Miftakhov Z.Z. - Ch.7 HISTORY OF TATAR PEOPLE

In the previous lectures we reviewed the ethnic history of the ancient Bulgars prior to the beginning of the 7-th c. By that time Bulgars went through a long and complex path of development. In the beginning of the 7-th c. there were events that pushed the transition of the ancient Bulgarian statehood to a new phase of the development. The initial status by that time was this.

First, in the endless space from the Lower Itil to the Lower Danube there was a Bulgarian ethnic system, which incorporated the indigenous Bulgars (descendents of Sumers), the closely related to them Khots (Kuturgurs) and Utigs (Uturgurs), the remainder of Hunnish peoples and clans, and also Sabans. A consolidation and coherence of a uniform ethnic community was cementing inside this ethnosystem.

Secondly, the development of the Bulgarian statehood passed, by the beginning of the 7-th c., two phases: an emergence phase, culminated with the formation of the Altynoba princedom, and a consolidation phase, which resulted in the formation of two princedoms - Kara-Bulgar and Ak-Bulgar.

Methodical guideline. In this lecture the main attention will be devoted to the description of the budding processes in the ancient Bulgarian state during a successful and powerful phase, and in a phase of disintegration.

Description of the sources

1. EMERGENCE, TERRITORY AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF GREAT BULGARIA

After his removal from the position of the Baltavar, Bu-Yurgan with a part of Bulgars left to the Byzantian part of the Crimean peninsula, and joined a military service. At that time the Bulgarian Baltavar Alburi traversed between the rivers Burat (Prut) and Bug (Buh). His center was in the aul (village) Kashan.

Soon after the described events, the situation quickly began to change. The Avar Khakan’s situation deteriorated after a defeat from the Byzantines. Taking advantage of it, Bu-Yurgan returned home to the banks of Bug. In 618 Avar’s Khakan called Bulgar Baltavar Alburi to his court. His court was in Pannonia (present. Hungary). Khakan explained his call that Kara Bulgars’ Anchi subjects attacked the Avar pastures, and stole some cattle. Actually, on the order of the Khakan a group of Avars attacked Anchis, who were carrying a frontier service on the western border of Kara-Bulgar, and stole their cattle. Two Avars were killed during a skirmish. This allowed accusing Anchis of robbery. Khakan called the Bulgarian Baltavar Alburi to investigate the circumstances of incident.

In the meantime, his senior brother Bu-Yurgan had a bad dream, he saw Avars killing Alburi. He went to Alburi and began to persist in dissuading him from going to the Avar’s Khakan. Alburi did not listen, he went in, and in fact was killed at the court of the Avar’s Khakan. Upon the receipt of this sad news, Bu-Yurgan left to Byzantian capital Constantinople. He declared to the Byzantian emperor Heraclius (610 - 641 AD) that henceforth Bulgars will stop supporting Avars. The emperor was delighted by this message, and from happiness awarded Bu-Yurgan a title “Patrician”. This title was considered to be one of the highest ranks in the empire, though it was only honorable, and was not connected with a position. The Byzantian emperor recognized a princedom of Kara-Bulgar as an independent state. The dependence of Kara-Bulgar from Avars consisted of an obligation to send troops to participate in the Avar’s Khakan campaigns. Therefore. Avars used to campaign against Byzantium together with Bulgars. So, Byzantium weakened unexpectedly their main opponent Avars.

Returning home, Bu-Yurgan told of recognition by the Byzantian emperor of the independence of the Bulgars from Avars. Kara Bulgars wanted to elect Bu-Yurgan a Baltavar. However, he refused, saying, that he will be a bolyar, i.e. a cleric. On his advice, in 618 Bulgars elected the senior son of Alburi by the name of Kurbat the Baltavar.

In the different language sources his name is given in several variations: it is Kubrat, and Kobrat, and Korbat, and Khudbard, and Kuvarog, and even Krovat. In the Bulgarian sources his name is given in the form Kurbat (nickname Bashtu) (9; 17). In the Russian literature settled a form Kubrat, therefore here we will also use this version.

Kubrat (600 - 660 AD) grew up and was educated at the court of the emperor Heraclius. He was baptized in Constantinople. When his father Alburi became a Baltavar, Kubrat returned home. After the election as a Baltavar he began preparations for a war with Avars. On his command in 620 Shambat (Kubrat’s younger brother) erected in the aul (village) Askal (Ass-Kale, ‘Fortress of Asses’-Translator’s note) on the Kuyantau mountains a city - fortress. He was called this city Bashtu (Kubrat’s nickname). Subsequently, in this place emerged the city of Kiev.

With the fortress Bashtu transformed into a base camp, Shambat began military actions against Avars. Ulchis (Slavs) and Ugrs rendered him a large help. Shambat quickly routed Avars and captured Pannonia (present Hungary).

Soon after these events, “Shambat proclaimed himself an independent ruler, and called the state Duloba” (9; 17) (Oba in Oguz Turkic “homeland” -Translator’s note). Duloba is literally a Pasture Dulo. Kubrat advised the younger brother not to separate. However, Shambat did not obey. Then Kubrat proclaimed his brother “Kyi”, i.e. “Cut off” or “Seceded” (9; 17).

Shambat ruled the princedom Duloba for 35 years (623 - 658). He became famous for his victories over the Frankish-Germanic tribes. However, at the end he suffered a defeat from Franks (Childebert Adoptivus,656-661 -Translator’s note)and Avars, and returned to Kubrat’s service. Kubrat appointed him a governor of Bashtu (9; 17).

Kubrat began vigorously expanding the Kara-Bulgar possessions on the east. He skillfully took advantage of the internecine struggle in the Turanian Kaganate, and forced Türks out from the Northern Dagestan to beyond Itil. Thus, he united Dagestani Bulgars with Kara-Bulgars, i.e. with Western Bulgars. After the incorporation of the Dagestani Bulgars’ princedom Suvar, the Kubrat possessions reached from the mouth of Itil to the mouth of Danube. Since 658, his possessions also included the lands of the former princedom Duloba. Thus, the border of the Kubrat’s possessions now passed by the river Aksu, on the bank of which was an aul (village) Kharka (now in this place is city Kharkiv). The emerged country was called Great Bulgaria. She included Bulyar as a semi-autonomous princedom.

The Great Bulgaria state consisted of two parts, the eastern and the western. The Eastern part was called Ak-Bulgar Yorty, and the Western part was called Kara-Bulgar. River Don was the border separating them (Bulgars called it Shir, as did ancient Imens).

Thus, by the middle of the 7-th c., the Bulgars became a dominant force not only in the Northern Pontic, but also in the huge space from the mouth of Itil to the mouth of Danube.

The city Phanagoria, on the eastern coast of the Azov sea, on the Taman peninsula, became a capital of the huge new country. Bulgars was called it Bangja (9; 18). The city Phanagoria was built in ancient times by the Greek colonists. However, Bulgars reconstructed it in their own way (2; 331). A main feature of the Bulgarian settlements of that time was a geometrically true circular layout. Bulgars acquired the traditions of the circular construction of the settlements from the nomadic peoples, and first of all from the Huns. During the long stops, the Huns arranged the wagons in a ring system. Phanagoria served for Kubrat as a winter residence.

The summer residence was called Khorysdan or Batavyl (literally: the court of the Lord) and was in the place of the modern city Putivl. Between the winter and summer capitals were two other headquarters, Tiganak and Baltavar (present Poltava). Kubrat traversed each year between Phanagoria (Bangja) and Khorysdan (Putivl), visiting on the return trip Tiganak and Baltavar (9; 18).

Political and social structure of the ancient Bulgarian state. To better understand the public and administrative structure of the Great Bulgaria state, its sociopolitical structure is presented in a hierarchical form.

The first (highest) level. It was held by the ruler and his nearest relatives. Since the time of Bel-Kermek (middle of the 50's of the 5-th c.), the founder of the Bulgarian state, the Bulgar rulers had a title Baltavar, literally: Lord of Princes (variations: Prince of Princes, Great Prince). Though in many cases the authority of the Baltavars was transferred by inheritance, nevertheless the people-warriors “were free to choose a ruler themselves” (9; 17). The pretender for the throne of the Baltavar had to pass an election process. Therefore, strictly speaking, Bulgars did not have a direct inheritance of the power from a father to son.

During the rule of Kubrat (618 - 660 AD), with the expansion of the borders of the Bulgarian state, to the titulage of the ruler were added new titles. Approximately from the middle of the 620's, Kubrat added to his title Baltavar the title of a Kan, literally: King, a head of a small federation of peoples. After a victory over Khazars in the 650's, he took a title Khakan, literally: the emperor, a head of a large confederation of peoples.

It shall be especially emphasized that the rulers of Bulgars, including Kubrat, did not call themselves Khans. The title “Khan” is mentioned for the first time in the written sources of the 3-rd c. AD. It was accepted by a Syanbi ruler (Syanbi are the ancestors of Mongols) of the Tobat tribe by the name Lin. He began to call himself Lin Khan. Originally, this title was used for a designation of a leader of a large nation, and then of the head of a small federation of nations. The title “Khakan“ (Khagan, Kagan) appeared in 402 AD. At first it was accepted by a leader of Jujans (ethnos of the Mongolian root, later mixed with Turkic speaking peoples). Subsequently, Jujans became to be known as Avars.

Until 814 AD, the title of Bulgarian rulers, officially recognized by Byzantium, was a title Baltavar - Lord. Byzantium applied the title “Lord” only in relation to their emperor and to the ruler of Bulgars.

A senior son of the Bulgarian ruler carried a title Yabgu (Jabgu). During the life of the father he was slated to be his successor. Kubrat’s senior son was Bat-Boyan (variations: Batbai, Batpai, Batboyan, Bayan, Batvian etc.) With his Bulgar subjects he was cruising between Crimea (Djalda) and the middle course of Bug (Buga-Idel) (9; 19).

The second son of Kubrat was called Kodrak (Kotrag). With his Kuturgur (Khot)subjects, he revolved in the lowlands of Don.

The third son was called Atilkese. In the historical literature he is called Asparukh (it was a nickname of Atilkese). Asparukh was strongly attached to his uncle, the younger brother of his father, Shambat. “This attachment was very much disliked by Kubrat who always suspected his brother as being ready for treason” (9; 20). Because of this, Kubrat assigned to Asparukh the Onogur people, who lived farthest from Bashtu (Kiev), thus separating him from his uncle. Onogurs cruised between Burdjan (Northern Dagestan) and Bekhtash (the region of the modern Volgodonsk channel). In addition to Onogurs, Asparukh had Utigs and Murdases, living in the regions of the Middle Itil basin, as his subjects. His main court was in the Burdjan city, in the south of the Northern Dagestan (Djurash) (9; 20).

To Ultzindur, the fourth son of Kubrat, were subjected Ultzindurs and Ultzingurs, living in the south of the Crimean peninsula.

To Emnetzur, the fifth son, were subjected Alciagirs, Alcildzurs, and Alpidzurs, also living in the south of the Crimean peninsula.

For decisions on major state affairs, Kubrat called a council, consisting of his sons and representatives of a ruling clan Dulo, and also of the highest clergy.

Thus, the head of the Bulgarian state did not have an absolute power. A two-sided council limited his power: one part was the nearest and influential relatives of the ruler, and another was the clergy.

The second level. It was held by Boils, i.e. the clergy, priests. They were divided into two categories: Great and Small. The Great Boils were the members of the ruler’s council. Subsequently, the term “Boil” was transformed into the term “Bolyarin” (Boyarin).

Third level. It was held by Bogatys , i.e. the highest government officials. They controlled the affairs of the Kubrat’s subject peoples.

Fourth level. It was held by the merchants, craftsmen, herdsmen, and townpeople. The slave labor was used insignificantly. The captured were exchanged for captive kinfolks, returned for ransom, or sold into slavery to other countries.

As the Bulgars’ centralized form of the statehood was only in the development, we can characterize it as unfinished

2. ETHNIC MIX OF THE GREAT BULGARIA POPULATION

The information about the ethnic mix of the Great Bulgaria population is contained, mostly, in Theophan’s “Chronographia”, Nikifor’s “Breviariae”, and Ananiy Shirakacy’s “New Annals of the Armenian geography” (presumable authorship)[1].

According to the information found in the above sources, in the 7-th c. on the territory of the Great Bulgaria, in addition to Bulgars and peoples closely related to them, lived Turkic peoples, Jews, Murdases etc. Among them Bulgars, who held, in the territory between the mouth of Itil and the mouth of Danube, a prevailing position from the second half of the 5-th c, played a consolidating role. Of all the Bulgarian peoples settled in this territory, the most known were the following.

2.1. Kufis Bulgarlary - Cubthe Bulgars. It was a collective name for the designation of the descendents of Utigs (Uturgurs) and Khots (Kuturgurs) living in Taman peninsula and in Lower Cuban. Before the 7-th c., the sources more frequently use the names of separate peoples (Uturgurs and Kuturgurs), and from the 7-th c. they mention the collective name Kufis Bulgarlary (in some sources, Kupi-Bulgars), the Cubthe Bulgars.

The Taman peninsula and the Lower Cuban were convenient for the settlement of the people (6; 214). Cuban was divided into two streams and formed a multitude of rivulets that ran into the Meotian sea. The southern fork in the end of the 7-th c. was called Psevkhros (Psekhrus), and the northern fork was called Antikit. In those days the Cuban water was clean, and it was full of fish. Plenty of birds nested in the Cuban delta. To the north and the northeast from Cuban spread the steppes overgrown with a rich grass. Such variety of the landscape, the influents richly overgrown with cane, the spacious steppes, the close foothills of the Caucasian range, and the proximity to the sea, created very favorable conditions for the life of the people. All this helped hunting, fishing, and agriculture as the separate types of economic activity. The presence of a number of the cities in the Meotida and Northern Pontic, initially directly connected with Greece, and later with Rome and Byzantium, resulted in the active linkage of the Hunnish-Bulgarian peoples to the international trade system.

In such fortunate area were living the descendents of those Utigs and Khots, who in the beginning of the 60's of the 4-th c. left with Bulümar to the west of Itil.

2.2. Chdar Bolkary - Black Bolkars. In Russian sources of the 10-th c. they are called “Chernii Bolgare” - “Black Bolgars”. Their name suited well Black Bolkars: they were tall, black haired and black eyed. In mid of the 7-th c. the Chdar Bolkary lived in the middle course of Cuban.

2.3. Dniepr Bulgars. To denote Bulgars settled in the Dniepr basin and in the Northern Crimean steppes, between Dnieper and Bug, Bulgars used the name Kara-Bulgars, i.e. Western Bulgars. Türks called them Kuchi-Bulgars. Turks called the river Dnieper Kuchi (variations: Kocho, Kuzu, Uzu), and Greeks called it Borisfen.

2.4. Orkhondor-Blkare. Orkhondor is, presumably, the ancient Itil riverbed, now there remains a dry channel. Now it is known as Sarpa. This dry channel with a chain of lakes runs along Ergeni. Ergeni is a Itil upland, which runs from Itil to the river Manych (4; 47). In an ancient times Ergeni was called Karaun mountains. The modern (Russian -Translator’s note) name Stavropol upland in ancient times was known under a name Gippean mountains. In the 6 - 7 cc. these mountains were called Bulgarian mountains, as in the Ergeni region and in the Stavropol upland lived Bulgars with a tribal name Orkhondor-Blkary. Calls to the attention the fact that in the Armenian geography Orkhondor-Blkary are called “newcomers”. Why? Let's try to sort it out as far as possible.

The ethnonim of this Bulgarian tribe has a variety of spellings and readings: in the Armenian geography - Orkhondor; in the Armenian history - Vgndur; in the Byzantian sources - Unno-Gundurs; in the letter of the Khazarian Khagan Joseph (about the middle of the 10-th c.) - “v-n-n-t-r”. In the work of the Byzantian emperor Constantinus VII Porphyrogeneus (913 - 959 AD; another version: 905 - 959 AD) this ethnonim is given in the form “Onogundurs” (1; 107). This form also has the variations: the Onogurs, Avnagurs (anonymous Syrian chronicle of the 6-th c.). Ancestors of the Onogurs were those Cimmerians-Uturgurs, who in ancient times lived on the east coast of the Black Sea, between modern city Pitsunda in the south and the mouth of the southern fork of Cuban Psevkhros in the north. Alternately, the ancestors of Onogurs lived in the territory between the southern fork of Cuban Psevkhros in the north and the river Nichepsukho (in ancient times - river Nikopsis) in the south. The city Pitsunda (in ancient times - Pitiund, Nikopsia) is located on the banks of the river Nichepsukho.

In the period between 13 and 7 cc. BC this part of the Cimmerians-Uturgurs mixed with a part of the Fessalian tribe Mirmidons (“ants”).

In the end of the 6-th c. BC, the new ethnos, developing as a result of mestization, was forced to leave the Near East. A part of the developing ethnos went by the eastern coast of the Black Sea to the Cimmerians-Uturgurs, who were related to them by a maternal line, and who remained in the lower Cuban river area after the capture of this territory by the Scythians. The other part of the mixed ethnos left through modern Azerbaijan and lower Itil to the east, subsequently becoming known under a name Onogurs (Onogundurs, Unogundurs, etc.). In a literal translation “Onogurs” means “ten tribes” (1; 107). The fact of the existence of the ten Bulgarian tribes is proved to be true by the data found in the ancient Türkic inscriptions, Chinese sources, and also in the “Vertin Chronicles”. It is possible to assert, on the basis of the information in the ancient Türkic and Chinese sources, the following: the Onogurs belonged to those Huns, who were forced by the Chinese and Syanbi in the 2-nd c. AD from the regions of the Northern China, and had to resettle in Tarbagatai. In the 3-rd c. AD they moved to Semirechye, and began to live in the upper Syr-Darya area, on the banks of the rivers Ili and Chu. This group of Huns in the Chinese sources is called by a general collective name Yueban. In the 4-th c. Onogurs migrated, together with other Hunnish peoples, to the west. Initially, Onogurs settled west from the Azov sea. In the beginning of the 5-th c. they settled in the provinces Dacia, Misia, and Thrace. After the death of Attila in 453 and the disintegration of the Hunnish confederation, Onogurs returned to the Northern Pontic. From there, a part of Onogurs moved to the East Meotida, and another part replaced Goths-Tetraksids, who occupied the territory of their ancestors, between the city Pitsunda and the southern fork of Cuban. The Onogurs lived in tents, ate cattle meat, fish and wild animals (7; 76).

Additional information on the Onogurs. Even in the 7-th c. many historical sources continued to call the territory between a southern fork of Cuban and Pitsunda Onogoria (4; 33), though Onogurs did not live there any more, as they were defeated by Lazes, who lived south of them, along the eastern coast of the Black Sea. The Lazes built a fortress on the place of the decisive battle, and called it, in honor of the victory, Onoguris (4; 33). After that, Onogurs moved to the regions of Northern Caucasus (1; 107). There they initially settled in the flat part of Dagestan, i.e. between Terek - Sulak rivers.

In middle of the 7-th c. Khazars drove out Onogurs (v-n-n-t-r) from the banks of the rivers Terek and Sulak. Onogurs moved to the region of Ergeni mountains and Stavropol uplands.

Thus, we quite briefly followed the historical path of the Bulgarian tribe, whose name in the sources of various nations is given variously: in Armenian - Orkhondor, Avnagurs; Byzantian - Unnogundurs (this form is found only twice: 1) in “Chronographia” by Theophanes Confessor. and 2) in “Breviarium” by Nisephorus Patriarcha. In “Breviarium” by Nisephorus it could also be a result of a simple misspeling (1; 108), Onogndurs, Onogurs; Arabian - Avnagurs, Venenders or Vendors; Jewish-Khazarian - v-n-n-t-r. We briefly followed the historical path and historical destiny of this Bulgarian tribe to the middle of the 7-th c., its further destiny will be reviewed a little bit later.

Thus, the Ancient Great Bulgaria was a state with multiethnic population, but the Bulgarian peoples held the prevailing role. They assimilated in the early Middle Ages many other non-Bulgarian ethnic groups or their splinters. It is seen, in particular, in the historical and geographical specifics of their settled location. Since ancient times, in the Meotian and Pontic cities “prospered diversified crafts: ceramics, metalworking, jeweler, bone carving etc. Along the banks of the rivers unfold extensive plow-lands, and on the lower Don also lay vineyards” (2; 442). The culture of the Cuban, Dniepr and Don Bulgars rested on a strong base. Their original culture was based on the achievements of the civilization of Sumers, Cimmerians and their Hunnish descendents. It developed in a close interaction with the Chinese culture, when Utigs and Khots, as part of the Hunnish peoples, lived to the north of China. After they returned to the historically native land of their Cimmerian ancestors, they began a regular trade and cultural exchanges with the population of the former Greek states - policies, seized by the Roman empire. It is well known that Greeks began to penetrate the regions of the Northern Pontic in the beginning of the 7-th c. BC, and from the 6-th c. BC they started the creation of the continuous settlements there. Later, these settlements became city-states. The largest cities - policies were Tira (in the mouth of Tirasa, i.e. Dniestr), Olbia (in the mouth of Hipanis, i.e. Southern Bug), Khersones, Theodosia, Panticapeum, Taman, Phanagoria, Dioscuria etc. By the time of the Bulgar return to the ancestral land, these cities were under the authority of Byzantines. The prolonged and active connection of Bulgars with the largest centers of the world civilization, as were China and Byzantium, had a favorable effect on the development of the Bulgarian culture before their movement to other regions, and also in the subsequent epochs. Due to the powerful nutritious layers of Sumerian, Cimmerian, Hunnish cultures, and the fruitful connections with the Chinese and Byzantian civilizations, the culture of Bulgars after their resettlement in the regions of Middle Itil basin flourished brilliantly, and entered a shared developmental path of the of the human civilizations. In archeology, the Bulgarian culture prior to their magration to the regions of the Middle Itil basin, received the name of the Saltovo-Mayak culture (2; 332).

3. DISINTEGRATION OF GREAT BULGARIA STATE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Kubrat, a powerful and wise ruler, governed the state skillfully and imperiously. During his rule, Bulgars had plentiful herds, quietly grazing on the rich steppe pastures. The ancient cities of the Taman peninsula, especially Tamatarkha (ancient Harmonassa) and Phanagoria, came to life (2; 31). The development of the international trade and crafts in the cities of the Eastern Meotia received “a second breath”. However, the Ancient Great Bulgaria, as the other Early Middle Ages states, was rather a short-lived. The internal fragility of the state, created by Kubrat, began to show immediately after his death.

The historical literature contains inconsistent data about the date of the Kubrat death. So, for example, historian V.Zlatarsky believes that he died in 642, and O.Pritsak thinks that he died in 665, M.Khabibulin dates the years of Kubrat’s life from 584 to 643 AD. (Miras, 6. 1992. Page. 97). In a magazine “Salavatkupere” (1970, 7) the death of Kubrat is dated by 644. The historian. Khaussig believes that he died between 663 and 668 AD (1; 112). What information was preserved in the historical sources about this question?

Theophan in “Chronographia” (circa 760 - 818 AD.) writes: “In times of Constantinus the Western died the Lord of mentioned Bulgaria and Kotrags Krovat” (1; 60 - 61). Constantinus the Western is the Byzantian emperor Constans II (641 - 668 AD). Hence, Kubrat died between 641 and 668. This message is giving the historians a wide-open room to hypothesize about the date of the Kubrat death.

The Bakhshi Iman’s book “Djafgar tarikhy” contains more specific information about this. First, it is emphasized that Kubrat lived 60 years (9; 22). Secondly, he died in 660 ( 9; 20). We consider this account to be more reliable. It agrees with the information in the “List of the Bulgarian princes”[3]. Thus, the years of the Kubrat life are 600 - 660 AD. A deathbed order of Kubrat was preserved in the historical sources. First, he forbade Bulgars to be at war with each other. Secondly, he bequeathed to the sons “not to separate from each other at all, so that with a mutual goodwill to preserve their rule” (1; 162).

After Kubrat’s death his senior son Bat-Boyan (660 г) was elected Khakan. More or less quietly he ruled for only three years. After that, his uncle Shambat and the younger brother Asparukh drew Bat-Boyan into a long internecine struggle for Kubrat’s inheritance: for the throne of Khakan. In 663 they attacked Bat-Boyan. As the Bulgars still remembered Kubrat’s prohibition to fight with each other, Shambat attacked Bat-Boyan with an army of Slavs and Saklan-Uruses (an Iranian-speaking people), and Asparukh attacked with Murdases (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people), Masguts, Türks and a detachment of the Turkmen mercenaries (9; 20). Bat-Boyan threw troops consisting of Sabans. The war continued for a few years. Asparukh and Shambat managed to drive Bat-Boyan to the Crimean peninsula. Seige lasted for five years.

Taking advantage of the internecine struggle among Bulgars, 150 thousand Cumans, Turkmen Kuk - Oguses and Kyrgyzes crossed the Itil. They were known under a general name Khazars. Shambat and Asparukh advanced to Khazars, but were defeated. They fled to Bashtu (9; 20). The siege of the Crimean peninsula was removed.

Bat-Boyan advanced with his troops toward Khazars. The encounter happened on the bank of a rivulet running into Meotian sea from the north. Bulgars called it Almysh, Kyrgyzes called it Kelmes. Bat-Boyan suggested to Kalga, the ruler of Khazars, to return the captured Bulgarian territory. In response, Kalga ordered his troops to cross the rivulet and attack Bulgars. At the decisive moment of the battle, Khumyk, the leader of Dagestani Bulgars, fighting on the Khazars’ side, switched to the Bat-Boyan side. Khumyk killed the Khakan of Khazars Kalga with his own hands (9; 21). After that, Khazars retreated. In remembrance of the fallen Khakan, the Khazars began to call this rivulet Kalga (subsequently, Kalka).

The new Khazarian Khakan Kaban offered to Bat-Boyan to conclude a peace. It was signed in 668. The major points of this treaty were these.

First, the Khazars recognized for the Bat-Boyan dynasty the territory of Kara-Bulgar (Western Bulgaria) and princedom Bulyar.

Secondly, Burdjan (Northern Dagestan)was given to the Khumyk clan.

Thirdly, the steppes between the mouth of Don and the river Ural (Djaik) went to Khazars.

In - fourth, the rulers of Bulgars had to renounce the titles of the Kan (King) and Khakan (Emperor), retaining only the title Baltavar (Lord of Princes or Ruler of Princes).

In - fifth, Bulgarian rulers had to provide to the Khazarian rulers troops to participate in their campaigns. If Bulgars refused, they had to pay a release tribute (9; 21).

Thus, under the treaty of the 668, the status of the Bulgarian statehood sharply changed: it decreased from the level of an empire to a level of a princedom. The princedom was divided into two parts, Kara-Bulgar itself and Bulyar. At the head of Bulyar was a local ruler, subordinated to the Baltavar of Kara-Bulgar. Bulgars lost North Caucasian steppes from the Itil to the mouth of Don.

At first, Bat-Boyan did not want to conclude such a treaty. However, when he learned that in his absence Shambat and Asparukh occupied the Crimean peninsula and were devastating the pastures of Bulgars, he agreed.

Khazarian ruler Kaban decided to help Bat-Boyan in his struggle against Shambat and Asparukh. Bulgars, together with Khazars, besieged Bashtu, but the storm was completely unsuccessful. After that, Kaban went to Lower Itil, and Bat-Boyan started negotiations with the besieged. The result of negotiations was: the territory of Kara-Bulgar was divided into two parts. The land of the princedom west from Dnieper went under the rule of Shambat and Asparukh, and to the east from Dnieper to Baltavar Bat-Boyan (9; 22). After that, Bat-Boyan went to Crimea.

Shambat died in 670 AD. Some time after the death of Shambat, Asparukh left to the west, with Bulgarian Onogurs and a part of Turkmens, to the Kashan area. This area was between rivers Burat, Danube and Audan-su (Olt). On the fourth side it was surrounded by Carpathian mountains (in those times they were called Ulag mountains). In 679, during the rule of the emperor Constantinus 4th Pogonata (668 - 685 AD), Asparukh defeated the Byzantian troops and took Dobrudja. In 681 he concluded a treaty with Byzantium. Under this treaty, Byzantium recognized the existence of a Bulgarian state, the so-called First Bulgarian Empire (681 - 1018 AD), in the territory between Danube on the north, mountains Old Planina in the south, river Iskyr on the west and the Kara Dingez (Black sea) in the east. The first capital of the Danube Bolgars state became the whitestoned Pliska. During the Prince Boris time, in about 865, the Danube Bulgars switched to Christianity, and gradually mixed with Slavs. As a result appeared a new ethnos, called Bolgars. The nucleus of the Protobolgars, i.e. the ancestors of the Balkan Bolgars, consisted of Onogurs, i.e. Orkhondor-Blkars (Khaussig, 1; 107).

The second son of Kubrat took his subject Kotrags (Kuturgurs) from the left coast of Don to the right, i.e. from the Asian to the European part. In 730's - 740's they were forced to return to East Meotida and to join their kin Cubthe Bulgars (Kupi-Bulgars).

The fourth son of Kubrat Ultzindur at the end of the 670's took his subject Ultzindurs and Ultzingurs, who lived in the Crimean peninsula, to Pannonia (present, Hungary). There Ultzindurs recognized the authority of Avar’s Khakan. His name M.Khabibullin gives in the form Balkor, without a reference to the source (8; 97). The leaders of these peoples always took as a title the name of the people Ultzindur. Ultzindur and Ultzingurs were of Hunnish origin.

The fifth son of Kubrat Emnetzur took his subjects Alciagirs, Alcildzurs and Alpidzurs from the Crimean peninsula to Italy, to the region Pentapolis at Ravenna (4; 12). Why there? In the beginning of the 7-th c. a part of Alciagirs, Alcildzurs and Alpidzurs left from Crimea to the Avar’s Pannonia. At the end of the 620's the Crimean Huns-Bulgars participated in the struggle for dominance in Pannonia, but suffered a defeat. Avars were victorious. The Crimethe Bulgars under the leadership of prince Alcek fled to Bavaria. The King of Franks Dagobert at first permitted them to settle there, but then ordered Bavarians to annihilate Bulgars. Of 9 thousand Bulgars only 700 remained, led by Prince Alcek. They fled to Italy and settled inside the limits of the Beneventine Duchy (4; 32). It was them that their kins joined to in the 670's As witnessed by Paul Diacon, the author of the 9-th c. AD, “these Bolgars spoke Latin, but still remembered their language” (4; 32).

Ultzindur, Ultzingurs, Alciagirs, Alcildzurs and Alpidzurs were Crimean Huns-Bulgars. They were called “Saragurs”. In the Bulgarian language the word “Sary” meant “south”. As the Crimethe Bulgars - Huns lived south from the eastern and western Huns-Bulgars, the name Saragurs was appropriate. However, few Huns-Bulgars remained in the Crimean peninsula by the end of the 7-th c. The weakening of Saragurs, i.e. the Crimethe Bulgars, had quite an adverse effect on the position of the Meotithe Bulgars, and on the military-political situation in the Northern Pontic, and the Northern and Eastern Meotia.

Death of Shambat, the departure beyond the limits of Kara-Bulgar of the four brothers, sons of Kubrat, resulted that Bat-Boyan became the sole ruler of the princedom. However, the ethnographical and the military-political situation sharply changed. The eastern and western borders of the main ethnic territory of Bulgar were left bare. The number of Bulgars decreased sharply. Khazars began to strengthen in the lower Itil.

In this situation the Baltavar of Kara-Bulgar Bat-Boyan died in 690 AD. For the next 37 years the throne of Baltavars occupied the senior son of Bat-Boyan Bu-Timer and his grandson Sulabi. Sulabi ruled for 27 years and died in 727. The following significant changes occurred during his rule.

First, he brought to order the overland routes and waterways. They became safe and comfortable.

Secondly, he avidly and fruitfully nurtured the trade within the Kara-Bulgar limits.

Thirdly, he obliged Ulchis (Slavs) to built boats, and called them Subashes.

In the fourth, the territory of Kara-Bulgar was divided into 10 djien districts, and he himself shuttled between them, collecting tribute of furs and produce.

During such trips he held court and appointed the most distinguished boyars as Tarkhans.

Main events: during the rule of Sulabi Anchies became the main support of princely authority. The Anchies emerged as a result of a mixture of Ulchis (Slavs) with some clans of Uruses (an Iranian-speaking people, descendents of Scythians) and Bulgars. The Anchies were freed from all obligations, except for military service. During the time of service they were forbidden to marry (9; 24).

In the following section we shall convey the results that came from the events and changes described above.

Sources and Literature

1.ChichurovI.S. Byzantian historical compositions: Theophan’s “Chronographia”, Nikifor’s “Breviariae”/Texts, translation, comments. M., Science, 1980, 214 pages.

2.Historyof the USSR from most ancient times to our days. Series first. Vol. 1. Primitive society. The most ancient states of Transcaucasia and Central Asia. Ancient Rus. (prior to the beginning of the 13-th c.), M. Science, 1966, 719 pages.

3. Studies of the sources of the USSR history. Vol. 1, M., OGIZ, 1940.

4.ArtamonovM.I. An outline of the most ancient history of Khazars, M, Socekgiz, 1937, 139 pages.

5.Jordanes. The origin and deeds of the Goths. /Translation, comment E.Ch.Skrjinskoi. M, Estern Literature Publishing, 1960, 436 pages.

6.MalyshevA.A. Meotians//Questions of History, 11, 1991, Pages 214 - 217.

7.Materialsfor the history of the USSR for colloquium and practices. Issue 1. The most ancient peoples and states in the territory of the USSR. Study textbook / Assembled by D.Yu. Arapov, A.P. Novoseltsev, O.M. Ralov, editor A.D. Gorsky, M, Vysh. Shk, 1985, 303 pages.

8. Khabibullin M. Khannar tarikhy//Mirac, No 6, 1992, Pages 97 - 106.

9. BakhshiIman. Djafgar tarikhy. Collection of Bulgarian annals. Vol. 1, Orenburg, 1993.

1. What should be accomplished?

It is necessary to attain the following essential facts:

1.1. The creation of the Great Bulgaria state marked a transition of the ancient Bulgarian state to a new phase of development.

1.2. In the 7-th c. the Bulgarian ethnosystem became multi componential.

5. Excerpts from the sources.

5.1 From “Khon kitaby” (“History of Huns”) Kul Gali.

... Some assert that Bulgarian State, Ak Bulgar Yorty, was established by Kurbat’s father Alburi in 605 AD, others that it was established by Bu-Yurgan or Kurbat in 618 AD, third, by Kurbat in 619 AD. I myself read in the “History by Shams” that Alburi established Ulug Bulgar Yorty in 603 AD, and I consider this testimony as the most correct.

Bakhshi Iman “Djafgar tarikhy. Vol. 1, Collection of Bulgarian annals” 1680. Orenburg, 1993. Page 315.

5.2. From “Gazi Bardj tarikhy” (“Annals of Gazi Bardj”).

The Kurbat’s senior son Bat-Boyan shuttled between Djalda and the middle course of Bug-Idel, and one part of his people ascended on the left side of the river, and another on the right...

The younger son of Kurbat Atilkese, by a nickname Asparukh, shuttled between Burdjan and Bekhtash, and Utigs and Murdases also submitted to him. His main quarters were in the city Burdjan in the south of Djurash. He had a big friendship with his uncle Shambat, who was sitting as Ulugbek of Bashtu, surrounded by loyal Bulgarian and Saklanian biis, and Anchian boyars. Kurbat did not like this attachment very much, always suspecting the brother in an inclination for a treason, that’s why Atilkese received most distant ulus from Kyi.

While such a Khakan was alive, the country was quiet. But soon after his death came in 660 AD, Shambat, with the support of Atil - Kese, rallied against the new Khakan Bat-Boyan, with the idea of capturing the throne. For only three years they allowed him to rule more or less quietly, and then begun an open war against him. As Kurbat, before his death, banned Bulgars from fighting against each other, Shambat attacked Kan with Ak-Balynian Ulchis and Saklans-Uruses, and Atilkese attacked Kan with Murdases, Masgits, Türks, and a hired Turkmen detachment.

The war lasted several years. Atilkese managed to defeat the Bat-Boyan’s Sabans, and then he devastated As-Bandja and, together with Shambat, besieged Khakan in Djalda...

Shambat, with the support of Atilkese, besieged Djalda for five years, and was regarded as a Khakan in the other parts of the Saklan-Bulgarian state.

Bakhshi Iman “Djafgar tarikhy. Vol. 1, Collection of Bulgarian annals” 1680. Orenburg, 1993. Page 20.

5.3. From “Khon kitaby” (“History of Huns”) Kul Gali (the book was written in 1242)

Masgut’s senior son Boyan wrote this about the beginning of Bashtu...

It turned out, that right after defeating Tireans at Kan-Dere, Alyp-Biy sent to his father a messenger with the news. Balamir, who his father called Scheke, which meant “a little elbow”, arranged a feast for the occasion, and died during the feast. He was buried on one of the summits of the Kuyantau mountains and it was renamed Scheke. Alyp-Biy, who loved his father, ordered to build there his quarters. The Anchies and captured Tireans built a few houses, under the direction of our foremen, and since then the life in this aul, was called in honor of both kings Schek-Alyp, did not stop...

Then, this aul belonged to Kyr-Kyz or Kharka, or Swan - maiden”, the favorite sister of Attila...

... The father of Attila, Urys, that is “Big Grand”, who also was called Munchak for his for love of grivnas (silver ingots-Translator’s note), was buried also in Schek-Alyp. When the message about the death of Attila came to Schek-Alyp, Kyr-Kyz died from grief... Then Schek-Alyp became the center of Anchian Tarkhanlyk Idel, and the Bek Askal was sent there as an Idelian viceroy. From then Schek-Alyp began to be called Askal. And in 620 in Askal was built, on the orders of Kan Kurbat, a fortress Bashtu... Then the Anchian ulus received a name Urys, as local Bulgars loved to call themselves “Urys” - “Great”, to call Bulgar - “Urys Bulgar”, that is “Great Bulgaria”, and to call Kara Dingez - “Urys Dingez”, which is “Great Sea”, meaning “the Sea belonging to Great Bulgars”. For this reason the Anchies and Tireans, and through Tireans also the Arabs and Khaldjians (Caspian Iranians) also frequently called Bulgars “Uryses”, called Bulgaria “Urys Bulgar”, and called the sea “Urys Dingez”. Only after the separation of the Anchian Ulus or Urys from the Bulgarian state, during the Bek Ugyr time[4], the name “Uruses” stuck to the Anchies and their area.

Source: Bakhshi Iman “Djafgar tarikhy. Vol. 2, Orenburg, 1996. Page 11-112.

Clarifications: So, what is the subject of the story in this fragment from the book of Kul Gali “Khon kitaby” (1242).

First, in the beginning the author tells about a victory of the Huns at Adrianople (Kan - Dere) in 378. Alyp-biy was the senior son of the Hunnish leader Bulümar (or Balamir ), who in 360 (by some sources in 350 AD) crossed Itil, and by the mid of the 70's of the 4-th c., reached the steppes of the Meotida and Northern Pontic.

Bulümar (Balamir) had a nickname Scheke (“little elbow”, “little nail”). After his death he was buried on a mountain Kuyantau, i.e. on the place, where now stands the city of Kiev.

Secondly, in 378 AD on the mountain Kuyantau, near the place of Scheke, i.e. Bulümar, burial, were established Alyp-biy’s headquarters. The construction of houses was conducted under the direction of the Bulgarian foremen from Burdjan, i.e. Northern Dagestan. The Anchies and Tireans did the work. Bulgars called Antes Anchies. To guard the borders of his possessions in this region, Alyp-biy resettled a part of Anchies in the area of the middle course of Dnieper. Bulgars called Greeks - Byzantines Tireans. The houses were arranged in a circle. A permanent settlement of such type was called aul (in Bulgarian ‘aul’ is circle). The aul, built on the Alyp-biy’s orders, was called Schek-Alyp. Later it began to be called Askal. In 620 AD on the place of aul Askal was erected a fortress. As it was built by the order of Kubrat (Kurbat), it began to be called Bashtu (nickname of Kubrat).

Thirdly, the above-mentioned fragment of the book “Khon kitaby” has very valuable information on the origins of the Kievan Rus. Her initial nucleus was the central part of the territory of princedom Duloba, created by Kubrat’s brother Shambat (by a nickname Kyi, i.e. “Seceded”, “Cut off“). Except for the territory of the middle course of Dnieper, the princedom Duloba included a part of Avar’s (Hungary) territory, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Baltics, Austria, and Yugoslavia.

As the independent state, the princedom Duloba existed from 623 to 658 AD. From 658 to 668 the central part of the former princedom Duloba was a Bashtu ulus of the Great Bulgaria (i.e. Urus Bulgar), and from 668 to 859 of Kara-Bulgar (i.e. Western Bulgaria).

During the rule of the prince Igor (912 - 945 AD), to the Bashtu (Anchian) ulus has already stuck the name Rus, and to her inhabitants the name Uruses, i.e. Ruses (in Bulgarian the word “Urus” meant “Great”, from here comes “Velikorosses”, [Russian ‘Great Rosses’ -Translator’s note] ).

8. Questions and answers

The virtual travel across the open spaces of Eurasia in search of the traces left by the most ancient ancestors of Bulgars, and the Bulgars themselves, at an early stage of their development into an ethnosystem on the face of the Earth, and in the historical memory of the peoples, is finished. The search turned out to be very complicated, but extremely important and necessary for the deep comprehension of the uniqueness of the ethnogenesis of Bulgars and their subsequent history. We do impose the results, achieved during the search, as the solitary correct. It is well known that the history by its nature is a subject of a constant re-evaluation. Therefore, in the illumination of the multi millennium creation history of the ancient Bulgarian ethnosystem, the pluralism of opinions is not only inevitable, but also necessary. The coexistence of the different interpretations of the same realities of the past epochs is natural. Nevertheless, the disputes on some aspects of the view of the past, apparently, will be continuous and sharp. There is presented to your attention the author's interpretation of the quandaries of the ancient Bulgars’ ethnogenesis. The knowledge of the basic components is reinforced in the format of questions and answers for this concept.

1. In what historical-geographical regions appeared the initial history of the most ancient ancestors of Bulgars?

The most ancient ancestors of Bulgars appeared and formed into a tribal level in two widely separated origin centers of the world civilization, namely: Itil-Uralian and Mesopotamian historical - geographical regions.

2. What was the name of the ancestors of ancient Bulgars? The most ancient ancestors of Bulgars ware called Imens and Sinds.

3. Where was an ancestral home of Sinds and Imens?An ancestral home of Sinds was the territory between Itil and Ural mountains, and also the present Turanian lowland. An ancestral home of Imens was Mesopotamia.

4. To what group of peoples were related Sinds and Imens?Sinds were related to Indo-Iranian peoples, and Imens to Mandjurian peoples.

5. Who did Sinds and Imens believe were their progenitors? Sinds believed that their progenitor was born from the spirit of the moon in an image of the wolf. Imens believed that their progenitor was an eternally traveling bogatyr - knight Khishdek.

6. What the word “Bulgars” meant originally?The word “Bulgars” appeared, apparently, at the end of the fourth and in the beginning of the third millennium BC in Sumer (Sumer, Samar), and it was a general name of the military estate prevailing in the Sumerian society.

7. What can be a key concept in explanation of the uniqueness of the ethnogenesis of Bulgars?

A scientific tool, most helpful for describing the ancient Bulgarian ethnos’ forming process, is the concept of “ethnosystem”.

8. When and in what territory was first formed an ancient Bulgarian state, the Altynoba princedom?

The Altynoba princedom (Golden Stan) was formed in 455 AD in the lower course of Dnieper and in the steppe part of Crimea.

9. Who was the founder of the Altynoba princedom?

The founder of the Altynoba princedom was Bel-Kermek, the son of Attila.

10. What other states, except for Altynoba, were created by Bulgars before the appearance of Itil Bulgaria?

Authentic Bulgars, i.e. the direct descendents of the Sumerian soldiers, created, along with the Altynoba princedom, the following states:

10.1. Princedom Kara Bulgar (Western Bulgaria): it appeared in the end of the 5-th - beginning of the 6-th cc. AD, based on the former Altynoba princedom, and occupied the territory between istmuthes of Dnieper and Danube, and also the steppe part of Crimea.

10.2. Princedom Duloba: it appeared in the 620's AD in the middle course of Dnieper with the centre in Bashtu (the place of future Kiev), located on the mountain (hills) Kuyan Tau (translation: the mountain, on which a trade is done; Kuyan - the Bulgarian name of the spirit of trade, patron of trade; and Tau is a mountain).

10.2. Princedom Burdjan: emerged in the Northern Dagestan. It was called Ak Bulgar.

10.3. Great Bulgaria empire:it started to solidify in 618 - 619 AD out of the princedom Kara Bulgar; it gradually absorbed Duloba and Burdjan, and also the princedom Bulyar in the Itil basin. Its territory reached from Yaik (Ural river) to the lower course of Danube.

10.4.Who was the founder of Great Bulgaria?

In the Armenian, Byzantian, Latin, and Arabian historical sources his name is given in the most various forms: Kuvarog, Khudbard, Khubrat, Krovat, Kuvrat. The Türkic form of his name is Kobrat (Collector). The Russian literature givs the form Kubrat. Bulgars called him Kurbat.

He was from a Dulo clan. In a childhood he was taken to Constantinople as a hostage. The Byzantian historian Ionn Nikiuss (7-th c.) attests that he was baptized. Kurbat was educated at the court of the Byzantian emperor Heraclius (610 - 641 AD).

11. What principles were initially followed in forming the concept of the Tatar people’s history?

We consider the problem of the historical roots of Bulgars as an organic part in the concept of the history of Tatar people. In its review we sought to observe, as much as possible, the following principles.

11.1.Respect to the history of all peoples and their culture, without exception.

In the ethnogenesis of the ancient Bulgars participated many clans and tribes. Studying their ethnic history, we emphasized not only their origin and historical destiny, but also investigated the uniqueness of their culture.

11.2.Care in the selection of historical facts and their interpretation.

In the conditions of methodological uncertainty, and recognizing the legitimacy of differing interpretations of the historical facts and affairs, we sought to combine a study of the facts with generalizations and with “revealing a definite regularity in the diversity of the past” (V.P. Dmitrienko).

11.3. “Humanizing” the history of the Bulgars’ ancestors.

It is well known: it is the people who participate in the historical process, not some concepts, or abstractions, carrying only functions of scientific tools (A.Ya. Gurevitch, D.E. Kharitonovitch). Therefore, we paid ample attention describing the ways of life for the people of the past epochs.

(Were used ideas, contained in the article “Materials for discussion about a new concept in teaching the history // Teaching history in school. No 4, 1993. Pages 68 - 72).

Other principles of building the concept of the history of Tatar people will be described in the subsequent sections.