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

[Lügendetektor]

Charles King - The Black Sea, A History,
Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 1994, pg. 214

“...The Lausanne treaty has been written as if distinguishing between "Greeks" (the term for Orthodox Christians) and Muslims was an easy thing—as if both communities should have felt some affinity for Greece and the new Turkish Republic as their natural homelands. But in a many communities, the lines were indistinct. A person of Orthodox religious affiliation—the only criterion, according to the treaty, for being "Greek" —might speak only Turkish or a variety of Greek unintelligible to a Greek-speaker from the Aegean. A Muslim from Greece likewise might be most comfortable in Greek or a Balkan Slavic language, not Turkish.

Nevertheless, communities were marked for wholesale removal based on their presumed ethnic traits. Disputes over whether a person or a family was, in fact, "exchangeable"—subject to a compulsory deportation—were adjudicated by a special intergovernmental committee established under Lausanne.

By the middle of the 1920s, Trabzon, Samsun and Sinop had been virtually emptied of Christians. Even the Greek-speaking communities of the Pontic uplands, the Matzouka region where the last remnants of Byzantium had lingered on in monasteries and villages for centuries, came to an end.

People who still called themselves Romans—Romaioi or Rumlar—suddenly became "Hellenes", just as people who had once been simply Muslim now became "Turks".
And both found themselves in new, national homelands to which they had never owed allegiance.

It was "a thoroughly bad and vicious solution," declared Lord Curzon, one of the framers of the Lausanne treaty, "for which the world would pay a heavy penalty a hundred years to come." …’’



That one i found some time ago here in the MT Forum:

[TrueMacedonian]

[DimitarP]

"The archaeologist from Republic of Macedonia Ivan Mikulčić revealed the presence not only of the Kuber group, but an entire Bulgar archaeological culture throughout Macedonia and eastern Albania [7].
He describes the traces of Bulgars in this region, which consist of typical fortresses, burials, various products of metallurgy and pottery (including treasure with supposed Bulgar origin or ownership), lead seals, minted from Kuber, amulets, etc.
However, part of this could actually represent traces of Avar presence. They are known to have raided as far south as Macedonia, and the material culture of the Avars was very similar to the Bulgars.[2]"

look up Kuber in Wikipedia for reference 2 and 7

There is a good possibility of having had bulgars in macedonia, unless you are 100% sure you had only avars to rule out the bulgars...

[Voltron]

Yes, the events are usually written in exaggerated way in medieval times but it doesn't mean that these events didn't happen at all.

Also Vlad the impaler was really impaling people. It`s a fact. He mostly impaled Turks, probably 100s or maybe 1000s but he was mad and i think he also impaled his own family members and his fellow people if i`m not mistaken. Then the Sultan in Istanbul gone mad because of this and he sent an army of 10.000+ soldiers to kill him and give it an end to his reign and thats how he died and his head has been taken to the Istanbul as a proof of his death.

I agree Onur, I said the same thing.

[DimitarP]

Quotes from Soldier of Macedon:

Quote: "The origin and core of Samuel's domains were in Macedonia, his capital was there, his church too, and therefore the majority of his citizens. It was a Macedonian state that expanded and assumed the name of its predecessor in the region, similar to East Rome and the Holy Roman Empire assuming the name of the Romans themselves, after the original Roman Empire disappeared."

However nowadays noone claims the existance of a Roman or Holy Roman state with the same borders. Which of his contemporary sourses call his kingdom Macedonia?

"All of geographical Macedonia (as defined in the 19th century) is claimed because it is historically Macedonian; that is not a denial of the existence of other peoples in Macedonia, for example, I have no issue with a Greek minority along the coast, a Vlach minority in the south, etc, but Macedonia should have been united as one entity, and its people should have been able to interact with each other in this compact geographical unit, as they have done, for centuries prior. To suggest that Macedonia has underwent population movements, and disregard the same possibility for the regions surrounding (including Bulgaria), is rather silly and ill-informed."

So does modern collective macedonia (in all three countries) represent the borders of Samuil's Macedonia? I don't think there were any particular permanent borders in those days. Why did the land within those exact boundries was decided to be called Macedonia in 19th century and not some additional territories for instance?

When you say: "The origin and core of Samuel's domains were in Macedonia, his capital was there, his church too, and therefore the majority of his citizens." do you mean Macedonia as defined by the boundries that were assigned in 19th century?
The boundries of Samuil's kingdom were changing all the time, yet you claim the territory asigned in 19th century?

My question:"Genetically are macedonians different from the bulgarians and the serbs? "
Answer: "If that's the case, why not have the Bulgarians call themselves Macedonians also, and drop the Turkic label?"
My question: Well, is this the case?

[DimitarP]

My question: "Are there any genetic or cultural studies that show that some of us are related to Alexander while others aren't? Either culturally, linguistically or genetically?"

S of M answer: "I can tell you for a fact that the Macedonians of today have more cultural, linguistic and genetical similarities with the ancient Macedonians than they do with Bulgars from the Volga and further east from where they originated. So do today's Bulgarians for that matter, despite the fantasies about Khan Asparuh".

I agree with you, people in the republic of Macedonia and those in Bulgaria have as much to do with the bolgars from Volga as each other. As you can see from the genetic study that I posted a link to, modern bulgarian and macedonians exhibit clasic south easter mediteranian and iranian genetic profile, completely different from that of the turkic chuvashi people who live where Volga Bulgaria used to be.

However when you say: "I can tell you for a fact that the Macedonians of today have more cultural, linguistic and genetical similarities with the ancient Macedonians than they do with Bulgars from the Volga" you leave my question unanswered

Are there any genetic or cultural studies that show that some of us are more similar to the ancient macedonians than others? Either culturally, linguistically or genetically? By "us" I mean slavic people on the balkans.

[DimitarP]

I think discussions are good, but I looked some posts in other forums and guess what.. topics like this go for years and years. This is going nowhere guys.. I think that the actual professional historians need to sit down and work it out. I known that everyone has different feelings based on where they are born. I have to say Greece has had the most military and political success in the last 100 years and has probably comitted a fantastic number of crimes agains the human rights of the slavs on its territory. Bulgaria has driven out 300 000 turks, Serbia has mass graves of albanians. What's a 100 in comparison with 1000s of years of history of the balkans? I think we should all preserve our traditions and drink rakia together and discuss other topics. I'm already over this endless discussion...

I am happy to be called bulgarian as this is my ethnos and it has survived a long time under that name, even though the word originates from genetically and culturally different people. Still those people made possible the existance of a state with one religion and one alphabet, which was a great achievment for its time. The bulgars took up slav names and language. The mixture of peoples has remained and fused into one modern bulgarian nation. I'm happy with that at this point. The macedonian truth is out there, I have a feeling it has to do a lot with the bulgarian and a tiny bit with the bulgar history.

I guess many of us are idealists...

All the best.

[Soldier of Macedon]

It comes down to what each ethnicity thinks of themselves and nothing more than that. Sometimes they conflict, like we have with Macedonians today.

It involves much more than what one 'thinks', your assertion is ridiculous, and completely unsupported by reality. Let me know how well an African or Korean would fare in Athens while telling everybody they are 'Hellenes' because they 'think' they are. The Macedonian identity reaffirmed itself through the natural development of a grass-roots movement, it wasn't an identity that was imposed or 'taught' to the inhabitants, like some others in the Balkans.

Does it say in a source of his time that he was a king of the ethnic macedons or macedonians?

I would perhaps have used some different words in my response, but I can certainly understand TM's frustration with such questions. I will give you a medal if you can find any reference prior to the 19th century that talks about "ethnic" Bulgars or "ethnic" Bulgarians. Seriously, a stupid question, and you have managed to derail the specific point in this thread, which was to dispute the apparent blinding of 15,000 men. There are other threads to discuss the validity of your own ethnicity, find them, and raise your concerns there.

.......why is he calling him king of the wrong people? why didn't he or someone else call Samuel king of the macedonians?

Dimitar, your confusion between politicial and ethnic terms is something you need to address rather urgently if you are to continue looking into the history of the Balkans.

However, part of this could actually represent traces of Avar presence. They are known to have raided as far south as Macedonia, and the material culture of the Avars was very similar to the Bulgars.

They were Avars, similar finds have probably been unearthed in Greece and elsewhere. Bulgars didn't reach much further south than Moesia, and any of them that did reach Macedonia were insignificant specs that are irrelevant in an 'ethnic' sense. Can you find me a source that specifically talks about a Bulgar settlement in Macedonia?

However nowadays noone claims the existance of a Roman or Holy Roman state with the same borders.

I am not sure what you're trying to say here.

Which of his contemporary sourses call his kingdom Macedonia?

I am not aware of any, but a valid explanation has already been given as to why this was so. Do we need to go back to square one?

So does modern collective macedonia (in all three countries) represent the borders of Samuil's Macedonia?

No, they don't.

Why did the land within those exact boundries was decided to be called Macedonia in 19th century and not some additional territories for instance?

The general region has been identified as Macedonia more or less continuously from ancient times, nobody conjured the term in the 19th century. The reason why its boundaries were defined (and hence confined) in the 19th century has more to do with politics rather than history and ethnic heritage. If Macedonia was the first country in the Balkans to obtain liberty from the Ottomans, the picture would be markedly different. Bulgaria and Greece should count themselves lucky in that regard.

When you say: "The origin and core of Samuel's domains were in Macedonia, his capital was there, his church too, and therefore the majority of his citizens." do you mean Macedonia as defined by the boundries that were assigned in 19th century?

I mean a territory that is mostly located within today's Macedonian republic and geographical Macedonia as defined in the 19th century.

My question:"Genetically are macedonians different from the bulgarians and the serbs? "
Answer: "If that's the case, why not have the Bulgarians call themselves Macedonians also, and drop the Turkic label?"
My question: Well, is this the case?

I have already remarked that many people in the Balkans are genetically related to the ancient populations that lived there, and hence, each other. What is your point? That we should use a collective Turkic name (Bulgar) because of this commonality? I would rather use a native, indigenous and Indo-European name, thanks anyway.

Are there any genetic or cultural studies that show that some of us are more similar to the ancient macedonians than others?

The ancient Macedonians are grouped together with other Paleo-Balkan peoples where it concerns genetic studies. Trying to pin-point if an individual today has a connection specifically to ancient Macedonians (as opposed to the gene pool that made up the DNA of ancient Macedonians, Thracians and Illyrians) would be difficult, if not impossible.

Either culturally, linguistically or genetically? By "us" I mean slavic people on the balkans.

I am sure there are plenty of studies done with regard to this topic, probably more by eastern European writers (including Bulgarians, have you bothered to search?) as opposed to those from the west. Linguistically, there is no doubt that the ancient Macedonian language is closer to today's Slavic languages than the Turkic Bulgar language is, purely on the basis that the first two are Indo-European languages while the latter is not. Due to the lack of adequate research (and I say adequate because the possibility of a connection to Balto-Slavic languages is continually disregarded by the west) the topic of the ancient Macedonian language requires an in-depth understanding and elaboration, and this is not the right thread for it.

I am happy to be called bulgarian as this is my ethnos and it has survived a long time under that name, even though the word originates from genetically and culturally different people. Still those people made possible the existance of a state with one religion and one alphabet, which was a great achievment for its time.

Actually, the original Bulgars had little to do with the existence of uniformity where it concerns religion and literature. This was an achievement of Macedonian students that were returning from Moravia, and of their cooperation with Boris, who was a Bulgar in name only, and certainly more inclined towards the Slavic (and/or Thracian) elements in his kingdom/empire.

The bulgars took up slav names and language. The mixture of peoples has remained and fused into one modern bulgarian nation. I'm happy with that at this point. The macedonian truth is out there, I have a feeling it has to do a lot with the bulgarian and a tiny bit with the bulgar history.

The Macedonian Truth is here, and Macedonian history has little to do with the Turkic Bulgars or Slavic Bulgarians of Moesia.

[TrueMacedonian]

Yes a "Bulgarian" was a home-body, agriculturist, a tiller of the soil. A "Greek" was cosmopolitan, merchant, a city-dweller.

It's interesting how these terms went from one of social meaning to one of ethnicity in a matter of decades within the 19th century.

[TRAVOLTA]

“...Кога Македонецот говори за себе "Јас сум Грк" -- тоа воопшто не значи дека тој и припаѓа на грчката националност. Девет десетини од оние што сде нарекуваат Грци не знаат и не разбираат ни еден збор грчки. "Грк" во Македонија значи или минувач на православната црква, патријаршист, или -- во селската навика "граѓанин", "човек од градот". Остаток од сосем дамнешни времиња, кога европскиот и азискиот евет се делел на две половини -- грубо варварско селанчиште, што лежи покорено под меч и потем -- и цивилизацијата и градската грчка сила, што ги победи селските варвари и го распространи меѓу нив светот на своите институции, науки и уметности.

Како балканските Словени го злоупотребуваат зборот "Грк" во ова последно значење, ни раскажа бугарскиот научник Орфејков, притоа без секаква задна мисла, просто како куриозитетна шега за "глупоста на селанчиштата". Патувајќи по Русија, попаднал на едно од бугарските села во Бесарабија. Гледа: селаните го држат цврсто за обичај донесен отаде дунавската татковина, јазикот го паметат одлично, со еден збор -- оберачки се држат за својата националност и преданија. Ги прашува:

- Па имате ли свештеник и учител?
- Се разбира! Добри луѓе, бог да им даде здравје.
- Ваши се, едноселци?
- Не, порано беа наши, но откако изумреа, ни пратија Грци.

Ова објаснување, се разбира го удрило бугарскиот научник, фанатик-националист, како нож во срце: како? - грчко духовенство во бугарско село?! Оди кај свештеникот. Се покажува дека тој е Бугарин. Научникот е во недоумица.

- Братче -- моли тој -- од какво потекло сте вие.
- Се разбира, Бугарин.
- Зошто парохијаните ве викаат Грк?
- А, затоа -- се смее попот -- дека сум родум од Кишињев и учев во Кишињев. Според нив, Бугаринот е селанец што живее и ора земја. А во градовите живеат Грци. Па и јас, иако сум Бугарин, градски жител, би требало според нив да сум - Грк.

Недоразбирања од слична природа имало и со зборот "Србин". Гилфердинг сведочи дека "Србин" во старата балканска навика значи "православен" народ. - Ја се чудим, му говореле на Гилфердинг Помаците - је се чудим, да е ваш цар помого Немцу на Маѓара: ваш цар е Србин, а немац е шокац (католик) ... истражувачите србофили, како [Спиридон] Гопчевиќ, со сесрдност ги внесувале во своите списоци сите како Срби, кој се нарекувал себе си Србин само во смисол на својата припадност кон српската, т.е. православната вера.

Сосем неодамна, преку лажна и чудно нападна по своите претензии, статистика, Грците користејќи се со такви недоразбирања во народната фразеологија, што се вели и ги замаглува олите на Европа, претставувајќи го сето македонско население како елинско (до осум милиони луѓе), оставајќи на други национални елементи сосем ништожен процентуален дел. ...’’

Извор: А. В. Амфитеатаров, "Во Македонската осаменост (1901)", превземено од Цветан Станоевски, "Како ја видоа Македонија", (Руски публикации за Македонија 1828-1913), Македонска книга, Скопје 1978 година, стр. 177-178.

[Soldier of Macedon]

No probs TM, the notion that terms such as Bulgar were applied by East Romans to the peasant masses in Thrace and much of the Balkans is strengthened by the above, although I would still like to know who and when reference was made to 'Bulgars' in the Balkans for the first time.

Just bringing this up from the past because we still haven't determined when the people were first recorded as 'Bulgars'. Contemporary and later authors appear to have referred to them as Huns, Avars and/or Scythians. The name Bulgaria obviously first appears in the Balkans after the establishment of their kingdom in Moesia. But is that how it was first recorded in Middle Latin and Greek, was it adopted from the Bulgars as a native Turkic name, or did the Bulgars themselves (or those that came to be known as such) adopt it?

[Onur]

Eastern Romans knew Bulgars and mentioned about them much earlier than their migration to Danube.

Due to civil war inside Gokturk empire, few tribes broke up with Asena clan (rulers of Gokturk empire) and formed their own kingdoms inside the empire. Avar tribe formed theirs in the north of Blacksea, then expanded in to the Pannonia. Bulgars under the leadership of Kubrat formed his kingdom around Volga river. Khazar tribe formed theirs, right at the north of Bulgar one. Khan Kubrat`s Volga Bulgar kingdom short lived because Khazar tribe forced them to be subjugated inside Khazar kingdom. In the end, Kubrat`s heirs and their armies expelled out from Volga region and the youngest son of Kubrat, Asparuh migrated to the danube.

All these events has been recorded by eastern Romans and the existence of the Bulgar tribe recorded by them after the reign of Kubrat in early 7th century. Kubrat`s grave has been founded in today`s Ukraine and it was full of gifts given by the eastern Roman emperor, golden cups and other golden materials. Brief story of Bulgars and Kubrat are also recorded by the Gokturk rulers, on the Orkhon monuments after Kubrat`s death. He is recorded as Kurt Kubrat, meaning "wolf" in Turkish.

So, the very first Bulgars in danube, leaded by Asparuh knew that they were Bulgars and eastern Romans also knew how and why they came there and who they were. Later authors probably writes about them as Huns, Scythians just to indicate their origin because they were part of the Huns and formerly Scythians.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Onur, can you name any eastern Romans who referred to them as Bulgars during the 7th century AD and prior?

[Onur]

Onur, can you name any eastern Romans who referred to them as Bulgars during the 7th century AD and prior?

I have "the chronicle of Theophanes Confessor" written in 780-818 AD by Theophanes himself. It includes major events from 214-818 AD but he says that he used earlier Roman chronicles to write the events of the past. Most of these earlier chronicles are lost (says so on the preface) but i think i saw one chronicle from 7th century which mentions of Bulgars, dont remember atm.

Like i said, Bulgars are getting mentioned in eastern Roman chronicles since Khan Kubrat gained their independence from Gokturk empire in 632 AD (checked wiki for the date). Eastern Romans was quite interested with the events related with Turkic people, Gokturk empire, Khazars, Bulgars, Avars etc. because they were either good allies or major rivals to them.


Here is Theophanes about the Bulgars. He writes their history when he was talking about Asparuh`s migration to the Danube in 678 AD;

[Soldier of Macedon]

I have "the chronicle of Theophanes Confessor" written in 780-818 AD by Theophanes himself.

I have seen his chronicle. He writes about events relating to the Bulgars 100 years before his time. If you come across any contemporary sources, let me know.