This year, the team of archaeology Prof. Nikolai Ovcharov will continue with the unearthing of the entire Acrople near the ancient Bulgarian town of Perperikon. Research efforts will be supported by Mongolian experts, Nova TV reported Tuesday.
Petroglyphs and other drawings point to new discoveries regarding the ancient Bulgarian nation that inhibited the region along the Bulgarian - Turkish border. The discoveries are not new but now a possible relationship to similar artefacts from Moldova will be explored.
''These paintings are a tradition that has been brought from the regions where ancient Bulgarians initially resided, somwhere in Central Asia,'' stated Prof. Nikolai Ovcharov. '' It is connected with their beliefs in the dieties of Tangra, Umai, and many others. Some connect them to the shamanism culture to a point. This is the reason why a joint research expedition alongside Mongolian experts is so important.''...
I thought Bulgars (not Bulgarians!!!) were supposed to be Iranians or Iranic, not of the Asian race: Uralo-Altaics.
It is high time Bulgarian historians stopped denying the Russian linguists and historians who have established long time ago that the Chuvash people are the present-day Bulgars, the non-Slavicized part of their ethnicity, in other words, that Bulgars' descendant are the Chuvash people.
Besides it probably being totally non-scientific, Bulgarian historians' claim that Bulgars were Iranic their, contradiction of their Russian colleagues proves disrespect for Russian historians/linguists in particular and for Russians in general. Some Bulgarians would find that punishble ;-)
Chuvash people are linguistically related to the Turks. I don't know if they look like present-day Turks or like the Turks should look like, (more) like Turkmens, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, if they look European or Asian (yellow race Asian, that is). That's because Turks don't look like original Turks anymore, they don't look like Turkmens anymore.
Bulgarian historians refuse to acknowledge that Bulgars were related to Turks due to their natural, understandable, 100% justified and even recommendable and commendable/praiseworthy hate of the Turks but hate is one thing, historical/linguistical professionalism, that is scientifical professionalism is a totally different thing. And Bg historians should behave like scientists.
Plus the Bulgars were run by Khans, a Turkic or Mongolian (non-Iranian in any case) title and institution. It's true that they could have borrowed it from Turkic/Mongolian people(s).
But Tangra cult is 100% non-Iranic, non-Indo-European even.
Plus there were no Bulgars living in Thrace, only in Moesia and "Macedonia", if Kuber's Bulgars really existed and they really settled in "Macedonia".
The territory that the Slavs call "Macedonia" (at least the Southern Slavs: Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats and so on) and also probably the Albanians and the Turks is not the same territory the Greeks call Macedonia: almost the entire F YROM, Pirin "Macedonia" and probably the tiny part of Albanian "Macedonia" (a few localities) do not constitute Macedonia for Greeks.
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan