> *****GK: Well the Proto-Bulgarians arrived on the
> territory of present day Bulgaria about a century
> after the Slavs, whom they conquered. They remained
> distinct from their Slavic subjects and associates
> (who outnumbered them by a considerable margin) for
> about two centuries.
There is argument on whether they outnumbered them. There is also a
claim this was a part of the whole Communist fabrication. Bulgarians
had to be belittled to make it look like they had no contribution to
Bulgarian culture. This is not true. Note those family relationship
words (bashta, kaka, bate, sholjo, bulka, chicho, lelja) and the
names of traditional clothing and musical instruments. Our culture
(and note especially the music) is very different from what you
usually associate with Slavic or European. The irregular rhythmic
patterns of our folk music (which is also very chromatic) make every
outsider stumble. My beloved Germans in the choir choked with a folk
song for half a year and finally, to make it look like more than
nothing, sang it twice as slow as it should be sung. Here is a link
to my godmother's webpage, where you can hear some of what I mean:
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/6107/
I deeply believe this is not Slavic and not Turkic. So what is it?
Don't say Greek. I have been amazed how quickly an Indian can learn
a Bulgarian song or simply reproduce something said in Bulgarian with
an almost perfect accent. He does not seem to be scared of the
chromatic sound and the strange rhythms of our songs. Just an
observation.
From the 10th c. the term
> "Bulgarian" refers to a new Slavic-speaking amalgam.
> THAT is what survived until our times.
That's clear. Now the argument is that the Protobulgarians were
actually numerous. This is not an unsupported argument. It is
reflected in historical sources and confirmed by logical
considerations. A Jewish friend of mine, who cannot be accused of
too much patriotism, once said she also wondered how the Bulgars,
being so very few, managed to rip off this territory from Byzantium,
right next to Constantiople, where the Slavs had been living for
centuries without managing to do anything similar. Note that the
Bulgars are described as a nomadic tribe, underdeveloped culturally
(huh? Gesa Fecher rejected this theory based on archeological
evidence, but was silenced by the Commies), so the Byzantines must
have turned particularly stupid at this particular moment in history
to allow the Bulgarians to found Bulgaria. And how, in addition to
that, did the Bulgars manage to organize the Slavs, rule them, give
them much of their culture of governance and military skill (the
latter according to Fecher), etc., if they were so awfully few and
melted among them? They must have been real magicians, because what
they did had an effect for centuries.
The
> Proto-Bulgarians were assimilated by the 10th c. I see
> no evidence that it is THEIR "culture of governance"
> which was responsible for the historical rebirths of
> Bulgaria.
You mean, after the Byzantine rule? No one is trying to say our
culture was not predominantly Slavic after Boris. It was a logical
political choice to choose a single language and a single religion
and stadardize them, which had its long-term effects. Governing
methods had ideed changed very much till the 10th century, but I
never implied we still have those methods today (ahh, wishful
thinking). Yet we call ourselves Bulgarians and our culture is still
very Bulgarian, in spite of the Slavic and other European
influences. As I have said, I do not measure things one against the
other, I just think no side should be ignored and denied proper
research.
The "Bulgaria" known to my Old Ukrainian
> ancestors in the early 12th c. was ruled by Pecheneg
> warlords, and the 2nd Bulgarian State was largely the
> creation of subsequently Slavicized Vlachs.******
I never studied anything of the kind, sincerely. Source?
> *****GK: This is perfectly understandable. I have the
> same attitude towards the history of the Late (Ulch)
> Huns, whose "culture of governance" helped to
> "organize" the territory of Central Ukraine in the
> 5th-8th c.******
It was exactly Joseph of Khazaria who said that Bulgarians are more
numerous than the sand in the sea. I am also interested in Khazaria,
of course. It must have inherited something of what The Great
Bulgaria of Kubrat was. Just as Russia must have inherited something
of what the Ukraine was. Yet this topic was not beloved in the USSR.
But interesting where this thread about "the culture of governance"
stems from in both our historiographies.
Eva