Razer and Stefan - Bulgar morons

[Razer]

On the contrary, photos of the May 24th celebrations in Bulgaria:

[Razer]

@ George S.

Thanks for posting this very interesting article. Did you actually read it? It actually supports the theory that Bulgarians are of Iranian origin, and it has nothing to do with Bulgarians being Mongols...Here are some highlights:

It has been alleged about 17 hypotheses about the ancestral origins and the Bulgarians. At the dawn of Bulgarian historiography, it was thought that the ancient Bulgarians are Slavs, Finno-fine or local population. Later, after the liberation was built as the official theory Hunnish origin of Bulgarians. Some scholars mistakenly identify with the Turks and Huns, this led to consolidation of the Turkic theory of the origin of Bulgarians. Moreover, this theory completely coincides with our foreign policy after the Second World. According to this theory, the Bulgarians have been predominantly nomadic Mongoloid features of the Turkic-Altaic language family and thus the Bulgarian politicians have decided the expense of our relationship with the ancient Bulgarians to require that the modern Bulgarians etnogenezisa largest holdings into Slavs and thus we approximate with the Soviet Union, where Russians play a leading role.

Bulgarians appear in Europe and the lands just north of the Caucasus in the first half of this 4 th century Latin chronograph Anonymous speaks of 354g. Where Bulgarians are mentioned next to gimnosofistite which in turn are adjacent to the Armenians. Therefore, the Bulgarians appear in Europe before the Chinese even to mention the Turks in their springs in the VI century, so that only excludes the possibility that the Bulgarians are Turks. And also before the Huns to cross the Volga River in 360-370g.

Two sources tell us where to look for ancestral Bulgarians - Armenian geography "Ashharatsuyts" in VII century and "Chronicle" of Michael Syrian from XII century.
In Ashharatsuyts "among 15 trade and craft people and nation is mentioned bhuh (bulh according Eremyan reading) inhabited the region of the Pamir-Hindukush. The same source named bulhi mentions and the Bulgarians from Caucasus. In the "Chronicle" of Syrian Michael did mention the following: "At that time (departed) three brothers from Inner Scythia leading with her 30 thousand Scythians and they did one time of 65 days from the mountains beyond Imeon...When reached within Romaic one of them named Bulgarios took 10 thousand Scythians and separated from his brothers ... "

For the first time, Bulgarians are mentioned in Chinese sources in 127 BC around the lake today Borkul West China and East Turkestan...

Longer is spread idea that Bulgarians are nomads, although still in the VI century Zachary Ritor mentions in his "Church History," the Bulgarians, or at least some of them are towns. Coming south of Danube Bulgarians come with their own construction equipment and techniques other than the then Byzantine construction. Hardly nomads could build such monumental building as a Krum's palace in Pliska , which significantly exceeds its size throne room of Theodoric in Ravenna and Charlemagne in Aachen. Or nomads, would hardly have built buildings in Saltovo mayatskata-culture and those in Dagestan.

Also in question are Iranian arhetecture lines in Bulgarian. According to Andrej Protic, Bogdan Filov and Geza Feher parallels of the palace buildings in Pliska and Preslav are found in traditional Persian architecture and in particular mansion in Hatra
II-III century III Firusabad century Sarvistan V-VI century and no doubt that the ancient Bulgarian temples have their direct analogues in the Iranian fire temples.

Pliska was the first capital of Danube Bulgaria, founded by Asparuch around 681. It quickly grew into a large and important centre and later here will be build the Pliska Literacy School, where the Cyrillic was developed (alongside the other 2 Bulgarian literacy schools, those at Preslav and Ohrid), and the Great Basilica of Pliska.

Here is a photo of the Great Basilica in Pliska, build in 875 AD. It was the largest Christian temple in South-Eastern Europe outside Constantinople. Just look at the size of it. It was almost as large as today's Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Sofia (second largest church on the Balkans).




This is Pliska - the outer town.




And Pliska's inner town:




The Citadel:




Graphical reconstruction of the centre of Pliska:

[Niko777]

And what do you think about the following photos? Why May 25th - Tito's Day, is more celebrated than May 24th - the day of Cyril and Methody?

This is complete bullshit and it is more than obvious that you are getting your information from some crazy Bulgarian forums on the web. The photos you posted are from an event organized by a small communist political party in Macedonia, a personality cult for Tito, who in the 2008 elections received just 3700 votes. Why are you lying and claiming that this event is more celebrated than Sts Cyril And Metodi (which a nation wide state holiday BTW)? But honestly I don't blame you for posting this BS if the administrators of this site are allowing you to.

[Razer]

I'm glad to hear that it's just some small group of wackos. Thank you for letting me know. I searched the internet for May 24 celebrations in Macedonia, but didn't find anything...Perhaps one of you can post some pics? It'll be nice to see.

[George S.]

.
On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians (in Bulgarian)
.
Rasho Rashev, Shumen
(p. 23-33 in: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. In honour of Prof. V. Beshevliev, Veliko Tarnovo, 1992)


Every attempt to intervene in the century-old question regarding the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians inevitably makes its author repeat well-known facts and interpretations. All possible theories, it seems, has been proposed and most of them have been reviewed and scrutinised. The written sources, upon which the interpretations have been based, have been studied and commented many times over [1].

The archaeology, with its not so definite but more abundant data, however, gives hope for a new approach towards the problem. It cannot be said that these data have been overlooked so far. As it will be shown below, there exists a not large but authoritative group of archaeologists, whose view on the ethnogenesis of the Proto-Bulgarians differs from the officially imposed one. However, it has been laid down quite laconically, frequently just in footnotes, and its unpopularity should not come as a surprise. Another reason lays in the fact that this view was in apparent contradiction to the official one, which on its part is based on the written sources. A non-declared, hidden discussion was going on. This begs us to restate the question about the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, with stress at some relevant facts which shed a different light upon the question.

So, the question is: were the Proto-Bulgarians Türks? Were the people, led by Asparukh to the Lower Danube, Turkic-speaking? All modern scholars answer positively [2].

The Turkic anthropological type and the Turkicness of the Proto-Bulgarians have not been questioned. The linguistic data in the Namelist of the Bulgarian rulers, in the Byzantine written sources as well as the Proto-Bulgarian stone inscriptions are given as an irrefutable evidence to that. The Turkic names, phrases and words they contain, leave little room for discussion.

A number of Middle Asian elements in the material culture of the First Bulgarian kingdom, such as the 12-year cyclic animal calendar, the cult of Tangra, etc., all with undeniable analogies in the culture of the Turkic khaganate, are also brought forward [3].

An important point, which has evaded attention so far and which was the main reason for the imposition of the Turkic theory about the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, has to be mentioned from the start. It is that the Turkic linguistic remains and elements of material culture represent exclusively the language and the culture of the Proto-Bulgarian military-administrative and clan leadership. It concerns the khan, its family and court, but not the ordinary population. The available data has been generalised and mechanically transferred not only to the whole aristocracy but also to the rest of the population, designated as Proto-Bulgarian. We have no direct evidence about the language and origin of the latter. There is no evidence of a widespread worship of Tangra, the Turkic god of the sky. On the contrary, we have quite definitive evidence which leaves the Turkic theory in doubt. For example, the anthropological data portray the Proto-Bulgarians as Europeids with weak Mongoloid influences. The attested practice of artificial skull deformation was characteristic not for the Türks, but for the old population of the European steppes – the Sarmatians [4]. Especially indicative is the evidence regarding the old Turkic remains in the Bulgarian language. In the Old Bulgarian literary language they are represented solely by the words kumir (idol) and kapishte (heathen shrine). Some 15 other words resurface in the modern Bulgarian language [5]. Recently, the total number of Turkic words reached 40, but with the significant stipulation that they cannot be proven to be old-Turkic, i.e. pre-Ottoman and pre-Pechenego-Kumanic in origin [6]. In comparison, some 300 words of old-Turkic origin in the Hungarian language are said to be a Proto-Bulgarian legacy. Taking into account the widely held view about the Turkicness of the Proto-Bulgarians, the situation in the Bulgarian language appears strange. The linguist St. Mladenov tended to explain this phenomenon by the small number of Proto-Bulgarians, calling them in this connection “a Turanian band of people” (Turanski narodec). The question about the numbers of the Proto-Bulgarians has been studied too generally, relying mainly on one’s intuition rather than more definite data. This way, they were estimated from 30,000 (by V. Zlatarski, in the first quarter of the XX c.) to some 300,000 by some modern scholars. The only objective criterion is the data from the necropolises. They indeed offer a temporary but, nevertheless, objective picture, which will vary quantitatively in the future. As for now, the inhumations, which are the most reliable sign of Proto-Bulgarian ethnic affiliation, constitute 29 % of all graves in the pagan necropolises of north-eastern Bulgaria. The figure will increase by 2-3 % if we add the inhumations from the necropolises yet to be published and it will come to represent a third of all graves. This is not a negligible share. Therefore, not the alleged small numbers of Proto-Bulgarians is the explanation for the lack of old Turkic linguistic remains in the Bulgarian language. The conclusion may be unexpected, but looks completely natural – the majority of Proto-Bulgarians have not spoken a Turkic language.

We have grounds to speak of two Proto-Bulgarian groups and cultures – that of the Turkic in its origin aristocracy, which occupied the upper positions in the centralised military-administrative apparatus, and that of the ordinary Proto-Bulgarian populace, engaged in agriculture and stock-breeding. These were apparently two different groups, differing not only in their social status, but also in their language and traditional culture. St. Mladenov compared the role of the Proto-Bulgarians amongst the South Slavs to the role of the Franks amongst the Gauls, and to that of the Varangians amongst the Eastern Slavs. His comparison should be corrected in the sense that his “Proto-Bulgarians” should refer to the ruling Turkic Proto-Bulgarian elite, and not the Proto-Bulgarians as a people. It has long been established that during the early Middle Ages ethnical identification was a dynamic category because of the mass migrations and ethnic mixing. Thus, we should not be surprised when V. Beshevliev distinguishes three different ethnical components even in the homogeneous Proto-Bulgarian aristocracy: Turkic, Iranian and Ugro-Finnic [7]. To this we have to add the observations of eminent Turkologists on the strangely sounding Turkic language of the Danubian Proto-Bulgarians [8]. If such an ethnic variety had place in the narrow confines of the aristocracy, we should expect the same and even more within the Proto-Bulgarian massif as a whole.

This is exactly what some Soviet and Bulgarian archaeologists have been assuming [9]. They think that the remains of the old Iranian (Alano-Sarmatian) and Ugro-Finnic population of the Eastern Europe joined the proper Turkic Proto-Bulgarian group, when the latter appeared from the expanses of Central Asia. This population – especially the Sarmatians and the Alans, left a significant mark in the material culture of the Proto-Bulgarians, but were assimilated linguistically, adopting the Turkic language of the new-comers. The alleged process of the hypothetic Turkicisation, however, is not supported by any evidence, it has been assumed a priori, in the same way as the Turkic speech of the Proto-Bulgarians has been assumed. An indirect indication could be the Turkic language of the Danubian Proto-Bulgarians, reflected in the Namelist of the Bulgarian rulers, in the Byzantine chroniclers and in the Bulgarian stone inscriptions. But, as we pointed out already, this takes into account the language of the aristocracy only. Another indirect indication are the runic inscriptions, found in different places in the area of the Saltovo-Majack culture. Part of the runic signs have analogies in the Central Asiatic Turkic runic writing. It is entirely possible that this writing was brought to Europe by the Türks, who had the lands around the Sea of Azov and the North Caucasus under their control during the second half of the VI and the first half of the VII c. AD, and that there it had been preserved in the following centuries in a narrow circle of Turkic priests and educated people. This question (of the SE European runes) can be re-stated more generally. The newest research shows that two types of runic writing had been used in Eastern Europe, out of the six in total types of runic writing spread from Hungary to Mongolia during the early Middle Ages. It cannot be excluded that the runic writing had been used not by Türks only, but by other ethnic groups as well [10]. Maybe the best example are the runic-like inscriptions from the Old Bulgarian monasteries at Murfatlar/Basarab and Ravna.

The presence of non-Turkic elements amongst the Proto-Bulgarians is supported by more lines of evidence, which have not been paid enough attention so far. Among them is the fact that in the North Pontic and the Lower Danubian regions, the regions of departure and of settlement, respectively, of the Proto-Bulgarians of Asparukh, there existed a significant massif of Indo-Iranian population. Its presence has been attested in several archaeological cultures which chronologically predate the formation of the Bulgarian culture on the Danube. There are several, significant from the ethnic point of view, similarities between characteristics of these culture and the Proto-Bulgarian culture from the period of the First Bulgarian kingdom, which can hardly be a coincidence.

The post-I c. AD Iranian population of the North Pontic steppe and forest-steppe region consisted of descendants of Sarmatians and late Scythians. The Sarmatians appeared on the Lower Danube at the very beginning of the first millennium and this had been amply reflected in the written sources. The material remains of their presence on the left bank of Danube, however, appear only in the III c. AD. The Sarmatians formed a wedge in the local Geto-Dacian population with whom they co-existed peacefully. They lived semi-nomadic life and the briefly occupied by them settlements do not register material remains. Their culture can be judged only from their burial rites and artefacts [11]. Some of the graves found so far were dug into older mounds, others form relatively small necropolises. The burials are always inhumations. Frequently, the bottom of the grave was fired or sprinkled with coals and pieces of limestone. The orientation of the skeletons is uniformly northern. There are cases of post-burial partial ritual destruction of the skeleton. Extremely characteristic is the artificial deformation of the skulls with the help of special circular bands. The Sarmatians belonged to the brachi- and mesocranic anthropological type. They were Europeids with small Mongoloid admixture. The grave artefacts consist of clay vessels, adornments, items of everyday life, weapons, equipment. All these characteristics of the Sarmatian burial practices have literal analogies in the Proto-Bulgarian ones. Of course, due to the large gap between the two periods, the forms of the burial artefacts are different, but the types of the artefacts coincide completely.

During the IV c. AD the Sarmatians, together with the many-tongued population of a large region, encompassing the steppe and the forest-steppe zone from the left bank of Dnepr to the Lower Danube, took part in the creation of the culture of Chernjahov-Santana de Muresh [12]. This is the culture of the Gothic tribal union. Its most characteristic monuments betray the signs of two major ethnic groups, co-inhabiting in common settlements and jointly using common necropolises. The dwellings were lightly-built ground-level huts with a fire-place on the floor in the centre, and rectangular semi-dugouts with a stone stove in one of the corners. Most of the necropolises, especially in the northern part, contain two burial types. The cremations were done in urns or in the small pits and are frequently accompanied by clay vessels as burial artefacts. [The inhumations] form two groups according to the orientation of the graves. The first group are oriented to the west, with scarce accompanying artefacts. In the southern regions, occupied mainly by the Sarmatians, the skeletons are oriented to the north and the grave goods are relatively numerous. Characteristic is the pottery with dark-grey surface, decorated with polished stripes. Special attention should be paid to the bi-ritual character of the Chrenjahov culture, to the types of cremation and the types of orientation of the inhumations. These ethno-defining characteristics are to be found in the pagan necropolises of the First Bulgarian kingdom as well.

During the V c. AD the archaeological map of the Lower Danubian lands seems completely empty. Apart from isolated finds of Hunnic cauldrons [13], there are no remains of settled population. The fate of the numerous Chernjahov population is not quite clear. Its disappearance over a vast region can hardly be explained by a mass migration to the west alongside the Gothic tribes proper or by its complete extermination at the hands of the Huns. One is certain – a part of the Chernjahov traditions were inherited by the V c. Kiev culture of the Middle Dnepr region [14]. Probably we deal with not just passing of traditions of manufacture of certain items, but the Chernjahov population itself took part in the formation of the Kiev culture. The same can also be said regarding the direct inheritor of the Kiev culture – the Penkovka culture of uncertain ethnic identification, which concerns directly our theme.

The Penkovka culture, dating from the VI-VII c. AD, occupied the forest-steppe zone, from the left tributaries of Dnepr to the river of Seret in the west. Beyond Seret it intertwines with elements of the early-Slav Prague-Korchak culture and also borders on the Ipoteshti-Churel-Kandeshti culture of Wallachia. To the north Penkovo borders on the Prague-Korchak culture and the Kolochin-Tushemlja culture, attributed to Balts, to the south – with the monuments of the Sivashovka type, attributed to Bulgars. The population of Penkovka was sedentary, engaged in agriculture and stock-breeding and living in unfortified settlements. Its multi-ethnic composition can be seen in any of its main characteristics. The dwellings were on ground level or dug in, with a stone stove in one of the corners or with a fire-place on the floor. The hand-made bi-conical pot is the predominant type of pottery, but hand-made pots with rounded shoulders/(upper sides) also occur. Characteristic are pots of grey clay, made on potter’s wheel and decorated with polished and incised stripes. These vessels are called the Pastirki type after Pastirki – the site where they are most numerous. Cremations in small pits or urns as well as inhumations were practised [15].

The ethical identification of the carriers of the Penkovka culture is still a matter of debate. Almost all Soviet scholars assume that it belonged to the Slavic tribe of Antes [16]. Due to the presence of pottery of Pastirki type and of jurt-like oval dwellings, the participation of Alano-Bulgar population has also been assumed [17]. Slightly different is the opinion of M.I. Artamonov. He unites the sites with pottery finds of the Pastirki type and decorations of the Pastirki type into an independent Pastirki culture which, according to him, belonged to the Bulgars-Kutrigurs, positioned according to VI c. Byzantine sources to the west of Don and to the north of the Black Sea. [18]. Artamonov concurs with D.T. Berezovec that bearers of the Pastirki culture took part in the formation of the culture of Danubian Bulgaria based on the finds of Pastirki pottery types in a number of VIII-IX c. settlements and necropolises from the Lower Danube. This idea is also supported by some Bulgarian archaeologists [19]. We must remind ourselves that the Pastirki pottery is found exclusively in the necropolises with Slavic type cremation. This important fact fits well into our account.

The burial rites of this distinctive, according to M. Artamonov, Pastirki culture have not been studied enough. Their Turkic origin is assumed a priori following the view about the Turkickness of all Bulgar tribes and because of analogies between some Pastirki decorations and metal objects with similar items from the culture of the First Avar khaganate. There are no direct data about the physical appearance of the “Pastirki” people. There are, however, indirect data about the ethnic identification of the Penkovka culture as a whole and of the “Pastirki” type monuments in particular. This is the recognised by all authors continuity between the Chernjahov and Penkovka cultures and, respectively, between their populations. That continuity is evident in their most characteristic elements – types of dwellings, pottery and burial rites. The cultural continuity and the mixed origin of the bearers of the “Pastirki” culture is accepted by M. Artamonov and his thoughts are so indicative that they deserve to be quoted: “We can hardly doubt that the Bulgar population of the North Pontic region was formed not only out of Turkic tribes, which appeared during and after the Hunnic invasion. It was formed to a large extent as a result of the Turkicisation of the local Sarmato-Alan population and inherited many of its traditions. Thanks to this process, Turkicised descendants of the Roxolans on the Dnepre appear amongst the western Bulgars under the name of Rossomons, who were part of the Gothic kingdom and adopted its Chernjahov culture” [20]. If the term “Turkicisation”, which is not supported by any kind of evidence, is removed from this excerpt, the ethnogenesis of the western Proto-Bulgarian group assumes more realistic contours.

The predominant participation of non-Turkic, Iranian in origin population in the proper Penkovka monuments has been determined by I.P. Russanova after a detailed analysis [21]. All Penkovka pottery types, including the Pastirki pottery which is attributed to Alano-Bulgar population, have their proto-types in the Chernjahov pottery. The characteristic bi-conical pots are non-Slavic in origin and are not to be found in the contemporary Prague culture, which is indisputably Slavic. Amongst the hand-made pottery a characteristic group can be distinguished, which has analogies in the early-Sarmatian, the Avar and the Saltovo-Majack pottery [22]. As a whole, the Penkovka culture is attributed to the Antes. There are ambiguities about Antes’ ethnical identification. The Byzantine authors either say that the Antes and the Slavs were one people, or they distinguish between them. According to I. Russanova, this fact may be explained by the ongoing back then mixing between the bearers of the Penkovka culture proper (the Antes) and Slavs, penetrating from the region of the Prague culture. According to her the Antes can be described as descendants of the local Iranian population, with Slavs actively settling amongst them. The Iranian influence on the Eastern Slavs has confirmation in linguistic data as well as in the anthropological type of the Slavs of the Middle Dnepre region [23]. It can be assumed that the imposition of the Slavic language began soon after the first contacts in the VI c. AD and that the mixed population of the Penkovka culture of the VII c. had already spoken Slavic in its majority.

The second culture, which developed in that region, was situated in the steppe zone to the south of the Penkovka culture. It belonged to a nomadic population which left isolated, secondary graves dug into earlier mounds. After the name of one of the sites this group of monuments is designated Sivashovka and is attributed to the Bulgars [24]. These are predominantly warriors’ graves containing the characteristic for the period belt decorations, weapons and equipment. The clay vessels are represented by hand-made pots. A single wheel-made pot with a handle has been found [25] (the grave is dated to the beginning of the VIII c.).

This way, the proper Bulgar tribes (in the steppe zone) and the mixed, in the process of total Slavicisation, population of the Penkovka culture were situated in the path of Asparukh in the mid-VII c. Usually it has been assumed that the group, brought by Asparukh to the Lower Danube consisted solely of Bulgars-Onogurs, Turkic speakers from the lands to the east and to the south of the Sea of Azov, where the Great Bulgaria of Kubrat (Asparukh’s father) was situated. The boundaries of Kubrat’s tribal union are listed in the chronicles of Theophanes and Nicephorus. The territory encompassed by Great Bulgaria varies, it is subject to the interpretation of their geographical reference points but all interpretations agree that it included the lands around the Sea of Azov. However, not a single site that can be linked to the presence of a rich Turkic elite of the Dulo clan (the clan which assumed leadership in the Bulgar tribal union after the expansion of the Western Turkic khaganate at the second half of the VI c. AD) has been found there. Such finds are known from the steppe zone of the Lower Dnepr – the rich finds of the Malaja Pereshchepina - Glodosi type, especially Malaja Pereshchepina itself, which contains three golden rings, inscribed with the name of Kubrat [26]. This zone also contains the younger (first half of the VIII c.) Voznesenka complex [27] which, regardless of the diferring interpretations, betrays the presence of a rich Turkic aristocracy. To the north of this group, at the north-eastern periphery of the Penkovka culture, are the finds of the Martinovka and Pastirki type – bronze and silver decorations, figurines and belt applications. It is remarkable that all these finds, as well as the Penkovka culture and the monuments of Sivashovka type ceased to exist at the end of the VII c. It is important that the abandoned Penkovka settlements show no sings of forced abandonment, of destruction and fires. It seems that simultaneously or in a short period of time their population had left, looking for other lands. The presence of Pastirki type pottery on the Lower Danube indicates where these lands might be. Here, simultaneously and over a wide territory, a new culture was formed. A culture with no direct local predecessors but with a number of elements of these two North Pontic regions:
– semi-dugouts with a stone stove, Pastirki type pottery, bi-ritual necropolises, cremation in urns and in small pits, inhumations (of northern or western orientation) – from the Penkovka culture;
– inhumation of northern orientation, secondary graves dig into older mounds, burials containing a horse and weapons, remains of sacrificial animal food – from the nomadic culture.

Apparently this culture belonged to a mixed population and to describe it as “nomadic Turko-Bulgars from the Azov region” would be incorrect. Assuming a priori the latter, many scholars find themselves in difficulty in explaining the lack of distinguishable nomadic elements in the culture of the population of the First Bulgarian kingdom and the rapid and ubiquitous manifestation of settled forms of life and material culture. Some of them try to explain it by a lack of suitable, fit for nomadic life lands south of the Danube. Others explain it with an early sedentarisation of the Bulgars in the lands of Eastern Europe, prior to their movement to the Lower Danube [28] . We would rather say that the population brought by Asparukh (or which came soon after him) did not feel the need to fit into the local environment and to replace nomadism with sedentary life due to a lack of enough grazing ground because it, in its majority, was already sedentary. But this kind of economy can hardly be ascribed to a Turko-Bulgar population from the Azov steppes because around the Azov nothing but the remains of briefly-occupied camps, light ground dwelling and hand-made pottery have been found. Such was the situation in the VI-VII c. AD. [29] More probable is, as other scholars assume, that there was a movement of a relatively early settled Bulgar group from present Dagestan [30]. Such a possibility cannot be excluded, but theirs would not be the mass migration that initially filled the present Dobrudzha and north-eastern Bulgaria. The Caucasian types of pottery (cauldrons) have been found only at the Topola site (in Bulgaria), and the rest of the pottery has Chernjahov and Germanic proto-types [31]. Even if we assume, after St. Angelova, that the pottery complex of the First Bulgarian kingdom of the VIII-IX c. carries many and strong Dagestani traditions, it is important to remind that these traditions belonged to the local Iranian-speaking population. Whether it was Turkicised, to what degree and in which regions – both positive and negative answers had been given to these questions. In any case, there are no data confirming the absolute prevalence of the first possibility (V.K.: i.e. nomadic Turko-Bulgars from the Azov region?).

Under such a perspective, the question about the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians loses its Turkic tinge and leads us to look for the ancestors of the non-Slavic population of the First Bulgarian kingdom amongst the Eastern European population of Iranian origin. As we said, this possibility has been also assumed so far, but only together with the unconditional Turkicisation of this population – something for which there are no direct data. In the VI-VII c. this population, prior to its movement (to the Balkans that is, V.K.) was in prolonged contacts with other, northern, population which, in contrast, burned its dead and, naturally, spoke another language. These contacts continued in the following centuries and the complete disappearance of the Iranian language indicates that the Slavic one had dominated. That allows us to assume the imposition of Slavic even before the disintegration of the Penkovka culture.

This mixed population, speaking most probably Slavic, was prepared for an expansion to the south-west, as shown by isolated finds of Penkovka pottery in early Byzantine forts [32]. Forced soon after that to leave in its entirety its Dnepr settlements, most probably as a result of the expansion of the Khazars, it was content to find itself under the control of the group of Asparukh, looking for assurances of its safety. Asparukh had probably brought (or swept along) much more Indo-European than Turkic speakers, and that is why the Türks proper had easily lost their language in such an environment. The Turkic tradition, chiefly in its spiritual forms, military-administrative structures, names and titles was preserved by the ruling elite, who occupied predominantly the Pliska plain. A massive presence of proper Slavic and Slavicised Iranian population can more convincingly explain some widely known by unconvincingly interpreted so far facts of the early stage of the Bulgarian culture:
1. The ubiquitous Slavic toponymy of the central region of the Bulgarian state;
2. The Slavic names of the capitals Pliska and Preslav;
3. The few Turkic remains in the Bulgarian language;
4. The non-conflicting bi-rituality of the Bulgarian burials of the VIII-IX c. AD;
5. The rapid consolidation of the Bulgarian ethnos which was a reality long before 865 AD and which was only formally legitimised by the adoption of Christianity.

Under such a perspective, the question about the origin of the “Proto-Bulgarians” (?) provides new opportunities to overcome the stereotypes enforced upon the Bulgarian historical studies between the two world wars, some of which live until the present day.


[Back]

1. For the latest overview see D i m i t r o v, D. Il. Prabylgarite po Severnoto i Zapadnoto Chernomorie. Varna, 1987, s. 30 sl.

2. This view is also supported in the latest academic edition of history of the Bulgarian lands, cf. Istorija pa Bylgarija. T. II. S., 1981, s.60.

3. B e sh e v l i e v, V. Pyrvobylgarite. Bit i kultura. S., 1981; R a sh e v, R. Dunavska Bylgarija i Centralna Azija. - Vtori mezhdunaroden kongres po bylgaristika. Dokladi. T.6. S., 1987, s. 205-210.

4. B a l a n. M., B o e v, P. Arheologicheski materiali ot nekropola pri Novi Pazar. -IAI, XX, 1955, s.347-370; J o r d a n o v, I. Antropologicheski izsledvane na kostnija material ot rannobylgarskija masov grob pri grad Devnja. - IKMV, XII (XXVII), 1976, s. 171-213. Similar are the preliminary conclusions of Dr Sl. Cholakov from the anthropological investigation of the skeletons of the bi0ritual necropolis near the village of Karamanite in the district of Varna.

5. M l a d e n o v, St. Verojatni i mnimi ostatyci ot ezika na Asparuhovite bylgari v novobylgarskata rech. - GSU, IF, XVII, 1920-1921, s. 286; Istorija na bylgarski ezik (fototipno izdanie). S , 1979, s. 32-35.

6. B o e v, E. Za predturskoto tjurksko vlijanie v bylgarskija ezik - oshte njakolko prabylgarski dumi. - Bylgarski ezik. XV, 1965, 1, s.16. Recently, B. Simeonov proposed an old-Turkic origin of several village names in the district of Shumen, but there have been no reviews of his work.

7. B e sh e v l i e v, V. Za raznorodnata syshtnost na pyrvobylgarite. - Pliska-Preslav. T. 2. S., 1981, s. 22.

8. B e sh e v l i e v, V. Prabylgarite..., s. 31 -32.

9. S m i r n o v, A. P. Volzhskie bulgaryj. M., 1951, s. 10-12; M e r p e r t. N.JA. O genezise saltovskoj kul’turyj. - KSIIMK, 36, 1951, s. 14 sl. A r t a m o n o v, M. L. Istorija hazar. L., 1962, s. 82-83; S t a n ch e v, S t., I v a n o v. S t. Nekropolyt pri Novi Pazar. S., 1958, s. 93; S t a n ch e v, St. Realnite vyrhu relefa na madarskija konnik. - V: Madarskijat konnik. Prouchvanija vyrhu nadpisite i relefa. S., 1956, s. 198-199; V a k l i n o v, S t. Formirane na starobylgarskata kultura VI-XI v. S., 1977, s. 28-29.

10. A f a n a s ‘ e v, G.E. Etnogeneticheskij aspekt burtasskoj problemyj i arheologicheskij istochnik. - Voprosyj etnicheskoj istorii Vologo-Don’ja v epohu srednevekov’ja i problema burtasov. Penza, 1990. s. 3-5; K yj z l a s o v, I.L. Novyje dannyje o proishozhdenii i rasprostranenii drevnetjurkskoj runicheskoj pis’mennosti Evrazii (doklad na III mezhdunarodna sreshta po prabylgarska arheologija v SHumen, 1990 g, pod pechat).

11. F e d o r o v, G.B., P o l e v o j, L.L. Arheologija Rumyjnii. M., 1973, s. 260-263; Ch. Bichir. Les sarmates au Bas-Danube. – Dacia. XXI. 1977, p.167-197.

12. F e d o r o v, G.B., P o l e v o j, L.L. Op. cit., s. 263-276; B a r a n, V.D. Chernjahivska kul’tura. Kiiv, 1981; M a g o m e d o v, B.V. Chernjahovskaja kul’tura Severozapadnogo Prichernomor’ja. Kiev, 1987.

13. F e d o r o v, G.B., P o l e v o j, L.L. Op. cit, s. 277-278.

14. Arheologija Ukrainskoj SSR. T. III. Kiev, 1986, s. 100-112.

15. Arheologija Ukrainskoj SSR, T. III. s. 153-166; Etnokul’turnaja karta territorii Ukrainskoj SSR v I tyjs. n.e. Kiev, 1985, s. 85-92; Slavjane JUgovostochnoj Evropyj v predgosudarstvennyjj period. Kiev, 1990, s. 202 sl.

16. Cf.. the literature in note No 15 as well as: S e d o v, V.V. Vostochnyje slavjane v VI-XIII vv. M, 1982, s. 19-28; P r i h o d n ju k,O. M. Arheologichni pam’jatki Seredn’ogo Pridniprov’ja VI-IX st.n.e. Kiiv, 1980; Ob etnokul’turnoj situacii v Dneprovskom lesostepnom pogranich’e vo vtoroj polovine I tyjsjacheletija n.e. - Problemyj etnogeneza slavjan. Kiev, 1978, s. 108-124; Antyj i pen’kovskaja kul’tura. - Drevnie slavjane i Kievskaja Rus’. Kiev, 1989, s. 58-69.

17. R u s a n o v a, I. P. Slavjanskie drevnosti VI-VII vv. M.. 1976, s. 89.

18. A r t a m o n o v, M. I. Bolgarskie kul’turyj Severnogo i Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ja. Dokladyj otdelenij i komissij Geograficheskogo obshtestva SSSR. Vyjp. 15, 1970, s. 22-23: Etnicheskata prinadlezhnost i istoricheskoto znachenie na pastirskata kultura. -Arheologija, 1969, 3, s. 1 sl.

19. B e r e z o v e c ‘, D. T. Slov’jani i plemena saltivskoj kul’turyj. - Arheologija, 19, 1965, s. 47-67; D i m i t r o v, D. I l. Po vyprosa za grobnite kameri s trupoizgarjane v rannosrednovekovnite nekropoli v Severoiztochna Bylgarija i Dobrudzha. - INMV, XII (XXVII), 1976, s. 17; A n g e l o v a, St. Tradicii v prabylgarskata keramika na Severoiztochna Bylgarija. - GSU, IF, t. 74. 1982, s. 40 sl.; V a k l i n o v, St. Op. cit., s. 31.

20. A r t a m o n o v, M. I. Etnicheskata prinadlezhnost..., s. 8.

21. R u s a n o v a, I. P. Op. cit., s. 85-112.

22. Ibidem, s. 92-93, fig. 33.

23. Ibid, s. 111, 112.

24. Arheologija Ukrainskoj SSSR, s. 225-231.

25. A j b a b i n, A. I. Pogrebenie hazarskogo voina. - Sovetskaja arheologija, 1985, 4, s. 191-197, ris. 7.

26. V e r n e r, J. Pogrebalnata nahodka ot Malaja Pereshtepina i Kubrat, han na bylgarite. S., 1988.

27. A m b r o z, A. K. O Voznesenskom komplekse VIII v. na Dnepre - vopros interpretacii. - Drevnosti epohi Velikogo pereselenija narodov. M., 1982, s. 205-222.

28. R a sh e v, R. Uskoreno razvitie na starobylgarskata kultura. - Pyrvi mezhdunaroden kongres po bylgaristika. Dokladi. Simpozium slavjani i prabylgari. S., 1982, s. 95-96 i bel. 3; S t a n i l o v, St. Selishta i auli (njakoi vyprosi za preselenieto i usjadaneto na prabylgarite na Dolnija Dunav VII-VIII v.). - Sbornik v pamet na prof. Stancho Vaklinov. S, 1984, s. 100-103. Srv. i G ju z e l e v, V. Ikonomichesko razvitie, socialna struktura i formi na socialna i politicheska organizacija na prabylgarite do obrazuvaneto na bylgarskata dyrzhava (IV-VII v.). - Arheologija, 1979, 4, s. 12-21.

29. P l e t n e v a, S. A.Ot kochevij k gorodam. M, 1967, s. 13-19.

30. A n g e l o v a, St. Op. cit., s. 55 sl.

31. Ibidem, s. 60-61.

32. P r i h o d n ju k, O.M. K voprosu o prisutstvii antov v Karpato-dunajskih zemljah. - Slavjane na Dnestre i Dunae. Kiev, 1983, s. 180-191; B o n e v, CH. Anti i slavini v Dobrudzha prez VI v. - Rusko-bylgarski vryzki prez vekovete. S., 1986, s. 56-61.

[George S.]

The origins of the Bulgarians
Since the start of the thread “Croatians are from Iranian origin”, there were a lot of questions about the origins of several Balkan nations, in which the Bulgarians. Bojidar Dimitrov, who was the director of the Bulgarian National Historical Museum in Sofia from 1991-98, wrote several books discussing the origins of the Proto-Bulgarians. Today, the official version of the origins of this tribe is the following:

THE ORIGINS
The ancient kingdom of Baktria, Balkaria or Balhara was established on today’s territory of southern Tadjikistan and northern Afghanistan. Since a couple of years, this region has revealed several archeological sites; some specialists even say that one of the mummies found near the city of Baktria could be the oldest ever discovered. Also, several small figurines were found in the town, somehow those objects look exactly like those found in the ancient Proto-Bulgarian cities of Pliska (Bulgaria) and Fanagorhia (Ukraine).

THE FIRST STATE (632-660)
“Stara Velika Balgaria” AKA Great Old Bulgaria was established on a large territory expanding from Crimea to the Caspian Sea and from the city of Samara to southern Ossetia. In 632 AC, Khan Kubrat from the Dulo clan, according to the account of Byzantine chroniclers availed himself of the failing power of the Turkic khanate, shook off the vassal age his tribe was in, and declared himself an independent ruler. Virtually all Bulgarian tribes living in the region of the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Caspian Sea immediately united under him. The newly founded state-like formation was evidently not a military-tribal alliance as there had been no such legal category in the antiquity, but it was a state. The Khan was raised and educated in Byzantium, baptized as a Christian and known as a personal friend of Emperor Heraclius, he maintained peaceful neighborly relations with the empire up till the end of his rule. Before his death, the ruler called his five sons for an ultimate lesson. He gave them a bundle of sticks and told them to break it in two. When none of the sons managed to break the bundle, the Khan took the sticks and broke them one by one. The father's message was that their strength depends on their unity (Saedinenieto Pravi Silata), which is today’s motto of the Bulgarian State.

*VANAND’S BULGARIA (45-450)
Vanand Khan was a Proto-Bulgarian ruler that migrated from the Eurasia steppes to the Caucasus precisely in Armenia. The region began to be called after this leader and the settlements were named after his brothers and successors, Bulhar, Doks, Toh Altsek. Today, the Balkars could be the descendants of Vanand

THE FIVE SONS OF KUBRAT

KHAN KOTRAG
After the death of Khan Kubrat, one of his sons Kotrag led his horde far north, occupying the land around the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers. The capital city of the new country was the city of Bulgar (near Kazan). In 922 AC, Khan Almush, son of Shilki accepted Islam as the official state religion. The Bulgar king Gabdula Chelbir defeated Ghengis Khan in 1223 nearby Samarskaya Luka, the first defeat of the Mongols ever. Sadly, in the long run, the fairly small Bulgar state on the Volga could not stop the advance of the countless Mongol armies. And so in 1236, with 600 000 soldiers, Batu Khan sacked the city of Bulgar. The Bulgars conquered by the Mongols were drafted into Batu's army as Tatars, meaning - The conquered people. Later on Bulgar was conquered by Ivan the Terrible and kept by Russia forever. Today several small republics in Russia are considered as the descendants of the Volga Bulgarians. The most important are Chuvashia and Tartarstan which was called up until 1922 Bulgaristan. The only difference between the Chuvash and Tartars is that the Chuvash are considered as the part of the Volga Bulgarians that did not accept Islam as religion.

KHAN ASPARUH
In 680, near the city of Varna was fought a great battle between the Byzantium Empire under the command of Constantine IV Pogonatus and an alliance of Bulgarian cavalry and Slav infantry…the Byzantine army was destroyed and had to retreat as far as Southern Thrace. At this point in history, 681 AD, there were only three officially recognized states in all of Europe, The West Roman Empire, The East Roman Empire, and Bulgaria. A new state was created from an alliance between the Proto-Bulgarian clan Dulo, 7 Slavian tribes and the little Thracian tribes left.

KHAN BAT-BAYAN
The firstborn son of Kubrat, Bat-Bayan and his horde, remained on the coast of the Sea of Azov, and were later integrated into Volga Bulgaria.

KHAN KUBER
Kuber led his part of the Bulgars first to Pannonia and then settled in Macedonia; eventually they were absorbed by the Danube Bulgaria.

KHAN ALTSEK
Altsek led his part of the horde to Italy and later disappeared under the service of the Lombard King. Many place names and towns in Italy are of Bulgar origins, like Monte Bulgheria and the city of Bulgaria near Gambetolla…
Seuthopolis is offline Reply With Quote

[George S.]

In the northeast of Iran there are some place names which are similar to Bulgar, like Bolghur in Khorasan province: http://www.traveljournals.net/explor...4/bolghur.html of course if the name of Bulgar had an Iranian origin, the original name could be a little different, for example we know Old/Middle Persian "v" has usually been changed to "b" in Modern Persian (Like Old Persian Vazraka "great" and Modern Persian Bozorg) and we also know there was no "L" sound in Old Persian and Avestan languages, so I think the original name of Bulgar in the Iranian language could be Vourugaresti which has been mentioned in Avesta as one of the seven lands of ancient Iranian peoples in the northeast of the central land. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshva

[Razer]

Thanks for posting the above. I hope you're also reading it To me, the history of the so called proto Bulgars (прабългари) has always been a fascinating topic to research. As you can see, this is a very open-minded article and I don't think you can call it propaganda. Many historians claim Bulgars were Turkic. Others say Iranian.

KHAN KOTRAG

After the death of Khan Kubrat, one of his sons Kotrag led his horde far north, occupying the land around the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers. The capital city of the new country was the city of Bulgar (near Kazan). In 922 AC, Khan Almush, son of Shilki accepted Islam as the official state religion. The Bulgar king Gabdula Chelbir defeated Ghengis Khan in 1223 nearby Samarskaya Luka, the first defeat of the Mongols ever. Sadly, in the long run, the fairly small Bulgar state on the Volga could not stop the advance of the countless Mongol armies. And so in 1236, with 600 000 soldiers, Batu Khan sacked the city of Bulgar. The Bulgars conquered by the Mongols were drafted into Batu's army as Tatars, meaning - The conquered people. Later on Bulgar was conquered by Ivan the Terrible and kept by Russia forever. Today several small republics in Russia are considered as the descendants of the Volga Bulgarians. The most important are Chuvashia and Tartarstan which was called up until 1922 Bulgaristan. The only difference between the Chuvash and Tartars is that the Chuvash are considered as the part of the Volga Bulgarians that did not accept Islam as religion.

Yes, Kortag established Volga Bulgaria which prospered until the arrival of the Mongols. An interesting fact is that the Volga Bulgars were the first to defeat the Mongols. This happened in the Battle of Samara Bend. Until then, the Mongols were considered invisible. Look it up, it's an interesting story.

KHAN BAT-BAYAN

The firstborn son of Kubrat, Bat-Bayan and his horde, remained on the coast of the Sea of Azov, and were later integrated into Volga Bulgaria.

Bat Bayan was the oldest son of Kubrat. He remained in the Bulgar capital to fight off the Khazars, while his other brothers fled. I think he died in battle with the Khazars.

KHAN KUBER
Kuber led his part of the Bulgars first to Pannonia and then settled in Macedonia; eventually they were absorbed by the Danube Bulgaria.

I'm pretty sure that nobody in Macedonia even knows who Kuber was. And that we're not going to see a statue of him in the square of Skopje. Here's some more inforamtion about him:

According to the Byzantine source "Miracles of Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki" Kuber was nominated by the Avars to rule over Syrmia as Avar vassal, but he started a rebellion against Avars, and, together with his people, moved from Syrmia around 680 AD and settled in the Balkans, in the Pelagonian plain in western Macedonia. There is not enough information about Khan Kouber and his people following the settlement in the western Balkans but Asparukh's son, Tervel, in the beginning of the 8th century, is said to have cooperated with "his uncles" from Macedonia.

The prominent archaeologist from Republic of Macedonia Ivan Mikulchik revealed the presence not only of the Kuber group, but the whole Bulgar archaeological culture throughout Macedonia and eastern Albania. He describes the traces of Bulgars in this region, which consist of typical fortresses, burials, various products of metallurgy and pottery (including treasure with supposed Bulgar origin or ownership), lead seals, minted from Kuber, amulets, etc.

By the early 9th century the lands that Kouber settled had been incorporated into the First Bulgarian Empire.

[Onur]

Anyway, you can see that the origin of the Bulgars is a pretty open field to explore and nobody is doing any propaganda, or brainwashing...

No, actually everything is so clear but ofc it`s an open field to explore and invent for your aryan afghan iranian fantasists.

For example, i immediately noticed these parts from your quote;

8. Kan(Khan) - vaynahite called his elders Kana and KANO,Kano means in Tibet and in duke. Huns in the main title is Shanyi ,bulgar main title is KANASYBIGI.
9. Tarkan - meeting at sogdians.

Whats the relation with the title of Khan with Tibetan language? And trying to find etymologie of this word from Tibetan chinese? I mean wtf is this?

Tarkan is obviously a variation of Khan with a prefix Tar, so it`s Tar-Khan as a title or name. Whats with the Sogdian supposedly meaning a meeting?

Everything written here, you may conclude that the Bulgarians are Iranian (Aryan) people
Because, among other things, we are direct descendants of their blood

Who wrote this text? He should be a stupid propagandist. If this is written by a Bulgarian historian, then probably he bought his diploma by bribing universities in Sofia because i know it`s something common in there.

If a student of history class in Turkey writes something like "direct descendants by blood...", he gets zero for his exam.

Some scholars mistakenly identify with the Turks and Huns, this led to consolidation of the Turkic theory of the origin of Bulgarians. Moreover, this theory completely coincides with our foreign policy after the Second World.

You paste this crap here and claim that there is no propaganda there !!!

Whatever the case, the origin of a nation can possibly change according to foreign policy of the state?!? Is this something normal to you? If Turkic origin wasn't suitable for your foreign policy after WW-2 then what it can be after you became EU member? Maybe you better claim Germanic origin now to cause more sympathy towards Bulgaria among Berliners? I think thats a great idea, what ya say?

If these kind of stupid things are really getting discussed in Bulgaria in academic level, then no wonder why it`s common to buy diplomas in there for few 1000 Euros.

[DraganOfStip]

@ Razer

Well,first of all,I don't see your point of posting Cvetkov's research as it clearly shows Bulgars lived in northwest China and were a part of the federal empire of the Huns.There were no Iranians in that empire to descend from in the first place,only Asiatic people.So the 'Iranian origin' theory clearly goes down the drain here,you only confirmed my point.

Secondly,Cvetkov's claims that Bulgars and Slavs were 'given permission' to settle in Byzantine territory by the Byzantine emperors is a complete nonsense.Why would anyone by his own free will give up his territory in the favor of some newcomers?Slavs and Bulgars (and to some extent Avars as well) FOUGHT their way into settlement,many battles between these nations and Byzantines are noted.Slavs even got as far as Thermopylae before eventually being pushed back as north as Salonika (Slavic settlements in Peloponnese and continental Greece are proof of it).

And last but not least,where in hell does 'Tatar' mean 'conquered people'?'Tatar' was how the Russians called a 'Mongol',that's where it came from.

Oh,and one more thing:the Kazan tatars in the Russian republic of Tatarstan refer to themselves as 'Bulgars',claiming they were direct descendants of the Bulgars that didn't interact with other nations throughout the ages.And their republic was called Bolgaristan until 1919.
Coincidence?

Above are a group of Kazan tatars with banners saying 'We are Bulgars'.So,if the people on the image are leftovers of the actual Bulgars,then by no means they look like Iranians,but more like Jackie Chan

[George S.]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/104798

Amnesty International Report 2009 on Bulgaria = The Forthcoming Inevitable Explosion is Nigh!

June 03, 2009, by Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis


Bulgaria is not a nation; itīs a collection of minorities. This does not mean that the state would fall apart, if a consensus were built. But this is what Bulgaria has been missing ever since the Soviet regime collapsed, before almost 20 years.

In fact, today nothing can keep together Bulgariaīs Macedonians, who passionately desire to merge with Macedonia, Bulgariaīs Turks, who want to unite with Turkey, and Bulgariaīs Romani, who strive for autonomy.

The disastrous policies of the present corrupt, unrepresentative and impotent regime will certainly bring forth an incredible explosion that will mark the end of Bulgaria. In the light of the Amnesty International Report 2009 on Bulgaria, this catalytic event seems to be nigh; and there is no power to thwart the development.

I therefore republish the Report integrally.

Amnesty International Report 2009 – Bulgaria

http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regi...-asia/bulgaria

Portrait

Head of state: Georgi Parvanov

Head of government: Sergey Stanishev

Death penalty: abolitionist for all crimes

Population: 7.6 million

Life expectancy: 72.7 years

Under-5 mortality (m/f): 16/12 per 1,000

Adult literacy: 98.2 per cent

Amnesty International Report 2009 – Bulgaria

Asylum-seekers continued to be detained for months and even years, and were denied protection. Discrimination against minorities persisted. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people continued to experience violence and intolerance. Reports of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials were received throughout the year.

Political developments

The European Commissionīs progress report in July urged Bulgaria to increase efforts to combat corruption and criminality, following the countryīs accession to the EU. In the wake of a previous report by the anti-fraud EU agency OLAF, the Commission condemned the misuse of EU funds and adopted sanctions against Bulgaria.

Asylum-seekers and migrants

Refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants continued to be detained for months and even years awaiting expulsion. National NGOs continued to express concern that such detentions had become routine practice, contravening legislation that such a measure should be used only as a last resort.

Excerpt:

"...150 peaceful marchers faced violence from counter-demonstrators who threw stones, bottles and Molotov cocktails."

In April, Iraqi asylum-seekers set light to furniture in the Special Centre for the Temporary Accommodation of Foreigners (SCTAF) in Busmantsi, near the capital, Sofia, in protest against a change of policy decreasing the level of protection in Bulgaria for Iraqi asylum-seekers. UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, had previously raised concerns about this change, which the authorities defended by alleging lack of space in the reception centres. The NGO Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) filed appeals in the courts against more than 40 decisions to reject applications between December 2007 and March 2008.

Said Kadzoev, a Russian national of Chechen origin, continued to face forcible return to the Russian Federation where he would be at serious risk of torture and other ill-treatment. He had been held in detention in the SCTAF in Busmantsi since 1 November 2006, and in solitary confinement for prolonged periods with no explanation from the authorities. The Head of the Migration Directorate of Bulgaria announced in May that a third safe country would be sought for Said Kadzoevīs deportation. In October a complaint was filed with the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that the rejection of his asylum claim, his administrative detention for more than two years and his arbitrary placement in solitary confinement for excessive periods, compounded by alleged physical ill-treatment during detention, constituted a violation of his rights.

Discrimination – minorities

Romani minority

The Romani minority continued to face discrimination at the hands of public officials and private individuals. The BHC reported cases of discrimination in access to housing, including forced evictions, and access to public services.

In June, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child noted that despite government efforts to ensure equal enjoyment of rights for Romani children such as through the National Action Plan on the Decade of Roma Inclusion, concerns remained about the negative attitudes and prejudices displayed towards Roma by the general population, as well as about the overall situation of children of minorities, particularly Roma. The Committee especially highlighted discrimination and disparities such as segregation in education, and unequal access to health care, housing, employment and an adequate standard of living.


Macedonian minority

In May, representatives of the OMO Ilinden PIRIN party, which represents the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, reported on a campaign of harassment and intimidation by police officers against supporters of a new application for its registration. According to the partyīs allegations, police officers summoned supporters for interrogation at police stations without a written order and questioned them about the party. Its registration had been denied three times in 2007 despite a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in 2005 and several calls by the EU.

Turkish minority

In April, the Sofia City Court ruled that Volen Siderov, leader of the far-right party Ataka (Attack), was guilty of using hostile and discriminatory language against the ethnic Turkish minority and of creating an atmosphere of animosity towards them. He was threatened with a fine if he ignored the ruling that he should stop using such language.

Rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people

In June, the first LGBT Pride event to be held in Bulgaria was organized in Sofia by Gemini, a Bulgarian organization working for the rights of LGBT people.

Increased intimidation of LGBT people in Bulgaria was reported in the run-up to the event, which was opposed by some religious authorities and far-right groups. Some 150 peaceful marchers faced violence from counter-demonstrators who threw stones, bottles and Molotov cocktails. More than 60 people were arrested by the police. The Prime Minister, although acknowledging the right to demonstrate peacefully, expressed his personal opposition to the march.

Torture and other ill-treatment

In February, the Council of Europeīs Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) issued a report on its visit to Bulgaria in September 2006 stating that efforts should be increased to combat ill-treatment of detainees and to improve detention facilities.

In April, the BHC denounced the non-compliance with international standards of legislation covering the use of firearms by law enforcement officials. The BHC also reported on cases of ill-treatment by police officials, in particular towards Roma, at the time of arrest or during detention. These were often not adequately investigated.

On 2 October, Sofiaīs Military Court sentenced five police officers to a total of 82 yearsī imprisonment after convicting them of beating 38-year-old Angel Dimitrov to death in 2005. His death was initially explained by the police as the result of a heart attack, but a second autopsy demanded by relatives showed that he had died from blows to the head. An appeal against the decision, to be reviewed by the Military Court of Appeals, was pending at the end of the year.

Sofiaīs Military Court had previously issued a sentence against the five police officers in November 2007, but the decision was repealed by the Military Court of Appeals.

Ill-treatment in custody

In February the CPT reported overcrowding and verbal abuse against inmates in prison facilities visited in 2006, as well as allegations of physical ill-treatment by prison staff.

The BHC also reported that conditions in many prisons continued to be below those required by international standards.

On 6 March, Bulgaria was found by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. Nikolai Kirilov Gavazov, a prisoner accused of rape, spent nearly two years on remand in a tiny, windowless cell in Pazardjik prison, central Bulgaria. The Court also found that the seven-year length of the court case was excessive.

Mental health institutions

In February the CPT, following visits to mental health and social care institutions in 2006, raised serious concerns about admission procedures, ill-treatment and living conditions at the institutions visited.

The CPT highlighted the lack of staff, staff training and resources in such institutions, conditions which had led to violent incidents, limited therapeutic options and insufficient provision of rehabilitation programmes. Despite recommendations by the CPT in 2002 that attention be given to improving living conditions, these remained inadequate.

In February, following a BBC television documentary highlighting extremely poor conditions at the Mogilino childcare institution, the Minister of Labour and Social Policy announced that this and another six similar institutions would be closed down.

[Onur]

And last but not least,where in hell does 'Tatar' mean 'conquered people'?'Tatar' was how the Russians called a 'Mongol',that's where it came from.

Oh,and one more thing:the Kazan tatars in the Russian republic of Tatarstan refer to themselves as 'Bulgars',claiming they were direct descendants of the Bulgars that didn't interact with other nations throughout the ages.And their republic was called Bolgaristan until 1919.
Coincidence?

After Bulgaria has been created by the Russians in 1878, they forbid the true Turkic Bulgars of southern Russia to use their own name. Russians was purposely using the nomination of "Tatars" for all the different Turkic groups in Russian federation. Probably they were doing this to please their new slavic vassals recently founded danube Bulgaria at that time.

In fact, a similar problem exists between true Bulgars and the slavic speaking Bulgarians in danube just like the Macedonia`s naming problem with Greece. The true Turkic speaking Bulgars are forbidden to use their own name because fake Bulgars in danube adopted it. On top of that, fake Bulgars are also trying to falsify our Turkic history in the name of trying to put distinction with us, just like Greeks are trying to create distinctness between Aegean and Vardar Macedonians after they invaded Aegean side.

[Razer]

@ DraganOfStip

Seriously, how can you see what the people on this photo look? I can't even make out their faces...And the fact that the Commies changed the republic's name from Bolgaristan to Tatarshtan is enough to show you that those people were called initially Bolgars, not Tatars.

Here are what the people in Tatarstan look like:

Miss Russia 2010 - Irina Sharipova, is from Tatarstan.





Alsou, a popular singer from Tatarstan:







Some more "Tatar" people with their traditional costumes:

















And here are Mongol people. Anyone with a working set of eyes can see not just the physical difference, but also the difference in their traditional costumes.

[Onur]

Btw, enough with this stupid "Turko-Mongols" theories invented in Europe in late 19th century due to political reasons. Neither the medieval Anatolian Turks nor the medieval Bulgar Turks was predominantly Mongols. This is a lie. If that would be the case, we would have much more slanted eye people in all over Balkans, Hungary and Anatolia. We are predominantly Caucasoid people with slight Mongolic influence, thats it.

Turkic speaking Volga Bulgars looks like the people in the pictures posted by Razer above, pretty similar to Turkish people and to the currently slavic speaking Bulgarians. Also their folkloric clothes are also same as us. Look at their cloths, belts and the tepelik (forehead jewelery);




This is same as Anatolian Turkish and Balkans folk cloths.

[Razer]

@ George S.

The article you posted is total lie. The guy who wrote it - Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommati, is obviously being paid by someone to stir-up troubles on the Balkans. He's doing the same in Africa, in Ethiopia. Read the following article about him and his real agenda. PLEASE READ IT!

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

AN OPEN LETTER TO ETHIOPIANS, AFRICANS AND ASSOCIATED INTERNET WEBSITES REGARDING: DR.MUHAMMAD SHAMSADDIN MEGALOMMATIS: IS HE A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING?

DEAR BELOVED ETHIOPIANS AND OTHER AFRICANS, IS DR.MEGALOMMATIS SEEKING A FRAGMENTED ANDWEAKENED Ethiopia/ HORN OF AFRICA SO WE ALL CAN BE DIVIDED, CONTROLLED AND EXPLOITED?

I am writing this letter on behalf of the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE), a grassroots social justice movement of diverse Ethiopians, working to bring freedom, justice, democracy, the rule of law, equality, civility, reconciliation and the respect for human and civil rights to Ethiopia.

I am addressing this letter to all Oromo, (the recent focus of these writings), other Ethiopians, those in the Horn of Africa and other Africans; as well as websites such as the American Chronicle, Buzzle.com and Ethiopian News at Google.com—all of which have posted some of these vitriolic articles. We are calling on every civilized human being who does not support the incitement of genocide, ethnic hatred, religious intolerance and the dehumanization of others, to oppose the publication of these and other such writings.
The Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia, (SMNE), has main branches in Canada and the United States and chapters throughout the world. Our driving principles are “putting humanity before ethnicity or any other distinctions” because, in any healthy, well-functioning society—whether national or international — we must care about the rights of all our members for “no one will be free until all are free!” For more information, see: www.solidaritymovement.org.
The Oromo make up the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia. The Oromo people have been among the marginalized and persecuted people of the country under the current and past regimes; however, Dr. Megalommatis cites events from the 19th century as justification for many of his anti-Amhara/Ethiopian views and his encouragement of Oromo vengeance and separation from Ethiopia rather than any process of correcting the wrongs and moving towards reconciliation and justice.

If you are a decision-maker, responsible for posting these articles on your website, please remove all such hatefilled articles or links to these articles from your websites and refrain from future postings of similar material.

Some of these noxious articles have been posted on the mainstream Ethiopian News site of Google.com and we can no longer remain silent! Africans are tired of outsiders, such as Dr. Megalommatis, fomenting hate among Africans. I know I speak for many other Africans as well when I say, “We do not trust your intentions!”

Did you ever wonder how and why Dr. Megalommatis manages to write article after article claiming love for the Oromo—with 22 articles focused on just the Oromos in only the last month—or other “subjugated people” of Ethiopia as he labels them; while claiming deep hatred, almost exclusively directed against the Amhara, who he calls “beasts”—with 34 articles in the last month, where he viciously blasts Amhara and/or “Fake Ethiopia?” Why is he spending so much time and effort on stirring up such anger? Is he being paid for it and if so, by whom?

Look at just a few of the titles from his recent articles in July alone:

Oromos Reject the CIA-Imposed Invitation of Freemason, Zionist Ambassador Shinn in OSA Conference July 27, 2010

Keep Terrorist Berhanu Nega Out of OSA Conference & Put a Tombstone on Fake Ethiopia, Oromos Demand July 24, 2010

Committed to Continuing the Ethiopian Genocides, Berhanu Nega Has No Place in an Oromo Conference July 23, 2010

Overwhelming Oromo Reaction Against CIA-planned Amharization of OSA: No to Racist Ethiopianist Dogma

OLF and Oromos Incompatible with Amhara Racist Ethio-fascist Opposition Ginbot, Kinijit, SMNE July 16, 2010

Fake Ethiopia Cannot Be United: the Abyssinian Elitesī Barbarism Rejected by Subjugated Nations VI July 14, 2010

Irreconcilable Gap Heralding the End of Fake Ethiopia: Oromo Culture vs. Abyssinian Barbarism V July 13, 2010

Nile Politics: Tyrannized Oromos Side with Egypt to Break Down Habesha State of Fake Ethiopia II July 07, 2010

Nile Politics: Tyrannized Oromos Prefer Egypt, Being Ready to Let Fake Ethiopia Drop Dead July 07, 2010

Egypt and Sudan Concerned with Oromos Reaching out for Support against Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia) July 02, 2010

Could Dr. Megalommatis’ be trying to break apart any of our efforts towards building unity as a means to achieve a very different goal that would bring further pain, suffering and destruction to all of us? Look at this statement in a recent article to see how Dr. Megalommatis is encouraging Oromos to merge with Sudan:4 The Oromos and particularly the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) must immediately denounce the filthy rumors spread by the aforementioned Amhara failures about eventual deliberations having taken place between the Oromo and Amhara opposition parties. …. Beyond that, the OLF and all the Oromos must understand that they will face only further disasters if they donīt come up as soon as possible with a realistic plan for Oromiaīs liberation. ONLF and the Oromos must enter into cooperation with Sudan and, following a successful rebellion, merge with Sudan in a vast Kushitic state that will span from the borders of Egypt to the Somali frontier.

We should be extremely cautious of this man’s motives; for he— or someone else he may be representing — may actually be trying to stir up ethnic hatred and violence in order to prevent unity among the people of Ethiopia. This is actually a crime to promote such ethnically-based violence against another group under international human rights law because it is no different than what Hitler and the Nazis promoted against the Jews and what was done in the Rwanda genocide. If anything like this leads to ethnic-cleansing, this man may be held accountable for fomenting and inciting the killing. All his articles will be used as evidence against him.

Read the full article here.