MAIN ASPECTS OF THE CONCEPT OF PROTO-SLAVIC ETHNICITY OF ANCIENT BULGARIANS 1

Memory Card Rasho Rasheva

Article dedicated to justification proto-Slavic language profile accessories ancient ones bulgarians. Specific participation in their ethnogenesis they could have play it also eastern Iranian speakers groups. Starting out with V v. ethnic group history bolgar leaked in close political interactions with by Turkic speakers or, more accurately, for Russian-speaking users by tribes, by those who have migrated from Central Asia. To to the end VI or to the beginning VII v. concern education in Northern Black Sea region ogurolazychnogo unnogundursky district associations. After 640 g. to to him joined us bulgarians. With this time what you created unnogundurami state due to numerical value predominances in him bolgar purchased it bulgarian personality. Then but it's started and Slavization unnogundur.

Apparently , the ancient Bulgarians of the Middle Volga region also had a Proto-Slavic-Eastern Iranian identity. In this region, as in the Danube region, the Bulgarians eventually found themselves dominated by the Ogur -speaking steppe aristocracy, but there the process of language interaction led to the opposite result - the gradual displacement of the Slavic language by the Ogur language. During the Golden Horde period , Ogur in the Middle Volga region was replaced by a common Turkic language , excluding modern Chuvash.

words: Key ancient Bulgarians, Proto-Slavs, Ogurs, Unnogundurs, Organa, Kubrat, Asparukh, Rasho Rashev.

The problem of the ethnic roots of Bulgarians occupied the scientific world in the medieval period, and even then the difficulty of reconciling the facts of the Slavic-speaking nature of the Danube Bulgarians and the Turkic-speaking nature of the Volga Bulgarians became obvious. The dilemma of whether they were originally Slavs or Turks remains relevant to this day.

In modern historiography, the thesis of the Turkic-speaking nature of the ancient Bulgarians has become a commonplace. This was supported by two other points of view that were established among researchers - about the ethnogenetic relations of the Bulgarians with the Huns2 and about the Turkic language

1 The author is deeply grateful to his colleagues, Dr. Tsvetelin Stepanov (Sofia University " Sv. Kliment Ohridski") and the staff of the Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Dagestan Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences G. M.-R. Orazaev and Professor M. S. Gadzhiev for numerous consultations and other invaluable assistance in working on this article.

2 For an incomplete list of works that offer various interpretations of the ethnogenetic connections of the ancient Bulgarians with the Huns, see: [Bernshtam, 1951, p. 170; Artamonov, 1962, pp. 79-80, 83, 98-99; Gening and Khalikov, 1964, pp. 107-108; Angelov, 1971, pp. 3-15; Gadlo, 1979, p. 11; Dimitrov, 1987, pp. 30-37; Thompson, 1999, pp. 7-11, 18-19; Tortika, 2006, p. 42].

page 12
the last 3. At the end of the XIX - XX centuries, the source base of the problem under consideration was significantly expanded due to the introduction of Danube-Bulgarian and Volga-Bulgarian epigraphic monuments, as well as numerous archaeological complexes supposedly associated with ancient Bulgarians. This allows modern Bulgarians to explore this issue by synthesizing data from written, archaeological, and linguistic sources.

As practice shows, each researcher, depending on his specialization, gives preference to the closest type of sources for himself. Researchers based primarily on the analysis of written sources, as a rule, did not draw conclusions about the Turkic-speaking nature of the ancient Bulgarians and the ethnogenetic connections of the ancient Bulgarians with the Huns (see, for example: [Burmov, 1948, pp. 298-337]). Researchers relying mainly on linguistic and, oddly enough, archaeological materials often put forward hypotheses about the Central Asian roots of this people [Merpert, 1957, pp. 32-35]. Meanwhile, archaeological sources indicate just the autochthonous Eastern European origin of the vast majority of local tribes, their cultural ties with the Sarmatian world of Eastern Europe of the pre-Hunnic period.

Linguistic sources give a somewhat different picture: the presence of Turkisms in the Danube-Bulgarian epigraphic inscriptions of the IX century and in the "Namesake of Bulgarian Princes", as well as the Turkic belonging of the language of the Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs of the XIII century [Ashmarin, 1902; Marquart, S. 20 u. a.; Smolin, 1921; Beshevliev, 1936; Beshevliev, 1992; Khakimzyanov, 1987] are in themselves grounds for substantiating the point of view about the Turkic-speaking nature of the ancient Bulgarians.

The language of the Volga-Bulgarian monuments, as well as the Turkisms of the Danube-Bulgarian inscriptions, belong to the archaic Turkic language, which in a number of ways shows kinship with modern Chuvash (see, for example: [Ashmarin, 1902, p. 38, 49, 50; Barthold, 1935, p. 30-31; Serebrennikov, 1957, p. 41; Baskakov Baskakov, 1969, pp. 150-154, 231; Fedotov, 1979, pp. 25-37; Golden, 1980, vol. 1, p. 48; Benzig, 1986, pp. 18-23; etc.]). Some of these features are characteristic of the few surviving fragments of the Saragur, Onogur, Ogur, and possibly Savir and Khazar languages, so they were all combined by linguists into one language group, called Bulgarian, or Oguro-Bulgarian. One of the features of these languages is the correspondence of-r to the phoneme-z of common Turkic type 4 languages, which is why this group is also called r-type Turkic languages. The first reliable evidence of the appearance of native speakers of this group in Europe has nothing to do with Bulgarians, but is related to the Saragurs and Onogurs, whose ethnonym contains a component-ogur 5, so I suggested naming these languagesOgur or, more neutrally, r-type Turkic languages [Semenov, 2013, pp. 333-334].

Significant progress made by linguists-Turkologists in the last two centuries, mainly representatives of the Hungarian and Russian (Soviet) schools, has made possible the theoretical development of the problem of the origins, ways of development and distribution of the Turkic languages. Thus, according to N. A. Baskakov's reconstructions, the formation and development of the Turkic and Mongolian languages took place in the depths of the ancient steppe state of the Xiongnu, the northwestern neighbor of the Chinese Empire.

3 The point of view about the Turkic-speaking nature of the Huns is a misconception [Doerfer, 1973, p. 1-50; Derfer, 1986, p. 71-134].

4 For examples of the correspondence of r ↔ z in Chuvash and common Turkic languages, see [Baskakov, 1969, p. 150; Doerfer, 1965, Bd. II, S. 521-523; Doerfer, 1967, Bd. III, S. 208-210; Golden, 1980, vol. 1, p. 48; Benzig, 1986, pp. 18-23; Miller, 1999, vol. 3/1, p. 3-42].

5 In a number of sources, this term appears both as an independent ethnonym (ogur) and as a component of several Ogur ethnonyms - onogur, saragur, kutrigur, utigur.

page 13
The division of the Xiongnu into western (northern - in the terminology of Chinese sources) and eastern (southern) parts led to the division of their population into two linguistic communities (1st century AD) and further independent language development. Part of the western Xiongnu, according to N. A. Baskakov, migrated to the west and, joining various Turkic and non-Turkic groups, moved to Europe, where it became known in the IV century. as "Huns" [Baskakov, 1969, p. 157]. As for the Bulgarians, as well as the Khazars, N. A. Baskakov considered them to be the direct successors of the tribes that were part of the Western Xiongnu state (Baskakov, 1969: 231, 235).

This view, with relatively minor deviations, is also reflected in the works of earlier authors (Kunik, 1878; Ashmarin, 1902; Katanov, 1905; Katanov, 1920; Gomboez, 1912; Feher, 1930, S. 53-90; Rasonyi, 1935, Bd. 1; Smirnov, 1940; Malov, 1947; Malov, 1948 Pritsak, 1955], as well as in later studies, in particular those devoted to the ethnic history of the ancient Bulgarians [Jafarov, 1985]. As an example, we can consider two common points of view on this issue. Thus, according to A. N. Bernshtam, the Bulgarians in the late fifth and early sixth centuries began to stand out from the Hun association [Bernshtam, 1951, p. 170]. M. I. Artamonov spoke more specifically on this issue:

"Most likely, the Bulgarians were called Ugrians who joined the Huns in Western Siberia and the Urals. Together with them, this name spread to the entire territory occupied by the Hunnic tribes, in which the Ugric peoples apparently predominated, which explains why in the future their own name replaced the name of the Huns proper, especially since with the collapse of Attila's power, the political predominance of the latter also ceased. Only the Hunnic dynasties of the leaders of some tribes remained as a memory of the organizing significance of the natives of Mongolia and the Turkic language, which gradually spread among all the tribes that were part of the Hunnic association" (Artamonov, 1962, p.83).

M. I. Artamonov assumed that the Utigurs were separated from the ethnopolitical association of the European Huns, and later the Bulgarians became an integral part of the Utigurs (Artamonov, 1962, p. 87).

This point of view is opposed by the opinion expressed by I. D. Shishmanov at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries that the Bulgarians were different from both the Huns and other tribes of the steppes of the Black Sea region; Byzantine authors called Huns peoples of different ethnic origin, sometimes having nothing to do with the Huns themselves [Shishmanov, 1900, p. 518 cf.; Sismanov, 1903, p. 47-85]. As A. Burmov later noted, the basis for such naming could be either the fact that these peoples became part of the Hunnic state, or the presence of allied ties with the Huns, or their habitation in the territory previously occupied by the Huns (Burmov, 1948, pp. 298-337).

In the 19th century, other versions of the ethnic origin of the ancient Bulgarians were considered - Samoyedic, Finno-Ugric, Slavic, etc. The most complete review of them is presented in the work of I. D. Shishmanov (Shishmanov, 1900, pp. 505-753).

With the expansion of the complex of archaeological sources, it became possible to clarify and detail issues related to the early ethnic history of the Bulgarians and the ethno-cultural environment in which they are recorded in written sources. Thus, A. P. Smirnov, commenting on the report of Ibn Fadlan (X century) about the burial rite of the Volga Bulgarians [Kovalevsky, 1956, p. 140], pointed out its Sarmatian origin, which, in his opinion, indicates that the Bulgarians were ancient autochthons of the Azov region, who had Sarmatian origin [Smirnov, 1951, p. 10, 12]. In addition, A. P. Smirnov, following the established tradition at that time, connected the reports of written sources about Utigurs and Kutrigurs with the Bulgarians [Kovalevsky, 1956, p. 12] 6, but this caused V. T. Sirotenko's just objections [Sirotenko, 1961, p. 11].

6 The beginning of the tradition of identifying Kutrigurs and Utigurs with Bulgarians was laid by V. Zlatarsky (Zlatarsky, 1918, pp. 37-38).

page 14
N. Ya. Merpert, analyzing Ibn Fadlan's report on the burial rite of the Volga Bulgarians, came to the conclusion that they were a group of Turkic-speaking tribes that migrated from Asia to the Northern Caspian region in the first centuries AD and were significantly influenced by the Alans there (Merpert, 1957, pp. 7, 32-35).

V. T. Sirotenko, based primarily on written sources, concluded that the Bulgarians were a tribal group that roamed north of the Caucasus and between the Don and Volga; they had their own special language and were originally part of the Sarmatian-Alan tribes, but from about the second century AD due to migrations of Turkic-speaking tribes to the Ciscaucasia They were gradually Turkified; in the IV-VI centuries, the Bulgarians were an ethnic group different from the Huns, Kutrigur, Savir, and Unnogundur (Sirotenko, 1961, p.43).

A. P. Smirnov, N. Ya. Merpert, and V. T. Sirotenko more or less trusted Movses Khorenatsi's report that one of the Bulgarian tribes migrated from the North Caucasus to Armenia in the 6th century BC (Movses Khorenatsi, 1990, 2.6, 9). In our time, the prevailing view is that this message is an anachronism [Romashov, 1994, p. 208, ed. 6], of which there are many in the work of the Armenian historian.

The views expressed by later researchers about the origin of the ancient Bulgarians are more or less modifications of the hypotheses of A. P. Smirnov, N. Ya. Merpert, and V. T. Sirotenko. As R. Rashev noted, " any attempt to interfere in the discussion about the origin of the proto-Bulgarians (Proto-Bulgarians, ancient Bulgarians, Turko-Bulgarians) threatens the author with a repetition of long-known facts and opinions. It seems that all possible concepts and their refutations have already been expressed", but the Turkish-speaking nature of Bulgarians is not disputed by anyone [Rashev, 2000, p. 250]. This view is based not only on relatively late epigraphic materials from the territory of Danube Bulgaria and Volga-Kama Bulgaria, but also on the fact that Great Bulgaria (from the seventh century), Danube Bulgaria (from the last decades of the seventh century), and Volga-Kama Bulgaria (from the tenth century) had a Turkic aristocracy and military-political power. an organization of the Turkic type [Rashev, 2000, p. 250].

For these reasons, the view of the Turkic ethnicity of the ancient Bulgarians has become dominant in historiography. However, reservations are sometimes made that various Bulgarian tribes may have included other ethnic groups of origin, such as Sarmatian and Finno-Ugric (see [Rashev, 2000, p. 250]). Thus, according to A.V. Gadlo, the Bulgarians were one of the most ancient Turkic-speaking groups that moved west from the Volga [Gadlo, 1979, p. 57], and S. G. Klyashtorny considered the Bulgarians as one of the Ogur (Turkic) tribes, and the largest of them [Klyashtorny, 2000, p. 48] 7 H. V. Haussig considered that Bolgar is the name of the dominant genus (Haussig, 1953, p. 363, Anm. 340, 341). This point of view is shared by A. Rona-Tash, who believes that this term was the name of one of the Ogur groups that was headed by the Onogurs (Rona-Tash, 1990, p. 387). We can also note V. F. Butba's point of view that the term "Bulgarian" covered the ethnonyms "utigur", "kutrigur", and "onogur" (Butba, 2005, p.161). Accordingly, the proposed etymologies of the term" Bulgarian " were predominantly Turkic.8 The most well-established of these etymologies is the connection of this ethnonym with the Turk. bulya 'to mix', 'to disturb', from which the meaning of the ethnonym itself is derived as 'revolted, rebelled' or 'mixed, mixed' [Berezin, 1853; Tomashek, 1872, S. 144-157]; see also: [Nemeth, 1930, O. 95-97; Gening, Khalikov, 1964,

7 Somewhat later, S. G. Klyashtorny noted that "although the recognition of the genetic connection of Bulgarians with Turkic-speaking tribes prevails in historiography, it is far from unconditional" [Klyashtorny. 2000. p. 135].

8 For a review of opinions on the origin of the ethnonym "Bolgar", see [Simeonov, 1976, pp. 5-15].

page 15
p. 131; Golden, 1980, vol. I, p. 34, 42-46; Butba, 2005, p. 158]. It is assumed that the-ar element is an affix of the participle [Baskakov, 1980, p. 204]. It should be noted that relatively recently a hypothesis was proposed about the connection of the ethnonym "Bolgar" with the Turks. balig 'city' [Todorov-Bemberski, 2004, pp. 125-148].

As noted above, the most indisputable materials that allowed us to put forward hypotheses about the Turkic-speaking nature of the ancient Bulgarians were epigraphic data, but since, as R. Rashev emphasized, they belong to a relatively late period, it remains possible to speculate either about the late Turkization of the Bulgarians, or about the presence of a Turkic (or Turkized) aristocracy. Therefore, for the purity of the study, it is necessary to leave in question the possibility of the Turkic-speaking nature of the ancient Bulgarians and consider another version regarding their language and ethnicity, namely, a mixed Proto-Slavic and Eastern Iranian.

In the problems related to the Proto-Slavic ethnicity of carriers of certain archaeological cultures of Eastern Europe of the late Antique period, I will focus in some cases on the conclusions of V. V. Sedov, but in contrast to him, I consider it necessary to consider these tribes as representatives of a community that has not yet managed to differentiate linguistically into the Baltic and Slavic groups.9 As you know, native speakers of Slavic languages began to appear in the sources in connection with the events of the VI century. Therefore, it is methodologically more correct to refer to the corresponding tribes as either Balto-Slavs or Proto-Slavs (Proto-Slavs)in relation to earlier periods10.

I consider it appropriate to adhere to the opinion of V. T. Sirotenko in the study of the history of Bulgarians about the difference between Bulgarians and Kutrigurs and Utigurs [Sirotenko, 1961, p. 43]. This position was taken by V. Beshevliev [Beshevliev, 1981, pp. 11-23]. This point of view was defended by A. P. Novoseltsev, who pointed out that in the list of nomadic peoples in the work Pseudo-Zacharias (VI century), the Bulgarians appear separately from the Utigurs and Kutrigurs (Novoseltsev, 1990, p.73). It is possible, even without agreeing with V. T. Sirotenko, V. Beshevliev and A. P. Novoseltsev, to follow not their point of view, but the principle itself, i.e. to consider the Bulgarians as an independent ethnic group, different from other tribes of Eastern Europe. This is methodologically necessary in the study of the more complex problem of the ethnogenesis of the ancient Bulgarians. This difficulty is related to the fact that the ethnic history of the ancient Bulgarians was closely connected with the Turkic - and Iranian-speaking tribes of Eastern Europe.

Recently, there has been an important shift in the study of the linguistic and ethnic identity of the ancient Bulgarians. So, according to Ts. Stepanova, "... in the formation of the" Great Bulgaria", mainly the tribes of the Iranian-speaking and Turkic-speaking groups participated " (Stepanov, 1995, p.10). In more detail Ts. Stepanov dwells on this issue in his joint work with A. Delevoy. In it, the authors note that nomadic states are always distinguished by polyethnicity and multilingualism; the language of the ruling clan (tribe) in such states usually serves as lingua franca, which, however, does not necessarily entail linguistic unification [Deleva and Stepanov, 1998, p.89]. At the same time, the intertribal general dictionary is dominated by the names of military titles and positions, as well as weapons, armor, etc. [Deleva and Stepanov, 1998, p. 98].

As noted by A. Deleva and Ts. Stepanov, taking into account only the Turkic component in the question of the origin of the Proto-Bulgars is a sin of one-sidedness, since it is necessary to consider the possibility of Eastern Iranian components participating in their ethnogenesis [Deleva and Stepanov, 1998, p. 89-90; Stepanov, 1995, p. 10]. In any case, the current situation in this issue

9 There is, however, a point of view about the lack of common genetic roots in the Slavic and Baltic languages. Thus, V. V. Sedov explained the Balto-Slavic linguistic convergence by long-term contacts in ancient times [Sedov, 1980, p. 14-22]. But for the topic of this study, this discussion question seems irrelevant.

10 For a justification of this terminology, see [Napolskikh, 2006].

page 16
The "Turkic paradigm" is not able to explain a whole range of linguistic realities in the language of the Danube Bulgarians [Deleva and Stepanov, 1998, p. 89-90]. As an illustration, the authors consider a number of terms attested for the period of existence of the First Bulgarian Kingdom on the Danube, and establish their Iranian origin or encounter traces of Slavization of Iranian terms (Deleva and Stepanov, 1998, p. 90-98).

According to the thoughts of A. Deleva and Ts. According to Stepanova, these facts indicate that two main components took part in the formation of the Old Bulgarian ethnic group - the Iranian-speaking (Saka tribes of Central Asia) and the Altai-speaking. The ancient Bulgarians were a specific ethnic group that cannot be clearly attributed to either Indo-European or Turkic. As suggested by the authors, in the region located to the east of the Black Sea and north of the Caucasus, the process of infiltration of Turkic-speaking nomads into the Bulgarian environment took place [Deleva and Stepanov, 1998, p.99]. The conclusion of A. Deleva and Ts is important. Stepanov that the data of comparative religious studies, archeology, and anthropology do not allow us to make any unambiguous decisions about the origin, language, and ethnicity of the ancient Bulgarians [Deleva and Stepanov, 1998, p.100].

Considerable attention is paid to the role of the Iranian component in the ethnogenesis of the ancient Bulgarians in the work of K. A. Korotkov. Staneva. He points, in particular, to the Iranian etymologies of personal names of ancient Bulgarians proposed by I. Duychev and V. Beshevliev-Bezmer, Boris, Kardam, Korsis, Kubrat, Mostich, Omurtag, Ohsun, Presiyan, Rasate, Tuk (Duychev, 1955; Duychev, 1998, p. 247; Beshevliev, 1966, p. 237-247). I. Duichev also considered the name " Asparukh "to be of Iranian origin [Duichev, 1955, p.335], and V. Beshevliev suggested that the generic name of the Bulgarian rulers" Dulo " may also be of Iranian origin [Beshevliev, 1966, p. 245]. Comparing these data with the archaeological materials of the early Bulgarian necropolises in the Danube region, which also bear distinct features of the Sarmatian culture, K. Stanev came to the conclusion that the Sarmatians played a crucial role in the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarians (Stanev, 2005: 26-27). In his opinion, the Bosporan Kingdom became the link between Great Bulgaria and the Sarmatians, who established their rule in the European steppes in the III-II centuries BC. It was from there that the name "Asparukh" could have been borrowed, which is associated with the name ofασποκργος, attested in five Bosporan inscriptions (Stanev, 2005, pp. 27-28). From the Bosporan kingdom, the Bulgarian rulers could have borrowed the lord's sign IYI [Stanev, 2005, pp. 28-32] 11.

An attempt to revise the "Turkic paradigm" even more radically was made by R. Rashev. According to his hypothesis, the overwhelming majority of the population that migrated with Asparukh to the Lower Danube was not Turkic-speaking, but Slavic-speaking. R. Rashev identified a set of facts on which the point of view about the Turkic-speaking nature of the Prabolgar is based 12. These are the Turkic language forms in the "Namebook of Bulgarian Princes", inscriptions on columns dating back to the IX century, Turkic personal names, "the 12-year calendar cycle, the cult of Tengri, the Turkic military and administrative positions, the method of building an army with the allocation of the center, right and left wings, the class division of society, the separation of the state territory into internal territory". and external parts, etc. " [Rashev, 2000, p. 250]. As R. Rashev pointed out, all these Turkic realities are entirely connected only with the military-administrative and tribal elite of society at the end of the VII-IX centuries, but it was also not quite Turkic in such an important parameter as the funeral rite. The latter represented a cadaverous position oriented from north-west to south-east; skeletons lie on their backs in an outstretched position, arms are placed along the body. In all burial grounds

11 For the origin and semantics of the IYI sign, see [Stepanov, 1999, pp. 5-12].

12 This point of view is reflected, in particular, in the latest edition of the academic "History of Bulgaria" (Istoriya na Bulgariya, 1981, vol.II, p. 60).

page 17
the custom of artificial deformation of the skull is attested. "The funeral rite is not rich, weapons and horse equipment are very rare." This rite is certainly late Sarmatian, not Turkic [Rashev, 2000, p. 250-252].

R. Rashev's next argument boils down to the fact that in the Old Bulgarian (Slavic) language, for which writing was created in the IX century, there are practically no terms of Turkic origin. If we compare this fact with the presence of more than 300 ancient Turkic terms in modern Hungarian, we can conclude that before the migration to the Lower Danube, the Proto-Bulgarian aristocracy, which, according to R. Rashev's calculations, made up about a third of the population, spoke Slavic rather than Turkic [Rashev, 2000, p.251]. Thus, according to the researcher, we can talk about "two groups of proto-Bulgarians and, accordingly, about two Proto-Bulgarian cultures. On the one hand, it is a Turkic aristocracy by its origin..., on the other-a non-Turkic ordinary population by its origin... "[Rashev, 2000, p. 251]. However, the Proto-Bulgarian elite was heterogeneous in terms of its ethnic roots, as V. Beshevliev distinguished three ethnic components - Turkic, Iranian, and Finno-Ugric (Beshevliev, 1981, p.22). Therefore, the opinion about the total Turkization of the steppe population during the Great Migration of peoples is not supported, according to R. A. Shishkin. Rashev, reliable examples [Rashev, 2000, p. 251].

The presence of an Iranian component in the" prabolgar " must be implied, since on the eve of the Hunnic invasion, the Bulgarians lived among the late Sarmatian tribes, from which they borrowed the funeral rite described above [Rashev, 2000, p. 251-252]. In this regard, R. Rashev drew attention to the fact that in the III-IV centuries the Sarmatians participated in the formation of the Chernyakhov culture, and after the Hunnic invasion, part of the Chernyakhovites took part in the formation of the Kievan and then Penkov culture. Referring to the conclusion of I. P. Rusanova that the Penkov population was local Iranians, among whom Slavs from the area of the Prague-Korchak culture actively penetrated [Rusanova, 1976, p. 111-112], R. Rashev believed that as a result of Slavic expansion to the south, the Iranian language was rapidly displaced, and it was this Penkov population that could have been influenced by the Russian language. Subsequently, they migrated together with Asparukh to the Lower Danube (Rashev, 2000, p. 252). Another archaeological culture, which, according to R. Rashev, could be associated with the Prabolgars of Asparukh, is "Sivashovka". Its range is located south of Penkovskaya in the steppe zone up to the mouth of the Don. It dates from the second half of the seventh century. [Rashev, 2000, p. 252].

R. Rashev's point of view about the Penkov origin of the Slavic population of the Asparuha state is quite vulnerable, but it is difficult to object to his conclusion about the ancient Bulgarians as farmers: "In general, the material culture of the First Bulgarian Kingdom bears the stamp of a sedentary, agricultural way of life of the population from the very beginning. This contradicts the statement that nomads came to the Lower Danube in the third quarter of the seventh century" (Rashev, 2000, p. 252). From this, according to Rashev, it follows that "the problem of the origin of the proto-Bulgarians requires a revision of the traditional Turkic approach and, in particular, consideration of the role of the Iranian component in the composition of the Bulgarians. This will allow us to explain the absence of "elements of a pronounced nomadic culture" in the Proto-Bulgarian culture, the presence of "Slavic toponymy" in the central region of the Bulgarian state, the Slavic names of the capitals Pliski and Preslav, the Europoid anthropological type of ancient Bulgarians, as well as a number of facts that require a more accurate explanation from the point of view of ethnic history " [Rashev, 2000, p. 253].

Thus, R. Rashev came to the conclusion that the bulk of the ancient Bulgarians of the Danube region were Slavs and only the aristocratic elite could have had Turkic roots, but it was also largely Slavicized. R. Rashev attributed an important role in the formation of the Bulgarians to their interaction with the Late Sarmatian tribes, among whom the Bulgarians lived for a very long time and from whom they borrowed the funeral rite.

page 18
Thus, in the works of Ts. Stepanov, A. Deleva, K. Stanev, and R. Rashev emphasize the significance of the Sarmatian component in the ethnogenesis of the Danube Bulgarians, which is indicated, first, by the Sarmatian origin of the Bulgarian rite of bottom burials, which is attested not only by archeology (in the Danube region and in the Middle Volga region), but also by the report of Ibn Fadlan, and secondly, by the Iranian origin. origin of many personal names of the ancient Bulgarians of the Danube region.

Of particular importance is the hypothesis of R. Rashev about the Slavic origin of most of the population of the state of Asparuha. In my opinion, its most powerful arguments are the following:: 1) the almost complete absence of terms of Turkic origin in the Old Bulgarian language, for which writing was created in the IX century; 2) the population that migrated with Asparukh to the Danube region was not steppe, but settled, with highly developed agriculture; 3) Slavic names for the early political centers of the Danube Bulgarians-Pliska, Preslav; 4) Slavic toponymy in the central region of the First Bulgarian Kingdom. Thus, the hypothesis about the Slavic roots of the majority of the ancient Bulgarians of the Danube region receives a good linguistic, ethno-cultural and archaeological justification, which allows it to compete strongly with the established "Turkic paradigm". However, this competition is somewhat conditional, since R. Rashev's hypothesis incorporates the Turkic concept as one of its components.

Let me remind you that the point of view about the Slavic language of the ancient Bulgarians was expressed in the XIX century. For the first time, it was substantiated by Yu.I. Venelin, who suggested that the term Bolgar is associated with the origin of the hydronym Volga (Ancient and current volgare..., 1829, p. 68). A strong point of this point of view is the reference to the naming of a number of medieval Slavic tribes by the names of rivers: Polabi - from the hydronym Laba (Elbe), Moravians - from the hydronym Morava, etc. But in general, Yu.I. Venelin's arguments remained weak, which caused reasonable criticism of him. It was noted, in particular, that when comparing the terms Volga and Bolgar, he failed to explain the transition v > b [Shishmanov, 1900, p. 620]. In response to criticism, Yu. I. Venelin argued in another work that the name Volga could also have the form Volga. However, its further constructions are of the greatest interest:

"From Volga came Volgar, because in the Bulgarian language-ar, - y, - yar is a very ordinary form: as well as boler, shepherd, clerk, drugar. ...Therefore, a Bulgarian is a resident of the Volga side, a Volzhanin, and a Bulgarian is a resident of Bulgaria" [Venelin, 1832, p. 394].

The point of view of Yu. I. Venelin was supported by a number of Russian historians, in particular, by D. I. Shishkin. Ilovaiskii (Ilovaiskii, 1874; Ilovaiskii, 1879). Somewhat earlier, I. F. Kalaydovich, in a review of the first work of Yu. I. Venelin, proposed the etymology of the hydronym Volga from the Slavs. As for the ethnonym Bulgarian, it was explained by I. F. Kalaydovich as "Volzhanin, a resident of the Volga coast" (Kalaydovich, 1829, p. 150).

P. D. Shestakov, in his research on the etymology of the ethnonym Bulgars, relied on the report of Nikephore Gregora (XIV century) that the Bulgarians were formerly called Scythians, and then they were called Bulgarians by the name of a large river, which the natives themselves called Bulga or Vulga (Βοκλγα) [Nicephore Gregorae, 1888, vol. I, p. 26]. P. D. Shestakov identified this river with the Volga, the name of which he associated with the Slavs. moisture/water. In his opinion, the river received this name from the Slavs who lived in the upper reaches of this river [Shestakov, 1884 (1), pp. 57-59]. P. D. Shestakov also believed that in the Turkic transmission this hydronym sounded like Bolga/Bulga, hence the name of the city of Bulgara (in the Middle Volga region), and the latter he called it Bolga / Bulga. etymologized as Bulga-yar, suggesting to compare the component-yar or Tatarsk. yar 'coast', or with other-Turk, ar 'man'. Thus, P. D. Shestakov came to the conclusion that the ancient Bulgarians were Slavs, but their ethnonym is of Turkic origin [Shestakov, 1884 (2), pp. 60-73].

V. M. Florinsky also considered the ancient Bulgarians as Slavs. The etymology of the Bulgarian ethnonym proposed by him was also Slavic. He saw in the modern bol-

page 19
garsk. bilgar most adequately reflected the original early Medieval form and distinguished the components of bilg - i-ar in it. In this regard, he noted that in the ancient Indo-European languages, the suffixes-ar and-ar in nouns are the oldest form in word formation; at the same time, they have the following meanings: 1) " to raise, excite, produce, do something (craft), etc.", 2) " to achieve, equal, reach, fall under...". "In connection with the noun, this prefix ap defined knowledge, ability, art, action." As one of the examples V. M. Florinsky cited the Slavs: ved-ar "he who knows sees" (cf. Latin. vis-or). He went on to write: "In the Slavic language, according to the same principle, quite a lot of nouns denoting skill, knowledge, and action were formed, such as: pah-ar, medicine man-ar, tok-ar, table-yar, rat-ar, vertograd-ar, glav-ar, bochk-ar, baker, zvon-ar, gonch-ar, kol-ar, gusl-yar, etc. " As suggested by V. M. Florinsky, in the ethnonym bilgar suff. - ar could denote a property defined by the root blg -, and the latter was compared to the Slavs. blag [Florinsky, 1896, part II, p. 345].

These hypotheses regarding the Slavic language of the ancient Bulgarians have a number of weak points - with the source base available in the XIX century, they could not have been fully reasoned. As a result, they became the object of harsh criticism. The most consistent in this regard was I. D. Shishmanov, who gave a detailed source study and historiographical analysis of this problem and, relying on sources, revealed the weaknesses and strengths of various opinions regarding the ethnic roots of the ancient Bulgarians. He paid close attention to the hypothesis of P. D. Shestakov, and while denying the possibility of comparing the terms Volga and moisture, I. D. Shishmanov nevertheless accepted the opinion expressed by P. D. Shestakov that the ethnonym Bolgar contains a component Bulga -, which is a Turkic transfer of the hydronym Volga, and Turk. - ar 'man' [Shishmanov, 1900, pp. 735-736].

The analysis of medieval and modern linguistic forms of Bulgarian names led I. D. Shishmanov to conclude that all of them go back to the form bulgar [Shishmanov, 1900, p. 733], which has a Turkic etymology with the meaning "a person from the Volga, a Volzhanin" - Bolga + ar, whence bolgar (bulgar, bulgar) [Shishmanov, 1900, pp. 739-740, 743-744]. At the same time, I. D. Shishmanov correlated the element-ar with the Orkhon lexeme ar "husband, young man", which is preserved in some modern Turkic languages in the forms or, ir [Shishmanov, 1900, p.743]. I. D. Shishmanov explained the transition v > b by saying that the v sound is alien to all Turkic languages, except for Ottoman-Turkish, Azerbaijani and Crimean Tatar, and it turns into p in some languages, and b in others. Thus, the same hydronym Volga sounds like Bulga in some Tatar dialects, and Bolga in Kirghiz [Shishmanov, 1900, p. 740]. From this, according to I. D. Shishmanov, it follows that the "proto-Bulgars" were Turkic-speaking and most of them lived for a long time near the banks of the Volga, namely along its lower course [Shishmanov, 1900, p.739, 744].

After the publication of I. D. Shishmanov's monograph, a critical attitude towards the hypotheses about the Slavic language of the ancient Bulgarians was firmly established in historiography (see, for example, [Fasmer, 1964, vol. I (A-D), pp. 187, 337]).

N. I. Ashmarin's work gave a new impetus to the development of the Turkic concept. He convincingly showed that a number of terms related to the Volga Bulgarians preserved in written sources, as well as a fairly large group of words from epigraphic monuments of Volga Bulgaria of the XIII-XIV centuries, are related to Volga-Bulgarian with modern Chuvash. N. I. Ashmarin extrapolated this conclusion to the Early Medieval Bulgarians of the Black Sea region (Ashmarin, 1902). Subsequently, more and more linguistic evidence began to emerge regarding the Proto-Chuvash language belonging to the ancient Bulgarians, including in the Hungarian language (now there are about 500 of them).

From this it can be seen that the emergence and development of the version of the Turkic or, more precisely, Ogur affiliation of the ancient Bulgarians lies in the mainstream of the general development of modern Bulgarian culture.-

page 20
scientific knowledge. To date, it is based on a solid source and historiographic base. However, as R. Rashev's counterarguments show, the Ogur version is not able to explain the origin of absolutely all known elements of the ancient Bulgarian culture. This, in my opinion, demonstrates the one-sidedness of the Turkic theory. In R. Rashev's argument, the process of ethnogenesis of the Danube Bulgarians, on the contrary, is presented as more complex and multidimensional. Three main ethnic components - Slavic, Turkic, and Eastern Iranian-took part in it, with the former numerically predominant. A significant drawback of R. Rashev's model is that in it the carriers of the Bulgarian ethnonym (in R. Rashev's terminology - prabolgar) The Turkic-speaking upper class of the Danube Bulgarians appears, which, as will be shown below, cannot correspond to reality.

It should be noted that the point of view about the ethnogenetic relationship of the Bulgarians with the Ogur tribes is largely based on the ethnic genealogy of the Bulgarians that emerged in Byzantine historiography, in which the Kutrigurs appear as one of the Bulgarian groups proper. So, in the" Breviary " of Patriarch Nikephoros (VIII century), the following is reported about this::

"But it is time to tell about the beginning of the so-called Huns and Bulgars and their situation. Near the Meotid Lake, along the Kofis River, there are located what was called in ancient times Great Bulgaria and the so-called Kotrags, their tribesmen. In the time of Constantine, who died in the west, a man named Kovrat, who was the ruler of these tribes, changed his life, leaving five sons, to whom he bequeathed that they should never be separated from each other, so that they might preserve their power in mutual favor. But they did not in the least care about the father's instruction, and after a short time they separated from each other, and each of them separated from his own part of the people. The first of these, called Bayan, according to his father's covenant, remained to this day in the land of his ancestors; the second, called Kotrag, having crossed the river Tanais, settled opposite them; the fourth, having crossed the river Istres, settled in Pannonia, now under the rule of the Avars, and made an alliance with the local people; the fifth, settling at the Pentapolis of Ravenna, became a tributary of the Romans. Finally, their third brother, named Asparukh, having crossed the Dnieper and Dniester rivers, settled near Istra, reaching a place convenient for settlement, harsh and impregnable to the enemy, called in their language Oglom. It was fortified in front by impenetrable swamps, and behind by impenetrable steeps. And as this people was divided and dispersed, the tribe of the Khazars, since they had settled near the Sarmatians, from the interior of the country called Verilia, began to raid with impunity from that time on. They attacked all the villages in the lands beyond the Euxine Pontus and reached the sea. Then, having subdued Bayan, they forced him to pay tribute" [Chichurov, 1980, p. 161-162; Nicephory archiepiscopi..., 1880, p.33.13-34.16]13.

Further, Nikephoros reports that a Byzantine army led by Emperor Constantine IV (668-685) came out against Asparukh. But the Byzantines fled from the battlefield, and the Bulgarians, pursuing them, crossed the Danube and settled near Varna. Then they subdued the local Slavic tribes and began to raid Thrace, which forced the emperor to conclude a peace treaty with them, which provided for the payment of tribute to the Bulgarians [Nicephory archiepiscopi..., 1880, p. 34.16-35.25].

This text, called in historiography "an excursion about the Bulgarians", is also given by Theophanes the Confessor (IX century), although with slightly different details. In particular, he gives a different account of the ethnic composition of the Kubrat Power: "But [first] it is necessary to tell about the antiquity of the Unnogundurs14, Bulgarians and Kotrags" [Chichurov, 1980, p. 60-61; Theophanis Chronographia, 1883, vol. 1, p. 356, 18-20].

13 A similar version of the excursion about the Bulgarians is preserved in the work of Theophanes the Confessor [Theophanis Chronographia, 1883, vol. 1, p. 356.18-358.4]. The protograph of the excursion about the Bulgarians refers to the last decade of the seventh - the first two decades of the eighth century. [Semenov, 2010, p. 45, 46; Afinogenov, 2013, p. 4-8].

14 Οκνογοκνδοκρ& #969;ν. For discrepancies in the spelling of this ethnonym in various lists of the works of Theophan the Confessor, see [Chichurov, 1980, p. 107, comm. 246].

page 21
This ethnic genealogy originated not on Bulgarian, but on Byzantine soil [Semenov, 2010, p. 45, 46], and, in addition, its compilation refers to the period when the Kutrigurs already managed to integrate into the Danube-Bulgarian people, i.e. it reflects the situation of a later time. In this case, the Byzantine author of the protograph acted according to the traditional scheme for ethnic genealogies and, reflecting in it the ethnic composition of the Asparukh people-Unnogundurs, Bulgarians and Kotrags (Κοτραγοι; in earlier Byzantine historians-Κοκτριγοκροι, Kutrigurs 15), supplemented it with the "brotherhood" of Asparukh with Bulgarian groups that were part of other states, in particular including the Khazar Khaganate [Semenov, 2010, p. 54]. The ruler of the latter in the genealogy is called Batbayan.

By the" brotherhood " of Batbayan and Asparukh, the source does not mean the real, but the ethnogenealogical relationship of the two characters. This is also indicated by the message of Theophan the Confessor that Batbayan was "the ruler of the first Bulgaria", i.e. we should talk about" Great Bulgaria", and not about the Unnogundur state. One might think that Batbayan is an eponym of the "great Bulgarians", but this possibility is contradicted by the fact that in the ethnogenealogy under consideration, none of the groups of Bulgarians is represented by eponyms. Consequently, Batbayan is quite a historical figure, but as such it is most likely not connected with Kubrat or the Unnogundur dynasty in general [Semenov, 2013, pp. 62-63].

As noted by G. E. Markov, "ideological ideas about "genealogical" kinship allowed unrelated groups to unite. They artificially traced their genealogy to a single "ancestor" - usually to the real or legendary progenitor of the group that was the core of the new association, which served as a sufficient justification for the emergence of the idea of unity and "kinship"" [Markov, 1973, p. 5]. And further: "Genealogical " kinship" and genealogical tribal structures existed and were important as long as they served as an ideological formalization of real political, military, economic and other ties. Their violation and the formation of new nomadic associations resulted in the appearance of new genealogical structures" [Markov, 1973, p. 6]; see also: [Khazanov, 1973, p.7-9].

It should be noted here that if the roots of the Ogur tribes are found in Central Asia, then the search for the roots of the ancient Bulgarians in this region is, in my opinion, a hopeless task. Even the previously proposed Turkic etymologies of the Bulgarian ethnonym do not necessarily lead to Central Asia. There, this term was not known either in the early Medieval period or in the periods preceding it. Attempts to connect the term Bulgarians with the ethnonym buluoji (Chinese. b'uo-lak-kiei), which, according to Chinese sources, belonged to one of the Hu groups [Boodberg, 1936, p. 291-307] 16, look somewhat fantastic, since the latter term appears in Chinese sources in a very ancient period, and its appearance there is fragmentary. In Europe, by contrast, the term Bulgarian appears continuously in sources from the fifth century to the present. The possibility proposed by R. G. Akhmetyanov of comparing the ethnonym Bulgars with the name of the Even-Buryat tribe Bulgad (Akhmetyanov, 1978, p.134, 195) is also unlikely; the historical reality is the spread of the ethnonym Bulgars only in Europe, and in some period also in the Caucasus.

Thus, I propose to consider the ancient Bulgarians and the Ogur tribes of Eastern Europe as originally different peoples, who do not have common ethnogenetic roots and common ancestral homeland. With the beginning of migrations of the Ogur tribes to Eastern Europe (V-VI centuries), the Bulgarians were part of a number of political associations, including-

15 Kotrags are usually identified with kutrigurs( Κοκτριγοκροι). See, for example: [Marquart, 1898, S. 79, 89; Marquart, 1903, S. 45, 503; Angelov, 1971, p.194; Semenov, 2010, p. 46].

16 Most recent study on this topic: [Chen, 1998, p. 69-84].

17 The earliest reports of Bulgarians date back to 480. References to Bulgarians from an earlier period, including in the work of Movses Khorenatsi, are anachronisms [Romashov, 1994, p. 208, note b].

page 22
In addition to political and ethnogenetic connections, the two groups may have been formed. However, as for the period preceding the Ogur migrations, it is now extremely difficult to speak about the Turkic language belonging to the ancient Bulgarians. The most promising is the Proto-Slavic-Eastern Iranian concept of their ethnogenesis.

Before proceeding to its justification, I note that the use of the terms "proto-Bulgars", "proto-Bulgars", etc.18 seems unfounded, since in the sources the ethnonym "Bulgarians" appears without any prefixes of this kind 19. The use in Russian historiography of the form Bulgars in relation to ancient Bulgarians, designed to distinguish between modern and ancient Bulgarians, also seems unfounded, since the form of Bulgars is represented only in Russian, while, for example, in the Romance and Germanic languages it corresponds to the form bulgar. The identity of Russian Bulgarian and Romano-Germanic Bulgarian precludes the need for any modifications in this area.

In my work on the Unnogundurs [Semenov, 2013, p. 45-67], their ethnic history is reconstructed as follows. The Unnogundur union most likely originated on the basis of the Utigur union, which moved from the Azov Sea region at the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century (Evlisius Procopius of Caesarea [Procopius, 1963, 8 (4).4.7-9], VI century) in the Middle Dnieper region. Most likely, the migration of Utigurs to this region was connected with fears that after the end of strife in the Turkic Khaganate, the Turks would again try to subdue the Azov region. In the Northern Black Sea region, the Unnogundurs relied on an alliance with Byzantium. During the reign of Prince Organa of Unnogundur, his nephew Kubrat was held hostage in Constantinople and was baptized there. Approximately in 627-630, during the period of strengthening of the Western Turkic Khaganate and a new activation of its policy in the Caucasus, Kubrat's predecessor was forced to make a rapprochement with the Avars. During the reign of Kubrat, civil strife broke out again in the Western Turkic Khaganate. This allowed the Unnogundurs to break their alliance with the Avar khagan and expand in the direction of his possessions: Kubrat annexed the remnants of the Kutrigurs, who were defeated by the Avars, and after 640 (see below) - the Danube Bulgarians, who were previously under the rule of the Avars. Since that time, due to the numerical dominance of Bulgarians in the Unogundur state, the latter has acquired a Bulgarian character, and the Unogundur elite has become the military-aristocratic core of this political association.

This reconstruction differs in some cases from those proposed before, but it does not contradict the data of written sources in any way. It should be noted that it correlates with R. Rashev's conclusion that the ethnic composition of the population of the early Bulgarian state in the Danube region (the First Bulgarian Kingdom) was complex and included, in addition to Slavic-speaking farmers, a Turkic (or Turkized) aristocracy and, in addition, Eastern Iranian-speaking groups. The steppe traditions of the military and political elite of this state explain the details of the culture of the First Bulgarian Kingdom, which were identified by R. Rashev as the basis of the Turkic concept of the origin of the ancient Bulgarians.

It should be noted here that R. Rashev's point of view that the ethnonym Bolgar was originally associated with the Turkic population of the First Bulgarian Kingdom differs from the data of written sources. The combination of "the antiquity of the Unnogundurs, Bulgarians, and Kotrags" in the quoted excursus on the Bulgarians, as presented by Patriarch Theophanes the Confessor, reflects the official title of Kubrat at the Byzantine court -

18 I. D. Shishmanov insisted on using the term "urbulgars" introduced by Schletzer (Shishmanov, 1900, pp. 505-506). By now, this term is firmly established in Bulgarian historiography; it is also often used by domestic researchers (see, for example: [Gening, 1989, p. 8-11]).

19 This point of view was also taken by S. A. Romashov [Romashov, 1994, p. 207, note 1].

page 23
"the sovereign (κκριος) of the Unnogundurs, Bulgarians and Kotrags", and since the first position here is occupied by the Unnogundurs, it can be concluded that the Kubrat state originally had a non-Bulgarian, but an Unnogundur character [Semenov, 2009, p.16-25; Semenov, 2011, p. 181, 184].

This point of view is confirmed by the report of Patriarch Nikephoros: "At this time, Kuvrat, the nephew of Organ, the ruler of the Unnogundurs, 20 rebelled against the Avar khagan and, after insulting him, expelled the people who were under him from the khagan from their lands. And to Heraclius [Kuvrat] sends an embassy and makes peace with him, which they kept until the end of their lives. [In response, Heraclius] sent him gifts and honored him with the rank of patrik " [Chichurov, 1980, p. 161; Nicephory archiepiscopi..., 1880, p. 24.9-15]. This message is reasonably attributed by researchers to the time no later than 640 [Chichurov, 1980, p. 174, comm. 59]. It follows that it had a source unrelated to the excursion about the Bulgarians. Thus, we can talk about the existence of another source in which Kubrat appears as the ruler of Unogundur, and this source reflects the situation that preceded the accession of the Bulgarians to the Unogundur state. Consequently, this annexation occurred after 640. And since the ethnic self-name of the military and political elite of the First Bulgarian Kingdom was unnogundur, the ethnonym of Bulgarians could only belong to the Slavic-speaking allies of Kubrat.

In this context, the message of Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (mid-tenth century) that "Onogundurs (Onogundurs) used to be called Bulgarians" (Const. Porph. De Them., 85. 31-32), can be considered as a reflection of the fact that the beginning of the modern Constantine Porphyrogenital Bulgarian state (on the Danube) was laid by the Unnogundurs [Semenov, 2009, p. 20].

The conclusion about the originally Slavic or, more precisely, Proto-Slavic roots of the Bulgarians requires a return to the etymologies of their ethnonym proposed in the XIX century. The most productive in this respect is the study of its etymological connections with the Old Russian name of the Volga and with Slav. moisture. As for the established Turkic etymology - on the basis of the term bulya 'to mix', 'to disturb', from which the meaning of 'revolted, rebelled' or 'mixed, mixed' is derived, it is in itself illogical. Indeed, if "revolted, rebelled", then against whom and when? If "mixed, mixed", then who is mixed with whom? The tension of this etymology is also evident from the fact that there are no other Turkic, and not only Turkic, ethnonyms with similar semantics.

As one of the results of this article, we can propose a new periodization of the ethnic history of the Danube Bulgarians and their ethnogenesis.

1. At the initial stage, namely in the fifth and mid - sixth centuries, the Danubian Bulgarians were Proto-Slavic-speaking and probably already included groups of the Eastern Iranian-speaking population.

2. In the second half of the sixth century, the Danubian Bulgarians were subjugated by the Avars and remained dependent on them until at least 626, when they took part in the siege of Constantinople by the Avar Khagan Bayan.

3. In the 1930s of the seventh century, the unification of Unnogundur was strengthened. Kubrat annexed a part of the Kutrigurs, defeated by the Avars, and after 640, the Bulgarians. The latter event was the beginning of the birth of the united Unnogunduro-Bulgarian state. Probably, from this time the Slavization of the Unnogundurs began, but the last ones

20 At London's list of the "Breviary" - Οκννογοκνδοκ& #961;ων, as Theophanes the Confessor; in the Vatican list - Οκνογοκνδοκρ& #969;ν [Chichurov, 1980, p. 107, comm. 246; p. 175, comm. 63].

21 For the Avars ' siege of Constantinople in 626, see, for example; [Barisic, 1956, pp. 371-395; Howard-Johnston, 1995, pp. 131-142].

page 24
for quite a long time they preserved other elements of their culture, in particular the funeral rite, which had late Sarmatian roots.

4. Under Asparukh, the Unnogundurs entered into a war with Byzantium (679) and subdued a number of areas located south of the Danube and inhabited mainly by Slavic-speaking tribes. Asparukh's residence was also moved there.

Most likely, the inclusion of the Bulgarians in the Unogundur state was voluntary, since otherwise it is difficult to explain the subsequent strength of the First Bulgarian Kingdom. The union of the Bulgarians with the Unogundurs could be dictated both by the need to fight the Avars, and by the absence of the Bulgarians themselves as influential and well-born nobility as the Unogundurs with their closest ties at the Byzantine court. The fact that the Unogundur state was a strategic ally of Byzantium in the Northern Black Sea region cannot be discounted. Undoubtedly, the successful war with Byzantium contributed to the cementing of the united Unnogundur-Bulgarian state under Asparukh.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AEMAe - Archivum Eurasiac Medii Aevi.

BHR - Bulgarian Historical Review.

list of literature

Angelov D. Form a narodnost in bilkarskata. Sofia, 1971.

Artamonov M. I. Istoriya khazar [History of the Khazars], Moscow, 1962.

Afinogenov D. E. Excursus on Protobolgars in Theophanes the Confessor and Patriarch Nikephoros (Philological remarks) // Bulletin of Ancient History. 2013. N 1.

Akhmutyanov R. G. Comparative study Tatar and Chuvash languages (phonetics and vocabulary). Moscow, 1978.

Ashmarin N. I. Bulgarians and Chuvash language. Kazan, 1902.

Baskakov N. A. Tyurkskie yazyki [Turkic languages], Moscow, 1960.

Baskakov N. A. Introduction the study Turkic languages. Second edition, revised and supplemented. Moscow, 1969.

Baskakov N. A. Models of Turkic ethnonyms and their typological classification // Onomastics East, Moscow, 1980.
Benzig and. Languages of the Huns, Danube and Volga Bulgarians / / Foreign Turkology. Issue I. Ancient Turkic languages and Literatures / Ed. by A. N. Kononov; Comp. by S. G. Klyashtorny. Moscow, 1986.

Berezin I. N. Pervoe nashestvie mongolov na Rus ' [The First Invasion of the Mongols in Russia]. Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya, 1853, No. 79.

Bernshtam A. N. Ocherk istorii Huns].
Бешевлиев В. Първобългарски надписи. Additives and mandrels / / Godishnik na Sofiyskiya universitet. Istoriko-filologicheskoe fakultet [Historical and Philological facultet], vol. 32, 1936.

Beshevliev V. Iranski elementi u p'rvob 'lgarite [Iranski elementi u p'rvob'lgarite].
Бешевлиев В. Първобългарите. Bits and kultura. Sofia, 1981.

Бешевлиев В. За разнорадната същност на първобългарите // Плиска-Преслав. 1981. 2.

Бешевлиев В. Първобългарски надписи. Second pre-developed edition. Sofia, 1992.

Бурмов А. Към въпроса за произхода на прабългарите // Известия на българското Историческо дружество. XXII-XXIV. [1948.]

Butba V. F. K semantike bulgarskikh etnonymov "Ashkharatsuytsa" (Opyt rekonstruktsii protsessa formirovaniya obshchnosti) [On the semantics of the Bulgarian ethnonyms "Ashkharatsuytsa" (Experience of reconstruction of the process of community formation)]. Sukhum, 2005.

Venelin Yu. Stary dolg or belated criticism on Ancient and Current Bulgarians / / Telescope. Zhurnal sovremennogo prosveshcheniya, izdavaemyy Nikolay Nadezhdinom [Journal of Modern Education, published by Nikolai Nadezhdin]. Ch. Kh. M., 1832, N 15.

Gadlo A.V. Etnicheskaya istoriya Severnogo Kavkaza IV-X vv.L., 1979.

Gening V. F., Khalikov A. Kh. Early Bulgarians on the Volga: More-Tarkhansky burial ground, Moscow, 1964.
Gening V. F. Nekotorye voprosy periodizatsii etnicheskoi istorii drevnykh bolgar [Some issues of periodization of the ethnic history of ancient Bulgarians ]. Kazan, 1989.

Deleva A., Stepanov C. Protobulgarica (Varia) / / Palaeobulgarica = Старобългаристика. Year. XXII. Sofia, 1998. 4.

Derfer G. About the language of the Huns / / Foreign Turkology. Issue 1. Ancient Turkic languages and literatures / Ed. by A. N. Kononov; Comp. by S. G. Klyashtorny. Moscow, 1986.

page 25
Jafarov Yu. R. The Huns and Azerbaijan. Baku, 1985.

Димитров Д. Прабългарите по Северното и Западното Черноморие. Varna, 1987.

Veneline. Yu Istoriko-kriticheskie rossiyanam [Historical and critical research Russians]. to relation their religious and historical narodopisnom, political, in Bolgar present and Ancient Vol. I. M., 1829.

Duychev Iv. Nay-ranni vrzki mezhdu pyrvobolgari i slavyani [Nay-ranni vrzki between pyrvobolgari and Slavyani . 19. 1955 [Collection "Gavril Kadarov"].

Дуйчев Ив. Славянският свят и Персия през ранното средновсковие // Византия и славянски свят. Sofia, 1998.

Zlatarski V. История на Българската държава презъ средните векове. Т. I. Ч. 1. София, 1918.

Ilovaisky D. O slavyanskom proiskhozhdenii dunayskikh bolgar [On the Slavic origin of the Danube Bulgarians] / / Russian Archive, 1874 (re - published in the collection "Search for the beginning of Russia" (Vol. 2, Moscow, 1882-1886, pp. 166-228).

Ilovaisky D. K voprosu o bolgarakh [On the question of ]. 1879. May.

България. on History Vol. II. Sofia, 1981.

Kalaydovich I. F. [Review] // Moscow Bulletin. 1829. Part VI.

Katanov N. Epigraphic monuments of Volga Bulgaria. Kazan, 1905.

Katanov N. Chuvash words in Bulgarian and Tatar monuments. Kazan, 1920.

Klyashtorny S. G., Sultanov T. I. States and peoples of the Eurasian steppes: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. St. Petersburg, 2000.

Kovalevsky A. P. The book of Ahmed Ibn Fadlan about his journey to the Volga in 921-922 : Articles, translations , and comments. Kharkiv, 1956.

Kunik L. O rodstvo khagano-bolgar s Chuvashami po slavyano-bolgarskomu imennik [On the relationship of the Khagan-Bulgarians with the Chuvash people according to the Slavic-Bulgarian name list]. 1878. Vol. 32, Issue 2.

Malov S.E. Bulgarskaya i tatarskaya epigrafika [Bulgarian and Tatar epigraphy ]. 1. 1947; 2. 1948.

Markov G. E. Some problems of public organization of nomads of Asia // Soviet ethnography. 1970. N 6.

Markov, G. E., problems of development of the social structure of the nomads Asia / IX international Congress of anthropological and ethnographic Sciences (Chicago, September, 1973). Reports of the Soviet delegation, Moscow: Nauka, GRVL, 1973.
Merpert N. Ya. On the question of the most ancient Bulgarian tribes. Kazan, 1957.

Movses Khorenatsi. History of Armenia / Translated by G. Sargsyan. Yerevan: Hayastan Publ., 1990.

Novoseltsev A. P. Khazar state and its role in the history of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Moscow, 1990.

Rashev R. K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii prabolgar [To the question of the origin of the Prabolgar ]. Issue VII. Simferopol, 2000.

Romashov S. A. Bulgarian tribes of the Northern Black Sea region in the V-VII centuries. VIII. 1992-1994. Wiesbaden, 1994.

Rusanova I. P. Slavyanskie drevnosti VI-VII vv. [Slavic antiquities of the VI-VII centuries], Moscow, 1976.

Sedov V. V. Balty i slavyane v drevnosti (po dannym arkheologii) [Balts and Slavs in antiquity (according to archeology)]. Riga, 1980.

Semenov I. On the political, social and ethnic semantics of the term unnogundur / / Palaeobulgarica = Старобългаристика. 2009. Year. XXXIII. Issue 1.

Semyonov I. On the analysis of early Medieval ethnogenetic traditions of the Bulgarians / / Palaeobulgarica = Старобългаристика. 2010. Year. XXXIV Issue 1.

Semenov I. G. K istorii Unnogundurskogo gosudarstva [On the History of the Unnogundur State]. Byzantinskii vremennik = BYZANTINA XPONIKA, 2013, vol. 72 (97).

Semenov I. G. Etnicheskaya karta derzhavy Kubrat [Ethnic map of the Kubrat Power]. Vol. 17. 2010. Wiesbaden, 2011.

Semyonov I. G. Main stages of migration of Ogur tribes to South-Eastern Europe // Turkological collection. 2011-2012: Politicheskaya i etnokul'turnaya istoriya tyurkskikh narodov i gosudarstv [Political and ethno -cultural history of the Turkic peoples and states].

Serebrennikov B. A. Proiskhozhdenie chuvash po dannym yazyka [The origin of the Chuvash language]. Cheboksary, 1957.

Симеонов Б. Происход и значение на названието българи // Векове. 1976. Vol. V. Book 5.

Sirotenko V. T. Osnovnye teorii proiskhozhdeniya drevnykh bulgar i pis'isnye istochniki V-VII vv. [Basic theories of the origin of the ancient Bulgars and written sources of the V-VII centuries] . 1961. Issue 4.

Smirnov A. P. Ocherki po istorii drevnykh bulgar [Essays on the history of the ancient Bulgars]. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeya [Proceedings of the State Historical Museum], Moscow, 1940, vol. 11.
Smirnov A. P. Volzhskie bulgary [Volga Bulgars], Moscow, 1951.

Smolin K. F. K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii narodnostei Kama-volzhskikh Bolgar [On the origin of the Kama-Volga Bolgar peoples ]. Kazan, 1921.

Stanov K. Bosporskoto nasledstvo na prabilgarit [The Bosporan heritage in Prabilgarit]. Zashcho Asparukh s bore tova ime and provenance on the sign IYI / / Minalo. 2005. 1.

Stepanov Ts. On the localization of the" Great Bulgaria " of Kubrat / / BHR. 1995. N 2.

Stepanov Ts. "Ypsilon with two peaks "(Y) and its meaning (To symbolism in early Medieval Bulgaria) / / BHR. 1999. N 2.

page 26
Todorov-Bemberski X. Името българи - история и същност. Sofia, 2004.

Cake A. a the Northwest Hazarin in the context of the history of Eastern Europe (second half of VII - the third quarter of the X century). Kharkiv, 2006.

Fasmer M. Etymology of the Russian language. from it. and additions by O. N. Trubachev; Ed. and with a preface by B. A. Larina, Vol. I (A-D), Moscow, 1964.

Fedotov, M. R., The relation of the Chuvash and Common Turkic languages to the languages of the Khazars, Danube and Volga Bulgarians, and Finno-Ugric peoples, Sovetskaya turkologiya. 1979. N 3.

Feher G. Остатъци от езика на дунавските прабългари // Известия на Българския археологически институтъ. Sofia, 1929. Vol. 5.

Florinsky V. M. Primevitnye slavyane po pamyatnikam ikh prehistoricheskoi zhizni [Primitive Slavs by monuments their prehistoric life]. Ch. I Tomsk, 1894; Ch. II Tomsk, 1896.

Khazanov A.M. Kharakteristicheskie cherty kochevykh obshchestv [Characteristic features of societies the steppes] . Reports Soviet delegation, Moscow: Nauka, GRVL, 1973.
Khakimzyanov F. S. Epigraphic monuments Volga Bulgaria and their language. Moscow, 1987.

Chichurov I. S. Byzantine historical works: "Chronography" Theophanes. " 's Breviary / Texts, translations, comments, Moscow, 1980.

Shestakov P. D. Po povoru posledstviya N. I. Zolotnitskogo: Lingvisticheskaya zam. i pr. [On the message of N. I. Zolotnitsky: Linguistic deputy and so forth]. Izvestiya Kazanskogo obshchestva arkheologii. Kazan, 1884.

Shestakov P. D. Who were the ancient Bulgars (note on N. I. Zolotnitsky's interpretation of the meaning of the word Bulgar) / / Izvestiya Kazanskogo obshchestva arkheologii. Vol. III. Kazan, 1884.

Шишманов И. Д. Критиченъ прегледъ на въпроса за происхода на прабългарите от езиково гледище и етимологиите на името "българинъ" // Сборник за народни умотворения, наука и книжнина, издава министерството на народното просвещение. Books XVI and XVII. 1. Scientific department. Sofia, 1900.

Barisic F. Le siegle de Constantinopole par les Avares et les Slaves en 626 // Byzantion. T. 24. Bruxelles, 1956.

Barthold W.W. Vorlesungen uber Geschichte der Turken Mittelasien. Berlin, 1935.

Boodberg P. Two Notes on the History of the Chinesse Frontier - II. The Bulgars of Mongolia // Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. Cambridge (Mass.), 1936. No. 1.

Chen S. Some Remarks on the Chinesse "Bulgars" // Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 1998. Vol. 51. Nos 1-2.

Doerfer G. Turkische und mongolische Elements im Neupersischen. Bd. II. Wiesbaden, 1965; Bd. III. Wiesbaden, 1967.

Doerfer G. Zur Sprache der Hunnen // Central Asiatic Journal. Wiesbaden, 1973. XVII.

Golden P.B. Khazar Studies: An Historico-philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars: In 2 vols. Budapest, 1980.

Gombocz Z. Die bulgarish-turkischen Lehnworter in Ungarischen Sprache // Memoires de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne. XXX. Helsinki, 1912.

Haussig H.W. Thcophilakts Excurs uber die Skythischen Volker // Byzantion. T. 23. Bruxelles, 1953.

Howard-Johnston J. The Siege of Constantinople in 626 // Constantinople and its Hinterland. Aldershot, 1995.

Marquart J. Die Chronologie der altturkischen Inschriften. Leipzig, 1898.

Marquart J. Osteuropaische und Ostasiatische Streifzuge. Leipzig, 1903.

Marquart J. Die altbulgarische Ausdrucke in Inschriften von Catalar und die altbulgarischen Furstenliste / / Proceedings Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, vol. 15, 1911.

Miller R.A. Turcic s, z : Chuvash l, r Revisited // Turcic language. L., 1999. Vol. 3/1.

Moravcsik Gy. Zur Geschichte der Onoguren // Ungarische Jahrbucher. 10. 1930.

Nemeth Gy. A honfoglalo magyarsag kialakuldsa. Budapest, 1930.

historica opuscula Constantinopolitani archiepiscopi Nicephory / Ed. C. de Boor. Lipsiac, 1880.

Nicephore Gregorac. Byzantina historia. Bonnae, 1888.

Rasonyi Nagy L. Ungarische Bibliographic // Korosi Csoma-Archivum. Budapest, 1935. Bd. 1.

Rona-Tas A. Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: An Introduction to Early Hungarian History. Budapest, 1990.

Pritsak O. Die bulgarische Furstenliste und die Sprache der Protobulgaren. Wiesbaden, 1955.

Procopius. De bello gothico // Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia / Rccog. I. Haury, G. Wirth. Lipsiac, 1963.

Sismanov I. L'etymologic du nom "Bulgare" // Keleti Szemle (Revue orientate). T. IV. Budapest, 1903.

Chronographia. Theophanis Recensuit C. De Boor. Vol. 1. Lipsiac, 1883.

Thompson E.A. The Huns. Oxf., 1999.

Tomaschek W. Review of R. Roessler "Rumanische Studie" // Zeitschrift fur die Osterreichischen Gymnasien. Bd. 23. Wien, 1872.

page 27

Permanent link to this publication: