Напомням, че власите са пишели на старобългарски официалната си документация до 18 век. Ако те се бяха поунгарчили (както вървяло по едно време) сега всеки можеше да твърди, че и простонародието си е говорело савянски.

Относно етническия състав на първоначалните въстания на Асеневци, авторът на Cumans аnd Tartars... Вазари изказва мнение, което напълно съвпада с това, което съм писала по-горе. Между другото, това е издание на Кембридж, а не на Труд или Варна, т,е би трябвало да е реферирано международно.

Еthnic names and ethnic realities in the sources of the second Bulgarian empire

Now we may return to our starting point, namely that the Greek and Latin
sources reporting on the events of the liberation movement speak only of
the Vlakhs, and the Bulgarians, if they are mentioned at all, are relegated
to a very insignificant subsidiary role.
The Vlakhs (Blachoi) – continues Choniates, changing the name Mysoi to Blachoi – were reluctant
to take part in the brothers’ rebellion. Then the brothers had a church built
and filled it with demoniacs who were to announce to the people that God
was pleased to return freedom to the people of the Bulgars and Vlakhs.
This passage makes it absolutely clear that both Bulgars and Vlakhs participated
in the liberation movement. There is only one question left to
answer: why did Choniates use the term ‘Vlakh’ almost exclusively when
speaking of the events in Bulgaria at the end of the twelfth century, despite
the fact that he was aware of the Bulgars’ presence too? The answer is very
simple: the Vlakhs initiated the uprising, and the leaders of the movement
were of their number; consequently, the movement was primarily identified
with the Vlakh people.

The brothers were Bulgars
The first, namely that the brothers were Bulgars, can easily be excluded.
F. Uspenskij, the noted Byzantinologist, in his book on the Second
Bulgarian Empire, was the first to put forward the theory that the Byzantine
writers failed to mention the name Bulgar after the fall of the First Bulgarian
Empire, substituting other ethnonyms such as that of the Vlakhs.80 Uspenskij’s
view cannot be maintained. B˘anescu refuted it in detail,81 and I too
have attempted to prove in the foregoing that the ethnonym Vlakh had a real
and concrete ethnic connotation in the twelfth to thirteenth centuries.
But there is one more argument left in the arsenal of those who have
tried to verify the brothers’ Bulgarian descent. Pope Innocent III had an
intensive correspondence with Kaloyan, the third ruler of the newBulgarian
state, about the acceptance of the Pope’s jurisdiction by the Bulgarian
Church. Both parties were motivated by their own interests: the Pope
wanted to extend his jurisdiction in the Balkans, and Kaloyan wanted to
wear the imperial crown and have a patriarch as head of the Bulgarian
Church. There are two groups of statements in the Pope’s correspondence,
each seemingly contradicting and excluding the other. One group seems to
support the Bulgarian descent of Asen’s family, the other the Vlakh descent.
The ‘Bulgarian party’ and the ‘Vlakh party’ could find equal arguments in
favour of their respective theories, and each party has tried to conceal or
minimise the significance of the other group of data.
Furthermore, there is a detail in Niketas Choniates’History that makes the nationality of Asen indisputable.
Once, a Greek priest was captured by the Vlakhs and dragged to theHaimos
Mountains. He implored Asen to release him from captivity, addressing
Asen in his captor’s language since ‘he knew the language of the Vlakhs’.
The assertion of the pure Bulgarian descent of the brothers was so clearly
untenable that the best Bulgarian scholars, such as Zlatarski andMutafˇciev,
tried to find another solution in order to preserve the idea of the Bulgarian
descent of the Asenids. Zlatarski supposed that the Asenids belonged
to a people of Cuman extraction who became Bulgars.

Taking into consideration everything that has been said so far, the most
plausible supposition seems to be that Asen and his family were of Cuman
origin. They stood at the head of the liberation movement in Bulgaria, and
their chief supporters were their people, the Vlakhs. They must have spoken
the language of their Vlakh subjects but preserved the knowledge of their
Cuman predecessors’ nomadic skills. Moreover, they must have been in
close contact with their near relatives in Cumania. That is why they turned
to their kinsfolk to help them in their fight against the Byzantine Empire.

Цитирам оттук-оттам, може да прочетете всичко тук:
url]http://nauka.bg/forum/index.php?showtopic=15319&page=2&hl=%2Bcumans+%2Band+%2Btartars#entry277079[/url]


С една дума, въстанието според историческите източници трябва да е вдигнато отначало от власи/кумани, но постепенно с присъединяване на други стари български територии, обликът на държавата се променя в български. Власите изглежда или се преместват отвъд Дунава, или се претопяват сред СЛАВЯНОЕЗИЧНИТЕ българи.

Също се споменава нещо много важно, което съвпада напълно с генетичните данни на съвременните българи.

These appellations indicate that the term Vlakhia was used by Rubruc for northern Bulgaria, while the western and south-western territories of historical Bulgaria (now
western Bulgaria +Macedonia) were designated as BulgariaMinor. Rubruc used the term Bulgaria Maior to denote Volga Bulgaria.
Т.е хинтерланда на българите в миналото е бил по-наюгозапад от съвременните ни територии.

Редактирано от genefan на 03.08.13 04:27.