Hvor stammer bulgarerne fra?

Hvor stammer bulgarerne fra?

Bulgarien blev dannet for 1339 år siden. (Brød derefter op et par gange.)

I skolen (slutningen af ​​90'erne) fik vi at vide

I 681 indtog slaviske stammer den nordlige grænse for det vestromerske imperium. Nogle dudes (anført af kong Asparuh) (kommer fra et sted ved navn Great Bulgaria; aldrig placeret på kortet) ankom på heste. De lokale accepterede dem fredeligt og dermed blev Bulgarien dannet.

Jeg har en tendens til at tro på det (givet en børnorienteret definition affredeligt). Men hvor kom de nomader fra?

Ideen om hestebarbarer er yderligere imponeret over den anden belejring af Konstantinopel.

I skolebøgerne blev det også stærkt understreget, at de var tengrist i religion. Således ville jeg ikke udelukke mongolsk oprindelse.

'Ahmad ibn Fadlan' blev i år 921 sendt på en rejse gennem Europa for at prædike islam til 'Volga Bulgars' (i dag Rusland). Han beskrev i sit berømte manuskript (jeg kan desværre ikke finde det nu, men jeg ved godt det er tilgængeligt online), at Balkan ikke er forskellig fra enhver tyrkisk ELLER barbar (i min fortolkning).

Bulgarer har også en tendens til at have mørkere hud end russere.

Hvor fra?


Bulgarer og ungarere har faktisk meget forskellige historier. Ingen af ​​dem kunne virkelig siges at have nogensinde været Tyrkere1, selvom de måske har lånt nogle ting fra middelalderens tyrkiske talere.


Bulgarer: Den aktuelle Wikipedia -post viser diplomatisk 3 kulturelle forfædre komponenter til bulgarere:

  1. Thrakiske borgere blev tilbage fra den tid, dette område var under kontrol af det byzantinske imperium.
  2. Bulgars, et semi-nomadisk tyrkisk folk, der begyndte at flytte ind i området i midten af ​​det 7. århundrede.
  3. Tidlige slaver, der flyttede ind i det dyrkbare land, som nomadetyrkerne affolkede på Balkan omkring dette tidspunkt.

Det er dog ret let at se, hvilken kultur der var den dominerende, og hvilke to der lige havde lånt nogle ting fra sproget. Det første bulgarske imperium i slutningen af ​​det 7. århundrede brugte den lokale tyrkiske Bulgar som sit officielle sprog (sammen med græsk), men i slutningen af ​​det 9. skiftede til den slaviske gamle bulgarsk, den direkte forfader til moderne bulgarsk. Så klart her den slaviske kulturelle komponent vandt.


Ungarere:

Historien her er lidt ens, men med forskellige sæt mennesker og måske lidt mere interessant. I det meste af middelalderen spænder folk, der talte finsk-ugariske sprog og dyrkede pastorale teknikker med lav densitet som rensdyr, sandsynligvis overalt i Nordeuropa, der var for koldt til traditionel landbrugsaktivitet eller til Altaicens hestebaserede pastoralisim.

Her er et kort over den moderne distribution af denne sprogfamilie:

Det grønne yderområde på Balkan er naturligvis ungarerne.

Det der tilsyneladende er sket var, at denne ene gruppe finsk-ugriske talere engang omkring det første århundrede hentede pastoralisim fra deres naboer2. Dette er en meget stor kulturpakke, men af ​​en eller anden grund bevarede de nok af deres identitet til at beholde deres sprog. De blev først kendt for historien som magyarerne, længst vest for de eurasiske pastoralister i midten af ​​det 9. århundrede.

Der er tilfældigvis et godt stort græsareal i Østeuropa, Alföld i det moderne Ungarn. Dette gjorde dette område til et meget fristende mål for pastoralister gennem middelalderen. Magyarerne var tilfældigvis de sidste eurasiske pastoralister til at erobre det og hænge fast i det længe nok til at lægge rødder. Magyar er i dag kendt som et alternativt navn for det ungarske sprog samt den etniske gruppe, der primært taler det.


1 - Dette svar blev fusioneret fra et andet spørgsmål, der også spurgte om ungarere og tyrkere, og derfor er der også meget indhold i det om de to folk. Jeg har efterladt dette materiale i, fordi jeg synes, at det stadig er interessant, hvis det nu er lidt off-topic

2 - Ja, disse navngivne eksempler på mennesker kunne godt have været tyrkiske talere. I betragtning af geografien og timingen er det imidlertid meget mere sandsynligt, at indoeuropæere som iranerne eller måske endda de germanske østrogoter er. En anden fjernmulighed er hunerne (hvem de end var).


Der er forskel på en bulgarsk og en bulgarsk.

En bulgar var medlem af en middelalderlig gruppe af nomader, der rejste vestpå gennem Asien og ind i Europa.

En bulgarer er en moderne borger i et land kaldet Bulgarien.

Moderne bulgarere stammer for det meste fra en blanding af romerske borgere af forskellig etnisk oprindelse, der bor i den nordøstlige del af Balkan, og slaviske angribere og immigranter fra nord, der bosatte sig der i generationer fra omkring AD 600; med en mindre blanding af bulgarske forfædre, der generationer efter slaverne gjorde det, invaderede og bosatte sig i det, der til sidst blev Bulgarien.

Så enhver moderne bulgarer stammer for det meste fra folk, der var i Bulgarien, før bulgarerne ankom, og kun med en lille procentdel af afstamning fra bulgarerne.

Bulgarerne, der ankom til Bulgarien, ankom fra det gamle Store Bulgarien, det seneste sted, deres forfædre havde bosat sig i.

Bulgars (også Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari, [1] Proto-Bulgarians [2]) var tyrkiske semi-nomadiske krigerstammer, der blomstrede i den pontisk-kaspiske steppe og Volga-regionen i løbet af det 7. århundrede. De blev kendt som nomadiske ryttere i Volga-Ural-regionen, men nogle forskere siger, at deres etniske rødder kan spores til Centralasien. [3] Under deres vandring mod vest over den eurasiske steppe absorberede bulgarske stammer andre etniske grupper og kulturelle påvirkninger i en etnogeneseproces, herunder indoeuropæiske, finno-ugriske ogunniske stammer. [4] [5] [6] [7] [ 8] [9] Moderne genetisk forskning om centralasiatiske tyrkiske mennesker og etniske grupper relateret til bulgarerne peger på en tilknytning til vestlige eurasiske befolkninger. [9] [10] [11] Bulgarerne talte et tyrkisk sprog, dvs. bulgarske sprog i den uguriske gren. [12] De bevarede de militære titler, organisation og skikke ved eurasiske stepper, [13] samt hedensk shamanisme og tro på himmelen guddom Tangra. [14]

Bulgarerne blev semi-stillesiddende i løbet af det 7. århundrede i den pontisk-kaspiske steppe, hvilket fastslog den gamle storbulgarias c. 635, som blev besejret af Khazar -imperiet i 668 e.Kr.

I c. 679, erobrede Khan Asparukh Scythia Minor og åbnede adgang til Moesia og etablerede det danubiske Bulgarien - det første bulgarske imperium, hvor bulgarerne blev en politisk og militær elite. De fusionerede efterfølgende med etablerede byzantinske befolkninger, [15] [16] samt med tidligere bosatte slaviske stammer, og blev til sidst slaviciseret og dannede dermed forfædre til moderne bulgarere. [17]

De resterende Pontic Bulgars migrerede i det 7. århundrede til Volga -floden, hvor de grundlagde Volga Bulgarien; de bevarede deres identitet langt ind i 1200 -tallet. [12] Volgatatarer og Chuvash -folk hævder at have stammer fra Volga Bulgars. [12] [18]

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars [1]

Og før det kom de fra steder længere øst, som mange andre nomadiske grupper.

Anyway, Wikipedia -artiklen er et første sted at begynde at undersøge Bulgars oprindelse.

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars


Genetisk undersøgelse viser, at ungarerne er efterkommere af hunerne

Ifølge hvg.hu ser det ud til, at argumentet om ungarernes Hun-oprindelse genopstår. Baseret på analysen af ​​fund fra tidspunktet for den ungarske erobring, fastslår genetikere, at vores forfædres DNA var ganske lig hunerne. Desuden antager de, at det ikke var erobrerne, der talte det ungarske sprog, men avarerne, der boede i Karpaterbassinet, da ungarerne ankom.

Arkæologisk genetik er et ungt felt inden for videnskab, som forsøger at rekonstruere historiske begivenheder og oprindelse ved hjælp af DNA hovedsageligt udvundet af knoglerester. De ældste fund, der med succes blev analyseret genetisk, er titusinder år gamle. Historieforfatterne fra DoMyWriting understreger, at det var sådan forskere fandt ud af, at neandertaleren ikke forsvandt helt, fordi 2-4% af menneskeligt DNA stammer fra dem.

Tibor Török og hans team studerer erobrernes genetik ved genetisk afdeling ved University of Szeged. Forskerne forsøger at finde ud af ungarernes forhistorie ved at analysere mitokondrielt DNA (mtDNA) ekstraheret fra knoglerester.

I deres undersøgelse kom de til den overraskende konklusion, at erobreren af ​​ungarerne delvist stammer fra hunerne.

Denne opfattelse, som var dominerende i lang tid, blev påstået at være falsk ved den sproglige/arkæologiske tilgang fra den sidste tid. Så det er ikke overraskende, at de genetiske fund støder ganske meget i den videnskabelige verden.

Flere undersøgelser har vist, at kun 4% af DNA’et fra nutidens ungarere viser asiatisk oprindelse. Dette er dog stadig den højeste sats sammenlignet med nabolande, hvilket sandsynligvis skyldes tilstrømningen Hun, Avar. Men Szeged -forskergruppen er også interesseret i komponenterne i de resterende 96%. Det ser ud til, at størstedelen af ​​komponenterne kan findes i det gamle europæiske lag i yngre stenalder-bronzealder. Flere detaljer kunne findes ved en detaljeret, velstruktureret genetisk størrelse.

Hvad angår genetikken hos ungarske erobrere, fandt forskerne en 30-40% asiatisk komponent. Det faktum, at denne sats er faldet til 4% betyder, at de undersøgte erobrere bidrog til det genetiske ansigt hos nutidens ungarere i 10%. Da der ikke skete nogen større befolkningsændring i Karpaterne efter erobringen, understøtter resultaterne tidligere data, ifølge hvilke der ikke var mange erobrere.

Forskergruppen brugte meget tid på at forsøge at finde ud af oprindelsen til den asiatiske komponent. De ændrede størrelsen på hele mtDNA -genomet for at få så mange oplysninger som muligt. Teoretisk set kan den asiatiske komponent stammer fra finsk-ugriske nationer, skytere, hunere og avarer. De ekskluderede den finsk-ugriske oprindelse med det samme og kom til den konklusion, at det var hunerne, der passede bedst til konceptet. Bidraget fra de to andre grupper kan dog ikke udelukkes fuldstændigt.

Ifølge Tibor Török er arkæologers tilgang i dag for det meste bestemt af den finsk-ugriske teori. Selvom dette faktisk ikke er en arkæologisk teori, da resterne af erobrerne indebærer en steppekultur. Ikke desto mindre reagerede arkæologer ganske negativt på resultaterne af den nye undersøgelse, fordi de mener, at den sproglige relation er uafhængig af den genetiske relation, så forskergruppen modsiger et ikke-eksisterende synspunkt.

Alligevel mener teamet i Tibor Török fast, at lingvistik og genetik ikke er helt uafhængige af hinanden.

Desuden hævder den dominerende teori, at det ungarske sprog blev bragt af erobrerne, så forskere ville tro, at de havde flere genetiske udskrifter end nutidens ungarere. Også akademikere stammer stadig fra erobrerne fra proto-Uraliske nationer, da ingen er kommet med et bedre alternativ. Han tilføjede, at det siger ret meget, hvis nogen bliver så vred over at høre Hun -affiniteten.

Erobrernes sociale lag er et af de vigtigste arkæologiske spørgsmål. I lang tid blev de betragtet som en væbnet elite af få. Det virkelige spørgsmål vedrører tallene, fordi nogle få elite ikke kunne bringe sproget, eller i det mindste ikke kunne gøre deres sprog dominerende over for mængden. Selvom de genetiske data for omkring to hundrede erobrere understøtter denne idé, begyndte undersøgelsen af ​​almindelige menneskers "barer" kirkegårde først for nylig.

Den anden hovedudtalelse i undersøgelsen er, at ungarsk kunne have været sproget for de mennesker, der allerede boede i Karpaterbassinet, da erobrerne ankom.

Dette ville betyde Avar -befolkningen, men forskergruppen gik ikke så langt som til at oplyse, at de talte ungarsk, fordi de ikke kan drage sproglige konklusioner fra generne. Denne hypotese er faktisk ikke ny blandt arkæologers og historikeres debatter.

De genetiske data ser også ud til at understøtte denne teori, da Onoğur -bulgarerne talte tyrkisk, og hvis det virkelig var et Onoğur -team, få i antal, der foretog erobringen, så må de have fundet sproget på plads. Hvis denne hypotese er sand, kunne kun befolkningen i Avar -tiden tages i betragtning, når man leder efter de mennesker, der taler sproget, og selvfølgelig ikke høvdinge, fordi de sandsynligvis var en tilsvarende lille elite, som de ungarske erobrere var .

Alt i alt ser deres fund ud til at understøtte den velkendte hypotese, ifølge hvilken erobrerne kunne have været en gruppe blandt Onoğur-bulgarerne, der stammer fra Mellemasien og tidligere havde en stram slægtskab-alliance med hunerne.

Spørgsmålet er fortsat et debatemne.

Udvalgt billede: Invasion af barbarerne eller hunerne, der nærmer sig Rom (farvemaleri) – Wiki Commons Af Ulpiano Checa


3. Brylluppet ville være et cirkus.

Har du nogensinde set Mit store fede græske bryllup? Det gælder absolut også os bulgarere. Gud forbyde dig, at du nogensinde har giftet dig med din bulgarske kæreste, for du skal feste i tre dage i træk med dine nye svogere, svigerbarn, tanter, onkler og nevøer. Du vil danse nætter væk, efterfulgt af fotografer og et harmonika -band, og det hele vil koste dig mindre end $ 5.000, fordi BGN tigger om at blive købt.


Bulgars og hunns oprindelse

Oprindelsen af Bulgars og deres hjemland er stadig genstand for forskning, der genererer mange hypoteser og voldelige tvister. Bulgars, også kaldet Bulgarer, var en af ​​de tre etniske forfædre til moderne bulgarere (de to andre var thrakere og slaver). De blev nævnt for første gang i 354 e.Kr. af Anonym Roman Roman Chronograph som mennesker, der bor nord for Kaukasus -bjerget og vest for Volga -floden. Under ledelse af deres høvding Vund invaderede Bulgars Europa med hunerne omkring 370 e.Kr., [0] og trak sig tilbage med hunerne omkring 460 e.Kr. de genbosatte sig i området nord og øst for Azovhavet. [1] [2] [3]

Hunerne

Omkring 370 e.Kr. invaderede et nomadisk folk ved navn Huns Østeuropa. Fra øst kom de hurtigt til at bygge et enormt imperium i Centraleuropa, der nåede sit højdepunkt under ledelse af Attila (444-453 e.Kr.). Attilas pludselige død efterfulgt af intern magtkamp blandt hans sønner, der blev besejret i slaget ved Nedao (stadig uidentificeret Pannonian -flod) i 455 e.Kr. satte en stopper for detunniske imperium. Et stykke tid senere, som vi lærer af Jordanes, vendte grupper af hunere tilbage til deres "indre" område ved floden Dnieper (Ukraine), hvor de reorganiserede i mindre skala. [4] Hunerne blev fortsat ofte omtalt i det 6. århundrede under forskellige stamme navne som Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs, Bulgars, Sabirs og andre.

Hunerne og deres stormfulde strømning over Europa er en historie, der ofte er blevet fortalt. Men hvorfra de kommer, og hvor de gik, er gået tabt i mysterium. Nogle siger, at de var Xiongnu, racen, der var Kinas terror, en hypotese, der først blev foreslået af den franske sinolog J. Deguignes i 1748, men goterne, der kendte dem bedst, mente anderledes. De fortalte om de onde troldkvinder, som kong Filimer, guden, forviste fra sit skytiske rige, der blandede sig på deres vandringer med ørkenens onde ånder og fra den vilde forening blev født hunerne. Vi vil forsøge at kigge ind i de mysterier, der hænger over stepperne for at se, om vi kan opdage, hvem der var disse hunne og bulgere, hvis sidste indkomst ændrede så varigt og dybt Europas historie. I slutningen af ​​denne artikel vil vi se, at både den gotiske legende og de geniale hypoteser om Deguignes faktisk er sande. Hunerne og deres forfærdelige afstamning har altid været pral af enhver krænkende nation. Attila kaldes stolt fætter, hvis ikke bedstefar af dem alle disse påstande, ser det ud til, at Bulgars bedst er berettiget, at blodet fra Guds svøbe flyder nu i Balkan -dalen, fortyndet af tid og pastorale slaver. [5]

Bulgars

Bulgars (vh'ndur, Vanand) er navnet, der bruges af historikere og geografer som Movses Khorenatsi, Procopius Caesariensis og senere af Agathias fra Mirena, Menander Protector og Theophylact Simocatta i det 6. århundrede for at henvise til den østlige gren af ​​Hunno-Bulgars, der var efterfølgere af detunniske imperium langs Sortehavets kyster i Patria Onoguria. [6] [7] De sene antikke historikere brugte navnene på hunne, bulgarer, kutrigurer og utigurer som udskiftelige udtryk, [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] således får nogle moderne historikere til at mønte udtrykket Hunno-Bulgars. [18] [19]
Ifølge Procopius var Agathias og Menander Utigurs og deres slægtninge Kutrigurs hunere, de var klædt på samme måde og havde samme sprog. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Utigurs, Kutrigurs og Onogurs var efter al sandsynlighed identiske med Bulgars. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Mange historikere betragter Utigurs og Kutrigurs som efterfølgere af detunniske imperium i øst, på det moderne Ukraines område, hvor hunerne trak sig tilbage efter Attilas død. [32] [33]
Menander Protector nævnte en Utigur -leder i slutningen af ​​det 6. århundrede ved navn Sandilch. [34] [35] Senere var disse bulgarer fra de eurasiske stepper kommet under kontrol af det vestlige tyrkiske Kaghanate og blev også kendt som Unogundurs. [36] I begyndelsen af ​​det 7. århundrede var Khan Kubrat fra Dulo -klanen "hersker over unogundurerne" og grundlæggeren af ​​Det Store Store Bulgarien. [37] [38] [39]
Bulgars-forfædrene til Utigurs repræsenterede Pontic-Kuban-delen af ​​Hun-imperiet og blev styret af efterkommere af Attila gennem hans søn Ernakh, [40] [41] [42], der kaldes Irnik i Nominalia of Bulgarian Khans.

Hunnerne - et andet kig

Romerske historikere Themistius (317-390), Claudian (370-404) og senere Procopius (500-560) kaldte hunerne Massagetae. [43]. Hunerne blev også kaldt Massagetae af Ambrose (340-397), Ausonius (310-394), Synesius (373 �), Zacharias Rhetor (465-535), Belisarius (500-565), Evagrius Scholasticus (6. århundrede) og andre. Imidlertid nævnte nogle historikere Huns og Massagetae som forskellige og forskellige mennesker, der samarbejdede under deres razziaer, for eksempel fortæller St. Jerome os om Great Hun raid i 395-6 til Armenien og Syrien, der "sværme af hunne og uhyrlige Massagetae fyldte hele jorden med slagtning ". [44]
Maenchen-Helfen bemærkede også i sin monografi, at på trods af at romerne kaldte Hunnerne Massagetae, angreb hunerne og ikke Massagetae alanerne, der kastede sig over goterne. [45] Ifølge Pulleyblank omfattede European Huns to grupper af stammer med forskellige etniske tilhørsforhold, og den herskende gruppe, der bar navnet Hun, var direkte forbundet med Xiongnu. [46] Men hvorfor Massagetae? Der var ingen Massagetae i det 4. århundrede e.Kr. Lad os se, om vi kan finde ud af, hvem de var.
Alexander Cunningham, B.S. Dahiya (1980, 23) og Edgar Knobloch (2001, 15) identificerer Massagetae med den store Yuezhi: Da Yuezhi -& gt Ta-Yue-ti (Great Lunar Race)-& gt Ta-Gweti-& gt Massa-Getae. Dahiya skrev om Massagetae og Thyssagetae: "Disse Guti-mennesker havde to divisioner, Ta-Yue-Che og Siao-Yue-Che, der nøjagtigt svarede til Massagetae og Thyssagetae fra Herodotus." (Dahiya 1980, 23). Thyssagetae, der er kendt som Lesser Getae, korresponderer med Xiao Yuezhi, hvilket betyder Lesser Yuezhi. [47]. James P. Mallory og Victor H. Mair støttede også denne identifikation og skrev i deres bog: "Da (Greater) Yuezhi eller i den tidligere udtale d'ad-ngiwat-tieg er blevet set at sidestille med Massagetae, der besatte oaserne og dobbeltområder i Vest Centralasien på Herodotus 'tid her gengiver Massa et iransk ord for "Great", derfor "Great Getae.". ". [48] ​​[49] [50] [51]

Utigurs - etymologi og oprindelse

Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev og nogle moderne bulgarske forskere identificerer de bulgarske utigurer som en af ​​stammerne i Yuezhi. [52] [53] [54] Ifølge Edwin G. Pulleyblank og Yury Zuev er Utigurs of Menander Uti, og ordet Uti var en rigtig prototype af en transkription Yuezhi & lt Uechji & lt ngiwat-tie & lt uti.[55]

Kunstig kranial deformation er en værdifuld kulturel artefakt til at spore hunerne og bulgarerne tilbage i tiden. Ifølge Otto Maenchen-Helfen kan de kunstigt deformerede kranier i proto-bulgarske grave ikke adskilles fra dem i gravene hos de sarmatiserede tyrkere eller tyrkiserede sarmater i de post-attilanske grave i de sydrussiske stepper. [56] Hunerne og proto-bulgarerne praktiserede en udtalt form for kunstig kranial deformation med meget høj hastighed [57], og dens cirkulære type kan bruges til at spore den rute, hunerne tog fra det nordlige Kina til de centralasiatiske stepper og efterfølgende til det sydlige russiske stepper. Cirkulær modifikation dukkede op for første gang i Centralasien i de sidste århundreder f.Kr. som en etnisk egenskab hos de tidlige hunere. Fordelingen af ​​kranierne paralleller med hunernes bevægelse. [58] [59]


Spredningen af ​​skikken med kranial deformation er parallel med hunernes bevægelse

Kunstigt deformeret kranium - cirkulær modifikation

De mennesker, der praktiserede ringformet kunstig kranial deformation i Centralasien, var Yuezhi/Kushans. [60] [61] [62] [63] Migrationen af ​​Yuezhi startede fra Nordkina i løbet af 2BC, det er veldokumenteret [64], og deres bevægelse er parallel med fordelingen af ​​de kunstigt deformerede kranier. Ifølge Maenchen-Helfen migrerede nogle af deres grupper langt mod vest og var til stede i stepperne nord for Kaukasus og ved Sortehavets bredder allerede i 1. århundrede f.Kr. [65]

Spredningen af ​​skikken med kranial deformation fra Centralasien til Europa fandt sted i 6 faser, og fordelingen af ​​kranierne paralleller med hunernes bevægelse. Moderne taksonomisk analyse af den kunstigt deformerede crania fra det 5. og#82116. Århundrede e.Kr. (hun-germansk periode) fundet i det nordøstlige Ungarn viste, at ingen af ​​dem har nogen mongoloid træk, og alle kranierne tilhører Europid "store race", men yderligere identifikation var umulig . [66]

Hunerne, bulgarerne og en del af Yuezhi deler nogle almindelige begravelsespraksis som de smalle gravgrave, gruber med en niche og begravelsernes nordlige orientering. Resultaterne af forskningen om Bulgars oprindelse fører til en bestemt region i Mellemasien - den nedre og midterste del af Syr Darya. Efter det andet århundrede e.Kr. undergik den sarmatiske kultur på Volgas nedre række betydelige ændringer. Nye funktioner, der ikke var karakteristiske for den foregående periode, dukkede op: kunstig deformation af kranierne, smalle gravgrave og gruber med en niche, skåret i en af ​​væggene. Disse funktioner findes også i senere bulgarske nekropoler. [67]

Og sidst men ikke mindst: den tilbagevendende bue, det våben, der gav hunerne militær fordel i forhold til romerne, blev bragt til Bactria af Yuezhi omkring 130 f.Kr. [70]

Genetisk forskning af Bulgars

Selvom mange forskere havde påstået, at bulgarerne var tyrkiske stammer i Centralasien, peger moderne genetisk forskning på en tilknytning til europæiske og vestlige eurasiske befolkninger. [71] Den fylogenetiske analyse af gamle DNA-prøver viser, at mtDNA-haplogrupper kan klassificeres som europæiske og vest-eurasiske og tyder på en vest-eurasisk matrilineal oprindelse for proto-bulgarere samt en genetisk lighed mellem proto- og moderne bulgarere. [72] Y-kromosom genetiske test tyder på, at en fælles faderlig forfædre mellem proto-bulgarerne og de altaiske og centralasiatiske tyrkisk-talende befolkninger enten ikke eksisterede eller var ubetydelig. [73]

Genetisk forskning: Tarim Basin - Bulgarien


Haplogruppe I-M170
Oprindelsen af ​​Tocharians og Tocharian relaterede Yuezhi er kontroversielt emne. Ikke desto mindre kommer visse fakta frem. Normalt antages det, at de har talt tokariske sprog, men tocharian bekræftes først i det 8. århundrede. E.Kr., eller omkring 3 tusinde år efter det tidligste udseende af kaukasoider i Tarim -bassinet og Xinjiang, Nordkina. At stille sproglig kontinuitet er ikke en passende standardposition, når der ikke er direkte beviser. Der er tegn på, at kaukasoid befolkning i Tarim -bassinet allerede var blandet med Mongoloider allerede i begyndelsen af ​​bronzealderen (i hvert fald i deres mtDNA). [74] Dette reducerer vores tillid til, at de talte et indoeuropæisk sprog. Et forsøg på at opdage tochariernes oprindelse blev foretaget ved en omhyggelig sortering af Y-kromosomlinier i den nuværende uiguriske befolkning i Xinjiang, der formodes at have absorberet de pre-tyrkiske indbyggere i regionen. Ved at fjerne eurasiske slægter, der sandsynligvis vil være forbundet med Xiongnu-, mongolerne, uiguriske og ikke-tochariske kilder (såsom iranere eller forskellige silkevejsudfald), efterlader den fylogeografiske analyse tre kandidatgrupper: J2-M172, R1a1a-M17 , R1b-M343 (og dens vigtigste R-M269-klade). [75] Omkring 80% af den samlede genetiske variation i moderne bulgarere falder inden for haplogrupper J-M172, R-M17 og R-M269, E-M35, I-

Haplogruppe E-M35
M170. [76] Fordi haplogrupperne E-M35 og I-M170 er hjemmehørende på Balkanhalvøen
før Bulgars ankomst, fører dette til den konklusion, at der er en isomorf korrespondance mellem haplogrupperne, der kan associeres med tocharian-relaterede Yuezhi og haplogrupperne, der kan være forbundet med proto-bulgarerne (bulgarer). Konklusionen korrelerer med de historiske data om, at moderne bulgarere har tre etniske forfædre - bulgarer, slaver og thrakere.

Ifølge Hemphill og Mallory (2004) var der to europoidiske fysiske typer i Tarim -bassinet, den anden type har størst tilknytning til befolkninger i det østlige Middelhav. Den samme type attesteres også i Bactria. [77]

Yuezhi

Yuezhi i Dunhuang/Kina

Yuezhi blev registreret af kineserne i perioden med stridende stater (495-221 f.Kr.) som nomadiske mennesker, der boede i landene i den vestlige region, specifikt omkring Dunhuang og Guazhou. Yuezhi havde besat Dunhuang -distriktet og blev en meget stærk nation i det nordvestlige Kina. Han Shu skriver videre: "Den Store Yuezhi var en nomadisk horde. De flyttede rundt efter deres kvæg og havde de samme skikke som Xiongnu's. Da deres soldater talte mere end hundrede tusinde, var de stærke og foragtede Xiongnu. I tidligere levede de i regionen mellem Dunhuang og Qilian [Mountain] (syd for Hexi Corridor) "Yuezhi var så magtfuld, at Xiongnu -monarken Touman endda sendte sin ældste søn Modu som gidsel til Yuezhi. Yuezhi angreb ofte deres nabo Wusun for at erhverve slaver og græsarealer. Wusun boede oprindeligt sammen med Yuezhi i regionen mellem Dunhuang og Qilian Mountain. Yuezhi angreb Wusun, dræbte deres monark Nandoumi og indtog hans område. Søn af Nandoumi, Kunmo flygtede til Xiongnu og blev opdraget af Xiongnu -monarken.


Migration af Yuezhi
Efterhånden blev Xiongnu stærkere, og der brød krig ud mellem dem og Yuezhi. Der var mindst fire krige mellem Yuezhi og Xiongnu ifølge de kinesiske beretninger. Den første krig brød ud under regeringstiden for Xiongnu -monarken Touman (der døde i 209 f.Kr.), der pludselig angreb Yuezhi. Yuezhi ville dræbe Modu, sønnen af ​​Touman holdt som gidsel for dem, men Modu stjal en god hest fra dem og formåede at flygte til hans land. Det ser ud til, at Xiongnu ikke besejrede Yuezhi i denne første krig. Den anden krig fandt sted i det syvende år i Modu -æraen (203 f.Kr.). Fra denne krig blev et stort område af territoriet, der oprindeligt tilhørte Yuezhi, beslaglagt af Xiongnu, og Yuezhis hegemoni begyndte at ryste. Den tredje krig var sandsynligvis i 176 f.Kr. (eller kort før det), og Yuezhi blev hårdt besejret. Den fjerde krig var i perioden med Xiongnu-monarken Laoshang (174 f.Kr.-166 f.Kr.) og var en katastrofe for Yuezhi, deres konge blev dræbt, og der blev lavet en drikkekop af hans kranium. Sandsynligvis omkring 165 f.Kr. migrerede størstedelen af ​​Yuezhi fra Tarim -bassinet mod vest til Fergana. De bosatte sig endelig i Transoxiana og Bactria. [78] [79]

Bulgars og Yuezhi
Det er svært at sige, om Yuezhi (Yue-Chi) skulle indgå i nogen af ​​de anerkendte divisioner af turanske stammer, såsom tyrkere eller hunere. Intet er kendt af deres originalsprog. At dømme efter den fysiske type, der er repræsenteret på Kushans mønter, er Yue-Chi-typen tyrkisk frem for mongol eller ugro-finsk. Nogle myndigheder mener, at navnet Turushka eller Turukha undertiden anvendes på dem af indiske forfattere, er et andet bevis på forbindelsen med tyrkerne. Men tyrkernes nationale eksistens og navn stammer tilsyneladende fra det 5. århundrede e.Kr., så det er en anakronisme at tale om Yue-Chi som en opdeling af dem. Yue-Chi og tyrkerne kan imidlertid begge repræsentere parallelle udviklinger af lignende eller endda oprindeligt identiske stammer. Nogle forfattere mener, at Yue-Chi er de samme som Getae, og at den oprindelige form for navnet var Ytit eller Get, som også skal vises i den indiske Jat. [80]

Tøjet til Yuezhi afbildet på Bactrian Broderi [68] er næsten identisk med de traditionelle bulgarske kostumer, der laves i dag. [69]

Ifølge Hyun Jin Kim besad den nomadiske Yuezhi politiske institutioner, der ligner Xiongnu og senere Hunnic -modeller. Kineserne refererer til de fem xihou eller herrer i Yuezhi, der regerer de fem stammer i deres kejserlige konføderation. Ifølge Pulleyblank var Yuezhi indoeuropæere, og de talte et tocharisk sprog. [81] Titlen xihou svarer i udtalen til det, der senere skulle blive den tyrkiske titel yubgu. Denne oprindeligt Yuezhi kongelige titel vises på mønterne fra deres herskere som IAPGU/yavuga [82], og den kom til Xiongnu fra Yuezhi. [83] Blandt tyrkerne fik titlen yabgu et nyt liv. I de tyrkiske indskrifter i Mongoliet refererer det til en ædel rangliste umiddelbart efter qagan. [84] Kuyan/kayan var et "fælles Uechji" -symbol for en terrestrisk udførelsesform for Månen og Mælkevejen. [85]

Bulgars sprog

Pritsak i sin bemærkelsesværdige undersøgelse "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan" (1982) [86] analyserede de 33 overlevedeunniske personlige navne og konkluderede, at Bulgars sprog var hunsk sprog:

1. Donau-bulgarsk var etunnisk sprog (side 444)
2. Donau-bulgarsk havde endelsen /mA /, med samme betydning som det mellemtyrkiske endelse /mAtOmeljan /'den største blandt' (side 433)
3. På de ikke-bulgarske sprog / r / inden for en konsonantisk klynge har en tendens til at forsvinde (side 435)
4. På huno-bulgarsk var der også en tendens til udvikling af di & gt ti & gt ći (side 436)
5. I den ikke-bulgarske var der vokalisk metatese bli- & lt *bil (side 443)
6. There was initially a g- in the Hunno-Bulgarian languages (page 449)
7. One of the typical features of the Hunno-Bulgarian linguistic group is a cluster in the word initial position. (page 460)
8. Hunnic (language) shared rhotacism with Mongolian, Old Bulgarian, and Chuvash. (page 470)

According to Pritsak the language was between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to Turkic.

According to Antoaneta Granberg "the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC.[87] The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families:[88] Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese og Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there.[89] It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic.[90] The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure."

Assuming that the connection Yuezhi->Hunno-Bulgars was substantiated enough we can try to find explanation in the preserved data about the language of Yuezhi/Kushans and see if we can find some correspondence. Some scholars have explained the words connecting the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans as coming from the Turkic languages, thus concluding that the language of the Kushans was from the Türkic language branch. this theory is inadequate. In the Zhoushu 周書, ch. 50, it is recorded that: “The ancestors [of the Türks] came from the state of Suo 索.󈭶 It has been suggested that “Suo索” [sheak] is a transcription of “Sacae.” In other words, it may be possible that the ancestors of the Türks originally were kin of the Sacae. If this is true, it would not be difficult to understand why some words and titles connected with the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans can be explaned by the Türkic languages. In the Rājataraṅgiṇī (I, 170) there is a reference to the fact that the Türkic ruler in Gandhāra claimed his ancestor was Kaniṣka, and maybe this is not merely boasting. Other scholars have judged that the language of the Kushans was the Iranian language. This theory is also inadequate, for the following reasons. First, they were a branch of the Sacae, a tribal union composed of at least four tribes, i.e., Asii, Gasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli. Of these there were some tribes who spoke the Iranian language, but also some who spoke Indo-European languages other than the Iranian language, e.g., the Tochari. Next, the tribes that spoke Tokharian were in close contact with the tribes that spoke the Iranian language, and the words connected to them that can be explained with Iranian possibly originally were Tokharian.[91]

Yury Zuev included the Yuezhi (Uechji) among the tribes of early Turks. He wrote that " in the Northern Caucasus they spoke East - Iranian language, and in the Kangju they spoke in Türkic."[92] His sketches about early Türkic tribes and state type confederations showed that "ideological views coincide in many respects and have a common foundation, which ascends to the last centuries BCE. Such foundation was the pantheon of the ancient confederations of Uechji (Yuezhi) and Kangars that left a trace in the ideological complexes of Ashtak Türks, Oguzes, Kypchaks, Az-kishes, Kimeks, Kangly, etc. Certain features of it still are in the folklore of the modern Türkic peoples. The tradition of the ideological continuity is permeating the history of these peoples from extreme antiquity until the new time."[93] Probably one of the most striking customs was the custom of the population to completely shave their heads. "The seven-tribe Uechji -"Tochars” were “White-headed” i.e. with completely shaven heads. "Bold-headness" was equivalent to Moon-headness."[94] Remember that the word Yuezhi is a Chinese exonym, formed from the characters yuè (月) "moon" and shì (氏) "clan" - hence they shaved their heads to resemble the Moon. We are not surprised to discover the same custom among the rulers of Bulgarian Dulo clan : "These five princes ruled the kingdom over the other side of the Danube for 515 years with shaven heads and after that came to this side of the Danube Asparuh knyaz and until now (rules)."[95]

The Little Yuezhi

The Little Yuezhi remained in North China and were included into Xiongnu confederation under the name Chieh people (AY: Jie people).[95A] Chinese chronicles documented them as one of the 19 tribes of Xiongnu.[96] Obviously their number wasn't small at all, as it is usually assumed, because we are told that between 184 AD and 221 AD there was a serious revolt of the Little Yuezhi in Gansu and the Chinese couldn't suppress it for almost 40 years.[97] At the beginning of 4th century under the pressure of Rouran Khaganate the Little Yuezhi started migration toward Kazakhstan and Bactria under the name War-Huns.[98] In 349 AD there was a massacre of Chieh people in North China, Maenchen-Helfen points out that 200 000 of them were slain. Probably we can consider that as the final date of their migration from North China/Tarim basin toward Kazakhstan and Bactria. The Jie/Chieh who remained in north China became known as Buluoji Bulgars.[99]

Kutrigurs Huns

Archer riding on reverse

Kutrigurs from the Byzantine sources can be identified with Kidar Bulgars from Armenian sources [100] whom in turn David Lang identified with Kidarites.[101] Kidarites appeared in Kazakhstan and Bactria in 4th century and were branch of the Little Yuezhi,[102] they were also called Red Huns[103] and were displayed on Sogdian coins as archers riding on the reverse.[104] The same type military tactic is attested among Bulgars tribes. Some of Little Yuezhi inherited the Kushan Empire and were called little Kushan.[105][106] Given the historical background of the Little Yuezhi (one of the Xiongnu tribes) it follows that Kutrigurs belonged to the Hunnic group with which Bulgars entered Europe.[107][108][109] The Chinese name of Kidarites is Jidoulo.[110]


CONCLUSIONS

44 Despite some early examples, “race” and modern scientific racial thinking in Bulgaria was a latecomer. It is evident that in most of cases, theoretically and stylistically, Bulgarian thinkers and scholars depended on the influence of foreign authors. The sources of Bulgarian fin-de-siècle racial thought were a combination of Bulgarian ethnocentrism, the rise of Bulgarian national ideology, German Romanticism, Russian Slavophilism, different currents in French racial thought in science and literature, some interpretations of Social Darwinism, the ideas of heredity, etc. The ideas of the existence of “national soul,” “national spirit” or “national character” transmitted through biological processes were very often used methaphorically. However, in the beginning of the 20th century, these ideas legitimized biological determinism that appeared as fundamentally racial when it was applied to the idea of the nation. These ideas also brought about the rationalization of social and national hierarchies. In this respect, in the beginning of the 20th century, one can register the prominence of natural and biological laws that had been more visible in other places in Europe since the 1880s.89 Even so, racial ideas were used in Bulgaria in addition to other more basic cultural and historical arguments.

  • 90 See for example B. Bilmez’s contribution to this volume.
  • 91 D. Lilova demonstrates this in her contribution published here.

45 The racial thought borrowed from Western Europe was adapted and accommodated to serve the specific political and cultural purposes coming from the Bulgarian context. It should have helped Bulgarian leaders to situate their nation biologically among the “whites” and “Europeans.” Moreover, “Aryan myth,” which was somehow energized during the fin-de-siècle, situated some white races superior to others. In this regard, the other geneologies of the Old Bulgars put them not among Indo-Europeans but still among the whites (Ugro-Finn, Turkic, Turanian). To a certain extent, it was enough that they were not “Mongoloids” or “blacks.” It is worth thinking about the possible associations between Old Bulgars whose state was put north of the Caucasus and the “Caucasian race” from the textbooks in geography and history. And why not think about the beginning of appropriation, to a certain extent, of the European fascination of the East, Orient, and Asia? One should keep in mind that at the end of the 19th and the very beginning of the 20th centuries, there were voices that the Turanian or Finno-Japanese races were “the forerunners of civilization in Europe.”90 Even in the 1870s the geographical textbooks, translated from Russian, represented the “Caucasian” and “Mongolian” as “races” common in Europe.91 Moreover, the Slavs as “ancestors” were considered enough to support and to underpin the Aryan disposition of the 20thcentury Bulgarians. Even at this point, one comes across strategies that tried to represent the Slavs as equal or superior to the “Germans” through inverting the hierarchies.

  • 92 For the Hungarian case, see Turda, (2004), pp. 161–162.
  • 93 As M. Turda has recently shown, in Hungary at the time Vámbéry represented the mixture between Tur (. )

46 In comparison with many other countries at the time the racial discourse in Bulgarian society was not that strong. Here one encounters less racial thinking in comparision with Central Europe and especially the Austrian part of the Habsburg monarchy from where some prominent racial thinkers originated. The Bulgarian case can be rather compared with the Hungarian one. There, according to Turda, the dissemination of racial thinking and Social Darwinism was not the work of intellectuals, but the product of a multitude of sources embedded within the Hungarian tradition of theorizing about the nation. At the same time, nationalist preoccupation with inner racial qualities in Bulgaria seems to have been weaker than in Hungary. In the Bulgarian case it was more appropriation of racial and Social Darwinist vocabulary than genuine racial thinking.92 Most of the Bulgarian academics who adapted racial science did not subscribe to its value judgments but to some of its methods. For them it was more a purely scientific exercise with a sincere hope that these “racial” methods could help some scientific issues to be resolved better and would bring the scholars to the right answers. Moreover, most of the authors who somehow utilized the racial language and value judgments speculated on “race,” following a fashionable current of thought in Europe rather than subscribing firmly to racial ideas and prejudices typical of the time. Despite their inclinations to ethnic national perspective, the majority of the Bulgarian authors in humanities rejected racialism in the pseudo-scientific narratives. Historiography in Bulgaria was even linked less to biological and racialist ideas and more to the idea of a cultural nation. That is why other ethnic elements were not at the core of Bulgarian historical narrative. Moreover, the Bulgarian educated public was aware that there hardly existed a racially pure nation. In this regard, the Bulgarian case was not close to the German one, but to the context of other countries when the unification of “races” was seen as harmonious.93 The Bulgarian case was close to the European states that were not preoccupied by racial mixture.

47 Changes in politics not always and not overwhelmingly brought changes in the interpretation of “ancestry,” especially in history textbooks and academic science. As far as scientists were concerned as individuals, they were the ones who elected—in this debate about the ancestors—which theory to support. Presumably, their participation was not determined solely by pure scientific motives. Although they were committed scholars, they also thought of themselves as Bulgarian “patriots.” However, they did not fulfil this task and they did not devote their craft to the “nation” in a way that several decades ago their forerunners had done. The above-mentioned combination of professionalization of science on the one hand, and the “racialization” of the public sphere on the other, were just a historical coincidence. The very political and cultural context as well as the configuration of international politics still made some constraints on the paradigm of “ancestry.”


Genetic Sequencing Traces Gypsies Back to Ancient Indian Origin

The Romani people—once known as "gypsies" or Roma—have been objects of both curiosity and persecution for centuries. Today, some 11 million Romani, with a variety of cultures, languages and lifestyles, live in Europe—and beyond. But where did they come from?

Earlier studies of their language and cursory analysis of genetic patterns pinpointed India as the group's place of origin and a later influence of Middle Eastern and Central Asian linguistics. But a new study uses genome-wide sequencing to point to a single group's departure from northwestern Indian some 1,500 years ago and has also revealed various subsequent population changes as the population spread throughout Europe.

"Understanding the Romani's genetic legacy is necessary to complete the genetic characterization of Europeans as a whole, with implications for various fields, from human evolution to the health sciences," said Manfred Kayser, of Erasmus University in Rotterdam and paper co-author, in a prepared statement.

To begin the study, a team of European researchers collected data on some 800,000 genetic variants (single nucleotides polymorphisms) in 152 Romani people from 13 different Romani groups in Europe. The team then contrasted the Romani sequences with those already known for more than 4,500 Europeans as well as samples from the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia and the Middle East.

According to the analysis, the initial founding group of Romani likely departed from what is now the Punjab state in northwestern India close to the year 500 CE. From there, they likely traveled through Central Asia and the Middle East but appear to have mingled only moderately with local populations there. The subsequent doorway to Europe seems to have been the Balkan area—specifically Bulgaria—from which the Romani began dispersing around 1,100 CE.

These travels, however, were not always easy. For example, after the initial group left India, their numbers took a dive, with less than half of the population surviving (some 47 percent, according to the genetic analysis). And once groups of Romani that would go on to settle Western Europe left the Balkan region, they suffered another population bottleneck, losing some 30 percent of their population. The findings were published online December 6 in Current Biology.

The researchers were also able to examine the dynamics of various Romani populations as they established themselves in different parts of Europe. The defined geographic enclaves appear to have remained largely isolated from other populations of European Romani over recent centuries. And the Romani show more evidence of marriage among blood relatives than do Indians or non-Romani Europeans in the analysis.

But the Romani did not always keep to themselves. As they moved through Europe and set up settlements, they invariably met—and paired off with—local Europeans. And some groups, such as the Welsh Romani, show a relatively high rate of bringing locals—and their genetics—into their families.

Local mixing was not constant over the past several centuries—even in the same groups. The genetic history, as told through this genome-wide analysis, reveals different social mores at different times. For example, Romani populations in Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Croatia show genetic patterns that suggest a limited pairing with local populations until recently. Whereas Romani populations in Portugal, Spain and Lithuania have genetic sequences that suggest they had previously mixed with local European populations more frequently but have "higher levels of recent genetic isolation from non-Romani Europeans," the researchers noted in their paper.

The Romani have often been omitted from larger genetic studies, as many populations are still somewhat transient and/or do not participate in formal institutions such as government programs and banking. "They constitute an important fraction of the European population, but their marginalized situation in many countries also seems to have affected their visibility in scientific studies," said David Comas, of the Institut de Biologia Evolutiva at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain and co-author of the new paper, in a prepared statement.

Finer genetic analysis of various Romani populations as well as those from the putative founder region of India will help establish more concrete population dynamics and possibly uncover new clues to social and cultural traditions in these groups that have not kept historical written records.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Politics and Government

The earliest Bulgarian American political organizations grew out of social need. Groups of immigrants who hailed from the same village formed mutual benefit societies in which members pledged to support each other in times of financial hardship. Patterned after similar organizations in the home country, the first-known Bulgarian organizations, founded by Macedonian Bulgarians, arose in the United States around 1902. They reflected the predominance of Macedonian Bulgarians among the early immigrant pool. In 1906, Iliia Iovchev, a Bulgarian-born employee of the Immigration Bureau at Ellis Island, started the Bulgarian and Macedonian Immigrant Society Prishlets (newcomer). Its purpose was to help immigrants through the admission procedures at Ellis Island and settle in the New World. A women's charitable organization called Bulgarkata v Amerika devoted itself to performing charity work on behalf of both the local community and the women's native villages in 1913. That same year, the Bulgarian People's Union, the first group with a national profile, emerged. By that time, nearly 30 mutual benefit societies had been organized around the country. Their numbers continued to mount, and by 1933 there were over 200 such organizations with a total of 10,000 members.

One of the longest-lived national organizations was the Macedonian Political Organization (MPO), founded in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in 1922. With branches in many cities, it supported the claim that Macedonians are ethnically Bulgarian and promoted the creation of an independent Macedonia. From 1926 onward, the MPO published a Bulgarian-language weekly called the Makedonska Tribuna. The group changed its name to the Macedonian Patriotic Organization in 1952.

Some immigrants were also involved in the national political scene. Before World War II, many Bulgarian American workers were active in leftist or labor causes some belonged to the Bulgarian Socialist Labor Federation, a group founded in 1910 that later merged with the American Socialist Labor Party. Postwar immigrants, on the other hand, tended to belong to strongly anti-Communist organizations, such as the Bulgarian National Committee, set up in 1949 by former Bulgarian politician Georgi M. Dimitrov. Competing right-wing groups organized the royalist Bulgarian National Front in New York in 1958. In an attempt to unite a number of splinter groups, an anti-Communist umbrella organization calling itself the American Bulgarian League arose in 1944. Its goal was to promote understanding between Bulgaria and America.

The fall of communism in Bulgaria has led to a revival in organizational activity in America. As new groups arise to support specific political agendas in Bulgaria, existing groups have re-focused their activities to help newly arrived immigrants or to bridge cultural gaps between the United States and Bulgaria.


Gypsies on screen

Black Cat, White Cat

Emir Kusturica's 1998 madcap comedy set on the frontiers of Serbia and Bulgaria revolves around Gypsy families living by the Danube. The film started life as a non-fiction documentary on Gypsy music, and has a fabulous soundtrack. Its main characters switch easily from the Gypsy language of Romani to Serbian and Bulgarian.

My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding

Channel 4's series revealed the hidden glory of marrying Gypsy-style in Britain. The series attracted audiences of 7 million, made an unlikely star of Paddy Doherty and spawned spinoffs such as Thelma's Gypsy Girls, while also attracting criticism from some Gypsy and Traveller communities for its depiction of their lifestyle.

Los Tarantos

This 1963 Spanish version of Romeo and Juliet features legendary flamenco dancers Carmen Amaya and Antonio Gades in a tragic romance set among Catalan Gypsies from rival families in the beachside 1960s shantytowns of Barcelona.


The History of the Bulgarian Split Squat

An exercise designed to enact as much pain as possible.

That at least is the thought that almost inevitably runs through my mind during a set of Bulgarian split squats. Heavy squatting? Fine by me. Heck throw in breathing squats for fun. I can grind through that. But high volume split squats? That’s an altogether different story.

By the tenth rep, I’m a sweaty mess. My quads are burning, hip flexors being stretched beyond belief and I’m making internal deals with myself about the next rep. Only three more reps then we rest…promise!

What keeps me coming back to the exercise again and again? Its sheer effectiveness.

Here is an exercise that overloads the quads, improves flexibility and prevents to a large part, any degree of cheating. Try leaning forward too much on the Split Squat and you’ll end up on the floor toot sweet. An experience many of us have encountered at one point or another.

Who then is responsible for this oh so necessary evil? When was the exercise created, who popularised it and what is the correct way of doing things? Stick around, and you might just learn a few things.

Cold War Beginnings?

Though lifters have been experimenting and torturing themselves with a variety of leg exercises for millennia, the origins of the Bulgarian Split Squat point towards a more recent past. While the exact originator of the exercise is unknown, the scant writings and recollections that exist suggest that the exercise stemmed from Olympic lifting. Olympic lifting in the Cold War era to be precise.

This, we may reflect, is perhaps not too odd an occurrence. In the first instance, Olympic Weightlifting exercises such as the Snatch and Clean and Jerk were once performed in a splitting motion as evidenced by Rudolph Plukfelder’s attempted snatch below.

Incidentally, if you want to know more about the changes in Olympic Weightlifting techniques during this period, check out our past post on the history of weightlifting shoes.

The Cold War period was a time of great experimentation for both weightlifters and their coaches. People played around with different rep schemes, techniques and numerous means of periodisation. All in the quest for Olympic glory. Oftentimes it was the Nations who dominated the lifting platform that brought us the real and lasting innovations. Think again about the Romanian deadlift and how it came to the wider lifting world.

Well one such weightlifting powerhouse during the 1970s and 1980s being the Communist state of Bulgaria. Demonstrating a ferocity and raw power, Bulgarian lifters were the go to experts of the field. Something evidenced by the fact that many lifters still emulate their training programmes from the era. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it eh?

What’s interesting about the Bulgarian management team is that they were unafraid of dumping sacred exercises in favour of efficiency. You see from the 1980s onwards, reports began to emerge in the West that Bulgarian lifters did very little heavy back squatting. Instead they focused on front squats, high step ups and you may have guessed, split squats. Such exercises were seen to have a better crossover to the world of snatches and clean an jerks.

How did they become popularised?

Interestingly, given his help in re-popularising German Volume or 10 x 10 training, the Canadian lifting guru, Charles Poliquin appears to be at the heart of this story. Well not Charles Poliquin exactly, but rather one of his long time co-partners, Kim Goss.

In the 1980s Goss was working as a strength coach at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, a far cry from his current editorial work (which incidentally is voluminous). An avid weightlifting fan and anorak, you can imagine Goss’s excitement when it emerged that the Bulgarian weightlifting coach Angel Spassov would be in town.

Angel Spassov, courtesy of Ironmind.com

Eager to pick his brain, Goss invited Spassov to the Academy to train some of his athletes. At that time Spassov was touring various states and lecturing on two exercises that he felt were of utmost importance to weightlifters the high step up and the rear foot elevated split squat (a.k.a. the Bulgarian split squat).

After Spassov taught the exercise to several of Goss’s clients, he went off on his merry way to continue his tour. It should, you would have thought, been plain sailing for Spassov. Well things quickly became heated.

Bulgarian Controversies

Antonio Krastev, one of Bulgaria’s great lifters from his period.

At some point of his lifting tour, Spassov seemed to suggest to many in the lifting community that Bulgarian weightlifting coaches had entirely discarded the back squat in favour of split squats and various forms of high step ups. Whether this was misleading or miscommunication is up for discussion. Indeed, its still a problem that Spassov has to contend with. Take this article written by Spassov with the great physical culture historian/champion powerlifting Terry Todd. It seems to suggest that back squats fell out of favour during the 1980s.

Similarly at the time of his tour, certain people in the lifting community believed that Spassov was dismissing the back squat. A heinous crime in the insular world of lifting! Citing examples such as Leonid Taranenko, the Russian weightlifter, Spassov claimed that back squats had been completely forgotten! A claim that Taranenko later refuted. Similarly Goss has recounted that when Ivan Abadjiev, then the coach of the Bulgarian Weightlifting team, visited his facility in 2011, that he poo-pooed the idea that the split squat and lunch were the cornerstones of his programmes. Though it is difficult to find evidence of Spassov claiming the back squat had been entirely forgotten, the controversy surrounding his supposed claims helped to elevate the exercise’s importance and popularity. After all, if it had replaced the Back Squat it had to be good right?

The Olympic Weightlifting world was a smaller place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Word got round of this ‘wonder exercise’ and soon, gyms became infected with this cruel but effective method of training. A method of training, which many people are performing incorrectly. Something which leads us on to our final point.

Split Squatting like a Champ

Think about how you set up when preparing to do a set of Bulgarian Split Squats.

Oftentimes we just lazily grab the nearest bench, elevate our back foot to roughly about knee height. Soon after we’ll begin to bounce up and down in complete agony. Sore? Without a doubt. Effective? Not so much.

According to Spassov and those instructed by him, there is a definitive way to perform this exercise. First, choose a platform now higher than 6 inches, with 4 to 6 inches being the ideal range depending on your body structure. Go no higher than this! Returning to Goss’s writings on the subject (which will be included at the end), using a standard bench of about 12 inches should only be done for athletes specialising in sports such as ice skating or dancing.

Second, place the ball of the rear foot on the platform and not just the tippy toes. Keeping the ball of the foot on the platform helps keep the back leg active in the movement, providing you with much more bang for your buck. Finally on the descend, keep your hips moving down in a straight direction. Don’t kick the ass out or hyperextend the back. Ideally the back leg would be almost straight, but not too many people can boast of such flexibility. Try out this method and you’ll quickly realise how different it is from most ‘split squats’ done on the gym floor.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video must be ten thousand right? In any case Charles Poliquin provides a good example of the Spassov technique.

Are you a fan of the Bulgarian Split Squat? How have you used it in the past? Let us know in the comments section.

In the meantimes…Happy Lifting!

Kim Goss’s excellent writings on its history can be found here and here.

Spassov’s article with Dr. Terry Todd can be found here. Incidentally this article also gives a history of the high step up.

Nick Norton’s article on the ‘Secrets of Bulgarian Weightlifting’, can be accessed here.

Finally a good resource on variations of the split squat and how to get flexible enough to do them correctly written by Tony Gentilcore can be found here.


Se videoen: ZNAKOVI - Izvodi iz ramazanskih mukabela 730 - Sulejman Bugari