What if...."Thrace to the Thracians!"

[toothpaste]

Well this is just a case...


What if Bulgaria was baptized "THRACE"...?


-The Bulgarians would claim all ancient Thracians' heritage.

-They would think of them as the only descendants of these ancient people.

-They would try to explain why they now speak a slavic language,by making strange connections with the few thracian inscriptions found.

-They would find every mention of "Thrace/thracian" in the medieval text,used as a geographical term,and explain it as an "ethnic" one.

-They would say slavic and bulgar migrations either never happened or were insignificant.

-They would consider the Geographical region of THRACE as a whole,ignoring that is inhabited by 3 nations:Greeks,Bulgarians(Thracians) and Turks.

-They would find it weird someone to be Greek and Thracian or Turk and Thracian.

-They would talk about "partition of Thrace" between Greeks and Turks in 1913.

-They would cry out : "Thrace to the Thracians!"

...
sounds familiar?...

[Delodephius]

I really don't see the point. I mean, for pity sake and the humanity!

-The Bulgarians would claim all ancient Thracians' heritage.

Which is theirs anyway today.

-They would think of them as the only descendants of these ancient people.

So? Aren't they? Others gave up on the identity along the way, or mixed it for something else.

-They would try to explain why they now speak a Slavic language,by making strange connections with the few Thracian inscriptions found.

I don't see how that would be strange.

-They would find every mention of "Thrace/Thracian" in the medieval text,used as a geographical term,and explain it as an "ethnic" one.

If you haven't know about 300.000 Belarussians don't consider themselves that but they consider themselves locals. I do that too by the way.

-They would say Slavic and Bulgarian migrations either never happened or were insignificant.

The first one did not happen, the second one was not so significant.

-They would consider the Geographical region of THRACE as a whole, ignoring that is inhabited by 3 nations: Greeks,Bulgarians (Thracians) and Turks.

If Thracian is their only identity, then they cannot even do otherwise.

-They would find it weird someone to be Greek and Thracian or Turk and Thracian.

That shows a bit lack of education from their part, but it's no big deal, except for those with malicious thoughts.

-They would talk about "partition of Thrace" between Greeks and Turks in 1913.

Part of their history. Nothing strange.

-They would cry out: "Thrace to the Thracians!"

As it is a logical conclusion. I don't like aggressors in my town as well.

---

Frankly, I'm sick of Balkan mentality. Every person in the world has the right to self declare him/herself as he/she pleases without objection from others, even if the others don't agree with it. If I wanted to call myself an Eskimo I really don't give a damn if anyone else of the Eskimos agree with me or resent it.

[toothpaste]

Which is theirs anyway today.

Trademark by Slovak -Copyright reserved ..they are lucky...

So? Aren't they? Others gave up on the identity along the way, or mixed it for something else.

And Bulgarians didn't mix ....:
ok..they are just a pure slavic speaking nation with turcic/iranian name..

The first one did not happen, the second one was not so significant.

...as ....Slovak said.

Part of their history. Nothing strange.

Ok..they also could think of para-Dunavian region as a whole...and so speak of occupation of Northern bank of Dunav by Romanians...

[Delodephius]

And Bulgarians didn't mix ....:
ok..they are just a pure slavic speaking nation with turcic/iranian name..

Didn't understand what I said.

Ok..they also could think of para-Dunavian region as a whole...and so speak of occupation of Northern bank of Dunav by Romanians...

Dacia was settled by Romanians a long time ago, but then again Slovaks take grudge against Hungarians from some 1000 years ago.

---

The rest are merely ad hominem arguments.

[Pelister]

Well, before attempting to do any of that, I think the Bulgarians need to come to terms with the origin of their name.

It doesn't help them representing the Macedonians "as Bulgarians" while we are deciding whether the original Bulgar tribes came from the Urals or from Urals.

[Napoleon]

What if Bulgaria was baptized "THRACE"...?

Its a more accurate name considering the overwhelming majority of todays 'Bulgarians' are actually of Thracian origin...NOT 'Bulgarian'.

-The Bulgarians would claim all ancient Thracians' heritage.

Whats wrong with that...considering the majority of them are of Thracian origin, is it not their heritage anyway? Or is it that you consider that the heritage of Thrace belongs to todays self proclaimed Greek 'Thracians' when now reside in the southern Greek part of Thrace and like the majority of todays self proclaimed Greek 'Macedonians', are also the product of recent immigration from Anatolia and have been in the region for less then 80 years.

-They would try to explain why they now speak a slavic language,by making strange connections with the few thracian inscriptions found.

Actually, the glossary of know ancient Thracian words clearly shows the langauge to be an early form of Slavonic.

-They would find every mention of "Thrace/thracian" in the medieval text,used as a geographical term,and explain it as an "ethnic" one.

NO...any interpretation of text from the ancient or medieval sources should done so with respect to its full context in order to discover the message the origial authors meant to convey. On the other hand, would modern 'Greeks' like yourself attempt to negate the Thracian origins of todays Bulgarians by stating that all mentions of Thrace in medieval sources are merely 'geographical'?

-They would say slavic and bulgar migrations either never happened or were insignificant.

Yes...considering that the shakey theory of a 6th century Slavic migration to the Balkan region simpley cannot be sustained by factual evidence (archaeological, genetic, first hand primary source accounts) let alone logic. The migration myth is simply nothing more then the result of 19th century western European politics attempting to establish spheres of influence in the Balkan region. For your sake, lets just consider that the improbably 6th century migration did in fact take place...what happened to the ancient Thracian population, did they all simply disappear without a trace? Herodotus stated that the Thracians were the most numerous nation in the world in terms of population so if the migration did happen, the must have been a hell of alot of mixing. Therefore todays Bulgarians are still the direct descendants of the ancient Thracians.

-They would consider the Geographical region of THRACE as a whole,ignoring that is inhabited by 3 nations:Greeks,Bulgarians(Thracians) and Turks.

Geographically and historically YES, politically NO. Considering this, one must not lose count of the fact that the Bulgarians are descendants of the indigenous population while the Turks and 'Greeks' (Karamanli and descendants of other christianised Turkish groups) are only very recent arrivals, and in many cases, have been in the region for less then 90 years.

-They would find it weird someone to be Greek and Thracian or Turk and Thracian.

I would find it weird that a Turk or Greek would want to known as a 'Thracian'. Similarly I'd also find it weird if a Greek or Turk residing in the USA want to refer to themselves as 'Apaches' or native American Indians for the same reasons etc.

-They would talk about "partition of Thrace" between Greeks and Turks in 1913.

YES...as that is a historical fact and reality.

-They would cry out : "Thrace to the Thracians!"

YES...especially if they felt that their history, culture and heritage was under threat.

[Risto the Great]

It is an interesting thought process.
Unfortunately, the Thracian identity did not have the legs to continue .... it would appear.
But the Bulgars deserve a place under the Sun too.
So do the Macedonians.

I would find it weird that a Turk or Greek would want to known as a 'Thracian'. Similarly I'd also find it weird if a Greek or Turk residing in the USA want to refer to themselves as 'Apaches' or native American Indians for the same reasons etc.

Yes!

Dobrodojde Napoleon

[Daskalot]

Napoleonche, dobro dojde, chukaj samo chukaj.... tap, tap.....

[Sarafot]

It is an interesting thought process.
Unfortunately, the Thracian identity did not have the legs to continue .... it would appear.
But the Bulgars deserve a place under the Sun too.
So do the Macedonians.

Yes!

Dobrodojde Napoleon

MODERN BULGARIANS ARE DESCEDENTS OF old BULGARS,TRACIANS and SLAVS.MIZIJA TRAKIJA MAKEDONIJA,Bulgars lived in Misia,Tracians in Tracia and Slavs in Macedonia.Together they form a modern Bulgarian nation and Blgaria.Iteresting it is, in Tracia Tracians in Misia Bulgars and instad Macedonians they insert Slavs in Macedonia.

This is about thear real origin:http://www.bulgars.ru/bnk.htm

[Sarafot]

Some time i wonder?What if Bulgar ariveals were indeed Mongol invasions,and dramatic thing about history,not a single of all thouse arivals left a thing in culture arhitect itc,exept Huns and Turks.Where are gohs,mongols,avars, slavs....for shure slavs were all ready here,tray SLAVS or VENETS,by Slovenian author....

http://www.angelfire.com/country/veneti/AlphaPaperListing2.html

[Sarafot]

How abou this:

Who were the Thracians?

The problem of the Thracians: a new hypothesis The reconstruction of the prehistoric context in which the Thracians slowly emerge has been attempted several times, and lastly by Hoddinott (1981), but in my opinion without noticeable novelties. Even the most recent discoveries, in fact, confirm what we alread know: the Thracian power is just one of the many manifestations of the new stratified societies and of the new elites of a military and superegional type which characterize Chalcolithic and Bronze, and the formation of which was triggered by the incursions of the kurgan groups and their successors, coming from the Asiatic steppes. In the new
PCT vision, this twofold, but in itself meager result produces the following commentary: (A) we must keep in consideration that the immediate neighbors of the Thracians ancestors – whoever they were – were these intrusive kurgan groups; and (B) in the light of the equation of the kurgan people with the Turkic group, the existence of the Turkic Thrace of historical times, the Turkic original character of the Bulgarians, and the so many aspects of the close relationship bwetween Anatolia, the Agean Sea and the Balkans become much more relevant than we have suspected until now (see chapter III of Alinei 2000). A single example: the typical shape of the sica, the national weapon of the Thracians (a knife with a curved blade and a sharp point, similar to a zanna di cinghiale (cp. Plinius H.N. XII 1: “apri dentium sicas”, and see the illustration in Rich 1869), used by Thracian gladiators in Rome, is typical of centro-Asiatic metallurgy.
Another commentary is triggered by Hoddinott’s conclusion, which identifies the earliest sure manifestation of the Thracians in the Bronze Age Carpatian culture of Otomani-Wietenberg (in Transylvania, Hungary, Eastern Slovakia). According to the most recent research, this culture represents a continuation of the Baden and Vučedol cultures, and through the latter, is connected to the steppe cultures (see above and cp. for example DP s.v. Vučedol). In the light of the preceding remarks, then, on one hand we could conclude that also Thracians underwent the same Turkic influences as most other Southern Slavic languages; on the other – as both Baden and Vučedol in the framework of the PCT can be read as Slavophone cultures, we could advance the hypothesis that the Thacianas were a Slavic group, which would have been subject to
stronger Turkic influences than the other Slavic languages, and eventually extinguished. A final remark: Herodotus, as is known, describes the Thracians as the most numerous people after the Indians. Mallory comments that it is a “sad irony” they “have left no modern descendant of their language” (Mallory 1989, 72). But is it really so? First of all, if it is hard to admit that a numerous people might completely extinguish, it is even less likely that this pre-existing people would have left no traces in the archaeological record. And since, as we have seen, the demographic explosion of the Slavs must be placed in Neolithic, we could then advance the hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were one of the most powerful and representative elites of Slavic speaking Eastern Europe, seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the
Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished. This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of materials, can be so summarized: (1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic; (2) as discovered by Trubačev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising similarity with the Baltic ones; (3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr. place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teĩkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziždoă, zydati ‘to build’ zydŭ, zidŭ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the vocalism of the Thr. river name Stry¤mōn and place name Stry¤mē seems closer to Pol.
strumień ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv strŕume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003). The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves).

continuitas interdisciplinary

Some Bulgarians are begining to recognize this fact!

"Тракийски" глоси и думи реконструирани от ономастиката.

1. ак [ak], /1.- стр. 98/ - око.
2. ала [ala], /14./ - хала, вихър, поток.
3. ан [an], /1.- стр. 64/ - на , върху.
4. анг [ang], /14./ - крив, извит, онгъл, ъгъл.
5. асдуле [asdule], /1.- стр. 99/ - ездач, яздя
6. ас [aV], /1.- стр. 108/- аз.
7. бела [bela], /1.- стр. 99/ - бял.
8. бебру [bebru], /1.- стр. 99/ - бобър.
9. берг [berg(a)], /1.- стр. 99/ - планнина, бряг.
10. берса [bers(a)], /1.- стр. 99/ - бреза.
11. бистра [bistra-s], /1.- стр. 99/ - старобългарското "бъйстръ" - бърз
12. брате(p) [brate(r)], /1.- стр. 201/ - брат. Сравни и старобългарското "братръ".
13. бреда [breda-s], /1.- стр. 99/ - пасище, старобългарското "бред", диалектно "бръд".
14. брилон [brilon] - бръснар (старобългарската дума брит-бръсна).
15. бръза [bruza], /1.- стр. 99/ - бръза(остаряло), бърза.
16. бърд [burd], /18. - стр. 74/ - брод.
17. брънч(ос) [bruncoV], /1.- стр. 103/ - струнен инструмент - сравни брън, брънкам, дрън, дрънкам. И до нес се е запазило старото име на струнния инструмент тамбура - в южна България се нарича дрънкя! А този инструмент е известен и с другото си име - булгарина, булгария, булгаре!
18. ведъ [bedu], /1.- стр. 20/ - вода.
19. вер [ver], /18.- стр. 84/ - вря, извирам.
20. вис [bis=vis, is], /1.- стр. 99/ - старобългарското "вьсь" - село.
21. вриза [briza], /1.- стр. 103/ - ориз.
22. гин [gin], /18. - стр. 76/ - гине, чезне, разваля се.
23. дама [dama], /1.- стр. 100/ - дом.
24. дава, дева [deba], /1.- стр. 103/ - град - етимологична връзка с българското "двор" и "дувар".
25. деа, дева [dea, deba (b=v)], /1.- стр. 100/ - дева.
26. деен [dein(a)], /1.- стр. 100/ - деен.
27. дерз, дърз [derz, durz], /1.- стр. 100/ - смел, дързък.
28. диза [diz(a)], /1.- стр. 100/ - крепост - във връзка с българското "издигнат" - защитен; дига - преградно съоръжение.
29. ден [den], /1.- стр. 146, 143/ - ден
30. драб [drab(a)], /1.- стр. 100/ - течение на река - сравни българското "драпам" - движа се пълзешком.
31. дръвета [druveta], /1.- стр. 197/ - дърво, дървета.
32. дръме [drume, dryme], /1.- стр. 100/ - българското "дръма" - храсталак, шубрак.
33. еж [ЕziV], /1. - стр.217/ - еж, таралеж.
34. дун [dun(a)], /1.- стр. 100/ - височина, дюна.
35. жила [geil(a)], /1.- стр. 100/ - жила.
36. з- [z-], /1.- стр. 102/ - из, от.
37. зелка [Zelkia], /1. - стр.217/ - зеленчук, зелка.
38. зама [zama], /1.- стр. 102/ - старобългарското "самъ" - същи, еднакъв.
39. зер [zer], /1.- стр. 103/ - звер, звяр.
40. зет [zeta], /1.- стр. 103/ - сят, засят.
41. золта [zolt(a)], /1.- стр. 103/ - злато, жълт.
42. зъмъ [zymy], /1.- стр. 103/ - змей, змия.
43. ил(у) [ilu], /14./ - старобългарското "илъ".
44. кал [chalas], /18. - стр. 74/ - кал.
45. кара [kara], /1.- стр. 100/ - планина - старобългарското "гора". "Тракийското" име на планината Беласица е Белакр - преводимо на български - Бела гора, Бела планина.
46. катер [kater], /1.- стр. 254/ - катерица.
47. кентa [kenth(a)], /1.- стр. 101/ - чедо.
48. кер [kers(a)], /1.- стр. 101/ - чер, черен.
49. керасо [kerasoV], /1.- стр. 21/ - череша.
50. кетри [ketri], /1.- стр. 101/ - четри, четири.
51. кист [kist(a)] - /1.- стр. 101/ - чист.
52. коза [koza] - /42.- стр. 62/ - коза, козел.
53. колабър [kolabroV], /1.- стр. 103/ - обрядна песен в обряден танц с оръжие - сравни "колобър".
54. купсел [kupsel(a)], /1.- стр. 101/ - купче
55. лаз [lazi], /1.- стр. 101/ - лош.
56. ма [ma, me], /1.- стр. 101/ - мама, майка.
57. мер [mer], /1.- стр. 101/ - голям, велик - сравни "мера" - голяма земя, а също "прабългарските" имена Безмер, Маламир и т.н.
58. мъс [musas], /18.- стр. 78/ - мъх.
59. оста(с) [ostas], /18.- стр. 78/ - устие на река.
60. пайбе [paibes], /1.- стр. 101/ - бебе, рожба.
61. пи [pi], /1.- стр. 101/ - при.
62. прас [pras], /18.- стр. 80/ - пръскам.
63. пъра [pura], /18.- стр. 80/ - пъро (ст.бълг. - лимец). Опитът да се тълкува тази дума чрез новогръцкото "pyros" = "царевица" (царевицата е била позната на траките !?!?) e показателен до къде може да стигне в заслепението си науката!
64. раск [rask], /1.- стр. 101/ - рязък, пъргав, бърз.
65. сабади [sabadi], /1.- стр. 101/ - старобългарското "свободь" - свободен.
66. салта [salta], /1.- стр. 101/ - златен (залта - старобългарски).
67. светъл [suetul], /1.- стр. 102/ - светъл.
68. семeлe [semele], /1.- стр. 101/ - земя (земля - старобългарски).
69. стар [stara], /1.- стр. 102/ - стaр.
70. струме [stryme], /1.- стр. 102/ - течение - сравни българското "стреми се", "устремен".
71. стър [stur], /18.- стр. 82/ - стърна (ст.бълг.), страна, местност; сравни про-стор.
72. сунка [sunka], /18.- стр. 83/ - сок (слюнка).
73. талка [t(h)alka], /1.- стр. 102/ - тласка.
74. тарп [tarp(a)], /1.- стр. 102/ - трап.
75. тим- [tim-], /1.- стр. 250/ - тъмен, черен.
76. траус [traus], /18.- стр. 83/ - троша.
77. три - три.
78. търда [thurd(a)], /1.- стр. 102/ - държа.
79. уту, ътъ [utu], /1.- стр. 102/ - вода; сравни диалектната форма "ъдъ".
80. цев [seba], /1.- стр. 196/ - цев, растението бъз.

Антични "македонски" глоси - според много автори, античните "траки" и "македонци" са родствени народи. Това се доказва и от запазените "македонски" глоси в античността, които всъщност са български думи - ЧЕЛНИК, ВОЙНИК, ВОДИЦА и т.н. За съжаление запазените "македонски" думи са също много ограничен брой, както и "тракийските". Но наред с хиляди други доказателства, тези факти са достатъчно красноречиви, за да направим заключението, че днешните македонски българи са потомци на античното население на Македония.
ziezi trakite
indoeuro bizland glossary


The conclusion of an Bulgarian Scholar:

There are single parallels with other Indo-European languages as the Tokharian ri (A), riye (B) 'a town' and the Thracian -bria. The general conclusion about the nature of the Thracian language is:


The number of Thraco-Baltic (resp. Thraco-Balto-Slavic) parallels is impressive. Some isoglosses show Thracian was also related to German, on one hand, and to Indo-Iranian, on the other hand. Similar relations to "Pelasgian" (pre Greek) can be only supposed on the basis of phonetic similarities.

There are almost no Phrygian parallels with Thracian. Having in mind this as well as the number of phonetical differences between the two languages, it can be assumed that the common Thraco-Phrygian sound shifts (the so called Lautverschiebungen) are not of decisive importance. Summing up, it can be said that

in earlier times – probably in the III-th millennium BC, and before the realisation of the aforementioned sound shifts, – the Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the "Pelasgian" languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant.

[Magedon]

Actually, I spoke with one man from Bg quite recently and he was quite ardent claiming that he and the slavic,non-tataroid population of BG are actually THRACIAN - and i tended to agree with that and him and he had no problem in us being dec. of anc Makos - he saw it as we see it - as normal.

So the Thracian sentiment is gaining momentum in BG amongst intellectuals mostly but common folk also.

Pozdrav

[Risto the Great]

It is one of the things the Bulgarians have that the Macedonians do not. Let them enjoy it.

[makedonin]

Some older works of SoM and Slovak on Thracian Language

And the link of that what the Sarafot posted: Who were the Thracians?.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Cool blog Makedonin