The Untold History Of Bulgaria

The similarities and common origins of Iran and Bulgaria are not well-known. Nevertheless, they have been uncovered in recent decades. Re-upload of previous video after the original one video had some mistakes in the recording and pictures.

[kedelight]

It’s ridiculous to suggest the Old Bulgars were a Turkic tribe when the Turkic tribes didn’t appear on the world map until much later than the old Bulgarian kingdoms, Old Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria. Here is a little education from Wikipedia for reference.


The first known mention of the term Turk (Old Turkic: 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türük or 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰:𐰜𐰇𐰛 Kök Türük Chinese: 突厥, Old Tibetan: duruggu/durgu (meaning "origin"), [30][31][32][33] Pinyin: Tūjué, Middle Chinese (Guangyun): [tʰuot-küot]) applied to a Turkic group was in reference to the Göktürks in the 6th century. A letter by Ishbara Qaghan to Emperor Wen of Sui in 585 described him as "the Great Turk Khan."[34] The Orhun inscriptions (735 CE) use the terms Turk and Turuk.

[rado_tsvetkov]

You are correct in many of your statements, but one. Proto-Bulgarians were not Turkified, neither they spoke some imaginary ''Oghur'' language. The whole term ''Oghur branch ''is a delusion and fabrication just to connect somehow imaginary old Turkic (never was proven) to modern Turkic languages.
How was this done: Let us place imaginary languages of Huns/''Bulgars''(totally made up) /Avars/Khazars ( no evidence of them) in a imaginary group with a modern language - Chuvash. Amazing how you can make up a group of languages, when you do not have evidence of them.
This was done primarily from a Moscow Linguistic group of Dybo, Starostin and Mudrak and those amazing ''turkologist'' were already expose for pseudoscience. Of course the turkic propaganda will repeat these crap all over and everywhere they can.
The truth is, that we do not have evidence of :
- Hunic language ( only 3 words and they resemble actually proto-Slavic)
- Avar language -nothing
- proto-Bulgarian- a few inscription, but NOTE, that all attempts from the linguist those to be translated through old Turkic failed very badly.
- Khazars - a very few and very late sources from 9/10 century, which also can not give any general view

SO THE ONLY FACT we have here is those languages are completely UNKNOW FOR US!

Bulgarians have nothing to do with Turkic, because of a simple FACT. Bulgarians were first mentioned in 2nd century by Armenians sources, that they are already on Caucasus. First mentioning of Turkic people is when? - 6 century in east Asia. HOW stupid you must be to claim that Bulgarians come form Turkic people. In the same why you can say that Romans came from Franks ?!?!?! Amazing stupidity!

Proto-Bulgarians are still enigma. But with the hard evidence, that we have now - form sources, archaeology and genetic, we can draw this picture:
1 ROOTS ( 1st BC-1st CE): Tarim basin where presumed candidate of origin are Yuezhi/Kangju/Wusun (SOURSES) all these peoples are Indo-European
2 LANGUAGE: Indo-European, Tocharian, Toharo-Iranian. ( All names of the Bulgarian rulers have Iranian and Celtic ethicology, even some Gothic). later intermixed with Slavic
3. ETNOGENESIS:
4. RELIGION: Here almost nothing we have: But still Byzantine sources are saying- ''they worship the SUN, the MOON and the other STARS. Arabic sources are saying- ''they were from the fate of the magi'( Zoroastrians?) '. Surva celebration, reminding of Zurvanism. Fire dancing. So the religion is unclear yet. But one is certain. There were no Tangra/Tengri and other turkic gods among Bulgarians.

So if you are interested from Bulgarian history, you have to read a lot modern science, think logically and stop believing ''theories'' from 150 years ago.

[tatarkhan]

We are Bulgarians simple as that we are the direct decent of the Bulgars Bulgaria did not Cease to exist and we never migrated there is plenty of evidence that Before 681 Bulgaria existed on the other side of the Danube we are not slavs the slavs were simply 7 tribes we were the majority as for the Slavic language it spread during the Ottoman rule due to outside influence if you look at the names of the Bulgarian rulers you only have very few with slavic names its either biblical names like Ivan Constantine or Bulgarian names like Krum, Asen, or Ivailo and in case you think Boris is slavic its not we already have the bulgarian varient Bogoris or Bogoyan Boras etc

[persianguy]

Hey man i just saw you on bahadors channel. Good stuff.

[NikeBG]

The claims in this video are kind of a mess, but then again - so is the whole topic of the Bulgar origins and ethnogenesis, so I guess that's hardly avoidable. So rather than addressing claims point by point, I'll just make a few notes:
- The language of the Bulgars - it's mentioned several times in the video that the Bulgars spoke an Oghur Turkic language. That is indeed one possibility, which is popular and taken as an outright fact by some groups and nations. But that claim is based mostly on one single thing - the modern language of the Chuvash. However, many people forget (or ignore) that the Chuvash aren't exactly Bulgars - they are descendants of the Suvar (from the times of Volga Bulgaria), who are descendants of the Sabir (from the times of the Huns). In fact, they were originally reported as warring against and chasing some of the tribes which formed the Bulgars. Later on they might have been part of the so-called Old Great Bulgaria for a short time, but after the OGB's dissolution in the mid-7th century, they moved north where Volga Bulgaria was later founded. However, the Sabirs/Suvar weren't a part of the Kutrigur Bulgars who founded Volga Bulgaria, but were instead joined to that state a couple centuries later. Thus, using them as an example for the early Bulgars and their language is not too dissimilar from claiming that the ancient Chinese spoke Mongolian, just because at one time the Mongols conquered China and a part of Mongolia is today a part of China. Obviously, that's not a very strong argument and neither is the one equating the Chuvash people's Oghur language with that of the early Bulgars as a whole.
- The Bulgar titles - At one point, it was mentioned that the Bulgars were ruled by khans. That is a popular claim as well, however it's based on... pretty much nothing. There's not a single inscription, neither a Bulgar, nor a foreign one, where the Bulgar ruler is styled as a khan. The Bulgars in Danubian Bulgaria left a number of inscriptions set in stone, written in Greek, where the rulers' titles are given either as the Greek "archon" or (starting from Omurtag) - as the enigmatic "kanas uvigi" (and "archon uvigi" in one case). Equating this "kanas uvigi" with "khan" (or even more ridiculous - khan subashi) is not more likely than equating it with the Slavic title "knyaz". The reason why historians generally use the term "khans" for the Bulgar rulers is, from one side, inertia, and from another side - convenience. Just like they use the term "Byzantium", even though it's completely inaccurate and has never been used in that sense by the "Byzantines" themselves.
- The Bulgar religion - the claims about a Bulgar belief in Tengri/Tangra are even more "sucked out of one's fingers", as we say. The whole idea of the Bulgar Tengrism is based on one single, highly damaged inscription, where the letters "tag gra" can be found in two rows on one column (from an inscription by kanas uvigi Omurtag). A communist-era scholar, Beshevliev, who was one of the most notable supporters of the Turkic theory (although he also wrote the article "Iranic elements within the Bulgars"), automatically proclaimed it as a reference to some "Tangra", supposedly the Bulgar version of Bir Tengri (in Greek, the "gg" is read as "ng"). However, one could just as easily decipher it as "[Omur]tag gra[pho]", i.e. "Omurtag wrote". The only reason the imaginary "Tangra" reading became accepted was because of circular logic - "The Bulgars were Turkic, therefore they must have worshiped Tangra. The Bulgars worshiped Tangra, therefore they must have been Turkic." Unfortunately, that's really not convincing.

That being said, I've been studying this topic for the last 15+ years and here's what I can say for the time being: While the video mentioned the Bulgars as an example of ethnic cohesion in the steppes, I will instead give them as one of the many examples of the opposite - of the polyethnic character of the larger tribal unions in the steppes (like the Huns themselves, the Magyars etc). Everything seems to suggest that the Bulgars were a union of different tribes, at different times. Their main base seem to have been a population closely related or descended from the Sarmatians and the Alans, with a smaller element of Hunnic origin which might have formed a part of the union's military aristocracy. Smaller Finno-Ugrian groups were probably also included at times, as well as Slavic tribes and even some Tetraxite Gothic remnants, according to the sources. But the main or leading elements were the Sarmato-Alan and the Hunnic ones, thus suggesting that the Bulgars were essentially Sarmato-Alans, who got conquered by the Huns. It also seems likely that from the two main Bulgar tribes, which appeared after the disintegration of Attila's empire, one (the Kutrigurs) had a stronger Hunnic element, while the other (the Utigurs) - a Sarmato-Alan one. Thus, when the Kutrigurs later founded Volga Bulgaria and eventually included the Suvar in their state, the Hunnic element became predominant (although the non-Suvar Volga Bulgars eventually adopted Kypchak Turkic from the Pechenegs and Cumans, while only the Suvar/Chuvash kept their supposedly Hunnic Oghur Turkic). On the other hand, among the Danubian Bulgars we see predominant Sarmato-Alan elements, who seem to have dominated the Utigur group. Why do I think so? Well, because even the biggest supporters of the Turkic theory have admitted it. The above-mentioned Beshevliev, in his "Iranic elements within the Bulgars", looked at the Bulgar onomastics in Danubian Bulgaria and found that most of the Bulgar names were Iranic in origin (giving Asparukh, the founder of Danubian Bulgaria, as a prime example and with the direct parallel of an actual person earlier recorded with that name). Of course, there were also names of Turkic origin, some potentially Ugrian ones and a sizeable group which can't really be categorized and could be either Iranic or Turkic. But the main group of names was Iranic in origin. In the same article, the author also pointed out how the runes used by the Bulgars are most similar to the Sarmatian runes rather than the Orkhon script. Other scholars and specialists in other fields have also noted numerous times the relations between the Bulgars and the Sarmatians - f.e. physical anthropologists and archeologists (like Yordan Yordanov, Rasho Rashev etc) have noted how the Bulgars' artificial cranial deformation is closer to the Sarmatian rather than the Hunnic type, their burial traditions are closer to the Sarmatian ones, their physical types are closer to them as well, the Bulgar archaeological culture is derived mostly from the previous Sarmatian one in the same Pontic-Caspian region. In regards to religion, unlike the Tengrist tales, the Bulgars are actually shown to have had well-structured sacred temples and various scholars have noted their construction's similarity to the Zoroastrian temples in the east (Brentjes even suggested a similarity with some Buddhist temples). Even some traditions of the modern Bulgarians (like Surva) are regarded by some to be an echo of the ancient Zoroastrian/Mazdaist religion. And some recent genetic researches of Bulgar remains from this period seem to suggest a predominantly North Caucasian autosomal origin of the currently researched samples.

Thus, everything seems to suggest that the Bulgars were originally Sarmato-Alans, who eventually got conquered by the Huns and mixed with them. So while the Bulgars did indeed probably have a notable Hunnic component (which you might call potentially Proto-Turkic) and did certainly receive notable Turkic influences from the times when they were conquered by the Avars and Gokturks (f.e. the cyclic calendar and some recorded military ranks and terms), these elements seem to have been secondary. Now, the question really is: Did the Bulgars originate as an ethnicity in the Pontic-Caspian steppe north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus Mountains or did they arrive as a smaller group from somewhere else, with that name, and mixed with the North Caucasian population, transferring their name to them (just like the Bulgars then mixed with the Balkan population and transferred their name on them)? And if there was an earlier Bulgar group (which is extremely uncertain), where did it come from and how can that be proven? For now, anything potentially before the Caucasian homeland of the Bulgars is purely speculative. And while it might be interesting to speculate about the different possibilities, we shouldn't forget that they are just that - nothing certain.

[tatarkhan]

We are Not Turkič or Slavs please just stop THE only blood we have which is turkič is from Avars Pechenegs And Cumans we were ATHEIST not Religious not Tangrish the only religion we may ever had would be Zoroastrianism even then only a little we Are White not yellow or Mongolian so STOP PLESE STOP

[Survivethejive]

Reminder that Iranic steppe peoples were not Iranian

[kedelight]

All that would be fine IF the Turkic tribes were older than the old Proto Bulgars. Here is the ridiculous evidence - the children can’t show up first and then a thousand years later the parents come to exist. It’s just very uneducated statement. Here is how easily you verify things. First you go check when the Turkic tribes came to exist or what the suggested times of the first records and the general consensus of the historians. Them you verify when the first proto Bulgarian kingdoms were created. Then you take the two dates and you go “Hm, somebody needs to learn how to count before they make a video.” And then you go watch something with more substance. Ta ta!

[ANTONDDP]

How much research did you actually do for this video when 0:43 seconds into it you come up with the Bulgarians were possibly Turks?

[chengezhussaini]

Were Khazars related to the Proto-Bulgars?

[tatarkhan]

Its Simple we are Aryans and ARYANS ARE NOT ARABS OR ASIANS OR MODERN IRANIANS THEY ARE THE WHITES OF ASIA SO STOP CALLIBG US YELLOW PLEAE STOP its in the Name BulgAryans KhazAryans AvAryans simple as that we ofcourse are Mixed But we are NOT ASIANS OR YELLOW WE ARE WHITE SO JUST STOP

[guineapig]

Thracians were likely Celtic remnants. (similar to how the Celts in Annatolia were wiped out)

[persianguy]

Bezia Migan Bolghara Rishe Irani Daran!
Raste Ya Doroghe?