Re: Yers

> >(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.
>
> Exactly. It is so to speak thoroughly "Balkanic"

Which means?

and, thus,

> quite different from the Turkish-Turkic music --
> from everywhere between Turkey and Manchuria (including
> that exotic "Kehlgesang", Chöömi, which is so characteristic
> to East-Turkistan, Tuva and Mongolia). But Bulgarian
> folklore is very close to the neighbours' music and dances
> (up to the Northern slopes of the Carpathians).

The question is, how it turned out to be "Balkanic" and reach the
northern slopes of the Carpathians (which were the Asparukh
Bulgaria at a time). Much of what is now the Balkans was
Bulgaria for centuries and many of the songs in question are
archaic - I don't think they are the result of a later mixture, since
you can still tell the pattern one from the other. As to Greek
music, I will disagree. They have the "hora", but they don't have
the singing and the rhythms. Serbs do have similar patterns, but
mostly with regard to the rounddances again. You really need to
hear a lot of songs in order to see what I mean, not just a few.

>
> >I deeply believe this is not Slavic and not Turkic. So what is

it?

> >Don't say Greek.
>
> Alex will tell you! ;-)

But it is really not Greek. It is just my intuitive Richtigkeitsgefühl.
The other version would be to dress this statement in musical
terminology, which I will not do now.

>
> >That's clear. Now the argument is that the Protobulgarians

were

> >actually numerous.
>
> Perhaps they were as numerous as the Hungarians (Magyars

as

> well as tribes of Turkic and Iranic languages, accompanied by
> Slavic emigrants), as these arrived Pannonia around 896 (after
> having left Ukraine).

In 896 Bulgaria was an enormous state, touching on three seas,
as far as I remember. I am not quite clear on the exact years, but
it is either the rule of Boris I or the beginning of Simeon I. Which
means Bulgaria was enormous, had its Golden age, when most
of the OCS texts were written, more than 7000 churches (if
memory does not lie) were built and the development of culture
reached a level which brought to the borrowing of many
innovations (e.g. in the field of architecture) on the part of
Byzantium. You can simply assume that Bulgaria was a huge
state at this moment, with huge cultural influence on its
surroundings. Some time earlier Tervel and Omurtag called
themselves rulers of many Bulgarians, while they always named
the Slavs separately, so that confusion was not possible at the
time.

BTW, the Bulghar ruling house might have

> been related to the ruling house of the Hungarians (the

Arpadians).

Fecher wrote on this. And stated Bulgarians imported military
technique to the Hungarians. The Volga Bulgaria was also
founded by Bulgars and Magyars.

> Sources considered these also to have been Turks (at least

the

> upper class).

Magyars were, according to what I know, no Turks, but Turkic,
yes.

> Thanks to... armed forces. Territories have always been
> conquered by warriors (soldiers=).

But not kept by them.

And the mounted forces of

> the "Scythic-Turanic" kind were a real military menace to

Europe in

> the time span between, say, Atilla and Temüdjin-Dhinghis's
> sons and nephews.

It was not quite this menace, because the menace built
forstresses in this case. I have also read the archeological
findings in, say, Humar, are connected with Bulgarians. Dobrev
wrote a book on the agriculture of Protobulgarians (long before
his linguistic attempts) and said they had very developed
agriculture and that the Bulgars, coming at the Volga brought the
local peoples the plough. Fecher wrote the same, after studying
the archeological evidence at Pliska and comparing it with the
data given by the old Byzantine sources.

I think it is a mistake to associate the Bulgars with the Huns and
just with nomads. They show many features of a culturally
developed, "settled" society. I do agree some Bulgarian tribes
were probably associated with the Huns.

>
> >Note that the
> >Bulgars are described as a nomadic tribe, underdeveloped

culturally

> >(huh? Gesa Fecher rejected this theory based on

archeological

>
> Actually the Bulgars in general, those initially all living in "Great
> Bulgaria", between Kama and Volga and the Urals, are meant.

Are you assuming the Asparukh Bulgarians were different?

But what you say strongly deviates from what Armenians write on
the Bulgars (it was a Bulgarian tribe or tribes that moved down at
settled at Van). They even describe them as christianized (not
completely). The latest theories are that Tervel and Omurtag
(and probably Asparukh) were Christians. In archeological
findings, inscriptions with their images covered with crosses
appeal to Virgin Mary to save the Khan.

>
> by Ahmed Zeki Validi Togan (a Bashkir turkologist, who also

taught in Austria

> and Germany), as quoted in Art Köstler's book "The 13th tribe"

You mean this is the source for the above quotes? Which old
authors is he relying on?

> Much as their cousins, Khazars and Hungarians respectively
> did. :)

Which should tell us something?

>
> >Yet we call ourselves Bulgarians and our culture is still
> >very Bulgarian
>
> The wording makes a difference though: the Bulgars, and the
> Bulgarians.

No, we say BUlgari (pl.), in my language.

>
> >I just think no side should be ignored and denied proper
> >research.
>
> There has been a lot of research though on Bulgars who
> once inhabited what's today Bashkiria, i.e. territories
> North-East of Khazaria. And only a branch of them migrated
> to what's today Bulgaria and Hungary, others stayed put
> (and were the ancestors of today's Chuvashes and Bashkirs).

Exactly. And not much research is done on this. I think the
Chuvash and Bashkirs are not exactly our "brothers" (although
we should be happy to have another bunch of brothers). They
are the result of a great mixing in the region. Which does not
stop me from being awfully interested in this region (Ukraine, the
Caucasus and Armenia, plus Pamir and Hindukush for my own
tough-headed reasons).

>
> >I never studied anything of the kind, sincerely. Source?
>
> Methinks he means Asen bros. (Ivan, Peter and Yannis "the
> Handsome").

So they are supposed to be vlasi? I have never heard such a
theory.


Eva