I had a look at RЁ№diger Schmitt's article. He is an eminent Iranicist, so I'm inclined to take his opinion serious. Now, from what he quotes, I see two things:
1. Most of the names discussed have no good Iranian etymologies.
2. 2-3 of them have, and there are also some which clearly seem to be of Slavic origin.
To me, that indicates that the Bulgar elite was probably ethnically mixed or at least open to loaning foreign names - as is known, and mentioned by Schmitt, e.g. the Armenians, being ruled by Persia for a long time, took over many Iranian names. He seems to assume that a similar fact explains the few Iranian names - the Bulgars must have come under some Iranian influence.
Of course, from the names one could also draw the opposite conclusion - that the clearly Turkic names and titles we also find are due to Turkic influence on an otherwise non-Turkic people.
But for me, an important point is still the link with the Volga Bulgars / Chuvash, who are definitely (Oguric) Turkic. One can perhaps assume that tey became turkicised after the Bulgarian Bulgars split off. But I'd prefer to see a good analysis of the language material in either direction.
I had a short glance at the rest of the web site. I didn't find the reading the author offers for the Bulgar inscriptions very convincing - he basically looks for fitting words all over the place, from the Caucasus to the Pamir to Ancient Sumer. But it seems to be a good source for the texts, which I had not seen before; I'll have a look at them when I have more time.
Can you point me to some scientific articles by those academicians you mention? I'm able to read Bulgarian, and I could try to get them via a library loan.
Best regards,
Hans-Werner

Пича знаял български, бре?

Питието определя съзнанието.

Редактирано от пишмaн-линrвиcтЪ на 24.10.03 19:16.