Deconstruction of the term Bulgar/B'lgar/Bugar/Voulgar!

[Carlin]

Eugenius Vulgarius (Italian Eugenio Vulgario; fl. c. 887–928) was an Italian priest and poet.

Eugenius' epithet may allude to a Bulgar heritage, and he may have been a descendant of the horde of Alzec that settled in the Molise in the seventh century and were still distinguishable by their language in the late eighth century. The ethnonym was sometimes rendered as Vulgares in Latin. Knowledgeable of Latin and Greek, he was also deeply learned in the Classics and displays familiarity with Virgil, Horace, and the tragedies of Seneca.

URL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenius_Vulgarius

An excerpt (pp. 98-100) of "The Lombards, the ancient Longobards", Neil Christie, Blackwell, 1995:

"A fascinating passage in the Historia Langobardorum records a group of Bulgars under their duke Alzec requesting lands from Grimoald in return for military service. They may have been ex-Byzantine federates already stationed in Italy, but Grimoald readily welcomed these cavalry troopers and settled them in the badly depopulated territories of Sepino, Boiano, Isernia 'and other towns' in the northern part of the Duchy of Benevento. Paul the Deacon recounts that in his own day these people spoke Latin but still used their native tongue. The settlement of these federates - much in the manner of Roman policy in the late fourth and fifth centuries - will have aided in repopulating the land, in defending the northern and western borders of the Duchy and perhaps also in securing royal Longobard control in central Italy. Archaeological confirmation of the Bulgar presence may in fact come from the localities in Vicenne and Morrione, near Campochiaro, between Boiano and Sepino, where, since 1987, excavations by the Superin - tendency of Molise have uncovered over 120 burials, including a set of ten horse burials characteristic of nomadic, steppe tribes such as the Avars and Bulgars (pl. 18). The W-E aligned graves, set in rows, are mainly earth-cut, but occasionally contain traces of coffins; male burials are equipped with weapons, including arrow-heads and stirrups (both elements rare in Longobard contexts), and personal dress items such as belt-fittings and even earrings. The combined warrior and horse graves are amongst the best-furnished in the cemeteries and should undoubtedly be viewed as housing members of the high-born warrior class. Of particular interest in this respect was the presence in Tomb 33 of a gold ring with an engraved Roman gemstone on the upper face and, in contact with the finger, an inset gold copy of a later seventh-century Beneventan coin. As we will see late, similar seal-rings recovered from the seventh-century Longobard cemetery of Trezzo sull'Add near Milan have been interpreted as symbols of state office. If so, we could tentatively identify the officer buried in Tomb 33 at Vicenne with the documented duke/gastald Alzec or one of his successors. Finds overall represent a mixture of cultural styles and of Avar-Byzantine and Italo-Longobard types, and are datable, on the basis of metalwork and coins, mainly to the period 650-700. We can note that there are indications that the nearby towns were not totally uninhabited by this date: excavations in the forum and theatre at Sepino and in the amphitheatre at Larino have revealed a number of tombs of post-Roman date set into or over the decayed Roman structures but containing few, if any, grave-goods. Although these tombs cannot be closely dated, they do at least indicate that people were still eking out an existence within the shells of the old Roman centres."

[ Paul HL, V. 29, See V.Ceglia, 'Lo scavo della necropoli di Vincenne', Conoscenze, iv (1988), 31-48, and various contributions in Samnium. Archeologia del Molise (exh. cat., ed. by S. Capini & A. di Niro; Rome, 1991), 329-65. ]

[Carlin]

Petre Kavajof of Struga wrote in 1839 a three-language notebook. It contains parallel sentences in Classical Greek, Modern Greek and local Macedonian, written down for the purpose of learning Greek.

Kavajof twice uses the word 'Bugarin' to translate the Greek ethnonym 'Scythian'.

Source: Jouko Lindstedt, Multilingualism in the Central Balkans in late Ottoman times.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

The term "Bulgarian" was used to refer to speakers of South Slavic dialects from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, on occasion as far north as Belgrade and Sarajevo (also the use of the bugarin "Bulgarian" to mean simply "peasant").

-Victor Friedman

[Philosopher]

The first part: Yes, I understand the Bulgarian language is considered Slavic. Did Bulgars contribute a percentage? You have to ask the linguists.

What exactly are you agreeing to? That the people the Bulgar tribes adopted Slavic from were ethic Slavs? I know this is what you believe. Languages evolve over time, and no doubt Bulgarians contributed to the language they adopted. Look at American English, for example. I am not denying Bulgarian is a language. What I am arguing is that Macedonian cannot be Bulgarian, because this south eastern Slavic dialect was spoken before the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans, and was adopted by them. You are playing with words. Your problem is with the word “Macedonian” as in “Macedonian language”.

It is a game of words to you.

To your shame I write this.

The second part: Did the ethnic Slavs have an identity? I guess so; they had an identity, various names and sub-groups. Also, they were changing and adapting as everybody. From Wikipedia:

Not overly concerned what wikipedia says about Slavs, Macedonia, and Macedonians. We have gone over this dog and pony show far too many times. You believe today's Macedonians descend from migrating Slavs and that their Macedonian ethnicity is a modern development.

We on this forum disagree.

We believe today's Macedonians are indigenous to the Balkans, gave Bulgars their language, and are separate from the Slavs of the north and the Bulgars of the east.

This language prevailed, I don’t find it weird. It seems that it was the language of the majority.

Not claiming it is weird or unusual, only the obvious.

I guess Bulgaria merged these people and every other type of people that happened to be around, including Greeks of course.

Naturally, there is no homogeneity in the Balkans, or anywhere else in the world. I have no doubt Bulgars intermixed with non-Bulgars.

I thought the idea emerges in the late 19th century. I believe there are texts speculating on how to define and codify the Macedonian language so that it is distant enough from Serbian and Bulgarian and can be considered a different language.

Yeah, well, different people entertain different dates. We disagree with this notion. And you know that already, so why continue to beat this dead horse?

[Philosopher]

Philosopher - The language which they called “Macedonian” is not really Macedonian, but Bulgarian, because even though the Bulgarians adopted it from them, it cannot be considered Macedonian because there is no Macedonian language (just a dialect of Greek) and because the Bulgarians refined the language they adopted into literature, which makes it Bulgarian.


You contradict yourself. "even though the Bulgarians adopted it from them" "because there is no Macedonian language"

What did the Bulgarians adopt from the Macedonians?

First, it is not a contradiction.

Second, learn how to use the quote button. To start a quote: in brackets, use quote=author's name To end the quote: brackets /quote

Third, learn to follow the context of the discussion.

[Redsun]

Philosopher - The language which they called “Macedonian” is not really Macedonian, but Bulgarian, because even though the Bulgarians adopted it from them, it cannot be considered Macedonian because there is no Macedonian language (just a dialect of Greek) and because the Bulgarians refined the language they adopted into literature, which makes it Bulgarian.


You contradict yourself. "even though the Bulgarians adopted it from them" "because there is no Macedonian language"

What did the Bulgarians adopt from the Macedonians?

[Amphipolis]

The migrating Bulgars adopted Slavic from ethnic Slavs who had no identity or notion of an ethnicity apart from Slavic.

The first part: Yes, I understand the Bulgarian language is considered Slavic. Did Bulgars contribute a percentage? You have to ask the linguists.

The second part: Did the ethnic Slavs have an identity? I guess so; they had an identity, various names and sub-groups. Also, they were changing and adapting as everybody. From Wikipedia:

Menander Protector mentions a Daurentius (577–579) that slew an Avar envoy of Khagan Bayan I. The Avars asked the Slavs to accept the suzerainty of the Avars, he however declined and is reported as saying: "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer theirs – so it shall always be for us"

That shows pride and an identity (though eventually Slavs often aligned and mixed with Avars, some texts even call them Avar-Slavs).

The Bulgars adopted this language, for whatever reason, and refined it in the form of literature and empire.

This language prevailed, I don’t find it weird. It seems that it was the language of the majority.

Thus, even though the language was not originally Bulgarian, it nonetheless is Bulgarian because the Bulgars refined into literature.

From Wikipedia:

The first mention of the language as the "Bulgarian language" instead of the "Slavonic language" comes in the work of the Greek clergy of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid in the 11th century, for example in the Greek hagiography of Saint Clement of Ohrid by Theophylact of Ohrid (late 11th century)

As you understand this is bad and gives one point to Bulgarian arguments. Note: Before that, the language was called Slavonic, not Macedonian.

The Slavs the Bulgars adopted this language from eventually merged with the Bulgars and benefited from the Bulgar refinement and beautification of the language.

To some extent, we can call these Slavs Bulgarians. If they were outside Bulgaria, we have to search about their feelings towards Bulgaria and the other surrounding countries.

And even though these Slavs migrated from Ukraine, and the Bulgars from central Asia, they are nevertheless the same people.

I guess Bulgaria merged these people and every other type of people that happened to be around, including Greeks of course.

Somewhere around the 18th or 19th centuries, a Macedonian ethnicity began to emerge. The language which they called “Macedonian” is not really Macedonian, but Bulgarian, because even though the Bulgarians adopted it from them, it cannot be considered Macedonian because there is no Macedonian language (just a dialect of Greek) and because the Bulgarians refined the language they adopted into literature, which makes it Bulgarian.

I thought the idea emerges in the late 19th century. I believe there are texts speculating on how to define and codify the Macedonian language so that it is distant enough from Serbian and Bulgarian and can be considered a different language.

Adding to this complexity, Macedonians are said to be Yugoslavs, or south Slavs, and yet they are also said to be Bulgarian as well, since the language they gave to the Bulgars was refined by the Bulgars into what it is today, and so this makes it Bulgarian.

Yes, all these have often been said and written around 1900. For instance, it is often written they are Serbs in conscience and Bulgarian in language. Or that they’re something in the grey area between Serbs and Bulgarians. To make things worse, another cliché by European authors of the time is that Serbian and Bulgarian is basically the same language.

[Philosopher]

Thank you for the reply Amphipolis, but I am having a most difficult time understanding it.

Essentially (correct me if I am wrong), you are stating the following.

The migrating Bulgars adopted Slavic from ethnic Slavs who had no identity or notion of an ethnicity apart from Slavic. The Bulgars adopted this language, for whatever reason, and refined it in the form of literature and empire. Thus, even though the language was not originally Bulgarian, it nonetheless is Bulgarian because the Bulgars refined into literature. The Slavs the Bulgars adopted this language from eventually merged with the Bulgars and benefited from the Bulgar refinement and beautification of the language. And even though these Slavs migrated from Ukraine, and the Bulgars from central Asia, they are nevertheless the same people. Somewhere around the 18th or 19th centuries, a Macedonian ethnicity began to emerge. The language which they called “Macedonian” is not really Macedonian, but Bulgarian, because even though the Bulgarians adopted it from them, it cannot be considered Macedonian because there is no Macedonian language (just a dialect of Greek) and because the Bulgarians refined the language they adopted into literature, which makes it Bulgarian.

Adding to this complexity, Macedonians are said to be Yugoslavs, or south Slavs, and yet they are also said to be Bulgarian as well, since the language they gave to the Bulgars was refined by the Bulgars into what it is today, and so this makes it Bulgarian.

Apart from various allowances and sundry interpolations, how did I do?

[Amphipolis]

Okay. This is a start. What language did the Bulgars speak? What language did the Thracians speak?

The Thracians spoke Thracian, but the language had probably disappeared by then, along with the Thracians.

From whom did the Bulgars adopt Slavic from?
How does your historiography explain from whom did the Bulgars adopt Slavic from? If you answer "Slavs", can you please be more specific, as so-called "Slavs" speak different "Slavic" dialects?

I don’t know if our historiography says something essential about it. The answer seems obvious and I think is given in the Bulgarian narrative as I fuzzily remember it. This group of warriors was small (in numbers) but essential and decisive in creating this country. The language was based on the one of the local Slavs and evolved along with the country, its' people and its’ adventures.

My understanding is that modern day Bulgarians speak a south eastern Slavic dialect, which only one other nation speaks (Macedonia, as opposed to Serbo-Croatian in the Balkans), and that it only logically follows that the Bulgars of ancient times adopted this dialect from Macedonians, which would mean Bulgarian is established from Macedonian.

I would put it the other way around. This language (or dialect) and its’ recent evolution (for about 8 or 10 centuries) can only be studied through its’ literature, which is basically called Bulgarian. I don’t understand the slight differences but at least you do (comparing to Serbian). The geographical distribution follows the gradual expansion of Bulgarian Empire. It’s not just Macedonia, but mostly the area of modern Bulgaria (plus parts of Macedonia, plus parts of Greek and Turkish Thrace).

This is really a problem between you and Bulgaria if you want to separate and claim part of this literature, tradition or History, but the overall argument that Bulgarians are or should rename to Macedonians is a little far-fetched.

[George S.]

Id be carefull of people trying to pose as the fairer sex.

[Karposh]

I'm afraid I'm very busy right now. I will try to interact with your posts in less than a week. This is a man's word.

Ha,ha,ha. I think someone didn't quite translate what I wrote correctly to you. All I was saying to Philosopher was that I wasn't sure how to address you (as a she or a he). Trust me, I'm not a male chauvinistic pig. Far from it, as a matter of fact. I wasn't sure whether your profile picture reflects who you really are, that's all.

The other thing I told him was that I don't believe you have the capacity to accept anything that affirms the existence of a Macedonian identity and that he's wasting his energy for nothing. Nothing macho, I promise.

BTW, I'll try to refrain from using another language besides English in future unless I am specifically on the Macedonian language threads.

[Amphipolis]

Philosopher, ovaj ili ovaa (neznam dali e mash ili zhena) nema da ti priznaj tebe ili mene absolutno nishto. Pobrgu bi si kasnal/kasnala od sopstvenoto lajno odkolku da ni priznae neshto makedonsko.

I'm afraid I'm very busy right now. I will try to interact with your posts in less than a week. This is a man's word.

[Karposh]

Philosopher, ovaj ili ovaa (neznam dali e mash ili zhena) nema da ti priznaj tebe ili mene absolutno nishto. Pobrgu bi si kasnal/kasnala od sopstvenoto lajno odkolku da ni priznae neshto makedonsko.

[Philosopher]

I don’t think anyone (including me or Bulgaria) denies their language is Slavic. The last time I checked the official Bulgarian narrative for their nation building they saw Thracians, Slavs and Bulgar warriors as the three pillars or elements of their nation.

Okay. This is a start. What language did the Bulgars speak? What language did the Thracians speak?

From whom did the Bulgars adopt Slavic from?

The problem that you have is that Bulgaria (as an Empire, a nation and a language with its’ literature) are established, existing (not imaginary) entities with a long History (according to our historiography).

How does your historiography explain from whom did the Bulgars adopt Slavic from? If you answer "Slavs", can you please be more specific, as so-called "Slavs" speak different "Slavic" dialects?

Please, if you have the answer, relate it on this forum. Please disabuse me of my error (if I am in fact in error).

My understanding is that modern day Bulgarians speak a south eastern Slavic dialect, which only one other nation speaks (Macedonia, as opposed to Serbo-Croatian in the Balkans), and that it only logically follows that the Bulgars of ancient times adopted this dialect from Macedonians, which would mean Bulgarian is established from Macedonian.

Do you dispute the above? If so, in what sense? Is your argument that the migrant "Slavs" who spoke south eastern Slavic did not identify as Macedonian, or are you just disagreeing with all of the above premises and facts as presented?

[Karposh]

Vasil Kanchov & the Macedonians

I want to bring something to the attention of Macedonians that they might not be aware of. And, as I am a fairly new member on this forum, I apologise if this topic has been covered before. Many will have heard of the 19th century Bulgarian geographer, ethnographer and politician, Vasil Kanchov. Two of his more famous works include:

• Macedonia — Ethnography and Statistics (1900)
• Orohydrography of Macedonia (1911)

However, I wonder how many people are aware of his unexpected and frank admission in his second work “Orohydrography of Macedonia (1911)” about the Macedonians’ own self identification of the time.

“The local Bulgarians and Kucovlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them Macedonians. Turks and Albanians from Macedonia do not call themselves Macedonians, but when asked where they are from, they respond: from Macedonia. Albanians, who also call their country Anautluk, and Greeks who live in the southern area of Macedonia, do not call themselves Macedonians, hence the borders in these areas according to the peoples’ perception are not clearly defined.”

What is important to note, in this eyewitness account, is how Macedonians self identified and that is simply as Macedonians. Kanchov is clearly a Bulgarian nationalist who dedicated his life to serving the Bulgarian cause. In his attempt to boost Bulgaria’s claims to Macedonia, he undertook a detailed ethnographic study of Macedonia, where he counts Macedonians as Bulgarians for the purpose of statistical propaganda. However, even he felt compelled to concede and declare that Macedonians considered themselves exactly that, Macedonians. There are no hyphenated self identifiers such as Slav-Macedonians, Bulgarian-Macedonians, Serb-Macedonians or Greek-Macedonians. These are modern identifiers, imposed on the Macedonian nation by unwanted Godfathers.

What is even more revealing is that there was no such beast as a Greek-Macedonian. As Kanchov notes, Greeks did not call themselves Macedonians.

To summarise, Macedonians of the 19th century knew exactly who they were. They called themselves Macedonians. And, as far as Macedonians today are concerned, it’s important to understand and realise this. Sometimes foreign propaganda can discourage even the most hardened Macedonian and make him question his beliefs. We must never forget that the Bulgarian label was imposed on Macedonians by outsiders. And we know who they are, people that want to see Macedonia and Macedonians disappear once and for all so that they can legitimise the injustice that was done to the Macedonian nation.