|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 13, 2011 20:47:16 GMT -5
"There are theories that the old Serbs, Croats, and Bulgars were of Irannic origin." Can you stop being a liar for once. BULGAR is a Turkish name, your founder Asparuch didn't speak an Irannic tongue, but an east asian one. In Kirgizstan there is a mountain named after your mongol tribe. It's completely possible that the majority of Bulgars were Iranic even though the origin of the name might be Turkic ( nobody knows this for certain.) Bulgar organization and administration was very similar , if not the same , as the Iranic ruling elite of the Croats and pre Serbs.As far as I know we don't know what language Asparuch spoke Consider that the Bulgars that colonized the Balkans absorbed nameless Slavs in their ranks until the majority of the Bulgarian nation was slavicized. It's certainly possible that the same happened with the Turkics in the Iranic dominated lands.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 13, 2011 20:49:52 GMT -5
uh i just quoted to document where he strictly states that a people named serbs dwelled in dalmatia, in that context the only possibility is that a) they were speaking of a croat vs serb dalmatia or b) that 'croatian' is just a title bestowed on catholic serb rulers. In the same source , right after the supposed 'ethnic Serbs' in Dalmatia it says that Ludevit took flight from Borna in Dalmatia to go to the Serbs. Again ,why would he have to leave Dalmatia to go to the Serbs who supposedly lived there. A more rational explanation is that Ludevit conflated Slav with Serb and then named some other 'Serb/Slav' to whom Ludevit went to. Dalmatia was a large territory back the extending into modern day Serbia as well. ** Let me correct myself. I meant to say that Einhard writes that Ludevit left the Serbs to go to Dalmatia to his uncle Borna, not the other way around. "Allatum est Imperatori de interitu Lindeviti, quod relictis Sorabis cum in Dalmatiam ad Lindemuslum Avunculum Bornae Ducis pervenisset, et aliquantum temporis cum eo moratus fuisset, dolo ipsius fuisset inter fectus." My point still stands though. Ludevit leaves the Serbs to go to Dalmatia. Again , explain to me why he would have to leave the Serbs to go to Dalmatia if the Serbs were already in Dalmatia. That makes no sense.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 13, 2011 20:52:07 GMT -5
Bulgarians Are Purely Indo-European, Not Turkic - Gene Study. Novinite.com Society | September 8, 2011, Thursday| 512 views
A peculiar Slavic-Mediterranean gene admixture is in the core of the Bulgarian nation, a new Bulgarian-Italian genetic study has revealed.
Gene probes of 855 Bulgarians, including individuals from the country's Islam population, have been gathered and compared with other European nations, Professor Draga Toncheva from the Sofia-based Medical University has explained in an interview for the Bulgarian National Radio.
The results have failed to show any Turkic connection in the Bulgarians nation's genesis, contrary to popular beliefs.
Croatians, Poles, Ukrainians and other Slavic nations are closest to Bulgarians, according to the study. However, Bulgarians are a peculiar type of Slavs, since they also have Mediterranean genes, head of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences' Microbiology Institute Angel Galabov has pointed out.
The Bulgarians' "peculiarity" has probably been the result of their contacts with ancient Thracians, scientists reckon.
The place of origin of the Ancient Bulgarians is most likely Eastern Iran, a group of anthropologists and scientists claimed in 2010 after an exploratory trip to the Persian lands.
Long-established theories about the making up of the Bulgarian ethnicity state that the Bulgarian nation was formed through the mixing of the Bulgarians with the local population made up of Slavs and some Thracians. Before 1989 the Bulgarians were believed to have been a minor tribe of Turkic origin.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 13, 2011 21:13:35 GMT -5
Priso, yes, Bulgars did absorb some Irannic peoples on their jouney to Europe, however to say their origins is Irannic is crazy. Bulgars never communicated in an Irannic tongue, their whole social structure was Turkic, even their founder of Danube Bulgaria, Asparuch, built his capital in Turkic style.
PS Before any stupid BuLgarin tells me that the name Asparuch is Irannic, yes, that is true, but this is a borrowing you stupid Bunar BuLgari.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 13, 2011 21:31:46 GMT -5
Chento, l don't believe the BuLgari and this gene study doesn't reflect on the 5% Turanid *Central Asian Turkic* phenotype that is found mainly in North East BuLgarska.
Ulf posted a study that found 5% central asian genes in the modern Bulgarian gene pool.
Chento, Bulgarians are not pure Indo-Europeans. Their propaganda about originating from the pamirs is breath-takingly stupid.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 13, 2011 21:57:53 GMT -5
Chento, l don't believe the BuLgari and this gene study doesn't reflect on the 5% Turanid *Central Asian Turkic* phenotype that is found mainly in North East Bu Lgarska. Ulf posted a study that found 5% central asian genes in the modern Bulgarian gene pool. Chento, Bulgarians are not pure Indo-Europeans. Their propaganda about originating from the pamirs is breath-takingly stupid. 5% in NE Bulgaria sounds right to me. Yes, some of the theories are a bit over the top.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 14, 2011 1:53:54 GMT -5
Serbs existed as a people before entering the roman empire, and before "slav" existed as a term. As for the Rascian comment, Stefan Vojislav is recorded as a Serb....from Duklja, not Rascia, and he precedes the Nemanjici. "Sorabi, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur.." - 882, Frankish annals "The Serbs, the nation which lives in Dalmatia..." Notice it is in latin, and yet "Sorabi" not Servos or some later Latin corruption... There is no record of the Serbs calling themselves Serbs before the Nemanjic's. Again , their country is called Rascia and they are Rascians just like the pre-Slovenes were Croat/ Carantian mixed. Serb was commonly used as subword for Slavs since it had the same meaning especially among the Greeks. The Frankish annals refer to Slavs in that instance because in the very next script ( one Serbs often ignore) Einhardt writes that Ludevit ( Posavian Croat ruler) took flight from Borna ( Dalmatian Croat ruler) i.e. in Dalmatia and went to the Serbs. If the 'ethnic Serbs' held Dalmatia as you say, why would Einhard write that a Posavian prine leaves Dalmatia to go to the Serbs if the Serbs are already supposed to be there? Serbs as an ethnicity was born with Rastko and his church. Sticking to the topic - about the Avars , there is no source tha mentions any kind of (ethnic) Serb encounter with the Avars. The Avars are mentioned going to war with Croats and Croats specifically over Dalmatia and Pannonia. Croats win petty much independently in Dalmatia and pledged loyalty to the Franks in Pannonia for their military assistance. Again this explains the probably Avar ancestry on Hvar since some Avars assimilated into the victorious Croats. Serbs - or the Slavs that would become 'ethnic Serbs' are mentioned at this time too but they are way down in Macedonia trying to decide whether to stay or not. As far as we know , they had no direct conflict with the Avars over Dalmatia which works as evidence against their presence there at all. maybe the town SERBIA in northern Greece, built by Serb settlers in 641 AD, might shed some light into this. Even your beloved source DAI mentions it. PS are you sure you haven't completely fu cked up with dates in your above text?
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 14, 2011 2:36:02 GMT -5
** Let me correct myself. I meant to say that Einhard writes that Ludevit left the Serbs to go to Dalmatia to his uncle Borna, not the other way around. "Allatum est Imperatori de interitu Lindeviti, quod relictis Sorabis cum in Dalmatiam ad Lindemuslum Avunculum Bornae Ducis pervenisset, et aliquantum temporis cum eo moratus fuisset, dolo ipsius fuisset inter fectus." My point still stands though. Ludevit leaves the Serbs to go to Dalmatia. Again , explain to me why he would have to leave the Serbs to go to Dalmatia if the Serbs were already in Dalmatia. That makes no sense. it says that he left the Serbs in Dalmatia to go to Lindemuslum to see his uncle.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 14, 2011 2:54:15 GMT -5
** Let me correct myself. I meant to say that Einhard writes that Ludevit left the Serbs to go to Dalmatia to his uncle Borna, not the other way around. "Allatum est Imperatori de interitu Lindeviti, quod relictis Sorabis cum in Dalmatiam ad Lindemuslum Avunculum Bornae Ducis pervenisset, et aliquantum temporis cum eo moratus fuisset, dolo ipsius fuisset inter fectus." My point still stands though. Ludevit leaves the Serbs to go to Dalmatia. Again , explain to me why he would have to leave the Serbs to go to Dalmatia if the Serbs were already in Dalmatia. That makes no sense. it says that he left the Serbs in Dalmatia to go to Lindemuslum to see his uncle. WOW!, you know latin? impressive man...
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 14, 2011 3:03:10 GMT -5
it says that he left the Serbs in Dalmatia to go to Lindemuslum to see his uncle. WOW!, you know latin? impressive man... i know italian (studied it for 2 years), and so just had to fill in the gaps.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 14, 2011 3:07:27 GMT -5
you know latin, i know greek, and so we can join forces for more debunking... it is unbelievable how many times i have seen cases here where the greek translation is wrong (or simply "adjusted" to suit the needs of some fabricator).
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 14, 2011 7:06:01 GMT -5
** Let me correct myself. I meant to say that Einhard writes that Ludevit left the Serbs to go to Dalmatia to his uncle Borna, not the other way around. "Allatum est Imperatori de interitu Lindeviti, quod relictis Sorabis cum in Dalmatiam ad Lindemuslum Avunculum Bornae Ducis pervenisset, et aliquantum temporis cum eo moratus fuisset, dolo ipsius fuisset inter fectus." My point still stands though. Ludevit leaves the Serbs to go to Dalmatia. Again , explain to me why he would have to leave the Serbs to go to Dalmatia if the Serbs were already in Dalmatia. That makes no sense. it says that he left the Serbs in Dalmatia to go to Lindemuslum to see his uncle. It says he left the Serbs and when in Dalmatia he went to his uncle Borna. Basically , he left the Serbs and went to his uncle in Dalmatia. Again , how does it make sense that he left the people in the place he was at to go to the exact same place? The statement is redundent and doesn't make sense. A few points for you to consider about the entire chronicle instead of reading only passage 822 where the Sorabs(Slavs) are said to have majority of Dalmatia : 1. When the chronicle talks about the war raging in what is modern day northern Croatia , western Bosnia, and parts of Dalmatia , no where are 'Sorabs' metioned in these lands not even as an insignficant factor. The only Serbs mentioned are the Serbian allies who are the Timoks who broke free from the Bulgarians. They lived on the territory of modern day Serbia. This is where Sorab Slavs are first mentioned in the chronicle and are distinguished from Ljudevit's realm. 2. But there happens to be one small passage that mentions the Sorabs in greater Dalmatia but this is inconclusive with all other chronicles written about Dalmatia at the time. The DAI specifically mentions the conflict involving the Franks from which Einhard hails and it is only the Croats mentioned in Dalmatia when they rebel against their rule. 3. Whats even more bizzare is that Ljudevit was in conflict with the "Sorabs" he supposedly fled to. Einhard mentions that he murders their leader and seizes his city and begins to rule it. The small town of 'Srb' which has no direct connection with the Serbian ethnos is likely the town in question. It isn't documented anywhere the Serbs built any cities in Dalmatia and 'Srb' has a different meaning in Croatian. ( We can discuss the origin of the town's name if you wish.) 4. Again Einhard basically says the Ljudevit not only took refuge among the 'Sorabs' but then conquered their city ( what else but Srb?) but then when he left he didn't leave any heirs or rulers in his name. Then he leaves those Sorabs and goes to Dalmatia to his uncle. How can he leave the place he was at to go to the same place? It's like saying Priso left his friends in California to go to California to see his uncle the governer of California. Lol? And most importantly is to consider the relative size of Dalmatia during the chronicle. Dalmatia was almost 5 times its current size extending into Western Serbia in which the ancestors of the Serbs certainly lived at the time. In fact that area of Dalmatia was called Dalmatia greater or Dalmatia superior which makes Einhard's Sorab in the greater part of Dalmatia statement seem less strange. And the Serbs were mentioned near here as allies also known as Timoks who broke away from the Bulgarians. Ljudevit's realm and people are distinguished from the Serbs in the chronicle itself. Just bother to read it. Borna is mentioned as a Croat ruler in other chronicles and the Franks are mentioned battling Croats in other sources talking about this time. Not even Einhard ever mentions the Serbs going into conflict with the Franks which it is well known there was a huge battle between Slavs of Dalmatia ( Croats) and the Franks.
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Sept 14, 2011 8:11:09 GMT -5
Before they entered Europe, they were from modern-day Iran. There language has many things in common with Persian (like the word Gorod/Grad coming from Persian word "Jerd" ("Gerd" before Arab invasions). And they're genetics has a lot in common with the Iranians today. Early Iranians(say about 1000 BC) were akin to modern Slavs, modern are closer to Arabs Iranians are Persians they're closer to Arabs and Indians by recent genetic tests. Other than that they have other ethnic groups in Iran as in Azerbaijanis ( Oghuz Turks ) Armenians and Georgians. Azerbaijanis are not Iranic they are Turkic if you want to get technical then Turkified Huns they came during the Safavid Empire and they're a Central Asian Turkic ethnic group
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Sept 14, 2011 8:13:56 GMT -5
Also why connect Serbians to Turkic blood? Because some of them have a tan and dark hair?
The Latins in the Levant the Aryans in Iran ( LOL ) and the Trojans in Turkiye
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 14, 2011 8:18:51 GMT -5
"zerbaijanis are not Iranic they are Turkic if you want to get technical then Turkified Huns they came during the Safavid Empire and they're a Central Asian Turkic ethnic group"
I thought the Azerbaijanis were Turkified Irannics?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 14, 2011 9:38:22 GMT -5
Ahh but there are theories that state that the old Bulgars were of Irannic origin, and these are gaining significant popularity over the 'Turkic/Mongolic' theories. The name Bulgar may be of Turkic origin, it is possible, however, it's not a fact. There are several interpretations of its origin. If you're going to focus on a single theory, it would be beneficial if you acquaint yourself with all the rest.. otherwise you just look very ignorant.
Ok so you're aware of this. However, were you aware of the fact that the name Asparuh was originally labeled as 'Turkic'? It kept that label until it was later proven to have been of Irannic origin. By the looks of it, the same thing is happening with the theories on the origins of the Bulgars.
This is an interesting point. I mean all South-Slavs are in that one South-Slavic category, however, Bulgarians and Macedonians form a unique category of their own that is different from all other Slavs.
In all fairness, the study that Ulf posted was of just over 100 people if I remember correctly. The study that Chentovist posted is of more than 800 people. I think that a greater sample space yields higher accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 14, 2011 12:16:42 GMT -5
priso, you (or whoever) just translated it incorrectly, because it literally says "he left the serbs while in dalmatia, to meet his uncle "" ""." meaning that his uncle was outside of dalmatia.
It wouldn't make sense the way you're reading it, even if he meant 'slavs' instead of 'serbs'.
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Sept 14, 2011 12:47:42 GMT -5
"zerbaijanis are not Iranic they are Turkic if you want to get technical then Turkified Huns they came during the Safavid Empire and they're a Central Asian Turkic ethnic group" I thought the Azerbaijanis were Turkified Irannics? They're Turkified Huns they're a Central Asian Turkic ethnic group Bulgarians are South Eastern Europeans Serbians are Eastern Europeans so are Albanians Caucasus people just belong to the Pontanic Steppe
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 15, 2011 1:22:53 GMT -5
priso, you (or whoever) just translated it incorrectly, because it literally says "he left the serbs while in dalmatia, to meet his uncle "" ""." meaning that his uncle was outside of dalmatia. It wouldn't make sense the way you're reading it, even if he meant 'slavs' instead of 'serbs'. that is minor details for Radiate. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 15, 2011 6:54:50 GMT -5
*wishes he were Avar*
|
|