Posts
Okay, maybe my imagination is just getting carried away. But have a look at those ancient Thracian faces again, put up a few posts ago.
Besides looking a lot like modern Bulgarians, don’t they also look a bit… Black Irish?
I grew up among the Irish of Canada, and it seems to me I see familiar features on the streets of Sofia: the inverted smile, broad faces, dark Firbolg looks like those of my Black Irish cousins, receding chins like Tommy Makem’s.
There are two possible reasons, other than chance or personal delusion. First, we know there were Celts to the north of Greece in early Classical times. Classical Greek authors speak of them; Pythagoras claimed they taught him all he knew. It might have been a branch of these same Bulgarian Celts who later crossed the Irish Channel, in their general move westward through Europe.
Second, there is the amber route. Ancient Thrace was madly rich with silver deposits. Amber was a major trade good, and it was mostly found on beaches along the North Sea. There is a natural river trade route, up the Danube and down the Rhine, that starts in Bulgaria and ends near the English Channel. From there, the Celts dominated the sea trade in amber, at least from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC.
The Celts or the Bulgarians might easily have migrated along this route, in either direction, just as the French Metis migrated along the fur trade routes in early Canada. It would have made strategic sense for them to have tried to control both ends of the trade, the point of production and the point of retail distribution: a vertical monopoly.
It would follow that the designation of the Irish as “Celts” and the Bulgarians as “Slavs” is not really accurate; but these were always linguistic terms, and language is easier to change than blood.
It’s one way to explain the strange Black Irish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Hi, Anonymous!
Until I had seen the ancient busts in the Sofia Archeological Museum, I would have agreed with you. But now I have. The ancient busts from the Greek world generally look strikingly like modern Greeks. But the Thracian busts do not. They look a lot like modern Bulgarians.
The idea of a great migration of Slavic speakers from the area of the Volga is based on linguistic evidence. But linguistic evidence is shaky: people can learn a new language without changing their genetic makeup.
We also know from Greek writers that ancient Thrace was very heavily populated: it was believed by them to be the most densely populated part of the world after India. It is intrinsically unlikely that its population could have been completely swamped by a tribe arriving from a long distance away on horseback. The latter group, for logistical reasons, could not have been all that numerous--otherwise they would have starved on the way.
Nor is it likely that the majority of the Thracian population were rooted out. No other land area nearby could sustain such a dense population--they surely would not have left voluntarily, for this would have simply meant mass starvation. Nor would it have been in the interests of the Bulgars, nomadic people, to have driven the settlers off the land, since they themselves did not know how to tend it. Better to collect taxes.
Ergo, it seems to me almost certain that the current population of Bulgaria is, genetically, about the same as the ancient Thracians, who occupied the same territory.
They are probably also your own near relatives, although they speak a different language.
As for the Mediterranean Turks--there was probably less mixing there, because of differences in religion and the prohibition against inter-religious marriage in Islam. But I bet there was a lot, and that Mediterranean Turks are largely or mostly Greek genetically.
Helps remind us we are all brothers, I suppose.
In the Dobruja region there many black haired people but only for joke would call many of them Bulgarians,as a lot of Mongol-turkic(patzinak) races passed and stayed there,,and ofcourse mixed(mongols were a plague back then).It was the centre of ottoman rule in notrh balkan along with tataria.So you cant parallalizing them with Irish or calling them native????Also in northern greek Thrace and Southern Bulgaria there are the Pomaks,for whom 2 are the most possible scenarios:
1)Firstly they are the indigenous populations of the remnants of ancient tribes of thrace
2)they are pure slavs who settled in the area(you cant deny the fact that the area was runned by Slavs judging by the present).It was a big problem for the E.R.Empire,we have Emperors calling for the slavic problem,finding settlements for them,saving the locals by hiring slavs as cheap vessels and guardians of Danube.Also many chronicles of the 7-8-9-10th century describe the Bulgarians as different tribe which invade the land and became the plague of the old inhabbitants.Why so many wars with them(modern day turkish and greek thrace and the coastal east thrace were inhabitted by Greeks)???I totally agree that Thracians were not Greeks,as Greeks settled in the south most part and the east side of the Evros war mostly Greek and the coastal line from Kalipoli to Constantinople wasnt settled by thracians but by Greeks.Thracians were rivals to Greeks,for some times,and other times they were "secret allies"(against Persians during the Scythian campaign).Other times there was a battle of total extermination as the early Makedonian kingdom(comprising most of the modern day greek Makedonia) was suffering to barbarian(thracian mostly) raids.Makedonians kings campaigned a lot of times against those clans of warlike barbarians or used them as mercenaries.Another greek race-state Athenians is well known for its rivaly with tracians in the colonies they established in what is south(or 1/2) of greek Thrace.In most cases they found alienated areas so you cant speak of "natives and displaced" as it was in south east Sicily,where natives didnt exist or were in the mountainous regions living like primitives and dont care about the things of the "plain and coast" people.Athenians contribute a lot in hellenizing many thracia,who migrate to Athens.Also remember the statue of Victory in Samothrace,which was made after a victory over the barbarians(of a thracian tribe that were annoying the mercants of a greek city,maybe Avdyra),in which a famous Greek took part.As for the Turks,i would be stupid to call all of them Greeks,but certain areas and a percentage of 15% of them is of pure Greek blood.My race suffered the biggest islamization,and whole villages were brought to islam.Thrace is no exception,but 1914 wasn the beginning,many thracian greeks became turks during 13-14-15-16-17-18 century,and many of them became turks to save their lives(during ,1770,21' revolution,whole villages).Many alevites are of greek blood and people of lycia and mountainous pontus where emigration to greece was impossible or the turks passed a silent turkization(during 1914-1923).In thrace the lines among races had came to an end after 1878.Bulgarians were bulgarians,greeks were greeks,jews were jews and turks were turks no matter of the past.Its like Romania or Sicily.Romania has a lot of blackhaired people,but Mongols also have most of their people blackhaired.In Eastern Sicily for instance were America places the typical italian emigrante,real latin influnece was zero.Latins were the outnembered minority even in the late roman times.And until the invasion of the germanic Normands and their germanic based army,there were more Arabs and Greeks.Italians(natives) were mostly in the central part.But nowadays most Sicilians claim to be the old natives who mixed with Latins.
Well as a Bulgarian, I feel I should disclose things from our perspective as well :) There is no definite theory of the exact origin of present day bulgarians, but the most widely believed one, supported also by genetic data is that contemporary Bulgarians are a result of a mix between Ancient Bulgars (descendants of the huns), Celts (as you said, there were a few celtic kingodms in the balkans), Slavs and Thracians. In %, the Bulgars were less than 10%,being the rulling class and the core of the army. The slavs were a large part of the population, however, since they were looked down upon by both bulgars and thracians, they were not that much integrated. The idea of Bulgarians being slavs is a political one, propagated by the panslavic notion during the Communist Regime. Recent archaelogic and antropologic theoroes all confirm that genetically, bulgarians are a lot closer to thracians than they were to the ancient Bulgars. And anonymous isn't correct. The thracians arround the 7th and 8th century did not consider themselves greek, but roman. One could say that bulgarians are romanized thracians who adopted the slavic language.
Hello, Steve!
It so happens I am studying this exact same issue. So far I've found much proof that the Irish and Bulgarians are indeed related.
Concerning the "Slavs", "Celts" and other different names: they are indeed only names; ancient Greeks gave various names to other peoples, which can easily be proven by reading about the same historical events concerning the same folk, only described by a number of different authors, who call this particular folk different names. In our case, Bulgarians have been said to be Slavs, Celts, Huns, Thracians, Bulgars, etc. But it is all about the Bulgarians.
I assume this is so, because it was (and is) far more convenient to divide a formerly united folk by giving specific groups their own names, later on - their own history, etc.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") as the old strategy says.
May I only ask you this question, because I'm gathering as much information, as I can:
you say that "Pythagoras claimed they [the Bulgarians] taught him all he knew". Where can I find this? It's a very curious phrase to me, and I admit I've never yet heard of it, so I am highly interested in the source.
Other than this I would like to thank you for your post, I was really happy to read it and to know that our Irish brothers haven't forgotten their history. Which, alas, I cannot say about my fellow Bulgarians.
Recent genetic data shows descent mostly from Thracians?Not true,as a matter of fact a expedition(not sure real name,but sometimes called Tangra) proved with official genetic studies done by the Bulgarian academy of science that Bulgarians are mostly Iranic(Pamirian-Hindukush mountains) in genes when compared to modern day Pamirian peoples(Iranic),a scientist of the expedition said that modern day Iranic people look similar to Bulgarians.Scientist in expedition said we have very little Slav blood.Also the Bulgarian language has many many Iranic words which are the same as the Pamirian words.The idea that the Bulgars were few when they came is a wrong idea,in the documentaries:"The Bulgarians"(I think that was the name,at least the name in youtube) Bulgarian historians now say that Bulgurs were much more numerous then originally thought,perhaps according to them in the millions(Makes sense since they were able to easily control the local Slavs and Thracians,and since Great Bulgaria was quite big and since there were so many Bulgar tribes, that were united(brought together from all over Europe and Asia) such as Onogurs,Kara black Bulgars,Utigurs and Kutrigurs)Also contradictory to the idea that the Bulgars were around 40 000,they had to be much more to be able to win the battle of ongal and to make Byzantines pay tribute(they had to be quite a lot or the numerous Byzantines would have attacked them again and defeated them)Also to be able to defeat the Byzantines army of around 50 000 they had to have a big army themselves,and thats just the men,there are also children, women and old people in the tribe-basically a lot to be able to support such an army and to be able to control the numerous slavs and tracians,already more than the 40000 Bulgars said to have come.The Celtic Bulgar link is actually Irish-Cimmerian-Bulgar link as it is thought that the Cimmerians were Bulgars,Irish or both-I have read on this and there is lots of evidence which convinced me that there is a link-the Irish words,ancient religion and myths have similarities to Bulgar ones,some of the names are the same.Bulgar culture and modern day Bulgarian culture has lots of similarities to Iranic.For link to genetic study and similiraties to Iranic culture and list of Iranic Bulgarian words and for links to university studies saying Bulgars' first kingdom was in Iranic land go to the discussion page of Bulgars in wikipedia to the section "Complaint of racism"
Recent genetic data shows descent mostly from Thracians?Not true,as a matter of fact a expedition(not sure real name,but sometimes called Tangra) proved with official genetic studies done by the Bulgarian academy of science that Bulgarians are mostly Iranic(Pamirian-Hindukush mountains) in genes when compared to modern day Pamirian peoples(Iranic),a scientist of the expedition said that modern day Iranic people look similar to Bulgarians.Scientist in expedition said we have very little Slav blood.Also the Bulgarian language has many many Iranic words which are the same as the Pamirian words.The idea that the Bulgars were few when they came is a wrong idea,in the documentaries:"The Bulgarians"(I think that was the name,at least the name in youtube) Bulgarian historians now say that Bulgurs were much more numerous then originally thought,perhaps according to them in the millions(Makes sense since they were able to easily control the local Slavs and Thracians,and since Great Bulgaria was quite big and since there were so many Bulgar tribes, that were united(brought together from all over Europe and Asia) such as Onogurs,Kara black Bulgars,Utigurs and Kutrigurs)Also contradictory to the idea that the Bulgars were around 40 000,they had to be much more to be able to win the battle of ongal and to make Byzantines pay tribute(they had to be quite a lot or the numerous Byzantines would have attacked them again and defeated them)Also to be able to defeat the Byzantines army of around 50 000 they had to have a big army themselves,and thats just the men,there are also children, women and old people in the tribe-basically a lot to be able to support such an army and to be able to control the numerous slavs and tracians,already more than the 40000 Bulgars said to have come.The Celtic Bulgar link is actually Irish-Cimmerian-Bulgar link as it is thought that the Cimmerians were Bulgars,Irish or both-I have read on this and there is lots of evidence which convinced me that there is a link-the Irish words,ancient religion and myths have similarities to Bulgar ones,some of the names are the same.Bulgar culture and modern day Bulgarian culture has lots of similarities to Iranic.For link to genetic study and similiraties to Iranic culture and list of Iranic Bulgarian words and for links to university studies saying Bulgars' first kingdom was in Iranic land go to the discussion page of Bulgars in wikipedia to the section "Complaint of racism"
Hello, my dear Celtic brother! There are also a lot of similarities in the traditional bagpipe music,national symbols, and the culture at all of Bulgarians and Celts as well. We have mixed history not only on the Balkans but in Asia as both tribes are Indo-Iranian by origin. Now it is 100% known and proven by genetical and cultural studies that the BulgArians come from ancient Persia/Iran - Kingdom of Balkhara. All these comments I read in the previous posts that Bulgarians are mixed of slavs, huns, mongolians, thracians, etc. make me laugh. Only a complete uneducated fool can still believe in this communist propaganda from the beginning of the 20th century.
So the conclusion is YES - BULGARIANS AND CELTS ARE VERY VERY CLOSE PEOPLE!!! I have also noticed that the people's faces look the same.
Greetings from Bulgaria, dear brothers. We wish you all the best :)
Nick is my name
Hi Guys,
Why, after reading all this posts, it comes to me, that all of you, somehow get to the point, where you have to show relation to Bulgarians, hihi. As a native one, I feel great, that all of you are touched so deep, calling us with a hundreds of different names, although we are so small number of people. We've been called with so many insulting names, without any reason. Why? Where is the truth? Genetic memory? For me is clear, that all of you , you never meet a real Bulgarian! Please, remember, we are all created brothers, full of love and positive mood. When some day you meet a real Bulgarian , you will understood... Love you all ! Nick Ikonomov, Sofia
Well, thanks to Steve, the truth is now coming to the surface for all to see. I have just recently found out Bulgarians were probably a Celtic tribe after watching the movie Pompeii and doing some research on my own, mostly DNA studies at Eupedia. Yes, black Irish and Bulgarians almost look alike. I am one such individual myself. I have been asked by Anglo-Saxons if I were Irish (I am from Sofia), so...:)
Anyway, the Bulgars were not Asian mongoloid people. Mongol gens in modern day Bulgarians is less than 1%, which is standard for most of Europe. The so called southern Slavs originated locally on the Balkans around the Danube river and have notning to do with eastern or western slavs except perhaps language although this is debatable too. Some speculate that the southerns Slavs are the Thracians and have been around here long before the Greek Dorian tribes first came on the peninsula. The Celts originated in the Caucacus mountains and first settled in the northwestern shores of Black Sea (modern Romania) and also in southern Thrace (modern Turkey, before it was part of Bulgaria for a long time) as well as in Anatolia - the area known as Galatia. Even in some parts of modern Urkaine there were Celts. The horse was first domesticated in the northwestern steppes of Black Sea, so Celts were known as horsemen. So were the proto-Bulgarians. Coincidence? Hardly. Bulgarians are Celts. It is posiible that the Thracians were also closely related to Celts and had established a common union for some time after the fall of Alexander the Great. Anyway, proud to be a descendant of the Bulgarian Celts. Waiting for my AncestryDNA to prove it.
"If we carefully examine the peculiarities of every large haplogroup of the Bulgarian population, we will conclude that at least 80% of it belongs to indigenous Balkan populations:
(i) R-L23* is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period;
(ii) haplogroup E-V13 has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the arrival of farming;
(iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea;
(iv) haplogroup I-M423 is the genetic record of Balkan Mesolithic foragers and their expansion after the adoption of agriculture;
(v) considerable part of bearers of R1a belong to R-M458 – people inhabiting the Balkans between 12,400 and 4100 years, while the other variant of R1a is not proven to be identical with R1a of Indian, or Iranian populations, so it most likely belongs to a groups inhabiting the Black Sea steppe in Antiquity;
An additional haplogroup can be added to the list – G2, which, although represented by only 2% of the Bulgarian population, is very ancient, and belongs to the oldest European hunter-gatherers, who were apparently assimilated by the Thracians in the Neolithic Age – approximately 9000 years ago.
These are the ratios of the haplogroups typical of the Bulgarian people:
I-M423 -20.2% -Age aprox. 12 000 years;
E-V13 -18.1%. -Age aprox. 10 000 years;
R-L23* - 5.2% -Age aprox. 13 000 years
J - 19% -Age aprox. 10 000 years;
R-M17 -17% -Age aprox. 12 400-4100-1300 (?) years;
G2 -2% -Age aprox. 12 000 years;
The data from the scientific research is clear. There is no doubt that approximately 80% of the Bulgarian people have Thracian ancestors."
"If we carefully examine the peculiarities of every large haplogroup of the Bulgarian population, we will conclude that at least 80% of it belongs to indigenous Balkan populations:
(i) R-L23* is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period;
(ii) haplogroup E-V13 has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the arrival of farming;
(iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea;
(iv) haplogroup I-M423 is the genetic record of Balkan Mesolithic foragers and their expansion after the adoption of agriculture;
(v) considerable part of bearers of R1a belong to R-M458 – people inhabiting the Balkans between 12,400 and 4100 years, while the other variant of R1a is not proven to be identical with R1a of Indian, or Iranian populations, so it most likely belongs to a groups inhabiting the Black Sea steppe in Antiquity;
An additional haplogroup can be added to the list – G2, which, although represented by only 2% of the Bulgarian population, is very ancient, and belongs to the oldest European hunter-gatherers, who were apparently assimilated by the Thracians in the Neolithic Age – approximately 9000 years ago.
These are the ratios of the haplogroups typical of the Bulgarian people:
I-M423 -20.2% -Age aprox. 12 000 years;
E-V13 -18.1%. -Age aprox. 10 000 years;
R-L23* - 5.2% -Age aprox. 13 000 years
J - 19% -Age aprox. 10 000 years;
R-M17 -17% -Age aprox. 12 400-4100-1300 (?) years;
G2 -2% -Age aprox. 12 000 years;
The data from the scientific research is clear. There is no doubt that approximately 80% of the Bulgarian people have Thracian ancestors."
If we carefully examine the peculiarities of every large haplogroup of the Bulgarian population, we will conclude that at least 80% of it belongs to indigenous Balkan populations:
(i) R-L23* is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period;
(ii) haplogroup E-V13 has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the arrival of farming;
(iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea;
(iv) haplogroup I-M423 is the genetic record of Balkan Mesolithic foragers and their expansion after the adoption of agriculture;
(v) considerable part of bearers of R1a belong to R-M458 – people inhabiting the Balkans between 12,400 and 4100 years, while the other variant of R1a is not proven to be identical with R1a of Indian, or Iranian populations, so it most likely belongs to a groups inhabiting the Black Sea steppe in Antiquity;
An additional haplogroup can be added to the list – G2, which, although represented by only 2% of the Bulgarian population, is very ancient, and belongs to the oldest European hunter-gatherers, who were apparently assimilated by the Thracians in the Neolithic Age – approximately 9000 years ago.
These are the ratios of the haplogroups typical of the Bulgarian people:
I-M423 -20.2% -Age aprox. 12 000 years;
E-V13 -18.1%. -Age aprox. 10 000 years;
R-L23* - 5.2% -Age aprox. 13 000 years
J - 19% -Age aprox. 10 000 years;
R-M17 -17% -Age aprox. 12 400-4100-1300 (?) years;
G2 -2% -Age aprox. 12 000 years;
The data from the scientific research is clear. There is no doubt that approximately 80% of the Bulgarian people have Thracian ancestors.
Post a Comment