Türk Siyaseti ve Türkiye Siyasi Tarihi - Video Projesi - Türk ve İslam Tarihi - Türk Dna'sı

Bulgaristan bölgesinde Antik DNA çalışmaları

Ancient DNA in Bulgaria region

Burada Antik DNA hakkında başlıklar bulabilirsiniz.

Bulgaristan bölgesinde Antik DNA çalışmaları

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 10 Nis 2015, 16:33

Bulgaristan bölgesinde Antik DNA çalışmaları

Early Eneolithic
4500 - 3000 BCE MT-DNA(H, T)

Late Eneolithic
3500 - 2000 BCE MT-DNA(U)

3000 - 2500 BCE MT-DNA(H, K, U/K, T, U)

800 - 500 BCE MT-DNA(U3b)
850 - 700 BCE MT-DNA(HV-16311)



Kullanıcı avatarı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Re: Bulgaristan bölgesinde Antik DNA çalışmaları

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 07 Haz 2015, 22:50

Bulgaria, 700-1000 AD, Hunno-Turk Bulgarian Ancient MT-DNA

At the study named "Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians" 13 ancient samples of Hunno-Turk Bulgarian graves are studied for MT-DNA. During our earlier writings at viewforum.php?f=229 and viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267 (Ancient Dna Data and Analysis), we had proven with archaeological, anthropological, genetic and historical data, that it was a fact that the core of the Huns of Attila were considered to be of West Eurasian origin. It is a really simple fact, that the core of the Huns are direct descendants of the Sakha's/Scythians and Cimmerians, and that the core of the 6th century and later Turks are direct descendants of the Huns, all are of West Eurasian origin.

West Eurasian origin also means that they have Y-DNA and MT-DNA haplogroups that are considered to be West Eurasian. Also, we need to acknowledge that genetic studies show us that not even one modern or ancient population belongs to only one haplogroup. In stead, West Eurasian origin is equal to a common one anthropological skull type, and the same anthropological concept is equal to more than(a lot) one genetic haplogroups. Not to forget that the most ancient human language belongs to the West Eurasian Sumerian(Kenger/Kangar) language whom linguistically has a Turk origin. Talking about regions, West Eurasia is equal to all regions located between Western Mongolia and North-Western Europe. The Early Neolithic Sumerians, the Cimmerians, the Scythians/Sakha's, the Huns and the Turks dominated most of these West Eurasian regions beginning from the Neolithic Age.

S Karachanak-Yankova, the author of this study, concludes that Proto Bulgarians are of West Eurasian origin. Until here, there is no mistake. But, if we dont understand the chronological steps of the West Eurasian origin that i have described above, then we can not make healthy and logical conlusions about the origin of the Proto Bulgarians. And it is not possible that such an experienced group of academicians could not know about the fact that the Proto Bulgarian Kubrat(=Wolf) Khan of 632 AD was a direct descendant of earlier Royal Hunnish Families from the period of Attila Khan. And it is also not possible that they dont know that the people of the Proto Bulgarians was the exact same people as the Oghur(Oghuz) people whom were the core people of the Huns of Attila.

Like mentioned in the article, the Proto Bulgarians are traced back to the 7nd century AD, Bulgarian Khan Asparuh, whom is of Hun-Turk ethnic origin. These Proto Bulgarians are clearly descendants of the Huns of Attila, and after the collapse of the great Hun Empire, this empire continued with another name, the Turk Empire whom arose in the 6th century AD. And in time, the Bulgarian Khanate became a part of the Western Turk Khanate. These Proto Bulgarians are direct descendants to the core of the Huns of Attila, whom consist of the tribes like the Oghurs(Oghuz's), Acatziri, On-Oghur, Kutrigur, Saragur, etcetera. During the period of Attila, and also a couple of centuries earlier, the core of the Huns conducted a massive migration to the West Eurasian regions. Modern Turk tribes whom are historically directly related with these Proto Bulgarians are Chuvash(=Christian Proto Bulgarian Turks), Bulgar, Yugur(=Yogur=Ogur), Gagauz(=Christian Proto Bulgarian / Pecheneg / Uz Hun-Turks), and more.

The existance of more than one West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups, means that the Huns were the descendants of the West Eurasian Early Neolithic Proto Turks with their oldest human language, which is the Sumerian Turk language. The Early Neolithic Linear Band Keramik people, are also the same people as the Sumerians. The genetic structure of the Linear Band Keramik people shows many of the known West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups plus the East Eurasian haplogroup C. Other Early Neolithic cultures of Europe also show the same genetic structure. The sample of later Neolithic Ötzi of 3300 BCE belonged to a component of the same genetic structure. As we mentioned earlier, the body of Ötzi had many Proto Turk Stamps, which shows in an archaeologically way that the West Eurasian genetic structure is equal to Proto Turk/Hun/Scythians.

The following MT-DNA results were found among the present(2015) study about Proto Bulgarians:

H1: 3/13(23.1%)
H2: 2/13(15.4%)
H5: 1/13(7.7%)
H13: 1/13(7.7%)

U3: 1/13(7.7%)

J: 1/13(7.7%)
J1: 1/13(7.7%)

HV1: 1/13(7.7%)

T: 1/13(7.7%)
T2: 1/13(7.7%)

Analysis of the Prediction of the Y-DNA haplogroups of the 13 Proto Bulgarian Turks, based on our Ancient DNA database with Y-DNA and MT-DNA combinations (viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12210):

-The MT-DNA haplogroup H1 is found in combination with the Y-DNA haplogroups F*, G2a, I2a, R1b and T1a.

-The MT-DNA haplogroup H2 is found in combination with the Y-DNA haplogroups N1c, R1a.

-The MT-DNA haplogroup H5 is found in combination with the Y-DNA haplogroup R1a.

-The MT-DNA haplogroup H13 is found in combination with the Y-DNA haplogroups R1b.

In our data we have no combination with MT-DNA haplogroup U3.

The MT-DNA haplogroups J and J1is found in combination with the Y-DNA haplogroups C6, G2 and G2a.

The MT-DNA haplogroup HV is found in combination with the Y-DNA haplogroups F* and R1a.

The MT-DNA haplogroup T* is found in combination with the Y-DNA haplogroup R1b.

The MT-DNA haplogroup T2 is found in combination with the Y-DNA haplogroups F*, G2a and I2a.

At the study Richards et al 2000, it is told that the group of MT-DNA haplogroups H, J, T1, U3 suggests an Early Neolithic LBK expansion. At the present study, the same kind of pattern is found with a group of haplogroups H(...), HV, J+J1, T+T2, U3.

The predictions show possibilities for West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups C6, F*, G2, G2a, I2a, N1c, R1a, R1b and T1a among the 13 Proto Bulgarian Hun-Turks. Out of these, only C6 and N1c is an East Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroup. The rest, consists of 5 West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups, F*, G*(G2+G2a), I2a, R*(R1a+R1b), T1a.

Analysis of the Y-DNA haplogroups found among the Modern Populations whom are considered to be related to the 13 Ancient Proto Bulgarian Hun-Turks:

Modern Bulgarian Huns/Turks

Modern Bulgarian Huns/Turks, have 8 West Eurasian(E*, G*, H*, I*, J*, L*, R*, T*) Y-DNA haplogroups and 3 East Eurasian(C*, N*, Q*) Y-DNA haplogroups with frequencies higher than 1.4%.

1a- R1a: 29.3%(12/41)
1b- R1b: 14.7%(6/41)

2- E1b: 41.4%(48/116)

3a- I1: 6.7%(1/15)
3b- I2a: 33.4%(5/15)

4- J1: 6.6%(3/45)
4- J2: 17.7%(8/45)

5- G2a: 14,3%(3/21)

6- T1a: 5.8%(4/69)

7- H: 3,4%(2/59)

8- N: 2,9%(2/69)

9- L: 1,6%(1/62)

10- Q: 1,6%(1/62)

11- C: 1,4%(1/69)

Modern Chuvash Turks(=Christian Proto Bulgarian Turks)

Modern Chuvash Turks, have 5 West Eurasian(E*, I*, J*, R*, T*) Y-DNA haplogroups and 1 East Eurasian(N*) Y-DNA haplogroup with frequencies higher than 1.5%.

1a- R1a: 31.6%(25/79)
1b- R1b: 3.8%(3/79)

2a- N1c: 17.7%(14/79)
2b- N1b: 10.1%(8/79)

3- K*(xL,N,O1,O3c,P)(Most Probably T1a): 17.7%(3/17)

4- J*: 15.9%(7/44)

5- E1b: 13.6%(6/44)

6- I*: 11.4%(9/79)

Modern Yugur Turks(=Yogur=Ogur)

Modern Yugur Turks, have 4 West Eurasian(F*, J*, R*, T*) Y-DNA haplogroups and 3 East Eurasian(C*, D*, O*) Y-DNA haplogroups with frequencies higher than 1.5%.

1- K*(xL,N,O1,O3c,P): 48.2%(27/56)
*Possibility that the majority(between 22.3% and 48.2%) of haplogroup K*(xL,N,O1,O3c,P) belongs to West Eurasian Haplogroup T1a

2a- R1a1: 2.2%(1/45)
2b- P*(xR1a1): 13.3%(6/45)
*Shou et al 2010 did not find any haplogroup Q, R1b or R2 result, Shou et al 2010 did find 9.4%(3/32) of haplogroup R1*(xR1a1,R1b,R2), which means that there is a possibility that the P*(xR1a1) results are equal to R1*.

3- F*(xJ,K): 13.3%(6/45)
*Shou et al 2010 did not find any haplogroup G*, H* and I* result, which means that there is a possibility that the F*(xJ,K) results are equal to West Eurasian Haplogroup F*.

4- J*: 8.9%(5/56)

Modern Gagauz Turks(=Christian Proto Bulgarian / Pecheneg / Uz Hun-Turks)

Modern Gagauz Turks, have 6 West Eurasian(E*, G*, I*, J*, R*, T*) Y-DNA haplogroups and 1 East Eurasian(N*) Y-DNA haplogroup with frequencies higher than 1.5%.

1a- R1a1: 26.8%(12/41)
1b- R1b1a2: 14.6%(6/41)

2- I*: 32.7%(16/49)

3- E*: 20.4%(10/49)

4- G*: 17.1%(7/41)

5- J2*: 14.3%(7/49)

6- T1a: 6.3%(3/41)

Modern Italians and Sicilians(=Etruscans=Proto-Huns/Turk tribe)

Modern Italians and Sicilians, have 7 West Eurasian(E*, G*, I*, J*, L*, R*, T*) Y-DNA haplogroups and 1 East Eurasian(Q*) Y-DNA haplogroup with frequencies higher than 1.5%.

1- R: 67.70%(23/34)
2- J: 45.83%(11/24)
3- E: 42.84%(12/28)
4- I: 31.25%(5/16)
5- G: 25.00%(4/16)
6- T: 17.86%(5/28)
7- Q: 16.67%(3/18)
8- L: 5.56%(1/18)








Many studies have focused on the origins of ancient (proto-) Bulgarians. This interest is most likely related to the fact that Danubian Bulgaria, the proto-Bulgarian state created in the seventh century AD is the only ancient state in Europe that has retained its name to the present day. The ancient Bulgarian state was officially recognized by the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) in 681, after Kan Asparuh led its army to victory over the 80 000 army of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) in 680. At that time Bulgaria extended to the Balkan Mountains.

In order to minimize possible founder effects, we have analyzed human skeletal remains found in different Bulgarian lands and dating to different periods of the first Bulgarian state - Danubian Bulgaria (VIII-X century AD). The Danubian Bulgaria population consisted primarily of protoBulgarian and Slavic tribes who occupied areas inhabited in antiquity by Thracian populations. The proto-Bulgarians practiced typical burial traditions, whereas the Slavs practiced cremation (Jordanov and Timeva 2010; Rashev 2008; Rashev et al. 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989). Based on this and on historical and anthropological data, the analyzed remains are considered as proto Bulgarian.

Specimens (teeth) were collected from graves in three necropolises: the Monastery of Mostich (Shumen region) and Nojarevo (Silistra region) in Northeast Bulgaria; Tuhovishte (Satovcha region) in Southwest Bulgaria (Figure 1). Table 1 provides descriptions of the analyzed samples.

proto-Bulgarians are genetically similar to modern Bulgarians and to certain South-Eastern European as well as Italian populations.

The Neolithic components in the f1, f2, and fs analyses were 22%, 12%, and 13%, respectively; the fsr value reaches 23% when possible multiple migrations of the H-CRS are allowed. This robustness to differing criteria for the exclusion of back-migration and recurrent mutation suggests that the Neolithic contribution to the extant mtDNA pool is probably on the order of 10%–20% overall. Our regional analyses support this, with values of ∼20% for southeastern, central, northwestern, and northeastern Europe. The principal clusters involved seem to have been most of J, T1, and U3, with a possible H component. This would suggest that the early-Neolithic LBK expansions through central Europe did indeed include a substantial demic component, as has been proposed both by archaeologists and by geneticists (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza1984; Sokal et al. 1991).

Prof. Dr. Zeki Velidi Togan:

The Ogurs whom came with the Huns, and the ones who came to East Europe earlier, if we look at their names, we see that they were a tribe who pronounced the letter "R" in stead of the letter "Z"(Ogur in stead of Oguz). That is to say: the names of the Ogur subtribes, like "Kutrigur" and "Otrigur" should be illustrated like "Tokuzugur" and "Otuzoğuz". Together with this, "Beşgur:Başgur", "Belgur: Bulgar", "Onogur: Onoguz".

Türkistan'da Karahıtay dili gibi, Edil havzasındaki Kıpçaklara karışıp gitmiş olan Müslüman Bulgarların ayrı dili de kayboldu. Yalnız Çuvaş ismi altında yaşıyan gayrimüslim Bulgarlar dillerini muhafaza ettiler.

Just like the Karahıtay(Kara-Khitan) language in Turkistan, the language of the Muslim Proto-Bulgars who mixed with the Kipchaks of the Edil/Idil/Itil/Wolga River region also vanished(disappeared / got lost). But, the Christian Bulgars whom continued to live with the name "Chuvash"(without mixing with other Hun-Turk tribes), kept their original language.

Avarların arkasından Bulgarlar gelmiştir. Bunların bir kısmı Şimalî Kafkasya'nın garbî kısmında ve Don nehri kıyılarında, diğer bir kısmı da orta Edil havzasında yaşamakta idiler. Bulgarların Kubrat ismindeki hükümdarının milâdî 642 tarihinde vefatı üzerine oğulları arasmda ihtilâf başgösterdi. On-Ogur camiası şeklinde toplanan Bulgarlar Karadenizin şimaline ve bilâhare Balkanlara yayılmışlardı. Bunların maruf hükümdarlarının eski Slav-Cyril harfleriyle yazılmış ve tarihleri eski Türk «müçel» ( = on iki hayvan) takvimi ile kaydedilmiş bir listesi zamanımıza kadar vasıl olmuştur.

Bu vesika Bulgarların lisanını tayin eylemek için mühim bir menbadır. Bu gibi vesaik sayesinde eski Tuna Bulgarlarının dilinin de Edil Bulgarlarının dili gibi şimdiki Çuvaş lehçesi ile bir asddan gelen LİR - Türkçe bir dil olduğu anlaşdmıştır. Bu dilde bizim şivelerimizdeki beş yerine bel, sekiz yerine sıkhır, otuz yerine otır, kız yerine kır yahut hır denilmiştir. Buna nazaran Bulgar ismi de bel-gur, yani beş ogur, yahut beş oğuz demek oluyor.

Karadeniz Bulgarları önce Avarların elinde bulunan ülkeleri işgal ettiler ve kendileri Tuna nehrinin aşağı taraflarında ve Dobruca havalisinde yerleştiler. Bunların eski hükümdarlarına ait bazı heykeller kalmıştır.

If we should mention the Iranian rumours about the ancient Turks, we know that Asadî Tûsîde said that the ruling tribes were the Yugur's. The location of this ancient Turkish world state, is were the Uygurs and their centre in the Central Tienshan regions are, and their rules is calles "Khaqan-i Yugur".

During the Hun periods at BCE times, The Hun state was a community consisted of Yugur(Ogur) tribes that were the Oghuz politcal tribes, and the name of these communities was called Kun.
About the language subject could also be thought the same things. In East Europe, that there Lir-Turkish speaking people among the Yugurs(Ogurs) is seen from the tribe and group names in the historical documents, i mentioned this above as Ogur-Yugur. But, there is also evidnce that the actual Ogur dialects were the same as the Shaz-Turkish that lived during the Great Hun Empire of BCE times. The name of Attila's son was Dengiz, and not Dengir.

Just like the Kipchaks in East Europe, the language of the Kun's that came from North China had close similarities with the Oghuz dialect, the evidence for this was found in the Mahmud Kashgari source. But, the East Kun's were an Oghuzes group that were part of the older Hunnish periods.

In a nutshell, Gagauzes are Early Middle Age N.Pontic Bulgars, who either moved to Balkans with Asparukh, or survived a 150-year period of Badjanak-Besenyo-Patsinak dominance of the N.Pontic, then survived the turmoil of Oguz control of the N.Pontic, and then for 2 centuries lived under their kin Kipchak dominance.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/ ... uageEn.htm

http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12290 yazdı:The best indicator of the Gagauz origin is recorded in their self-appellation: in 19th century, prior to their migration to Bessarabia, the Bulgarian Gagauzes in the Ottoman Turkey called themselves "Hasli Bulgar" (True Bulgars) or "Eski Bulgar" (Old Bulgars) and considered the term "Gagauz", applied to them by thir Slavic neighbors whom they called "toukan", demeaning, and held themselves to be Asparukh Bulgarians, the Slavic "Gagauz" was linguistical and not ethnic distinction. Gagauzes called their language Türkchya. In linguistics, the Gagauz language serves as an etalon of a Türkic language that has not been impacted by borrowing from the Iranian languges.

Details: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12290
Kullanıcı avatarı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Re: Bulgaristan bölgesinde Antik DNA çalışmaları

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 12 Haz 2015, 01:15

Dear Prof. Dr Angel S Galabov,

I am researching the genetic structure found in the ancient dna studies. I have some questions regarding your recent very important study about the Proto-Bulgarians, named "Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians". I value your attempt to conduct an ancient dna study on such an important population. I am asking you kindly, if you could answer my questions.

I can see that the ancient samples are from 700-1000 AD.

My questions:

Question 1:
-In your study only MT-DNA haplogroups are tested. Are you also going to test Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroups on the ancient samples? I think the importance of the Y-DNA side is unavoidably important. Can you please also conduct Y-DNA tests for the samples? It would really mean a lot if you were to also test Y-chromosome DNA on the ancient samples. And i hope, you could test tens of more Y-DNA samples of ancient Proto Bulgarians.

Question 2:
-In the results, there are three samples with MT-DNA haplogroup H1. The sample ID's are MM 1.2, NJ 50, TUH 1665.

During my research i found that, at several ancient dna studies, the Y-DNA haplogroups that were found together with MT-DNA H1, were the following: F*, G2a, I2a, R1b, T1a.
Do you think that the MT-DNA H1 results found among the ancient Proto Bulgarian samples(700-1000 AD) could also belong to the Y-DNA haplogroups F*, G2a, I2a, R1b, T1a?

The exact data:

In ancient France, 3000 BCE, a sample with Y-DNA G2, had MT-DNA H1.
In ancient France, 3000 BCE, a sample with Y-DNA I2a, had MT-DNA H1.
In ancient Spain, 3900 - 3600 BCE, a sample with Y-DNA I2a2a1, had MT-DNA H1.
In ancient Germany, 5207 - 5070 BCE, a sample with Y-DNA T1a, had MT-DNA H1.
In ancient Germany, 3887 - 3797 BCE, a sample with Y-DNA F*, had MT-DNA H1.
In ancient Germany, 2296 - 2206 BCE, a sample with Y-DNA R1b1a2a1a2, had MT-DNA H1.

Question 3:
-What do the archaeological findings/results exactly say about the name of the culture of the analyzed remains? What i understand from the descriptions in the article, is that the archaological findings show that the burials are not of Slavic origin, but of Proto Bulgarian origin? Did you know that that the core of the Huns(Oghurs, Kutrigurs, Acatziri, etcetera) were of the same origin as the Sakha/Scythians? Did you know that the ancient historical sources like 5th century Roman statesman Priscus, called the Huns of Attila in many paragraphs as "Scythians"? Dont you agree that if the 3th-5th century Huns of Attila were of Western Eurasian origin, that the Proto-Bulgarians were also of the same origin like these Huns and earlier Sakha/Scythians? Did you know that the Sakha/Scythians and the earlier Cimmerians were of same origin, and they lived in the Western Eurasian regions, including Bulgaria?

Prof. Angel S. Galabov yazdı:Your questions are very interesting and we shall reply you immediately after the end of the Genetic Congress in Glasgow, June 6-9th, 2015.

(i) The Y-chromosome is found only in males. Moreover, it is known that the Y-chromosome has only one copy per cell unlike the mtDNA which can have hundreds of copies (per cell). Mainly because of these reasons it is widely accepted to perform analyses of past populations only through the survey of the ancient mtDNA.

(ii) The Y-chromosome and the mtDNA are uniparental genetic systems withindependent inheritance. It is impossible to predict the Y-chromosome haplogroup affiliation based on the mtDNA haplogroup data. The Y-chromosome haplogroups are determined only through genotyping.

(iii) The archeological data about our analyzed samples clearly show that the burials are of Proto-Bulgarians. The Slavs used to practice cremation.

We have the impression that you are not familiar with the well known fact (proved by a series of historical documents) that Proto-Bulgarians arrived in Europe at 165 AD and settled north of the Caucuses.
The Huns arrived in Europe 250 years later and moved to Central Europe following a route which was significantly distant at north of the Proto-Bulgarians’ lands. The Proto-Bulgarians founded three great states in Europe: The Great Old Bulgaria (second century AD), the Volga-Kama Bulgaria (seventh century AD) and the Danubian Bulgaria (seventh century AD).The Proto-Bulgarians have nothing in common with Huns, Scynthians and Cimmerians.

I think that the supplementary materials in your e-mail-reply are to a large extent with a political sense.

I have a question for you:

In the scientific literature there are two well differentiated terms –Turks and Turkic people. The respective adjectives are: Turkish and Turkic. Do you agree with the existence of difference between these two terms?

Dear Prof. Dr Angel S Galabov,

Many thanks for your reply.

-As far as i know, recently there are new Y-SNP genotyping techniques for ancient dna. With this new technique the contamination risk is minimum, and makes testing the Y-SNP for ancient dna easier. I hope you can test the Y-Chromosome SNP dna of the ancient Proto Bulgarians, is there a possibility that this could happen? I think it is very important.

-I think you are referring to this information available online:

Vundovite exodus of Bulgarians in Armenia it in 186 or 187 AD. Hr. Dating fully corresponds with the data from the "Name List of Bulgarian princes" which states that the Bulgarians managed by Dulo dynasty in 165 AD already in Europe.

Do you know of the data in the source of Priscus, who was a 5th-century Roman diplomat, historian and rhetorician? He writes about the execution of Mama and Atakam, two royal Hunnish refugees, they were executed in Bulgaria-Hirsova(Хърсово) for treason, because they and their ancestors fled to the Roman countries, Caucasus Black Sea regions a while ago(probably hundreds of years ago leaving the Hunnish countries.

Mamik and Konak were leaders of noble Hunnish tribes whom migrated from China and Central Asia to the Caucasus and Anatolian regions, and founded the Mamikonian dynasty at 314 AD which dominated Armenia. This shows there were many Hunnish tribes whom were already in European regions centuries earlier(earlier than 4th century AD) than the times of Attila. Priscus, the most reliable source for European Huns, many times describes the Huns and Hunnish royal families as "Scythian", which means that the Huns were descendants of the earlier first Scythians/Sakha's of 11th century BCE.

The famous Hunnish tribe Acatziri(Agachiri), was also present during the older Scythian/Sakha period as a Sycthian tribe named Agathyrsi. As you know, Scythia Minor includes modern regions of Bulgaria and Romania, which means that Scythians/Sakha's and their Western Hunnish descendants ruled Bulgarian and Caucasian regions beginning from BCE times until 6th century AD. Herodotus(484 - 425 BCE) writes that the Agathyrsi Scythian/Sakha tribe ruled ancient Dacian(Bulgaria, Romania-Transylvania) regions. So, the Huns were present in Caucasian-Black Sea regions(including Bulgaria) in the 5th century BCE. The royal Dulo clan of the ruling Proto Bulgarians who were of Hunnish descent were also descendants of the same Huns/Scythians.

After the 6th century AD the Proto Bulgarian term that you mention, in other words the Dulo dynasty which is of royal Hunnish origin ruled Bulgaria for centuries. It is a widely accepted fact that the Proto Bulgarian were of Hunnish/Turkish origin, trying to force falsified statements against such accepted facts is against the rules of logics, and this is what is to be called political. The names of the Proto Bulgarians in the geneaological trees obviously show that they were descendants of the earlier Hunnish and Scythian tribes.

-I dont agree with these terms. And i have a question for you. Do you see any terms in historical/scientific literatures which refer to the ancient German tribes from Caucasia as Germanic, and refer to the later German tribes(Dutch, French, Allemagne) from Western Europe as Germanish? Do you understand that it does not make sense at all to call the German tribes of the 7th century AD from Western Europe as Germanish, and the German tribes of the 4th century AD as Germanic? These are the same people, they only made migrations from Caucasia to Western Europe, and to refer to them with non logical approaches that divide/seperate their origin like "ish" or "ic", can only be called as a political view of point, has nothing to do with science and history. The same counts for the Turks of Türkiye and Central Asia. Do you see any historical sources that refer to the Selcukids as Turkish and to the Karakhanids as Turkic? Also, these terms are only related to the gramatical variations in English language, invented by English/US intelligences, which has nothing to do with scientific-historical truth. Both Selcukids and Karakhanids are of Turk origin, "Turk" used in 5th century and later Persian and Chinese sources for the defining of dozens of later Turk tribes(including Selcukids and Karakhanids) whom are direct descendants of the Huns and Scythians whom(at least the core) are of Western Eurasian origin(both historically/archaeologically/anthropologically and genetically). The Proto Bulgarians became a region of the Western Turk Khanate.

Prof. Angel S. Galabov yazdı:As you have underlined in your e-mail of June 14th, 2015 you do not agree with the difference between the two terms Turks and Turkic people, and the respective adjectives Turkish and Turkic. You consider that “…these terms are only related to the grammatical variations in English language, invented by English/US intelligences, which has nothing to do with scientific-historical truth”. But, this is not true: approximately all European and the great majority of Asian languages use two different words which underline this difference:

----------------------- turkish------------ turkic
Bosnian------------ turski------------ turkijski
Bulgarian------------ турски------------ тюркски
(turski)------------ (tyurkski)
Byelorussian------------ турэцки------------ цюркцки
(turecki)------------ (тsyurktski)
Czech------------ turečtina------------ turkic
English------------ turkish------------ turkic
Estonian------------ tűrgi------------ turgi
Finish------------ turkki------------ turkkilainen
French------------ turc------------ turque
German------------ tűrkisch------------ turkic
Greek------------ τoυρκiκή------------ toυρκiκéζ
Hungarian------------ tőrők------------ turkī
Icelandian------------ turkish------------ tyrknesku
Irish------------ тuircis------------ turkic
Italian------------ turco------------ turca
Latvian------------ turkish------------ turkic
Litoanian------------ turku------------ tiurky
Norwegian------------ turkish------------ turkic
Portugal------------ turco------------ turcomana
Russian------------ турецкий------------ тюркск
(turetskij)------------ (tyurkskij)
Serbian------------ турски------------ туркийски
(turski)------------ (turkijski)
Slovak------------ turečtina------------ turkic
Slovenian------------ turščina------------ turškimi
Swedish------------ turkiska------------ turkic
Chinese------------ tű’ĕrqī------------ tūjué
Japanese------------ toriko-go------------ churukugo-zoku
Khazahian------------ tyrik------------ tyrki
Korean------------ teoki-u------------ twileukeueora
Khmer------------ tuokkī------------ tuoki
Lao------------ tuakki------------ turkic
Mongolian------------ tуркийн------------ турэг
(turkijn)------------ (tureg)
Nepal------------ tarkī------------ turkī
Vietnamese------------ Thô Nhī Ký------------ turkic
Africans------------ turkish------------ turkse

Mr Kucukozel,

The deference between the meaning of these terms is well characterized and formulated in the scientific literature.

In my opinion your position is the position of a Turkish chauvinist. Your historical views have the same character.

The further discussion on scientific topics and the correspondence with you is a nonsense.

Best regards,

Prof. Angel S. Galabov, MD, DSc

Dear Prof. Dr Angel S Galabov,

Our subject was the origin of the Proto Bulgarians. The fact that you are changing the subject and weirdly are expressing yourself, shows the hate against Turks in your hearth, shows that you are unfit to perform science in a neutral and logical way, to seek the real truth. While it is so obvious that Proto Bulgarians are the descendants of Sakha's-Huns-Turks, i really cant understand the reason for not accepting this obvious fact?

Coming to the Turk language off topic discussion. As a scientist, you should know that every language has its dialects. The dialect of the Turk language in Türkiye, is the Oghuz dialect.

As you probably know, there are many countries and tribes in Central Asia. So, there are also many different Turk dialects spoken in the Central Asian countries, the same counts for the tribes in the Balkans, Caucasus and Siberia. Do they all speak other languages of different origins?

There are three main dialects of the main Turk language:

1. Oghuz dialect

2. Karluk dialect

3. Kipchak dialect

Al these dialects have also subdialects. Being a dialect does not mean that the spoken language is of a different origin, i think you should know this. So, if you try to seperate the languages between the Turks of Türkiye and the Turks of Central Asia(which is wrong and not scientific), then were to put the language spoken by the Gagauz Turks, or the language spoken by the Chuvash Turks, or the language spoken by the Azerbaijani Turks, or the language spoken by the Karachay Turks, or the language spoken by the Karai Turks? Or the language spoken by the Karamani Turks?

Since the Turks from Türkiye obviously migrated from Central Asia, it is irrational to think that the Turk language in Türkiye is different than the
Turk language in Central Asia. What if thousand years ago, the modern Oghuz Turks from Türkiye stayed in Central Asia and did not migrate to the Anatolian regions, how would you then define their spoken language, which word would you use?

The reason for the non scientific attempt to seperate the Turks in Türkiye from the same Turks in Central Asia, is obviously politically related to the strategies of the Russian, UK/US intelligences. They are afraid of a occurence of a Turk Union in the close future, which is inevitable.

The reason for the two different words "Türkçe" and "Türki" is strictly only related to dialectial differences. It has the same meaning, which is "The Turk Language" and only in the English literature it is used with political goals.

During the Ottoman period, "Türki" was also used to define the term with meaning "The Turk Language". The "Kamûs-ı Türkî" is an important example of an ancient Ottoman source referring to the Turk Language spoken by the Turks in the Anatolian region as "Türki". Dialects cause for the change of form of specific words, it does not mean the original meaning of the word is changing.

We must look at the language used in the 6th century - 8th century AD, Orkhun Inscriptions, which is the root source for defining the origins of the words in the Turk Language. There is nowhere in the Orkhun Inscriptions any difference seen like "Turkic or Turkish". The Orkhun Inscriptions only use a single term, which is "Türk". For example the ancient Central Asian Turks of the 6th century AD define the term Turk Nation with "Türk Budun". And it is obvious, there is no mention of a fictional political term like "Türkic Budun"! The right term to define the Turk Nation is "Türk Budun"! The language of the "Turk Nation" is the "Turk Language"!

During the late Soviet Union beginning with Stalin, in cooperation with the US government, on purpose the Turk languages in Central Asia where divided with terms like "Uzbek", "Kazakh", "Kygyz", etc. Now, in the modern high technology times, this plan has failed, now the only goal is to try to differentiate the Turks from Türkiye with the Turks from Central Asia with the help of bad intended non scientific political terms like "Turk-ic" and "Turk-ish".

Why is this so non logical? Because, these people cannot assign a third term to for example the Turks in the Balkans, what language do the Gagauz speak? Is it maybe "Turk-ekh" or "Turk-ash" or "Turk-cha" (being sarcastic). The truth is that there is one language, the language of the Turks in the 6th century, which is equal to the language of the Huns and the Sakha. The Orkhun Inscriptions obviosly mention only one term, which is "Türk Budun", so only "Turk" is important, the rest has all to do with dialectial word differences, and the Ottomans also used the word "Türki", which means this word is equal to modern "Türkçe". You must know that you cannot change the meaning of the words of a language by using methods of other languages. A language as old and strong as the Turk Language cannot be changed with 50-60 years of politcal/hate-crime campgains. I hope these solid arguments can motivate you to understand the truth.

As a conclusion, i cant understand how people like you can become a scientist? You are obviously afraid of discussing the real subject about the truth of the origin of the Proto Bulgarians, because your first attempt was to jump to an off-topic subject about the English additional terms of "ic" and "ish". You could not even provide one reliable argument, in which you proof that the Proto Bulgarians are not the Huns/Sakha's/Turks. In stead you choose to redirect the civilized discussion to an off-topic subject, and begin insulting me with words like "chauvinist", while my text includes only respect towards you. This shows your intentions, goals and approach to perform non logical science.
Kullanıcı avatarı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Dön Antik DNA

Kimler çevrimiçi

Bu forumu gezen kullanıcılar: Hiç bir kayıtlı kullanıcı yok ve 1 misafir