Веселин. Ирански елементи у първобългарите. Античное Общество, Труды Конференции по изучению проблем античности, стр. 237–247, Издательство "Наука", Москва 1967, АН СССР, Отделение Истории.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Rüdiger |last=Schmitt |date=1985 |title=Iranica Protobulgarica: Asparuch und Konsorten im Lichte der Iranischen Onomastik |publisher=Academie Bulgare des Sciences |place=] |journal=Linguistique Balkanique |volume=XXVIII |issue=l |pages=13–38}}</ref> The names ] and Bezmer from the '']'' list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|pp=384, 443}} Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis".<ref>Йорданов, Стефан. Славяни, тюрки и индо-иранци в ранното средновековие: езикови проблеми на българския етногенезис. В: Българистични проучвания. 8. Актуални проблеми на българистиката и славистиката. Седма международна научна сесия. Велико Търново, 22–23 август 2001 г. Велико Търново, 2002, 275–295.</ref><ref>Надпис № 21 от българското златно съкровище "Наги Сент-Миклош", студия от проф. д-р Иван Калчев Добрев от Сборник с материали от Научна конференция на ВА "Г. С. Раковски". София, 2005 г.</ref> According to ], the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of ] in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated.<ref name="Detrez">{{cite book| first=Raymond| last=Detrez |author-link=Raymond Detrez |title=Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence |publisher=Peter Lang |year=2005 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TRttHdXjP14C |page=29| isbn=9789052012971 }}</ref> Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin.<ref>{{cite book|title=Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe|author=Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre|year=2016|page=142}}</ref>'' Thanks. ] (]) 18:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
Ne si spomnqm da e dokazano sas sigurnost, 4e pametnikat e s trakijski proizhod, dokato tova ne stane, snimkata ostava. ] | |||
::All the sources presented above are by Bulgarian researchers. Their position is clarified in the article, but it contradicts the prevailing international consensus and is not leading. Therefore, please stop trying to impose it in the introduction. Thanks. ] (]) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::You are favouring a biased view of history and the view of Turkish politics in Bulgaria, please stop reverting the edit. Thanks. ] (]) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::This article is based on reliable sources. Please, reach a consensus at talk before making further disruptive editiong. Thanks. ] (]) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::This article was updated with reliable sources and you are changing it. This will result in you losing your editing rights. ] (]) 18:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::Why is the view that you support the current view on the page? What makes your opinion superior? I immediately request the change of the page. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and your undesirability to change based on the scientific links would be looked at. ] (]) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::The article is quite old and this is the view that has prevailed over the years here. There have been many discussions, but the view of the Bulgarian scientists is not accepted as a leading opinion in the world science. Please present scientific publications from world universities that strongly support the Bulgarian view you espouse here. If you do not have such sources, comply with the current situation. The Bulgarian view is presented according to its weight in the world scientific consensus. Thanks. --] (]) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Just because an article is old, that doesn't mean it shouldn't change. I have already presented a scientific publication with the participation of Italian scientists. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ ] (]) 19:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::In addition to the findings of the Italian scientists, I have used books from leading turkologists. ] (]) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::This is one Bulgarian primary source. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary sources. Look for example at: Bayazit Yunusbayev et al., „The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia.“ PLoS Genetics 11:4 (21 April 2015): "The Chuvash received their Turkic ancestry around the year 816, according to its admixture analysis in S4 Table. This ancestry stems from the region of South Siberia and Mongolia. They are also related to nearby non-Turkic peoples. Chuvashes, the only extant Oghur speakers showed an older admixture date (9th century) than their Kipchak-speaking neighbors in the Volga region. According to historical sources, when the Onogur-Bulgar Empire (northern Black Sea steppes) fell apart in the 7th century, some of its remnants migrated northward along the right bank of the Volga river and established what later came to be known as Volga Bulgars, of which the first written knowledge appears in Muslim sources only around the end of the 9th century. Thus, the admixture signal for Chuvashes is close to the supposed arrival time of Oghur speakers in the Volga region. ". Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians: ''Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE.''"Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::~2 to 4% is too little to say that the whole group is turkic. Many other European people have such genetic traces due to hunnic migrations that reached modern day Germany, if not beyond. Either the Bulgars are called "a mix of different groups" or not turkic because the view isn't supported by modern science. ] (]) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. ] (]) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::You say we shouldn't listen to any Bulgarian scientists yet your nationality is Turkish and one might ask why we should listen to you. ] (]) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Hmm why? ] (]) 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::It doesn't matter if most of the scientific articles are written by Bulgarians or not because even the well established foreign authors use Bulgarian works in their citations. There is a new leading theory and it is supported by Italian scientists as well, I have shared a link. Since the old theory doesn't reflect the truth, the wikipedia article should be changed. You can't expect forrign authors to know more about Bulgarian history than Bulgarians themselves. Genetic research cannot be biased or political, it is reflecting factual data and the truth here is the data shows that even Proto-Bulgarians and turkic tribes are not related. ] (]) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
WP:FRINGE. Not worthy to reply. Out of mainstream view. ] (]) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Madara horseman should stay, unless hard references for alleged discovery of Thracian origins are presented. Please, use only English here! --] 00:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
: ], there is any new theory, but a fringe view of Bulgarian scientists, that is more then 30 years old, which has not been accepted widely. It is included in this article. The DNA study you have posted is Bulgarian, not Italian and is not a new, but out of date - more then 10 years old. It is also a primary source, i.e. not reliable source. Please do not comment on the nationality of the editors. If you do not reach a consensus here, as at the moment, you cannot impose your views in this article. In this case you should look for alternative methods that are indicated in the warning notes on your personal talk page. Greetings. ] (]) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::Hello, from now on I will kindly ask you to not comment on the nationality of the reasearchers because nationality bias isn't a logical argument for not accepting the truth. Archeological findings and linguistics are highly flawed methods of evaluating ethnicity since the discovery of genetic research. That's why the Iranian theories are more supported nowadays, and these theories have been around for more than a century and not close to 30 years as you have stated. Foreign researchers rely on Bulgarian scientists to give them data since there they have the most archeological sites and genetic data on the Bulgars - in Bulgaria. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and they have told me that unless the dispute is settled here, I will have to raise the issue. | |||
:: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/ | |||
::This is not a Bulgarian study. There is no mention of substantial turkic element in the Bulgarian genetic makeup. There is a slavic group mixed with other non-turkic one. | |||
::"When we consider the composition of sources from within West Eurasia, while the majority of a group’s ancestry tends to come from its own regional area, there is a substantial contribution of both Northern European (light and dark blue) and Armenian groups (light green) to most WA, EC, WC, and TK clusters, as well as some clusters from both SEE and SCE. As previously reported, the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals." ] (]) 14:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::It's still unclear what you're trying to push here. Most scholars, ie mainstream agrees on Bulgars' Turkic origin, and fringe view of some Bulgarian historians are mentioned as well. No Bulgars are not Iranian people as you're trying to push on the article. ] (]) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Please, remain civil and don't use words as "push" when I am trying to improve an article with the latest data. Bulgars are Iranian people and this is a fact. I have shared the findings of western researchers and you still are unwilling to change your opinion, you don't leave me much of a choice than to resort to some other ways to solve this issue, ways recommended by the Misplaced Pages community. Greetings. ] (]) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sure removing quotes of notable historians like Golden and adding Dobrev to this isn't improving at all. Your first source, p. 177 doesn't even say they're Iranian. I would suggest reading ], ]. ] (]) 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::Removing old data and adding updated one is improving. My first source says they're Iranian. "The research carried in this study, combining written | |||
::::::sources, archaeological data and DNA research, brings the debate about the origin of Protobulgarians onto another level by identifying their Ciscaucasian “cradle” and thus – theirSarmatian-Caucasian origin, similar to this of Caucasian Alans." I would suggest reading about the Iranian tribes (Sarmatian and Alan included). Greetings. ] (]) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::And for the study I shared, it's posted in 2013 and is not outdated at all, it's not older than 10 years, look again. And it is done in cooperation with Italian scientists. Thanks. ] (]) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
@Careful information, preprint sources shouldn't be cited until peer reviewed and published; ''Avant-garde Research of Ancient Bulgarians'' doesn't seem like a reliable journal and Yavor Shopov graduated (astro)physics while Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology, both aren't experts on population genetics. Will highlight the most important sentence from Shopov's 2021 book: "'''Regretfully no DNA data from rich Protobulgarian graves is available at present (for examplethe Kabiuk grave circa 700) and we could not check the existing theories that there were various ethnicities amongst the elite (Turks, Ugrians, Sarmatians), but future research should address this issue'''". However, will check the genetics section and maybe something can be added there.--] (]) 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Nesheva is a geneticist and the informatian is published in her research. Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology and is PhD. Archeology is crucial in evaluating ehnicities and their origins when it is done along DNA research. Chobanov is not a geneticist but he cites world renowned geneticists like Garrett Hellenthal and George B J Busby. Even in the article itself it says that the origin is disputed, I recommend an edit in which the Bulgars are of mixed ethnicity or not turkic at all since the latest data confirms this. Greetings. ] (]) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::Heil master, yes master... I can not imagine any "harder references" than having a Thracian tombstone with exactly the same image found. They had all this written in newspapers and shown on tv news last year. I believe the have the stelae in the National Museum right now. Come by and search for yourself. You don't expect me to snitch it and knock it in your forehead, do you? | |||
::The Bulgars were Turkic tribes. There were no genetically pure tribes anywhere. Their language, culture and beliefs were Turkic and this is generally accepted everywhere except by some researchers in Bulgaria. Such a one-sided fringe view cannot used to change the intro of the article.] (]) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::See being arrogant would only bring you arrogance in exchange. I wouldn't use words like "alleged" when speaking to somebody about what he just said. ] 09:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
:::The Bulgars were not Turkic tribes. Their language, culture and beliefs were not Turkic, their calendar wasn't Turkic as well. What is accepted outside of Bulgaria is that they were a mixture of different ethnicities. This is not a one-sided fringe view and it can be used to change the intro of the article. ] (]) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::According to many reliable sources and experts on the topic their language, culture, beliefs and calendar were Turkic. In the article is already mentioned several times that they mixed and assimilated a mixture of different ethnicities.--] (]) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::We get the same sort of "discoveries" every year, some of them (few) end up accepted by science, however, the most of them do not. You heard something on TV a year ago and that is not an especially valid reason for changing the whole article. On top of it, it is quite hard to talk of any Thracians after 1 cent DC (as they were all Romanized) and the monument is officially dated to the 7th or 8th century DC. And, please, tone down your language, you are not at the market haggling about prices. ] | |||
::@Careful information, doesn't seem you understand well what's written in those scientific studies, but I've made an edit considering what's concluded in reliable sources and NPOV. However, it should be noted that we are dealing with a steppe nomadic federation which assimilated diverse tribes and ethnic groups. It is highly dubious even controversial to claim anything for sure without any ancient DNA and even then if there's lack of sample size. Nesheva's conclusion did include, but isn't based on ancient DNA. Only because Altaic-Turkic Y-DNA haplogroups are present in very minimal frequency in modern Bulgarians doesn't mean Proto-Bulgarian elite wasn't partly, significantly or even majorly composed of Altaic-Turkic anthropology. Take for example recent comprehensive genetic studies of Proto-Hungarians i.e. Hungarian elite. The most probable scenario is that when Proto-Bulgarians arrived they already were a very mixed group of people with some leading clans of Turkic ancestry which elite didn't left enough genetic trace in modern Bulgarians.--] (]) 18:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::As I have stated above the Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History's conclusion about Bulgarians and their Bulgar legacy is different. Hellenthal has the opposite opinion to that of Karachanak, claiming only the negligible Northeast Asiatic genetic signal among the Bulgarians might correspond to the whole DNA impact left from the invasions of the Turkic Bulgars. I am going to add this conclusion too. ] you are free to correct my edit if something is going wrong. Regards. ] (]) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Nothing wrong, that's exactly what pointed out. Good edit and think with it the section is neutral enough.--] (]) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::DNA research of actual bulgar remains and modern bulgarian dna have concluded 2 things | |||
::::1 - the strongest signal is from the bulgars | |||
::::2 - modern bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture out of any european populations | |||
::::3 - the bulgars were europid as well (9th century bulgar burial remains studied) | |||
::::You can refer to prof Reich for #2 who is the authority on DNA research as pertaining to ethnic makeup and haplogroups. The rest is shown in the 2 most recent studies that are unprecedented in scope both from a historic and numeric breadth. ] (]) 12:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I understand perfectly everything written in those scientific studies. You say we can't speak of pure ethnicity when we talk about a federation, so why aren't you supporting my suggestion to write "tribes of mixed ethnicities" and then add the few ethnicities? Even if a small part of the elite was turkic, it doesn't mean the whole ethnicity is because it is not. I suggest we write "a mixture" or "unconfirmed", "disputed", etc. Do you agree? ] (]) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::No, the tribes had a distinctive ethnic identity and such identity goes beyond biology. In the article the topic of mixing with other groups is already mentioend and explained. --] (]) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::No, this is not true. This is what PhD Alex M. Feldman from the university of Birmingham says: | |||
:::::"Caspian Eurasia with the greatest care. It also means that a given “people” such as the Volga Bulgars or the Danube Bulgars, Rus’, Magyars or even the Khazars themselves were not so much a single migrating “tribe” or even a “tribal confederation” of peoples, as is often presented, 150 so much as conquering elite minorities imposing vassalage, tribute and possibly some form of monotheism on various populations along the way." | |||
:::::(Ethnicity and Statehood in Pontic-Caspian Eurasia (8-13th c.): Contributing to a Reassessment) | |||
:::::The tribes had a destinctive Iranian ethnic identity but I offered a way that is also scientifically backed up. It should be either "mixed" or "Iranian". Greetings. ] (]) 20:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yeah this is simply ] at this point. ] (]) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Sorry to get in on this 2 years later. A few corrections. | |||
:::::::The DNA studies have concluded that bulgars were NOT turkic. At least no east asian signals there. | |||
:::::::Modern Bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture of any European populations. For that one refer to Prof Reich's studies result published which are the ones with the biggest samples by far. | |||
:::::::Furthermore the genetic legacy in modern Bulgarians is the strongest from the Bulgars. | |||
:::::::So in other words it is impossible that the Bulgars were of east asian descent or mixture. That hypothesis rested on guesswork and no solid evidence and is now utterly debunked. ] (]) 12:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I love how Bulgarian scholarship desperately tries to play up the Sarmatian/Alan hypothesis, doing anything to avoid connection with Turkic and Siberian elements that are patently at least partly there. They just can't handle being connected to them. ] (]) 22:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Why do you think that? In fact it swas the Bulgarian scholars that pushed the turkic origins theory incessantly and still do. but it is the historians not the hard scientists - i.e. genetic research. The issue is quite obvious. The scholars that have based their career on this hypothesis have now a hard time admitting they were pushing a lie. | |||
::::DNA studies have made this hypothesis untenable now. Things are turning around but slowly due to all these historians suffering cognitive dissonance. But the facts are now indisputable. Once this older generation of historians gives way the younger historians will be more open to accepting realities. | |||
::::And it is sad that wikipedia does not reflect hard science but pseudo science at this point - hypotheses based on guesswork. | |||
::::I would suggest you get acquainted with the latest findings in this field before you make such broad sweeping statements that are quite unjustified and reflect your ignorance in the matter. ] (]) 12:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Secondly saying that just because one is wrong - i.e. the sarmatian/alan hypothesis (which I agree with you as DNA evidence does not support it) does not make the other right - the turkic hypothesis. Neither have any foundation in evidence. ] (]) 12:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
:'''Note!''' User "Careful Information" blocked as a sock in April ... <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:User "Careful Information" isn't blocked as a sock in April. ] (]) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Sorry - wrong address. I am not the one that clumps legs and says what "should" and what "shouldn't". Anyway my tone is exclusively my concern. NOTE! I don't know you and I do not have any personal biases towards you.] 11:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
::Check the User Page for this user. "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · logs).Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. " <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::Btw the market I go to has fixed prices, unfortunately ;) | |||
== Bulgarian nationalist agenda == | |||
:::::With this attitude you are going straight towards being banned. You are in a public website where people are supposed to be polite to each other. If you have a problem with that, leave. ] | |||
Stop pushing Bulgarian nationalist fringe views. According to ], who is an expert in Bulgarian history, the Iranian hypothesis is rooted in the periods of ] in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated.<ref name="Detrez">{{cite book| first=Raymond| last=Detrez |author-link=Raymond Detrez |title=Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence |publisher=Peter Lang |year=2005 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TRttHdXjP14C |page=29| isbn=9789052012971 }}</ref> Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin.<ref name=":0">{{cite book|title=Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe|author=Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre|year=2016|page=142}}</ref> According to other authors:<blockquote>''Anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of Turkic origin of the Bulgars. Alongside the ‘Iranian’ or ‘Aryan’ theory, there appeared arguments favouring an autochthonous origin. The ‘parahistoric’ theories, very often politically loaded and have almost nothing to do with objective scientific research in the field of Proto-Bulgarian Studies, could be summarized in several directions:...3)‘Aryan roots’ and the ‘enigmatic Eurasian homeland’. Meanwhile, another group of authors is looking eagerly for the supposed homeland of the ancient Bulgarians in the vast areas of Eurasia, perhaps by conscious or unconscious opposition to the pro-Western orientation of modern Bulgaria. At the same time, with little regard for consistency, they also oppose the Turkic theory, probably because this is in sharp contradiction with the anti-Turkish feelings shared by nationalistic circles.''<ref name=":0" /></blockquote> ] (]) 03:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::??? And what exactly in my words would you categorize as "rude"? To be banned or not is not my decision, yet my ban would be the most unfair ever on this site. I broke no rules, I ment to offend nobody. Or expressing disagreement is quite a reason for you? If people should be polite, make them ALL be polite. Being edifying is not a shortcut in that direction.] 12:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
::::::Btw I didn't even argue with you. Is jumping into fights your way to keep adrenalin high or what? :( | |||
:Jingiby, you should be aware that Turkish and Turkic are two different notions separated by hundreds of years, also that this is not Bulgarian nationalist agenda, the Bulgarian nationalists are claiming the mainstream historical narrative of Asian (Turkic or Iranic) origin. This is according to the recent genetic and linguistic studied many of us | |||
== Pamirian origin == | |||
:are trying to implement in this article but you and others are constantly deleting. ] (]) 22:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::oh looks lik this is already in discussion. I was also surprised that DNA study findings is not even considered. It is the gold standard and indisputable in this field. It seems to me there is likely some agenda here but I am not sure what that is. ] (]) 18:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hi there. It is not binary - either turkic or iranian. In fact the DNA studies state that the origin cannot be asian as it is west eurasian - that is another term for generally european. So not sure why you jump to the conclusion it is about iranian origin. It seems you are reading something into it that is not there. Maybe read the actual studies. Just a suggestion ] (]) 18:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:You should likely make a distinction between hard science and nationalistic views. One is indisputable and it could possibly coincide with nationalistic views as well. That does not make it untrue. | |||
:Here is a simple example germans are european not african. Genetic studies show that clearly that the african admixutre quotient is nonexistent. There are nationalistic elements especially in history that focus on the european origins of the German nation. Just because the nationalists also state that doesn't make it untrue. | |||
:I'd sugges look at the scientific evidence and accept the hard facts whatever that is. A historian like the one you cite may have different views but that does not in any way challenge the hard scientific data that points in a different direction. ] (]) 19:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Talk reflist}} | |||
: ''...a people of Central Asia, probably originally Pamirian, ...'' | |||
== Modern genetic studies and the turkic/asian origins hypothesis == | |||
I have the feeling (may be I'm wrong) that here ''Pamirian'' is reffering to some kind of ethnic group. If that is the case than the link should point to it and not to the mountain. Otherwise I don't see why it shoud stay there at all - they just stayed in Pamir some time or what? --] 12:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
{{atopg | |||
| result = You've already had a discussion about this and you're not entitled to more of other editors' time. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
According to modern Genetic studies neither the ancient bulgars nor the modern bulgarians have any significant asian admixture and modern bulgarians even less so than any other european population studied. | |||
So that hypothesis is truly out the window. Should likely update that. The turkic/asian bulgar origins hypothesis first gained prominance in the 20th century and notably after the USSR was established for various political reasons which are beyond the scope to discuss here. But we should likely update the content as only Misplaced Pages is lagging here. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has updated the entry with the new findings many years ago. Are we regurgitating old debunked hypotheses here or are we going to cover hard science? | |||
There are already multiple studies confirming the same things. | |||
This is britannica "Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations." | |||
In wikipedia not even a mention and same tired old stories covered. | |||
] (]) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:bump ] (]) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
The Pamirian version is absolutely inadequate - for centuries the Bulgarians lived in the area around the Black Sea - East, North and West of it. | |||
::Anybody? ] (]) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Origins / ethnicity == | |||
--] 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Madara horseman is, beyond any doubt, early medieval relief and only vaguelly similar to Thracian horsemen. Thracians NEVER EVER had any rock reliefs where the Bulgars biult a whole city over the Madara cliff. Key argument of the Bulgarian origin of the Horseman is a/its close similarity to Sassanian horse reliefs b/ the ammunition of the horseman, which is not typical for the Tracian period - e.g. he has stirrup which was unknown to Thracians. | |||
Not to mention the fact that he has Persian haircut and the animals are depicted in Eastern manner, Thracians on the Balkans never met lions for example. | |||
Was wondering why this is not updated with the latest findings on the origins in terms of genetic makeup. The asian origin hypothesis it appears was roundly dealt a blow with those. It sat on a shaky foundation to begin with as it was based on guesswork mostly. Anyway, I was surprised to find that wikipedia is still reflecting the old understanding. Perhaps it should be updated to reflect the new realities? ] (]) 18:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "Semi-Nomadic"? == | |||
According to sources that are even cited in this article e.g.: | |||
Madara horseman is, beyond any doubt, early medieval relief and only vaguelly similar to Thracian horsemen. Thracians NEVER EVER had any rock reliefs where the Bulgars biult a whole city over the Madara cliff. Key argument of the Bulgarian origin of the Horseman is a/its close similarity to Sassanian horse reliefs b/ the ammunition of the horseman, which is not typical for the Tracian period - e.g. he has stirrup which was unknown to Thracians. | |||
The Syriac translation of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor's Ecclesiastical History (c. 555) in Western Eurasia records: | |||
Not to mention the fact that he has Persian haircut and the animals are depicted in Eastern manner, Thracians on the Balkans never met lions for example. | |||
"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." | |||
== Bulgars---originally Turkic or not Turkic == | |||
Furthermore ancient armenian sources of the 3rd century talk about bulgars inhabitting the lands adjacent to Armenia and they were said to live in stone towns. | |||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
Misplaced Pages ,as a 💕, is used by many as a reference source. Thus, it should seek the objectivity and truth in its articles. However, in the article for Bulgars, the author, who I assume is from Bulgaria tried to impose his beliefs rather than the commonly accepted theory about the origin of the Bulgars. Even in the given external links, Bulgars or proto-Bulgars are described as a Turkic people, however according to the author they were most probably 'pamyrians'. I would like to ask what is the basis of these claims, are there any recent scientific and objective work which is strong enough to change the generally accepted view that Bulgars were Turkic? Otherwise, one may assume that this article is a product of so-called a "revisionist history", and serves the purpose of currently Slavic-speaking nation of Bulgaria to create a false history for the Bulgar tribe that they took their name from. | |||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
So the Bulgars lived in towns. So how can they be in any way nomadic? There is no evidence for nomadic existence and as quoted above there is evidence for settled existence. Furthermore the first town built in Damubian Bulgaria was Pliska and it was stone built (ruins still surviviing) and was apparently massive in size. Much bigger than Constantinople. The nomadic theory seems rests on shaky grounds to say the least. ] (]) 19:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Occasionally I watch the debate here whether the '''Bulgars''' were Turkic or not. I'm wondering what evidence exists that indicates they were Turkic. Whatever evidence exists for that theory should be collected and put in the article. If no evidence exists, then it is hard to list Bulgars under the Turkic category. ] 02:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Language section == | |||
As far as I am aware there is NO debate in serious scholarly circles. The early Bulgars were linguistically Turkic, regardless of whatever their genealogical origin may be. The works of M.I. Artamanov, Runciman, Peter Golden, David Christian, Omeljan Pritsak and D. Dmitrov (himself a Bulgarian) to name only a few, all conclude that the early Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, as do all serious linguists who have studied the topic. I have yet to see a single citation from VMORO or any other user to a serious work of linguistics that contains arguments for reclassifying the proto-Bulgar language as Iranic or part of any other language group. Unfortunately, the "debate", such as it is, is motivated largely by nationalist ideologues seeking to minimize Bulgarian associations with Turkic peoples. --] 02:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
] the article has over 100,000 bytes hence sections need to be informative, but concise in details for better readability. Sections which topic already has a main article, like ], there is no need to have the same copy-pasted information especially about phonology and tables from the main article, it is out of ] for this article as should only provide a summary and points not mentioned in the main article. I reverted the section to the revision before somebody added the information, which is also repetitive and poorly sourced, and the tables. The section is unreadble mess. ] (]) 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I often hear that "The Bulgars were Turkic", yet I rarely see evidence for that idea. It might just be an assumption. Unless many Bulgar names, etc., have been shown to be Turkic (which would be a strong indication). On the other hand, I have found a scholarly site that presents much evidence indicating that the Bulgars did not speak a Turkic language:. This is based on a detailed study of old Bulgar inscriptions, which really are not apparently Turkic at all, except for some Turkic words thrown in here and there (and there are also Slavic words thrown in here and there). ] 09:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Makes sense. This is already mentioned in ]. Therefore, I do not see why there needs to be excessive details about language here as well when there is already a hatnote with a link to the main article. ] (]) 20:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
There are absolutely no evidences, no clues that the Bulgarians have any Turkic origin. | |||
But there are plenty of assumptions, drivven by different ideological goals for presenting the Bulgarians as a Turkic or Tatar or Mongol or Marsian tribe... --] 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
I must agree. Even Britanica states "...PROBABLY of Turkic origin". No hard evidence for the Turkic origin of the Bulgars. I have had lenghty discussion on this topic with people that know a lot. My conclusion is that they were both, as they assimilated various tribes along their migrations. Most importantly, the newer views on this matter are becoming increasingly accepted from contemporary scholars. | |||
:ooh Britanica, it must be true.. Not. I am not motivated by my religion to tell you that the Pro-Bulgars were not Turkic, whatever that means. They do however have a very strong connection with tribes that lived in that area around the 5 century. Originaly Bulgarians come from the west part of Tibet and are not related to Turkics. They did become related at a later time after they established the Great Bulgaria around the 6th century. For more info do your research and stop trusting internet sites. ] 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
=============================================== | |||
'''Refer to Ibn-Fadlan, 921AD:''' As participant in a diplomatic mission to the King of the Bulgars, Ibn-Fadlan provides detail account about the Bulgars, Vikings and Turkic tribes, among others. I this witness’ account there is noting to suggest any similarities between the Bulgars and the Turkic tribes.] 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Note Turkic-Pamirian== | |||
Anthropological research of skeletons found in Bulgar burial mounds testify to an unusual diversity of anthropological types found there - roughly half of them are of Mongolian/Turanian origin, the other half are of Iranian origin + some are of Uralian/Finnish stock. Considering that the Bulgars evidently managed to assimilate a wide variety of other nomadic peoples (or may be they were themselves an amalgamation of different tribes), the question as to whether they were Turkic or Iranian becomes rather pointless. I am changing the article accordingly... ] 15:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Whether they were Turkic or Iranian is not a "racial" classification; it is purely linguistic. And, as has been pointed out above, no competent linguist disputes that the Bulgar language was Turkic.--] 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I’m a professional linguist, now retired, and I am not in the least certain that the original language was Turkic. It was Turkic at one point, but many of us believe that it began as something else. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, claims the origin was Ugrian. In any case, no one is trying to rule Turkic origins out as a possibility ... but we believe there are other possibilities as well, some more likely than others. I don’t believe any competent linguist would support you and insist that Turkic was the only possibility. Moreover, it’s not really the linguistic question that you say it is. There is no proof that anything remains of the original language, whatever it may have been. The original language is a matter of conjecture, and the only thing that actually remains is DNA. In other words, nobody claims that the Modern Bulgarian language exhibits any Pamirian influence or retains any Pamirian features whatsoever (or Ugrian, as the case may be) ... the modern language developed out of Slavic, Turkic, and Balkan linguistic union influences, plus a few other minor sources that are well known. —] 11:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
OK. Sorry. I was under the impression that the Iranian theory was a nationalist claim (as stated above) and I apologize.--] 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
From :''The origin and the homeland of the Bulgarian tribes have been an object of both past and present study and research. They have generated and are still generating many hypotheses and violent disputes. This is most likely to continue for a long time to come. The scarcity of clear and reliable sources could hardly be expected to be made up for.'' '''There is still one fool-proof fact which is that the Bulgarians' land of origin was in the highland regions of AItai in Siberia. Their language is related to the so-called Turko-Altai group. In other words, the Bulgarians belong to the same ethnolingual group as the Huns, the Avars, the Pechenegs and the Cumans, i.e., the peoples, parts of which are to flow into the Bulgarian nation between the 7th and 14th centuries.''' | |||
--] 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
: ROb, is this your last night's dream? There is no evidence supporting the pamirian story of the Bulgars. Are you saying that the Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Russian languages are also from that Turko-Altai group? Because I speak all of them - they are quite similar. --] 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
I meant ''no'' evidence. Read the whole discussion page and you'll see what I mean.--] 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
: we can not be using bulgaria.com as it is not a valid sourse although I rather listen to them then some british writer. The probulgars come from western part of Tibet, and it is hard to prove so don't bug me on it. There is plenty on the internet about it. ] 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Don't edit the first paragraph yet... == | |||
While I'm pretty sure the Turkic origin is the most well-supported theory, if we put it up as the only possible one we're just going to get more nationalists who insist on an Iranian linguistic origin and no other putting up their unsourced POV. I've put up a tag asking for expert attention; if there are any professional historians or professional linguists who deal with this area, look over the article and correct as needed and ''cite your sources''.--] 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
There are no evidences for Turkic or Tatar origin - just a bunch of bubble from some 'specialists' based on no real facts (artifacts or scripts) - just speculations and attempts for rewriting the history of the Bulgarians under the influence of the Soviet mission for placing all Eastern-European nations under a Slavic umbrella led by the Russians themselves. | |||
Yes, the article "Bulgars" needs a major repair. All pamirian-turkic-tatar-mongolian fairy-tales about the Bulgars' origin are not based on any true evidences or logical assumptions. Altering and rewriting the history is evident - it should not be allowed in this website. The article presents only one side of the story - the manipulated one and strongly misinformative. --] 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Extremely ignorant statement. Will you at least bother to read the discussion above?--] 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Extremely ignorant comment - I don't read discussions based on altered and manipulated information - instead I'd prefer to make my own conclusions based on original sources, because i consider myself a human. | |||
As I said: There are no true evidences for turkic origin of the Bulgars - it is all manipulated information. Could anyone cite any source, please?--] 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Holy conspiracy theories, Batman! Sources are cited right at the bottom of the aricle.--] 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
If the early Bulgars are not of Turkic origin why their leaders' title was "Khan" then? Bulgarians, Kazan Tatars, Chuvash and Bashkir people are all descendants of Bulgar Khanate, Bulgars were assimilated by Slavs, Finno-Ugric etc. people of the region. Chuvash language is accepted as a Turkic language and is seen as the only remain of the old Bulgar language. I can't understand why our Bulgarian fellows are being so quick-tempered about this issue, as a Turk, I don't see modern Bulgarians as Turks, it's clear that they are assimilated. Also there are some claims saying that "Bulgar" is derived from "Bel-Ogur" which is the western Turkic equivalent of eastern "Beş Oğuz" probably meaning a confederation Five-Tribes. I want to say a last thing, Turanism was popular among Bularian intellectuals after Balkan Wars. ] 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
My Dear Fellow, keep reading "sources" and believe them and accept them undoubtedly - I don't care how ignorant you will grow in your understanding of the History. Best Regards! --] 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
* http://www.bulgarile.narod.ru/ | |||
Orhanoglu, using the title 'Khan' in intself doesn't prove much. People borrow words and titles all the time. What makes you think that 'khan' was exclusively Turkic? Why did the Germans use the Roman title 'ceaser'(Keiser)? Note, that the Bulgarian rulers used 'khan' always in front of the name: Khan Asparuh, Khan Krum, Khan Sabin. Turkic rulers on the other hand always put it nehinf the name, i.e. Genghis Khan. | |||
--Kaloyan* 16:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Good idea to ask for an expert's opinion; however, I doubt that there is an expert who can decide the matter once and for all since there simply aren't enough fragments of the Bulgar language left to allow one or the other theory to be proven without doubt. I think all existing theories should be mentioned, with the possible addition that the Pamir/Iranian theory is more popular within Bulgaria, and the Turkic theory more popular outside. ] 13:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
I think the problem lies on the fact that some people want to restrict their research according to their national instincts. Tt seems like they have this national pride which is affecting their further research by trying not to accept any theory that may link them to Turkic origins, or origins same with Turkic people. Bulgar people do not want to be referred as Turkic people (even EU legacy is linked to this notion) and all I read here is that there is no evidence. But also there is no evidence of them being not part of proto-Turkic people. If there was then there would be no discussion. In wiki it says "Bulgars are called as Huns, Sycthians but not as Turks" ] but on the other hand if you read Turkish origins all these people are referred as proto-Turkic but again not accepted. We know that Huns had Turkic rulers but people doesn't have to be Turkic. If we take the ruling class as the origins of a nation then Huns should be Turkic. I am not sure about language theries but it seems like language now is the most relevant cultural identity to follow origins. If Bulgar language have Indo_european origin does it make them Indian origin. We have to look at other suggestions ]that Indo-European language may derive from a super family such as Altaic Languages. I would assume migration routes, and place of origin is also a good argument since Hungarians like Bulgars are coming from Ural-Altay region and Hungarian is an Altaic language. Does anyone have an idea what writing system were Bulgars using prior to Greek or Cyrillic alphabet?--] 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
The title 'Khan' is totally invented. It was taken from the title “Canasjubigi” which was used only by 3 of tem, starting with Omortag of Bulgaria, and can be in an inscription with Greec letters. In the nominalia is used the title K’nas which everione can see is verry close to the title Knjaz. | |||
The title khan was invented form “Canasjubigi” only to fit in the turkish theory. Which, I must say, was serving a Soviet instruction to the Bulgarian Academy of Science from the year1948. I cannot citate it exactli ofcorce but the meaninng was ‘proto’bulgarians to be pronounced turkish under fier of lusing rights of partcipate in the academy. That’s how from “Canasjubigi” it became to Khan. | |||
The title khan exists in no historical documents. | |||
See please "The language of the Asparukh and Kuber Bulgars, | |||
Vocabulary and grammar" | |||
by Peter Dobrev | |||
http://www.kroraina.com/b_lang/index.html | |||
He is a scientist in the Bulgarian Academy of Science and the last 30 years of his career he deals with the protobulgarians, their origin, language, habits and so on. | |||
Peter Dobrev is not a scientist, he's a simple charlatan. The origin of the Bulgars is disputed, the Turkic hypothesis being so to say, traditional, and in addition there have been dozens of hypotheses of Finnish, Iranian, Pamirian etc. links. Strange nobody has mentioned Chinese and Sumerian yet, because I myself have heard 'scientists' claiming that it was Bulgars who buit the Great Wall and settled Messopotamia, so all Asia seems to have been populated by Bulgars once :) The point is, just make it clear in the article that there is a debate and that Turkic origin, while the most prevalent hypothesis, is still a hypothesis. And guys, why do you bother to read Misplaced Pages and post on the discussion page since you don't even speak decent English - 'under fier of lusing rights of particpate in the academy' is simply brilliant. Feanor | |||
Your silly jokes are useless! | |||
Of course Peter Dobrev is a scientist! | |||
If specialists from BAS (“Bulgarian Academy of Science”) are not scientists then who is??? | |||
== bulgars == | |||
I recomend the book Constantinople.It describes the bulgars fairly often. Much of the information can be used to enhance the article. | |||
== Chinese sources == | |||
I see this discussion is getting more and more interesting so I decided to put a link here to an article, published in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51(1998), 69-83, by Sanping Chen, a chinese scholar. Here`s the link: | |||
I think the article throws some light on the origin of the Bulgars, and at least presents the (ancient) Chinese point of view on this matter. Anyway, it`s worth reading.--] 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
It seems that the server is down. Here`s another link: | |||
--] 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Romantic Fantasies of some extremist Nationalists have to stop, the Bulgar's were Turkic, let's stop the denial == | |||
-- Some Bulgarian extremist nationalists have come across a fact in their history which they just can't bare. As their nationalism is based upon anti-Ottomanism they find it hard to stomach that the "Bulgars" were Turkic. | |||
Now, let's get down to the facts. | |||
Bulgar's were and most importantly ARE Turkic and un-assimilated Bulgar's exist today in the Volga Bulgaria, they speak Turkic and retain their heritage. Just search ] and ]. | |||
The origin of the "Bulgar's" is Central Asia. | |||
Some Bulgar's spread and took control of the area of what is today modern Bulgaria. | |||
Throughout time the Bulgar's were assimilated into the majority population and only the name Bulgar-ia remains. | |||
The attempts of some extremist nationalists of the country "Bulgaria" is to try and create this long ancient glorious history in which the "Bulgars" are their ancestors. However, the Bulgar's being Turkic doesn't fit this ideal so they try to invent the most outlandish theories that the actual Bulgars, that the Turkic Bulgar's who still retain their history and heritage are actually "Iranic". | |||
This theory has no credibility and no base. It revolves around the flimsy account of Herodotus calling some Bulgars Scythians, it is very well known that Herodotus lumped all Eastern Nomads into one grop called Scythians. | |||
Misplaced Pages cannot allow this laugable theory to be included, it is nothing but pseudo-history. | |||
--] 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
The truth worth more than a thousand lies! You can’t generalize Origin based on no evidence and faulty information. | |||
The subject of the Ethnic Origin of the Bulgars is been controversial for many years now. | |||
However there are several different theories , and none of them have been proven definitive. | |||
Some claim that they are of Turkic Origin ,which arose doubts and controversies, since there is no objective evidence to support it. | |||
Other Historians lately claim that Bulgars are of Iranian descent, based on resent archeological research and facts.--] 03:50, 9 September 2007 | |||
I do not know who you are, but your anger is very suspicious. How can you be so sure? | |||
The Turkic “theory” is obviously wrong and is going to the past no matters do you like it or not! And the argument – “extremist nationalists” is just silly! | |||
And it is not the oldest theory! And the Iranian theory is not new at all! | |||
It is exactly your closed eyes that “Misplaced Pages cannot allow”! | |||
Chuvash and Volga Tatar Are Chuvash and Volga Tatar not Bulgars! | |||
“Some Bulgar's spread and took control of the area of what is today modern Bulgaria.Throughout time the Bulgar's were assimilated into the majority population and only the name Bulgar-ia remains.” | |||
This is nonsense – this is the Russian silly pan-Slavic version and it is political! | |||
It is time to go to the garbage where it belongs! | |||
== Remove the reference to the O. Maenchen-Helfen's book == | |||
This entire article is completely messed up. It contradicts one of the most diligent study of the subject, the work of O. Maenchen-Helfen. | |||
] 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
=============================================== | |||
== "Culture and society" blunders == | |||
“The Bulgars were governed by hereditary khans…” - No sufficient findings exists to conclude that the Bulgarian rulers used this title. | |||
'''''“…the titles of the steppe peoples do not reflect the nationality of their bearers. A kan, kagan, or bagatur may be a Mongol, a Turk, a Bulgar; he may be practically anything.” - Maenchen-Helfen''''' ---] 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
=============================================== | |||
“the fact that the Bulgars had a typical Turkic religion (e.g. see Tangra)” and "... worshipping the Turkic Sky god Tangra." – What are the sources used to write such an ignorant conclusion? ---] 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
=============================================== | |||
“artificial skull deformation” – such deformation had been practiced by many other tribes at the time, including the Goths, which suggests influence and certainly not origin. ] 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
=============================================== | |||
== Remove Bulgar’s language classification == | |||
Maenchen-Helfen provides an extensive analysis of the Bulgar-Chuvash language and his conclusion is exactly the opposite to “The oldest and more widely accepted theory” presented by Wiki’s writing. Some quotes: “In Hunnish, which developed into Bulgar-Chuvash, *iis-lil, *iis-til-a must have meant grosse Wassermenge, grosser Fluss, grosses Meer. The name Attila, for example, seems to offer neither phonetic nor semantic difficulties. Attila is formed from Gothic or Gepidic; atta, "gather," by means of the diminutive suffix -ila. However some scholars, impressed by the similarity of Attila to Atil, the Turkish name of the Volga, equated the two names without concern for their phonetic and semantic relationship.” and '''“…one cannot help marveling at the boldness with which the problem of the Hunnish language has been and still is being attacked.”''' ---] 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
=============================================== | |||
== Remove “migration form Central Asia” blunder == | |||
“migration form Central Asia” and “ Swept by the Hunnish wave … from their settlements in central Asia…” - here is a short story about the beginning of this confusion: | |||
In the 1750’s, the French Orientalist Joseph de Guignes identified the Huns with the Hsiung-nu described in the Chinese records. Until the 1940’s, the identity of the European Huns with the Hsiung-nu on China’s borders was rarely questioned. As no one doubted that the Hsiung-nu were Mongoloids, the Huns must have been Mongoloids too. These assumptions however have never been proven by paleoanthropological finds to reconstruct the routs over which the Huns migrated into Eastern Europe. | |||
The answer given by A. N. Bernshtam in 1926 was for widely accepted: In the last century B.C., Hsiung-nu were supposed to have moved to eastern Middle Asia and from there spread westward. Bernshtam’s thesis centered on a catacomb in the cemetery on the Kenkol River in the Upper Talas Valley. Bernshtam excavated kurgan 10. “In the catacomb,” he wrote, “lay two Mongoloid skeletons with deformed skulls; the skeletons in the dromos were Europoids, apparently slaves from the local population of the Pamiro-Fergana race.” | |||
Bernshtam was an excellent and indefatigable excavator, but he wrote in too great haste, reconstructing whole periods of world history on the narrowest foundations. His interpretation of the Kenkol finds is the telling example. The two Mongoloids became in no time Turkish-speaking Hsiung-nu, and the Europoids in the dromos Wu-sun slaves. Because the Mongoloids were buried in catacombs, all catacombs burials in Middle Asia were declared Hsiung-nu burials. The shepherds from Kenkol were the missing link between the Hsiung-nu in Mongolia and the Huns in Central Europe. | |||
Later excavations made Berhshtam’s interpretation questionable as early as 1940. Gryaznov proved that the ‘slaves’ in the dormos belong to a secondary burial. A closer study of the Chinese annals also argued Bernshtam’s thesis and the assumed connection between Hsiung-nu and the Huns. | |||
Bulgars were the brain and the generator behind the Hunnish associations and their migration paths should not and cannot be reviewed separately. It is certain that the Bulgars inhabited different areas around the Black Sea literal and it would be safer to stick around with opinions like 'Beyond them extend above the Pontic sea the territories of the Bulgars, whom the punishments of our sins have made notorious. After these the Huns, like a cluster of mighty races, have spawned twofold frenzied peoples.” – Jordanes, then jump bravely in the past with assumptions like the “Pamirian” one. From the Black Sea literal we have old enough knowledge about the Bulgars' adobe, as old as the origin of the Germanic and the Slavic tribes for example. ---] 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
=============================================== | |||
== The Bulgarian Princes’ List - remove "khans" from the reference == | |||
The Bulgarian Princes’ List is a very important document that provides detail information about number of the Bulgarian monarchs after the migration period. It I also know as “The Nominalia of the Bulgarian Princes” and the “List of Bulgarian monarchs”. | |||
Some Wiki enthusiast however, desided to add the title “khans”. Please, remove that ridiculous invention. ---] 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
=============================================== | |||
Or perhaps we should remove all the article :) | |||
] 08:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Bulgarian origin == | |||
I have been researching about the Iranic people and by chance I met some bulgarian people. Its very interesting that in the zhargon language which is the sreet language in bulgaria, too many Iranic words and frases are used. | |||
In some Iranian and Islamic works, Bulgars are related to the hephtalites. Hephtalites or the wite huns where a confedration of saka or scythian tribse with some hunnic or mongoloid. This has been told by travelers in the Balkh and Bactra aria at the time. In Iranian language when they want to indicate a home less person they say alakhon and valakhon, which is derived from the triball names of alxon an valxon, and as I read once thies names have been used by Bulgars. The same thing is about the word avare which has been taken from Avar. This is because when persian Shahanshah Khosro Anushirvan who grow up as a hostage at the hephtalites defeatet the heftalites, they fled westwards and did not settel for many years untill ther riched the northern black sea and eastern europe. | |||
On the origin of the title Khan I have to say that it was driven from the word Ghan or gan like in khodaygan or bozorgan in persian, meaning graetnes. The turks where subjects to the hephtalites and they helped the persians to defeat the hephtalites. | |||
The name Bulgar would be a transformation Of Bactra, Balhara, Balhar or Balkh, Indicating the aria in centralasia and northern Pamir. The bulgar words are too similar with the iranic and sanskrit. | |||
== Khan == | |||
My edit was meant to avoid the implication/statement that other forms of the title than "kanasubigi" are attested. While the form "kanasubigi" ''is'' generally assumed to mean/include "khan"/"kan", (hence Bulgarian rulers of the time are widely termed "hereditary khans" as the source states), "khan"/"kan" alone has not been attested as a title for the supreme ruler. If you believe that it ''has'' been attested, I think ''that'' claim needs to be sourced (one can only prove that something exists, not that something doesn't exist). The fact is rather well-known among Bulgarians discussing the issue. My secondary sources are in Bulgarian: first of all, and . While the fact is usually pointed out by opponents of the Turkic origin theory (such as the author of the first article), and chapter from a Bulgarian (pro-Turkic origin) historian show the same thing. The first one explains how "kanasubigi" was originally analysed as "kanas" + "ubigi", not on the basis of an attested Bulgar title kan, but on the basis of the general Turkic one. The same analysis is present . The second one contains the author's own analysis as "kana" + "subigi". This shows that the title is not attested alone (even its form - kana/kanas? - is unclear). Finally, if you aren't satisfied with the above, here is a primary source: is a complete list of Bulgar inscriptions in Greek (the Bulgar language ones are few and haven't been deciphered in a satisfactory way) with translations into Bulgarian. You are welcome to search through the list for occurrences of kana, without subigi, translated as "khan" (Bulgarian кан or хан), as a title for a Bulgarian ruler. | |||
Note: considering your nationality, and to avoid unnecessary chauvinistic tensions, I want to point out that I, personally, am one of the few Bulgarians who are more inclined to accept the Turkic origin theory, as you can find out by looking at my previous edits to related topics. --] 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
I have no doubts for your honesty. What we try to find is the truth only. But the source, namely , is reading that the title of ''khan'' was used until they accepted Christianity. Are you really sure that all these are based on the title ''kanasubigi''? And, if it's possible, could you supply some serious sources in English that support the changes? ] 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I'll try, but I doubt I can find much in English (maybe some articles advocating Iranian origin). I agree it's pretty strange that people just took for granted that "kanasubigi = khan", but I am pretty sure it's true, having read most of the available sources and quite a number of articles. The Byzantines just didn't try to render the native forms of Bulgar titles, so we have no other knowledge about them but the one in the Bulgars' own inscriptions (see above). | |||
:When the source you are giving says that the title of khan was used until the adoption of Christianity, it merely repeats the most standard theory, which in turn is based on the assumption of Bulgarian historians that: 1. the title of those three guys (kanasubigi), attested in the inscriptions, was also the traditional Protobulgar title used by ''all'' Protobilgar rulers until the adoption of the Christian Slavic literature (where ] is used); 2. the title "kanasubigi" is equal to "khan". The reason I tried to edit this is that the previous wording suggested the existence of two separate titles - khan and kanasubigi. In fact, even in traditional Turkic-origin discourse, these were always assumed to be the same, and the usual forms were supposed to be "khan (s)ubigi" or something similar. --] 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Ok, it seems convincing. But I have an objection for a sentence you changed in your last edit. Before the change the sentence was: | |||
"''However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the term "Turk" was not used either exclusively, or particularly, for a certain, well-defined people, until much later''". | |||
After the change the new version of the sentence was: | |||
"''However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the use of the term "Turkic" in ancient documents does not necessarily coincide with its use in modern linguistics and anthropology''". | |||
Of course the second sentence is also true, but it differed from the previous version by meaning and it seems a bit gibberish. The previous version was more explanatory to my mind. Shall we make changes on that? | |||
] 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:The previous version seems a little ambiguous to me. It can be read as emphasizing that "Turk" didn't mean "citizen of Turkey/the Ottoman Empire" (a single people), and that it could also mean Turkmens, Tatars, and many other Turkic peoples. But how does this help us explain the fact that ancient historians differentiated between Bulgars and Turks? The only meaningful interpretation I can think of is that this is supposed to mean the same as my version. That is, "Turk" could be used in a way that didn't include the Bulgars. For example, the Bulgars presumably spoke a very special, divergent branch of the Turkic languages (perhaps they weren't mutually intelligible at all, as in the case of modern Chuvash) and this might have prevented ancient authors from identifying their language as Turkic. In contrast, modern linguistics can identify Chuvash as Turkic. --] 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
The term "Turk" is the nominal form not only of "Turkish" but also of "Turkic". It can be used for both. But if you like we can change the sentence to "''However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the term "Turkic" was not used either exclusively, or particularly, for a certain, well-defined people, until much later''". Or we can use the original version but link the term "Turk" to "Turkic peoples". Both of them is possible. | |||
] 15:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:How about "a certain, well-defined ''group of'' peoples"? --] 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Of course, let me do it. ] 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:It's a pleasure working with you. :) --] 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
You're welcome. Best wishes... ] 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== First Picture == | |||
Is the first picture of Bulgars massacring pilgrims really appropriate as the first picture in a culture page? That would be tantamount to placing a KKK lynch picture on the WASP culture page.--] 08:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
No, it isn't, and yes, you're right. ] 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Recent edits== | |||
Dear ], please do not try to remove a large part of the article without giving plausible reasons, otherwise it is considered ]. And the theory you try to add already takes place in the article as the Iranian theory with a more serious and scientific writing style. Thank you. --] 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
:One truth worth more than a thousand lies. | |||
:You cant generalise Origin based on no evidence and foulthy information. And the Bulgarian history is ancsient and glourious anyway ,there is no need to "create" that .It is already a fact accessible for everyone who can read! | |||
:The subject of the Ethnic Origin of the Bulgars is been controversial for many years now. However there are several different theories , and none of them have been proven definitive. Some claim that they are of Turkic Origin ,which arose doubts and controversies, since there is no objective evidence to support it. Other Historians lately claim that Bulgars are of Iranian descent, based on resent archeological research and facts. | |||
:--] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
That's what I try to say exactly. Here is not the place for romantic edits, only the serious and scientific-based edits should take place. And of course these theories should be well-referenced by serious academical sources. According to the current situation these two theories take place in the article along with their references. And the theory you try to add already takes place in the article as the Iranian theory with a more serious and scientific writing style. And if you have serious and unbiassed academical references you can come up with those ones. Thank you. --] 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Would you please discuss the matter here before reverting and adding information not referenced with serious academical sources? Thank you. --] 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Would you please discuss the matter here instead of writing the same things all the time? And would you please provide your scientific/academic references to support your claims? Thank you. --] 04:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Yes ill provide you with some of the academic sources as soon as some translation is made. Several of them are chronicles but I believe that those should be present as well in order to introduce the subject objectively. My point here is that the generalizing that you have made is outdated and completely misleading, peoples assumption it’s been changed and this is the actual vandalism!--] 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 20:27, 9 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bulgars article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
Bulgars was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 16, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reliable sources and objectiveness
Greetings,
I've been reading the discussion page about the Bulgars article and I noticed that editors tend to discredit any sources which are in opposition to the Turkic hypothesis (or in favor of the Sarmatian one) as unreliable purely on the basis that they're from Bulgarian authors. When an editor asks for reliable sources in English, "non-Bulgarian" is always a requirement, which I think implies that contemporary Bulgarian academia are all extreme nationalists who are writing out of "anti-Turkish sentiment", thus making them unreliable or incompetent. I find this completely false (not to mention offensive), for the following reasons:
1.the Sarmatian/Iranian hypothesis exists long before the 90's - Russian historian Nikolai Marr was one of the first to propose a Sarmatian origin of the Bulgars in the early 20th century. Veselin Beshevliev wrote an article Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians way back in 1967, where he concludes that all personal names from the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans are of Iranian origin and that this significant cultural influence has to be taken into consideration when determining Bulgar ethnogenesis.
2. the Turkic hypothesis was the official narrative about the Bulgars origin at the time of the Revival process and under Communist regime. So linking the Sarmatian/Iranian hypotheses of the 1990's with "anti-Turkish sentiments" and the Revival process in particular is simply absurd. Yes, there are many fringe theories in post-socialist Bulgaria which are nationalistic myths in their nature, such as the Bactrian hypothesis of P. Dobrev and the autochthonous hypothesis, but they emerge as a result of pluralism after the fall of old regime and cannot be linked to the Revival process when the Turkic theory was dominant.
I would also like to point out something else - when talking about "reliable sources", I think its ridiculous to refer to the Oxford's or some others Dictionary of World history as they are not historical/archeological research, but as dictionaries they themselves refer to previous research done mainly by Bulgarian historians such as Veselin Beshevliev (the first one to identify Bulgar inscriptions as Turkic), Vasil Zlatarski, Vasil Gyuzelev and others. Simply discrediting modern Bulgarian research made by serious academia as "nationalistic myths" or "anti-Turkish sentiments" without looking into the evidence itself is just lazy, anti-scientific and perhaps biased.
So, all that being said, I kindly ask the editors to review the sources below and finally do a fair edit on the Bulgars article as to represent the Scytho-Sarmatian hypothesis equally to the Turkic one. "Turkic semi-nomadic" has to be replaced with just "semi-nomadic". Britannica already edited their entry on the Bulgars in light of recent findings, so there's no reason for Misplaced Pages not to do the same. The fact that there is still an ongoing debate about the Bulgar origins amongst serious academia should be reason enough to edit the article, so I'm just appalled by the stubbornness of the editors here.
Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/194728109.pdf
Genetic evidence suggests relationship between contemporary Bulgarian population and Iron Age steppe dwellers from Pontic-Caspian steppe - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full
Archaeological and genetic data suggest Ciscaucasian origin for the Proto-Bulgarians https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians
Еastern roots of the Madara horseman Chobanov - https://www.academia.edu/44604518/%D0%95astern_roots_of_the_Madara_horseman_Chobanov
THE LEGACY OF SASANIAN IRAN AMONGST THE BULGARIANS ON THE LOWER DANUBE (BG text) - https://www.academia.edu/44902361/%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%9F%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%A3_%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%95_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%92_THE_LEGACY_OF_SASANIAN_IRAN_AMONGST_THE_BULGARIANS_ON_THE_LOWER_DANUBE
On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, Rashev Rasho 1992 http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html
Archaeological overview on the formation of Asparukh’s Protobulgarians Todor Chobanov Ph.D.,Ass.prof., Svetoslav Stamov MA, Duke University https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/24/687384/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true
Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians Veselin Beshevliev 1967 (BG text) http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/V_%20Beshevliev%20-%20Iranski%20elementi%20u%20pyrvobylgarite.htm
Thank you for taking the time to review this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.127.19 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @188.123.127.19: Turkic one is not a hypothesis, it is documented and majority of historians agree with it, thus a mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- bulgars being turk is purely based on historical beliefs. It is very upsetting to see evidence and scientific facts are put under a rug to someone's favour. Truth will always come out 212.5.158.31 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Beshogur: It's definitely not a theory amongst archeologists and it is considered an outdated theory amongst contemporary historians. That's why this article has to be revised so as to be more objective and up to date with modern research.
A lot of mistakes, outdated information and bias, needs a lot more work
Hello, I have made a few changes but there are a lot of other mistakes, I hope someone reads more on the subject and continues improving the article without a political bias. There are so many sources on the subject from foreign and Bulgarian scientists. If someone is interested, he/she may start from these scientific works. There is a lot of political bias on the subject which attracts a lot of factual mistakes and intolerability to change opinions according to the new research that has been done on the subject.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3
Please, someone make the rest of the changes using the latest data and research and not outdated and disproved theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careful information (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, there is nothing new about this Bulgarian view. That problem has been analyzed in the text. It has been disputed many times here on the talk. However here is not the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. Just read carefully the text from the article: Among Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev, a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the Iranian languages (Pamir) has been popular since the 1990s. Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate. The names Asparukh and Bezmer from the Nominalia list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin. Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis". According to Raymond Detrez, the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated. Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- All the sources presented above are by Bulgarian researchers. Their position is clarified in the article, but it contradicts the prevailing international consensus and is not leading. Therefore, please stop trying to impose it in the introduction. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are favouring a biased view of history and the view of Turkish politics in Bulgaria, please stop reverting the edit. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This article is based on reliable sources. Please, reach a consensus at talk before making further disruptive editiong. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This article was updated with reliable sources and you are changing it. This will result in you losing your editing rights. Careful information (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This article is based on reliable sources. Please, reach a consensus at talk before making further disruptive editiong. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are favouring a biased view of history and the view of Turkish politics in Bulgaria, please stop reverting the edit. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the view that you support the current view on the page? What makes your opinion superior? I immediately request the change of the page. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and your undesirability to change based on the scientific links would be looked at. Careful information (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article is quite old and this is the view that has prevailed over the years here. There have been many discussions, but the view of the Bulgarian scientists is not accepted as a leading opinion in the world science. Please present scientific publications from world universities that strongly support the Bulgarian view you espouse here. If you do not have such sources, comply with the current situation. The Bulgarian view is presented according to its weight in the world scientific consensus. Thanks. --Jingiby (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just because an article is old, that doesn't mean it shouldn't change. I have already presented a scientific publication with the participation of Italian scientists. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ Careful information (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- In addition to the findings of the Italian scientists, I have used books from leading turkologists. Careful information (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is one Bulgarian primary source. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary sources. Look for example at: Bayazit Yunusbayev et al., „The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia.“ PLoS Genetics 11:4 (21 April 2015): "The Chuvash received their Turkic ancestry around the year 816, according to its admixture analysis in S4 Table. This ancestry stems from the region of South Siberia and Mongolia. They are also related to nearby non-Turkic peoples. Chuvashes, the only extant Oghur speakers showed an older admixture date (9th century) than their Kipchak-speaking neighbors in the Volga region. According to historical sources, when the Onogur-Bulgar Empire (northern Black Sea steppes) fell apart in the 7th century, some of its remnants migrated northward along the right bank of the Volga river and established what later came to be known as Volga Bulgars, of which the first written knowledge appears in Muslim sources only around the end of the 9th century. Thus, the admixture signal for Chuvashes is close to the supposed arrival time of Oghur speakers in the Volga region. ". Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians: Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- ~2 to 4% is too little to say that the whole group is turkic. Many other European people have such genetic traces due to hunnic migrations that reached modern day Germany, if not beyond. Either the Bulgars are called "a mix of different groups" or not turkic because the view isn't supported by modern science. Careful information (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You say we shouldn't listen to any Bulgarian scientists yet your nationality is Turkish and one might ask why we should listen to you. Careful information (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm why? Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- You say we shouldn't listen to any Bulgarian scientists yet your nationality is Turkish and one might ask why we should listen to you. Careful information (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if most of the scientific articles are written by Bulgarians or not because even the well established foreign authors use Bulgarian works in their citations. There is a new leading theory and it is supported by Italian scientists as well, I have shared a link. Since the old theory doesn't reflect the truth, the wikipedia article should be changed. You can't expect forrign authors to know more about Bulgarian history than Bulgarians themselves. Genetic research cannot be biased or political, it is reflecting factual data and the truth here is the data shows that even Proto-Bulgarians and turkic tribes are not related. Careful information (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- ~2 to 4% is too little to say that the whole group is turkic. Many other European people have such genetic traces due to hunnic migrations that reached modern day Germany, if not beyond. Either the Bulgars are called "a mix of different groups" or not turkic because the view isn't supported by modern science. Careful information (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is one Bulgarian primary source. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary sources. Look for example at: Bayazit Yunusbayev et al., „The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia.“ PLoS Genetics 11:4 (21 April 2015): "The Chuvash received their Turkic ancestry around the year 816, according to its admixture analysis in S4 Table. This ancestry stems from the region of South Siberia and Mongolia. They are also related to nearby non-Turkic peoples. Chuvashes, the only extant Oghur speakers showed an older admixture date (9th century) than their Kipchak-speaking neighbors in the Volga region. According to historical sources, when the Onogur-Bulgar Empire (northern Black Sea steppes) fell apart in the 7th century, some of its remnants migrated northward along the right bank of the Volga river and established what later came to be known as Volga Bulgars, of which the first written knowledge appears in Muslim sources only around the end of the 9th century. Thus, the admixture signal for Chuvashes is close to the supposed arrival time of Oghur speakers in the Volga region. ". Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians: Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article is quite old and this is the view that has prevailed over the years here. There have been many discussions, but the view of the Bulgarian scientists is not accepted as a leading opinion in the world science. Please present scientific publications from world universities that strongly support the Bulgarian view you espouse here. If you do not have such sources, comply with the current situation. The Bulgarian view is presented according to its weight in the world scientific consensus. Thanks. --Jingiby (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- All the sources presented above are by Bulgarian researchers. Their position is clarified in the article, but it contradicts the prevailing international consensus and is not leading. Therefore, please stop trying to impose it in the introduction. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE. Not worthy to reply. Out of mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Careful information, there is any new theory, but a fringe view of Bulgarian scientists, that is more then 30 years old, which has not been accepted widely. It is included in this article. The DNA study you have posted is Bulgarian, not Italian and is not a new, but out of date - more then 10 years old. It is also a primary source, i.e. not reliable source. Please do not comment on the nationality of the editors. If you do not reach a consensus here, as at the moment, you cannot impose your views in this article. In this case you should look for alternative methods that are indicated in the warning notes on your personal talk page. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, from now on I will kindly ask you to not comment on the nationality of the reasearchers because nationality bias isn't a logical argument for not accepting the truth. Archeological findings and linguistics are highly flawed methods of evaluating ethnicity since the discovery of genetic research. That's why the Iranian theories are more supported nowadays, and these theories have been around for more than a century and not close to 30 years as you have stated. Foreign researchers rely on Bulgarian scientists to give them data since there they have the most archeological sites and genetic data on the Bulgars - in Bulgaria. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and they have told me that unless the dispute is settled here, I will have to raise the issue.
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/
- This is not a Bulgarian study. There is no mention of substantial turkic element in the Bulgarian genetic makeup. There is a slavic group mixed with other non-turkic one.
- "When we consider the composition of sources from within West Eurasia, while the majority of a group’s ancestry tends to come from its own regional area, there is a substantial contribution of both Northern European (light and dark blue) and Armenian groups (light green) to most WA, EC, WC, and TK clusters, as well as some clusters from both SEE and SCE. As previously reported, the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals." Careful information (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's still unclear what you're trying to push here. Most scholars, ie mainstream agrees on Bulgars' Turkic origin, and fringe view of some Bulgarian historians are mentioned as well. No Bulgars are not Iranian people as you're trying to push on the article. Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please, remain civil and don't use words as "push" when I am trying to improve an article with the latest data. Bulgars are Iranian people and this is a fact. I have shared the findings of western researchers and you still are unwilling to change your opinion, you don't leave me much of a choice than to resort to some other ways to solve this issue, ways recommended by the Misplaced Pages community. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure removing quotes of notable historians like Golden and adding Dobrev to this isn't improving at all. Your first source, p. 177 doesn't even say they're Iranian. I would suggest reading wp:or, wp:fringe. Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Removing old data and adding updated one is improving. My first source says they're Iranian. "The research carried in this study, combining written
- sources, archaeological data and DNA research, brings the debate about the origin of Protobulgarians onto another level by identifying their Ciscaucasian “cradle” and thus – theirSarmatian-Caucasian origin, similar to this of Caucasian Alans." I would suggest reading about the Iranian tribes (Sarmatian and Alan included). Greetings. Careful information (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure removing quotes of notable historians like Golden and adding Dobrev to this isn't improving at all. Your first source, p. 177 doesn't even say they're Iranian. I would suggest reading wp:or, wp:fringe. Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please, remain civil and don't use words as "push" when I am trying to improve an article with the latest data. Bulgars are Iranian people and this is a fact. I have shared the findings of western researchers and you still are unwilling to change your opinion, you don't leave me much of a choice than to resort to some other ways to solve this issue, ways recommended by the Misplaced Pages community. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's still unclear what you're trying to push here. Most scholars, ie mainstream agrees on Bulgars' Turkic origin, and fringe view of some Bulgarian historians are mentioned as well. No Bulgars are not Iranian people as you're trying to push on the article. Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- And for the study I shared, it's posted in 2013 and is not outdated at all, it's not older than 10 years, look again. And it is done in cooperation with Italian scientists. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Careful information, preprint sources shouldn't be cited until peer reviewed and published; Avant-garde Research of Ancient Bulgarians doesn't seem like a reliable journal and Yavor Shopov graduated (astro)physics while Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology, both aren't experts on population genetics. Will highlight the most important sentence from Shopov's 2021 book: "Regretfully no DNA data from rich Protobulgarian graves is available at present (for examplethe Kabiuk grave circa 700) and we could not check the existing theories that there were various ethnicities amongst the elite (Turks, Ugrians, Sarmatians), but future research should address this issue". However, will check the genetics section and maybe something can be added there.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nesheva is a geneticist and the informatian is published in her research. Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology and is PhD. Archeology is crucial in evaluating ehnicities and their origins when it is done along DNA research. Chobanov is not a geneticist but he cites world renowned geneticists like Garrett Hellenthal and George B J Busby. Even in the article itself it says that the origin is disputed, I recommend an edit in which the Bulgars are of mixed ethnicity or not turkic at all since the latest data confirms this. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Bulgars were Turkic tribes. There were no genetically pure tribes anywhere. Their language, culture and beliefs were Turkic and this is generally accepted everywhere except by some researchers in Bulgaria. Such a one-sided fringe view cannot used to change the intro of the article.Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Bulgars were not Turkic tribes. Their language, culture and beliefs were not Turkic, their calendar wasn't Turkic as well. What is accepted outside of Bulgaria is that they were a mixture of different ethnicities. This is not a one-sided fringe view and it can be used to change the intro of the article. Careful information (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- According to many reliable sources and experts on the topic their language, culture, beliefs and calendar were Turkic. In the article is already mentioned several times that they mixed and assimilated a mixture of different ethnicities.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Bulgars were not Turkic tribes. Their language, culture and beliefs were not Turkic, their calendar wasn't Turkic as well. What is accepted outside of Bulgaria is that they were a mixture of different ethnicities. This is not a one-sided fringe view and it can be used to change the intro of the article. Careful information (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Careful information, doesn't seem you understand well what's written in those scientific studies, but I've made an edit considering what's concluded in reliable sources and NPOV. However, it should be noted that we are dealing with a steppe nomadic federation which assimilated diverse tribes and ethnic groups. It is highly dubious even controversial to claim anything for sure without any ancient DNA and even then if there's lack of sample size. Nesheva's conclusion did include, but isn't based on ancient DNA. Only because Altaic-Turkic Y-DNA haplogroups are present in very minimal frequency in modern Bulgarians doesn't mean Proto-Bulgarian elite wasn't partly, significantly or even majorly composed of Altaic-Turkic anthropology. Take for example recent comprehensive genetic studies of Proto-Hungarians i.e. Hungarian elite. The most probable scenario is that when Proto-Bulgarians arrived they already were a very mixed group of people with some leading clans of Turkic ancestry which elite didn't left enough genetic trace in modern Bulgarians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I have stated above the Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History's conclusion about Bulgarians and their Bulgar legacy is different. Hellenthal has the opposite opinion to that of Karachanak, claiming only the negligible Northeast Asiatic genetic signal among the Bulgarians might correspond to the whole DNA impact left from the invasions of the Turkic Bulgars. I am going to add this conclusion too. Miki Filigranski you are free to correct my edit if something is going wrong. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong, that's exactly what pointed out. Good edit and think with it the section is neutral enough.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- DNA research of actual bulgar remains and modern bulgarian dna have concluded 2 things
- 1 - the strongest signal is from the bulgars
- 2 - modern bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture out of any european populations
- 3 - the bulgars were europid as well (9th century bulgar burial remains studied)
- You can refer to prof Reich for #2 who is the authority on DNA research as pertaining to ethnic makeup and haplogroups. The rest is shown in the 2 most recent studies that are unprecedented in scope both from a historic and numeric breadth. 185.95.18.197 (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I understand perfectly everything written in those scientific studies. You say we can't speak of pure ethnicity when we talk about a federation, so why aren't you supporting my suggestion to write "tribes of mixed ethnicities" and then add the few ethnicities? Even if a small part of the elite was turkic, it doesn't mean the whole ethnicity is because it is not. I suggest we write "a mixture" or "unconfirmed", "disputed", etc. Do you agree? Careful information (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, the tribes had a distinctive ethnic identity and such identity goes beyond biology. In the article the topic of mixing with other groups is already mentioend and explained. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is not true. This is what PhD Alex M. Feldman from the university of Birmingham says:
- "Caspian Eurasia with the greatest care. It also means that a given “people” such as the Volga Bulgars or the Danube Bulgars, Rus’, Magyars or even the Khazars themselves were not so much a single migrating “tribe” or even a “tribal confederation” of peoples, as is often presented, 150 so much as conquering elite minorities imposing vassalage, tribute and possibly some form of monotheism on various populations along the way."
- (Ethnicity and Statehood in Pontic-Caspian Eurasia (8-13th c.): Contributing to a Reassessment)
- The tribes had a destinctive Iranian ethnic identity but I offered a way that is also scientifically backed up. It should be either "mixed" or "Iranian". Greetings. Careful information (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah this is simply WP:Civil POV pushing at this point. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to get in on this 2 years later. A few corrections.
- The DNA studies have concluded that bulgars were NOT turkic. At least no east asian signals there.
- Modern Bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture of any European populations. For that one refer to Prof Reich's studies result published which are the ones with the biggest samples by far.
- Furthermore the genetic legacy in modern Bulgarians is the strongest from the Bulgars.
- So in other words it is impossible that the Bulgars were of east asian descent or mixture. That hypothesis rested on guesswork and no solid evidence and is now utterly debunked. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah this is simply WP:Civil POV pushing at this point. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, the tribes had a distinctive ethnic identity and such identity goes beyond biology. In the article the topic of mixing with other groups is already mentioend and explained. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I love how Bulgarian scholarship desperately tries to play up the Sarmatian/Alan hypothesis, doing anything to avoid connection with Turkic and Siberian elements that are patently at least partly there. They just can't handle being connected to them. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you think that? In fact it swas the Bulgarian scholars that pushed the turkic origins theory incessantly and still do. but it is the historians not the hard scientists - i.e. genetic research. The issue is quite obvious. The scholars that have based their career on this hypothesis have now a hard time admitting they were pushing a lie.
- DNA studies have made this hypothesis untenable now. Things are turning around but slowly due to all these historians suffering cognitive dissonance. But the facts are now indisputable. Once this older generation of historians gives way the younger historians will be more open to accepting realities.
- And it is sad that wikipedia does not reflect hard science but pseudo science at this point - hypotheses based on guesswork.
- I would suggest you get acquainted with the latest findings in this field before you make such broad sweeping statements that are quite unjustified and reflect your ignorance in the matter. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Secondly saying that just because one is wrong - i.e. the sarmatian/alan hypothesis (which I agree with you as DNA evidence does not support it) does not make the other right - the turkic hypothesis. Neither have any foundation in evidence. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- As I have stated above the Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History's conclusion about Bulgarians and their Bulgar legacy is different. Hellenthal has the opposite opinion to that of Karachanak, claiming only the negligible Northeast Asiatic genetic signal among the Bulgarians might correspond to the whole DNA impact left from the invasions of the Turkic Bulgars. I am going to add this conclusion too. Miki Filigranski you are free to correct my edit if something is going wrong. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Bulgars were Turkic tribes. There were no genetically pure tribes anywhere. Their language, culture and beliefs were Turkic and this is generally accepted everywhere except by some researchers in Bulgaria. Such a one-sided fringe view cannot used to change the intro of the article.Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- Sophoulis 2011, p. 66. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSophoulis2011 (help)
- Karachanak, et al. 2013. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKarachanak,_et_al.2013 (help)
- Добрев, Петър, 1995. "Езикът на Аспаруховите и Куберовите българи" 1995
- Stamatov, Atanas (1997). "ИЗВОРИ И ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ – І–ІІ ЧАСТ". TEMPORA INCOGNITA НА РАННАТА БЪЛГАРСКА ИСТОРИЯ. MGU Sv. Ivan Rilski.
- Димитров, Божидар, 2005. 12 мита в българската история
- Милчева, Христина. Българите са с древно-ирански произход. Научна конференция "Средновековна Рус, Волжка България и северното Черноморие в контекста на руските източни връзки", Казан, Русия, 15.10.2007
- Cite error: The named reference
Rashev
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Бешевлиев, Веселин. Ирански елементи у първобългарите. Античное Общество, Труды Конференции по изучению проблем античности, стр. 237–247, Издательство "Наука", Москва 1967, АН СССР, Отделение Истории.
- Schmitt, Rüdiger (1985). "Iranica Protobulgarica: Asparuch und Konsorten im Lichte der Iranischen Onomastik". Linguistique Balkanique. XXVIII (l). Saarbrücken: Academie Bulgare des Sciences: 13–38.
- Maenchen-Helfen 1973, pp. 384, 443. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMaenchen-Helfen1973 (help)
- Йорданов, Стефан. Славяни, тюрки и индо-иранци в ранното средновековие: езикови проблеми на българския етногенезис. В: Българистични проучвания. 8. Актуални проблеми на българистиката и славистиката. Седма международна научна сесия. Велико Търново, 22–23 август 2001 г. Велико Търново, 2002, 275–295.
- Надпис № 21 от българското златно съкровище "Наги Сент-Миклош", студия от проф. д-р Иван Калчев Добрев от Сборник с материали от Научна конференция на ВА "Г. С. Раковски". София, 2005 г.
- Detrez, Raymond (2005). Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence. Peter Lang. p. 29. ISBN 9789052012971.
- Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre (2016). Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe. p. 142.
- Note! User "Careful Information" blocked as a sock in April ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.27 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- User "Careful Information" isn't blocked as a sock in April. Careful information (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Check the User Page for this user. "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · logs).Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.0.129 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Bulgarian nationalist agenda
Stop pushing Bulgarian nationalist fringe views. According to Raymond Detrez, who is an expert in Bulgarian history, the Iranian hypothesis is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated. Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin. According to other authors:
Anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of Turkic origin of the Bulgars. Alongside the ‘Iranian’ or ‘Aryan’ theory, there appeared arguments favouring an autochthonous origin. The ‘parahistoric’ theories, very often politically loaded and have almost nothing to do with objective scientific research in the field of Proto-Bulgarian Studies, could be summarized in several directions:...3)‘Aryan roots’ and the ‘enigmatic Eurasian homeland’. Meanwhile, another group of authors is looking eagerly for the supposed homeland of the ancient Bulgarians in the vast areas of Eurasia, perhaps by conscious or unconscious opposition to the pro-Western orientation of modern Bulgaria. At the same time, with little regard for consistency, they also oppose the Turkic theory, probably because this is in sharp contradiction with the anti-Turkish feelings shared by nationalistic circles.
Jingiby (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Jingiby, you should be aware that Turkish and Turkic are two different notions separated by hundreds of years, also that this is not Bulgarian nationalist agenda, the Bulgarian nationalists are claiming the mainstream historical narrative of Asian (Turkic or Iranic) origin. This is according to the recent genetic and linguistic studied many of us
- are trying to implement in this article but you and others are constantly deleting. MiltenR (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- oh looks lik this is already in discussion. I was also surprised that DNA study findings is not even considered. It is the gold standard and indisputable in this field. It seems to me there is likely some agenda here but I am not sure what that is. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there. It is not binary - either turkic or iranian. In fact the DNA studies state that the origin cannot be asian as it is west eurasian - that is another term for generally european. So not sure why you jump to the conclusion it is about iranian origin. It seems you are reading something into it that is not there. Maybe read the actual studies. Just a suggestion Mart.mfx2 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- You should likely make a distinction between hard science and nationalistic views. One is indisputable and it could possibly coincide with nationalistic views as well. That does not make it untrue.
- Here is a simple example germans are european not african. Genetic studies show that clearly that the african admixutre quotient is nonexistent. There are nationalistic elements especially in history that focus on the european origins of the German nation. Just because the nationalists also state that doesn't make it untrue.
- I'd sugges look at the scientific evidence and accept the hard facts whatever that is. A historian like the one you cite may have different views but that does not in any way challenge the hard scientific data that points in a different direction. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
References
- Detrez, Raymond (2005). Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence. Peter Lang. p. 29. ISBN 9789052012971.
- ^ Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre (2016). Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe. p. 142.
Modern genetic studies and the turkic/asian origins hypothesis
You've already had a discussion about this and you're not entitled to more of other editors' time. Remsense ‥ 论 02:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to modern Genetic studies neither the ancient bulgars nor the modern bulgarians have any significant asian admixture and modern bulgarians even less so than any other european population studied.
So that hypothesis is truly out the window. Should likely update that. The turkic/asian bulgar origins hypothesis first gained prominance in the 20th century and notably after the USSR was established for various political reasons which are beyond the scope to discuss here. But we should likely update the content as only Misplaced Pages is lagging here. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has updated the entry with the new findings many years ago. Are we regurgitating old debunked hypotheses here or are we going to cover hard science? There are already multiple studies confirming the same things. This is britannica "Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations." In wikipedia not even a mention and same tired old stories covered.
Thatisme666 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- bump 185.95.17.31 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anybody? 185.95.17.31 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Origins / ethnicity
Was wondering why this is not updated with the latest findings on the origins in terms of genetic makeup. The asian origin hypothesis it appears was roundly dealt a blow with those. It sat on a shaky foundation to begin with as it was based on guesswork mostly. Anyway, I was surprised to find that wikipedia is still reflecting the old understanding. Perhaps it should be updated to reflect the new realities? Mart.mfx2 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
"Semi-Nomadic"?
According to sources that are even cited in this article e.g.: 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."
Furthermore ancient armenian sources of the 3rd century talk about bulgars inhabitting the lands adjacent to Armenia and they were said to live in stone towns.
So the Bulgars lived in towns. So how can they be in any way nomadic? There is no evidence for nomadic existence and as quoted above there is evidence for settled existence. Furthermore the first town built in Damubian Bulgaria was Pliska and it was stone built (ruins still surviviing) and was apparently massive in size. Much bigger than Constantinople. The nomadic theory seems rests on shaky grounds to say the least. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Language section
User:Beshogur the article has over 100,000 bytes hence sections need to be informative, but concise in details for better readability. Sections which topic already has a main article, like Bulgar language, there is no need to have the same copy-pasted information especially about phonology and tables from the main article, it is out of WP:SCOPE for this article as should only provide a summary and points not mentioned in the main article. I reverted the section to the revision before somebody added the information, which is also repetitive and poorly sourced, and the tables. The section is unreadble mess. Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. This is already mentioned in Bulgar language. Therefore, I do not see why there needs to be excessive details about language here as well when there is already a hatnote with a link to the main article. Mellk (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
- Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class Bulgaria articles
- High-importance Bulgaria articles
- WikiProject Bulgaria articles
- C-Class Romania articles
- Unknown-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors