проф. Добрев

Венгерская юрта ничем не отличается от монгольской, потому что она не венгерская, а болгарская. Основатель венгерского государства и родоначальник венгров хан Арпад - болгар: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Treasure_1.pdf http://rum33code.net/md/BG/Activities/Publication/Dobrev.php http://bolgnames.com/Images/Treasure_2.pdf

Исправил и это уже я.

Не сказал бы, что Шабалов обладает даже минимальными лингвистическими знаниями насчет языка хунну и никоем образом не приближает нас к истине: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Principles.pdf http://bolgnames.com/Images/Osmanids_2.1.pdf

Стишок про Пугу сказан по-болгарски: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Xiongnu.pdf И В А Н Д О Б Р Е В ПОТОМЪК НА ПРАБЪЛГАРСКИЯ ДИНАСТИЧЕН РОД ДУЛО ОСНОВАВА ТУРСКАТА ДЪРЖАВА (в т о р а ч а с т) The Huns are the immortal topic of human pioneering spirits (Хуните са безсмъртната тема на прогресивния човешки дух!) (в процессе разработки) Най-ранният цялостно-свързан текст на прабългарски език е открит в древнокитайските летописи. През IV в. южните сюнну завладяват Северен Китай, хановете на отделните племена започват да се провъзгласяват за императори на Китай и да воюват помежду си. Около 328 г. ханът на едно от съседните на пугу пак прабългарски племена, Ши Лэ се готви да се притече на помощ на обсадения му близък град, на което се противопоставят неговите сановници. Тогава Ши Лэ се обръща към придворния предсказател, будисткия монах Фоту-дэн за съвет да му каже какви ще бъдат резултатите от бъдещия поход. В звъна на камбанките на пагодата монахът чува предсказание, което той произнася на езика на хунну. Записано на китайски в контекст и отделно, при всеки един от немалкото си на брой проучватели, Стихчето за Пугу има следния вид, транскрибира се и се превежда по всевъзможни начини, някои от които звучат дори и доста странно. При всички тях обаче изобщо липсва или пък е твърде бедна и оскъдна задължителната за случая прабългарска компаративистико-етимологична обосновка и доказателство: Престарелый деревенский чиновник из Бэйюаньши Сунь Цзи поднес Ши Лэ подарки и просил разрешения навестить Лю Яо, на что Ши Лэ дал согласие. Поднеся Лю Яо вино, Сунь Цзи сказал: “Правитель племени пугу объявил себя императором в землях к западу от заставы Ханьгугуань. Вы должны были придерживаться справедливости и охранять земли государства. Однако, легкомысленно командуя войсками, вы потерпели поражение у Лояна. Сливая для вас судьба закончилась, Небо погубило вас. Теперь, когда вы подошли к концу жизни, примите чашу вина”. Лю Яо ответил: “Это будет мне во вред, но я должен выпить за вас”. Услышав об этом, Ши Лэ с грустью, изменившись в лице, сказал: “Достаточно того, что человека, потерявшего государство, упрекнул старец” [Сюаньлин, 132]. При това положение, съвършено очевидно, наред със строго-специфичните фонетико-морфологични черти и особености на прабългарския език, тук не се вземат предвид така също и особеностите на древнокитайската фонетика и по-специално отсъствието в изгласа на зв. r. Това отсъствие се наблюдава между впрочем и при трансференцията и адаптацията в древнокитайския език и на българския етноним. Така вече транскрипцията на Стихчето преди неговото записване чрез китайската йероглифика придобива напълно определен вид, в рамките и с оглед на който се обосновават и доказват и неговите лексико-фонетични и граматични съставки: Süčig täligar Puguγ tоγuduγar Словоформата *süčig e производно съществително име подлог във винителен падеж. Основата sü “войска, армия” е засвидетелствана и в гръкоезичните прабългарски надписи от земите на Дунавска България и по-точно в Омуртаговия надпис при сложно-съставната титл. ΚΑΝΑСΥΒΙΓΙ [Ваклинов 2012, 121-122]. Тук ΚΑΝΑ е звателен падеж от контрахираното каган; СΥΒΙΓΙ е постпозитивно определение със значение “главнокомандващ“, състоящо се от СΥ “войска” и ΒΙΓ “глава, началник, бег”, а -Ι е притежателно окончание 3 л. ед.ч. в неговата вторично-служебна или синтактико-съединителна функция. Собствено прабългарски е и словообразувателният суф. -či, който по интегративен път се заема от прабългарския в старобългарския език, където се прибавя и към основи от друг произход - кънигъчии, кръчии, самъчии, шаръчии, но и зъдьчии, корабьчии и др. [Добрев 2005, 314-316; ~*~2011, 437-439]. За да обозначи само определеност, но не и обект на действието, аккузативният суфикс -g се прибавя и към подлога, както в Надписа на хан Денгиз: Kiŋkeg Dengiz jikü käse! Kijü, čox-čox saxyŋil, gür Täŋrig! Блюдото, от което да се храни хан Денгиз! Човече, бой се много от Него, могъщ е Тангра! [Добрев 2005, 406-408, вж. и срв. Бешевлиев 2014, 17,83,105-106; Серебренников, Гаджиева 1986, 75-77]. Словоформата *täligar се състои от глаголния корен täl- “излизам; тръгвам на война“ и двусъставния суфикс -igar, с помощта на който се образува сегашно-бъдеще време. Коренът на този глагол трябва да се свърже с чув. тул “поверхност; наружная сторона, внешняя сторона“; туллат- “покрывать“; туллă “крытый, с покрышкой“; тулти “находящийся вне жилища, наружный“, тулашри “наружный, внешний“, тулашĕ “внешность, наружность; лицо“, праб-унг. túl “вне“. Съответствия на този корен в огузотюркските езици например са сттюрк. таš “внешний вид, облик; наружная, внешняя сторона“; таš “наружный, внешний; верхний“; тур. dış, диал. teş, diş, башк. тыш, кирг. тыс, уйг. таш, алт. диал. тас, турф-тюрк. tašıl- “падать наружу, вываливаться; выходить“ и др. [ДТС, 539; ЭСТЯз-в, 164-167; ЭСЧЯз, 243-244]. Суфиксът за сегашно-бъдеще време се състои от причастния суфикс -ik и 3 л. ед.ч. на спомагателния глагол ar- с възможно-предположително значение [вж. Добрев 2005, 401-409, вж. и срв. Левитская 1976, 59-65; Серебренников, Гаджиева 1986, 155-172]. Словоформата *tоγuduγar се състои от глаголния корен tоγu- “удрям, бия; побеждавам“ и двусъставния суфикс -tuγar, с помощта на който се образува минало несвършено време, равнозначно и на бъдеще в миналото. Коренът на глагола трябва да се свърже със севернодунавското (Х в.) праб. δυγє-, паралелите и съответствията на което само в някои от историческите тюркски езици например е сттюрк. toqї- “бить, ударять, стучать; вбивать, вколачивать; биться, стучать; ковать, выковывать; класть; устанавливать, воздвигать” [ДТС, 571-577], пак сттюрк. токыт- “велеть вырýзать; поставить”, стуйг. тоґы- “стучать”, стузбек. тоґун- “бить себя” [Радл-3, 1149,1161], стогуз. tokı- “бия някого; чукам по нещо; удрям, изковавам, правя; тъка” [DLT-3, 268]. Суфиксът за минало несвършено време се състои от страдателното минало причастие на -tuγ- и 3 л. ед.ч. на спомагателния глагол ar- с резултативно-завършено значение [вж. Добрев 2005, 392-397, вж. и срв. Аристовъ 2009, 292-397; Дыбо 2013а, 76-80; ЭСТЯз-в-д, 247-249; Закиев 2008, 26-27; Кызласов 2013, 94-95; Левитская 1976, 65-75,85-101; Серебренников, Гаджиева 1986, 159-199,224; Таскин 2012а, 9-12; Bailеy 2011, 40; Ercilasun 2013, 52-55; Pulleyblank 2008, 264; Tekin 2010, 35-55; The Cambridge History 2013, 237-242]. Именно поради всичко това Стихчето за Пугу трябва да се преведе по следния начин: Ако главнокомандващият тръгне на война, Племето пугу ще бъде победено. Эсли главнокомандующий пойдет на войну, Племя Пугу будет побеждено. http://nauka.bg/forum/index.php?showtopic=14656&page=7#entry315120

Современные татары - кыпчаки, но у них имеется солидный болгарский субстрат: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Principles.pdf Племя Кайы - огузское: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Osmanids_1.pdf

Под властью главного воеводы левой части [сюннуских кочевий] находилось приблизительно свыше 10 тыс. юрт, которые жили в бывшем уезде Сюаньши в округе Тайюань; у главного воеводы правой части [сюннуских кочевий] находилось приблизительно свыше 6 тыс. юрт, которые жили в уезде Цисянь; у главного воеводы южной части [сюннуских кочевий] находилось приблизительно свыше 3 тыс. юрт, которые жили в уезде Пуцзы; у главного воеводы северной части [сюннуских кочевий] находилось приблизительно свыше 4 тыс. юрт, которые жили в уезде Синьсин; у главного воеводы средней части [сюннуских кочевий] находилось приблизительно свыше 6 тыс. юрт, которые жили в уезде Тайлин. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/China/V/Zsinschi/text2.htm Все это очень поздние события, а не распад прототюрков, скорее это распад болгаров. Но я все таки не понимаю почему вы сообщаете мне все это, когда я уже постарался проштудировать все доступные мне китайские источники: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Osmanids_2.1.pdf

Вот для чего ей нужно присудить Нобель: Таким образом, можно считать, что, по крайней мере, та часть хунну, с которой общались китайцы и от которых они брали слова, которые считали хуннскими, - говорила на тюркском языке, причем это был пратюркский язык,(?!) - это реконструкция, состояние до распада тюркских языков(?!) на стандартный тюркский и булгарский. Вообще, у Дыбо в работах этот выглядит несколько по другому. Тут есть временная заковыка в вопросе о времени распада тюркских языков. Заимствования из китайского языка в булгарский и другие тюркские (до как бы распада) произошли не ранее III века нашей эры! В это время булгары (южные хунны) еще вполне определенно проживали в Китае (преимущественно в Шаньси). Сам этноним Булгары мог возникнуть не ранее 216 года по инициативе самих китайцев в лице генерала Цао Цао, разделившего хунннов на "пять частей". А это и есть собственно булгары. По моему еще до конца ІV тыс. до н.э. прото-тюрки европеоиды с монголоидной примесью из области Саяно-Алтая разделились на огуро-тюркскую - ре-языковую ветви, с одной стороны, и с другой стороны - на огузо-тюркскую, зе-языковую ветви, где находятся будущие огузы, кыпчаки, уйгуры, карлуки. Первую ветвь, с внутренней точки зрения, можно назвать и былгарской (Bulgarian), а археологическим экспонентом былгарской ветви является Афанасьевская Культура. Все остальное не подлежит комментара, но часть моей концепции здесь: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Principles.pdf http://bolgnames.com/Images/Bolgar.pdf

Хунну/Сюнну являются не тюрками вообще, а болгарами в частности. The Huns are the immortal topic of human pioneering spirits CHEN S., SOME REMARKS ON THE CHINESE “BULGAR” According to Zhou shu[8], the Buluoji were minor or subordinate tribes (bie zhong) of the Xiongnu, and were the descendants of the followers of Liu Yuan, the founder of the Former Zhao Dynasty (304-329), generally regarded as a Xiongnu regime. This earliest account appears to be at least partially accurate, namely in that the Buluoji contained in great part the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that had not been absorbed by the Xianbei. Besides the Zhou shu testimony, additional evidence includes: (1) As convincingly demonstrated by Tang Changru [9], the geographic distribution of the Buluoji as reflected in various records well matched that of the Southern Xiongnu during the Western Jin. Не совсем. Точнее, это тюрки (Ашина и позже выделившийся род Дуло) являлись изначально Южными Хуннами/Сюннами из Ганьсу по китайским летописям. Можно даже сказать, что Тюрки Ашина - это некоторая часть Болгар (южных хунн), оставшихся в Китае. Не понимаю, разве болгары не тюрки, но если Тюрки Ашина - болгары, тогда чему вы возражаете?

Вот для чего ей нужно присудить Нобель: Таким образом, можно считать, что, по крайней мере, та часть хунну, с которой общались китайцы и от которых они брали слова, которые считали хуннскими, - говорила на тюркском языке, причем это был пратюркский язык,(?!) - это реконструкция, состояние до распада тюркских языков(?!) на стандартный тюркский и булгарский.

Хунну/Сюнну являются болгарами: Пусть будут болгарами.Только эти монеты никак не могут быть гуннскими,если датируются II веком до н.э. Тогда в Бактрии и Согдиане как пишет Страбон,хозяйничали саки и массагеты. А кто и на каком основании датировал их во втором веке? Вот почитайте А.Г.Мухаммадиева,только внимательно,до середины текста: А.Г.Мухамадиев ТУРАНСКАЯ ПИСЬМЕННОСТЬ I. Надписи на монетах античного времени Таблица 1. Сопоставительная таблица туранского и рунического алфавитов Рис. 1. Хорезмийское подражание монете Бактрийского правителя Евкратида. Рис. 2. Хорезмийская монета с портретом местного правителя, и с испорченной латинской надписью. Рис. 3. Античная Хорезмийская монета с надписью ”Туран ябгу” Рис. 4. Хорезмийская монета с надписью ”Туран шад”. 36 http://s155239215.on...rPismrRu1-9.htm Когда я читал и опровергал Мухамадиева, вы еще не были на этом мире: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Treasure_2.pdf Както пише А. Мухамадиев [2004], блюдото от позлатено сребро на хан Денгизих с диаметър 28 см е намерено през 1893 г. в с. Керчев, Чердински уезд, Пермска губерния. От вътрешната му страна е изобразен цар на кон, който пробожда с прав меч връхлитащ глиган, главата на царя е увенчана с корона като рога на овен, над тях има кръг, който трябва да символизира Слънцето, лицето на Царя е с брада, мустаците му са завити нагоре, на дясното ухо, което се вижда, има обеца. Към така направеното описание, ние пък, изучавайки по-внимателно-подробно Изображението от снимката на Блюдото в Интернет, смятаме за необходимо да добавим още и това, че според лицевите си черти, антропологически, Царят е средноазиатски европеид, т.е. иранец с тясно-продълговато лице и дълга остра в края брада; косата му, отзад под короната, но по-скоро висока конусообразна шапка, известна в иранистиката и тюркологията като кюляф, тур. külâh, е почти във вид на топка, на кръста си има много къса поличка, не може да се разбере дали е с панталони, но ако има такива, те трябва да са много тесни и прилепнали; десният му крак е рязко прегънат в коляното и с горната част на ходилото лежи върху задницата на коня; конят му е придаден отзад-отдясно с извита надясно глава с добре очертани ремъци на юздата, приклекнал на задните си крака сякаш, за да посрещне тежестта от момента на пробождането на глигана, опашката на коня е сплетена във вид на къса, тумбеста шишарка, палдъмът, подопашникът му в частта си върху задния десен хълбок си личи много добре, широк кожен колан с тесен кант в горния край, от който висят наредени една до друга крушообразни фигурки и други детайли, които в определен момент и в конкретен аспект също така може да се окажат достатъчно съществени и значими. На дъното на блюдото има тамга, която напомня хорезмийските, но се отличава от тях в детайлите, и след това с великолепен почерк и много квалифицирано е изгравиран “турански надпис”, който се отнася за “езика на западните хуни”(!?) – “надпись относится к языку западных гуннов” и в него го има името, но по-добре в оригинал: “не говоря уже о наличии в надписи имени царя Диккиза - сына правителя государства “Скифии и Германии” Аттилы”. Тъкмо този рунически надпис тук се транскрибира най-напред като “kiŋkeg dikkiz ükü kessä - kijü sax sax saxyŋil gür täŋrig”, където с по-малки букви са посочени липсващите в руническия надпис, но тук възстановени знаци, и едва след това в процеса и в резултат на анализ, за който се привличат думи и от други тюркски езици, както и културно-исторически сведения и данни, колко странно, се прави и превод на отделните думи и словосъчетания от текста на Надписа, но на откъснато-отделни части и без да се предлага какъвто и да е сводно-обобщителен текст(!?), именно поради което и ние изваждаме и привеждаме от отделните абзаци следния доста необичайно-неортодоксален и надали изобщо разбираем “превод”: ‘короля’-‘Диккиз’-‘разрубит’-‘особый’ или ‘любимый удар мечом’-‘будь бдителен!’ или ‘остерегайся!’-‘будь вытесненным’ или ‘будь всунутым’-‘к Богу загробного мира’(!??). Без да имаме сега възможност да анализираме и преценяваме поотделно и докрай основанията и аргументите на това много странно творение, което трябва да наричаме още и “превод”, посредством конкретен критичен анализ с помощта на необходимите и достатъчни културно-исторически и лингвистически сведения и данни и по този начин да посочваме и неволно, да се надяваме, допуснатите груби грешки, нека все пак да обърнем внимание, че никак не може да се приеме за издържан от каквато и да е гледна точка пасажът “Третье слово ики - в древнетюркском языке уга - означает ‘мудрый’, следовательно в данном случае это слово является титулом. Приводимое Приском имя сына Аттилы в форме Диггизих, включало, видимо, и титул”, защото главно и основно прилагателното име определение никога и нито в “древнотюркския език”, нито пък в съвременните тюркски езици не може да се разполага след определяемото собствено име, това не е индоевропейският френски език, пък не са дори и славянските езици, затова няма никакви основания в “думата ики” да се търси или от там да се изважда “прилагателното име уга “мудрый”. Ние не си спомняме дали Приск се среща или вижда Денгизих, на “приема” при Атила, той повече от сигурно вижда Ернак и дори и разпитва за него, но ако и в онези части от неговата хроника, които в момента на нас не са ни достъпни, въпросното име е изписано с два пъти гама, каквито изписвания вече сме виждали в други източници, то тъкмо това повторение обозначава ни повече, ни по-малко назализирания зв. н, така че и за нас Името трябва да се транскрибира като Денгиз, поради характерната за прабългарския език редукция на първата гласна, възможно също и като Дингиз, но независимо от това и във всички случаи за нас ще си остане много-много голяма загадка на каква база авторът заключава, че “имя сына Аттилы в форме Диггизих, включало, видимо, и титул”(!??) [1-7]. Не само поради това ние си позволяваме да внесем някои поправки и добавки в така изведената от оригиналния рунически надпис транскрипция, в резултат на което според нас този надпис в използуваната тук латинизирана графика трябва да получи вида Kiŋkeg Dengiz jikü käse! Kijü, čox-čox saxyŋil, gür Täŋrig! Съответно на тази транскрипция и в рамките и на основата най-напред на тюркските езици по принцип, централно-водещ компонент сред които за нас като най-близки и познати, са старият огузски език и новият турски език, и на болгарските езици и диалекти в частност, един от които е и прабългарският език, но по-точно, южнодунавският диалект, а може би диалекти на Аспаруховите българи, Надписът задължително получава следния превод на български език, а именно: Блюдото, от което да се храни хан Денгиз! Човече, бой се много от Него, могъщ е Тангра!

Саки - иранцы, и поэтому они никогда не могут быть тюркоязычными!

Хунну/Сюнну являются болгарами: Пусть будут болгарами.Только эти монеты никак не могут быть гуннскими,если датируются II веком до н.э. Тогда в Бактрии и Согдиане как пишет Страбон,хозяйничали саки и массагеты. А кто и на каком основании датировал их во втором веке?

Хунну/Сюнну являются болгарами: The Huns are the immortal topic of human pioneering spirits CHEN S., SOME REMARKS ON THE CHINESE “BULGAR” In the early sixth century when the Tuoba Wei dynasty disintegrated in the wake of the Six-Garrison Revolt, there appeared in northern China a Hu “Barbarian” group with the name Buluoji (middle Chinese pronunciation b’uo lak-kiei)[1], also known as Jihu. The late Peter Boodberg was the first to identify this ethnonym with that of the Volga and Danube Bulgars[2]. Given the generally accepted view that various Bulgars groups in Europe and Inner Asia were not only related but also of the same origin, it seems worthwhile to reexamine this issue of the Bulgars of China, which also has implications for several topics related to the Xiongnu. A summary account of the Buluoji is found in Chapter 49 of Zhou shu,[4] which has been copied or abridged by several classic encyclopedic sources, namely Tong dian, Taiping huanyu ji, Tongzhi, and Wenxian tongkao.[5] Other brief passages related to the group are scattered in Bei shi, Bei Qi shu, Zhou shu and other minor sources. Lin Gan’s compilation of Xiongnu materials [6] represents perhaps also the most complete collection of Buluoji data, while Zhou Yiliang and Tang Changru - have each done an extensive study on the Zahu, of which the Buluoji was regarded as a component [7]. According to Zhou shu[8], the Buluoji were minor or subordinate tribes (bie zhong) of the Xiongnu, and were the descendants of the followers of Liu Yuan, the founder of the Former Zhao Dynasty (304-329), generally regarded as a Xiongnu regime. This earliest account appears to be at least partially accurate, namely in that the Buluoji contained in great part the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that had not been absorbed by the Xianbei. Besides the Zhou shu testimony, additional evidence includes: (1) As convincingly demonstrated by Tang Changru [9], the geographic distribution of the Buluoji as reflected in various records well matched that of the Southern Xiongnu during the Western Jin. (2) Several Buluoji clan names, particularly that of the leading clan Liu, plus Huyan and Qiao , were well-recognized Xiongnu names [10]. (3) The Bei Qi shu biography of Poliuhan Chang, whose surname was but a variant of Buluoji, states unambiguously that the clan descended from the Xiongnu [11]. (4) As will be further examined, the Buluoji belonged to a group or groups of “barbarians” loosely called Zahu during the Northern dynasties. According to Tang Changryu, the name Buluoji actually superseded the use of the latter. Tang therefore concludes that the Buluoji represented the final amalgamation of the Zahu [12]. Most Zahu groups can be linked with the Xiongnu in Chinese records. Indeed this old Xiongnu connection will have other implications to be discussed later. Modern archeology has revealed that, contrary to classical records, both the Xiongnu and European Huns had maintained substantial agricultural activities [17]. The Buluoji’s steppe cultural identity is further strengthened by the limited linguistic data. A few surviving words of the Chinese Bulgars all seemed to be Altaic, Turkic in particular. Boodberg had identified kuli “slave”, and keye “fort”. This author notes that the Buluoji word weiya (jwei-nga), referring to some kind of wetland tree[21] can be identified with middle Turkic yiγac “wood”, “tree or shrub”[22]. Another toponym Kutuo, identified by Boodberg with Mongolian word kuda ,[23] was also from the area populated by the Buluoji[24]. We may add yet another piece of data: in describing the music of the “three northern-barbarian states” namely the Xianbei, Tuyuhun and Buluoji, Jiu Tang shu states that their songs sung the name kehan “khaghan” frequently, and this was particularly the case with a chapter called Boluohui an apparent variant of the root buluoji.[25] Thus we learn that the Buluoji called their ruler khaghan, a distinct Altaic trait, though the title itself may not be of Altaic origin. To summarize, the Buluoji/Bulgars of China appear to be a group consisting of the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that were not absorbed by the succeeding Xianbei conglomerate, with a conspicuous Europoid admixture. Their cultur and linguistic affinity seems mostly Altaic. Boodberg listed some ten attestations of this name in Chinese records, to which we can add many more. Karl Menges, in a rare citation of Boodberg’s work (in a foot note!), pointed out that the Chinese character ji showed a terminal -r in the last syllable (which he again attributed to an oral communication from Boodberg)[26], in support of Menges’ proposed archaic Altaic collective suffix -gir, attested most prominently by tribe and clan names. The ethnonym Bulgar represents but a variant of this suffix. We would like to point out more prominent evidence for the -r ending in the name Buluoji, which in fact creates a direct correspondence between the names Buluoji and Bulgar/Bular. This is the -n ending in the variants Poluohan/Poliuhan, Buliuhan, Buluojian and Bulugen, attested mostly in personal names. It is well-known that Chinese -n was frequently used to transcribe a foreign -r/l.[27] The most prominent example is perhaps the ethnonym Xianbei, widely believed to be a transliteration of *Srbi or *Serbi.[28] For example of terminal -r, see Pulleyblank’s reconstruction *Taxwar of the name Dayuan.[28] To the argument that this usage may have “died out” in the Middle Ages, let us point out numerous medieval attestations like “Samarkand” in Wei shu and “Farghana” in Tongdian.[30] In fact such usage continued to be observed during the Yuan and the Ming, in names like for Altai and for Altan Khan. Even today, it is still seen in modern Cantonese, amply demonstrated by the official Chinese transcription for the Timor Islands, and for Brunei. Also in our particular case, we note numerous -han endings, who medieval pronunciation directly indicates a consonant or gh in the final syllable. Because they lived in mostly mountainous areas, the Buluoji was also known as Shanhu, “Mountain Barbarians”. The direct evidence for this designation is that Bei Qi shu consistently uses this name to identify the Buluoji figures and tribes mentioned in the Zhou shu. Hu Sanxing, the Yuan historian and annotator of the masterpiece chronicle Zizhi tongjian, also made this observation.[31] This identification later provides an interesting piece of data on the Buluoji’s possible connections beyond China. On the origin of the name Bulgar/Buluoji, since the early days of the seemingly unanimous opinion on bulga meaning “to mix, to become mixed”, several alternative etymologies have been proposed.[32] Of particular interest is the etymology “Aufwhler, Aufwiegler” (подстрекатель, смутьян), now preferred by J. Nmeth who had earlier advocated the “mixed” theory. One notes that the Buluoji and in general the Zahu (see below) had been a perpetual “security problem” for the Tuoba Wei dynasty and its successors, namely the Northern Zhou and the Northern Qi (also the Sui and the early Tang) to control. The histories of these dynasties were filled with incidents of the Zahu insurrections and revolts, as well as the government’s continued efforts to subdue or pacify them. Indeed even during the early Tang, the appearance of the name Buluoji was almost always related to such upheavals. The fact that the tribes were constant “trouble-makers” was expressed explicitly by Zhou shu. The perennial strife between the Zahu/Buluoji and the Tuoba (including its successors the Zhou and the Qi) appeared to be a carry-over of the old Xiongnu-Xianbei rivalry.[33] In this connection, “trouble-maker” in the eyes of the rulers of the Northern dynasties seems a plausible etymology for the name Buluoji too. However, the Buluoji belonged to a group or groups of “barbarians” loosely called Zahu during the Northern dynasties. There are precedents for zahu to mean “miscellaneous barbarians”.[34] But in our case, Zahu was evidently the short for zazhong hu[35] which in all likelihood should be understood in the context of “mixed races”. The best example is the case of An Lushan, a self-acknowledged son of a Turk father and an Iranic/Sogdian mother.[36] An was thus called a zazhong hu, translated by Pulleyblank to none other than a “hu barbarian of mixed race”. This plus the observation that the Buluoji represented the final amalgamation of such “mixed barbarians”[38] leads the author to submit that Chinese data strongly supports the traditional “mixed race” etymology for the ethnonym Bulgar/Buluoji.[39] One may note that this etymology is still preferred by a great many authorities, including the acclaimed Russian dictionary of Old Turkic Древнетюркский словарь and The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia.[40]. If the name Buluoji is a cognate to Bulgar as Boodberg has proposed, then a natural question is: were the Bulgars of China in any way related to their European and Inner Asian namesakes? Boodberg apparently did not think so. However, we think there are several indications suggesting such a link: The use of the animal cycle as shown by the famous Bulgarian Prince’ List.[55] Though the underlying dizhi cycle was attested as early as in Shang oracle bones, there has been some doubt on the true origin of the animal “mapping”. However, in addition to the observation that some of the dizhi names appear to be pictographs of the corresponding animals,[56] recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the animal cycle had been in use in China no later than the Warring States era, much earlier than what was thought before.[57] The Austroasiatic link uncovered by Jerry Norman[58] further makes the China-to-steppe transmission route beyond dispute. The apparent historical fact remains that other Inner Asian peoples namely the Turks, the Tibetans, the Mongols, and various ancient Indo-Iranic groups in the region who used the animal cycle had all been in direct contact with the Chinese cultural world. Louis Bazin for example has documented this fact in the case of the Turks.[59] It would be very hard to explain why the Bulgars, of whose calendar the animal cycle was a centerpiece, should be an exception. The Arab author al-Nadim’ s statement on the Bulgars having once used the Chinese script,[60] suggesting again that they had had direct contact with the Chinese. Indeed this testimony corresponds well with the Zhou shu description that the Buluoji leaders knew quite a bit of [Chinese] writing, yet their language was “like that of barbarians”.[61] Chinese data suggest Central Asian elements in the Buluoji, which is further strengthened by this author’s Sogdian solution to the “Rooster puzzle”. Given the prominent role the Sogdians and other Central Asians had played in the spread of Manichaeism, particularly to the Turkic-speaking people,[62] al-Nadim’ s statement of the Bulgars having used “Manichaean scripts”[63] now has added implications. Omeijan Pritsak has suggested that the most prominent “Geschlecht” (род) Dulo on the Bulgarian Princes’ List be identified with the Xiongnu clan name Tuge (Old Chinese pronunciation *d’o-klak).[64] The leading clan of the Buluoji in China was repeatedly identified as Liu. This clan name among the Xiongnu and the Zahu has been proven to refer to none other than Tuge.[65] The prestige carried by the clan name Tuge may indeed be partially based on this connection, for Liu was the name of the Han imperial house and the Xiongnu nobles’ adoption of the name was allegedly based on them being the descendants of some Han imperial princess. Bei Qi shu which was compiled during the Tang). Along this line we have identified an intriguing datum. In the year 751, Tang troops led by Korean general Gao Xianzhi suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of the Arabs and local Turk groups on the banks of Talas River.[66] As a result, many Chinese became prisoners of war and were sent to the heartland of the Abbasid Arab empire. According to Joseph Needham, this event much accelerated the spread and transmission of Chinese technologies and inventions, paper-making in particular to the rest of the world.[67] One such prisoner Du Huan eventually made it back to China via the ocean trade route and recorded his travels based on this extraordinary experience, which included, inter alia, an eyewitness report on Chinese craftsmen working in the Abbasid Arab capital Aqula (Kufa).[68] Among a few precious remaining pieces of Du Huan’s since lost memoir Jingxing ji preserved Tongdian compiled by Du Huan’s clansman Du You, we find the following passage: In the countries I traveled through overland [Central Asia to the Abbasid capital], there was but one kind of Mountain Barbarians, yet several different religions.[69] After years of living in Central and West Asia, Du no doubt was very familiar with the cultures and linguistics of this region.[70] Therefore his choice of the name Shanhu instead of the standard Tang-time designation Hu for Iranic Central Asians is intriguing. In our view Du’s wording has both racial and linguistic underpinnings, and very possibly reflects the flourishing of, if not the Buluoji/Bulgars per se, at least many Turkicized Iranic groups in the area,[71] which was consistent with the subsequent Turkicization of much of the region. On the other hand, we indeed have an earlier record on Buluoji persons travelling westward into the Ruanruan (Jua Juan) territories,[72] demonstrating the Buluoji’s exchanges with people beyond China. Despite centuries of extensive interactions with the two Han dynasties and their successors, both in violent warfare and through peaceful exchanges, the ethnic and linguistic identity of the Xiongnu has remained to this day an enigma. The question is: Were the Xiongnu Mongols? Or Turks? Or neither? Ever since Shiratori Kurakichi started the research on this subject early this century, the issue for quite some time was the choice between a Mongolian and a Turkic identity for the Xiongnu.[74] But Edwin Pulleyblank in 1963 advanced the theory based on linguistic data that the Xiongnu might not be Altaic at all. Likely enlightened by Otto Maenchen-Helfen’ s earlier observation,[75] Pulleyblankproposed that the Xiongnu language belonged to the Yenissei group, with Kettish as its modern relative.[76] Related to this issue is an old yet eclusive puzzle in Xiongnuno-Chinese relationships, namely the change of the primary meaning of character hu. From the two Han dynasties on down until well into the Southern-Northern dynasties, Hu as an ethnonym had primarily referred to the Xiongnu (and members of their confederation).[77] But during the Tang, Hu became largely reserved for Central Asians. This issue has attracted the attention of several prominent scholars. None has provided a satisfactory explanation for this rather sudden change in the meaning of character hu. [78] Though the Buluoji could not with certainty be traced back to the “hard-core” Xiongnu, the disintegration and dispersion of the latter under the growing Xiabei pressure and dominance apparently resulted in the appearance of various Hu groups leading to the summary Zahu designation with the Buluoji as its last representative. This process is relatively well documented in Chinese sources.[79] While we still cannot answer with certainty the question of ethnic identity, the reconstruction of the process of its break-up inevitably leads to the inference that the original Xiongnu federation had a major Europoid component.[80] Maenchen-Helfen has also demonstrated the increasing Caucasian elements in the Xiongnu during and after the Han Dynasties.[81] At least, we can conclude with much certainty that the end-product of the break-up of the Xiongnu Empire included many Altaicized Caucasian groups. The Hephthalites, the War-Huns and/or the White Huns, etc., represented perhaps such groups who migrated westward,[82] whereas the Buluoji (and other Zahu groups) remained behind. It is worth noting that from early on, the Turks were also known to have descended from the Zahu.[83] We submit that the ethnonym Buluoji/Bulgar may serve as the missing link for the change of the primary meaning of the hu designation, which happened to coincide with the appearance of the Zahu in the Northern dynasties. The fact that Buluoji/Bulgar was the last name for the Zahu was not a mere accident. As we have examined earlier, the evolution of the Zahu included the increasing Caucasian elements in the former Xiongnu groups. With the continued intermixing between the Xiongnu remnants and the Indo-Europeans both native in northern China and from Central Asia, coupled with the westward movement of many such groups, the name Hu acquired in a relatively short time its new primary designation. Besides, this may also have been a harbinger of Central Asia’s turkicization. Another related topic is the enormously popular identification of the European Huns with the Xiongnu in Chinese records. W. B. Henning’s study of the “ancient Sogdian letters”,[84] particularly about the Sogdian name xwn, was once acclaimed as having finally proved such a link.[85] But Maenchen-Helfen soon pointed out the problems in this “final proof’.[86] Denis Sinor has also discounted this evidence and considers the theory yet unproven.[87] The possible connection between the Buluoji in China and the European Bulgars may provide some fresh arguments on this old question. As we have demonstrated, the link between China’s Bulgars and the Xiongnu confederation is well-substantiated. On the other hand, the European Bulgars’ connection to the Huns has also been recorded ever since the nomad’s first appearance in European history. In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns.[88] At the very least, the Hun-Bulgar connection was much more tangible than the Hun-Xiongnu identification. Therefore, if the Buluoji in China can be successfully identified with the European Bulgars, the prolonged controversy on the Hun-Xiongnu identification may for the first time be examined using more than just a plausible phonetic correspondence. In addition to their connections and implications beyond China discussed in this essay, the Buluoji also had an enormous impact on Chinese history, political as well as cultural, which went largely unrecognized in the traditional sinocentic historiography. We have already touched upon the Buluoji’s political role. The best example must’be the Six-Garrison Revoltwhich eventually brought down the Tuoba Wei regime. It was first started and led by a person named none other than Poulihan Baling.[89] What may have been neglected even more was the Buluoji’s significant contributions to China’s cultural and religious heritage. For example arguably the most prominent real-life figure in the vast Dunhuang grotto arts the Buddhist monk Liu Sahe who was of well-documented Buluoji ethnicity.[90] But perhaps the least noted case was the author Lu Fayan of the single most important historical treatise on Chinese phonology, namely Qieun.[91] Here the clan name Lu was but the sinified form of Buliugu, yet another variant of the root Buluoji. Even today, one cannot but marvel at the great accomplishments of such a presumably “marginal” “barbarian” group in medieval China [Chen 2014, 1-8].

чистые монголоиды, классика. на среднеазиатских метисов вообще не смахивают. Очень странное у вас представление для монголоида, при том классического, особено, насчет мужчины!?

Золотой клад из Наги Сент-Миклоша - болгарский: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Treasure_1.pdf http://bolgnames.com/Images/Treasure_2.pdf

Хунну/Сюнну являются не тюрками вообще, а болгарами в частности. The Huns are the immortal topic of human pioneering spirits CHEN S., SOME REMARKS ON THE CHINESE “BULGAR” In the early sixth century when the Tuoba Wei dynasty disintegrated in the wake of the Six-Garrison Revolt, there appeared in northern China a Hu “Barbarian” group with the name Buluoji (middle Chinese pronunciation b’uo lak-kiei)[1], also known as Jihu. The late Peter Boodberg was the first to identify this ethnonym with that of the Volga and Danube Bulgars[2]. Given the generally accepted view that various Bulgars groups in Europe and Inner Asia were not only related but also of the same origin, it seems worthwhile to reexamine this issue of the Bulgars of China, which also has implications for several topics related to the Xiongnu. A summary account of the Buluoji is found in Chapter 49 of Zhou shu,[4] which has been copied or abridged by several classic encyclopedic sources, namely Tong dian, Taiping huanyu ji, Tongzhi, and Wenxian tongkao.[5] Other brief passages related to the group are scattered in Bei shi, Bei Qi shu, Zhou shu and other minor sources. Lin Gan’s compilation of Xiongnu materials [6] represents perhaps also the most complete collection of Buluoji data, while Zhou Yiliang and Tang Changru - have each done an extensive study on the Zahu, of which the Buluoji was regarded as a component [7]. According to Zhou shu[8], the Buluoji were minor or subordinate tribes (bie zhong) of the Xiongnu, and were the descendants of the followers of Liu Yuan, the founder of the Former Zhao Dynasty (304-329), generally regarded as a Xiongnu regime. This earliest account appears to be at least partially accurate, namely in that the Buluoji contained in great part the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that had not been absorbed by the Xianbei. Besides the Zhou shu testimony, additional evidence includes: (1) As convincingly demonstrated by Tang Changru [9], the geographic distribution of the Buluoji as reflected in various records well matched that of the Southern Xiongnu during the Western Jin. (2) Several Buluoji clan names, particularly that of the leading clan Liu, plus Huyan and Qiao , were well-recognized Xiongnu names [10]. (3) The Bei Qi shu biography of Poliuhan Chang, whose surname was but a variant of Buluoji, states unambiguously that the clan descended from the Xiongnu [11]. (4) As will be further examined, the Buluoji belonged to a group or groups of “barbarians” loosely called Zahu during the Northern dynasties. According to Tang Changryu, the name Buluoji actually superseded the use of the latter. Tang therefore concludes that the Buluoji represented the final amalgamation of the Zahu [12]. Most Zahu groups can be linked with the Xiongnu in Chinese records. Indeed this old Xiongnu connection will have other implications to be discussed later. Modern archeology has revealed that, contrary to classical records, both the Xiongnu and European Huns had maintained substantial agricultural activities [17]. The Buluoji’s steppe cultural identity is further strengthened by the limited linguistic data. A few surviving words of the Chinese Bulgars all seemed to be Altaic, Turkic in particular. Boodberg had identified kuli “slave”, and keye “fort”. This author notes that the Buluoji word weiya (jwei-nga), referring to some kind of wetland tree[21] can be identified with middle Turkic yiγac “wood”, “tree or shrub”[22]. Another toponym Kutuo, identified by Boodberg with Mongolian word kuda ,[23] was also from the area populated by the Buluoji[24]. We may add yet another piece of data: in describing the music of the “three northern-barbarian states” namely the Xianbei, Tuyuhun and Buluoji, Jiu Tang shu states that their songs sung the name kehan “khaghan” frequently, and this was particularly the case with a chapter called Boluohui an apparent variant of the root buluoji.[25] Thus we learn that the Buluoji called their ruler khaghan, a distinct Altaic trait, though the title itself may not be of Altaic origin. To summarize, the Buluoji/Bulgars of China appear to be a group consisting of the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that were not absorbed by the succeeding Xianbei conglomerate, with a conspicuous Europoid admixture. Their cultur and linguistic affinity seems mostly Altaic. Boodberg listed some ten attestations of this name in Chinese records, to which we can add many more. Karl Menges, in a rare citation of Boodberg’s work (in a foot note!), pointed out that the Chinese character ji showed a terminal -r in the last syllable (which he again attributed to an oral communication from Boodberg)[26], in support of Menges’ proposed archaic Altaic collective suffix -gir, attested most prominently by tribe and clan names. The ethnonym Bulgar represents but a variant of this suffix. We would like to point out more prominent evidence for the -r ending in the name Buluoji, which in fact creates a direct correspondence between the names Buluoji and Bulgar/Bular. This is the -n ending in the variants Poluohan/Poliuhan, Buliuhan, Buluojian and Bulugen, attested mostly in personal names. It is well-known that Chinese -n was frequently used to transcribe a foreign -r/l.[27] The most prominent example is perhaps the ethnonym Xianbei, widely believed to be a transliteration of *Srbi or *Serbi.[28] For example of terminal -r, see Pulleyblank’s reconstruction *Taxwar of the name Dayuan.[28] To the argument that this usage may have “died out” in the Middle Ages, let us point out numerous medieval attestations like “Samarkand” in Wei shu and “Farghana” in Tongdian.[30] In fact such usage continued to be observed during the Yuan and the Ming, in names like for Altai and for Altan Khan. Even today, it is still seen in modern Cantonese, amply demonstrated by the official Chinese transcription for the Timor Islands, and for Brunei. Also in our particular case, we note numerous -han endings, who medieval pronunciation directly indicates a consonant or gh in the final syllable. Because they lived in mostly mountainous areas, the Buluoji was also known as Shanhu, “Mountain Barbarians”. The direct evidence for this designation is that Bei Qi shu consistently uses this name to identify the Buluoji figures and tribes mentioned in the Zhou shu. Hu Sanxing, the Yuan historian and annotator of the masterpiece chronicle Zizhi tongjian, also made this observation.[31] This identification later provides an interesting piece of data on the Buluoji’s possible connections beyond China. On the origin of the name Bulgar/Buluoji, since the early days of the seemingly unanimous opinion on bulga meaning “to mix, to become mixed”, several alternative etymologies have been proposed.[32] Of particular interest is the etymology “Aufwhler, Aufwiegler” (подстрекатель, смутьян), now preferred by J. Nmeth who had earlier advocated the “mixed” theory. One notes that the Buluoji and in general the Zahu (see below) had been a perpetual “security problem” for the Tuoba Wei dynasty and its successors, namely the Northern Zhou and the Northern Qi (also the Sui and the early Tang) to control. The histories of these dynasties were filled with incidents of the Zahu insurrections and revolts, as well as the government’s continued efforts to subdue or pacify them. Indeed even during the early Tang, the appearance of the name Buluoji was almost always related to such upheavals. The fact that the tribes were constant “trouble-makers” was expressed explicitly by Zhou shu. The perennial strife between the Zahu/Buluoji and the Tuoba (including its successors the Zhou and the Qi) appeared to be a carry-over of the old Xiongnu-Xianbei rivalry.[33] In this connection, “trouble-maker” in the eyes of the rulers of the Northern dynasties seems a plausible etymology for the name Buluoji too. However, the Buluoji belonged to a group or groups of “barbarians” loosely called Zahu during the Northern dynasties. There are precedents for zahu to mean “miscellaneous barbarians”.[34] But in our case, Zahu was evidently the short for zazhong hu[35] which in all likelihood should be understood in the context of “mixed races”. The best example is the case of An Lushan, a self-acknowledged son of a Turk father and an Iranic/Sogdian mother.[36] An was thus called a zazhong hu, translated by Pulleyblank to none other than a “hu barbarian of mixed race”. This plus the observation that the Buluoji represented the final amalgamation of such “mixed barbarians”[38] leads the author to submit that Chinese data strongly supports the traditional “mixed race” etymology for the ethnonym Bulgar/Buluoji.[39] One may note that this etymology is still preferred by a great many authorities, including the acclaimed Russian dictionary of Old Turkic Древнетюркский словарь and The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia.[40]. If the name Buluoji is a cognate to Bulgar as Boodberg has proposed, then a natural question is: were the Bulgars of China in any way related to their European and Inner Asian namesakes? Boodberg apparently did not think so. However, we think there are several indications suggesting such a link: The use of the animal cycle as shown by the famous Bulgarian Prince’ List.[55] Though the underlying dizhi cycle was attested as early as in Shang oracle bones, there has been some doubt on the true origin of the animal “mapping”. However, in addition to the observation that some of the dizhi names appear to be pictographs of the corresponding animals,[56] recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the animal cycle had been in use in China no later than the Warring States era, much earlier than what was thought before.[57] The Austroasiatic link uncovered by Jerry Norman[58] further makes the China-to-steppe transmission route beyond dispute. The apparent historical fact remains that other Inner Asian peoples namely the Turks, the Tibetans, the Mongols, and various ancient Indo-Iranic groups in the region who used the animal cycle had all been in direct contact with the Chinese cultural world. Louis Bazin for example has documented this fact in the case of the Turks.[59] It would be very hard to explain why the Bulgars, of whose calendar the animal cycle was a centerpiece, should be an exception. The Arab author al-Nadim’ s statement on the Bulgars having once used the Chinese script,[60] suggesting again that they had had direct contact with the Chinese. Indeed this testimony corresponds well with the Zhou shu description that the Buluoji leaders knew quite a bit of [Chinese] writing, yet their language was “like that of barbarians”.[61] Chinese data suggest Central Asian elements in the Buluoji, which is further strengthened by this author’s Sogdian solution to the “Rooster puzzle”. Given the prominent role the Sogdians and other Central Asians had played in the spread of Manichaeism, particularly to the Turkic-speaking people,[62] al-Nadim’ s statement of the Bulgars having used “Manichaean scripts”[63] now has added implications. Omeijan Pritsak has suggested that the most prominent “Geschlecht” (род) Dulo on the Bulgarian Princes’ List be identified with the Xiongnu clan name Tuge (Old Chinese pronunciation *d’o-klak).[64] The leading clan of the Buluoji in China was repeatedly identified as Liu. This clan name among the Xiongnu and the Zahu has been proven to refer to none other than Tuge.[65] The prestige carried by the clan name Tuge may indeed be partially based on this connection, for Liu was the name of the Han imperial house and the Xiongnu nobles’ adoption of the name was allegedly based on them being the descendants of some Han imperial princess. Bei Qi shu which was compiled during the Tang). Along this line we have identified an intriguing datum. In the year 751, Tang troops led by Korean general Gao Xianzhi suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of the Arabs and local Turk groups on the banks of Talas River.[66] As a result, many Chinese became prisoners of war and were sent to the heartland of the Abbasid Arab empire. According to Joseph Needham, this event much accelerated the spread and transmission of Chinese technologies and inventions, paper-making in particular to the rest of the world.[67] One such prisoner Du Huan eventually made it back to China via the ocean trade route and recorded his travels based on this extraordinary experience, which included, inter alia, an eyewitness report on Chinese craftsmen working in the Abbasid Arab capital Aqula (Kufa).[68] Among a few precious remaining pieces of Du Huan’s since lost memoir Jingxing ji preserved Tongdian compiled by Du Huan’s clansman Du You, we find the following passage: In the countries I traveled through overland [Central Asia to the Abbasid capital], there was but one kind of Mountain Barbarians, yet several different religions.[69] After years of living in Central and West Asia, Du no doubt was very familiar with the cultures and linguistics of this region.[70] Therefore his choice of the name Shanhu instead of the standard Tang-time designation Hu for Iranic Central Asians is intriguing. In our view Du’s wording has both racial and linguistic underpinnings, and very possibly reflects the flourishing of, if not the Buluoji/Bulgars per se, at least many Turkicized Iranic groups in the area,[71] which was consistent with the subsequent Turkicization of much of the region. On the other hand, we indeed have an earlier record on Buluoji persons travelling westward into the Ruanruan (Jua Juan) territories,[72] demonstrating the Buluoji’s exchanges with people beyond China. Despite centuries of extensive interactions with the two Han dynasties and their successors, both in violent warfare and through peaceful exchanges, the ethnic and linguistic identity of the Xiongnu has remained to this day an enigma. The question is: Were the Xiongnu Mongols? Or Turks? Or neither? Ever since Shiratori Kurakichi started the research on this subject early this century, the issue for quite some time was the choice between a Mongolian and a Turkic identity for the Xiongnu.[74] But Edwin Pulleyblank in 1963 advanced the theory based on linguistic data that the Xiongnu might not be Altaic at all. Likely enlightened by Otto Maenchen-Helfen’ s earlier observation,[75] Pulleyblankproposed that the Xiongnu language belonged to the Yenissei group, with Kettish as its modern relative.[76] Related to this issue is an old yet eclusive puzzle in Xiongnuno-Chinese relationships, namely the change of the primary meaning of character hu. From the two Han dynasties on down until well into the Southern-Northern dynasties, Hu as an ethnonym had primarily referred to the Xiongnu (and members of their confederation).[77] But during the Tang, Hu became largely reserved for Central Asians. This issue has attracted the attention of several prominent scholars. None has provided a satisfactory explanation for this rather sudden change in the meaning of character hu. [78] Though the Buluoji could not with certainty be traced back to the “hard-core” Xiongnu, the disintegration and dispersion of the latter under the growing Xiabei pressure and dominance apparently resulted in the appearance of various Hu groups leading to the summary Zahu designation with the Buluoji as its last representative. This process is relatively well documented in Chinese sources.[79] While we still cannot answer with certainty the question of ethnic identity, the reconstruction of the process of its break-up inevitably leads to the inference that the original Xiongnu federation had a major Europoid component.[80] Maenchen-Helfen has also demonstrated the increasing Caucasian elements in the Xiongnu during and after the Han Dynasties.[81] At least, we can conclude with much certainty that the end-product of the break-up of the Xiongnu Empire included many Altaicized Caucasian groups. The Hephthalites, the War-Huns and/or the White Huns, etc., represented perhaps such groups who migrated westward,[82] whereas the Buluoji (and other Zahu groups) remained behind. It is worth noting that from early on, the Turks were also known to have descended from the Zahu.[83] We submit that the ethnonym Buluoji/Bulgar may serve as the missing link for the change of the primary meaning of the hu designation, which happened to coincide with the appearance of the Zahu in the Northern dynasties. The fact that Buluoji/Bulgar was the last name for the Zahu was not a mere accident. As we have examined earlier, the evolution of the Zahu included the increasing Caucasian elements in the former Xiongnu groups. With the continued intermixing between the Xiongnu remnants and the Indo-Europeans both native in northern China and from Central Asia, coupled with the westward movement of many such groups, the name Hu acquired in a relatively short time its new primary designation. Besides, this may also have been a harbinger of Central Asia’s turkicization. Another related topic is the enormously popular identification of the European Huns with the Xiongnu in Chinese records. W. B. Henning’s study of the “ancient Sogdian letters”,[84] particularly about the Sogdian name xwn, was once acclaimed as having finally proved such a link.[85] But Maenchen-Helfen soon pointed out the problems in this “final proof’.[86] Denis Sinor has also discounted this evidence and considers the theory yet unproven.[87] The possible connection between the Buluoji in China and the European Bulgars may provide some fresh arguments on this old question. As we have demonstrated, the link between China’s Bulgars and the Xiongnu confederation is well-substantiated. On the other hand, the European Bulgars’ connection to the Huns has also been recorded ever since the nomad’s first appearance in European history. In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns.[88] At the very least, the Hun-Bulgar connection was much more tangible than the Hun-Xiongnu identification. Therefore, if the Buluoji in China can be successfully identified with the European Bulgars, the prolonged controversy on the Hun-Xiongnu identification may for the first time be examined using more than just a plausible phonetic correspondence. In addition to their connections and implications beyond China discussed in this essay, the Buluoji also had an enormous impact on Chinese history, political as well as cultural, which went largely unrecognized in the traditional sinocentic historiography. We have already touched upon the Buluoji’s political role. The best example must’be the Six-Garrison Revoltwhich eventually brought down the Tuoba Wei regime. It was first started and led by a person named none other than Poulihan Baling.[89] What may have been neglected even more was the Buluoji’s significant contributions to China’s cultural and religious heritage. For example arguably the most prominent real-life figure in the vast Dunhuang grotto arts the Buddhist monk Liu Sahe who was of well-documented Buluoji ethnicity.[90] But perhaps the least noted case was the author Lu Fayan of the single most important historical treatise on Chinese phonology, namely Qieun.[91] Here the clan name Lu was but the sinified form of Buliugu, yet another variant of the root Buluoji. Even today, one cannot but marvel at the great accomplishments of such a presumably “marginal” “barbarian” group in medieval China.

Не булгарской, а булгаро-чувашской, или булгаро-хунской Кстати у меня вопрос возник, если Вы ответите, ну или ктонибудь. В словарном запасе тюркских языков присудствуют одинаковые слова с эвенкийским (тунг.-мань.), причем в эвенкийском скорее всего они идут как исконно свои. Вопрос: как по вашему они могли попасть в прототюркские языки (булгаро-хунские) - ? Вопрос: какие эвенкийские (тун.- мань.) слова по вашему могли бы присудствовать в современном балгарском языке? А для разогрева серого вещества, Вам словарь русско-эвенкийского языка: http://www.evengus.ru/language/dict/rus-evk/index.html работает по такому признаку, ищите начальная буква слова на руском языке, нажимаете на эту букву, словарь выдает все что у него есть к этому слову Желаю успехов, в поиске тунгусо-маньчжуризмов в булгарском!!! Хотя сколько я не пытался завлеч в этот водоворот "группу в полосатых костюмах", ни в какую не хотят Единственное тунг.-мандж. слово в болгарском языке - это календарно-цикловая година в Именнике Болгарских Ханов Сомор, которая восходит к сунгур.

Никто, потому что: Еще до конца ІV тыс. до н.э. прото-тюрки европеоиды с монголоидной примесью из области Саяно-Алтая разделились на огуро-тюркскую - ре-языковую ветви, с одной стороны, и с другой стороны - на огузо-тюркскую, зе-языковую ветви, где находятся будущие огузы, кыпчаки, уйгуры, карлуки. Первую ветвь, с внутренней точки зрения, можно назвать и былгарской (Bulgarian), а археологическим экспонентом былгарской ветви является Афанасьевская Культура (Golden 1980, 42-43), позднейшим приемником и продолжителем которой является Карасукская культура (Добрев; Юхас). http://bolgnames.com/Images/Principles.pdf

Нередко, фальшивую монету принимают для настоящим: И В А Н Д О Б Р Е В ПОТОМЪК НА ПРАБЪЛГАРСКИЯ ДИНАСТИЧЕН РОД ДУЛО ОСНОВАВА ТУРСКАТА ДЪРЖАВА (в т о р а ч а с т) The Huns are the immortal topic of human pioneering spirits (Хуните са безсмъртната тема на прогресивния човешки дух!) Hunlar ise Türk tarihinde bilinen ilk teşkilatlı siyasi örgütlenmeyi oluşturmaları açısından ayrı bir yere sahiptir Bulgarların Türk dili tarihinde özel bir yeri vardır. Bulgar Türklerinden kalan dil malzemesi çok olmamasına rağmen eldeki malzeme bazı önemli özellikleri belirlemeye ve Bulgar Türkçesinin, bugün yaşamakta olan Çuvaş Türkçesiyle ilişkisini ortaya koymaya yetmektedir. Буквално тези дни, пределно несполучлив, но даже и направо смешно-несериозен опит за доказване, че хунну/сюнну са тюрки, прави А. Дыбо [2013б]. В публичната си лекция в Москва тя привежда сравнително голям брой примери от предишни свои публикации. Немалка част от тези примери се характеризират с присъщите единствено и само на българските диалекти и езици ротацизъм и ламбдаизъм, т.е. въпросните думи са прабългарски, болгарски - šaran-sazan, kaλuk-kašuk. Между другото лекторът засяга и въпроса за "тюркските заемки в унгарския език, които са един от основните източници, от които ние черпим данни за древнобългарския език, т.е. за езика на древните българи, които са остатък от европейските хуни; малък брой думи, които са попаднали от езика на древните българи в старославянския език; в славянските езици има две групи тюркски заемки от древнобългарски тип, едната от които е в южнославянските езици, а другата – в източните и западните славянски езици" и други от този сорт. Много странно и въпреки всичко това обаче А. Дыбо определя тези и преди това приведените примери единствено като пратюркски и на тази основа обобщава и заключава, че хунну/сюнну не само са тюрки, но кой знае защо още и пратюрки. По този начин, повече от очевидно се оказва, че всичките, никак немалък на брой зе-езици всъщност и фактически са по-нататъшно и следващо развитие на същите тези ре-езици. Крайно неприятно впечатление тук прави също така и това, че в края на тази си лекция авторът съвсем нескромно и дори нагло-безпардонно обявява стародавния проблем за етническата принадлежност на хунну/сюнну вече за решен и закрит: Итак, после установления, как читались иероглифы в древнекитайском, стало возможным выяснить и то, как звучали записанные китайскими авторами слова языка хунну. Выяснилось, что большое количество этих слов имеет тюркские соответствия. Например, слово языка сюнну со значением «небо» китайцы записали как 撐黎*ṭhāŋ-rə̄j, что созвучно пратюркскому *taŋri «небо, бог». Слово 橐駝 *thāk-lhāj «верблюд» соответствует пратюркскому *tạj-lag «верблюжонок», 服匿 *bwək-ṇək «вид сосуда» – пратюркскому *bök-lüg «с пробкой», 駃騠 *kwjāt-d(h)ē «вид лошади» – пратюркскому *Kạtir «мул», 徑路*kēŋh-rāh ‘меч’ – пратюркскому *Kiŋrak. У последнего из перечисленных слов была интересная судьба. Из языка хунну оно было заимствовано в согдийский язык, оттуда – в арабский, оттуда – в персидский, затем – в турецкий и наконец через языки Северного Кавказа пришло и в русский язык, превратившись в кинжал. Тюркские значения обнаружились и у некоторых записанных китайцами собственных имен хунну (稽粥 *kjə̄j-təuk – пратюрк. *Kạtik ‘твердый’, 呼廚泉 *wā-ḍwa-ʒ jwan – пратюрк. *otoči-n ‘лекарь’). Другое доказательство того, что язык народа хунну был тюркским, состоит в том, что около двадцати слов, реконструируемых для пратюркского языка, находят соответствия в древнекитайском. Следовательно, это заимствования из древнекитайского, попавшие в тюркские языки благодаря контактам между китайцами и сюнну. Среди таких слов *gümüλ ‘серебро’(др.-кит. *kəmliw 金 鐐 ‘серебро’), *Tẹmür ‘железо’ (др.-кит. *tiēt-mhwit, диал. tiēr-mwur 鐵 物 ‘железная вещь’), *könüg suv ‘ртуть’ (др.-кит. *köuŋ 汞 ‘ртуть’), *bẹk ‘титул’ (др.-кит. pēk 伯 ‘быть старшим, старейшиной рода’), *sü ‘войско’ (др.-кит. *śwò 戍 ‘охранять границы; пограничный гарнизон’), *biti- ‘писать’ (др.-кит. pit: 筆 ‘кисть для письма’), *kujn ‘свиток, книга’ (др.-кит. kwén 卷 ‘свиток’) и другие. Время существования пратюркского языка, определенное при помощи глоттохронологического анализа, хорошо соответствует времени существования державы сюнну. Все эти данные позволяют считать, что язык хунну как раз и является тем самым пратюркским языком [Дыбо 2013б, 4].

А это практически зороастрийский обряд. Так хоронили персы и др. Но каким путем попало у монголов - восточные прото-иранцы, усуны, согды?

У Дулатов болгарского субстрата.

Потому что и самоназвание у них такое: http://bolgnames.com/Images/Principles.pdf

И что это, монголоид или европоид?

Не тюркские вообще, а болгарские, потому что там илала, огузо-тюркское соответствие алаша, т.е. чередование л-ш; кыркыр, но огузо-тюркское кыргыз, т.е. чередование р-з.