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 18th, 2013, 04:35 PM   #21

Sonrisa's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Bulgaria, Black Sea region
Posts: 881

Thank you for starting this thread!

My confusion is your definition of Bulgar. Do you mean modern-day Bulgarians, or do you refer to the Bulgar origin of modern-day Bulgarians?

I love the pictures you posted. I am curious if there is a connection between the ones you have and older archaeological discoveries being of Thracian origin...

You may find this thread interesting too - The Thracians and their place in history

As far as I am concerned the name Bulgar is quite offensive and usually leads to the old perception that Bulgarians were tribal people of Turk or Mongol origin. I have expressed my opinion in past threads that Bulgarians are nothing more but Thracian descendants and we should search for their true origin in the archaeological findings on the territory of Bulgaria and ancient Thrace.
Sonrisa is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 18th, 2013, 07:20 PM   #22
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Montréal
Posts: 512

Quote:
Originally Posted by pustinyak View Post
As I pointed out earlier the idea of the thread is to acquaint people with Bulgars and their culture.

[...]

I think we can agree that Bulgars were Caucosoid people since both images and anthropological researches support it.
Ah, ok, I see what you mean. You mean to tell us that the first bulgars to set foot beyond the danube looked Caucasian because you are probably looking very caucasian yourself. You must lay awake at night trying to figure out the exact angle where the first bulgars' upper and lower eyelids used to meet.
That being said, looking at a bunch of artefacts with questionable pertinence is not history. Establishing weird racial classifications based on those artefacts is not history either.
BrowniesRule is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 04:02 AM   #23

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonrisa View Post
Thank you for starting this thread!

My confusion is your definition of Bulgar. Do you mean modern-day Bulgarians, or do you refer to the Bulgar origin of modern-day Bulgarians?

I love the pictures you posted. I am curious if there is a connection between the ones you have and older archaeological discoveries being of Thracian origin...

You may find this thread interesting too - The Thracians and their place in history

As far as I am concerned the name Bulgar is quite offensive and usually leads to the old perception that Bulgarians were tribal people of Turk or Mongol origin. I have expressed my opinion in past threads that Bulgarians are nothing more but Thracian descendants and we should search for their true origin in the archaeological findings on the territory of Bulgaria and ancient Thrace.
Thanks for your appreciation of the thread.

By the name ancient Bulgarians (Bulgars, ProtoBulgars etc) I mean old Bulgarians who established first Bulgarian state not the modern Bulgarian nation who is mostly Slavic/Thracian in my opinion.

Well there are similar themes in both Thracian and Bulgar art like horseman but generally the Bulgar one has a lot more Eastern influence. Anyway I'm not art specialist so I prefer not to give opinion. I saw your thread I may post something these days.
About the name Bulgar there are thousand of theories but the name are fishy thing so I don't rely very much on them to make conclusion about ethnic affiliation.
I've seen in other threads that you've shown interest in Bulgarians. Are you one or of Bulgarian descent ?
pustinyak is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 04:15 AM   #24

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
Ah, ok, I see what you mean. You mean to tell us that the first bulgars to set foot beyond the danube looked Caucasian because you are probably looking very caucasian yourself. You must lay awake at night trying to figure out the exact angle where the first bulgars' upper and lower eyelids used to meet.
That being said, looking at a bunch of artefacts with questionable pertinence is not history. Establishing weird racial classifications based on those artefacts is not history either.
Bro you see I start thread without screaming Bulgars are europoid you open this topic I just showed how they depict themselves. And nobody make racial classification based on these artefacts lol. The classification is based on the human remains of Bulgars from necropolises.
You sound like desperate Turkophils in Bulgarians who can handle the scientifical truth.
pustinyak is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 05:09 AM   #25

Sonrisa's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Bulgaria, Black Sea region
Posts: 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by pustinyak View Post
Thanks for your appreciation of the thread.

By the name ancient Bulgarians (Bulgars, ProtoBulgars etc) I mean old Bulgarians who established first Bulgarian state not the modern Bulgarian nation who is mostly Slavic/Thracian in my opinion.

Well there are similar themes in both Thracian and Bulgar art like horseman but generally the Bulgar one has a lot more Eastern influence. Anyway I'm not art specialist so I prefer not to give opinion. I saw your thread I may post something these days.
About the name Bulgar there are thousand of theories but the name are fishy thing so I don't rely very much on them to make conclusion about ethnic affiliation.
I've seen in other threads that you've shown interest in Bulgarians. Are you one or of Bulgarian descent ?
I am Bulgarian myself I only live in the UK. I am interested but confused what do you mean by ''old Bulgarians''... do you refer to Kubrat and Asparuh? I wrote before that in my opinion there is no such thing as Bulgar invasion, Kubrat was a ruler in the Panonian plains where Great Old Bulgaria as the Greeks referred to it was established. However, it was not Kubrat to establish this Kingdom, he was a descendant from the native people living in this region. If you are trying to bring out the theory of Bulgarians being of Asian origins I will have to firmly disagree with you.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by Sonrisa; January 19th, 2013 at 05:22 AM.
Sonrisa is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 06:10 AM   #26

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonrisa View Post
I am Bulgarian myself I only live in the UK. I am interested but confused what do you mean by ''old Bulgarians''... do you refer to Kubrat and Asparuh? I wrote before that in my opinion there is no such thing as Bulgar invasion, Kubrat was a ruler in the Panonian plains where Great Old Bulgaria as the Greeks referred to it was established. However, it was not Kubrat to establish this Kingdom, he was a descendant from the native people living in this region. If you are trying to bring out the theory of Bulgarians being of Asian origins I will have to firmly disagree with you.
Hm cool another Bulgarian. Yeah by old Bulgarian I mean those of Asparukh and Houvrat those of Asparukh to be more precise since all these artefacts are from their.
About whether these Bulgars came from somewhere in Asia(Bactria,Sogdiana etc) or are native people akin to Thracians I rely only on facts. In history of Armenia by Movses Horenatzi Bulgars are mentioned living around northern shores of Caspian sea around I-II century. Around second century they migrated toward northern Caucasus with their leader Vund/Vanand which is Eastern Iranian name. also another names of Bulgars from Caucasus region mentioned in Armenian sources are Eran Buzan etc. also Iranian. Not to mention the obvious Iranian element in Bulgars which talks at least for intensive contacts which Thracians hadn't.
pustinyak is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 06:40 AM   #27

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshuaspoppa View Post
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.
Define Slavic influence ? In art sense or of the anthropological sense (if we can make some conclusion for the anthropological type of ethnicity from art subjects)?

P.s I will reply to other parts of your topic later.
pustinyak is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 08:43 AM   #28
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Montréal
Posts: 512

Quote:
Originally Posted by pustinyak View Post
I just showed how they depict themselves. And nobody make racial classification based on these artefacts lol.
You embark on a quest back in time just to find out what kinds of eyes the old bulgarians had. That's not old bulgarians and their culture, that's your bulgarian identity and your present day culture.

Before you accuse me of being a turkophile, I'll say that old Bulgars had round eyes. So what? You say these artefacts help us understand how old bulgarians depicted themselves. Tough luck big boy, these artefacts were the products of a refined strata of the population. It doesn't account for the cosmopolitan population in trading centers and in the countryside. Even then, you have to ask yourself the following question; who were they trying to represent? Themselves? Who's themselves? There are no strong national identities in proto-national states. Besides, most of the coins and medals you posted look quite similar to byzantine items of the same nature.
There are so many questions that could be useful for mankind that you chose to ignore. Take that golden dish for example. Do you know what it was used for? I'd be curious. I'm thinking maybe the ones who built it capitalized on the fear mounted archers represented to assure their political legitimacy?

Anyway, let me ask you this; what do you think was the reason for old bulgarians to make dishes like the one you posted?
BrowniesRule is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 09:30 AM   #29

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
You embark on a quest back in time just to find out what kinds of eyes the old bulgarians had. That's not old bulgarians and their culture, that's your bulgarian identity and your present day culture.
Haha I don't care what kind of eyes did they have I just show some artefacts on which are depicted Bulgars.
Your first post here was some pathetic joke and you still contribute with stupid conclusions only. As I said numerous times these subjects are Bulgar from the pre-Christian period only the two icons are from the Christian period but they are used as example of Bulgar science since they resemble other subjects from the pre-Christian period.

Quote:
Before you accuse me of being a turkophile, I'll say that old Bulgars had round eyes. So what? You say these artefacts help us understand how old bulgarians depicted themselves. Tough luck big boy, these artefacts were the products of a refined strata of the population. It doesn't account for the cosmopolitan population in trading centers and in the countryside. Even then, you have to ask yourself the following question; who were they trying to represent? Themselves? Who's themselves? There are no strong national identities in proto-national states. Besides, most of the coins and medals you posted look quite similar to byzantine items of the same nature.
There are so many questions that could be useful for mankind that you chose to ignore. Take that golden dish for example. Do you know what it was used for? I'd be curious. I'm thinking maybe the ones who built it capitalized on the fear mounted archers represented to assure their political legitimacy?
I said that your posts sound like those of Turkophils here not that you are one.
I've never said that these subjects represent the look of the majority of the population of Bulgarian state since the majority was Slavic/Slavo-Thracian.
Bulgars were the rulling class hence most people depicted are rulers,nobility or in one of the cases is priest-kolobur.
Of course the coins are similar to Byzantine. The empire influenced heavily the Bulgarian state even during the pagan period. However this is not proof that the men depicted on coins aren't Bulgars. Also despite the Byzantine influence I think if there were serious differences between the looks of Byzantines and Bulgars they would be noted by those who made the coins.
What are you implying about the golden dish ?
pustinyak is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 09:54 AM   #30

Strategos's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Duchy of the Archipelago
Posts: 256

After a thorough examination of facts and many hours of study in libraries, I hereby draw the infallible conclusion that ancient* Bulgarians had
1)one nose
2)one mouth
3)two eyes.
I have the evidence to support my claims.

*meaning medieval of course.
Strategos 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 12:09 PM
How was ancient China more technologically advanced than ancient Rome? TruthSeeker1 Asian History 86 February 15th, 2012 07:56 AM
i want some ancient historial rescourse,especially lists of books in ancient ages. Hamlet European History 0 March 21st, 2011 11:25 PM
Volga Bulgarians zigurat European History 35 March 7th, 2011 10:24 AM
ANCIENT ART TomZart Ancient History 0 January 30th, 2008 07:28 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.