Talk:First Bulgarian Empire/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Religion: The Evidence for Tangra or Tengriism in Bulgaria

For almost two centuries after its creation, the Bulgarian state remained pagan and multi-religious. The Bulgars and the Slavs continued to practice their indigenous religions. There are speculations as to the Bulgar religion, but it has now come under doubt that the Bulgarians were followers of Tangra, the God of the Sky.[233][234] The worship of Tangra was thought to be proven by the text of a damaged column, translated by Veselin Ivanov Beshevliev. Beshevliev wrote that the insription reads "Kanasubigi Omurtag, a divine ruler... performed sacrifice to God Tangra".[235] Upon closer inspection, the original text of the column does not validate Beshevliev's writing and places doubt on the veracity of his work. The columnar text that is claimed to reveal Tangra as the main God in early Bulgaria reads as follows:

While a photo of the original column is near impossible to find online, presumably because reading it demolishes the Tangra theory, you can see the column at 33 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rPds09nfL8

Original column text is in bold:

Line 1: Blank

Line 2: Blank .........(destroyed)........ ΑΡ

Line 3: ΧΟΝΟ ....(destroyed).........ΗΤ

Line 4: ΟΩ ......(destroyed).........Ν

Line 5: ΘΥ ......(destroyed).........ΜΤΑ

Line 6: ΓΓΡΑ ....(destroyed).........ςΗ

Line 7: ΓΥΙΡΓ ...(destroyed).........ΓΧΥ

With Beshevliev contributions (Original column text is in Bold):

Line 1: ΚΑΝΑΣΥΒΗΓΗ

Line 2: ΟΜΟΥ ΡΤΑΓ Ο ΕΚ ΘΕΟΥ ..........(destroyed)....ΑΡ

Line 3: ΧΟΝΟ ...................(destroyed)....ΗΤ

Line 4: ΟΩΛ ...ΚΕ ΕΠΥΗΣ ........(destroyed)....Ν

Line 5: ΘΥΟ ΗΑΝ ΗΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟ Ν ...(destroyed)....ΜΤΑ

Line 6: ΓΓΡΑΝ ..................(destroyed)....ΗςΗ

Line 7: ΓΥΙΡΓ ΟΥ ΚΟΛΟΒΡΟΣ ......(destroyed)....ΓΧΥ

With Beshevliev contributions in English (Original column text is in Bold):

Line 1: KANASUBIGI

Line 2: OMORTAG FROM GOD ..............(destroyed)....RU

Line 3: LER .....................(destroyed)....WAS

Line 4: AND MADE A SACRIFICE ..........(destroyed)....Ν

Line 5: TO GOD ........................(destroyed)....MΤΑ

Line 6: NGRΑΝ ...................(destroyed)....ICH

Line 7: IRGU(NOBLE)........(destroyed)

Despite the above being the only cited primary source for "Tangra" in Bulgaria, many continue to write stories about ancient Bulgarians worshipping the sky god "Tangra."

Istoev (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)istoev

That above is simply your original research again. Please, stick to WP:No original research and provide WP:RS. Secondary modern academic sources in English from the 2000-s confirm as official Bulgar God was Tengri. There is no reason to change it:

• Many employ eastern analogies to fill in the large gaps in our knowledge of the religion of pre-Christian Bulgaria. The Bulgar pantheon was supposedly ruled by the god Tangra, whose name appears in a fragmentary inscription of Omurtag. For more see: Uwe Fiedler, Bulgars In The Lower Danube Region. A Survey Of The Archaeological Evidence And Of The State Of Current Research in “The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans; East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450 - 1450 with Florin Curta, Roman Kovalev as ed. BRILL, 2008, ISBN 9004163891, p. 207.
• There is good reason to believe that in the mind of the khan and his nobles this god was Tangra. While originally this Turkic name designated the physical sky, Tangra/Tängri eventually emerged as a sky-god and supreme divine being of many Central and Inner Asian nomads. For more see: Panos Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831; Volume 16 of East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450; BRILL, 2011, ISBN 9004206957, p. 84.
• Bulgars (Turkic bulgha-'to mix, stir up, disturb', i.e. 'rebels') A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states ... and worship of Tangra (Turkic Tengri), a supreme celestial deity. For more see: Oliver Nicholson as ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2018; ISBN 0192562460, 271. Jingiby (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bulgar Khanate or Khaganate?

What is more correct to call the two countries founded by the Bulgars in Europe - on the Danube River and on the Volga River? Some scholars believe that they were khanates and others khaganates.

• It has long been accepted in academic circles that the title of the Bulgar ruler before the conversion to Christianity was khan/khana and not khagan; the latter was used by the so-called imperial peoples of early medieval steppe Eurasia—the Turks, the Avars and the Khazars. Nevertheless, there are still some scholars today who talk about a Bulgar 'khaganate', instead of a 'Bulgar khanate'. This, of course, is not mistake with regard to the term's meaning, especially considering the period after the beginning of the 9th century, when Bulgaria was de facto a khaganate. "For more see: Tsvetelin Stepanov, Waiting for the End of the World: European Dimensions, 950–1200; East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450, BRILL, 2019, ISBN 9004409939, p. 244.

• Despite the fact that rulers of early medieval, pre-Christian Bulgaria were undoubtedly khans (‘khana’), a number of scholars, from Mark Whittow to Peter Golden, prefer to refer to Bulgaria as a khaganate. András Rónatas even claimed that Kuvrat’s polity was a “short-lived Bulghar empire,” something that looks more like an oxymoron than a statement of fact. To be sure, to call Bulgaria a khaganate is not entirely incorrect, especially when one does not take into consideration only political concepts, but also their historical content. During much of the ninth century, in any case up to ca. 860, Bulgaria was a de facto khaganate. However, the Bulgar ruler is never mentioned as khagan in either contemporary inscriptions or Byzantine sources. Instead, the epigraphic evidence suggests that the title of the Bulgar ruler was either ‘k(h)ana sybigi’ (attested between 822 and 836) or that described by the rather more common Greek terms ‘archon’, ‘archegos’, kyrios’, and ‘hegemon’. The title ‘khagan’ applied to a Bulgar ruler only appears in later sources. For more see: Tsvetelin Stepanov, From 'steppe' to Christian empire, and back: Bulgaria between 800 and 1100 in “The” Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans; Editors Florin Curta, Roman Kovalev; BRILL, 2008, ISBN 9004163891, p. 363.

I would say, despite some authors prefer the term khaganate, it is more correctly, based on the title khan/khana to call these states khanates. Jingiby (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fresco in Rotunda St George III c. AD in Sofia Bulgaria.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Map

Toshko Vihrenski,

territories between Dnieper and Dniester are not depicted on that map as part of the state. I reinforce again there is no consensus for the new map, however you may place it in the article's core with a detailed explanation better. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC))

This map is not correct, because Bulgarian Empire had lost it's territories northern than Danube in 896, when Magyars conquered Transylvania and Pechenegs covered Wallachia. This map do not show the situation after these territorial changes. But the new map, which I suggest in infobox contains that details.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, there is not any problem if an map shows an initial situation (it does not make the map wrong) in the infobox, the further changes may be discussed, demonstrated later in the article. Anyway your new map's description is not really demonstrative on the map, also having a failed English, so definetly needs more discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

I agree. I add a new map about Bulgarian borders in 850. The map is based on reliable sources like "Early Medieval Balkans" by John Fine and without the controversial details, which make it perfect for that article, I think--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but please in the future remain in the talk page until the end of the discussion and first present here your arguments, maps, anything (I see you are a fresh user, just tell you to avoid possible sanctions in the future) Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

I'm not sure this map is correct. Many sources shows that Bulgarian Empire covered whole Transylvania in that period and the northeastern border was located on Dnieper, when one Bulgarian noble led a military campaign in the time of Omurtag. According to "Political Geography of the Medieval Bulgarian Empire, Part I. From 681 to 1018" by Petar Koledarov, publishing by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria rules outdanubian territories even in the time of Samuil. Hungarians conquest this area in the beginning of 11 th century, when the last Bulgarian nobles, like Ohtum were defeated by Stephen I of Hungary. --151.251.249.164 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There are realy too many theories what's happened northern than Danube after 896. Some Bulgarian historians believe that area stay under Bulgarian rule to 1018. But many medievalists thinks Bulgaria lose these lands exactly after 896, when the migration of Magyars and Pechenegs changes that status-quo. The new book "The rise of the Balkans", by Ivan Ilchev said that Simeon lose Transylvania and Wallachia in the late 9th century. Norman Davies in "Europe. A history" also shows one Bulgarian Empire without these territories. Plamen Pavlov in his book "The age of Samuil" think Simeon is the last Bulgarian ruler over Transylvania. Rasho Rashev in "Bulgarian pagan culture" said "In the end of 9th century Bulgaria lose the position of Central European factor, after losing of land noth than Danube and became a Balkan power" Many others like Steven Runciman, Vasil Zlatarski, John Fine ( on which survey is based the current infobox map) are also agree with it. --Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand. But maybe the both points of view are need to be pepresented in the article.--151.251.249.164 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The both POV are represent now. Thanks!--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Per our agreement, do not change the infobox map, of cuuse, you may add new maps in the article's core with explanations and suppositions.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC))

No problem. I'm sorry!--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The uploaded at the moment map is based on the maps ‘Territorial expansion of Bulgaria during the IX Century (814-893 AD)’ and ‘The Wars of Tsar Simeon (893-927 AD)’, Bulgarian Military Atlas, Military Publishers, Sofia, 1979, pp. 152-153; and the map ‘Bulgaria at the end of IX Century and the beginning of X Century’, History of Bulgaria Vol. 2: First Bulgarian State, BAS Publishers, Sofia, 1981, pp. 292-293. It is very detailed and describes the different parts of its territory and the level of their dependency and relevancy to the main corps of the empire. Jingiby (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This one, which you push up in the infobox again and again is too much nationalistic view of the Balkan history. So, all of these books were written by Bulgarian authors. Look at the map of the First Bulgarian empire in "Europe. A history" by Norman Davies. The northern border is Danube river. There is no any data about Bulgar rule over Wallachia and Transylvania. All of the Bulgar stone scripts were discovered south of Danube. There are only two controversial sources, some Bulgarian historians says:

- "Gesta hungarorum" - 13th century's chronicle. According to this one some Bulgar nobles like Salan rule the area between Tisza and Danube. Not Transylvania, where the lands are under the vlach Gelou control. So, even this controversial source show us there are no Bulgar authority in Transylvania.

- correspondence by Arnulf, duke of Bavaria. The noble calls on the Bulgars to stop the salt trade with Great Moravia. Some Bulgarian historians believe that salt comes from Transylvania, because of the salt mines in the area. But nowhere is calling it comes from Transylvania. Using of salt mines there stoped in the beginning of the 4th century, when Roman empire lose the area and then was resumed in the 11th century, when Transylvania became part of the Kingdom of Hungary, archeologists says. Moreover the region of Provadia in modern Bulgaria have salt mines too and these one were using more long time than Transylvanian.

Another bad point in your map: tell me when First Bulgarian empire was conquered the Strymon theme? Answer: never! Look at the books of Averill Cameron and Warren Tredgold: the Bulgar activity in 9th - 10 th century was situated dominantly in Eastern Thrace. Strymon was never conquered by Simeon of Bulgaria. Tredgold even say Strymon was created in 896 because of the Simeon wars, but he failed to join this theme to his domain. Strymon stay Byzantine to 1204. Yes, Strymon lands was part of Bulgarian empire, but the Second Bulgarian empire after 1230, but it was more than 3 centuries later, which make this map untruly.

The maps I added in infobox are correct because all of these details stand where they should. And are really based by John Fine and Florin Curta as it cited under map (look at description in Common). (In history I see these sources are giving to different image before and they not support your version of map. Good reason to change with new one)--37.63.6.150 (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually Bulgaria had lost it's territories northern than Danube in 896, when they was conquered by Magyars and Pechenegs. I quoted Davis on the issue of borders. You are right about Strymon, as whole. The inclusion of that Byzantine theme is the result of a map of Koledarov for the territorial expansion during the time of Presian, because of the inscription in Philippi. We don't know whether there was a conquest in general during the Presian reign or whether it was just one military campaign for prey. It' true that under Boris Strymon was Byzantine again and under Simeon later the region was not part of Bulgaria. Well, on the current map Strymon is not included in Bulgarian area.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The image File:Balkans 925AD.png is the best variant here. Controversial territories are not marked there. Which means the map is correct. Regards!--151.251.244.227 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's very good map about X century's Bulgarian empire. The only thing which seems strange by me is the southeast border line - looks too northern by me.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Another good example is the file "RizMap09.jpg" I use in article. This image is following the Dimitar Rizov's atlas. Previous image here was "Balkans850.png", also good one, I think.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not "too northern".Look at the map of Bulgarian empire during the reign of Simeon I in "Europe. A history" by Norman Davies.--151.251.244.227 (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, it's similar like map in the book. OK. Nice work!--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

These three maps I found are good proposal, by me. First and second map shows the view of Bulgarian empire in the beginning of 10 th century. They share the same borders as Davies book is giving. The third map is about 9th century.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Bulgaria, 925

Bulgaria, 10th century

Bulgaria, 850

We were talking about Bulgaria had lost the territories northern than Danube, when Magyars conquered Transylvania in 896 and Pechenegs conquered Wallachia. And I was giving the sources above, which confirm that hypothesis. The map in "Europe. A history" by Norman Davies Bulgaria in the beginning of 10th century is shown with only south of Danube area. Ivan Ilchev in his book "Rose of the Balkans", what I cited in the article also said Bulgaria lose Transylvania and Wallachia in 896.--Toshko Vihrenski (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Great Moravia under Sviatopolk

They never were. Part of this area was under Great Moravia's rule in second half of 9th century before the Magyar invasion. Banat and Tisza regions were in Moravian Zatisie. Look at the map!--37.63.17.184 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Didn't you yourself mention the gesta hungarorum that says bulgarians controlled the banat and tisza lands at the magyar conquest? Also you said "The northern border is Danube river", I've read that byzantine writers at the time mentioned a "bulgaria across the danube"? granted i don't remember what source that comes from, someone who has the time should perhaps look into that. It's also worth mentioning that Bulgaria was invaded by the Rus' in the 10th century, doesn't that mean that there was a border between the two realms? probably a vague steppe border, but there was nothing between the two states non the less. You also mentioned there was no bulgar inscriptions north of the danube, yes, but what about the bulgar graves and the "Balkan–Danubian culture" found there? --Bowler92(talk) 14:17, 4 September 2021 (GMT+1)

Vandalism

I don't understand how long is this person going to be allowed to vandalise this page? He changes his IP, disregards any arguments and facts, contradicts his own claims e.g. lies about the map in "Bulgarian Pagan Culture" by Rasho Rashev, makes ridicolous accusations of nationalism etc. --Avidius (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The map is about the moment before 896, when Magyars and Pechenegs conquered this area. Look at the map in "Europe.A history" by Norman Davies, when my version of map I added is the same as in the book. You may see that about details in Bulgarian too -

Under the map are names of books of Norman Davies, Averil Cameron, Chris Wickham. Learn who these people are and then you are free to call me vandal. Actually the only form of vandalism here are your edits about map.--37.63.13.144 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Only Bulgarian authors looks these territories like a part of Bulgarian Empire. See maps in "Europe. A history", by Norman Davies, in "The Byzantines" by Averil Cameron, in "Medieval Europe" by Chris Wickham. In all of these sources Danube river is giving as northern border of First Bulgarian Empire.--37.63.13.144 (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

origins?

I want to ask a question that remains in my mind

Are they originally Turks or Slavs, Greeks or Bulgarians? 24.133.192.183 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)