|
Post by superman on Nov 17, 2007 9:02:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Nov 17, 2007 14:19:07 GMT -5
No, you are not Thracians, you bear the name of a Turkish tribe of nomad bandits and speak a Slavic language brought in by a primitive tribe of hungry savages. That Turkic-Slavic Asiatic mixture known today as Bulgarians stealed the ancient European lands of the Thracians who are OUR ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Nov 17, 2007 14:27:45 GMT -5
Thrace appears to be in a similar position as far as Illlyria goes.
Illyria is just a concept, name for a region (conglomeration of unrelated people) and not a cultural unity. Southern (original) Illyria culturally being fully Hellenistic, Histria being culturally fully Italic, village dwelling Dalmates and Iapodes being Celtic like in culture and forest dwelling Pannonians being German-like in culture. The name Illyria artificially binds all these unrelated people after regions becomes conquered by Rome.
Thrace is divided between southern culturally more advanced hellenistic Thrace (compare ti southern hellenistic Illyria) and northern culturally Celtic like mainly village dwelling cultures (same goes for Dacians).
Hellenistic Illyria and Hellenistic Thrace would have been very tied with the rest of the Hellenic world and same goes for intermixing (surely they would have felt no kinship with regions to the north of them which were culturally drastically different from them) thus can not be viewed as a unit with them and no amount of romanticism can change that.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Nov 17, 2007 19:48:23 GMT -5
I don't think same apply for Thrace.. It can't be compaired the way you did. North of Heamus.. there were Getti ppl and number of other Thracian tribes, (as well as the Tribali Thracians included).. Further more Dacians.. the northern branch. Southern Thrace was influenced more by the Hellenistic World, but still, they considered themselves as Thracians. Same apply to those Thracians in Asia Minor - Trojans, Mysians, Bythinians, Lydians etc. P.S. Actually the culture in the antiquity wasn't greek, but created both by Thracians and Hellenes.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Nov 17, 2007 20:24:49 GMT -5
Neither does it apply to Illyria. Most certainly there were 'non-Illyric' elements within the vaste territories inhabited by the ancient Illyrians (Albania & much of former Yugoslavia). You had Greek colonists along the coast throughout the Adriatic and along the Ioanian. You had Celtic tribes inhabiting parts of Northern Illyria, such as the Scordisci. You had Thracian elements in the eastern parts adjacent to Thrace & Moaesia. And finally, the Liburnii seem to have been non-Indoeuropean, hence unrelated to the other Illyrians.
However, the bulk of the people who inhabited Illyria weren't collectively called Illyrians for no reason. They were ethnically the same, with probable dialectical differences. One clear indication of this is that names uniquely refered to as 'Illyrian' were found throughout ancient Illyria, suggesting the Illyrians spoke the same language all over and bore the same anthroponyms. Thus, we have the names Bato, Monun & Pinees which were to be found throughout the Illyrian territories. Monun was for instance a king of the Taulantii. One Dardanian king was also called Monun. The leader of the Desidiatae who rose against Rome 6 AD was called Bato. His close ally, military commander (captain) of the Breucci of Pannonia, was likewise called Bato. Bato's king was named Pinnes, which was also the name of an Illyrian king of the Ardiae. Names with the root -bard were also common all over, and this word seems to be connected to the Albanian word for white, bardh. We have for example the king of the Enchelae, Bardyllus, who's name could be (perhaps) explained with the help of the Albanian words bardh + yll, i.e. white star. A gravestone in Serbia had inscripted the name Bardibalus, which might be explained by the Albanian words bardh + ballë, meaning white forehead. Many Illyrians were also simply named Bardus, perhaps related to the modern Albanian names with the root -bardh, i.e. Bardh, Bardhec, Bardhosh etc. -----------------------------
What concerns the Bulgarians and your affinity with the Thracians, I can say this; Bulgarians, genetically speaking, probably have alot of Thracian blood. But, I also believe that Bulgarian as a language has incorporated certain grammatical rules that generally do not characterize Slav languages, such as Serbian or Russian. On the contrary, Bulgarian has certain features which not only distinguishes it, but also makes it a member of the so called 'Balkan sprachbund', to which, for example, Albanian & Romanian belong. One characteristic is the addition of a suffix when signifying a definite article. Definite articles are, however, absent in all other Slav languages.
Albanian & Greek are the sole survivors of pre-Roman & pre-Slav languages. Greek is well known, but I believe Albanian holds alot of the keys to the unravelling of the Balkans' linguistic mysteries. Why? I believe Illyrian is the ancestor of Albanian. But I also believe Illyrian was related to Thracian and consequently Dacian, a language spoken by your probable ancestors. This would explain certain similiarities between Albanian and Thracian, the comparison of which has been able through the studying of what little Thracian vocabulary that has passed on to modern times.
For example, the Albanian word for mulberry is man. The Thracian word for blackberry is mantia. And finally the Illyrian word for bramblebush is mantia. Perhaps all the speakers of 'barbarian' tongues north of Greece spoke related languages or dialects of the same language. Who knows.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Nov 17, 2007 20:30:27 GMT -5
Well said, Donnie! I fully agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 18, 2007 2:04:57 GMT -5
All the traces leads to the fact that the ancestors were thracians/dacians.
|
|
|
Post by humbleman on Nov 18, 2007 6:37:58 GMT -5
Why is A of G being such a bad person, and ruining the atmosphere again?
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Nov 18, 2007 8:16:01 GMT -5
The voulgarians are not Thracians. Their name, language, customs, and looks show what they are: the descendants of turkic and slavic nomads. What is not turcik or slavic in their subculture is not Thracian but rather Romanian.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Nov 18, 2007 11:50:28 GMT -5
The voulgarians are not Thracians. Their name, language, customs, and looks show what they are: the descendants of turkic and slavic nomads. What is not turcik or slavic in their subculture is not Thracian but rather Romanian. That is quite stupid kind of conclusion..
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 18, 2007 12:25:38 GMT -5
AofG you should not speak like that with Bulgarians, let's be nice with them, after all, they are our neighbours.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Nov 22, 2007 15:11:31 GMT -5
The voulgarians are not Thracians. Their name, language, customs, and looks show what they are: the descendants of turkic and slavic nomads. What is not turcik or slavic in their subculture is not Thracian but rather Romanian. That is quite stupid kind of conclusion.. Actually that's the truth, if we except the Romanian contribution to the Bulgarian nation, the result is an Turkic-Slav mixture with other smaller Asiatic influences. You can dream as you like about the Thracians but there is not a single proof that you have anything to do with Thracians except the fact that you inhabit their old lands.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 22, 2007 16:29:05 GMT -5
You can dream as you like about the Thracians but there is not a single proof that you have anything to do with Thracians except the fact that you inhabit their old lands. Actually there are lots of proofs that we are desedants of the Thracians (and the Bulgars and the Slavs). First, the genetic researches. According to them we are Meditarenians, so we are local people that lived here before the Slavs and the Bulgars. There is little Slav influence in today Bulgarians and almost no genes, charcteristic for the Turanoids (IF we accept that the Bulgars were Turkick, because its still highly disputed). So this is a solid proof we are generally Thracians (BUT not only, the Slavs and the Bulgars have their role in our nation). Second, we have lots of Thracian words in our speech. Third, Bulgarian (which main lexic is Slavic) is part of the Balkan language union. It has grammatical charachteristics, found in the Romanian and the Albanian. According to most linguists, this is due to the fact that the lexic was adopted, but the grammarical structure of the Thracian language remained ( the Ilirian was similar to the Thracian acording to most, thats why the grammer in the 3 languages is quite similar). Adopting the slavic language could be easily explained with the decision of Boris I to pronounce it for official language(in the church and in the administration). Thus the Thracians and the Bulgars lost their llanguage and adopted the Slavic aka Old Bulgarian or Church Slavonic (at least those close to the capital). There is no proof also that the Thracians disappeared before the Bulgars and the Slavs. Actually the Bulgars and the Slavs passed through Romania before coming to Bulgaria. If they killed the Thracian how did the Romanians survived? Plus Romania was much more of a crossroad land. However the romanized Dacians overcome and assimilated the passsing tribes (including the Bulgars and the Slavs). Why this didnt happened in Bulgaria? Actually it did happen but the language became Slavic because well that was the official language of the state.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Nov 22, 2007 16:30:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Nov 23, 2007 4:15:20 GMT -5
(IF we accept that the Bulgars were Turkick, because its still highly disputed). It is only disputed in Danube Bulgaria, not in Russia, not in USA, not in the UK, not in Germany, not in Turkey, not in France, not in China, not in Iran, not in Australia. Here is a small extraction from the poem of Kul Ali (1212) who was a Volga Bolgar poet who died during the battle against Mongols. Lets hear what he says in Kissa-i Yusuf (Tales of Yusuf): Yusif uzre ehval nete keldugini, Kardesleri Yusif'a ne kildigini, Misir icre ulu melik uldigini, Nazim birle eyteyin, anlan imdi.It is no surprise that it is in Bolgar Turkish, and the poem expresses how Yusuf's brothers treated him, and how he ended up even the king of Egypt, and how the stories will be versed in the poetic tales of Yusuf. The key location at the confluence of the Volga and Kazanka Rivers has been occupied for millennia. For centuries it was part of the dominion of the Volga Bolgars who controlled trade on the Volga. This Turkish speaking people migrated up the Volga from the region between Don, Volga and Caucasus in the 7th century, while another part of their people migrated into the Balkans. The early history of the Volga Bolgars is closely tied to that of the Khazars, which in turn invariably turns to the two cities of Sarkel and Itil. Itil was a main Khazar center on the lower Volga. In the IXth century, Byzantine craftsmen built for the Khazars a fortress (Sarkel) on the Don, at the point, where it comes closest to the Volga. In the Xth century a similar request to have a fortress built on the middle course of the Volga, was made by the Bolgars to the caliph and Islam was introduced by the Khwarismites. The emissaries from the Caliph went around from Central Asia, to avoid the Khazar territory. Other Bulgars, settled in the lower Danube basin and accepted Christianity. www.xenophon-mil.org/ruscity/volga/kazan/kazan.htm
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 23, 2007 7:20:17 GMT -5
First, its not certain what people the Bulgarians were, from the scripts they left there are lots of Persian words, even Asparuch means "White Rider" in Persian. There are cities in Balkhara, that sound suspiciously like ours (Varnu is analog to the Bulgarian Varna, Shumin is analog to the Bulgarian Shumen). There is no proof the ruler was called khan, there is an inscription in which the ruler calls himself "kanasubigi" which in Persian means "ruler from heaven". Of course there are turkick words in their language. Still its not definite if they were Turkik. Nowadays Tatars may consider themselves Bolgar, but god knows what people settle among them and how drasticly they changed their composition. The origin of the Bulgar is disputed not only in Bulgaria.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Nov 23, 2007 8:17:46 GMT -5
Persian/Iranian language has an important effect on every Turkic tribe including the Volga Bolgars. Even today, there are thousands of words used in Turkish language, which were derived from the Persian. For example, words like "mehter", "padisah", "vezir", "ceri" are all derived from Persian. Khan was the nominal title that the Bolgars used, and they were closely related to the Khazars as the Khazar King also stipulated in the letter written in the 10th Century (about year 960): "Of what people, of what family, and of what tribe are you?" Know that we are descended from Japheth, through his son Togarmah. [In Jewish literature Togarmah is the father of all the Turks.] I have found in the genealogical books of my ancestors that Togarmah had ten sons. These are their names: the eldest was Ujur, the second Tauris, the third Avar, the fourth Uauz, the fifth Bizal, the sixth Tarna, the seventh Khazar, the eighth Janur, the ninth Bulgar, the tenth Sawir. [These are the mythical founders of tribes that once lived in the neighborhood of the Black and Caspian Seas.] I am a descendant of Khazar, the seventh son.www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/khazars1.htmlThis first Turkish state — if one may call it that — lasted for a century (circa 550-650) and then fell apart, leaving hardly any trace. However, it was only after the establishment of this kingdom that the name “Turk” was used to apply to a specific nation, as distinct from other Turkic-speaking peoples like the Khazars and Bulgars.[***]www.biblestudysite.com/13tribe.htm Where do the Bolgars of the Volga come from? As early as AD 550, Gothic annals mention the Turkic tribes of Bolgars living to the north of the Black Sea. The powerful state of the Bolgars in the Black Sea area held out in the wars with Byzantium, but fell under the pressure of the Turkic Khazars, a vanished people, who dominated much of Eurasia in the seventh century. From the descendants of these tribes who went wandering over Europe came the Balkan Bulgars, the Volga Bulgars, and even the Caucasia tribes of Balkars, Kumyks and Karachaevs. The founders of modern Bulgaria, today's Tatarstan and neighbouring Chuvashia were, in the fifth to seventh century, one and the same people. Though the Balkan Bulgars, having accepted Christianty, soon lost their Turkic characteristics, nonetheless they preserved the old name of their country. The Kazan Tatars, on the other hand, preserved everything except their name. Such are the paradoxes of history.www.kcn.ru/tat_en/history/capital.htmlSouth Slavic peoples, in the centuries prior to the 9th, found themselves extruded into the boiling cauldron of demographic change in the lower Danube valley, along the vital defensive frontier of Byzantium, northwest of Constantinople. These Slavs were pressured in all directions, but the most important force was the first great epoch of Turkic expansion into Eastern Europe.
Under the command of Bulgar [Turkic] boyars [Slavic word for military commanders or leaders] or Hunnic chieftains, they drifted even further southwest, forming what was to become a great Christian tsardom "Bulgaria". In the two centuries up to about 700, the south Slavic villagers in the lower Danube valley "Slavicized" their Turkic boyars, filled the countryside of what is modern-day Bulgaria, and founded a powerful Christian Bulgarian tsardom [W] and [MAP]
*--The Turkic Bulgars who did not move into the Danube valley, who held to the wild eastern steppes, eventually were pushed by Khazar expansion northward up the Volga valley in the lands around the city Kazan where they formed a significant Islamic or Muslim Bolgar khanate.
*--Bolgar khanate is here spelled with an "o" to distinguish Danube Bulgars from Volga Bolgars on SACwww.uoregon.edu/~kimball/sac.0000.1682.htm
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 23, 2007 8:50:32 GMT -5
I dont say the theory they are Turkic isnt strong, I say there are also other possibilities that are being explored right now.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Nov 23, 2007 9:10:31 GMT -5
I dont say the theory they are Turkic isnt strong, I say there are also other possibilities that are being explored right now. I do not think that Bolgars or anybody else who used to live in the Eurasian steppes were pure. After all, there were no borders, and possibilities were almost endless.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 23, 2007 9:30:45 GMT -5
of course, i agree with this.
|
|