| Revision as of 18:46, 28 April 2016 view sourceSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,461 editsm Signing comment by Dulovokil146 - "→Here is some productive commentary : The true article Bulgars: new section"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:15, 28 December 2024 view source Isabelle Belato (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators50,754 edits rmv | ||
| (679 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-protected|small=yes}} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{FailedGA|07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)|topic=Culture, society and psychology|page=1}} | {{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 |
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|hist=yes|ethno=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Ethnic groups |
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Bulgaria |
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=high}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Romania |
{{WikiProject Romania}} | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|date=July 15, 2015}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Reliable sources and objectiveness == | |||
| {{findnotice}} | |||
| Greetings, | |||
| {{Talk:Bulgars/GA1}} | |||
| 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: | |||
| == Here is some productive commentary : The true article Bulgars == | |||
| '''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. | |||
| The origin of the '''Bulgars''' and their homeland are still subjects of research generating many hypothesis and violent disputes. Bulgars, also called Bulgarians, were one of the three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs). They were mentioned for the first time in 354 AD by Anonymous Roman Chronograph as people living north of the Caucasus mountain and west of the Volga River. Headed by their chieftan Vund, they invaded Europe with the Huns about 370 AD, and retreating with the Huns about 460 AD they resettled in the area north and east of the Sea of Azov. | |||
| '''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. | |||
| '''Who were the Bulgars?''' | |||
| 'Bulgar Vund' or 'Utigur' (vh'ndur, Vanand) is the name used by historians and geographers like Moses Horenaci, Procopius of Caesarea and his continuators Agathias of Mirena, Menander Protector, and Theophylact Simocatta in the 6th century to refer the eastern branch of the Hunno-Bulgars who were the successors of the Hunnic empire along the coasts of the Black Sea in Patria Onoguria. The late antique historians use the names of 'Huns', 'Bulgars', 'Kutrigurs' and 'Utigurs' as interchangeable terms, thus prompting some modern historians to coin the term Hunno-Bulgars. According to Procopius, Agathias and Menander Utigurs and their relatives Kutrigurs were Huns, they were dressed in the same way and had the same language. Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the Bulgars. Many historians consider Utigurs and Kutrigurs as successors of the Hunnic empire in the east, on the territory of modern-day Ukraine, where the Huns retreated after the death of Attila. Menander Protector mentioned an Utigur leader in the latter 6th century called Sandilch. Later these Bulgars of the Eurasian steppes had come under the control of the Western Turkic Kaghanate and were also known as 'Onogurs' ( or Unogundur). In the early 7th century, Khan Kubrat of the Dulo clan was "ruler of the Unogundurs" and the founder of Old Great Bulgaria. | |||
| The Bulgars ancestors of the Utigurs represented the Pontic-Kuban part of the Hun Empire, and were ruled by descendants of ] through his son, Ernakh. | |||
| '''Who were the Huns ?''' | |||
| Roman historians Themistius(317-390), Claudian(370-404), and later Procopius(500-560) called the Huns Massagetae. The Huns were called Massagetae also by Ambrose(340-397), Ausonius(310-394), Synesius(373–414), Zacharias Rhetor(465-535), Belisarius(500-565), Evagrius Scholasticus (6th century) and others. Alexander Cunningham, B.S. Dahiya(1980, 23) and Edgar Knobloch(2001, 15) identify Massagetae with the Great Yuezhi: Da Yuezhi > Ta-Yue-ti (Great Lunar Race) > Ta-Gweti> Massa-Getae. Dahiya wrote about the Massagetae and Thyssagetae : "These Guti people had two divisions, the Ta-Yue-Che and Siao-Yue-Che, exactly corresponding to the Massagetae and Thyssagetae of Herodotus ... " (Dahiya 1980, 23). Thyssagetae, who are known as the Lesser Getae, correspond with the Xiao Yuezhi, meaning Lesser Yuezhi. ] and ] also supported this identification and wrote in their book : " Da (Greater) Yuezhi or in the earlier pronunciation d'ad-ngiwat-tieg, has been seen to equate with the Massagetae who occupied the oases and steppelands of West Central Asia in the time of Herodotus; here Massa renders an Iranian word for "Great," hence "Great Getae."... " | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''Utigurs - etymology and origin''' | |||
| ], ] and some modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi. According to Edwin G. Pulleyblank and Yury Zuev the Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti. | |||
| Artificial cranial deformation is a valuable cultural artifact for tracing the Huns and Bulgars back in time. According to Otto Maenchen-Helfen the artificially deformed skulls in proto-Bulgarian graves cannot be seperated from those in the graves of the Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians of the post-Attilanic graves in the South Russian steppes. The Huns and proto-Bulgarians practiced artificial cranial deformation and its circular type can be used to trace the route that the Huns took from north China to the Central Asian steppes and subsequently to the southern Russian steppes. Circular modification appeared for the first time in Central Asia in the last centuries BC as an ethnic attribute of the early Huns. The distribution of the skulls parallels the movement of the Huns. The people who practiced annular artificial cranial deformation in Central Asia were Yuezhi/Kushans. The migration of the Yuezhi started from North China during 2BC, it is well documented and their movement parallels the distribution of the artificially deformed skulls. The recurve bow was brought to Bactria by Yuezhi (Yüeh-Chih, also Uechji in some authors) around 130 BC and according to Maenchen-Helfen some of their groups migrated far to the west and were present in the steppes north of the Caucasus and on the shores of the Black Sea as early as 1st century BC. Modern taxonomic analysis of the artificially deformed crania from 5th–6th Century AD (Hun-Germanic Period) found in Northeastern Hungary showed that none of them have any Mongoloid features and all the skulls belong to the Europid "great race" but further identification was impossible. The Huns, Bulgars and part of the Yuezhi share some common burial practices as the narrow burial pits, pits with a niche and the northern orientation of the burials.The clothes of the Yuezhi depicted on Bactrian Embroidery are almost identical to the traditional Bulgarian costumes made nowadays. | |||
| '''Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian | |||
| '''Genetic research''' | |||
| origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians''' - | |||
| Although many scholars had posited that the Bulgars were Turkic tribes of Central Asia, modern genetic research points to an affiliation with European and western Eurasian populations. The phylogenetic analysis of ancient DNA samples shows that mtDNA haplogroups can be classified as European and Western Eurasian and suggest a Western Eurasian matrilineal origin for proto-Bulgarians as well as a genetic similarity between proto- and modern Bulgarians. The Y-Chromosome genetic tests suggest that a common paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible. | |||
| 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''' | |||
| '''Genetic research: Tarim Basin - Bulgaria''' | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians | |||
| The origins of Tocharians and Tocharian related Yuezhi is controversial topic. Nevertheless, certain facts emerge. Usually they are assumed to have spoken Tocharian language, but Tocharian is first attested in the 8th c. AD, or about 3 thousand years after the earliest appearance of Caucasoids in the region of Tarim Basin and Xinjiang, North China. Positing linguistic continuity is not an appropriate default position when direct evidence is absent. There is evidence that Caucasoid population in Tarim Basin were already mixed with Mongoloids as early as the early Bronze Age (at least in their mtDNA). This reduces our confidence that they spoke an Indo-European language. An attempt to discover the origin of the Tocharians was made by a careful sorting of Y-chromosome lineages in the present-day Uyghur population of Xinjiang that is assumed to have absorbed the pre-Turkic inhabitants of the region. By removing Eurasian lineages that are likely to be associated with the Xiongnu, Mongols, Uyghur, and non-Tocharian sources (such as Iranians, or various Silk Road outliers), the phylogeographic analysis leaves three candidate haplogroups : J2-M172, R1a1a-M17, R1b-M343 (and its main R-M269 clade).About 80% of the total genetic variation in modern Bulgarians falls within haplogroups J-M172, R-M17 and R-M269, E-M35, I-M170. Because the haplogroups E-M35 and I-M170 are indigenous for the Balkan Peninsula prior to the arrival of the Bulgars, this leads to the conclusion that there is an isomorphic correspondence between the haplogroups that can be associated with Tocharian related Yuezhi and the haplogroups that can be associated with the proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars). The conclusion correlates with the historical data that modern Bulgarians have three ethnic ancestors - Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians. | |||
| '''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) - | |||
| '''Who really were the Yuezhi?''' | |||
| 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 | |||
| They were recorded by the Chinese during the period of Warring States (495-221 B. C.) as nomadic people living in the the lands of the Western Region, specifically around Dunhuang and Guazhou. The Yuezhi had occupied Dunhuang district and became very strong nation in the Northwest China. Han Shu further records: " The Great Yuezhi was a nomadic horde. They moved about following their cattle, and had the same customs as those of the Xiongnu. As their soldiers numbered more than hundred thousand, they were strong and despised the Xiongnu. In the past, they lived in the region between Dunhuang and Qilian (south of Hexi Corridor)" The Yuezhi was so powerful that the Xiongnu monarch Touman even sent his eldest son Modu as a hostage to the Yuezhi. The Yuezhi often attacked their neighbour the Wusun to acquire slaves and pasture lands. Wusun originally lived together with the Yuezhi in the region between Dunhuang and Qilian Mountain. The Yuezhi attacked the Wusuns, killed their monarch Nandoumi and took his territory. The son of Nandoumi, Kunmo fled to the Xiongnu and was brought up by the Xiongnu monarch. | |||
| Gradually the Xiongnu grew stronger and war broke out between them and the Yuezhi. There were at least four wars between the Yuezhi and Xiongnu according to the Chinese accounts. The first war broke out during the reign of the Xiongnu monarch Touman (who died in 209 B.C) who suddenly attacked the Yuezhi. The Yuezhi wanted to kill Modu, the son of Touman kept as a hostage to them, but Modu stole a good horse from them and managed to escape to his country. It appears that the Xiongnu did not defeat the Yuezhi in this first war. | |||
| The second war took place in the 7th year of Modu era (203 B.C.). From this war, a large area of the territory originally belonging to the Yuezhi was seized by the Xiongnu and the hegemony of the Yuezhi started to shake. The third war probably was at 176 BC (or shortly before that) and the Yuezhi were badly defeated. The forth war was during the the period of Xiongnu monarch Laoshang (174 BC-166 BC) and was a disaster for the Yuezhi, their king was killed and a drinking cup was made out of his skull. Probably around 165 BC the majority of the Yuezhi migrated from the Tarim basin westward to Fergana. They finally settled in Transoxiana and Bactria. | |||
| It is hard to say if the Yuezhi (Yue-Chi) should be included in any of the recognized divisions of Turanian tribes such as Turks or Huns. Nothing whatever is known of their original language. Judging by the physical type represented on the Kushan's coins the Yue-Chi type is Turkish rather than Mongol or Ugro-Finnic. Some authorities think that the name Turushka or Turukha sometimes applied to them by Indian writers is another evidence of the connexion with the Turks. But the national existence and name of the Turks seem to date from the 5th century A.D., so that it is an anachronism to speak of the Yue-Chi as a division of them. The Yue-Chi and Turks, however, may both represent parallel developments of similar or even originally identical tribes. Some authors consider that the Yue-Chi are the same as the Getae and that the original form of the name was Ytit or Get, which is also supposed to appear in the Indian Jat. | |||
| According to Hyun Jin Kim the nomadic Yuezhi possessed political institutions that closely resemble the Xiongnu and later Hunnic models. The Chinese refer to the five xihou or Lords of the Yuezhi who rule the five tribes of their imperial confederation. According to Pulleyblank the Yuezhi were Indo-Europeans and they spoke a Tocharian type language. The title xihou corresponds in the pronunciation to what would later become the Turkic title yubgu. This originally Yuezhi royal title appears on the coins of their rulers as IAPGU and it came to the Xiongnu from the Yuezhi. Among the Turks, the title yabgu gained a new lease of life. In the Turkish inscriptions of Mongolia, it refers to a noble ranking immediately after the qagan. Kuyan/gayan was a "common Uechji" symbol for a terrestrial embodiment for the Moon and Milky Way. | |||
| '''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 | |||
| '''Language''' | |||
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/24/687384/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true | |||
| ] in his notable study "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan" (1982) analyzed the 33 survived Hunnic personal names and concluded that the language of the Bulgars was Hunnic language: | |||
| 1) Danube-Bulgarian was a Hunnic language page (444) | |||
| 2) Danube-Bulgarian had the suffix /mA/, with the same meaning as the Middle Turkic suffix /mAt/ 'the greatest among' (page 433) | |||
| 3) In the Hunno-Bulgarian languages /r/ within a consonantic cluster tends to disappear (page 435) | |||
| 4) In Hunno-Bulgarian there was also a tendency toward the develop ment of di > ti > ći (page 436) | |||
| 5) In the Hunno-Bulgarian there was vocalic metathesis bli- < *bil (page 443) | |||
| 6) There was initially a g- in the Hunno-Bulgarian languages (page 449) | |||
| 7) One of the typical features of the Hunno-Bulgarian linguistic group is a cluster in the word initial position. (page 460) | |||
| 8) Hunnic (language) shared rhotacis with Mongolian, Old Bulgarian, and Chuvash. (page 470) | |||
| According to Pritsak the language was between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to Turkic. | |||
| According to Antoaneta Granberg "the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there. It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic. The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names)". In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure. | |||
| Assuming that the connection Yuezhi->Hunno-Bulgars was substantiated enough we can try to find explanation in the preserved data about the language of Yuezhi/Kushans and see if we can find some correspondence. Some scholars have explained the words connecting the 'Yuezhi' 月氏 or the Kushans as coming from the '''Turkic''' languages, thus concluding that the language of the Kushans was from the Türkic language branch. This theory is inadequate. In the Zhoushu 周書, ch. 50, it is recorded that: “The ancestors of the Türks came from the state of Suo 索.”34 It has been suggested that “Suo索” (sheak) is a transcription of “Sacae.” In other words, it may be possible that the ancestors of the Türks originally were kin of the Sacae. If this is true, it would not be difficult to understand why some words and titles connected with the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans can be explaned by the Türkic languages. In the Rājataraṅgiṇī (I, 170) there is a reference to the fact that the Türkic ruler in Gandhāra claimed his ancestor was Kaniṣka, and maybe this is not merely boasting. Other scholars have judged that the language of the Kushans was the Iranian language. This theory is also inadequate, for the following reasons. First, they were a branch of the Sacae, a tribal union composed of at least four tribes, i.e., Asii, Gasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli. Of these there were some tribes who spoke the Iranian language, but also some who spoke Indo-European languages other than the Iranian language, e.g., the Tochari. Next, the tribes that spoke Tokharian were in close contact with the tribes that spoke the Iranian language, and the words connected to them that can be explained with Iranian possibly originally were Tokharian. | |||
| Yury Zuev included the Yuezhi (Uechji) among the tribes of early Turks. He wrote that " in the Northern Caucasus they spoke East - Iranian language, and in the Kangju they spoke in Türkic." His sketches about early Türkic tribes and state type confederations showed that "ideological views coincide in many respects and have a common foundation, which ascends to the last centuries BCE. Such foundation was the pantheon of the ancient confederations of Uechji (Yuezhi) and Kangars that left a trace in the ideological complexes of Ashtak Türks, Oguzes, Kypchaks, Az-kishes, Kimeks, Kangly, etc. Certain features of it still are in the folklore of the modern Türkic peoples. The tradition of the ideological continuity is permeating the history of these peoples from extreme antiquity until the new time." Probably one of the most striking customs was the custom of the population to completely shave their heads. "The seven-tribe Uechji -"Tochars” were “White-headed” i.e. with completely shaven heads. "Bold-headness" was equivalent to Moon-headness."Remember that the word Yuezhi is a Chinese exonym, formed from the characters yuè (月) "moon" and shì (氏) "clan" - hence they shaved their heads to resemble the Moon. We are not surprised to discover the same custom among the rulers of Bulgarian Dulo clan : "These five princes ruled the kingdom over the other side of the Danube for 515 years with shaven heads and after that came to this side of the Danube Asparuh knyaz and until now (rules)." | |||
| '''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 | |||
| '''The house of Dulo |Y|''' | |||
| The house of Dulo (also Dulo clan) was the ruling dynasty of early Bulgars. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin of Dulo clan and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure: ""According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun."<ref>The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press(2000), p. 66: "According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure." https://books.google.bg/books?redir_esc=y&id=Y0NBxG9Id58C&q=dulo#v=snippet&q=dulo&f=false</ref> Many scholars agree that the dynasty has Hunnic origin, the first two names in the Nominalia of Bulgarian khans are actually Attila and his third son Ernak.<ref>Early Mediaeval identity of the Bulgarians, Cafer Saatchi, page 3: "The khans Avtiochol and Irnik, listed in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans today are identified with Attila and Ernach.", http://www.academia.edu/10894065/Early_Mediaeval_identity_of_the_Bulgarians</ref><ref>The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, p. 415: "Ernak has often been identified with Ирникь in the Bulgarian Princes' List.", https://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+World+of+the+Huns%22,+Otto+Maenchen-Helfen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI_LSi06LMAhUoS5oKHQn1A0sQ6AEIGzAA#v=snippet&q=bulgarian&f=false</ref><ref>The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest, David Marshall Lang, p. 49: "... and was the last of the great house of Dulo to occupy the throne, with him died out the lineage of Attila the Hun" https://books.google.bg/books?id=8EppAAAAMAAJ&dq=The+Bulgarians%3A+from+pagan+times+to+the+Ottoman+conquest+David+Marshall+Lang&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=dulo</ref><ref>The Tale of the Prophet Isaiah: The Destiny and Meanings of an Apocryphal Text, Ivan Biliarsky, р. 255: "Among historians, there is almost unanimity they were Attila, the ruler of the Huns, and his son Ernach.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=mbevAAAAQBAJ&q=dulo#v=snippet&q=dulo&f=false</ref> According to Steven Runciman, given all the historical circumstances and striking resemblance to the names Irnik and Ernak would be unnecessary hypercritical not trace the Bulgarian royal dynasty to myself Attila. According to one hypothesis name Dulo is distorted form of the name of Attila.<ref>A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Steven Runciman, Appendix III, стр. 280: "Under these circumstances, especially considering the remarkable similarity of the names, it is surely unnecessarily hypercritical to refuse to identify Irnik with Ernach, and not to trace the Bulgar royal line from Attila.", http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/sr_app3.htm</ref> According to one hypothesis name Dulo is distorted form of the name of Attila.<ref>Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 11, стр. 228, https://books.google.bg/books?id=SO2zAAAAIAAJ&q=dulo+attila&dq=dulo+attila&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y</ref>] connects ] name with the name of the ruling dynasty ] Tu-ko (EMC d'uo'klo) by suggesting that the name Vihtun from the List of Bulgarian khans e Xiongnu emperor himself ].<ref>The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, стр. 59, https://books.google.bg/books?</ref> | |||
| 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--> | |||
| :{{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 == | |||
| Maenchen-Helfen in his famous monograph "The world of the Huns" wrote that we know virtually nothing about the Indo-European languages spoken on the west-north borders of China. All we know of the language of the Huns are names. The tribal names appear to be of Turkish origin. The personal names fall into 3 general categories: 1) Turkish 2) Iranian 3) of unknown origin ( we don't count here apparently Germanic names whose origin is obvious) Examples of such names (concerning the Bulgar branch of the Huns) are : | |||
| Zabergan - Kutrigur Hun - Ζαβεργάν; Persian | |||
| Sandilch - Utigur Hun - Σάνδιλ; Turkic | |||
| Asparuch- Utigur ruler, founder of Danube Bulgaria - probably Iranian ( Maenchen-Helfen, page 384) | |||
| Careful consideration of the above information shows that there is correspondence between the possible language of the Yuezhi and the possible language of the European Huns. Unfortunately we have to compare one unknown language to another unknown language - a quite formidable task. Anyway certain facts emerge - both languages exhibit features from Turkic and Iranian languages. We shouldn't forget that according to Pritsak many names appear to be Mongolian. The idea that Bulgar/Yuezhi tribes were dragged into Europe by a small Xiongnu fragment migrating to West has a long history behind. Pulleyblank, despite the fact that he concluded for various reasons it was very unlikely that the Xiongnu language was Turkic or Mongolian or any form of Altaic, assumed it as a plausible idea. According to Pulleyblank, who identifies the Utigur Huns with the Yuezhi, European Huns comprised two groups of tribes with different ethnic affinities and the ruling group that bore the name Hun was directly connected with the Northern Xiongnu. However historical data deny this ( and similar to it) idea. It is much more natural to assume that Yuezhi had a lot of Mongolian borrowings into their language from the very beginning ( the Tarim basin population had Mongoloid admixture from the early Bronze age). Recent studies show that the populations of the Tarim Basin used many different languages and writing systems, 17 languages in 24 different scripts are documented and among them are Old Turkic, Mongolian and Persian. According to some researchers in modern Bulgarian language there are many words of Tocharian origin. | |||
| '''Conclusions | |||
| Absence of information about historical migration of Xiongnu-Huns to the west before the end of the 4th century AD, and existence of the "Hun" population on the eastern fringes of Europe in the 3rd century and earlier, lead to the conclusion that in the composition of the western Huns participated other tribes, and first of all Yuezhi.''' | |||
| '''History''' | |||
| According to Procopius, there was a nation of Huns living to the east of the Sea of Azov and north of the Caucasus, the king of these Huns had two sons, Kutigur and Utigur. The king referred by Procopius is most probably Ernak, the third son of Attila. After the death of the king, the two sons divided the people into two tribes. Analyzing the chronicles of the antique historians Vasil Zlatarski concludes that the name Bulgar was used for both tribes, but in 6th century the tribal names were preferred by the Eastern Roman Empire due to the different policy it had toward these two tribes. In the middle of 6th century the Emperor Justinian, being attacked by the Kutrigurs under their leader Chinialus, bribed their relatives the Utigurs led by Sandilch to attacked the Kutrigurs in the rear. The resulting internecine war between the two tribes weakened them and made them vulnerable to the Avar attack shortly after that. By 568CE some Kutrigurs groups came under the control of the Pannonian Avars(Varchonites) who were migrating to Pannonia and was also known as Avars. The eastern Bulgar groups along the northern coasts of the Black sea, the Utigurs, were conquered by the Western Turkic Kaghanate (who were violently opposed to the Pannonian Avars). Due to civil war the Western Turks retreated back into Asia no later than 583 CE according to Zlatarski. | |||
| Kubrat's Utigurs defeated the Avars in alliance with Byzantium and reunited the Utigurs and Kutrigurs into a single Crimean Bulgar confederation in Patria Onoguria renamed as "Old Great Bulgaria" After Kubrat's death in 665AD, his empire was divided when his appointed heir Batbayan submitted to the Khazars of Kubrat's second son Kotrag who settled Batbayan's army at the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers where they founded a Khanate known as Volga Bulgaria. | |||
| Other sons of Kubrat carried the Utigur name to the Danube and Pannonia Secunda by April 677. Some submitted to a restored Avar Kaghan, while others rebelled moving south to the Pelagonian plain under the leadership of Tervel's Uncle, Kuber in alliance with Khan Asparukh's Utigurs who successfully occupied the southern banks of the Danube following the Battle of Ongal. Kuber's Utigurs displaced some of the populations that had already settled in the region of Macedonia, and intermingled with the populations that remained. Following the Battle of Ongal, Asparukh settled a portion of the Utigur Bulgars in Moesia, to establish the state which would become modern Bulgaria. In the 8th century, the Kuber Bulgars merged with Asparuh's Bulgars who had by the late 7th century already taken both sides of the Danube River. | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''Referencies''' | |||
| ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, Bulgar People, http://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/50741981/The_debate_about_the_origin_of_Protobulgarians_in_the_beginning_of_the_21st_century | |||
| Embassy of R. Bulgaria in the USA, http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/history_of_bulgaria.htm#THE BULGARIANS | |||
| The History Files, Huns, http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianHuns.htm | |||
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ | |||
| "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", (2013, Cambridge University Press), Hyun Jin Kim, page 57: "After a period of chaos following Attila's death, dualism again reasserted itself in the succession of Dengitzik and Ernak (west and east respectively). The successor to the Hunnic Empire in the east, or rather probably the coninuation, also featured two wings, the Kutrigurs(west) and the Utigurs(east), ruled presumably by Ernak's descendants.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false | |||
| Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, Romilly James, page 45 : " The Bulgarians seem to have been in origin Huns, who may well have formed part, and survived as a rump, of the hordes of Attila in the fifth century. ... the so called Onogur Bulgarians are found in large numbers somewhere between the Kuban and the Volga rivers..." https://books.google.hr/books?id=O5JqH_NXQBsC&pg=PA45&dq=onogur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBDgoahUKEwistou42ZPJAhWGWiwKHUbUDxI#v=onepage&q=onogur&f=false | |||
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3 | |||
| "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press), page 256: " Thus in our sources the names 'Kutrigur', 'Bulgar' and 'Hun' are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false | |||
| Early Mediaeval identity of the Bulgarians, Cafer Saatchi, page 3 : " The early Byzantine texts use the names of Huns, Bulgarians, Kutrigurs and Utrigurs as interchangeable terms. There the Bulgarians are represented as identical, they are a part of Huns or at least have something common with them. The khans Avtiochol and Irnik, listed in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans today are identified with Attila and Ernach.", http://www.academia.edu/10894065/Early_Mediaeval_identity_of_the_Bulgarians | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/49103702/Significant_Z_4_admixture_signal_with_a_source_from_ancient_Wusun_observed_in_contemporary_Bulgarians | |||
| Classification of the Hunno-Bulgarian Loan-Words in Slavic, Antoaneta Granberg, Introduction : " (2) the data are insufficient to clearly distinguish Huns, Avars and Bulgars one from another;" https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic | |||
| "SOME REMARKS ON THE CHINESE "BULGAR"", 2004, SANPING CHEN: page 8 :" In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns. At the very least, the Hun-Bulgar connection was much more tangible than the Hun-Xiongnu identification. " http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/Sanping_Chen_SOME_REMARKS_ON_THE_CHINESE_BULGARIAN.pdf | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/30769850/Genes_found_in_archaeological_remains_of_the_ancient_population_of_the_Balkans | |||
| "History of the Later Roman Empire", J.B. Bury: " The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia. They were a formidable people and Justinian had long ago taken precautions to keep them in check, in case they should threaten to attack the Empire, though it was probably for the Roman cities of the Crimea, Cherson and Bosporus, that he feared, rather than for the Danubian provinces. As his policy on the Danube was to use the Lombards as a check on the Gepids, so his policy in Scythia was to use another Hunnic people, the Utigurs, as a check on the Kotrigurs. The Utigurs lived beyond the Don, on the east of the Sea of Azov, and Justinian cultivated their friendship by yearly gifts. ", http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/20*.html#ref39 | |||
| Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire, Jennifer Lawler, " Utigurs - Hunnic tribe that lived on the east steppes of Don, related to the Bulgars", стр. 296 : https://books.google.hr/books?id=sEWeCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA296&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAjgUahUKEwi427LD25zHAhVEECwKHc3wDFQ#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false | |||
| 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--> | |||
| "Great Walls and Linear Barriers", Peter Spring, page 199 : " In 460 the Huns split into the Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false | |||
| A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Steven Runciman (Book I The children of the Huns), G. Bell & Sons, London 1930, page 5: '' On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars.", http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/sr_1_1.htm | |||
| :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) | |||
| The Huns of Justinian: Byzantium, Utigur and Kutrigur, Joseph Ricci (2013) http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/94441061/huns-justinian-byzantium-utigur-kutrigur | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Information and Frontiers: Roman Foreign Relations in Late Antiquity, A. D. Lee, ( 1993 Cambridge University Press), page 37: " Utigur Huns", https://books.google.bg/books?id=qKi1O3KvjkAC&pg=PA212&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgoahUKEwjwxcmClJbJAhUBqxoKHTAeCWo#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Pritsak, 1982: pages: 435, 448-449 | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| O. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, page 378 : " In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language. ", http://www.kroraina.com/huns/mh/mh_1.html | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| "The Hunno-Bulgarian Language, 2008, Antoaneta Granberg, Göteborg University, page 6: " The Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other "barbarian" languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there. It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic. The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure.", http://www.centralasien.dk/joomla/images/journal/DSCA2008.pdf | |||
| ::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 Empire of the Steppes", René Grousset, page 79: " Other Hun clans survived north of the Black Sea in two hordes : the Kutrigur Huns, who led a nomadic life northwest of the of Azov and the Utigur or Utrigur Huns, whose haunts were by the mouth of the Don." | |||
| :::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) | |||
| https://books.google.hr/books?id=CHzGvqRbV_IC&pg=PA79&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMIvfOPuuqTyQIVxQcsCh1bWwlR#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=false | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| The Cambridge Medieval History, volumes 1-5, " ... Kotrigur and Utigur Huns...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=9lHeh36S8ooC&pg=PT582&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgeahUKEwid_pDUkpbJAhUBCBoKHQ0XB1M#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false | |||
| ::::In addition to the findings of the Italian scientists, I have used books from leading turkologists. ] (]) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Justinian and the Later Roman Empire, John W. Barker, (1966, University of Wisconsin press) page 199: " ...Utigur Huns...", | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| https://books.google.bg/books?id=LiJljEXvwAoC&pg=PA199&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBzgeahUKEwid_pDUkpbJAhUBCBoKHQ0XB1M#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false | |||
| ::::::~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) | |||
| The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press) page 141: "Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the Bulgars", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false | |||
| :::::::Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. ] (]) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| The Age of Justinian, J. A. S. Evans, (1996) page 91: "... Utigur or Onogur Bulgars", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jjSDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&dq=onogur+utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2uvnJvvbKAhUBWhQKHWHOB-MQ6AEITjAJ#v=onepage&q=onogur%20utigur&f=false | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| Justinian, John Moorhead, 1994, Taylor&Francis, https://books.google.hr/books?id=aacuAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT180&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2tIS7yvbKAhWKPxQKHf-bD7M4ChDoAQhPMAk#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false | |||
| :::::::::Hmm why? ] (]) 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Byzantium in the Seventh Century, J. F. Haldon, page 47 : "...the Onogur Huns or Bulgars...", https://books.google.co.il/books?id=pSHmT1G_5T0C&pg=PA47&dq=onogur&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hun&f=false | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| Early Medieval Europe, Roger Collins, (1991) page 206: "...Utigur and Kutrigur Bulgars... ", https://books.google.bg/books?id=ZukcBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCDgUahUKEwjDt-3RkZbJAhUBVxoKHW-tBaQ#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false | |||
| The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Volume 2, Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, Michael Whitby, pages 240,248: " Utigur Bulgars", https://books.google.bg/books?id=4aX-W6AVNv8C&pg=PA606&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCTgeahUKEwid_pDUkpbJAhUBCBoKHQ0XB1M#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false | |||
| WP:FRINGE. Not worthy to reply. Out of mainstream view. ] (]) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Armies of the Dark Ages, Ian Heath, ( 1979), page 53: " The Onogurs appeared after the disintegration of the Hunnic empire,...The Onogur tribes toghether with the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns, ....Once independent they adopted the name Bulgar...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=qKdkCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBDhuahUKEwj7-an4lZbJAhUBgBoKHT4fD4M#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false | |||
| : ], 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) | |||
| "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", (2013, Cambridge University Press), Hyun Jin Kim, https://books.google.bg/books?id=fX8YAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&source=gbs_toc_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false, page 57, page 138, page 140-141, page 254 : " That the Utigurs and Kutrigurs formed the two main wings of the same steppe confederacy is proved by the foundation legend told by Procopius regarding the ethnogenesis of the two tribal groupings. He states that before the formation of both entities power in the steppe was concentrated in the hands of a single ruler ( presumably he is referring here to Ernak, son of Attila ), who then divided the power/empire between his two sons called Utigur and Kutrigur " | |||
| ::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. | |||
| The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4, Edward Gibbon, page 537: " And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kotrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion", https://books.google.bg/books?id=j83oF6YQI68C&dq=utigurs&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false | |||
| :: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/ | |||
| Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J. (1973). "Chapter IX. Language: 6. Turkish names". The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press. p. 412, http://www.kroraina.com/huns/mh/mh_6.html#Sandilchos | |||
| ::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. | |||
| Menandri Fragmenta. Excerpta de legationibus. - Ed. C. de Boor. Berolini, 1903, p. 170 | |||
| ::"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) | |||
| Die Goten auf der Krim, Wilhelm Tomaschek, page 12: https://books.google.bg/books?id=YsNxCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&dq=Sandilch&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRoKKzxP3KAhVpQJoKHYm6DVI4KBDoAQhZMAg#v=onepage&q=Sandilch&f=false | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1971, Volume 3, page 459 : "... Utigur and Unnugari are used as common synonyms for the same tribe. Again, the Unnugari are also called Unugunduri and Unungunduri.", https://books.google.bg/books?id=m_6zAAAAIAAJ&q=utigurs&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| Nisephorus Patriarcha. Breviarium. Ed. C. de Boor, p. 24 | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| The Early Medieval Balkans, John Van Antwerp Fine, The University of Michigan Press (2000), page 66: " Meanwhile in the Steppes and the region around the sea of Azov dwelled the Onogur Bulgars. They were seminomadic,ethnically mixed people under a Bulgar chief. According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure. In 635 the Onogur chief Kovrat led a revolt against the Avars which succeeded in driving them from his land and putting an end to Avar suzerainty over the Onogurs", https://books.google.hr/books?id=Y0NBxG9Id58C&pg=PA66&dq=onogur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwATgoahUKEwistou42ZPJAhWGWiwKHUbUDxI#v=onepage&q=onogur&f=false | |||
| ::::::Removing old data and adding updated one is improving. My first source says they're Iranian. "The research carried in this study, combining written | |||
| Bulgarian Centuries, Volume 1, https://books.google.com/books?id=NeIVAQAAMAAJ&q=kubrat+dulo&dq=kubrat+dulo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGnJab6fnKAhUH6Q4KHfNIBeg4FBDoAQgcMAA | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| Runciman, Book I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS (1930), page 4: "Attila was proudly called cousin, if not grandfather, by them all. Of all these claims, it seems that the Bulgars’ is the best justified; the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs.", for identification Ernach and Irnik see Appendix III, http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/ | |||
| ::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) | |||
| "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", (2013, Cambridge University Press), Hyun Jin Kim, page 140 :" The same is likely to have been the case among the Utigurs and Kutrigurs who under Attilid rule had even more justification for claiming the imperial mantle of the Huns of Europe.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false | |||
| @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) | |||
| The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest, David Marshall Lang, (1976) page 49 https://books.google.bg/books?redir_esc=y&id=8EppAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=dulo | |||
| "The World of the Huns", Otto Maenchen-Helfen, (1973, University of California Press, Berkeley page 4: "But considering that Themistius, Claudian, and later Procopius called the Huns Massagetae,...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&q=hun#v=onepage&q=Massagetae&f=false | |||
| :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) | |||
| SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 127 October, 2003, page 22-24, http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp127_getes.pdf | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Mallory, J. P.; Mair, Victor H. (2000), The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West, London: Thames & Hudson. pages 98-99 | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Yu. A. Zuev, EARLY TURKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY, p.38 and p.62 : " The Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, associated with Aorses of the Pliny "Natural history" (VI, 39). The word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti (Pulleyblank, 1966, p. 18) ", http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly1En.htm | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| TEMPORA INCOGNITA НА РАННАТА БЪЛГАРСКА ИСТОРИЯ, В ТЪРСЕНЕ НА ПРАРОДИНАТА, Проф. Атанас Стаматов, http://www.protobulgarians.com/Kniga%20AtStamatov/Prarodina.htm | |||
| ::@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) | |||
| ТАРИМ И БАКТРИЯ - В ТЪРСЕНЕ НА БЪЛГАРСКАТА ПРАРОДИНА, Петър Голийски, сборник Авитохол http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/P_Golijski_Tarim_i_Baktria.pdf | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Pulleyblank, 1966, p. 18 | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, page 443, https://books.google.hr/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&q=dulo#v=onepage&q=dulo&f=false | |||
| ::::DNA research of actual bulgar remains and modern bulgarian dna have concluded 2 things | |||
| Paleoneurosurgical aspects of Proto-Bulgarian circular type of artificial skull deformations, Journal of Neurosurgery, (2010) http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/2010.9.FOCUS10193 | |||
| ::::1 - the strongest signal is from the bulgars | |||
| " Cranial vault modification as a cultural artifact", C. Torres-Rouff and L.T. Yablonsky, HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology, Volume 56, Issue 1, 2 May 2005, Pages 1–16 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04000460; free excerpts : http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/65_Craniology/YablonskyTracingHunsEn.htm | |||
| ::::2 - modern bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture out of any european populations | |||
| Khodjaiov 1966; Ginzburg & Trofimova 1972; Tur 1996 | |||
| ::::3 - the bulgars were europid as well (9th century bulgar burial remains studied) | |||
| "The Kushan civilization", Buddha Rashmi Mani, page 5: "A particular intra-cranial investigation relates to an annular artificial head deformation (macrocephalic), evident on the skulls of diverse racial groups being a characteristic feature traceable on several figures of Kushan kings on coins.", https://books.google.bg/books?id=J_YtAAAAMAAJ&q=kushan+deformation&dq=kushan+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press) page 33 | |||
| :::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) | |||
| http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dan11.htm | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| The Yuezhi Migration and Sogdia, Craig Benjamin, (2003), http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/benjamin.html | |||
| :::::No, this is not true. This is what PhD Alex M. Feldman from the university of Birmingham says: | |||
| Senior, R. Indo-Scythian Coins and History,London, 2001, p.xxvii | |||
| :::::"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." | |||
| The Yüeh-Chih Problem Re-Examined, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 65, No. 2 page 81 http://www.jstor.org/stable/593930?seq=11#page_scan_tab_contents | |||
| :::::(Ethnicity and Statehood in Pontic-Caspian Eurasia (8-13th c.): Contributing to a Reassessment) | |||
| Artificially Deformed Crania From the Hun-Germanic Period (5th–6th Century AD) in Northeastern Hungary, Mónika Molnár, M.S.; István János, Ph.D.; László Szűcs, M.S.; László Szathmáry, C.Sc., http://thejns.org/doi/full/10.3171/2014.1.FOCUS13466 | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| "Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries", Boris Zhivkov , page 30, https://books.google.bg/books?id=7Du2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=yuezhi+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMI1qLS7L71xwIVBLgaCh0FjwTZ#v=onepage&q=yuezhi%20deformation&f=false | |||
| ::::::Yeah this is simply ] at this point. ] (]) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Yuezhi on Bactrian Embroidery from Textiles Found at Noyon uul, Mongolia Sergey A. Yatsenko Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, page 41, paragraph 2 : " The basic color gamma of the depictions is a combination of red/rose and white, which is characteristic for the Bactrian Yuezhi. Furthermore, there is a definite symmetry of these two basic colors. Thus, if an individual has a red caftan, then his shoes are also red but he has white trousers and a white belt, and, on the other hand, if he has a white caftan and shoes, the trousers and belt are red.", http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol10/srjournal_v10.pdf | |||
| :::::::Sorry to get in on this 2 years later. A few corrections. | |||
| http://www.shevitsa.com/ | |||
| :::::::The DNA studies have concluded that bulgars were NOT turkic. At least no east asian signals there. | |||
| http://global.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar | |||
| :::::::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. | |||
| "Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians", D. V. Nesheva, S. Karachanak-Yankova, M. Lari, Y. Yordanov, A. Galabov, D. Caramelli, D. Toncheva, http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=humbiol_preprints | |||
| :::::::Furthermore the genetic legacy in modern Bulgarians is the strongest from the Bulgars. | |||
| "Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry", Sena Karachanak et.al., http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056779 | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age, Chunxiang Li et al. (incl. Victor H Mair) http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-15 | |||
| :::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) | |||
| http://dienekes.blogspot.bg/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.html | |||
| ::::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. | |||
| http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=006d5e3a-ea14-49ff-9b39-f0a042d39185&cKey=bfc88c56-5e93-4ee2-89e6-c3ab1bd25f5c&mKey=%7BDFC2C4B1-FBCD-433D-86DD-B15521A77070%7D | |||
| ::::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. | |||
| The Yuezhi and Dunhuang, http://www.eurasianhistory.com/data/articles/l01/2024.html#_ednref5 | |||
| ::::And it is sad that wikipedia does not reflect hard science but pseudo science at this point - hypotheses based on guesswork. | |||
| Selections from the Han Narrative Histories, Ta Yue-she (Massagetae), https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hantxt1.html#contents | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/y/yuechi.html | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| THE PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLY CHINESE SOURCES, Edwin G. Pulleyblank, University of British Columbia, (1999), Summary, page 35 | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| Turks and Iranians: Aspects of Turk and Khazaro-IranianInteraction, Peter B. Golden, page 17, footnote 89, http://www.academia.edu/12349727/Turks_and_Iranians_An_historical_Sketch_in_Turkic-Iranian_Contact_Areas._Historical_and_Linguistic_Aspects_edited_by_Lars_Johanson_and_Christiane_Bulut_Wiesbaden_Harrassowitz_2006_17-38 | |||
| :'''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--> | |||
| http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jabguya | |||
| Yu. A. Zuev, EARLY TURKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY, page 39, http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly1En.htm | |||
| :User "Careful Information" isn't blocked as a sock in April. ] (]) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan, OMELJAN PRITSAK, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1(982) | |||
| ::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--> | |||
| http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf | |||
| The Hunno-Bulgarian Language, Antoaneta Granberg, Danish Society for Central Asia’s Electronic Yearbook, http://www.centralasien.dk/joomla/images/journal/DSCA2008.pdf | |||
| == Bulgarian nationalist agenda == | |||
| Classification of the Hunno-Bulgarian Loan-Words in Slavonic, Antoaneta Granberg, https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic | |||
| Pulleyblank 1963: 239-265 | |||
| 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) | |||
| Pulleyblank 1963:240 | |||
| SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 212, 2011, Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Pennsylvania , (Victor H. Mair, Editor) The Origin of the Kushans, YU Taishan, page 15, http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp212_kushan_guishuang.pdf | |||
| :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 | |||
| EARLY TÜRKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY, Yu. A. Zuev, page 153, http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly6En.htm | |||
| :are trying to implement in this article but you and others are constantly deleting. ] (]) 22:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| EARLY TÜRKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY, Yu. A. Zuev, page 178, http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly6En.htm | |||
| ::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) | |||
| EARLY TÜRKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY, Yu. A. Zuev, page 71, http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly2En.htm | |||
| :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) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Nominalia_of_the_Bulgarian_khans | |||
| :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. | |||
| The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, University of California Press, 1973, https://books.google.lt/books/about/The_World_of_the_Huns.html?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&redir_esc=yn | |||
| :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. | |||
| THE PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLY CHINESE SOURCES, Edwin G. Pulleyblank, University of British Columbia, (1999), page 37: "... there is almost certainly a lineal connection between the Northern Xiongnu | |||
| :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) | |||
| who moved westward out of contact with the Chinese in the second century and the Huns who later appeared in Eastern Europe. Apart from the ruling group that bore the name Hun, however, the European Huns undoubtedly included other tribes with | |||
| different ethnic affinities...", page 49 : " (1) that for various reasons it was very unlikely that the Xiongnu language was Turkic or Mongolian or any form of Altaic, (2) that there might be validity in the suggestion of Louis Ligeti that the Xiongnu language was related to Ket and other now extinct Yeniseian languages of Siberia, (3) that the Xiongnu language had bequeathed a number of important culture words to the later Turkic and Mongolian steppe empires, including Turkish tängri, Mongolian tenggeri ‘heaven’ and titles such as tarqan and tegin and kaghan" | |||
| {{Talk reflist}} | |||
| The Languages and Writing Systems of the Tarim Basin, Matthew Anderson, SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, 2012, page 5 : http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp228_silk_roads.pdf | |||
| Tocharo-Bulgarian language parallels, 2008, http://www.academia.edu/4965415/%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%A5%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%9E-%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%98_%D0%95%D0%97%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%92%D0%98_%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98 | |||
| == Modern genetic studies and the turkic/asian origins hypothesis == | |||
| Васил Н. Златарски, История на българската държава през средните векове, Том1. Част 1. Епоха на хуно-българското надмощие (679—852) стр. 75 http://promacedonia.org/vz1a/index.html | |||
| {{atopg | |||
| The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press) page 142, https://books.google.bg/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&pg=PA132&dq=Utigur+attila&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMIs9-UmKyQxwIVBKJyCh0V0wQM#v=onepage&q=Sandilch%20&f=false | |||
| | 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) | |||
| A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Steven Runciman (Book I The children of the Huns), G. Bell & Sons, London 1930 p. 10 http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/ | |||
| }} | |||
| A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Steven Runciman (Book I The children of the Huns), G. Bell & Sons, London 1930, p. 16-17 : http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/ | |||
| 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. | |||
| Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems, Gábor Hosszú, Rovas Foundation, 2012, ISBN 9638843748, p. 287 | |||
| 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? | |||
| National Historical and Archeological Reserve Madara, Sofia 2009, Pecham valdex, p.26 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::Anybody? ] (]) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Language section == | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:15, 28 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
Rashevwas 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