من أين يأتي البلغار؟

الأشخاص الذين مارسوا تشوه الجمجمة الاصطناعي الحلقي في آسيا الوسطى هم Yuezhi / Kushans. [60] [61] [62] [63] بدأت هجرة Yuezhi من شمال الصين خلال 2 قبل الميلاد ، وهي موثقة جيدًا [64] وحركتها توازي توزيع الجماجم المشوهة صناعيًا. ووفقًا لما ذكره ماينشن-هيلفن ، فإن بعض مجموعاتهم هاجروا بعيدًا إلى الغرب وكانوا موجودين في السهوب شمال القوقاز وعلى شواطئ البحر الأسود منذ القرن الأول قبل الميلاد.

حدث انتشار عادات التشوه القحفي من آسيا الوسطى إلى أوروبا على 6 مراحل ، وكان توزيع الجماجم يوازي حركة الهون. أظهر التحليل التصنيفي الحديث للقحف المشوهة بشكل مصطنع من القرن الخامس ورقم 82116 الميلادي (فترة الهون الجرمانية) الموجود في شمال شرق المجر أن أيا منها لا يحتوي على أي سمات منغولية وأن جميع الجماجم تنتمي إلى "العرق الأوروبي العظيم" ولكن التعرف على المزيد كان مستحيلًا . [66]

يشترك الهون والبلغار وجزء من قبيلة Yuezhi في بعض ممارسات الدفن الشائعة مثل حفر الدفن الضيقة والحفر ذات المكان المناسب والاتجاه الشمالي للدفن. نتائج البحث عن أصل البلغار تؤدي إلى منطقة معينة في آسيا الوسطى - الروافد الدنيا والوسطى لسير داريا. بعد القرن الثاني الميلادي ، خضعت الثقافة السارماتية في الروافد الدنيا من نهر الفولغا لتغييرات كبيرة. ظهرت ميزات جديدة غير معهود للفترة السابقة: تشوه اصطناعي للجماجم ، وحفر دفن ضيقة وحفر ذات مكانة ، مقطوعة في أحد الجدران. تم العثور على هذه الميزات أيضًا في مقابر البلغار اللاحقة.

وأخيرًا وليس آخرًا: تم إحضار القوس المعاد ، وهو السلاح الذي أعطى ميزة عسكرية للهون على الرومان ، إلى باكتريا بواسطة Yuezhi حوالي 130 قبل الميلاد.

البحث الجيني للبلغار

على الرغم من أن العديد من العلماء قد افترضوا أن البلغار كانوا قبائل تركية في آسيا الوسطى ، إلا أن الأبحاث الجينية الحديثة تشير إلى الانتماء إلى السكان الأوروبيين والغربيين الأوراسيين. يُظهر التحليل الوراثي لعينات الحمض النووي القديمة أنه يمكن تصنيف مجموعات هابلوغروب mtDNA على أنها أوروبية وغربية أوراسية وتشير إلى أصل أمومي غربي أوراسي للبلغاريين البدائيين بالإضافة إلى تشابه وراثي بين البلغار البدائيين والحديثين. تشير الاختبارات الجينية للكروموسوم Y إلى أن السلالة الأبوية المشتركة بين البلغار البدائيين والسكان الناطقين بالتركية في ألتية وآسيا الوسطى إما لم تكن موجودة أو كانت مهملة.

البحث الجيني: حوض تاريم - بلغاريا

هابلوغروب إي إم 35

وفقًا لهيمفيل ومالوري (2004) ، كان هناك نوعان ماديان يوروبويد في حوض تاريم ، النوع الثاني يشترك في الصلات الوثيقة مع سكان شرق البحر الأبيض المتوسط. نفس النوع مشهود له أيضًا في باكتريا.

اليوزهي

Yuezhi في دونهوانغ / الصين

ملابس اليوزهي المرسومة على التطريز البكتري [68] مطابقة تقريبًا للأزياء البلغارية التقليدية المصنوعة في الوقت الحاضر.

وفقًا لـ Hyun Jin Kim ، كان لدى Yuezhi الرحل مؤسسات سياسية تشبه إلى حد كبير نماذج Xiongnu ونماذج Hunnic لاحقًا. يشير الصينيون إلى الخمسة xihou أو Lords of the Yuezhi الذين يحكمون القبائل الخمس لاتحادهم الإمبراطوري. وفقًا لـ PulleyBlank ، كان Yuezhi من الهندو-أوروبيين ويتحدثون لغة توكارية. يتوافق العنوان xihou في النطق مع ما سيصبح لاحقًا العنوان التركي yubgu. يظهر هذا اللقب الملكي Yuezhi في الأصل على العملات المعدنية لحكامهم مثل IAPGU / yavuga [82] وقد جاء إلى Xiongnu من Yuezhi. بين الأتراك ، اكتسب لقب yabgu فرصة جديدة للحياة. في النقوش التركية لمنغوليا ، تشير إلى مرتبة نبيلة بعد qagan مباشرة. كان Kuyan / kayan رمزًا "Uechji مشتركًا" للتجسيد الأرضي للقمر ودرب التبانة.

لغة البلغار

قام بريتساك في دراسته البارزة "اللغة الهونية لعشيرة أتيلا" (1982) [86] بتحليل 33 اسمًا شخصيًا ناجيًا من Hunnic وخلص إلى أن لغة البلغار كانت لغة Hunnic:

1. كانت الدانوب البلغارية لغة هونيك (صفحة 444)
2. كان لدى الدانوب البلغاري اللاحقة / mA / ، بنفس معنى اللاحقة التركية الوسطى / mAtOmeljan / "الأعظم بين" (الصفحة 433)
3. في اللغات الهونية البلغارية / r / داخل مجموعة ساكن تميل إلى الاختفاء (صفحة 435)
4. في Hunno-Bulgarian كان هناك أيضًا اتجاه نحو تطوير di & gt ti & gt ći (الصفحة 436)
5. في Hunno-Bulgarian كان هناك تبادل صوتي bli- & lt * bil (الصفحة 443)
6. كان هناك في البداية حرف g بلغات الهونو البلغارية (الصفحة 449)
7. One of the typical features of the Hunno-Bulgarian linguistic group is a cluster in the word initial position. (page 460)
8. Hunnic (language) shared rhotacism with Mongolian, Old Bulgarian, and Chuvash. (page 470)

According to Pritsak the language was between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to Turkic.

According to Antoaneta Granberg "the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC.[87] The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families:[88] Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese و Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there.[89] It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic.[90] The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure."

Assuming that the connection Yuezhi->Hunno-Bulgars was substantiated enough we can try to find explanation in the preserved data about the language of Yuezhi/Kushans and see if we can find some correspondence. Some scholars have explained the words connecting the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans as coming from the Turkic languages, thus concluding that the language of the Kushans was from the Türkic language branch. this theory is inadequate. In the Zhoushu 周書, ch. 50, it is recorded that: “The ancestors [of the Türks] came from the state of Suo 索.󈭶 It has been suggested that “Suo索” [sheak] is a transcription of “Sacae.” In other words, it may be possible that the ancestors of the Türks originally were kin of the Sacae. If this is true, it would not be difficult to understand why some words and titles connected with the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans can be explaned by the Türkic languages. In the Rājataraṅgiṇī (I, 170) there is a reference to the fact that the Türkic ruler in Gandhāra claimed his ancestor was Kaniṣka, and maybe this is not merely boasting. Other scholars have judged that the language of the Kushans was the Iranian language. This theory is also inadequate, for the following reasons. First, they were a branch of the Sacae, a tribal union composed of at least four tribes, i.e., Asii, Gasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli. Of these there were some tribes who spoke the Iranian language, but also some who spoke Indo-European languages other than the Iranian language, e.g., the Tochari. Next, the tribes that spoke Tokharian were in close contact with the tribes that spoke the Iranian language, and the words connected to them that can be explained with Iranian possibly originally were Tokharian.[91]

Yury Zuev included the Yuezhi (Uechji) among the tribes of early Turks. He wrote that " in the Northern Caucasus they spoke East - Iranian language, and in the Kangju they spoke in Türkic."[92] His sketches about early Türkic tribes and state type confederations showed that "ideological views coincide in many respects and have a common foundation, which ascends to the last centuries BCE. Such foundation was the pantheon of the ancient confederations of Uechji (Yuezhi) and Kangars that left a trace in the ideological complexes of Ashtak Türks, Oguzes, Kypchaks, Az-kishes, Kimeks, Kangly, etc. Certain features of it still are in the folklore of the modern Türkic peoples. The tradition of the ideological continuity is permeating the history of these peoples from extreme antiquity until the new time."[93] Probably one of the most striking customs was the custom of the population to completely shave their heads. "The seven-tribe Uechji -"Tochars” were “White-headed” i.e. with completely shaven heads. "Bold-headness" was equivalent to Moon-headness."[94] Remember that the word Yuezhi is a Chinese exonym, formed from the characters yuè (月) "moon" and shì (氏) "clan" - hence they shaved their heads to resemble the Moon. We are not surprised to discover the same custom among the rulers of Bulgarian Dulo clan : "These five princes ruled the kingdom over the other side of the Danube for 515 years with shaven heads and after that came to this side of the Danube Asparuh knyaz and until now (rules)."[95]

The Little Yuezhi

The Little Yuezhi remained in North China and were included into Xiongnu confederation under the name Chieh people (AY: Jie people).[95A] Chinese chronicles documented them as one of the 19 tribes of Xiongnu.[96] Obviously their number wasn't small at all, as it is usually assumed, because we are told that between 184 AD and 221 AD there was a serious revolt of the Little Yuezhi in Gansu and the Chinese couldn't suppress it for almost 40 years.[97] At the beginning of 4th century under the pressure of Rouran Khaganate the Little Yuezhi started migration toward Kazakhstan and Bactria under the name War-Huns.[98] In 349 AD there was a massacre of Chieh people in North China, Maenchen-Helfen points out that 200 000 of them were slain. Probably we can consider that as the final date of their migration from North China/Tarim basin toward Kazakhstan and Bactria. The Jie/Chieh who remained in north China became known as Buluoji Bulgars.[99]

Kutrigurs Huns

Archer riding on reverse

Kutrigurs from the Byzantine sources can be identified with Kidar Bulgars from Armenian sources [100] whom in turn David Lang identified with Kidarites.[101] Kidarites appeared in Kazakhstan and Bactria in 4th century and were branch of the Little Yuezhi,[102] they were also called Red Huns[103] and were displayed on Sogdian coins as archers riding on the reverse.[104] The same type military tactic is attested among Bulgars tribes. Some of Little Yuezhi inherited the Kushan Empire and were called little Kushan.[105][106] Given the historical background of the Little Yuezhi (one of the Xiongnu tribes) it follows that Kutrigurs belonged to the Hunnic group with which Bulgars entered Europe.[107][108][109] The Chinese name of Kidarites is Jidoulo.[110]

CONCLUSIONS

44 Despite some early examples, “race” and modern scientific racial thinking in Bulgaria was a latecomer. It is evident that in most of cases, theoretically and stylistically, Bulgarian thinkers and scholars depended on the influence of foreign authors. The sources of Bulgarian fin-de-siècle racial thought were a combination of Bulgarian ethnocentrism, the rise of Bulgarian national ideology, German Romanticism, Russian Slavophilism, different currents in French racial thought in science and literature, some interpretations of Social Darwinism, the ideas of heredity, etc. The ideas of the existence of “national soul,” “national spirit” or “national character” transmitted through biological processes were very often used methaphorically. However, in the beginning of the 20th century, these ideas legitimized biological determinism that appeared as fundamentally racial when it was applied to the idea of the nation. These ideas also brought about the rationalization of social and national hierarchies. In this respect, in the beginning of the 20th century, one can register the prominence of natural and biological laws that had been more visible in other places in Europe since the 1880s.89 Even so, racial ideas were used in Bulgaria in addition to other more basic cultural and historical arguments.

• 90 See for example B. Bilmez’s contribution to this volume.
• 91 D. Lilova demonstrates this in her contribution published here.

45 The racial thought borrowed from Western Europe was adapted and accommodated to serve the specific political and cultural purposes coming from the Bulgarian context. It should have helped Bulgarian leaders to situate their nation biologically among the “whites” and “Europeans.” Moreover, “Aryan myth,” which was somehow energized during the fin-de-siècle, situated some white races superior to others. In this regard, the other geneologies of the Old Bulgars put them not among Indo-Europeans but still among the whites (Ugro-Finn, Turkic, Turanian). To a certain extent, it was enough that they were not “Mongoloids” or “blacks.” It is worth thinking about the possible associations between Old Bulgars whose state was put north of the Caucasus and the “Caucasian race” from the textbooks in geography and history. And why not think about the beginning of appropriation, to a certain extent, of the European fascination of the East, Orient, and Asia? One should keep in mind that at the end of the 19th and the very beginning of the 20th centuries, there were voices that the Turanian or Finno-Japanese races were “the forerunners of civilization in Europe.”90 Even in the 1870s the geographical textbooks, translated from Russian, represented the “Caucasian” and “Mongolian” as “races” common in Europe.91 Moreover, the Slavs as “ancestors” were considered enough to support and to underpin the Aryan disposition of the 20thcentury Bulgarians. Even at this point, one comes across strategies that tried to represent the Slavs as equal or superior to the “Germans” through inverting the hierarchies.

• 92 For the Hungarian case, see Turda, (2004), pp. 161–162.
• 93 As M. Turda has recently shown, in Hungary at the time Vámbéry represented the mixture between Tur (. )

46 In comparison with many other countries at the time the racial discourse in Bulgarian society was not that strong. Here one encounters less racial thinking in comparision with Central Europe and especially the Austrian part of the Habsburg monarchy from where some prominent racial thinkers originated. The Bulgarian case can be rather compared with the Hungarian one. There, according to Turda, the dissemination of racial thinking and Social Darwinism was not the work of intellectuals, but the product of a multitude of sources embedded within the Hungarian tradition of theorizing about the nation. At the same time, nationalist preoccupation with inner racial qualities in Bulgaria seems to have been weaker than in Hungary. In the Bulgarian case it was more appropriation of racial and Social Darwinist vocabulary than genuine racial thinking.92 Most of the Bulgarian academics who adapted racial science did not subscribe to its value judgments but to some of its methods. For them it was more a purely scientific exercise with a sincere hope that these “racial” methods could help some scientific issues to be resolved better and would bring the scholars to the right answers. Moreover, most of the authors who somehow utilized the racial language and value judgments speculated on “race,” following a fashionable current of thought in Europe rather than subscribing firmly to racial ideas and prejudices typical of the time. Despite their inclinations to ethnic national perspective, the majority of the Bulgarian authors in humanities rejected racialism in the pseudo-scientific narratives. Historiography in Bulgaria was even linked less to biological and racialist ideas and more to the idea of a cultural nation. That is why other ethnic elements were not at the core of Bulgarian historical narrative. Moreover, the Bulgarian educated public was aware that there hardly existed a racially pure nation. In this regard, the Bulgarian case was not close to the German one, but to the context of other countries when the unification of “races” was seen as harmonious.93 The Bulgarian case was close to the European states that were not preoccupied by racial mixture.

47 Changes in politics not always and not overwhelmingly brought changes in the interpretation of “ancestry,” especially in history textbooks and academic science. As far as scientists were concerned as individuals, they were the ones who elected—in this debate about the ancestors—which theory to support. Presumably, their participation was not determined solely by pure scientific motives. Although they were committed scholars, they also thought of themselves as Bulgarian “patriots.” However, they did not fulfil this task and they did not devote their craft to the “nation” in a way that several decades ago their forerunners had done. The above-mentioned combination of professionalization of science on the one hand, and the “racialization” of the public sphere on the other, were just a historical coincidence. The very political and cultural context as well as the configuration of international politics still made some constraints on the paradigm of “ancestry.”

Genetic Sequencing Traces Gypsies Back to Ancient Indian Origin

The Romani people—once known as "gypsies" or Roma—have been objects of both curiosity and persecution for centuries. Today, some 11 million Romani, with a variety of cultures, languages and lifestyles, live in Europe—and beyond. But where did they come from?

Earlier studies of their language and cursory analysis of genetic patterns pinpointed India as the group's place of origin and a later influence of Middle Eastern and Central Asian linguistics. But a new study uses genome-wide sequencing to point to a single group's departure from northwestern Indian some 1,500 years ago and has also revealed various subsequent population changes as the population spread throughout Europe.

"Understanding the Romani's genetic legacy is necessary to complete the genetic characterization of Europeans as a whole, with implications for various fields, from human evolution to the health sciences," said Manfred Kayser, of Erasmus University in Rotterdam and paper co-author, in a prepared statement.

To begin the study, a team of European researchers collected data on some 800,000 genetic variants (single nucleotides polymorphisms) in 152 Romani people from 13 different Romani groups in Europe. The team then contrasted the Romani sequences with those already known for more than 4,500 Europeans as well as samples from the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia and the Middle East.

According to the analysis, the initial founding group of Romani likely departed from what is now the Punjab state in northwestern India close to the year 500 CE. From there, they likely traveled through Central Asia and the Middle East but appear to have mingled only moderately with local populations there. The subsequent doorway to Europe seems to have been the Balkan area—specifically Bulgaria—from which the Romani began dispersing around 1,100 CE.

These travels, however, were not always easy. For example, after the initial group left India, their numbers took a dive, with less than half of the population surviving (some 47 percent, according to the genetic analysis). And once groups of Romani that would go on to settle Western Europe left the Balkan region, they suffered another population bottleneck, losing some 30 percent of their population. The findings were published online December 6 in Current Biology.

The researchers were also able to examine the dynamics of various Romani populations as they established themselves in different parts of Europe. The defined geographic enclaves appear to have remained largely isolated from other populations of European Romani over recent centuries. And the Romani show more evidence of marriage among blood relatives than do Indians or non-Romani Europeans in the analysis.

But the Romani did not always keep to themselves. As they moved through Europe and set up settlements, they invariably met—and paired off with—local Europeans. And some groups, such as the Welsh Romani, show a relatively high rate of bringing locals—and their genetics—into their families.

Local mixing was not constant over the past several centuries—even in the same groups. The genetic history, as told through this genome-wide analysis, reveals different social mores at different times. For example, Romani populations in Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Croatia show genetic patterns that suggest a limited pairing with local populations until recently. Whereas Romani populations in Portugal, Spain and Lithuania have genetic sequences that suggest they had previously mixed with local European populations more frequently but have "higher levels of recent genetic isolation from non-Romani Europeans," the researchers noted in their paper.

The Romani have often been omitted from larger genetic studies, as many populations are still somewhat transient and/or do not participate in formal institutions such as government programs and banking. "They constitute an important fraction of the European population, but their marginalized situation in many countries also seems to have affected their visibility in scientific studies," said David Comas, of the Institut de Biologia Evolutiva at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain and co-author of the new paper, in a prepared statement.

Finer genetic analysis of various Romani populations as well as those from the putative founder region of India will help establish more concrete population dynamics and possibly uncover new clues to social and cultural traditions in these groups that have not kept historical written records.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Politics and Government

The earliest Bulgarian American political organizations grew out of social need. Groups of immigrants who hailed from the same village formed mutual benefit societies in which members pledged to support each other in times of financial hardship. Patterned after similar organizations in the home country, the first-known Bulgarian organizations, founded by Macedonian Bulgarians, arose in the United States around 1902. They reflected the predominance of Macedonian Bulgarians among the early immigrant pool. In 1906, Iliia Iovchev, a Bulgarian-born employee of the Immigration Bureau at Ellis Island, started the Bulgarian and Macedonian Immigrant Society Prishlets (newcomer). Its purpose was to help immigrants through the admission procedures at Ellis Island and settle in the New World. A women's charitable organization called Bulgarkata v Amerika devoted itself to performing charity work on behalf of both the local community and the women's native villages in 1913. That same year, the Bulgarian People's Union, the first group with a national profile, emerged. By that time, nearly 30 mutual benefit societies had been organized around the country. Their numbers continued to mount, and by 1933 there were over 200 such organizations with a total of 10,000 members.

One of the longest-lived national organizations was the Macedonian Political Organization (MPO), founded in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in 1922. With branches in many cities, it supported the claim that Macedonians are ethnically Bulgarian and promoted the creation of an independent Macedonia. From 1926 onward, the MPO published a Bulgarian-language weekly called the Makedonska Tribuna. The group changed its name to the Macedonian Patriotic Organization in 1952.

Some immigrants were also involved in the national political scene. Before World War II, many Bulgarian American workers were active in leftist or labor causes some belonged to the Bulgarian Socialist Labor Federation, a group founded in 1910 that later merged with the American Socialist Labor Party. Postwar immigrants, on the other hand, tended to belong to strongly anti-Communist organizations, such as the Bulgarian National Committee, set up in 1949 by former Bulgarian politician Georgi M. Dimitrov. Competing right-wing groups organized the royalist Bulgarian National Front in New York in 1958. In an attempt to unite a number of splinter groups, an anti-Communist umbrella organization calling itself the American Bulgarian League arose in 1944. Its goal was to promote understanding between Bulgaria and America.

The fall of communism in Bulgaria has led to a revival in organizational activity in America. As new groups arise to support specific political agendas in Bulgaria, existing groups have re-focused their activities to help newly arrived immigrants or to bridge cultural gaps between the United States and Bulgaria.

Gypsies on screen

Black Cat, White Cat

Emir Kusturica's 1998 madcap comedy set on the frontiers of Serbia and Bulgaria revolves around Gypsy families living by the Danube. The film started life as a non-fiction documentary on Gypsy music, and has a fabulous soundtrack. Its main characters switch easily from the Gypsy language of Romani to Serbian and Bulgarian.

My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding

Channel 4's series revealed the hidden glory of marrying Gypsy-style in Britain. The series attracted audiences of 7 million, made an unlikely star of Paddy Doherty and spawned spinoffs such as Thelma's Gypsy Girls, while also attracting criticism from some Gypsy and Traveller communities for its depiction of their lifestyle.

Los Tarantos

This 1963 Spanish version of Romeo and Juliet features legendary flamenco dancers Carmen Amaya and Antonio Gades in a tragic romance set among Catalan Gypsies from rival families in the beachside 1960s shantytowns of Barcelona.

The History of the Bulgarian Split Squat

An exercise designed to enact as much pain as possible.

That at least is the thought that almost inevitably runs through my mind during a set of Bulgarian split squats. Heavy squatting? Fine by me. Heck throw in breathing squats for fun. I can grind through that. But high volume split squats? That’s an altogether different story.

By the tenth rep, I’m a sweaty mess. My quads are burning, hip flexors being stretched beyond belief and I’m making internal deals with myself about the next rep. Only three more reps then we rest…promise!

What keeps me coming back to the exercise again and again? Its sheer effectiveness.

Here is an exercise that overloads the quads, improves flexibility and prevents to a large part, any degree of cheating. Try leaning forward too much on the Split Squat and you’ll end up on the floor toot sweet. An experience many of us have encountered at one point or another.

Who then is responsible for this oh so necessary evil? When was the exercise created, who popularised it and what is the correct way of doing things? Stick around, and you might just learn a few things.

Cold War Beginnings?

Though lifters have been experimenting and torturing themselves with a variety of leg exercises for millennia, the origins of the Bulgarian Split Squat point towards a more recent past. While the exact originator of the exercise is unknown, the scant writings and recollections that exist suggest that the exercise stemmed from Olympic lifting. Olympic lifting in the Cold War era to be precise.

This, we may reflect, is perhaps not too odd an occurrence. In the first instance, Olympic Weightlifting exercises such as the Snatch and Clean and Jerk were once performed in a splitting motion as evidenced by Rudolph Plukfelder’s attempted snatch below.

Incidentally, if you want to know more about the changes in Olympic Weightlifting techniques during this period, check out our past post on the history of weightlifting shoes.

The Cold War period was a time of great experimentation for both weightlifters and their coaches. People played around with different rep schemes, techniques and numerous means of periodisation. All in the quest for Olympic glory. Oftentimes it was the Nations who dominated the lifting platform that brought us the real and lasting innovations. Think again about the Romanian deadlift and how it came to the wider lifting world.

Well one such weightlifting powerhouse during the 1970s and 1980s being the Communist state of Bulgaria. Demonstrating a ferocity and raw power, Bulgarian lifters were the go to experts of the field. Something evidenced by the fact that many lifters still emulate their training programmes from the era. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it eh?

What’s interesting about the Bulgarian management team is that they were unafraid of dumping sacred exercises in favour of efficiency. You see from the 1980s onwards, reports began to emerge in the West that Bulgarian lifters did very little heavy back squatting. Instead they focused on front squats, high step ups and you may have guessed, split squats. Such exercises were seen to have a better crossover to the world of snatches and clean an jerks.

How did they become popularised?

Interestingly, given his help in re-popularising German Volume or 10 x 10 training, the Canadian lifting guru, Charles Poliquin appears to be at the heart of this story. Well not Charles Poliquin exactly, but rather one of his long time co-partners, Kim Goss.

In the 1980s Goss was working as a strength coach at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, a far cry from his current editorial work (which incidentally is voluminous). An avid weightlifting fan and anorak, you can imagine Goss’s excitement when it emerged that the Bulgarian weightlifting coach Angel Spassov would be in town.

Angel Spassov, courtesy of Ironmind.com

Eager to pick his brain, Goss invited Spassov to the Academy to train some of his athletes. At that time Spassov was touring various states and lecturing on two exercises that he felt were of utmost importance to weightlifters the high step up and the rear foot elevated split squat (a.k.a. the Bulgarian split squat).

After Spassov taught the exercise to several of Goss’s clients, he went off on his merry way to continue his tour. It should, you would have thought, been plain sailing for Spassov. Well things quickly became heated.

Bulgarian Controversies

Antonio Krastev, one of Bulgaria’s great lifters from his period.

At some point of his lifting tour, Spassov seemed to suggest to many in the lifting community that Bulgarian weightlifting coaches had entirely discarded the back squat in favour of split squats and various forms of high step ups. Whether this was misleading or miscommunication is up for discussion. Indeed, its still a problem that Spassov has to contend with. Take this article written by Spassov with the great physical culture historian/champion powerlifting Terry Todd. It seems to suggest that back squats fell out of favour during the 1980s.

Similarly at the time of his tour, certain people in the lifting community believed that Spassov was dismissing the back squat. A heinous crime in the insular world of lifting! Citing examples such as Leonid Taranenko, the Russian weightlifter, Spassov claimed that back squats had been completely forgotten! A claim that Taranenko later refuted. Similarly Goss has recounted that when Ivan Abadjiev, then the coach of the Bulgarian Weightlifting team, visited his facility in 2011, that he poo-pooed the idea that the split squat and lunch were the cornerstones of his programmes. Though it is difficult to find evidence of Spassov claiming the back squat had been entirely forgotten, the controversy surrounding his supposed claims helped to elevate the exercise’s importance and popularity. After all, if it had replaced the Back Squat it had to be good right?

The Olympic Weightlifting world was a smaller place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Word got round of this ‘wonder exercise’ and soon, gyms became infected with this cruel but effective method of training. A method of training, which many people are performing incorrectly. Something which leads us on to our final point.

Split Squatting like a Champ

Think about how you set up when preparing to do a set of Bulgarian Split Squats.

Oftentimes we just lazily grab the nearest bench, elevate our back foot to roughly about knee height. Soon after we’ll begin to bounce up and down in complete agony. Sore? Without a doubt. Effective? ليس كثيرا.

According to Spassov and those instructed by him, there is a definitive way to perform this exercise. First, choose a platform now higher than 6 inches, with 4 to 6 inches being the ideal range depending on your body structure. Go no higher than this! Returning to Goss’s writings on the subject (which will be included at the end), using a standard bench of about 12 inches should only be done for athletes specialising in sports such as ice skating or dancing.

Second, place the ball of the rear foot on the platform and not just the tippy toes. Keeping the ball of the foot on the platform helps keep the back leg active in the movement, providing you with much more bang for your buck. Finally on the descend, keep your hips moving down in a straight direction. Don’t kick the ass out or hyperextend the back. Ideally the back leg would be almost straight, but not too many people can boast of such flexibility. Try out this method and you’ll quickly realise how different it is from most ‘split squats’ done on the gym floor.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video must be ten thousand right? In any case Charles Poliquin provides a good example of the Spassov technique.

Are you a fan of the Bulgarian Split Squat? How have you used it in the past? Let us know in the comments section.

In the meantimes…Happy Lifting!

Kim Goss’s excellent writings on its history can be found here and here.

Spassov’s article with Dr. Terry Todd can be found here. Incidentally this article also gives a history of the high step up.

Nick Norton’s article on the ‘Secrets of Bulgarian Weightlifting’, can be accessed here.

Finally a good resource on variations of the split squat and how to get flexible enough to do them correctly written by Tony Gentilcore can be found here.

المشاركات الشعبية

• 

  سممت المايا القديمة مياه شرب تيكال

  معلومة
• 

  العثور على مقبرة رومانية في تركيا

  مثير للإعجاب
• 

  أكثر من مجرد معدن: بدلات تاريخية مذهلة للدروع

  معلومة

موصى به

• 

  تشارلز سورلي

  معلومة
• 

  الجدول الزمني Viriathus

  معلومة
• 

  KC-10 - التاريخ

  معلومة
• 

  في وقت مبكر من ويليامزبرغ - التاريخ

  معلومة
• 

  قلعة سلوب: الدفاع عن تجارة الملح في بوهيميا ، متحف الإرميتاج والمنطقة السياحية

  معلومة