Razer and Stefan - Bulgar morons

[DraganOfStip]

Onur

Then what was the language of the Macedonians in 9th century if they were also the subjects of assimilation with it like Bulgars?

Well,I'm no expert,but my guess would be the Old Slavonic,having elements from the Proto-Slavic language that Slavs shared before the great migration.On that basis Cyril and Methodius created the Old Slavonic language,the forefather of the South Slavic group of languages.
Giving the historical events the logical conclusion would be this:It is generally known today that ancient Macedonians spoke the ancient Macedonian language and used Koine as language of the court.Then in 168 B.C. with Romans defeating the last Macedonian king Perseus Macedonia became a Roman province,and like elsewhere in the empire Latin was introduced as the official language.Then when Roman empire was divided in East and West,Macedonia was a part of the east which later adopted the name Byzantine Empire.Orthodox religion became official and Greek was introduced as the lingua franca opposing Latin in the West.And then with the arrival of the Slavs starting 6th century onward Macedonia was also settled with Slavic tribes that brought their Proto-Slavic language with them.Cyril and Methodius then created the Old Slavonic language and it replaced Greek in every territory with Slavic settlements,including Macedonia.Old Slavonic was later the basis for the creation of Macedonian,Bulgarian,Serbian,Croatian,Slovene and so forth.So,Macedonians speak a Slavic language that was imposed on them with the arrival of the Slavs.
(Again,this is only my conclusion from historical events that took place on the territory of Macedonia,it's not an expert opinion)

[Razer]

@ DraganOfStip

But do you recognise the role Bulgaria played in the establishment of the Cyrillic? Do you agree, as historians say, that is was developed in the literacy schools of Pliska, Preslav and Ohrid who were Bulgarian? Countries like Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Russia or any other of the Slavic countries today, did not even exist back then.

This is were Macedonians start making claims that this never happened and that Bulgarians stole the alphabet, which is simply crazy...

[George S.]

The problem is Razer is like i't's normal for others besides macedonians to take other people's glory.Think about it Cyril & methodios were asked to develop an alphabet for these people.Developed.I don't think they could read greek.So what did the brothers develop the alphabet from the Macedonian which was created the glagolitic (glagoliti to speak).They created this using the macedonian which was in existence.They created it ,they developed it.So today what do we see bulgaria saying they are bulgarian ,also they try to take all the glory from it all.So the bulgarians are simply using what was originally ours.Macedonian-Glagolitic-slavic alphabet.So don't jump to conclussions.Do you know the chrch slavonic was used & is the earliest & goes back to the ancient macedonian.So put it all in perspective & stop fucking trying bs to us that there is pre eminence the evidence is there.
I know what your answer is going to be denial.Think about it who developed it ,why,from what,for whom.You'll know i'm right.

[George S.]

In a reply recently yo stated that Macedonia should change it's name Why,doesn't it have a right to use it's own name! greece is bullying macedonia to capitulate.??The thing is have we a right to our name.Yes we DO.As our name has always been Macedonia.The people identify who they are.Can one country tell another that they are not what they call themselves.??I principle of human rights is to call yourself who you are.Your identification of yourself.If i came to bulgaria tomorrow & said to you you got no right to your name you must change it to remain in the eu.You would tell me to get lost.How ridicolous it is for greece to be demanding of macedonia.The greeks really don't want macedonia to exist with any word macedonia IT WANTS TO MONOPOLISE THE NAME.

[DraganOfStip]

@ DraganOfStip

But do you recognise the role Bulgaria played in the establishment of the Cyrillic? Do you agree, as historians say, that is was developed in the literacy schools of Pliska, Preslav and Ohrid who were Bulgarian? Countries like Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Russia or any other of the Slavic countries today, did not even exist back then.

This is were Macedonians start making claims that this never happened and that Bulgarians stole the alphabet, which is simply crazy...

It's not a question of WHERE it was developed,but WHO and FOR WHAT PURPOSE.Old Slavonic was developed by Cyril and Methodius who had nothing to do with Bulgars (as it is shown in Onur's post) and based on the Slavic dialect they spoke in Salonica,MACEDONIA.Later their students developed the Cyrilic alphabet and one of the places it was developed was the literary school in Ohrid,MACEDONIA.Bulgars only benefited from this,it wasn't their native tongue,Bulgaria was an alliance between the turko-mongoloid Bulgars and Slavic tribes.Bulgars gradually assimilated into the great Slavic melting pot and became Bulgarians.Previously in one of my posts I posted a link to a book called "The origins of the contemporary Bulgarians" by a distinguished Bulgarian University professor and historian Plamen Cvetkov.let me post a few quotes from his research for you:

Up to 1601 all written sources make a clear distinction between the Bulgarians and the Slavs who are considered as entirely alien and often hostile to each other.

Bulgarian sub-race is by no means a mixture between Iranoids, Balkan natives, and Mongoloids

The early history of the Bulgarians was closely linked with the history of the Huns

The original homeland of Bulgarians was in a territory that's today Northwest China

.The Bulgarians are first mentioned in Chinese sources in the 2nd century b.c. as one of the peoples forming the federal empire Hsiung-Nu or the Huns.

I think it pretty much sums it all.

[Razer]

And later I'll respond to DraganOfStip, who I think doesn't realises how his own posts and comments contradicts with his point of view. Prof. Plamen Cvetkov is one of my favorite historians and I wish that Dragon actually read his full research.

[Razer]

Re: Ethnic Macedonians in Pirin

Do you know who Gergi Dimitrov was? He was a mass-murderer and the little puppy of the even bigger mass-murderer Stalin. G. Dimitrov had a Soviet citizenship. I personally consider him as one of the most evil "leaders" Bulgaria has ever had, if not the most evil. Do you know he even called Churchill a fascist? And that when Bulgaria played football with the Soviet Union, he cheered for the Russians? I can spend the whole evening writing you about this maniac, who served Bulgaria to the USSR on a silver platter. And your biggest case for the ethnic Macedonians in Pirin is coming from him??!! This was just another one of his mad ideas, and this is why it dissolved so quickly after his and Stalin's death.

You're being presented with a picture far from reality. Nobody is oppressing any ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria today. If that really was happening, then why those ethnic Macedonians (800,000 as you say) haven't fled to Macedonia which is just 10-20 km away? Blagoevgrad is only 20 km from the border wit Macedonia. Why do tourist, who visit this region all the time, haven't seen anything? Why haven't we seen a single photo of the so called "beatings"? I dare anyone who doesn't agree to visit Bulgaria, travel around the Pirin region and see for themselves.

[Razer]

@ DraganOfStip

Mate, did you even read the article of prof. Plamen Cvetkov? Or did you just cut-and-paste anything you liked, and ignored the remaining 99%? Please read the whole article.
I'm very well aware of prof. Cvetkov's research and in fact he's one of my favorite people in Bulgaria. He's famous for having strong anti-Russian views, and I agree with him all the way. But he's also a brilliant historian. Ok, let's see what you posted...

Up to 1601 all written sources make a clear distinction between the Bulgarians and the Slavs who are considered as entirely alien and often hostile to each other.

Nothing new here. I think we all agree that Bulgars and Slavs are two very different people. I want my friend George S. to please read this, because he thinks Bulgars disappeared "long time ago and were replaced by tatars". He needs a reality check.

[/quote]
Bulgarian sub-race is by no means a mixture between Iranoids, Balkan natives, and Mongoloids. [/quote]

Exactly! Bulgarian sub-race is by no means a mixture between Iranoids, Balkan natives, and Mongoloids.

The early history of the Bulgarians was closely linked with the history of the Huns.

Nobody denies that.

The original homeland of Bulgarians was in a territory that's today Northwest China.

Yes, this is one of the theories of the origin.

The Bulgarians are first mentioned in Chinese sources in the 2nd century b.c. as one of the peoples forming the federal empire Hsiung-Nu or the Huns.

Ok, great.

I have no problems with anything from above! But let me now post some more of prof. Cvetkov's article so that we can see the whole picture...I'll do that in my next post.

[Razer]

Here is what prof. Cvetkov writes in his article:

Most scholars accept as an axiomatic truth that the Bulgars or Bulgarians, mentioned in Chinese, Byzantine, Arabic, and Western European sources from the first to the tenth centuries A.D., have little in common with those Bulgarians who are today the majority of the population in Balkan or Danubian Bulgaria. Even in widespread language dictionaries, such as the ”Random House Webster's College Dictionary”, the Bulgars are defined as a ”Turkic people who formed a state in the Southern Balkans in the late 7lh century A.D.” and who were, ”by c.900, largely assimilated by the local Slavic population”. Meanwhile the Bulgarians are, according to the same dictionary, natives or inhabitants of Bulgaria who speak a ”South Slavic language”.

However, everything seems to indicate that the deeply rooted myth about the Slavic origin of the Bulgarians is motivated mainly, if not exclusively, by political considerations. Up to 1601 A.D., when the Ragusian Mauro Orbini published his ”Kingdom of the Slavs”, practically everyone made a clear distinction between the Bulgarians and the Slavs. Eager to see the emergence of a great and unified Slavic empire, Mauro Orbini assigned a Slavic descent to a number of definitely non-Slavic peoples, such as the Goths, the Khazars, and even the Etruscans. Naturally enough, the Bulgarians were also included in the Slavic family, it should be noted in this regard that Mauro Orbini denied the very existence of separate Slavic ethnicities and considered that the Russians, the Poles, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Slovenes, the Croats, and the Serbs were just ''tribes” of one and the same nation.

At a later stage the idea about the Slavic origin of the Romanians and of the Bulgarians was strongly supported by Russia for the simple reason that these two nations lay on the road of Russia's expansion toward Constantinople and the Straits.

In a 1769 manifesto the Russian empress Catherine II (1762-1796) claimed that the ”Slavs” of Moldova, Wallachia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Albania had come to the Balkans from Russia. Hence they had to rise against the Turks in support of the Russian armies that were about to attack the Ottoman Empire.

The theory about the Slavic origin of the present-day Bulgarians does not seem to be confirmed by the archaeological data either. Many attempts have been made to find in the three historical provinces of Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia some Slavic pottery, Slavic settlements, or even isolated Slavic dwellings, but the results are so far highly doubtful. Some scholars hastened to proclaim that the primitive, nonprofessional pottery, found in many Balkan areas, is the product of Slavs. However, such pottery was characteristic of the ancient Thracians as well, and the Romanian archaeologists appear right in their belief that this pottery belongs to the local ”Dridu” culture.

a matter of fact, it is impossible to judge about a particular ethnicity by the nonprofessional pottery since it is nothing more than a local domestic product of a quite primitive technology. The same by no means applies to the professional pottery and in this regard the professional pottery found in the lands of today's Bulgaria and Macedonia is definitely similar, it not identical with the professional pottery of the Volga Bulgaria. 10 Moreover, the architecture of medieval cities like Pliska and Preslav has nothing to do with the Slavs, but it is related to the architecture of the cities, whose ruins lie basically in the lands once inhabited by the Bulgarians or ”Bulgars” in their long way from Asia to Europe.

Practically none of the human skulls and skeletons that are found in Bulgaria or Macedonia have any Slavic features whatsoever. The same applies to the present-day Bulgarians who, according to most experts, belong to a local Mediterranean race, differing from the remaining southern Europeans but identical with the racial characteristics of the medieval Bulgarians. On the other hand, the southern European racial type is completely absent from the eastern and western Slavs. There are no southern European elements in the skulls, found in the medieval Slavic graveyards.

The southern Slavs, namely the Serbs and the Croats, belong in their turn to the so-called ”Dinaric” type of the southern European subrace. This ”Dinaric” type is less pronounced in the plains, while the skulls of the medieval Slavic graveyards of Serbia and Croatia have all the features, proper to the Slavic sub-race which is totally absent from Bulgaria and Macedonia. In other words, in the case of the Serbs and the Croats one may talk about a mixture between Slavic and significant native elements, while the Bulgarian sub-race is entirely different from the Slavic racial type. It goes without saying that the Bulgarians were and, of course, are far from being a ”pure race” but everything seems to indicate that the Bulgarian sub-race is by no means a mixture between Slavic and non-Slavic elements: it is a mixture between Iranoids, Balkan natives, and a limited amount of Mongoloids.

The Slavic theory about the origin of the Bulgarians is based mainly on the argument that today the Bulgarians speak a Slavic language. Indeed, most philologists claim that about 80 per cent of the Bulgarian words have more or less identical Slavic counterparts. However, a closer look at these words leads to the discovery that too many words, existing both in Bulgarian and in all the Slavic languages, have a Ural-Altaic rather than an Indo-European origin, even though the Slavic idioms belong, no doubt, to the Indo-European family. For instance, for a long time it has been established, that such words as ”tovar” (”load”, ”cattle”), ”kniga” (”book”), ”zhupan” (”governor”) and ”otets” (”father”) are probably early Altaic loanwords in the Slavic languages. In the same vein the Bulgarian word ”dyado” and Slavic ”ded” (”grandfather”) may be related to Turkish ”dede”, while Bulgarian ”vrukh” and Slavic ”verkh” (”summit”) are apparently of the same origin as Chuvash ”vur”, Mongolian ”oroi”, and Hungarian ”orr”. The Bulgarian and Slavic word for ”waler”-”voda” is clearly related to the German ”Wasser”, but it is even closer to the Mordvinian ”ved”.

On the other hand, though, both modern Bulgarian and ”Bulgar” or ”Protobulgarian” are distinguished by a great number of Indo-Iranian words. Thus, for instance, the word ”Bog” (”God”) has parallels in all the Slavic languages, but it seems to be related to an Indo-Iranian word. ”Bulgar” or ”Protobulgarian” words like ”bogatur” or ”bagain” (aristocratic titles in medieval Bulgaria) apparently derive from ”Bog”. On the other hand, such words as ”san” (”rank”), ”delva” (”large earthen jar”), ”stopan” (”owner, proprietor, master, husband, landlord”), ”Asparukh” (the name of the first ruler of Danubian Bulgaria) and many others originate from Indo-Iranian radicals but they are absent from the Slavic languages.

As a rule, unlike the Slavic languages there are no cases of declension in literary Bulgarian. Modern Bulgarian has preserved some case inflections of pronouns in its literary version and both of pronouns and nouns in a number of dialects, as well as in folk songs. However, unlike the Slavic and Indo-European languages and similarly to the Ural-Altaic languages the Bulgarian case inflections do not change according to gender or number and there is no difference between the case inflections of nouns and adjectives.

[julie]

Razer

There ARE Macedonians living within Sofia and Blagoevgrad. When we flew in from London, it was directly to Sofia
What you do not seem to understand is that I have family that settled within occupied Pirinska Makedonia, from my maternal grandmothers side, and there are large numbers of Macedonians within your country

As for how they identify, it is like this - unless they state they are of Bulgarian nationality they cannot obtain employment within your somewhat fascist country.
Engineers, a doctor and a nurse

The taxi driver that drove us from the airport to the bus station was Macedonian. Fearful at first , then spoke Macedonian freely when he understood my stance at our oppressed minorities. Bulgaria gave and has given Macedonians the same amount of basic human rights on partitioning of the country that Greece has , a big fat NIL

How terrible, to have Bulgarians denying the ethnicity of an oppressed people from no fault of their own, once those false borders were drawn up

I do not have much in extended family there, numbering some 30 or so altogether, but they are Macedonians that are denied their basic right to self determination at the hands of the oppressors that occupied Pirinska Makedonia

The iron curtain that you speak of is not one that Macedonians have put up, but their oppressors
Yes, let us move forward, where a person is not denied their ethnic heritage at the sake of false borders.

[Razer]

But this is my favorite part of the article:

According to some theories the Slavs existed as a separate ethnicity as far back as the year 2000 B.C. but everything seems to indicate that up to the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. there was virtually no difference between the Slavs or, rather, the Protoslavs and the Balts, who are the ancestors of the present-day Lithuanians and Latvians. Up to the invasion of the Huns in the second half of the fourth century A.D., the inhabitants of today's Poland, western Ukraine, western Belarus, Lithuania and Latvia apparently belonged to one and the same ethnicity that may be called Balto-Slavs. They worshipped the same gods and their culture, including the pottery and the dwellings, remained practically unchanged until the fourth century A.D. It was only after the conquest of the whole of Europe to the north of the Danube and to the west of the Rhine by the Huns that the Balto-Slavs, living in the areas of today's Poland, western Ukraine and western Belarus, came under strong Ural-Altaic and Indo-Iranian influence. In other words, the Huns invaded these parts of Europe but they did not succeed in penetrating further to the north, and the lands of today's Lithuania and Latvia were not touched by their invasion. The close similarity, if not the identity of the Ural-Altaic and Indo-Iranian sounds and words in the Slavic languages with their Bulgarian counterparts seems to reveal that the Slavs emerged as a separate ethnicity as a result of the merger of a great part of the Balto-Slavs with the Bulgarians or, at least, with some people that was very close to the Bulgarians.

The Protobulgarian and the modern Bulgarian vocabulary, phonetics, morphology and syntax seem to indicate that the ”Bulgars” or the Bulgarians emerged as a separate ethnicity in a contact zone between Protoaltaic, Protouralic, and Indo-European elements. One such zone may have been the area included between the sources of the Huanghe and Changjiang rivers and the Balkhash Lake, i.e. today's northwestern China and parts of what was formerly Soviet Central Asia. In was precisely in this region that Protoaltaic tribes lived together with, or in the immediate neighborhood of an Indo-European people, namely the Tocharians.

The Hsumg-nu Empire was a federation of a great variety of peoples and tribes, which included the Bulgarians, the ancient Turks, and at a later stage the ancient Magyars or Hungarians, as well as an Indo-Iranian people like the Alans. The whole territory of the federation was divided into three parts: center, left, and right. The center belonged to the ruling tribe that maintained its dominating position by marrying its ruler's children (usually his sons) to the children (usually the daughters) of the other tribal rulers. Everything seems to indicate, therefore, that the Chinese word ”Hsiung-nu”, the Latin word ”Hun” and the word ”Ouar”, as the Huns called themselves, were not ethnonyms but a designation for all the members of the federation, who enjoyed full rights. The ethnic origin did-not matter, the important thing was to have dynastic relations with the ruling tribe.

The early history of the Bulgarians was closely linked with the history of the Huns. Naturally enough, they participated in the invasion of Europe which took place from 372-375 A.D. on. According to some authors, the Bulgarians started to settle permanently in the Balkan lands at quite an early stage. Thus at the end of the fourth century A.D., the Roman emperor Theodosius the Great (379-395) gave permission to two groups of Bulgarians to move into the lands of today's Dobruja, as well as into Moesia. For his part, Theodosius II (402-450) allowed another group of Bulgarians to settle in the same area.

Alter Attila's death in 453, the Bulgarians founded a realm of their own, stretching from Pannonia to the northern coast of the Black Sea. According to a fourteenth century Bulgarian chronicle, at the time of the Eastern Roman emperor Anastasius I (491-518), a great number of Bulgarians crossed the Danube at Vidin and settled in Macedonia.

The disastrous epidemic of bubonic plague that spread since 542 no doubt facilitated the Bulgarian colonization of Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia since that disease affected mostly the native sedentary population. The Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I (527-565) succeeded in throwing the Kutrigur and Utigur Bulgarians against each other, but at the same time he gave refuge to some 2,000 Kutrigurs who settled somewhere in Thrace.

Since the beginning of the 6th century, the Balkans also began to attract the Slavs. The Eastern Roman emperor Heraclius I (610-641) gave permission to the Slavs to settle in the province of Illyria, which corresponds roughly to the present-day territories of Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia. The Slavs were not allowed, therefore, to move into Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia, and until the victory of Asparukh against the Romans or the Byzantines in 680-681, there were hardly more than about 250.000 to 300,000 Slavs in the whole area between the Danube, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and today's border of Bulgaria and (apparently, Greek Macedonia) with Yugoslavia. On the other hand, only those Bulgarians who came under Asparukh must have been about 600.000 to 800,000 people.

As it is well known, the disintegration of Great Bulgaria after Kubrat's death in 665 resulted in the founding of two Bulgarian realms: Danubian Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria, while Kubrat's eldest son Batbayan remained in the lands between the Black Sea and the Caspian. As a matter of fact, though, there seems to have been a constant migration of Volga Bulgarians toward the Balkans because of the growing pressure of the ancient Turks and of the Ruses. Finally, in 970 the Danubian Bulgarians were joined by a large group of their Volga brethren under Bilu, Boksu and Hesen. The Bulgarian migration to the Balkans apparently ended with those Bulgarians who were lead once by Batbayan and who came to Danubian Bulgaria and Hungary together with the Cumans in several successive waves from the end of the eleventh to the middle of the thirteenth centuries.

The Bulgarians were pushed to Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia by a thirst for land and the fate of the population they met there was the same as that of the native inhabitants of North America at the time of the European colonization. Both the Slavs and the descendants of the Thracians and Romans were simply massacred or deported to the lands to the north of the Danube. Asparukh sent at least seven Slavic tribes to the frontier with the Avars at the southern foothills of the Carpathians. In 760-763 some 208.000 Slavs fled from Bulgaria to Byzantium and were allowed to settle in Asia Minor. According to the Byzantine writer and emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (912-959), there were two mass migrations of Slavs from the north to the Greek lands, including the Peloponnesus: the first one took place at the end of the seventh century, while the second one happened in the ninth century, when the Bulgarians conquered the whole of Thrace and Macedonia.

Each ethnicity changes in the course of the centuries, but everything seems to indicate that the difference between the Bulgars and the present-day Bulgarians is considerably less significant than the difference between the Hellenes of Aristotle's times and the Greeks of today. There is no need, therefore, to make a distinction between the ”Bulgars” and ”Bulgarians”.

[Razer]

Razer

There ARE Macedonians living within Sofia and Blagoevgrad. When we flew in from London, it was directly to Sofia
What you do not seem to understand is that I have family that settled within occupied Pirinska Makedonia, from my maternal grandmothers side, and there are large numbers of Macedonians within your country

As for how they identify, it is like this - unless they state they are of Bulgarian nationality they cannot obtain employment within your somewhat fascist country.
Engineers, a doctor and a nurse

The taxi driver that drove us from the airport to the bus station was Macedonian. Fearful at first , then spoke Macedonian freely when he understood my stance at our oppressed minorities. Bulgaria gave and has given Macedonians the same amount of basic human rights on partitioning of the country that Greece has , a big fat NIL

How terrible, to have Bulgarians denying the ethnicity of an oppressed people from no fault of their own, once those false borders were drawn up

I do not have much in extended family there, numbering some 30 or so altogether, but they are Macedonians that are denied their basic right to self determination at the hands of the oppressors that occupied Pirinska Makedonia

The iron curtain that you speak of is not one that Macedonians have put up, but their oppressors
Yes, let us move forward, where a person is not denied their ethnic heritage at the sake of false borders.

First - thanks for sharing your personal story. I appreciate this, and will keep it in mind.

Ok, lets say that this was true - you don't seem to understand that the Bulgarian Constitution doesn't recognises any ethnic minorities on the territory of Bulgaria. Even the gypsy are not look at as minorities, but as Bulgarians, at least on paper. So if you live, work in Bulgaria and have a Bulgarian passport, you are Bulgarian. Having said that, anyone has the freedom to celebrate their ethnic origin or self-identification. But not as a minority. Is this good or bad? I'm not sure... Fascist might be too strong of a word. There are up-to 300,000 Bulgarians in Spain - do you think they'll recognise us as an ethnic monitory? And I know you're going to say that this land was Macedonian, but this hasn't been so for over 2000 years.

Btw, why there are no records in history of wars between ancient Macedonians and Bulgars when they first arrived here? Because ancient Macedonian presence was minimal. And if there are no records of wars or even a single battle, you can't say we "stole" the land or anything...You either gave it to us, or it wasn't yours any more...

[Razer]

@ Julie

This taxi driver...Did he tell you any specific stories of how Macedonians are being oppressed? Of Macedonian being beaten and killed by Bulgarian police?

[Razer]

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?















And in the news...

Тито во Скопје
Почитувачите на Тито го прославија неговиот 120 роденден
Денеска е 25 Мај – денот на кој порано се славеше младоста
ОДБЕЛЕЖАН ДЕНОТ НА МЛАДОСТА

[George S.]

Found something
Homeland and origin of ancient Bulgarians

For nearly two centuries now, and our foreign scientists izasnyavaneto dealing with the origin of ancient Bulgarians called in our historiography, or even great parvobalgari. Here for a short call them just as the Bulgarians were called and they themselves. 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.
Turkic theory today is still an official in the Bulgarian history, however, is increasingly gaining force the Iranian theory of the origin of ancient Bulgarians. Her supporters are Georgi Bakalov, Peter Dobrev, Atanas Stamatov, Bozidar Dimitrov and others. According to her Bulgarians are a nation of Iranian language group that is Aryan.
It gives the most satisfactory explanation and interpretation of data with which we have for the Bulgarians.
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
Bulgarians appear in Europe, probably under pressure from the Huns or with late sarmati. But where do they come from? What are their earliest mansions? What is their origin?
These questions will try to answer in the next series.
Source:
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 ... "
It is believed that Michael has used Syrian intelligence from an unknown author, which in turn has used information from the card V-VI c. This information, albeit with a semi-legendary locate ancestral character of the Bulgarians, Tsentrlana somewhere in Asia by country today's China, we can not determine precisely because Imeon is an ancient name for the system of Central Asian mountain ranges including today's Hindu Kush mountains, Pamir and Tian Shan, extending from the Zagros Mountains of southwest to northeast Altai related Kunlun, Karakoram and Himalayas to the southeast. . The other nations mentioned in this note (ie descendants of the other two brothers) are pugurite gambling and that, if nothing else, at least say that there was also a later exodus of Bulgarians to Europe in V-VI century and that at least part of Bulgarians lived in the vicinity of the Khazars and pugurite.
Once you locate the ancient ancestral Bulgarians in Central Asia would normally be assumed that it is quite possible to their ethnic name mentioned in Chinese historical sources. First for this opportunity guesses historian Dimitar Sasalov that back in 1936 in his book "The Way of Bulgaria" opens the mention of the Bulgarian national name in Chinese sources, but who knows, you may have unwittingly perhaps intentionally, most historians today do not pay attention to the large contribution of Sasalov Bulgarian historical science.
In Chinese sources because there are settlements of Bulgarians in different places they are mentioned by different characters - a dear, in you, in you ho, ho-pot, bu-Louis and others. Even De Groot, however, (from whose book draws Sasalov information) as mentioned Sasalov says that they are the same people.
For the first time, Bulgarians are mentioned in Chinese sources in 127 BC around the lake today Borkul West China and East Turkestan exactly with hieroglyphs ON-le, and most are painted behind, which is probably hiding the Bulgarian national name De Groot relied upon as BOLOR. If this reading, it wakes up any doubts in reading hieroglyphs sweat-ho by De Groot no doubt lies the Bulgarian national name. De Groot rely sweat-ho as Bolhor. State Bolhor mentioned in Chinese chronicles Wei-Shu:
"... The State of sweat-ho is situated west of the Pan-Kat-it (Garband). The country is still cold, so that people and animals live together in the caves of the soil. Also there are high snowy mountains in the distance that resemble silver tops. (There are) only peksimet and eat parched corn, drink prepared from wheat (rye) and brandy in wear woolen clothes. There are two routes, namely the one that goes west and headed to Yep's (Heftal) and one that leads south through O-tiang (Udiana).
As we see the chronicle of that country Bolhor be located between Karakoram Tarim rivers and Yarkandarya-huh.
Moreover, communication in general most Bulgarians are mentioned as inhabitants of the region of the Pamir and Karakoram.
Entirely possible that the Bulgarians have lived some of the Central Asia region simultaneously, but whereas "Ashharatsuyts," "Chronicle" of Michael Syrian and Chinese sources the largest settlements of the Bulgarians would have been, as already mentioned above in the region of the Pamir-Hindukush and Karakoram.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA:
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.
Madara Horseman also has analogues in the face of such Iranian monuments such parallels can be considered the relief of Shapur I of Naksh-i-Rustam.
In the art of ancient Bulgarians also found Iranian features. The images of simurg open court and on the application and a griffin on the application of Treasury issued Prevslavian gold treasure Iranian influence, because these things are characteristic of Iranian mythology.
Another important element of the culture of the Bulgarians is their runic script it looks like most of the Runic alphabet in the Caucasus (68 Character match) and Turkic (35 pcs.), But should be considered as the investigator wrote to the Bulgarian runic alphabet Bono Shkodrov that Turks drawing on their runic symbols in the region of Bactria and Sogda.
Archaeological surveys in the North Caucasus and around Azov sea, north of the Black Sea and lower Danube provide enough information about the racial type of the ancient Bulgarians. Bulgarians were brahikefally Europoids, only 35 % of them are observed slight Mongoloid impurities. According to Akimova sarmatian basis of anthropological and Bulgarians is common.
Calendar:
We will not dwell on the peculiarities of the Bulgarian calendar, but only on the names of the calendar years pamirski and their analogues, because I think
that they alone are sufficient to highlight the relationship of the Bulgarians with Pamir peoples inhabiting today:
Bulgarian ancient analogue Pamirian language:
Protobulgairan Pamirian
Shegor (ox) Shegor (bull)
Vereni (dragon) Varan (giant lizard)
Teku(horse) Tayk (horse)
Toh (chicken ) Tuh (chicken )
Dohs(pig) Dovz (fat)
Dvan(rabbit Davan(tripping)
Dilom(snake) Igufs (snake)

Title:
1.Biri Bagain - Birr in pamirian languages are so named HORSE lightly armed units, and Beers is the holder that is a form of equestrian squad.
2.Bagatur Bagain - heavily armored cavalry, respectively, in the Pamir Bahadur, in Sassanid Persia during the 5-6c. Bagatur.
3. Izirgu Bagain - in the East Caucasus ISHARGU word means archer.
4. Uk-Bagain - pamirian word means Asplenium yoke team, but from the same root word is the Bulgarian Uk (yoke) i these are units consisting of soldiers and plated iron in bullock carts. He remembered the battles of Krum.
5. Jupan - Jupa in the Pamir word means troops.
6. Boil - in Summerian senior nobles were called BALA.
7. Kolobar - in the Pamirs and Tibet are called priests and KULBAR KALOGUR and HULABAR.
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.

LANGUAGE:

More in the 60-ies of XX V.Beshevliev analyzed and convincingly proved by various examples that many of the names of Bulgarians are Iranian. As such, it has set Asapruh, Bezmer Kubrat Gostun, Omurtag Korsis, race them can also add your cheek, Vundt, Tervel, Krum and also Zabergan. The last name is attested in the inscription of Shapur I of Naksh-i-Rustam form Zik-Zabrigan .
Words occurring in today's Bulgarian also have their analogues in the language of pamirskite nations, these are:
bashta(father), maika(mother), chicho(uncle), lelq(aunt), kaka(big sister),batko( big brother), kruchma(pub),kuche( dog) etc.. Word kniga(book) does have its analogue in the Caucasus.
To all this I'll add that in the lands around the Pamir has Shumanay cities bearing the names, and Varnu ,Madre and area called Palgar.

CONCLUSION:
Everything written here, you may conclude that the Bulgarians are Iranian (Aryan) people sarmati probably came from Central Asia as a moment in their mansions are located in the area of the Pamir-Hindukush. And, why is it important to know and ancestral origin of ancient Bulgarians?
Because, among other things, we are direct descendants of their blood, because Saltovo-mayatska culture dominates pontic race, which prevails today among the Kazan Tatars (whose main contribution in etnogenesis is on volga bulgars) and the Danube Bulgarians among us.

Sources:
Dimitar Sasalov - "Bulgarians two millennia ago "
Petar Dobrev - "Golden Fund of Bulgarian antiquity"
Todor Chobanov-"Legacy of Sassanid Persia Bulgarians on the lower Danube "
'Selected sources on Bulgarian history "first volume
History of Bulgaria for 11 class Planeta Publishing
"Reader in History of Bulgaria, Volume first
"Tatar Antropologian look" - http://xacitarxan.narod.ru/antropos.htm
Ludmil Lazarov - "Slavyanofilian "Journal of Pro and Anti Year 17, Number 13 (796)