" 

 == Huns -> Bulgars -> Utrigurs -> Yuezhi == 

 Traditionally historians associate Bulgars and their ruling dynasty of Dulo with the Huns, and some scholars equate the Bulgars with the Huns. Most Roman, Greek and later Byzantium historians (as Jordanes, Priscus, Procopius, Agathias, Menander, Theophylact) refer to Bulgars and Huns indiscriminately to describe the same people. The European Huns that entered Europe in the 4th century AD, were grouped into four major tribes: Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Akatziroi and Sabirs. Procopius first reported that Utigurs and Kutrigurs were the two key tribes who created the Union of the Huns in the fourth century. On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled and his people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and they retreated from Pannonia (modern day Hungary) westward into the territories of modern day Ukraine. One of these tribes, the Utigurs Huns, was soon to be known as the Bulgars. It was in 482, some thirty years after Attila’s death, that the Bulgars first appear by name. Already in 1772, the German historian August Schloetzer identified the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs with Bulgarians. In 1918 a Bulgarian scientist Vasil Zlatarski investigated late ancient evidence of post-Attila Kutrigurs and Utigurs and considered that under the name Utigurs in late antique chronicles lies the original Bulgarian ethnic substrate. The Utigurs formed the nucleus of 680s’ Asparuh Bulgarian state, to which the Kutrigurs joined in the beginning of 9th century AD and as a result the ninth century Bulgaria became one of the great militarist powers of Europe. Many European scientists as George Vernadsky, Steven Runciman, J. B. Bury, J. Marquart and Musset considered that Irnik from the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans is the third son of Attila, Ernak.  

 Usually it is assumed that European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from Xiongnu. A hypothesis that is wrong because it can't explain several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader: 

 1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars and Dulo) were Xiongnu: 
     Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and  
     ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu.   
      
     Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the  
     continuity of European Huns from Xiongnu. 

 2. There is no convincing evidence that the language was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived (Pritsak), indeed, they seem to be Turkic, but to judge from this that the hole nation was Turkic is too naive.  

 3. There are academic sources stating the connections: Vokil->Yuezhi, Utrigurs-> Yuezhi http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly1En.htm,p.42-p.46http://ide.li/article2285.htmlhttp://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly2En.htm, p.62 

 4. There are research papers showing that in modern Bulgarian language there are many Tocharian words. Yuezhi were Thocarian tribes and they spoke Tocharian language.https://www.academia.edu/4965415/%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%A5%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%9E-%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%98_%D0%95%D0%97%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%92%D0%98_%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98 

 5. European Huns can be traced back to North China by artificial circular type cranial deformation. Both Yuezhi and Bulgars did practice circular type cranial deformation.http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/65_Craniology/YablonskyTracingHunsEn.htmhttp://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/823134_2 
 https://books.google.bg/books?id=fX8YAAAAQBAJ&pg;=PA33&dq;=artificial+cranial+deformation+tocharians&hl;=en&sa;=X&ei;=eGhOVdGoIYKQsAHN84CwBg&ved;=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q;=artificial%20cranial%20deformation%20tocharians&f;=false - p. 33 
 http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/SOME%20ANCIENT%20CHINESE%20NAMES%20IN%20EAST%20TURKESTAN%20-%20final.pdf - p.23 
 http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dan11.htm 
 http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/OBIChAYaT_NA_IZKUSTVENATA_DEFORMACIYa_NA_ChEREPA_PRI_PRABLGARITE.pdf 

 6. The genetic tests from a reliable scientific sourcehttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article? clearly state:  
     A) a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian 
     people   
     B) paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Central Asian 
     Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible   

 Encyclopedia Britanica do states this information.  

 7. There are archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and strikingly similar necro