describe ethnicity?

Answer 1

Ethnicity should be described as characteristic or belonging relating a possibly most specific and concrete group of people united not only from a common origin, but specially the complex, synthetic and long-lasting traits of identity, tradition and history and language or culture and generally from common cultural legacy. Those smaller entities can be combined into bigger communities and groups – which called sometimes races (with ethnical-linguistic meaning), like race of Celtics, race of Slavonics, Germans, Uralians, Turks and else. Sometimes so a people or nation (located as meaning between those two – though sometimes can be concurring as a meaning with race) can be considered consisting from different ethnical groups. Thus ethnicity is becoming the principal, basic and original definition for distinguishing, but most specially there uniting and combining the different populations, their establishments, relations, traditions and cultures into the more bigger and general ethnographic entities.
The today’s principal races (with ethnical-linguistic meaning of the term) in Europe are: Indo-Europeans (amongst which Slavonics, Balts and Germans – part of a Northern Indo-European branch where Slavonics and Balts fortming one Balto-Slavonic subdivision, the Celtics, Greeks, Albanians, Ossetians – from Iranic group, the Romanic peoples can be considered as more linguistic than ethnical branch), the Uralians (where most known are Hungarians, Finnish or Estonians), the Basques (indigenous people of Europe considered now relating Uralians), the Caucasians (in North Caucasus – part of Europe), the Altaics with only ones from Mongolian group – the Kalmiks (a today’s Autonomous Republic of Russia) and another from Altaics – the numerous Turkish peoples (with Kazakhs whose independent state covers a part of Europe, or Tatarians, Chouvashians, Bashkirians, and Balkarians – all having Autonomous Republics in Russia, Gagaouz – now autonomous Republic in Moldavia, and sure so called “ethnical Turks”, representing together with those from Turkey, groups from different Turkish origin and relations on the Balkans), the Semitics are represented only from autochthonous population of Malta whose small insular state is historically, politically and geographically part of Europe.

Relating those European populations and their respective territories – bigger part – about 2/3 of the European territory is occupied from Slavonics which staying still most numerous race of continent, but Germans or Romanics are having not much smaller practically same number of populations. Ex-Russian empire and ex-USSR were sure occupying more than half of continent (from European surface of 10 million sq km) but sure its population was few times smaller than one of rest of Europe.
All those pointed “races” in Europe were through those many millennia mixing, relating, connecting and contacting each other and that was specially concerning Slavonics (mixing and assimilating Iranians – with the ancient Scythians or Sarmatians, then Uralians, or Celtics, Paeonians, either Thracians or Illyrians whose descendants are nowadays Walachs and Albanians) and most specially the peoples playing principal role in the Great Migration of Peoples – the starting Migration Turks (exactlier the Huns routing and submitting number of German tribes, having also relating Huns Bulgarians, Avarians, Messian Turks) and following them Germans, often those numerous peoples were assimilated from Slavonics, but still numerous were cases when Slavonics were becoming assimilated – from the Germans in whole today’s East Germany and most of Austria, from Hungarians, from Greeks in Greece and even since middle of second millennium Albanians (today’s Kossovo Albanians being Serbian Muslims becoming quite late Albanized, Albania itself was sure occupied from later Albanized Macedonian Slavonics) and Walachs, from all those Turks were most rarely assimilated (representing initially steppe horse nomadic peoples much different from others) and were generally assimilating other populations.
The European, and more specifically the Slavonic and Balkan examples are now most known and indicative for the world – for the most complicated, synthetic and perplex or confusing establishment, relations, connections, contacts and union or oppositions with a forming special cultural substratum – like Balkans combining there three original World religions, languages from Slavonic, Romancic, Greek, paleo-Balkan, Uralian and Turkish groups, with big number of bigger or smaller local ethnical groups, and with the melting pot of their different, separate or close and common cultures and traditions or directions.

It is quite interesting to know that when first Slavonic states were appearing for fighting the Turkish domination (later the German one) – of Khazarian (for Russians East Slavonics in East) or the Avarian empires-khaganates (for the West and South Slavonics, Avarians from Pannonia where replacing Huns establishing for few decennia their military domination over important number of Slavonic populations, their domination for East-Dacian Slavonics was replaced by Onogondours and two Mesian Turkish states in East Balkans) – where having the state of Samo (fighting Avars or Germans, but which as political formation for some being of disputed state character) and since 658 the first contemporary Slavonic state – Horoutanian principality – now Slovenia (century later found under the German dependence and keeping German domination for more than millennium incorporated in feudal formations of Karantania, and Karinthia, Stiria, or Kraina), it is quite interesting to know Slavonics were though owing to Turks also some of their own special, proper, original and principal characteristics, traits and definitions.
When knowing that first principal known and established Slavonic-Byzantine and Orthodox community (existing for more than millennium since the 9th – epoch of Sts Slavonic brothers and their Illyrian Bulgarian pupils) of the Illyrian Bulgaria was for first time originally established from Turks – on the principal lands and areas of Byzance.
Describing term of ethnicity would be sure a theoretical and abstract definition not always directly understood or felt and perceived, describing a concrete ethnicity (taking complicated example like Slavonic, Slavonic-Byzantine and Balkan where for example cases like “Bulgarian” or “Macedonian” staying from long most discussed, contested and opposed – specially there for the Central Balkans concentrating the oppositions, relations and directions of whole Balkan area) is giving possibility of observing and describing the concrete establishment, development and support and affirmation of those related historical, traditional and cultural or political and ideological features, traits and definitions.

Bulgarians are Turkish tribes similar to the Huns and are part from beginning of 1st millennium B C of the Huns’ empire in the North China and Siberia with an enormous territory, after defeat of the empire from the Chinese they move in the beginning of new era like Huns towards Europe being first from Altaic peoples there and becoming famous, known and respected for Europe, their name is from totemic origin and is designing the totem animal from genus of martens, the Bulgarians were having a principal role for Hun empire and are occupying its right wing – in west with the enormous steppe and also upland and mountain regions – like those of Djungaria and Kashgaria in the Tarim valley (today almost covered from the desert of Takla-Makan) one of most ancient centers of Asian civilization with great ancient centers and cities whose influence is spreading on Tibeth, India and the whole Central Asia like China, and which becoming considered relating directly origin of Altaic and Indo-European peoples.
The origin of Bulgarians being for sure Altaic is searched from some into those mountain and upland areas like Pamir and Hindukush, but for sure Bulgarian origin, ethnicity, culture, tradition or identity was the most connecting their neighboring Hun fellow-Turks, the Huns and Bulgarians were forming a special North-Turkish group of peoples and languages or cultures. The Bulgarians were having their own runic literature, a special lunar-solar most precise calendar, and a special practically monotheist religion, and were also for “Barbarians” quite developed and cultured people – specially relating military equipment or occupations, the crafts and trade, with their traditional horse-breeding and stock-breeding.
The studies are showing that Bulgarians with Huns were the first leaving Altaic Homeland of Turks for later probably mixing the Indo-European most probably Scythian populations of today’s North China (called from Chinese “Go”) and establishing their empire – North neighbor and rival of the Chinese empire, they were having a practically monotheist religion centered around the God-Sky Tangra (a notion coming for some probably from notions of Tan – Univers, Nak – Human and Ra – God, with meaning of Universal ruler or Universal reason).
The Turks-Bulgarians (and their original ethnicity or origin, tradition and identity or culture) so relating the nowadays Orthodox Slavonic Balkan areas, populations and establishments or cultures – those old original once Turkish Bulgarians couldn’t be “attributed” and thought, imagined supposed, considered as direct belonging, relation and reality for any one of those Balkan Slavonic and Orthodox peoples, which would be keeping only a somehow indirect relation, connection or contact – being themselves contemporary Slavonic and Orthodox, and not directly Bulgarian – that is the old Oriental Turkish Pagan “Bulgarians”. A situation pointing that solution of those Balkan historical questions is not happening directly as most simple, clear and obvious situation, relations or definitions.
Having cases like East-Balkan Slavonics or Macedonian Slavonics wrongly attributed their names, and identities, tradition, history or definitions (for sure for “Macedonians” those relations would be still existing, staying there real and couldn’t be entirely denied, though principal historical, like ethnical or political and strategic meaning, importance and definition of Macedonia pointing sure today’s Greece and its Hellenic identity, tradition or history) are pointing the absurdity of searching directness, easiness and simplicity for solution of complicated, synthetic and diverse combinations, relations or realizations and developments, differences, unities, parts and entities.
In beginning of 4th A D – before 315 – soon Christianised branch of Turks-Bulgarians (like later another Barbarians in another parts of Byzance and Europe) is establishing in the two neighboring areas of Dacia Major (todays’ Transylvania already lost for Romans) with sure the parts of Pannonia, and of the old province of Mesia Superiorem, today’s Serbia, and is controlled there from Byzantine power as federates of the empire, their control was established in whole Middle Illyria, though generally staying true to their union with empire as military settlers-federates sometimes they still had opposing emperor and local Byzantine authorities. That is first Barbarian country on territories of Roman empire.
Since 5th West Slavonics and West Turks-Bulgarians were establishing most principal relations, connections and contacts between each other in their common area in Illyria and on Middle Danube, relating from centuries the Turks-Bulgarians north from Danube Slavonics and their Slavinias will be so replacing, following and succeeding Turkish-Bulgarian control over Middle Illyria, thus those Illyrian Slavonics were becoming identified with the territory, history, tradition, identity and definitions of ancient Turkish Illyrian Bulgaria, and forming so there something which can be defined as a Medieval nation or national community which was having sure the direct, formal and definite succession of territories, and populations, characteristics, development, and establishment or power, identity, tradition and history, the meaning, importance and definitions of first Illyrian Bulgaria of West Turks-Bulgarians.
The Bulgarians in Illyria were part and federates of empire, meaning that Bulgarian princes and populations recognizing supreme power of the emperor, the Christianization (probably like often in those cases relating mostly the elite with parts of populations), the relation with Roman populations and belonging to Roman system was intensifying the process of forming union between Bulgarians and old population of empire in those Illyrian regions (though sure Roman empire and Byzance having also a tradition of long keeping particularities of their different peoples becoming sure all “Romans”) a process continuing principally until beginning of Slavonization, Bulgarians were recognizing Byzantine suzerainty though militarily controlling their areas, the Bulgarian troops were sure also part of federate troops of empire, in 315 emp. Constantine (already advancing in Illyria for soon occupying the whole prefecture after war with Licinius) is creating Archbishopric of All Bulgarians “Omnii Bulgarorum”.

In the Comnens’ list of the Bulgarian archbishops (from 12th) – having the principal predecessors transmitting from past their great succession to now the Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian Bulgaria, on the first place (before the second – St. Methode) is pointed the archbishop of Sardica Protogenus – opposing on the First Ecumenical Council the philosopher defaming the Holy Spirit.
Second one was there of course (followed from Moravian Gorazd, then from St. Clement) St. Methode appointed in 870 from pope as the archbishop of Pannonia and Illyria (pope is still not recognizing loss of Illyria, more than century earlier) with residence in Illyrian Bulgarian Sirmium-Srem – ancient capital of Illyria, from where the deed, activities and influence of St. Methode’s and of the pupils, circle and followers (many of those like the known St. Clement were from long following the Sts Brothers and coming from their Slavonic Homeland of Illyrian Bulgaria) of Sts brothers spreading in whole Slavonic Illyria including Illyrian Bulgaria or Croatia, the deed of died St. Methode was sure continued from a principal pupil of Sts Brothers – St. Clement (attended from St. Naoum) – Illyrian Bulgarian from origin (much probably being consecrated as bishop already from St. Methode) returning and establishing in his Homeland in 886 for creating so the first principal and important and known lasting Slavonic-Byzantine school, center and direction in the West of Slavonic Macedonia

The Illyrian Bulgaria of West Turks-Bulgarians is shown on the map with testimonial of St. Jerome (confirming that map drawn repeating St. Eusebius’ accounts) and kept in the British Museum, map drawn following the principal information from Eusebius of Caesarea – called by The Church “the Father of the Christian history and science”, the map of St Eusebius is marking on the place of the first known Roman province and land of Mesia (the First or Upper Roman Mesia initially formed between rivers of Oescus-Iscar and Drina and with parts of their courses) a designation “Mesia hec & Vulgaria” – “Mesia here also Bulgaria”, that way is marked the military establishment, presence, control and area of federates Turks-Bulgarians becoming principal for the local Byzantine power, policy and rule; Mesia was, besides name of the old province, but also in 293 with beginning of Diocletianus’ Tetrarchy the name of the South Illyrian diocese (together with Northwest one of Pannonia) as receiving name of the principal – First and original known Roman Mesia – becoming later Upper Mesia
The Turks-Bulgarians since the 4th, and specially the 5th and 6th when their political and military presence and control are principal and dominating there, are leaving in the Illyrian Bulgaria numerous traces – in the whole Middle Illyria but specially there in the old Mesia – Mesia Superiorem where Singidunum-Belgrade will be known as Alba Bulgarica (it shortly became Serbian and part of Serbain state only in 15th for 23 years – 1404 to 1427) or the “Bulgarian city” until 16th and coming of Ottomans – of course as belonging to the Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian Bulgarian areas and community, when cities like Kragouevats are pointing the Turkish-Bulgarian word for falcon and breed of hunting falcons, same is probably case of name of Pesht (now part of the Hungarian Budapest) relating an Oriental word for hill or slope, even name of Morava river could be relating Oriental and Bulgarian origin of a word for calm and quiet river, when west from Illyrian Bulgarian capital Sirmium-Srem is found river of Koloubara – tributary of great Sava, term of Koloubar meaning a Turkish-Bulgarian Pagan priest.

The province of Mesia Superiorem is the first or the veritable Mesia which was conquered by Romans in 29-27 B C and definitely formed as province in 15 B C – taking name of an old country of Mysia south from Marmora sea or of a small Balkan tribe and country around a Ciabrus-Tsibritsa river within the greater Triballia, name is close to one of Illyrian tribe in North Balkans mostly in today’s Bosnia west from river of Drina – the Meseans (which can be also in different ways relating Mysians or Balkan Moesia, either even representing themselves the mysterious Balkan Moesia found somewhere in West-Balkans), for making the difference between the two countries of Mysia in Anatolia and one on Balkans name of Balkan land was changed to Moesia, can be difficult said if case was of concurring two homonymic ethnonyms which thus would be there “relating” Balkan and Anatolian country, either artificially attributed relation (with known and famous Anatolian country) to “discovered” and known or mentioned since 1st B C Balkan land
When it was becoming part of the Central-Balkan protectorate of Mesia, Macedonia and Ahaya in 15 A D – a principal Balkan Roman establishment, stronghold and basis, the province was including the lands conquered in 29-27 B C by the general and governor of Macedonia Marcus Licinius Crassus, those were the Paeonian, Thracian and Illyrian or Celtic lands between rivers of Drina and Iscar including Sardica-Sofia, future Paoutalia-Kyustendil, Naissus-Nish, and Singidunum-Belgrade.
The changes of borders of the province were happening after emperor Claudius putting end to protectorate in 45, when in 46 Thracian kingdom of Odryssians is turned into Roman province – principal territory of kingdom south from the Haemus-Balkan, more developed, rich and fertile Hellenist lands – turned in Hellenist province of Thrace and which added with until then staying “Mesian” Hellenist territories (of a principally non-Hellenist and Latinized province of Mesia) south from the West Haemus-Balkan with the cities and strongholds of Sardica-Sofia and Pautalia-Kyustendil or Turres-Pirot, when to the province of Mesia is added the non-Hellenized (out from Macedonian conquest and empire since middle of 4th B C) territory north from Haemus-Balkan (the “wild and close to enemy lands” of Odryssian kingdom generally entrusted to a relation of the king), in 86 A D territory is again separated, with a border on Ciabrus-Tsibritsa river (principal river of small Balkan country of Mesia), as a province of Mesia Inferiorem – Lower Mesia and the principle part of the veritable Mesia is this way forming province of Mesia Superiorem,
In 272 is happening last change of the borders of Mesia Superiorem and Inferiorem when between 270 and 272 is formed by emp. Aurelian – between the Upper Mesia and in east the Lower Mesia and Thrace – the new province of Dacia Aureliana (receiving all the Roman population of the Roman colonists from Dacia Traiana north from Danube evacuated in 270 – except local Romanized populations), the new province is formed 225 years after end of protectorate of Mesia, Macedonia and Achaia restoring its Northeast borders, separating it again from East Balkans, situated in its Northeast parts having for east border again river and course of Iscar and for west border river and course of Morava, this way province of Mesia Superiorem is limited to its East parts between rivers of Morava and Drina, when Mesia Inferiorem limited from Oescus-Iscar, Danube, Haemus-Balkan and Pontus, and keeping those borders for few centuries before administrative reform in Byzance replacing provinces with themes (completed in the 8th),
In 293 the new administrative reform of emp. Diocletian created the prefectures and dioceses (divided in more than 100 provinces) having the four prefectures – of Orient (including the East-Balkan diocese of Thrace – east from the courses of rivers of Iscar and Mesta), of Illyria including all West Balkans with courses of Iscar and Mesta and Pannonia (west from Danube with today’s West Hungary and East Austria with Vindobona-Vienna), then of Italy and of Gallia in West.
The prefecture of Illyria was including the dioceses of Mesia – West Balkans and of Pannonia north from it, in beginning of 4th under Constantine that diocese was divided in dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia named from their principal provinces of Dacia with Sardica and of Macedonia with Thessalonica – the cities becoming provincial capitals like capitals of their dioceses, diocese of Dacia was including whole Balkans west from course of Iscar and east from Drina, and South from Macedonia, and that is principally the first and veritable Roman province of Mesia from 15 A D
After the territory of Mesia Inferiorem would be much diminished from its original size (with creation of new provinces like Dacia Aureliana or Dardania with center of Scupi-Scopye) so a name like “Mesia” would be marking for Eusebius and another most probably the first, known, old and veritable Roman Mesia between Iscar and Drina becoming a Balkan diocese of Mesia.

It is for sure that Bulgarians and Slavonics were participating in tribal unions like those of East Germans – specially Goths and sometimes have been pointed themselves as Goths and another from Byzantines, even known monk Payssiy and similar writers from same epoch mostly influenced from Illyrism are speaking of Huns and Bulgarians routing Roman emperor Valentus in 378 near Adrianople where he is defeated from Goths, much probably West Bulgarians were indeed participating in battle as Gothic allies.
In India or even Near and Middle East – Europe is called in Middle ages a “country of Bulgarians” when caravans are leading on the road of silk from China to the Straits and as Bulgarians are a known nation and identity like for Asia, also later for Europe – becoming in 4th A D the most western Altaic people – on the principal territories of Byzance.
The Byzantine Theophanes is pointing in beginning of 9th that “Bulgaria was constitutive part of the Roman empire” and pointing that the “Old Bulgaria” spreading up to Bosphore (most probably pointing military campaigns of Illyrian Bulgarians which leading them up to Bosphore where built protecting Constantinople Anastasius’ wall)

All the Middle Illyria is called from the Byzantines “Bulgaria” which could be called Bulgaria Minor distinguishing from the vast East-Bulgarian states in Caucasus, at Volga and else, and distingushing from them should be called today “Illyrian Bulgaria”, that is the first, important and principal land of Europe known with name of “Bulgaria” for Romans-Byzantines and another Europeans since 4th A D. Distinguishing from one also pretending on “Bulgarian” name and definitions Turkish Mesia (whose Turks dominating for 12 centuries conquered local East-Dacian Slavonics) in the Balkan East and its two states, the Illyrian Bulgaria was known for Byzantines as “Old Bulgaria”.

The Turks-Bulgarians (representing a small minority) in the Illyrian Bulgaria were assimilated – with related old local Byzantine populations – with the process of slavonization of that principal Byzantine territory starting in 7th, developing then in 9th with introducing Slavonic-Byzantine culture, West Turks-Bulgarians can be assimilated either as separate populations (which they were still representing in the 7th) either as part of the one old local Byzantine population (when they can be already assimilated from Byzantines), the principal was that in those common, known, related and established areas the mutual relations between West Turks-Bulgarians and West Slavonics were developing for many centuries – first north from Danube, later in Byzantine Illyria.
The identity, tradition and history and definitions of Turks-Bulgarians in Illyrian Bulgaria – which being for sure the only principal Turkish-Bulgarian and “Bulgarian” identity, tradition and history or definitions for Byzantines or Europe – were officially recognized for the Slavonics – the Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian “Bulgarians” in Byzance, that way defined, as succeeding, following and replacing Turks-Bulgarians, as principal meaning, importance and significance and situation for the old Turkish-Bulgarian territory, power, policy, rule, tradition and legacy or definitions – with one principal existing historical, political and traditional or cultural relation for those local Slavonics with the Turkish-Bulgarian entity, development and realization or heritage in Byzance.
And that principal relation with Turks-Bulgarians and their known ancient Illyrian Bulgaria was recognized also with specially created, supported and realized from Byzantines and Slavonics in Illyrian Bulgaria Slavonic-Byzantine culture, followed from great Illyrian Bulgarian Slavonic-Byzantine Orthodox empire, then for Byzance from recognition and union with the Illyrian Bulgarian empire, the recognition of the Illyrian Bulgarian Church and system, structures and organization (after the monarchical union), the entities, communities and centers or aristocracy of Illyrian Bulgaria having principal meaning, importance and situation for empire; and when definition of Illyrian Bulgaria as “Bulgarians” and “Bulgarian” was also spreading over all Slavonics from those Slavonic branches (of Pannonian and West-Dacian Slavonics in Middle Illyria) – also out from borders of the Illyrian Bulgarian territory or geographical definitions– like that happening in North Greece – in Thessaly or Epirus (to which sure nobody could denying principal belonging to Greece) and else – before those would be reached from Illyrian Bulgarian empire, policy or campaigns and conquests.
The Illyrian Bulgarian crown after Comitopouls were attributing to themselves – declaring themselves as “emperors of Bulgaria” the Byzantines, then the Serbs, Hungarians and some German emperors (all considering themselves successors of Illyrian Bulgarian empire), like sure the different Balkan sovereigns (like Dragashs – local Shope-Moravian feudals from the Shope-Moravian Preshevo and their despotate of Velbuzhd-Kyustendil, providing its last dynasty to the Byzantine empire), since 13th Hungarians were generally placing in Machva with Belgrade and another (like despotate and empire of Jacob-Svetoslav in Sredets-Sofia) under their protection or support rulers – named “emperors of Bulgaria”

When the Old Veritable Roman Mesia, today’s Serbia, with whole Middle Illyria got a new name of “Bulgaria” since the 4th c. – being known with it during whole Middle Ages until end of the Ottoman period, in East Balkans appeared in end of 7th and 8th new Turkish-Scythian Barbarian state which got since then the old name of Mesia Inferiorem and becoming known principally as “Mesia” until its final end in end of 14th; that way must be pointed that Middle Illyria was becoming for millennium and half (specially one millennium of its local Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian “Bulgarian” community since 9th to 19th and later) principally known as “Bulgaria” and “Bulgarian” (for itself, Balkans and Illyrian Slavonics and their powers, Byzance or Hungary, then Ottomans and Austria and else), when the Turkish Mesian states, populations and areas in the Balkan East from opposite mostly becoming principally known as “Mesia” and “Mesian”.

Illyrian Bulgarians are also pointed in 354 in a second version of a so called “anonymous Roman Cosmographer” – added there as descending from first son of Noah – Sym (and last son of latter – Ziezi), together with other 24 ancient important well-known peoples – that is speaking about significance of those for the Christians, as representing the most famous important and ancient peoples of Old World; Bulgarians are pointed as most West from those Oriental by origin peoples (the cosmographer is alternating directions of East and West with pointed peoples), still at the time principal part of Bulgarians are occupying lands of East Europe – north from Great Caucasus (since 1st or 2nd A D), and those in Illyria (Middle Europe) are minority and not much numerous – but are making Bulgarians finally known for Europeans.
“The fearful for whole world Bulgarians” like them being called in Europe are well-known, respected and famous for their war skills from the 4th, but specially the 5th and the 6th c., when after fall of West empire and different Barbarian movements they are much activating, bestirring themselves in their Middle Illyria and Pannonia (with Transylvania), thus already in the 5th Illyria is divided into the Northwest – German, Middle – Bulgarian and Southeast – Greek parts. Illyrian Bulgarians have left from those early centuries their numerous archaeological traces – in Serbia or Shopeskho and else.
in Illyria Bulgarians wage war with or against the emperor, come to the empire’s support by appeal of emperor Zeno, take part in the Orthodox resurrection of federates of Vitalianus, and defeating numerous times the Goths and Romans-Byzantines and even glorious army of diocese of Illyria (“From then – is writing about battle in 499 the contemporary Comes Marcelinus – faded for ever the glory of the army of Illyria”) or another. For defending principally from Bulgarian attacks from Illyria emp. Anastasius has then building the known wall (“Long wall”) from Black to Marmora sea protecting capital Constantinople.
In middle of 6th begin the campaigns in East Balkans of their related Pagan East Turks-Bulgarians with their two branches in the Northeast Black sea region – of Koutrigours and Outigours – called from Byzantines with their two tribal names, differing from first known for Byzantines Illyrian Bulgarians (which then sometimes allying on Balkans with the East Turks-Bulgarians, like during great joint campaign in 540 in whole Balkans, when West Turks-Bulgarians taking 32 fortresses in Illyria and East-Bulgarians operating in East Balkans) – becoming known as “Bulgarians” and their controlled territories in the Middle Illyria as “Bulgaria”.
The name is had much later in 7th for a quarter century of existence of the Bulgarian principality of Koubrat becoming called “the Old Great Bulgaria” and thus differing from the new great one – vast territory of Koutrigours at Volga – so called Volga Bulgaria with a great, and important and known state (compared even to Byzance) and a successor of the first East-Bulgarian state,
Same time the Illyrian “Little Bulgaria” becoming the “Bulgaria Minor” – the first and principal, interior, known, original “Bulgaria”, the Illyrian Bulgaria like many another principal territories could be called “Little” as being the first for appearing and concentrating meaning, importance and definitions from where as center and source, origin or foundation could spreading the relations of an identity, tradition and history for another – “Big” or “Great” by size but could be following as anteriority and age or significance of their principal establishment.

One millennium later after its foundation in the 4th Illyrian Bulgaria was still pointed as “Bulgaria” on its same location, with same territory, position and definitions – on maps of known “General History” from 14th of English monk Ranulph – being highly educated and informed for his epoch, and basing mostly his works on the information and knowledge from the ancient authors and sources, like sure also relating there his contemporary epoch, Illyrian Bulgaria is present on 8 from the 9 maps, as positioned in West and inland Balkan peninsula on the Middle Danube neighbouring Pannonia (or Hungary), Turkish Mesia is of course located on its own place – that is in the East Balkans on Most Lower Danube with Delta and on the Black sea coast and named as “Mysia”, most of the lands and countries (following there a spread European tradition – specially there for Byzance) are pointed with their original antique and ancient historical names.
Of course Illyrian Bulgaria is then in 14th the empire of Doushan – the only, uncontested and definite, most important and principal succession of millenary Illyrian Bulgaria and its great empire of Comitopuls (from 10th-11th) – in its principal territorial, national, ethnical, political and traditional or historical definitions.
The Illyrian Bulgaria and Mesia are on their same places (with their territories, populations and definitions in West and the East Balkans) on many other maps or sources, like the famous anthropomorphic map of Europe from 16th representing Spanish supremacy and other.

From another side the confusion about pretended from both establishments and countries – the “Bulgarian” historical name and definitions – was leading that name and definitions being attached to one from both which can be also the wrong pretender of Turkish Mesia – having as only “relation” once submission and belonging to shortly-existing disintegrating Koubrat’s Caucasian “Bulgarian” principality separated from West-Turkish khaganate from where “inheriting” a West-Turkish dynasty of Doulou – soon ending and eliminated in 738 in Turkish Mesia from the local ones.
An Anonymous Latin Cosmographer from Ravenna from beginning of 8th is pointing Mesian Turks called “Bulgarians” as having then peopled (speaking of ex-Byzantine territories now under their control) in diocese of Thrace (East Balkans) “Lower Mesia and the veritable Thrace or Macedonia” expression like “Veritable Thrace or Macedonia” cannot be noting sure anything else but the newly-established theme of Macedonia in East of the Ancient Thrace (which has been Homeland of Odryssians and their Thracian kingdom, but whose lands near Straits were generally annexed and controlled from Macedonia since Philip until coming of Romans for about two centuries, for escaping then Celtic or Hellenist menace, campaigns and domination Odryssian kings have even moving their residence from their own ethnical Odryssian Southeast Thrace to the Northwest inland) and should mean the lands ceded by emp. Theodosius III to Mesian Turkish neighbor – after in 711-716 two Mesian-Turkish campaigns reaching Constantinople (sure being attacked by every Barbarian finding himself less than few thousand miles from the city)
The weak and wretched Theodosius III has indeed ceding to Turkish khans territories in East Thrace – parts of new theme of Macedonia, same Mesian Turkish khan Tervel is pictured on rock relief at Madara as victor of Lion – symbol of the province and diocese of Thrace.
The author – giving credit to the Mesian Turks as relating their own pretended and wanted by them name and definition as “Bulgarians” (meaning initial source for that nomination from author would be much probably for themselves those same Mesian Turks, informations being so transferred from travelers and merchants or agents) – is speaking of those “Bulgarians” which “coming from Great Scythia” (East steppes) and speaking of those territories of Lower Mesia and East Thrace where “only Bulgarians are dwelling” – certainly being an exaggeration from a sympathizing author – those territories for sure were generally (Lower Mesia) or often (for Thrace) controlled from those Mesian Turks and their khans with the same populations kept in those regions until now (of Huns, Onogondours or another Turks), but certainly pointing them as only population would be there quite exaggerated – though sure relating a reality when those Mesian Turks becoming the most principal, numerous and dominating populations in those territories.
Supposal about cosmographer describing establishment in 6th or 7th of the East-Bulgarians – Koutrigours and Outigours is entirely absurd, as knowing they were never establishing in those territories becoming object of their attacks from their country north from the Great Caucasus, without speaking of them becoming principal establishment, population and meaning for those then surely Byzantine territories.
Must be pointed that numerous were the cases (like one of “Anonymous Ravenna Cosmographer”) when no matter whom from both of Illyrian Bulgaria or Turkish Mesia would be pointed with his wanted and self-attributed “Bulgarian” name and definition, the other from opposite was becoming not related to it (meaning for not absurdly “sharing” it with another) – meaning it would be speaking so of two different countries and entities or communities.

Croatian Illyrists and their Balkan followers (with a cultural movement characterized in its beginning with attention, interest and occupation towards Balkan and Slavonic history through spread from Illyrists most obvious, un-doubtful and direct historical legends, myths and tales and inventions) were since 16th and 17th creating a legendary and mythical invention, pretension and ambition of “Bulgaria” which following example of the three-united kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia should be consisting from Trinity of Mesia, Thrace and Macedonia, the definition of Macedonia was including until 1878 (when started pointing the remaining Ottoman lands of West Balkans) practically whole Illyrian Bulgaria (without Vidin) – including there also Shopeskho being most principal part of the Illyrian Bulgaria and for sure never relating Mesia or Thrace (the Rila monastery or Koprivshtitsa was so pointed in “Macedonia”), later those different Illyrist inventions spreading on Balkans (with “Slavonic-Bulgarian” or “Slavonic-Serbian” histories of the monk Payssiy or Pavlo Yulinats) were spreading in Russia (principally with Yuriy Venelin in 1829-41) and else.
The problem and confusion about those two “Bulgarias” based on one purely linguistic relation – as both now attributing (speaking sure of the Illyrian Bulgaria and initially Turkish Mesia, and later since 19th its remains – Slavonic Mesia) to themselves and attributed the name of “Bulgaria”, was pointing how easily a such homonymic and superficial “relation” was able of confusing and “uniting” two entirely different areas, entities, populations and communities or establishments – the one in west, of the Illyrian Bulgaria, was a West-Slavonic and original Slavonic-Byzantine Orthodox one of a local “Bulgaria”, and the other was one of Mesian Turks which adopting for a short period Orthodoxy and Slavonic-Byzantine culture, when sure also both pretending on a famous, known, respected Turkish-Bulgarian name, without though anyone from both being directly Bulgarian (speaking of original Turks-Bulgarians), and staying also sure too much different from each other in any other way.

In beginning of 9th fall of Avarian khaganate destroyed from emperor Carlus the Great was uniting with Turkish Mesia and its prince, probably himself Avarian Bulgarian, of Kroum (for some from origin he was a Bulgarian from khaganate, he was starting the last dynasty of First Mesian Turkish state realizing its greatest reforms, expansion and success on Balkans with Kroum, then Boris or Simeon) – uniting the Pannonian Bulgarians in Transylvania and part of the Illyrian Bulgaria – small strip of land on Danube with Belgrade, that was for a first time (sure not for long – few decennia until reign of Boris and Simeon defeated from their neighbors, Boris was losing all his wars, when Simeon advancing up to Serbia was defeated from coming to Serbian support Croatian king) adding and combining with Turkish Mesia a properly Turkish-Bulgarian population and areas – before Avarian or under Avarian influence – now again opposing Byzance as part of the Turkish Mesia, thus the pretensions of Mesian Turks on relations with Turks-Bulgarians would be becoming more “credible” and supported for some.
but the two Turkish areas were sure never forming one – Bulgarian Transylvania and neighboring Upper Mesia were separated from East Lower Mesia from important geographical obstacles – the great Balkan-Carpathian ranges (with impassible gorge of “Iron gates”), like separated from principal strategic areas and borders or points, they were quite different politically, ethnically and culturally because of long domination of Avars in west (which though hasn’t meant there assimilation or some important rapprochement) and were politically combined quite unstably – only opposing the empire when their aristocracy, populations, troops and elite kept occupying their separate positions.
But for first time part of the ancient and true Illyrian Bulgaria was combined with the Turkish Mesia (after the Onogondourian establishment on Balkans), for later Mesian Turks continuing their penetration to the south – in Macedonia following axis of Morava-Vardar, thus also for first time for the Byzantines or Balkans the two notions of the Turkish Mesia and Illyrian Bulgaria were related and sometimes combined as “Upper” and “Lower Bulgaria” or “Mesia”, Illyrian Bulgaria staying the “Old Bulgaria”; if Transylvania was actually a Turkish-Bulgarian area, south from it – Banat, Bachka and Srem or the Upper Mesia near Danube were from long principally Slavonic areas (of course besides the prevailing Slavonics having also Turkish-Bulgarian populations, specially the Illyrian Bulgaria in Byzance) relating Turks-Bulgarians and Pannonia with Avars or different Slavonic populations, those special Slavonic or Slavonic-Bulgarian areas (of the future Voevodina) which were though staying farther from the Turks in center of khaganate – the Avars or Bulgarians and which being somehow transitional between Byzance and the khagans

In end of 7th (between 70’s and 90’s) in Macedonia were establishing the Bulgarians of Kouber (coming from Avarian khaganate with a population of Byzantine war-prisoners, and after new establishment on Balkans never somehow related and interested or occupied with Mesian Turks), thus adding besides the North areas of Illyrian Bulgaria principal Turkish-Bulgarian presence in the south ones (on the axis Morava-Vardar); speaking then in end of 7th in Illyrian Bulgaria from Byzantines about “Slavinia and Bulgaria” (meaning most probably whole Middle Illyria), the two establishments, populations and communities were actually starting forming much principally one common principal area, presence and population or power.
in 718 Illyrian Bulgarians were most probably those coming on help of the emperor routing Arabs near capital, in the 7th-8th and 9th the Slavonics were finally assimilating their Turkish Barbarian brothers and the Illyrian Bulgarian Slavonics were becoming known in 9th already as “Bulgarians” or “Bulgarian Slavonics” for Byzantines, for themselves and another; name of “Bulgarian Slavonics” attributed “before” (like many times pointed) coming and relation of Mesian Turks – couldn’t most obviously meaning “Slavonics relating the Bulgarians” (Mesian Turks) but meaning “the Slavonics of Bulgaria” – Illyrian Bulgaria as a geographical definition which keeping from Turks most principally only its old name.
The Illyrian Bulgarian Slavonic-Byzantine empire, Church and structures, areas, populations and community were regarded from Byzantines as “Bulgarian” as embracing the ancient Turkish-Bulgarian now Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian Bulgaria in Middle Illyria.
The Illyrian Bulgaria was besides as notion responding to the archaicizing names used from Byzantine historians and chronists, but same time name was started being transferred to pretending on it Mesian Turks – East-Balkan Onogondours and Huns, thus two different Balkan populations were there named that way – “united” with relations and pretentions for the famous, well-known and respected name and definition of Turks-Bulgarians – that “union” was not at all somehow ethnical and cultural, but having the historical, political and strategic-geographical relations for Byzance to the neigboring Barbarians – becoming known for Byzantines as being “North Barbarians” opposing or supporting empire and taking control on “Upper” and “Lower Bulgaria” or “Mesia” – two neighboring Balkan areas of North-Balkans controlled from those North Barbarians and neighboring controlled directly from Byzantines areas in South
Mesian Turks called before generally “Scythians” and “Huns” or “Mesians” and “Dacians” (common names for steppe horse nomadic peoples, either geographic definitions) and else are first time principally related with the Turks-Bulgarians and thus also with ancient veritable Illyrian Bulgaria since their upsurge in the 9th

in 9th and 10th the name of “Bulgarians” was established, important and principal and certain for the Illyrian Bulgarian Slavonics forming in 9th the Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian Bulgarian community based on directions, work and foundations of the Sts Brothers (in 858 their mission in the Shope-Macedonian Bregalnitsa, in 870 St. Methode appointed from pope archbishop in Sirmium-Srem of Pannonia and Illyria) and their principal pupils – St. Clement – Illyrian Bulgarian from origin (since 886 in West of the Slavonic Macedonia), St. Naoum and other
even the today’s “Bulgarian” historians are recognizing that since middle of 10th (since decadence and end of the First Turkish Mesian state) until beginning or middle of 13th name of “Bulgaria” and “Bulgarians” was relating only the Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian Bulgaria, in 13th and 14th name of “Bulgaria” was staying generally uncertain and doubtful for Turkish Mesia which for short periods penetrating again Illyrian Bulgaria in 13th and 14th
In end of the 14th Turkish Mesia was finally ended, and name, identity, tradition and history or definitions of “Bulgaria” were had now for almost half a millennium for the Old veritable Illyrian Bulgaria – whose succession was since 13th and then with tsar Doushan the empire of Nemanich of Rashka or “Serbia”, the great Illyrian Bulgarian empire, Church and policy and community in 10th-11th was giving so birth to the future Serbia of Nemanich.
After end of the Turkish Mesia the Illyrian Bulgaria with its Ohrid Church and elite, structures and entities was now aspiring sometimes attachment to itself of those ex-Mesian Turkish areas where muslimized local Turks were an important majority since 16th, and the local Slavonic population – never important in any way, was left under religious-political power of Constantinople Church, but in end of 18th and 19th the demographic picture was entirely changed for Balkan East (with assimilated from Mesian Slavonics enormous quantities of Ottoman slaves) – where Mesian Slavonics become an important majority and even most important population for whole “Turkish Europe”, when Illyrian Bulgaria was losing since beginning of 19th its principal parts like so called Serbia (later in 20th added with Macedonia and Voevodina)

The used in Byzance nominations for the two Northern countries and lands are of Upper and Lower Bulgaria or Mesia – indeed for the Byzantines they could be perceived as united into one neighboring Northern Barbarian area (same like happening for a generalized common definition of “Thrace” for the non-Greek, Barbarian North Balkans in Antiquity) with establishments, policy and power or populations of establishing their military or political control the “Barbarian” newcomers supporting or opposing the empire, the two areas were relating either pretending on relations with Turks-Bulgarians, and besides were also generally responding to the Ancient Northern Roman province of Mesia,
but now the appellations were sometimes turned from opposite – the Illyrian or Old Bulgaria was known as “Lower” Mesia or Bulgaria with meaning of politically “Inner” and interior, “more” Byzzantine territory – more related for empire, and “Upper” was the East Turkish Mesia with meaning of the politically and historically “Outer” and foreign territory – generally in opposition with the Byzantines, probably also now the directions were returned as coming from point of Eastern Constantinople – where the Eastern Turkish Mesia would be indeed twice closer to capital.
Anyway the two nominations and definitions were speaking about a common name but historically, traditionally and ethnically or culturally separate, different, distinct and another, and special areas, populations and communities.

In epoch of flourishment of Tarnovo cultural and literary center (establishing most principal relations with Byzance) was written in 14th most important Mesian Turkish historical source relating Mesian Turkish and Balkan history called the Manasius’ chronicle where Mesian Turks, their rulers and elite were themselves recognizing the first in time, special, separate and the much more ancient establishment of the Illyrian Bulgaria as a separate entity,
Which though should be defined with “compromise” date of about 180-190 years farther both from real establishment of Illyrian Bulgaria since 315 and epoch of First Church Councils and then the establishment about 4 centuries later of Turkish Mesian state, the date was though chosen no by chance, and having nothing hazardous or incidental – it was campaign of the great chief Rean located clearly in 504, representing much probably a first East-Bulgarian campaign reaching Illyrian “Bulgaria”, like Pannonia and region of Sirmium.
The Mesian Turkish document is representing a Mesian Turkish copy of known Byzantine chronicle of Manasius added with principal facts of Mesian Turkish and “Bulgarian” history, the historical source was written like pointed 511 years after evangelization of Mesian Turks (in 863) and 870 years after the establishment of the first Bulgaria over Danube (Illyrian Bulgaria) – that is in 1374, when Ottomans were already advancing seriously on Balkans menacing all Balkan states after battle of Maritsa in 1371, and when exactly the political consideration of the Balkan sovereigns tending towards occupation with the principal task of defending against Ottoman enemy (though sure that never happened for Turkish Mesia which staying impotent, helpless and immovable before Ottomans) and even meaning forgetting somehow the old treacheries, intrigues, lies or oppositions.
The events described under Anastaius reign are dated exactly 359 years before Christianization of Turkish Mesia which like known started in 863 with Christianization of Boris-Michael himself and his court, meaning events were positioned in 504 A D.
A first and mysterious military campaign “from East”, recorded in Latin annals – found in Vatican library, is staying so one in 504 “then the great Bulgarian chief Rean advanced with his troops from east to west and occupied not only Bulgaria (that is Illyrian Bulgaria) but also Pannonia with the region Sirmium” the campaign is though staying later without connection or consequence and can be much probably considered either as separate and isolated happening relating somehow East Turks-Bulgarians, either most probably still as some local movements of West Turkish-Bulgarian tribes or their related peoples in their own area. It can be very easily seen that starting from the Illyrian Bulgaria – occupied first or already from a powerful local military chief, the chief would be continuing and advancing then from his Illyrian Bulgaria (“not only Bulgaria” – being already a military establishment of the West Turks-Bulgarians, and now under the principal power and control of chief) to those found quite westerner Sirmium and Pannonia – those both before coming of Avarians being principally Slavonic areas relating the West Turks-Bulgarians.
The Mesian Turkish source is pointing there two principal
happenings:
“The reign of emperor (or “tsar”) of Anastasius – under the emp. Anastaius the Bulgarians started taking and assuming this land, coming so to Vidin, and before that starting taking and assuming the Lower land of Ohrid (Lower or Illyrian Bulgaria), and after that the whole of this land, and finally the Bulgarians are there until now and ever”, another version is finishing with saying “and before that have taken and assumed Ohrid’s land, and after it this land”)
“The reign of Constantine the Bearded – under Constantine the Bearded there was Holy Council (Ecumenical Council of Church), under this tsar Constantine were thronging and coming Bulgarians through the Danube, and taken from Greeks (deprived the Greeks from) that land, on it living also until now, after having routed them, and before that land was once called Mysia, and being much innumerous they have filled up also this side of the Danube, and also land up to Drach-Dirahium and farther, as also the Walachs and Serbs and another they all are one” (another version is finishing with saying “as also all another they are all one”) – meaning sure – “one together with us”

Ohrid land was sure the Illyrian Bulgaria which was known with its last capital of Ohrid (last capital of Illyrian Bulgarian empire) being sure before the siege of St. Clement, his Slavonic-Byzantine school, center and direction, later the siege of Independent Church of Ohrid
It seams that campaign of Rean – reaching Vidin, can be even pointed as being posterior to taking the “Lower land of Ohrid” which starting before that and so which then would be continuing of taking that whole land, can be pointed there few versions – either Rean (never pointed in chronicle but easily identified with a year of 504 and the Latin information) would be East Turk-Bulgarian and pointed as starting occupying the Illyrian Bulgaria or parts of it like Vidin – when he would be starting occupying the Lower Ohrid’s land and the Bulgarians then occupying that whole land (the two – Upper and Lower “Bulgarias”), either before chief Rean the Illyrian Bulgarians starting taking their Illyrian Bulgaria and then even that whole land (their expeditions from Illyria reaching Constantinople and the East Balkans), though here pointing starting “before that” taking Lower Ohrid’s land could be sure emphasizing that happening later for “that whole land” and Turkish Mesia.
Same time “this land” or even there “whole this land” can be meaning one from two “Bulgarias” (with their related areas – like Sirmium and Pannonia and else for the Illyrian Bulgaria) either them together as one, for example speaking of “this land” being called before Mysia is quite clearly pointing Turkish Mesia and its once Roman Lower Mesia (not being case of Dacia Aureliana, Macedonia, Thrace and else)
Another version would be about Rean being Illyrian Bulgarian chieftain which would be the first of conquering, occupying and dominating all those lands of “Bulgaria, Sirmium and Pannonia” – not as Byzantine federate and support but as separating from great Byzance and representing menace for Byzantine power replaced by his own and so things developing that way interiorly for Illyrian Bulgaria. Anyway as conclusion is pointed that established in Illyrian Bulgaria those West-Bulgarians are so there “until now and for ever” (after starting occupying “that whole land”)
Is also clear that when Rean occupying “Bulgaria” (with Sirmium and Pannonia) meaning it would be principally already established there before him. An expression as “not only Bulgaria, but also Sirmium and Pannonia” is clearly speaking those countries were already together there, and Bulgaria about which author speaking would be sure Illyrian Bulgaria (Upper Mesia) – enough near and connecting and relating Sirmium or Pannonia, Rean is added to history of Bulgaria and is not its founder, “Bulgaria” is pointed there as geographic feature (from Antiquity) meaning already existing, and would be one geographic area connecting Sirmium and Pannonia and being the Illyrian Bulgaria in Middle Illyria.
Vidin has sure to be pointed there as being so (knowing any another historical relation, connection or origin for those historical happenings couldn’t be sure retraced historically in any ways) only part of Illyria and Illyrian Bulgaria becoming (as no geographic obstacles were found between it and the Turkish Mesia with the Danubian plain) constantly and stably and surely part of Mesian Turkish states and areas.
It was also important for those Mesian Turks as it being Roman Dacia Ripensis (Riverside Dacia) and being also important Roman center – the only one or one from few remaining for the Turkish Mesia which never had another, being also a part of the ancient and even mystically known Triballia – a name spreading unclearly on different parts of Central and North Balkans (Serbs called for unknown reasons from Byzantines principally as Triballians) – becoming part (Triballians were regarded from some originating in Naissus-Nish area and Morava or even Dardania for later spreading in East in Danubian plain) of Roman Dacia Aureliana; Laonicus Chalcondilus (a known Byzantine intellectual) was saying in next 15th century about finding Triballians being “the most ancient and greatest nation on Earth” and “they are called now Bulgarians” (definition could be relating generally the Dacia Aureliana or the Illyrian Bulgaria of Nemanich with their great empire – Serbs called from Byzantines as “Triballians”),

The sure and principal thing was that the Mesian Turks never had any direct relations with the known Central-European Bulgarians-Turks established here much before appearance of Onogondurian tribal and state entity, and could be also never pretending on any relations with them.
Those Bulgarians – Christianized and relating more Byzance as federates of empire were staying for those many centuries quite separate and different and distinguished from those in East Europe and Caucasus which occupying important territories and sure being quite more numerous but principally appearing first time on Balkans with some important actions only in middle of 6th (having the short relations for Byzance with short-living Koubrat’s principality) and never after in direct connection with Byzance and Balkans.
But though for sure Mesian Turks would be preferring pretending on relations with the Caucasian Bulgarians (their relation with the Caucasian Bulgaria) and with existing 20 years Bulgarian Caucasian principality of Koubrat.

To themselves Mesian Turks were attributing principal merit of opposing the Byzantines which happening when Asparuh coming and “bereaving the Greeks of that land” (sure Asparuh’s state was spreading on narrow strip of land near Danube) – the more civilized and famous Barbarians were “contenting” with gaining or having for themselves an important meaning and position or role into the empire when also controlling its territories as its federates and allies – as knowing that defeating and destroying empire was not possible for one or even many from those peoples, and knowing that cooperation and alliance with empire was better as situation – both for the Barbarians and Byzance, and destruction of Byzance (which was allowing them as submitted allies on its territories) would be certainly a horrible catastrophy for Europe as for sure any creation existing on place of the old empire would be artificial, unneeded, incoherent and absurd and impossible being supported in any way – if not accomplishing the principal Eurasian, European and Christian meaning of Byzance and Byzantinism
The Onogondours (like then their successors – Pechenegs, Ouz and Koumans) left for occupying their narrow strip of land – being a needed that way buffer for empire, often attacked, invaded and devastated from the Byzantines (when Mesian Turks had searching asylum over Danube, either in their mountains) were re-attached for empire with first open “window” and break that empire was having as possibility in end of 10th – occupied with struggle with its principal military, political, religious and strategic enemy – Arab Caliphate.
The Mesian Turkish document is not speaking about a branch of Bulgarians leaded from Kouber to Byzantine Macedonia which sure never showed any interest into Mesian Turkish principality and becoming soon assimilated with locals.

The Mesian Turks were speaking themselves about the Illyrian Bulgaria – the Lower Ohrid’s land and their East-Balkan Danubian state as two different areas, entities and establishments, histories, traditions and developments or realizations, for then clearly pointing explanation of that “common” “Bulgarian” spreading or “reality” – continuing in chronicle with “as also the Walachs and the Serbs and another – are all one”, and clearly indicating that pointed there “Bulgarian” “reality” of the Ilyrian Bulgaria was not relating neither directly neither closely the Turkish Mesia,
Though officially for the Mesian Turks (first the Onogondours and local Huns, then the Pechenegs, Ouz and Koumans) Illyrian Bulgaria was “one” and “together” with them, Mesian Turkish source was sure important so responding to the Byzantine view of things – many times confusing, combining, collecting and joining and uniting in one the hostile or threatening and limiting Byzantine power “Barbarian” North Balkans with a common name like “Bulgaria”.
The source responding to pretensions of Turkish Mesia and sure there similarly those of any another Balkan entity like Illyrian Bulgaria or its part of Serbia or another – for attributing to yourself more important establishment and spreading, relations or power, like responding also to the confusion, unclearness, complication and perplexity regarding the pretensions, ambitions and considerations for terms like “Bulgaria” and “Bulgarian”
The source speaking in its own way about that special kind of “Balkan union” or a complex “entity” (sure having there those many complicated interrelations, connections or contacts) – stating that Bulgarians, Serbs or Walachs “those are all one” – leaving so sure like always in those cases an open possibility for supporting and tolerating your own pretensions from another like those of another from yourself – as the Balkan union in the 14th realized from the Serbian Nemanich and their principal great “Serbian-Greek” Illyrian Bulgarian empire, as that wanted, pretended or declared Balkan union was staying sure the eternal dream of those being many Balkan sovereigns or states, union for sure realized for many centuries from great Byzance with its principal system, structures and organization, great influence, power, policy, realization and authority, principles, values or canon for Balkans.

Answer 2

Ethnicity does not depend on race, though many people from, the same race may make up an ethnology. Not all Jews are descended from the Hebrews, but they all live in the same culture. Not all Blacks are of the African ethnology, though many that are descended from Africans--Jamaica, Haiti, St. Kitts, America--have their own unique ethnology. (And Blacks from Africa who were traded to America then were sent back to Africa have an ethnology that is American AND african)

Ethnology is more than a culture or caounter-culture--all colors in America and abide by American ways are ethnically American. Gays, Goths, preppies, are a destinct clique in a culture, and are not ethnic.

Answer 3

what link a group of people together, mostly cultural.

Answer 4

our heritage or ethinic background and or affiliation...