![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The accepted spelling for the Turkic Sky God in English Language is Tengri not Tangra. The Turkic Shamanist Bulgars worshipped Tengri not Tangra -which was the name of a third grade Bulgarian pop-band in the early eighties. Nostradamus1 ( talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Little is known concretely about the early Bulgar state. It seems it was typically Turkic steppe nomadic and ruled by an autocratic han (a title associated with the sky-god Tengri and directly inherited from the Gök Turks). Another Gök Turk association was the ruling clan's name, Dulo- a leading clan among the Western Gök Turks. Also typical was the Bulgars' political structure, with authority divided between inner and outer cans and all Bulgars elevated above the non-Bulgar tributary populations, who initially participated in the state only as subjects. In Asparuh's state, the tributaries mostly were Slavs, most of whom were collectively known as the Seven Tribes, living on the Danubian Plain in Moesia.
Further evidence culturally linking the Balkan Bulgar state to Turkic steppe traditions was the layout of the Bulgars' new capital of Pliska, founded just north of the Balkan Mountains shortly after 681. The large area enclosed by ramparts, with the rulers' habitations and assorted utility structures concentrated in the center, resembled more a steppe winter encampment turned into a permanent settlement than it did a typical Roman Balkan city. [1]
the greatest jackass of all times!!! were they really Iranian? so why do they behave like the turks.(speaking, dresing, believing, fu...ing etcetc...) were they want to make a fun?, or maybe they were only joking around.. yes they were the original iranians who just wanted to make a fun around balkans, black sea...etc. sorry but iranian people in wikipedia are really funny guys. i want to save hokkaido japans now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkh ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL. That's funny 203.166.99.230 ( talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen Nostradamus1 attack anyone here; quite the contrary I see 3 people who don't like his words attacking him. Where has he attacked anyone here? Unless his words were read incorrectly, he's only defending a theory of Bulgarian origin. Considering that the Sarmatians, Scythians, and Alan tribes that were prominent in these regions before the arrival of the Bulgars, it isn't difficult to see how one could surmise that at least some of the Bulgars had an Iranian type background. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, provide a referenced book issued from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publishing house, or from another European, Russian or American University press or Publishing house, where the Iranian theory is supported. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Where does the Pritsak quote come from? I always see it cited by Bulgarians, but the source is never provided. I'm an American of Bulgarian extraction, but I don't believe the Bulgarian theories about Iranian origins. People in the Balkans are simply too hot headed and chauvinistic to be honest about ethnic issues. The Bulgarians understandably have historical issues with the Turks, and this creates this complex about not wanting to have turkic origins. It would have been better if the Bulgarians had changed their national name a long time ago. In reality, they are Slavicized Thracians, yet because of the name "Bulgaria", they identify with this Bulgarianness and this leads to all of these twisted theories about Bulgarian origins and not wanting to be Turkic. If this Pritsak quote isn't phoney, please somebody post the source for it so it can be double-checked. Bulgman ( talk) 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my friend, I know, even B. Dimitrov is nowadays Professor, but nor Bulgarian Academy of Sciences', nor Sofia University's Publishing houses are issueing his books. Jingby ( talk)
Bulgarian scepticism towards the Turkic-ness of Bulgars and their eagerness to accept the Iranian/Pamirian theory can be better understood in the light of this article by Christopher Buxton.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Nostradamus,who are you?
What are this lunatic and filled with hate writings? Are you a turk? Or Serbian? Or a brother from FYROM? I will tell you this: Read history! From your posts i uhderstand that you live somewhere between 1970 and 1990 year. Don't you heard and read about the hundreds archeological discoveries about the Bulgars in all our ancient and present day lands?! What turks! What assimilation from the slavs?! The archeologs found thousends of bulgarian cities and viliges in the areas of present day Romania, Serbia, FYROM, Ukraine and Bulgaria. I mean BULGARIAN settlements - not slavic. The Bulgars were numerous and very disciplined, civilized and tolerant. I can write so much but there is no reason because you dont want to see anything other than the turk teory. And what is the evidence? Few turchik words on one stone inskription and we are turks?! O! And the Volga Bulgarian history book:) Don't you know that the Volga Bulgars adopted Islam in IX century? And their chronist is a fanatic muslim Bulgarian and all he sees and want is Turchik culture and origin?! ALL FROM THE ANCIENT ARMENIAN, ARABIAN AND SOME OTHER HISTORY WRITERS POINT FOR OUR MOTHERLAND THE AREAL PAMIR AND HINDUKUSH WHERE BALHARA STATE EXISTS FROM ANCIENT TIMES! Most of them call us with our name bulhi, balhi, balhari, balahari and etc. In some parts of Russia still call us Balhari. Like Leonid Brejnev said: "Zdrastvuite, dorogie Balharski druzia!" And other thing that drives my crazy. The comentars of some low educated ( maybe western european) debaters in this section! They think that we were small, wilde and barabric nation and we invent our history on some false evidence and etc. SO let me tell you this and you can check it if you want: Dear western know nothing about history friends. Before the Ottomans and before the comunists Bulgaria was one of the three most strongest states in Europe - The Holly Roman Empire, The East Roman Empire and Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars were the civilized, educated and dominated part of the people. The Bulgars were perfekt warriors and law makers. They give all the Rullers with the title " KANAS" (not "KHAN"), CESAR and later KING. From the Bulgarian word KANAS, komes the slavic wor for king - KNIAZ. The BUlgars built the cities, water canals, baths and etc. The strutures of the palaces and city walls were monumental. Not like the Byzantie style. The architecture was Bulgarian. The second tribe were our beloved slavs. Yes they were many but they were like aborigens. No cities - only earth homes and baraks. No alphabet, no structure, no nothing!What do you expect from the Soviets in the comunist regime? To speak the truth? NO! Because there is no greatness in their ancestors! And the third tribe were the Tracians but they were small part. There is lot of materials for them - so read! And the top of the icecream was the coment about our complainings from the bad otomans and make them in your eyes like bad, bad people. But they were good you say. You ask how it's possible for 500 yearsto preserve our etnicity and language! The answer is - RELIGION AND HARD WILL!iF WE WERE NOT chrystians and were muslims - for 40-50 years - asimilation. But no - we survive and preserve our ethnicity, our language ( Bulgarian not slavic), our genetical type. Yes there was hatred for the otoman slavers and the raped bulgarian girls when they understand that they are pregnant, they kill themselves with a knife in the chest. Also fathers kills their wifes and childrens and then themselves if the turks armies ( bashibozouk) komes to town! O beloved Otoman turks! I the modern Bulgarian want to say thanks for: - killing all our kings, aristocracy, patriarchs,wariors, monks, citizens and leave anly the vilige people with no education and knowing only how to pray to GOD, work hard on the field and lay low. - thank you for destroyng to the ground so carefully all our palaces, fortreses,churches, cathedrals, monastires, cities and etc. - thank you for destroyng our Bulgrian Patriarchate - equal to the Byzantie , with influence on half Europe. - thank you for reaping and beheading our young girls and even children, beheading our men, kiling the inhabitants and destroing whole towns, all the hangings, tearing bodies with horses, puting heads and litle babyes on poles and then present them in the city centres! - thank you for killing 2/3 of our population - thank you for being savages and stole from us the years of renesanse, the great geographic discoveries, industrial revolutions and etc. - thank you for making Bulgaria from strong empire - equal for all other states in Europe - to small and weak Bulgaria in present days with Bulgarian lands and minorities in all neibhor countries.
SO DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT SOME BULGARIAN UNRESANABLE WINING ABOUT THE TURKISH GENOCIDES AND SLAVERY FROM XV TO XIX CENTURY!
You dont have the right!
So my friends. Its time for you to throw back all the false comunist history and now when you are free from tyrany and dictature to write our realy true history and all our foregn countries to have realistik vision about us - who we are and from where we come!
Please remove that turcik origin in the theory section and put the iranian on the top of the page... I kmow that you will write me many bulshit after my post but i want from you to study carefully all the new data from the historians and arkheologs in Ukraine, Fyrom and Romania. For me the debate for the language is between real linguists and must be in multiantional konference.
My friends - we are not from turchik or hunic origin. When i go out to the the street i can't see one person with mongoloid type of the face and i travel to turkey many times and i can'f find any similarity with the real turks and Bulgarians. The wite and europeid type of turkish citizens are asimilated Byzantie citizens from medievil times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.73.226 ( talk) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The second half of " Kingdom of Balhara" (see that article) is actually not about that region/state/whatever but about Bulgarian historian Georgi Bakalov's theories about the Bulgars' subsequent migrations from there, (as he believes that the inhabitants of Balhara - "Bulh" - were "probably" Bulgars). -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
was not Kubrat the leader of the onogurs branch of Bulgars? Here they're not even mentioned as a Bulgar tribe ? Hxseek ( talk) 10:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Току-що съзирам, че никът е "Джин-гиби" ("Като дух" на османо-турски, прякор на Васил Левски), та ще обясня на български:
1. Откритието е лицензирано. 2. Дадох линк към научния форум на сп. "Космос", отделно е публикувано и в няколко други форума. 3. Относно Гесер Курултаев (Георги Иванов Русев) : магистър по философия (СУ "Св. Климент Охридски" - 1993-2000 г.), преподавател по чужди езици в Китайската Народна Република (в настоящия момент). 4. След като на страниците на Уикипедията намират място теории като Българин = Смесен , т.е. доста фриволни и ненаучни, едно подобно, на Алтайска база откритие би било редно да се постави, за да са информирани хората.
Поздрави! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.11.217.181 ( talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, provide the existing of such a scientist and his new theory or this pasage will be deleted! Jingby ( talk) 18:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but your proof is only an IT forum on address wich has been blocked as spam from the spam filter of Wikipedia. Geser Kurultaev [2] is only a person with Sofia University degree as me for example. He is not scientist and the IT forum is not scientifical proof. Wikipedia is not IT forum! Regards. Jingby ( talk) 08:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
According to a new, Altaic theory by Geser Kurultaev (a Bulgarian-Tatar Philosopher-Anthropologist) the ethnonym "bulgar" is coming from the old, proto-Turkic "Bal-" ("head") and "-gar" ("clan"),i.e. Balgar/Bulgar = "Main clan"; "Leading people"; "Head clan"... citation needed (The source is licensed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/bg/ and the article can be found in this scientific website: www.kosmos.pass.as/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?200)
Pleace, provide some scientifical proof about your statements, the above added addresse is not inaf. Jingby ( talk) 09:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Remove the picture on top of article. The picture represent BULGARIAN (not BULGAR) soldiers from the last days of First Bulgarian Empire - 10th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.247.180 ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Kubrat sword.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There are a few problems with this artticle which make it weak
1. The introductory paragraph in the origins section mentions that Bulgarians are typical eastern Mediterranaen genetically whilst Chuvash are a mixture of central European and Mediterranaean. Not only does this defy logic, but is outright incorrect. How could Chuvash have a central European genetic make-up ? The reference provided links to an abstract. I think this should be removed until we can back such a statement up with harder evidence. Secondly Bulgarians aren;t tyupical Mediterraenean. What is "typical mediterraenean". If anything, they are "Eastern Balkan" , genetically speaking, clustering with Greeks, Romanians and, partly, Turks.
2. It presentes the Turkic origin of Bulgars as mutually exclusive to the Pamirian one. It does not attempt to highlight that the steppes region was a melting point of different cultures and ethnicities, and that all groups such as Bulgars, Huns, Avar, etc were heterogenous, although one language might have been the lingua franca at any point in time. Clearly partisanism is prevalent with regards to the issue of Bulgars' origins
3. Thirdly, it prematurely concludes that the Cutrigurs and Utigurs are the predecessors of the Bulgars, without mentioning that Byzantine sources locate the Bulgars to the east of the Black sea, whereas the Kutrigurs and Utigurs were immediately north. Nor does it attempt to reconcile the fact that "Old Bulgaria" was called Onoghunduria, thus how the Onogurs fit the equation.
Clearly a lot more research has to be done to improve this article. Hxseek ( talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
About the first question. Why did you not read the reference? Is this a provocation or what. It is not abstract but full text: [3] Jingby ( talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it is a full article. But the article uses HLA-genes to attempt to try and trace ancient migration paths. Virtually every other article uses Y-DNA or mt-DNA analyses. I question the quality of this study
From the top of my head, as far as modern Bulgarians are concerned - their Y-DNA is J2 (20%) , E3b (25%), R1a (15 %), R1b (17%), I2 (< 10%). A rough quote from the top of my head. How is such a genetic composition "typical eastern Meditteranean" ? What is defined as "eastern Mediterranean" ?
From "HLA genes in the Chuvashian population from European Russia: Admixture of central European and Mediterranean populations" Human Biology, Jun 2003 by Arnaiz-Villena et al.:
"...The Chuvash are believed to originate from the ancient Bulgars that inhabited the western region of the Volga River and came from Central Asia in the 4th century A.D. The Great Bulgaria was divided into five different hordes, the fourth corresponding to the Chuvash and the fifth representing present-day Bulgarians (see introductory paragraphs). From the data obtained in the present work, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different. The Chuvash have a central European and some Mediterranean genetic background (probably coming from the Caucasus), while the Bulgarians have a classical eastern Mediterranean composition, grouping with Macedonians and Iranians in the neighbor-joining trees obtained by using DR and DQ genetic distances (Figure 4) [4] and confirmed by correspondence analysis (Figure 5) [5]. It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the region without modifying the genetic background of the local population..." Jingby ( talk) 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not intending to provoke anyone, Jingiby. I just find the history section poorly written. It is obvious that many references for the article were obtained from internet sites of questionable quality. For example, there is no proof definitely linking the Bulgars with the Huns. The Cutrigurs and Utigurs were political organisations, not Bulgar ethnic tribes per se. All i'm stating is that if you want to improve the scholarly quality of this article, we should illustrate the fact that the issue is actually very complicated, and not tell it as if the conclusion is self-evident
Hxseek ( talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And of what language is this word? I couldn't find anything similar in any Turkic language..It would be the best to double- or triple- source this Turkic etymology of Bulgar, and also provide comparisons of cognate words in several Turkic languages in the mentioned sense ("to mix, stir"). If this is, of course, the general linguistic consensus on the origin of the ethnonym Bulgar(ian). Or is it? :) Otherwise, it would be speculative and fringy OR hardly worth of mentioning. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
But "bulga-" is not the proper name of Bulgars or Bulgarians. And in the past bulgarians called themselves: "Blgari". Somebody has to look for similar "Old Turk" word again :)). I see this "Old Turk" is very rich, despite of the strong presence of Persian and Arabic words.
An IP began to vandalise the article. If no reliable explaination will be given I am going to revert this sock. Jingby ( talk) 15:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
At first dear Monshuai there is not a such thing Bulgar Kingdom of Balhar. Second Bulgarian Empire was founded and ruled by Vlachs and Kumans. At the beginning of this article stays: They founded Old Great Bulgaria and later a branch of them gave rise to the First Bulgarian Empire, while another to Volga Bulgaria. This is the real situation. And many nomadic and semi-nomadic people founded different states and changed their way of life. The hypothesis of a small circle Bulgarian dreamers has not place here. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a reliable scientific publication. What means: written by Peter I. Batakliev. Who is this guy? Stop kidding, please. Jingby ( talk) 07:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There are ONLY several Bulgarian sources. This is a fringe theory. No one foregn source. Nearly all of the rest of Bulgarian sources claimes vice versa - the Bulgars were Turkic semi-nomads. All foreign scientific sources states that Bulgars were nomads from Turkic origis. And Professor Fol was Thracologist. Stop kidding. Jingby ( talk) 09:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not interested in your POV-s. No reliable international scientific sources - no real discussion. Happy dreams! Jingby ( talk) 11:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
An sock under a name Ppanchev ivan began to vandalise the article. If no reliable explaination will be given I am going to revert this sock. Jingby ( talk) 18:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done my best to be flexible and accept many of Jingiby's edits. I do this whilst knowing he has had his editing priviledges revoked for many months in the past due to the very same behaviour he shows herein. Even whilst placing a sentence such as, "In the Middle Ages the Bulgars created three states in different parts of Eurasia" he insists on deleting it. Please see articles on Volga Bulgaria, Great Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire if you are unfamiliar with this issue. It's just one example of many in regard to what can be construed as vandalism. He has also removed academic sources numerous times simply because the views of some Professors, Historians, etc are in conflict with his own views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.234.124 ( talk) 13:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you have to read the leading paragraph: In the early 7th century they founded a short-living tribal confederation, known as Old Great Bulgaria or Onoguria and afterwards two other states: Volga Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire, and probably stop POV-pushing. P.S. The states were created in Europe, entirely! Jingby ( talk) 13:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
From the dawn of the histor to the 7th century they were Nomads. We can not begin with the state-building. There is a chronology here. Jingby ( talk) 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The Bulgarian nation has its roots in the Balkans. We are descedants from the Thracians and partly from the Slavs. The not numerous Bulgars were assimilated a 1,000 years ago. Only their name still remains. Jingby ( talk)
From a historical point of view the present-day Chuvash and Bulgarians are believed to originate partly from the Bulgars. However, according to their DNA data, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different... It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the two regions, without modifying the genetic background of the local populations. HLA genes in the Chuvashian population from European Russia: Admixture of central European and Mediterranean populations - pg. 5 Jingby ( talk) 11:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, dear Monshuai. Jingby ( talk) 06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The proponents of the Iranian "theory" propose that the Bulgars were descendants of the "civilized" Sumerians, rather than "primitive" Turks. It seems to be an entirely racist idea. I agree that it's undue. We should take out all these alternate "theories" until some consensus develops on what we should include--the only other tidbit in the article is hardly encyclopedic quality either. kwami ( talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not a racist theory - it just reveals some discrepancies in the turkic theory. By "civilized" the authors mean the Bulgar's ability to build cities made of stone. And for the 7th century this is not insignificant. The remnants of these cities can be seen even today in Bulgaria and they don't match with the idea of the primitive turkic tribes living in tents. And I don"t understand why the section "Iranian origin theory" was deleted. There are doubts about its plausibility but it still exists and it has its supporters among historians. Scheludko ( talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
they spoke a Turkic language, so todays Bulgarians are Turkic, but you are still an idiot.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.245.56 ( talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Who is that "scientist" named John Stevens to talk about bulgarian origin?! He is not a scientist but a fat ugly man sitting in front of his computer all the day and ingnores the facts about my ancestors, deletes them from wiki. Dear John that is the way your wiki to become an shithole for lies. Who are you to tell : - this is right and this is not.
And how is that this IP - 94.54.245.56 a turkish guy tells us we are an idiots because we say the obvious - Bulgars are not turks. There is nothing here about chuvashi, tatari and so on. We are talking about Bulgars, the obvious founders of Bulgaria. And this IP tels me that we and turic have the same origin. Ha ha ha. How many turic words exist in bulgarian? How many linguistic similarities are there between bulgarian and turkish? None - these are very different languages. And who is the idiotic IP now? Ppanchev ivan
Hey sock, the article is about the Bulgars, not Bulgarians!
Jingby (
talk)
18:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Restored the humorous section at least on this talk page. I'd taken such pains sourcing some of the best stuff (check out Bozho Dimitrov's arguments, he is a minister now, too) and now I see that people have deleted it, because apparently Bulgarian patriots are occupied elsewhere. Please! Bozho's deep thoughts must not be missed! -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article may lend
undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. |
A new theory, supported by some researchers in Bulgaria, claims that the Bulgar language was an Indo-European, specifically an Iranian language, and so, according to this theory, the Bulgar people would be classified as an Iranian people, although some of its proponents concede that the language was later influenced by Turkic due to Hunnic military domination. This notion became popular in Bulgaria in the 1990s, with the works of Petar Dobrev, a specialist in economic history. [2] Dobrev and other authors (who, like him [3], are not linguists) attempt to prove the Iranian origin of a number of words and sometimes even grammatical features in Bulgar and modern Bulgarian. [4] For example, Dobrev dismisses the general view that the Bulgar titles and names of animals in the cyclic year were Turkic and instead maintains that these terms were borrowed by Turkic and Mongol tribes from the Bulgars, as the Bulgars possessed, in his view, a more ancient and sophisticated civilization with roots in Sumerian and Akkadian culture. [5]
Several other Bulgarian historians (Georgi Bakalov, Bozhidar Dimitrov) support Dobrev's view. [6] [7] [8] Dimitrov also makes the point that "... the Bulgars are not a primitive nomadic people, they are not Mongoloids with lower lifestyle and culture", and that "the striving for a statehood of one's own is genetically inherent in them". [9] He furthermore argues that since both the Iranian languages and the Slavic languages are Indo-European, the Bulgars and the Slavs in the 9th century Bulgaria must have "chatted with each other in closely related languages ... and could probably understand each other without an interpreter". [10] Dimitrov also quotes Ukrainian Turkologist Omeljan Pritsak as having stated: "We have to admit that the Bulgars were not a Turkic people. A century-old erroneous and highly harmful unscientific view has been overcome." [8] verification needed
Another alternative view is that Bulgar, far from being affiliated to Chuvash, belonged instead to the same branch as all other surviving Turkic languages and more specifically Kazan Tatar. Bulgarian scholar Ivan Shishmanov speculated in 1900 that this was the case, [11] and the same view is espoused also by modern Bulgarist Kazan Tatar linguist Mirfatyh Zakiev. [12](removed from talk later than the rest-- Anonymous44 ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Cäğfär Taríxı, a Russian language document of disputed authenticity, purports to be a 1680 compilation of ancient Bulgar annals. It was published by a Volga Tatar Bulgarist editor in 1993. Cäğfär Taríxı contains a very detailed description of Bulgar history. Among other things, it implies that the Bulgars were formed as a result of consolidation of many Turkic and Turkicized tribes.(removed from talk later than the rest-- Anonymous44 ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
In the 19th century, even theories of a Slavic or Finno-Ugric affiliation were proposed on the basis of little or no evidence. [11] These have practically no adherents among today's scholars.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The accepted spelling for the Turkic Sky God in English Language is Tengri not Tangra. The Turkic Shamanist Bulgars worshipped Tengri not Tangra -which was the name of a third grade Bulgarian pop-band in the early eighties. Nostradamus1 ( talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Little is known concretely about the early Bulgar state. It seems it was typically Turkic steppe nomadic and ruled by an autocratic han (a title associated with the sky-god Tengri and directly inherited from the Gök Turks). Another Gök Turk association was the ruling clan's name, Dulo- a leading clan among the Western Gök Turks. Also typical was the Bulgars' political structure, with authority divided between inner and outer cans and all Bulgars elevated above the non-Bulgar tributary populations, who initially participated in the state only as subjects. In Asparuh's state, the tributaries mostly were Slavs, most of whom were collectively known as the Seven Tribes, living on the Danubian Plain in Moesia.
Further evidence culturally linking the Balkan Bulgar state to Turkic steppe traditions was the layout of the Bulgars' new capital of Pliska, founded just north of the Balkan Mountains shortly after 681. The large area enclosed by ramparts, with the rulers' habitations and assorted utility structures concentrated in the center, resembled more a steppe winter encampment turned into a permanent settlement than it did a typical Roman Balkan city. [1]
the greatest jackass of all times!!! were they really Iranian? so why do they behave like the turks.(speaking, dresing, believing, fu...ing etcetc...) were they want to make a fun?, or maybe they were only joking around.. yes they were the original iranians who just wanted to make a fun around balkans, black sea...etc. sorry but iranian people in wikipedia are really funny guys. i want to save hokkaido japans now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkh ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL. That's funny 203.166.99.230 ( talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen Nostradamus1 attack anyone here; quite the contrary I see 3 people who don't like his words attacking him. Where has he attacked anyone here? Unless his words were read incorrectly, he's only defending a theory of Bulgarian origin. Considering that the Sarmatians, Scythians, and Alan tribes that were prominent in these regions before the arrival of the Bulgars, it isn't difficult to see how one could surmise that at least some of the Bulgars had an Iranian type background. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, provide a referenced book issued from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publishing house, or from another European, Russian or American University press or Publishing house, where the Iranian theory is supported. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Where does the Pritsak quote come from? I always see it cited by Bulgarians, but the source is never provided. I'm an American of Bulgarian extraction, but I don't believe the Bulgarian theories about Iranian origins. People in the Balkans are simply too hot headed and chauvinistic to be honest about ethnic issues. The Bulgarians understandably have historical issues with the Turks, and this creates this complex about not wanting to have turkic origins. It would have been better if the Bulgarians had changed their national name a long time ago. In reality, they are Slavicized Thracians, yet because of the name "Bulgaria", they identify with this Bulgarianness and this leads to all of these twisted theories about Bulgarian origins and not wanting to be Turkic. If this Pritsak quote isn't phoney, please somebody post the source for it so it can be double-checked. Bulgman ( talk) 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my friend, I know, even B. Dimitrov is nowadays Professor, but nor Bulgarian Academy of Sciences', nor Sofia University's Publishing houses are issueing his books. Jingby ( talk)
Bulgarian scepticism towards the Turkic-ness of Bulgars and their eagerness to accept the Iranian/Pamirian theory can be better understood in the light of this article by Christopher Buxton.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Nostradamus,who are you?
What are this lunatic and filled with hate writings? Are you a turk? Or Serbian? Or a brother from FYROM? I will tell you this: Read history! From your posts i uhderstand that you live somewhere between 1970 and 1990 year. Don't you heard and read about the hundreds archeological discoveries about the Bulgars in all our ancient and present day lands?! What turks! What assimilation from the slavs?! The archeologs found thousends of bulgarian cities and viliges in the areas of present day Romania, Serbia, FYROM, Ukraine and Bulgaria. I mean BULGARIAN settlements - not slavic. The Bulgars were numerous and very disciplined, civilized and tolerant. I can write so much but there is no reason because you dont want to see anything other than the turk teory. And what is the evidence? Few turchik words on one stone inskription and we are turks?! O! And the Volga Bulgarian history book:) Don't you know that the Volga Bulgars adopted Islam in IX century? And their chronist is a fanatic muslim Bulgarian and all he sees and want is Turchik culture and origin?! ALL FROM THE ANCIENT ARMENIAN, ARABIAN AND SOME OTHER HISTORY WRITERS POINT FOR OUR MOTHERLAND THE AREAL PAMIR AND HINDUKUSH WHERE BALHARA STATE EXISTS FROM ANCIENT TIMES! Most of them call us with our name bulhi, balhi, balhari, balahari and etc. In some parts of Russia still call us Balhari. Like Leonid Brejnev said: "Zdrastvuite, dorogie Balharski druzia!" And other thing that drives my crazy. The comentars of some low educated ( maybe western european) debaters in this section! They think that we were small, wilde and barabric nation and we invent our history on some false evidence and etc. SO let me tell you this and you can check it if you want: Dear western know nothing about history friends. Before the Ottomans and before the comunists Bulgaria was one of the three most strongest states in Europe - The Holly Roman Empire, The East Roman Empire and Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars were the civilized, educated and dominated part of the people. The Bulgars were perfekt warriors and law makers. They give all the Rullers with the title " KANAS" (not "KHAN"), CESAR and later KING. From the Bulgarian word KANAS, komes the slavic wor for king - KNIAZ. The BUlgars built the cities, water canals, baths and etc. The strutures of the palaces and city walls were monumental. Not like the Byzantie style. The architecture was Bulgarian. The second tribe were our beloved slavs. Yes they were many but they were like aborigens. No cities - only earth homes and baraks. No alphabet, no structure, no nothing!What do you expect from the Soviets in the comunist regime? To speak the truth? NO! Because there is no greatness in their ancestors! And the third tribe were the Tracians but they were small part. There is lot of materials for them - so read! And the top of the icecream was the coment about our complainings from the bad otomans and make them in your eyes like bad, bad people. But they were good you say. You ask how it's possible for 500 yearsto preserve our etnicity and language! The answer is - RELIGION AND HARD WILL!iF WE WERE NOT chrystians and were muslims - for 40-50 years - asimilation. But no - we survive and preserve our ethnicity, our language ( Bulgarian not slavic), our genetical type. Yes there was hatred for the otoman slavers and the raped bulgarian girls when they understand that they are pregnant, they kill themselves with a knife in the chest. Also fathers kills their wifes and childrens and then themselves if the turks armies ( bashibozouk) komes to town! O beloved Otoman turks! I the modern Bulgarian want to say thanks for: - killing all our kings, aristocracy, patriarchs,wariors, monks, citizens and leave anly the vilige people with no education and knowing only how to pray to GOD, work hard on the field and lay low. - thank you for destroyng to the ground so carefully all our palaces, fortreses,churches, cathedrals, monastires, cities and etc. - thank you for destroyng our Bulgrian Patriarchate - equal to the Byzantie , with influence on half Europe. - thank you for reaping and beheading our young girls and even children, beheading our men, kiling the inhabitants and destroing whole towns, all the hangings, tearing bodies with horses, puting heads and litle babyes on poles and then present them in the city centres! - thank you for killing 2/3 of our population - thank you for being savages and stole from us the years of renesanse, the great geographic discoveries, industrial revolutions and etc. - thank you for making Bulgaria from strong empire - equal for all other states in Europe - to small and weak Bulgaria in present days with Bulgarian lands and minorities in all neibhor countries.
SO DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT SOME BULGARIAN UNRESANABLE WINING ABOUT THE TURKISH GENOCIDES AND SLAVERY FROM XV TO XIX CENTURY!
You dont have the right!
So my friends. Its time for you to throw back all the false comunist history and now when you are free from tyrany and dictature to write our realy true history and all our foregn countries to have realistik vision about us - who we are and from where we come!
Please remove that turcik origin in the theory section and put the iranian on the top of the page... I kmow that you will write me many bulshit after my post but i want from you to study carefully all the new data from the historians and arkheologs in Ukraine, Fyrom and Romania. For me the debate for the language is between real linguists and must be in multiantional konference.
My friends - we are not from turchik or hunic origin. When i go out to the the street i can't see one person with mongoloid type of the face and i travel to turkey many times and i can'f find any similarity with the real turks and Bulgarians. The wite and europeid type of turkish citizens are asimilated Byzantie citizens from medievil times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.73.226 ( talk) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The second half of " Kingdom of Balhara" (see that article) is actually not about that region/state/whatever but about Bulgarian historian Georgi Bakalov's theories about the Bulgars' subsequent migrations from there, (as he believes that the inhabitants of Balhara - "Bulh" - were "probably" Bulgars). -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
was not Kubrat the leader of the onogurs branch of Bulgars? Here they're not even mentioned as a Bulgar tribe ? Hxseek ( talk) 10:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Току-що съзирам, че никът е "Джин-гиби" ("Като дух" на османо-турски, прякор на Васил Левски), та ще обясня на български:
1. Откритието е лицензирано. 2. Дадох линк към научния форум на сп. "Космос", отделно е публикувано и в няколко други форума. 3. Относно Гесер Курултаев (Георги Иванов Русев) : магистър по философия (СУ "Св. Климент Охридски" - 1993-2000 г.), преподавател по чужди езици в Китайската Народна Република (в настоящия момент). 4. След като на страниците на Уикипедията намират място теории като Българин = Смесен , т.е. доста фриволни и ненаучни, едно подобно, на Алтайска база откритие би било редно да се постави, за да са информирани хората.
Поздрави! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.11.217.181 ( talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, provide the existing of such a scientist and his new theory or this pasage will be deleted! Jingby ( talk) 18:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but your proof is only an IT forum on address wich has been blocked as spam from the spam filter of Wikipedia. Geser Kurultaev [2] is only a person with Sofia University degree as me for example. He is not scientist and the IT forum is not scientifical proof. Wikipedia is not IT forum! Regards. Jingby ( talk) 08:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
According to a new, Altaic theory by Geser Kurultaev (a Bulgarian-Tatar Philosopher-Anthropologist) the ethnonym "bulgar" is coming from the old, proto-Turkic "Bal-" ("head") and "-gar" ("clan"),i.e. Balgar/Bulgar = "Main clan"; "Leading people"; "Head clan"... citation needed (The source is licensed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/bg/ and the article can be found in this scientific website: www.kosmos.pass.as/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?200)
Pleace, provide some scientifical proof about your statements, the above added addresse is not inaf. Jingby ( talk) 09:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Remove the picture on top of article. The picture represent BULGARIAN (not BULGAR) soldiers from the last days of First Bulgarian Empire - 10th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.247.180 ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Kubrat sword.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There are a few problems with this artticle which make it weak
1. The introductory paragraph in the origins section mentions that Bulgarians are typical eastern Mediterranaen genetically whilst Chuvash are a mixture of central European and Mediterranaean. Not only does this defy logic, but is outright incorrect. How could Chuvash have a central European genetic make-up ? The reference provided links to an abstract. I think this should be removed until we can back such a statement up with harder evidence. Secondly Bulgarians aren;t tyupical Mediterraenean. What is "typical mediterraenean". If anything, they are "Eastern Balkan" , genetically speaking, clustering with Greeks, Romanians and, partly, Turks.
2. It presentes the Turkic origin of Bulgars as mutually exclusive to the Pamirian one. It does not attempt to highlight that the steppes region was a melting point of different cultures and ethnicities, and that all groups such as Bulgars, Huns, Avar, etc were heterogenous, although one language might have been the lingua franca at any point in time. Clearly partisanism is prevalent with regards to the issue of Bulgars' origins
3. Thirdly, it prematurely concludes that the Cutrigurs and Utigurs are the predecessors of the Bulgars, without mentioning that Byzantine sources locate the Bulgars to the east of the Black sea, whereas the Kutrigurs and Utigurs were immediately north. Nor does it attempt to reconcile the fact that "Old Bulgaria" was called Onoghunduria, thus how the Onogurs fit the equation.
Clearly a lot more research has to be done to improve this article. Hxseek ( talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
About the first question. Why did you not read the reference? Is this a provocation or what. It is not abstract but full text: [3] Jingby ( talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it is a full article. But the article uses HLA-genes to attempt to try and trace ancient migration paths. Virtually every other article uses Y-DNA or mt-DNA analyses. I question the quality of this study
From the top of my head, as far as modern Bulgarians are concerned - their Y-DNA is J2 (20%) , E3b (25%), R1a (15 %), R1b (17%), I2 (< 10%). A rough quote from the top of my head. How is such a genetic composition "typical eastern Meditteranean" ? What is defined as "eastern Mediterranean" ?
From "HLA genes in the Chuvashian population from European Russia: Admixture of central European and Mediterranean populations" Human Biology, Jun 2003 by Arnaiz-Villena et al.:
"...The Chuvash are believed to originate from the ancient Bulgars that inhabited the western region of the Volga River and came from Central Asia in the 4th century A.D. The Great Bulgaria was divided into five different hordes, the fourth corresponding to the Chuvash and the fifth representing present-day Bulgarians (see introductory paragraphs). From the data obtained in the present work, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different. The Chuvash have a central European and some Mediterranean genetic background (probably coming from the Caucasus), while the Bulgarians have a classical eastern Mediterranean composition, grouping with Macedonians and Iranians in the neighbor-joining trees obtained by using DR and DQ genetic distances (Figure 4) [4] and confirmed by correspondence analysis (Figure 5) [5]. It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the region without modifying the genetic background of the local population..." Jingby ( talk) 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not intending to provoke anyone, Jingiby. I just find the history section poorly written. It is obvious that many references for the article were obtained from internet sites of questionable quality. For example, there is no proof definitely linking the Bulgars with the Huns. The Cutrigurs and Utigurs were political organisations, not Bulgar ethnic tribes per se. All i'm stating is that if you want to improve the scholarly quality of this article, we should illustrate the fact that the issue is actually very complicated, and not tell it as if the conclusion is self-evident
Hxseek ( talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And of what language is this word? I couldn't find anything similar in any Turkic language..It would be the best to double- or triple- source this Turkic etymology of Bulgar, and also provide comparisons of cognate words in several Turkic languages in the mentioned sense ("to mix, stir"). If this is, of course, the general linguistic consensus on the origin of the ethnonym Bulgar(ian). Or is it? :) Otherwise, it would be speculative and fringy OR hardly worth of mentioning. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
But "bulga-" is not the proper name of Bulgars or Bulgarians. And in the past bulgarians called themselves: "Blgari". Somebody has to look for similar "Old Turk" word again :)). I see this "Old Turk" is very rich, despite of the strong presence of Persian and Arabic words.
An IP began to vandalise the article. If no reliable explaination will be given I am going to revert this sock. Jingby ( talk) 15:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
At first dear Monshuai there is not a such thing Bulgar Kingdom of Balhar. Second Bulgarian Empire was founded and ruled by Vlachs and Kumans. At the beginning of this article stays: They founded Old Great Bulgaria and later a branch of them gave rise to the First Bulgarian Empire, while another to Volga Bulgaria. This is the real situation. And many nomadic and semi-nomadic people founded different states and changed their way of life. The hypothesis of a small circle Bulgarian dreamers has not place here. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a reliable scientific publication. What means: written by Peter I. Batakliev. Who is this guy? Stop kidding, please. Jingby ( talk) 07:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There are ONLY several Bulgarian sources. This is a fringe theory. No one foregn source. Nearly all of the rest of Bulgarian sources claimes vice versa - the Bulgars were Turkic semi-nomads. All foreign scientific sources states that Bulgars were nomads from Turkic origis. And Professor Fol was Thracologist. Stop kidding. Jingby ( talk) 09:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not interested in your POV-s. No reliable international scientific sources - no real discussion. Happy dreams! Jingby ( talk) 11:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
An sock under a name Ppanchev ivan began to vandalise the article. If no reliable explaination will be given I am going to revert this sock. Jingby ( talk) 18:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done my best to be flexible and accept many of Jingiby's edits. I do this whilst knowing he has had his editing priviledges revoked for many months in the past due to the very same behaviour he shows herein. Even whilst placing a sentence such as, "In the Middle Ages the Bulgars created three states in different parts of Eurasia" he insists on deleting it. Please see articles on Volga Bulgaria, Great Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire if you are unfamiliar with this issue. It's just one example of many in regard to what can be construed as vandalism. He has also removed academic sources numerous times simply because the views of some Professors, Historians, etc are in conflict with his own views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.234.124 ( talk) 13:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you have to read the leading paragraph: In the early 7th century they founded a short-living tribal confederation, known as Old Great Bulgaria or Onoguria and afterwards two other states: Volga Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire, and probably stop POV-pushing. P.S. The states were created in Europe, entirely! Jingby ( talk) 13:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
From the dawn of the histor to the 7th century they were Nomads. We can not begin with the state-building. There is a chronology here. Jingby ( talk) 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The Bulgarian nation has its roots in the Balkans. We are descedants from the Thracians and partly from the Slavs. The not numerous Bulgars were assimilated a 1,000 years ago. Only their name still remains. Jingby ( talk)
From a historical point of view the present-day Chuvash and Bulgarians are believed to originate partly from the Bulgars. However, according to their DNA data, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different... It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the two regions, without modifying the genetic background of the local populations. HLA genes in the Chuvashian population from European Russia: Admixture of central European and Mediterranean populations - pg. 5 Jingby ( talk) 11:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, dear Monshuai. Jingby ( talk) 06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The proponents of the Iranian "theory" propose that the Bulgars were descendants of the "civilized" Sumerians, rather than "primitive" Turks. It seems to be an entirely racist idea. I agree that it's undue. We should take out all these alternate "theories" until some consensus develops on what we should include--the only other tidbit in the article is hardly encyclopedic quality either. kwami ( talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not a racist theory - it just reveals some discrepancies in the turkic theory. By "civilized" the authors mean the Bulgar's ability to build cities made of stone. And for the 7th century this is not insignificant. The remnants of these cities can be seen even today in Bulgaria and they don't match with the idea of the primitive turkic tribes living in tents. And I don"t understand why the section "Iranian origin theory" was deleted. There are doubts about its plausibility but it still exists and it has its supporters among historians. Scheludko ( talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
they spoke a Turkic language, so todays Bulgarians are Turkic, but you are still an idiot.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.245.56 ( talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Who is that "scientist" named John Stevens to talk about bulgarian origin?! He is not a scientist but a fat ugly man sitting in front of his computer all the day and ingnores the facts about my ancestors, deletes them from wiki. Dear John that is the way your wiki to become an shithole for lies. Who are you to tell : - this is right and this is not.
And how is that this IP - 94.54.245.56 a turkish guy tells us we are an idiots because we say the obvious - Bulgars are not turks. There is nothing here about chuvashi, tatari and so on. We are talking about Bulgars, the obvious founders of Bulgaria. And this IP tels me that we and turic have the same origin. Ha ha ha. How many turic words exist in bulgarian? How many linguistic similarities are there between bulgarian and turkish? None - these are very different languages. And who is the idiotic IP now? Ppanchev ivan
Hey sock, the article is about the Bulgars, not Bulgarians!
Jingby (
talk)
18:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Restored the humorous section at least on this talk page. I'd taken such pains sourcing some of the best stuff (check out Bozho Dimitrov's arguments, he is a minister now, too) and now I see that people have deleted it, because apparently Bulgarian patriots are occupied elsewhere. Please! Bozho's deep thoughts must not be missed! -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article may lend
undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. |
A new theory, supported by some researchers in Bulgaria, claims that the Bulgar language was an Indo-European, specifically an Iranian language, and so, according to this theory, the Bulgar people would be classified as an Iranian people, although some of its proponents concede that the language was later influenced by Turkic due to Hunnic military domination. This notion became popular in Bulgaria in the 1990s, with the works of Petar Dobrev, a specialist in economic history. [2] Dobrev and other authors (who, like him [3], are not linguists) attempt to prove the Iranian origin of a number of words and sometimes even grammatical features in Bulgar and modern Bulgarian. [4] For example, Dobrev dismisses the general view that the Bulgar titles and names of animals in the cyclic year were Turkic and instead maintains that these terms were borrowed by Turkic and Mongol tribes from the Bulgars, as the Bulgars possessed, in his view, a more ancient and sophisticated civilization with roots in Sumerian and Akkadian culture. [5]
Several other Bulgarian historians (Georgi Bakalov, Bozhidar Dimitrov) support Dobrev's view. [6] [7] [8] Dimitrov also makes the point that "... the Bulgars are not a primitive nomadic people, they are not Mongoloids with lower lifestyle and culture", and that "the striving for a statehood of one's own is genetically inherent in them". [9] He furthermore argues that since both the Iranian languages and the Slavic languages are Indo-European, the Bulgars and the Slavs in the 9th century Bulgaria must have "chatted with each other in closely related languages ... and could probably understand each other without an interpreter". [10] Dimitrov also quotes Ukrainian Turkologist Omeljan Pritsak as having stated: "We have to admit that the Bulgars were not a Turkic people. A century-old erroneous and highly harmful unscientific view has been overcome." [8] verification needed
Another alternative view is that Bulgar, far from being affiliated to Chuvash, belonged instead to the same branch as all other surviving Turkic languages and more specifically Kazan Tatar. Bulgarian scholar Ivan Shishmanov speculated in 1900 that this was the case, [11] and the same view is espoused also by modern Bulgarist Kazan Tatar linguist Mirfatyh Zakiev. [12](removed from talk later than the rest-- Anonymous44 ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Cäğfär Taríxı, a Russian language document of disputed authenticity, purports to be a 1680 compilation of ancient Bulgar annals. It was published by a Volga Tatar Bulgarist editor in 1993. Cäğfär Taríxı contains a very detailed description of Bulgar history. Among other things, it implies that the Bulgars were formed as a result of consolidation of many Turkic and Turkicized tribes.(removed from talk later than the rest-- Anonymous44 ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
In the 19th century, even theories of a Slavic or Finno-Ugric affiliation were proposed on the basis of little or no evidence. [11] These have practically no adherents among today's scholars.