Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 17th, 2013, 02:50 AM   #11

pustinyak's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Bactria
Posts: 829

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
Interesting pics. It seems Mostich looks more "asiatic", while Samuil is already more Slavic like.
As I said the reconstruction is objected. They are speculations that these are the remains of Pecheneg mercanary.
So thats why I don't use them as a example.
pustinyak is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 17th, 2013, 07:00 AM   #12

Burebista's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Nürnberg, Germany
Posts: 177

Ancient Bulgariens? Are there something like this? The bulgarian tribes have come in the Balkans around the IXth C, and they made a new state only under the cumano-wallachian dinasty of Ionitza and Assan, so what you have shown is a bit of artefacts from a diversity of civilisations that have nothing to do with the bulgarians or the slaves!
Burebista is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 08:54 AM   #13

pustinyak's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Bactria
Posts: 829

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista View Post
Ancient Bulgariens? Are there something like this? The bulgarian tribes have come in the Balkans around the IXth C, and they made a new state only under the cumano-wallachian dinasty of Ionitza and Assan,
Mate you shouldn't comment here. Just advice.

First Bulgarian state on Balkan peninsula is еstablished in 681 by Asparukh. So the century in which they settled permanently is 7th not 9th as you mentioned.
Second the first Bulgarian state ceased to exist in 1018 when the city of Drach (Durres in modern day Albania) fell in Byzantine's hands.
So after 167 years on 26th of October 1185 Asen and Petar revolted against Byzantine Empire and in October same year Petar was crowned as Tzar of Bulgaria in the city of Turnovo(later capital of Second Bulgarian state).
About ethnicity of the dynasty there are sources who call them Vlachs but they restored Bulgarian state and see themselves as heirs of Simeon, Samuil and Krum. Kaloyan called Simeon I, Peter I, and Samuel his "ancestors" in his correspondence with Pope Innocent III. Not to mentions that the next tzars of the same dynasty identified as tzars of Bulgaria.

Quote:
so what you have shown is a bit of artefacts from a diversity of civilisations that have nothing to do with the bulgarians or the slaves!
These are all proto-Bulgarian artefacts not Slavic from the period of the first Bulgarian state, only one of them is from the period of the Second state. And as I said some of them have foreign influence like that dish with Sassanid influence from the treasure of Nagy Saint Miklos.
pustinyak is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 02:31 PM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 3,840

Quote:
And as I said some of them have foreign influence like that dish with Sassanid influence from the treasure of Nagy Saint Miklos.
The place where the dish was found says nothing about where it was made, or who made it.

The Sassanid appearance of the hunting motif on the dish might be due to the fact that the dish was made centuries before in Sassanid Persia, and was imported inot the area where it was found.

It was quite common for precious objects to be passed from hand to hand over a long period of time, either by trade or by seizure as booty, eventually ending up a very long way from theri place of origin.

No justifiable conclusion about a putative contact between ancient Bulgars and Sassanid Persia can be drawn from the motif on a dish found in Hungary.
michael mills is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 04:02 PM   #15

pustinyak's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Bactria
Posts: 829

@michael mills

Here are some Sassanid dishes,
http://www.fouman.com/Y/Image/Histor...lden_Plate.jpg
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/sep/D...ssanid-era.jpg
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/imgs_..._129_1_big.jpg

I think the style is different from the Bulgarian artefacts. Also I haven't seen that mythological creature on which sits the hunter on other Sassanid dishes (if you have something on the matter do not hesitate to show it). Another thing is that big cat which attack the hunter on Sassanid examples which I've posted is obvious lion while on the Bulgarian dish is something different - bars which is depicted on other Bulgarian artefacts.

Here are some:

From stone plates found near Stara Zagora.
http://www.protobulgarians.com/Stara...-%20bars-1.jpg
From Volga Bulgaria.
http://www.protobulgarians.com/Stara...0Kama%20-2.jpg
http://www.desant.net/files/131961310669500.jpg
Tatarstan Republic coat of Arms(on territory of Volga Bulgaria)
http://russiatrek.org/images/arms/ta...ublic-arms.jpg
pustinyak is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 04:11 AM   #16
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Oregon, USA
Posts: 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista View Post
Ancient Bulgariens? Are there something like this? The bulgarian tribes have come in the Balkans around the IXth C, and they made a new state only under the cumano-wallachian dinasty of Ionitza and Assan, so what you have shown is a bit of artefacts from a diversity of civilisations that have nothing to do with the bulgarians or the slaves!
As Pustinyak said, perhaps not as diplomatically as possible, this isn't accurate. Perhaps the words "ancient" and "state" might create some confusion, since both are relative terms. I suspect you're confusing "state" - with the sense of a relatively fixed political entity controlling relatively fixed geographic boundaries - with "people" (which has its own definitional problems).

The Bulgars first appear in a Byzantine records as a force to be reckoned with no later than the early to mid-7th century, when they displaced the weakened and disintegrating Avars enough for the Byzantines to notice. (This is not to say that the Bulgars hadn't been moving west and taking control of territory much earlier, without the Byzantines feeling compelled to pay attention.) The moved across the plains north of the Black Sea and down into modern-day Romania and Bulgaria, gradually pushing south and by fait and treaty forcing the Byzantines to cede them "official" title to lands pressing well into what had been Roman Thrace, and farther into the Balkans west away from the coastline. They had progressed far in course by the 680s and were by then a well-organized "state" recognized as a force to be reckoned with by the Byzantines.

Like the Avars before them - and, indeed, like most steppe-originating entities - they were an ethnically mixed conglomeration rather than a discrete "people," with a Bulgar nobility (i.e., people recognized by the Bulgars *as* Bulgars, whatever they themselves considered that to mean ethnically or in a familial sense) ruling over a jumble of client peoples by consent or by force. Early on, while the Bulgar confederation or tribe or whatever you choose to call it was still relatively mobile and located primarily along the north shore of the Black Sea and the steppe areas north and east, these were primarily other Central Asian steppe tribes that had fallen within the Bulgars' orbit. Later, when the portion of the Bulgar grouping that chose to move west and south into the areas along the western shoreline of the Black Sea and into the Balkans was in the process of doing so (this was not all of the Bulgars; some stayed farther north and were pressured or assimilated by the Khazars in time), the largest body of client peoples were Slavs.

No doubt there was some intermingling among peoples, so the idea of a "pure" Bulgarian "people" would be both a false construct and an identity that, even to the extent it existed, would change over time. But that's true of the so-called "Germanic" tribes, too. Those tribes, whether we're talking about the Hungarians, the Bulgars, the Marcomanii, or (let's face it) the Goths or the Italian Romans or the Greeks, were all intermingled with previous or co-existing populations to a great extent. They still tended to have dominant cultural and ethnic predispositions, which sometimes changed over time as new groups were encountered. (If you want to watch this at work in a highly time-compressed, dynamic way, look at modern America, and compare it to two hundred years ago. The peoples in the mix have changed considerably. Yet most people in Europe, when meeting a tourist on the street, can identify us as "Americans" fairly easily - however they might feel about that. How is that? There are cultural, linguistic, social, and sometimes ethnic clues that we learn how to decode.)

Anyway...

There are a few problematic assumptions that might be biasing your discussion. Obviously, a European-centric, modern-day definition of "state" would discount any of the nomadic or semi-nomadic Asian steppe tribes from the start, because they didn't have fixed boundaries, which was a critical assumption - and a very biased one. It was one that the Romans, for a start, used to draw a line between "civilized" peoples - like the Goths once Romanized, for example - versus "barbarian" ones, with extremely loaded value judgments. That definition goes back even farther. There has been ongoing warfare between nomadic peoples and agricultural-urban peoples since the dawn of urbanized civilization - and most of our assumptions, like the notion of a "state," are heavily value-laden distinctions made by and for the latter.

The Bulgars, I would argue, were very definitely a distinct "people" in both their own minds and those of their neighbors for centuries - whether or not they were a "state" in the sense that, say, the Romans would have defined it (and remember, the Romans had a very strong political and cultural bias behind that judgment; it was not neutral). Yes, that "people" would change over time. That's what is so interesting about these images, for me. You can actually see the Central and East Asian influence shifting to more of what we would consider a Slavic influence.

Whether that's an actual change in how the people depicted appeared, or just a changing set of artistic influences and artistic conventions, I couldn't say.
Joshuaspoppa is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 06:57 AM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Montréal
Posts: 512

So what is the goal of this thread after all?
To imagine a stereotyped physical appearance of proto-national inhabitants of Bulgaria out of a few artefacts? But to what end? What is the meaning of this?
BrowniesRule is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 09:57 AM   #18

Kanun's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Haemus Peninsula
Posts: 58

pustinyak, what do you think about this?

Quote:
Sofia. “Modern genetic researches show that around 40% of the contemporary Bulgarians are heirs of the local population, 40% have origin of East Iranian type, while only 12% have Slav drop of blood,” said Associate Professor Alexandar Iliev, speaking at a press conference for the presentation of the results of the Bulgarians – Land of Origin expedition, FOCUS News Agency reporter informed.
“90% of the scientists in Bulgaria are already well-aware that the Bulgarians have proto-Iranian anthropological descent,” Iliev remarked.
Majority of Bulgarian scientists aware that Bulgarians have proto-Iranian anthropological descent: expert - FOCUS Information Agency
Kanun is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 09:59 AM   #19

pustinyak's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Bactria
Posts: 829

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
So what is the goal of this thread after all?
As I pointed out earlier the idea of the thread is to acquaint people with Bulgars and their culture.

So thanks to these images one can see how Bulgars look according to themselves, but also to become familiar with their art - (its style,its influences)since all these dishes plates coins are part of Bulgar art heritage.

Quote:
To imagine a stereotyped physical appearance of proto-national inhabitants of Bulgaria out of a few artefacts?
Well except the few artefacts shown here the anthropological data collected from Bulgar necropolises from Dobrudzha Crimea and Ukrainian steppe have shown Europoid people with small Mongoloid admixture [73][74][75][76][77][78]

I think we can agree that Bulgars were Caucosoid people since both images and anthropological researches support it.
pustinyak is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 11:08 AM   #20

pustinyak's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Bactria
Posts: 829


First time I see this. I think we have talked and I told you that I don't have a clue from genetics so I can't comment about the research.
However most of the proponents of Iranian origin of Bulgars connect them with eastern branch of Iranic tribes - Scythaes, Sogdians, Bactrians.
pustinyak is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
ancient, bulgarians


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ancient Egypt versus ancient China Thessalonian Speculative History 16 February 16th, 2012 11:09 AM
How was ancient China more technologically advanced than ancient Rome? TruthSeeker1 Asian History 86 February 15th, 2012 06:56 AM
i want some ancient historial rescourse,especially lists of books in ancient ages. Hamlet European History 0 March 21st, 2011 10:25 PM
Volga Bulgarians zigurat European History 35 March 7th, 2011 09:24 AM
ANCIENT ART TomZart Ancient History 0 January 30th, 2008 06:28 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.