What is the origin of the ancient Bulgarians? A new hypothesis about their Indo-European origin. The ancient Bulgarians are connected directly with the Yuezhi - Tocharians in Central Asia and form themselves as a people in the Sarmatian... more
What is the origin of the ancient Bulgarians? A new hypothesis about their Indo-European origin. The ancient Bulgarians are connected directly with the Yuezhi - Tocharians in Central Asia and form themselves as a people in the Sarmatian community.
The issue of Bulgarians and the Bulgarian States has an important place in terms of General Turkish History. Because these ancient people lived religion and politics intertwined. On the one hand, while accepting Islam in the official... more
The issue of Bulgarians and the Bulgarian States has an important place in terms of General Turkish History. Because these ancient people lived religion and politics intertwined. On the one hand, while accepting Islam in the official sense, while experiencing the distinction of being the first Turkish State on the other, they were able to adopt Christianity and become slavicized. In this respect, if we want to understand the peoples of today's Balkan region correctly, we should start by knowing the Bulgarians. Because the Bulgarians have become our western side in terms of both present and past Turkish history. In our study, we will try to understand how close the Bulgarians are to us and why they are so far away.
This is such a tiny revision of the work of giants of the field that it really is hard to tell the difference, not worth discussing among gentlemen really. We propose that possibly this comes from *Won-ogur-dur meaning we would think... more
This is such a tiny revision of the work of giants of the field that it really is hard to tell the difference, not worth discussing among gentlemen really. We propose that possibly this comes from *Won-ogur-dur meaning we would think 'Companions of the On-ogur', which by a curious coincidence would account for the meaning as well as the form. We also discuss a bit more the ungodly mess that has been made of the question of z ~ r in Turkic, noting that oguz ~ ogur is one of the words (kulawuz ~ kolobVr is another) where r is attested half a millennium before Benzing, Scherner, Doerfer, and Georg allow it--and they of course know better than me. But do they really know better than Lars Johansson, whose review of Scherner has apparently been ignored, and above all than Markwart 1929 who agrees with me (and the facts) and whom Benzing, for reasons unknown (maybe patriotism as they both from the same part of Germany?) cites specifically as the ultimate authority on all the relevant points while completely contradicting him (and inventing a whole bunch of stuff that as Swift's Houyhnhnms would have said is not". Or maybe I am wrong: maybe Chingiz Khan did speak proto-Mongolian, maybe names like Onogur appeared in the 13th century, maybe there was no such language as medieval Polish or modern Czech. But at least Markwart does say what I say, and Benzing, who was a great scholar and whom other scholars even greater follow, did say we should all listen to Markwart. So don't shoot the messenger. It really is not my fault that at a tender age I learned to read and understand simple German. And of course my etymology is all wrong, in the same way that as we know the word Czechoslovakia consists of the root Cze- (maybe as in Che Guevara) and a string of suffixes. I also suggest a possible origin of Tengri as a Chuvashic or simply archaic Turkic form with rhotacism.
