Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
|Origin of Türks-Contents · Introduction · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Fifth chapter · ORIGIN OF TATARS|
|Part 2 - ORIGIN OF TATARS · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Conclusion · Name and Ethnic Index · Literature|
Page numbers, where shown, indicate pages in the book publication. The offered copy of the printed edition may contain typos and misspellings, for which I apologize and intend to correct them with time.
The spelling of the Greek-based quasi-Cyrillic-Tatar letters, occasionally used by the author to signify a Türkic phonetics inexpressible by the mandated Cyrillics, is transcribed from the quasi-Cyrillic to English, with the following conventions:
84. General information.
The semantics of the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars includes Bulgarian people in two periods of their development: the period of the ethnonym Bulgars, and of the ethnonym Tatars.
The Bulgarian people formed by consolidation of various local and to some extent immigrant Türkic and Türkicized tribes in the Itil Bulgarian state in the 9th-10th centuries AD. For us these are actually Bulgars, even wider the Bulgaro-Tatars.
We call ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars all those basically Türkic tribes which lived in the Ural-Itil region and Western Siberia before the formation of the Bulgarian people, even the tribes that were carrying since most ancient times an ethnonym Bulgars, but who did not yet consolidate in one nation. In this chapter we shall try to sort out the ancestors of the Bulgarian people who were carrying completely different ethnonyms and also the ethnonym Bulgars (in science: Early Bulgars).
But before addressing this question, we shall once again remind the readers of a lane of thought of the Bulgarists and Tataro-Tatarists.
Below we shall see that the Bulgarists begin the ethnogenesis of the Bulgars with a description only the Bulgars, and in structure of the modern Bulgaro-Tatars they try to distinguish the Bulgars who represent the continuation of the Bulgarian people, and the Tatars who ostensibly are a continuation of the remains of the Mongolo-Tatar conquerors and service Tatars in the Russian state.
The Tataro-Tatarists, identifying the modern ethnos Tatars and the ethnonym Tatars, begin the ethnogenesis of the Tatars from the ancient Central-Asian Mongoloid tribes who carried the ethnonym Tatars. Denying the period of the Bulgarian people, they deduce the modern Tatars from the ancient Tatars and the Mongolo-Tatar newcomers. Our modern Tataro-Tatarists, only from the fact of a similarity of the ethnonym for the Mongolo-Tatars, and the modern Bulgaro-Tatars, Crimean and Dobrudja Tatars, render all of them as the same Tatar people. The Tatars, who were the northern neighbors of Chinese living still before our era, the Tatars who were the inhabitants of the Mongolia and Middle Asia recorded in the Orhono-Yenisei monuments, the Tatars in the Yenisei and Middle Asian Kimaks (Ancient Tatars), the Tatars who at first fought against the rise of the tribe of the Chingiz-Khan father, and who then made the avant-garde of the Chingizids (Mongolo-Tatars) armies, were all basically Mongoloids. If the Crimean, Dobrudja Tatars and Bulgaro-Tatars were the direct descendants of these Tatars, they would anthropologically belong to the Mongoloid race. But the Bulgaro-Tatars, and the Crimean Tatars, and the Dobrudja Tatars are basically Caucasoids.
Besides, it is necessary to remember also that if the Crimean Tatars, Dobrudja Tatars and Bulgaro-Tatars were the descendants of the eastern Tatars, who ostensibly came together with Mongolo-Tatar conquerors, they would talk in the eastern Türkic language which is close to the Altai, Khakass, and Tuva languages. But all modern Tatars speak in the Türkic language spread from time immemorial in the Eastern Europe.
Hence, all modern Tatars are not the descendants of the eastern Tatars, who ostensibly came to Europe with the Mongolo-Tatar conquerors. In fact these newcomer Tatars, because of their small number, were very quickly dissolved among the local Türks. But from the name of the Djuchi Ulus state, the Tatar state, remained the name Tatars, which was then accepted by the Crimean, Dobrudjian Türks, and the Bulgaro-Türks.
From the results of the newest objective research it becomes clear that "in the Crimea itself, the descendants of the Taures, Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, Khazar, Bulgars, Magyar, Besenyos (Badjinaks), and Kypchaks went through a process of some mixing and some adoption of the cultures and customs of each other, which facilitated their peaceful co-existence and which resulted in a creation of a joint nation. In this joint nation the tribes constituting it have partly lost their initial names... Subsequently even the Mongolian (Tatar) clans, who joined this mass, lost their language, and Turkicised" [Sevdijar Mamet, 1997, 539].
The Dobrudja Tatars are basically the descendants of the immigrants from the Crimea, who intermixed with the local Türkic-speaking tribes.
The Bulgaro-Tatars, not being the newcomers from the east, formed by consolidation of the local Türkic-speaking tribes, who in the Bulgarian state adopted a common ethnonym Bulgars. In this connection should be stated the opinion of some historians that considering the Bulgaro-Tatars as the descendants of the Bulgars would ostensibly mean a recognition of a concept of a single-root origin of the Tatars; to recognize Tatars as the descendants of the Altyn Orda Tatars would ostensibly reflect the concept of a multi-root origin.
The so-called single-root origin of any people by an increase in a number of a single tribe does not exist at all. The clans and tribes even in extreme antiquity had understood that physical and biological mixture of tribes is needed for a biological survival, therefore no tribe was never in a pure state. If that happened sometimes, these tribes over some generations went to a brink of biological disappearance.
A different matter is with an ethnonym. Among the multitude of the tribes that lived in the same territory, one was always raised to the leadership, and all other tribes themselves, and especially from the outside, were called by the ethnonym of the leading tribe.
That also happened with the Bulgars. Among the Suvars, Ases, Süns (Huns), Alans, Bardys, Kangars, Suases, etc. a prevailing position was occupied by the Bulgars, and these tribes gradually adopted the ethnonym Bulgars as a common name. So the origin of the Tatars from the Bulgars cannot be considered as a single-root origin of the Tatars in any way, it is in fact a multi-root origin.
As to the formation of the Tatars during the Kipchak Khanate in the consolidation of its population, it should be noted that is its next stage in the Bulgarian roots of the Tatars. In those regions of the Kipchak Khanate which where in the possession of the earlier Bulgarian state, lived the same local tribes which had a general name of the Bulgars. Only in their later development was forming the people into which by different roundabout ways has penetrated the ethnonym Tatars.
In other regions of the Kipchak Khanate, where earlier lived the ancestors of the Kazakhs and Uzbeks, was formed not the Tatar people, but the Uzbek and Kazakh people. Therefore it would be wrong to state that the Bulgaro-Tatar people was formed only in the Kipchak Khanate. The main ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars were the local Türkic tribes that have received in the Bulgarian state a common ethnonym Bulgars, and they, despite of the loss of their state, in morst difficult conditions fought to preserve the consolidating Bulgarian character, and they survived the disintegration of the Kipchak Khanate, the fall of the Kazan, Siberian, Astrakhan, Kasimov Khanates, they again re-consolidated into a Bulgarian nation in the Russian state, but by a twist of a fate they received the ethnonym of their initial enemy.
85. Whose ancestors were Bulgars: of the Chuvashes or of the Tatars?
Before discussing the ancestors of the Bulgars, what is the Bulgars should be understood. As was stated in the introduction for this part of the book, some count the Bulgars as the direct ancestors of the Chuvashes, the others as the direct ancestors of the Tatars, the third as both Chuvashes and Tatars. If the Bulgars were not the ancestors of the Tatars, if they have no relation to the origin of the Tatars, is is senseless to discuss in this book the ancestors of the Bulgars, and the Bulgars themselves. Therefore in this paragraph we decided to show that the Bulgars were the ancestors first of all of the Tatars, from there come both the common name, and a common ethnogenesis of our people: Bulgaro-Tatars.
As to the emergence and acceptance in the world (i.e. in the Russian-dominated world - Translator's Note) Türkology of the Bulgaro-Chuvash concept, below in a special section we shall demonstrate the history of its emergence and transformation into some kind of an axiom. Here we only generally review the problem.
The Bulgaro-Chuvash concept stands only on the linguistical data. By mistake, the conventional wisdom is that the Itil Bulgars spoke not a common Türkic language, but an Ancient Chuvash. As the language is one of the main criteria for a national ancestry of a people, The Chuvashes were considered as the descendants of the Bulgars.
From a skewed analysis of the language, many Türkologists, including N.A.Baskakov, conclude that the Chuvashes are "one of the branchings of the ancient Bulgarian people", that preserved "till now the features of that language characterized by the Bulgarian distinctiveness". According with this conclusion in the classification of the Türkic languages the Chuvash is classed as a "Bulgarian group of languages" where, in the opinion of Baskakov, "belong the Bulgarian and Khazarian ancient languages, and the modern Chuvash language" [Baskakov N.A., 1969, 11, 231].
However the review of these conclusions inevitably brings puzzling questions. First, why the Bulgarian origin of the Chuvashes is evidenced by the linguistic data only? Why the data of anthropology, archeology or ethnology do not show it? How to explain such a striking contradiction between the data of different sciences? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions, although they do exist [Zakiev M.Z., 1977, 116-150], still did not become the knowledge of the general Türkology.
The Bulgaro-Chuvash theory is also saturated with many other contradictions. In the beginning we present these contradictions to a reader.
Discussing the main contradictions of that ethnolinguistic theory, we come from the following theoretical postulates. A history of a language and an origin of its carrier are not identical phenomena, therefore to equate them is impossible. However, it should not be forgotten that other extreme in a science is not less dangerous: separation of the history of a language from the history of its carrier. Between them is a strongly expressed interrelation: though the history of a language and a history of its carrier are not same, but without the history of a people as a whole is no history of its language, and on the contrary, without the history of a language is impossible to present fully the history of its carrier. For this reason any ethnogenetical theory should have not only only the linguistic, but also anthropological, ethnographic, archeological, i.e. ethno-historical confirmation as a whole. This means that the resolution of the ethnogenetical problems should be based not on the isolated, anecdotal data, but from its concordance. Only such a complex approach allows representing the historical reality objectively. Otherwise the history is a forgery.
From this viewpoint we try to provide a concise answer to the question: is the Bulgaro-Chuvash theory confirmed from different aspects, i.e. a combination of the data, or it is fraught with contradictions?
1. Physical anthropology.
If the Chuvashes were formed predominantly of the Itil region Bulgars, if the Bulgarian language has historically transferred to the Chuvash language, this continuity certainly would be visible, first of all, in the anthropological type of the Bulgars and Chuvashes. But, the specific craniological research yielded completely opposite results. "Even the superficial morphological description shows, writes V.P.Alekseev, that craniologically the Chuvashes are similar to their Finnish-speaking neighbors and hence, that their anthropological type was formed with a high degree participation of that combination of attributes which is characteristic for the Finnish-speaking peoples of the Itil region, and which has received a name Sub-Ural" [Alekseev V.P., 1971, 248]. The second clearly expressed component in the anthropological type of the Chuvashes is the Kypchak type. The Chuvashes, in V.P.Alekseev's words, go physically back to the Kypchaks in the greater measure than the Tatars. As for the characteristics of the Bulgar complex of attributes, in the Chuvashes it is not found [Ibid, 249], this Bulgarian complex of attributes made a foundation in the formation of the Tatars' anthropological type in the Itil region. Over it superimposed the low-face Mongoloid component which represent one of the variations of the Sub-Ural type, and the high-faced Mongoloid type connected, apparently, with the Kypchaks [Ibid, 241-246]. Hence, according to craniology, the historical continuity between the Bulgars and Tatars is more obvious, than between the Bulgars and Chuvashes (Except for Bulgars/Tatars/Chuvashes relative kinship, the value of the Russian august anthropological guru V.P.Alekseev opinion is not any better than tea leaf reading, since there is no more definition of what is "Kypchak type" than "American" or "African" or even a "Luxemburg" type. Unfortunately, in many cases this version of quasi-science serves as a foundation of our scientific notions - Translator's Note).
The Bulgaro-Chuvash theory is not also supported ethnologically. The known ethnographers N.I.Vorobjev and K.I.Kozlova note that ethnologic features of the Bulgars were mostly preserved first of all among the Tatars [Vorobjev N.I., 1948, 80; Kozlova K.I., 1964, 20-21]. So, for example, the Bulgars had an advanced tanning and trade in leather goods peculiar to them, later that was transferred to the Tatars, but between Chuvashes any spread of these crafts and occupations was not noted.
The culture of literacy from the Bulgars was passed on to the Tatars, and the Chuvashes did not have such culture until 19th century. The same can be said about the Moslem religion. No traces of the Bulgars were preserved in neither the mythology, nor in the Chuvash folklore, and in the mythology and folklore of the Tatars, the Bulgarian thematics is a norm [Boryngy, 1963, 17-51].
The Chuvashes never called themselves Bulgars, and the Tatars believe that their villages are founded by the natives of the Bulgar, that their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were Bulgars, and frequently up until the 20th century they called themselves Bulgars in a counterpoise to the name of Tatars, which was imposed from three sides: from the Mishars-Tatars who joined the population of the Kazan Khanate, from the Russians who called almost of all their eastern neighbors Tatars, and by those who with the name Tatars wanted to show their greatness. That Tatars almost till the 20th century persistently called themselves Bulgars has nothing to do with politics. Nobody taught this to the people, in fact there were no history textbooks (neither they are today for Bulgaro-Tatars, yet - Translator's Note), nor instructional manuals, in the medrese then neither native language, nor the history of the people were taught, they were limited to training in the Arabian, Persian or Turkish languages and a general Muslim history. The (Russian state - Translator's Note) official propagation was deeply interested in spreading the ethnonym Tatars. Hence, the memory that the Tatars are mostly former Bulgars preserved in the collective memory of people. Unfortunately, this fact and other evidence that in the foundation of the ethnic framework and the language of the Tatars lay the Bulgarian component and Bulgarian language, in the past were disregarded at all by the supporters of the Bulgaro-Chuvash theory, and now they also keep ignoring them.
The Bulgaro-Chuvash theory is false territorially-wise too. The archeological excavations show that in the Chuvash territory are absent the Bulgarian archeological monuments from both pre-Mongolian, and the Altyn Orda times, except for the eastern and southeastern part of Chuvashia in the vicinity of the basin of the Sviyaga river [Fahrutdinov R.G., 1975, 86]. This conflict could be resolved by assuming that the ancestors of the Chuvashes initially lived in the territory of the Bulgarian state, then somebody, for example Mongolo-Tatars, pushed them into the Chuvash region, as some idea is floated. However, the history has no such facts.
It is possible to take one more fact. If the ancestors of the modern Chuvashes had a close relation with the Bulgars, they would necessarily inherit the statehood from them. There are no reasons to think that the ancestors of the modern Chuvash people in their social development were once at a level of creation a state, and that then they abandoned such form of a political organization. The history, apparently, has no case when an ethnic collective had a state, formed as a nation, and eventually lost it all. Hence, the ancestors of the Chuvashes clearly did not have their statehood, and they had no close relation with Bulgars. The Bulgarian state grew into the Kazan state, and the Tatars inherited the statehood from the Bulgars.
As is known, the Bulgaro-Chuvash concept arose and developed solely as a linguistic hypothesis. However in this respect it is also very inconsistent. So, Mahmud Kashgarly in the 11th century noted the affinity of the Bulgarian, Suvarian and Besenyo (Badjanak) languages [Kashgarly Ì., 1992, vol. 1, 30]. As is known, the Besenyo (Badjanak) language was not characterized by the Chuvash attributes, but was the language of the Oguzo-Kypchak type. M.Kashgarly, noting the affinity of the Bulgarian, Suvarian and Kypchak languages, writes that "the sound [d], present in the language of Chigils and other Türkic tribes, in language of Kypchaks, Yamaks, Suvars, Bulgars and other tribes spread up to the Romans (i.e. Byzantium - Translator's Note) and Ruses, is replaced with the sound [z]" [Kashgarly Ì., 1992, vol. 1, 32]. Besides that here the languages of the Kypchaks, Yamaks, Suvars and Bulgars are listed as identical in respect to the this feature, one more observation of that message is noteworthy: here the so-called rotacism, which is characteristic for the Chuvash language, is not noted. The observation pertains only to the interchangeability of d-z, which till now is observed in the Türkic languages of the usual Oguzo-Kypchak type. Hence, probably the Bulgarian language did not have rotacism. If it can be observed in the language of the Bulgarian epitaphs of the 2nd style, it can be explained by the influence of the language of the Chuvash ancestors on the language of the Bulgarian epitaphs, i.e. that the Bulgarian epitaphs of the 2nd style were written by the Moslem Chuvashes who were in a process of assimilation into Bulgars.
We shall cite one more testament of the Bulgars' contemporary. In the 1183 the Vladimir prince Vsevolod before his campaign against Bulgar notified the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav: "I do not want to call on the Kypchaks, for they are with Bulgars of the same language and clan" [Tatishchev V.N., 1964, vol. III, 128]. Thus, there are two authentic records in the history (Kashgarly and Vsevolod) about the affinity of the Bulgarian language with the Besenyo (Badjanak) and Kypchak languages. Besides it should be remarked that these two records, independent of each other territorially, do coincide.
9. Balkar linguistic affinity
It is impossible to also ignore the following. How can be explained that the modern Tatars and Bashkirs on the one hand, and the Balkars on another hand, have almost the same language, at least they understand each other well. In fact, after the 7th century, i.e. after the division of their common ancestors into three groups, the Balkars and Bulgaro-Tatars had no territorial or economic relations (unfortunately, we do not have Swadesh data for Balkar/Tatar languages, it would be a good calibration point - Translator's Note). From the viewpoint of the Bulgaro-Chuvash concept this could be explained like this: their Bulgar common ancestors were "Chuvash" speaking, and the languages of the Tatars and Balkarians grew similar under the influence of the Kypchaks. However, as was stated above, between the Tatars was only an insignificant number of Kypchaks, and the Balkars under pressure of he Khazar went into the mountains and gorges, and could hardly communicate there with Kypchaks so closely as to assimilate linguistically. That the languages of the Tatars and Balkarians are so close with each other tells, obviously, about the commonality of their historical roots, which are going back to the Bulgarian language.
10. Historical traces
Further, if the Bulgarian and Khazarian languages were Chuvashe-Türkic, then the remarkable traces of them would remain in all the huge territory occupied once by the Huns, Bulgars and Khazars. Moreover, even assuming that in the extreme antiquity they spoke a Chuvashe-Türkic language, still during a centenary domination of them by the Türks of the Türkic Kaganate (the 6th-7th centuries), their language would have had been influenced by the Oguzo-Kypchak type language.
11. Traces of palatalization
Finally, if the Bulgars were speaking a Chuvash-like language, they would have their self-name pronounced Palhar, which would also be recorded in the historical sources. But the history does not have such a phenomenon. Widespread was the ethnonym Bulgar (Bolgar'), which is typical for the language of the common Türkic type.
The Bulgaro-Chuvash linguistic theory, unsoundly applied also to the ethnic history as a whole, rests only on the presence of some Chuvash linguistic attributes in selected materials. It should be noted that the supporters of the Bulgaro-Chuvash concept compare these materials only with the Chuvash language, torn separate from the other neighboring Türkic languages. An inclusion of the other Türkic languages in the orbit of comparison, especially of the Tatar and Bashkir dialects, changes the picture not in favor of the Bulgaro-Chuvash concept.
Thus, already in a cursory review the Bulgaro-Chuvash theory does not sustain any criticism and turns out to be insolvent. Hence, the Bulgars, i.e. the local Türkic tribes which received a common ethnonym Bulgars, were the ancestors of the modern Tatars. Therefore it is logical to state in this chapter the known facts about the ancestors of the Bulgars.
86. The ancestors of the Bulgarian people are local Subars, Kumans and others.
The analysis of the ancestral home of the Türks have shown (see para. 13) that the Ural-Itil region, where were formed the Bulgarian people, from the most ancient times was populated with the Türkic tribes. From from the linguistic and archeological data, K.T.Laypanov and I.M.Miziev regard the Ural-Itil region as the ancestral home of the Türks. In the conclusion of their special research they assert that "the most ancient history of the pra-Türkic or proto-Altaian tribes begins with the emergence of the Kurgan culture with the complete complex of its specifics. From that time on we can speak about the formed character of their economy, culture and language. All this allows to reconsider the question of the most ancient ancestral home of the Türkic tribes in favor of the Itil-Ural region. There, at the end of the 4th millennium BC appeared the first kurgans whereas in the Altai the compendiumeologists do not find the ancient sources of the ethnocultural features of the Türkic peoples neither during the Bronze epoch, nor during the Neolith epoch" [Laypanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 28]. And the authors also note that it is impossible to disclaim a presence of some ancient proto-Türkic ethnoses in the Middle Asia before the arrival there of a great mass of the pra-Türks from the Itil-Ural area.
From the stated above and from the conclusions of other studies it becomes obvious that the statement of the traditional historical science about a Türkization of the the Ural-Itil region in the 7th century AD ostensibly with the arrival there of the first Türks from the west represented by the Bulgars does not match the reality. Actually, in this region still long before our era lived (probably that alongside with the others) Türkic tribes. But, unfortunately, we cannot analyze the written sources, for they simply do not exist for this region. Therefore we turn to the other regions, which have the written sources and which have been very closely connected with the Ural-Itil region. These regions are the Near East and Middle Asia.
Summarizing the research of the Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Urartian sources, scientists have established that in the Near East in the headwaters of the river Tiger between Assyria and Urartu in the 4th-3rd millenniums BC lived Subars (Sub-ar ‘River People’). Just a little downstream were also noted the Türkic-speaking Kumans, then the Türkic-speaking Guties, Lulus, Turuks, Kumugs, Kashgays, Gügérs, Salurs, etc. [Firidun Agasyoglu, 2000, 41-66, 156-162]. Hence, the established opinion that the Türks ostensibly came for the first time to Near East only in the 11th century AD does not match the reality, just those Türkic tribes who happened to be recorded in the historical sources totaled there about 10. But the biggest and prevailing among them were Subars. The region to the south of Bagdad was called Kienkir (Kankar/Kangar), to the north - Subartu. (For Kangar's history click here - Translator's Note)
In the Kienkir (Kangar) lived Sumerians and Akkadians. The Sumerians called themselves by the ethnonym Kangar, but the Akkadians called them Sumers (Shumers), borrowing this word from the Subars: the ethnonym Subar was pronounced as Sumar, from there came Sumer/Shumer.
The Subars, as the most ancient Türkic tribes, during several millenniums spread into many regions, and in different linguistic environments the ethnonym Subar had many phonetic variations: Subar/Suar/Sumer/Shumer/Sabir/Savir/Samar/Sibir, etc.
Our traditional historical science also notes the presence in the antiquity of the Suvars/Suars in the Middle Itil region: there is a fortress Suvar. There is a suggestion that that city was built in the 9th-10th centuries AD in days of the rise of the Bulgars. Now there is a reason to search for the earlier traces of the Suvar. One of the influents of Itil is called Samara, from it came the name of the locality, and then the city of Samara. The city of Samarra is also observed on the banks of the Tiger in the 4th millennium BC [Zablotska Þ., 1989, 25]. In the general opinion of the historians, the word Siberia also historically goes back to the ethnonym Sabir. In the Perm area by the Kama river basin is the city Kungur: this name historically goes back to the ethnonym Kangar which was also the self-name of the Sumers/Shumers.
Hence, the ethnonym Subar and its phonetic variations have been disseminated in the Ural-Itil region, and in the Siberia. But there is a serious question: where they formed earlier, from where and to where did they migrate? In the K.T.Laypanov and I.M.Miziev opinion, who think that the Türks had their ancestral home in the Ural-Itil region, the first Türks migrated from the Ural-Itil region to other regions, including to the Middle East and Middle Asia. In our opinion, for now this question remains unsettled, for there are no written sources, and archeologically it has not been yet investigated.
It is reasonable to think that the Subars lived in the Near East, and in the Caucasus, and in the Ural-Itil region, and in the Western Siberia, and in the regions of the Northern Pontic (in the Ukraine there is also a small river Samara), and in the Middle Asia, etc. The Near East was connected with the Ural-Itil region by the Caspian Sea, then by the river Itil, and with the Western Siberia it was connected by the rivers Yaik-Miass-Tobol-Irtysh-Ob, and also by the rivers Itil-Kama-White-Miass-Tobol-Irtysh-Ob. The movement of the Sabirs was also promoted by the early trade between the West and the East. From the ancient Greek sources we know that Sabirs showed a interest to the Near East, Middle Asia, China and India. The first trade roads, naturally, were big navigable rivers.
There is no doubt that between the Near East, the Ural-Itil region, the Western Siberia and other regions together with Subars were also migrating the Kumans, and Kumugs, and Turuks, etc. Among them the Kumans have left their traces in the Western Europe also (in the 1st millennium BC in the north of the Apennine peninsula was a city Kum, in Hungary is the city Kuman, in Macedonia is the city Kumanovo). The Türkic tribes of Kumans, Kumandy we find also in the Southern Siberia. The Northern Pontic, Caucasus, Ural-Itil region, Western Siberia, Middle and Central Asia were not exceptions in this respect, there also have been spread the Türkic tribes of Kumans/Kypchaks/Saragurs/Polovetses/Flavens/Kharteshes, etc.
Thus, the ancient Türkic tribes Subars, Kumans, etc. took part in the formation of many (almost all) Türkic-speaking peoples, they also were included in the Bulgarian people, being their pre-Bulgarian ancestors.
87. The ancestors of the Bulgarian people are local Huarasmis (Suars and Ases), Huns.
The Huarasm/Horasm is the former name of the Kwarezmians (Horezm-ians, Khoresm-ians etc. - Translator's Note). For a long time they lived subjugated by the Persian-lingual Achaemenids (i.e. reputed Persian-lingual in today's IE-centric science, in spite of their official Semitic language - Translator's Note), whose state in the 6th century BC became the center of a huge empire from Indus river to the Aegean sea. Therefore the Horasmies were attributed as Persian-lingual people, who were ostensibly Türkicized only after the 4th century AD, as a result of the arrival of the so-called Türkic nomads.
We attempted to prove that the Horasmies from the very beginning were Türkic-speaking.
First, S.P.Tolstov in his work "Ancient Khorezm" (Ì., 1948) identifies Horasmies with the Kangha people of the Avesta, and with Kangüy of the Chinese sources. In the word Kangha, the -ha is the Persian plural affix, and in the word Kangüy, -üy is the Chinese indicator; the root of these ethnonyms, kang is an ancient Türkic word with a meaning 'primogenitor'. The Türkic word Kangar consists of the roots kang and ar ‘people, men’, the Kangar are 'tribes-primogenitors', it was the ethnonym of the most ancient Türks and a self-name of the Sumers.
Secondly, the proof of the Türkic-speaking Horasmies is that the first part of the ethnonym Huarasm coincides with the ethnonym Suar (Subar), here usually Türkic [s], is pronounced like in Bashkir said [h] (kh). Hence, the Khuarases are the extention of the Near Eastern Suars/Subars.
Thirdly, the second part of the ethnonym Huarasm consists of a Türkic ethnonym As. The Ases in the Middle Asia became a component of the Khuarases, and in the Ural-Itil region of the Bulgars. They joined the Bulgar composition in a not intermixed state, as Ases, and in the transformed state as Suases and Burtases. Next to Horasmians the Ases have also formed Augases (Aug-As), Asians, and much later in the Ural-Itil region they were a main component of the Nogays, etc.
Fourthly, the Türkic affix -m in the end, affix of belonging in the singular personal case: Huarasym/Huarasm means ‘My Khuaras’, this word acted as a name for the country, and then started to be used as a secondary ethnonym (similar phenomenon is very explicitely present in English, where instead of "I wrote book" the proper form is "I wrote my book", i.e. the book I wrote is "my book", etc - Translator's Note). Türks name with an affix of belonging the settlements and countries: Huarasm, Biarm, Bardym, Kyrym, etc.
As was recognized by S.P.Tolstov's, the Kwarezmians created a strong state in beginning of the 1st millennium BC, i.e. long before the Persian Ahaemenids, and this Horezmian state succeded, "after a century and a half of Ahaemenid domination, to restore their political independence with their own forces at the beginning of the 4th century BC, to run an independent policy in relation to Alexander during the whole period from the Macedonian conquest to the fall of the Greko-Baktrian kingdom, preserving their role of a base for the struggle for independence of the Middle Asian peoples" [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 342]. It rendered a positive influence for the creation of the Parthian (Pardymian), and Kuman empires. The hegemony of the Khoresm is recognized by the Avars (Aorses), by the Northern Caspian and N. Caucasia Alans. "On ancient, blazed still in the Neolith (8th-3rd millenniums BC - M.Z.) roads, Khoresm extends its hegemony to the distant Kama area, collecting a tribute of furs from the "ari" people, the remote ancestors of the Udmurts" [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 342]. Here it should be noted that now the Bulgaro-Tatars call Udmurts with the exoethnonym "ar/ir", in an antiquity the word ar/ir was an endoethnonym of the Türkic tribes (in other words, the "ar/ir" is a common Türkic exoethnonym for Udmurts and respectively other Eastern European Finns. This Türkic term, recorded in the Arabic, Persian, Türkic and western literature, was thorough and exhaustively misrepresented in the near-scientific speculations - Translator's Note). It it should be noted that the close links of the Horasmis/Kwarezmians with the Kama area and the Itil region is proved by many historical facts (see para. 114). This connection has also left its trace in that like the Huarasmies, like the Bashkirs of the Ural-Itil region too, instead of the common Türkic [s] pronounced [h]: not su, but hu 'water'. As a result of such close interaction a part of Horasmis settled in the Ural-Itil region, and a part of the Itil region Türks settled in the Middle Asia.
The phenomenon of transition [s] into [h] is also conspicuous the pronunciation of the ethnonym Hun/Sün: in the Middle Asia some Türkic tribes including Khuarases, and in the Ural-Itil region Bashkirs pronounced Hun, and other Türkic peoples pronounced Sun, Bulgaro-Tatars pronounced it Sün.
The Suns (Huns) lived in the Ural-Itil region long before our era, their traces were preserved in the hydronyms. After a long application the ethnonym Sun (Sün) and the hydronym Sun (Sün) adopted various phonetic variations. The F.G.Garipova's research resulted in conclusion that the hydronym Sün has forms Sün (Sun ), Shün/Üshen (Shun/Ushun), Üsén, and they became names of various water objects and settlements [Garipova F.G., 1995, 243-247].
Thus, Khuarases (the ancient Kwarezmians), Süns (Huns) also lived in the Ural-Itil region, and that their part became a component of the Bulgarian people in the Itil-Bulgarian state.
88. The ancestors of the Bulgarian people appeared also local Skl, Barsuly and Pardys.
The Arabo-Persian travelers repeatedly noted that Bulgars consists of b.r.sula, s'k'l' and blkar. Once, we were deciphering the ethnonym Brsula as like this: b.r. from the word ber 'one', sula from the word suly, thus ber suly is ‘having one river’. Should not be also not excluded another etymology: b.r. from the word bar ‘have, rich’, thus ber suly is ‘having rich river’. The affix -ly in the ancient Türkic language, and in some modern Türkic languages, has a variation -dy/ty. The use of this affix makes the ethnonym Barsuly to take forms Barsudy/Barsuty/Barsut; apparently, this word was preserved in the toponym Bersut from the form Barsuty , i.e. ‘having rich river’.
It should be noted in respect to the ethnonym Blkar that the Blkars were a leading component of the multi-compound Bulgarian people.
The component skl, in our opinion, historically goes back to the ethnonym skidy (Russ. pronunciation Skif). The word s'k'l' was was in its full form as sakaly (s'k'l') with the affix of possession -ly. The root s'k' (diacritical marks indicate here semi-vowel stop emulating the Arabic transcription - Translator's Note) represents the ethnonym Saka, whose carriers came into the historical sources as very strong peoples of the Middle Asia. A certain part of them was also recorded in the same location under the name Sogdy, which historically goes back to the Sak-dy ‘with Saka tribes’. The Sakas and Sogds lived under a versatile influence of the Kanghi-Khoresm.
The ethnonym s'k'l' of the part of the Bulgars earlier and in other regions was used with an affix -dy and had the form s'k'dy, where the interdental [d] in the Old Russian (i.e. the original Greek-based Cyrillic alphabet - Translator's Note) was transmitted by the (Greek - Translator's Note) letter Θ (theta), then (after the 1917 alphabetic revolution - Translator's Note) the Russians started pronounce it as [f], so from the word S'k'd (S'k'th in English transcription - Translator's Note) came another Russian word Skif. Thus, the Arabian spelling s'k'l' as the component of the Bulgars historically goes back to the word Sakaly/Sakady and is a designation for the Scythians (s'k'd'). Hence, the ancestors and components of the Bulgarian people were both the local Sakas, and the Scythians (s'k'l').
In the first part of this book we wrote that the Parthians of the Middle Asia had a large economic and even ethnic influence on the Kama area also (i.e. in addition to their influence in other territories - Translator's Note). The word of Parfyan was also peculiarly formed only in the Russian language. The sound [d], i.e. [th], in the Russian was transmitted by Θ (theta), and this letter Θ later (after 1917 - Translator's Note) started to be pronounce as [f]. In the result, the ethnonym Parthy in Russian started to be written as Parfy/Parfyane.
In the middle of 3rd century BC in the south and southeast of the Caspian Sea the Parthys created a powerful empire which covered extensive areas from Mesopotamia to borders of India. For several centuries it sustained an endless war with the Rome. The empire existed until the middle of 3rd century AD. Its main nucleus shaped under the aegis of the ancient Horesm (Huarasmia), it was headed by one of the branches of the Horezmian Siyavushids [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 342].
The Parthys, together with Kwarezmians, spread their hegemony into the region of the Kama area. As is known, the silver bowls with inscriptions considered Horezmian and Parthian (Bardymian), were found in quantity in the Kama area in the fields around the village Bardym. The preliminary study of these inscriptions has enabled to conclude that they have been written in the Türkic language [Muhammadiev A.G., 1995, 60-83].
The ties of the Parthys (Parthians) with the Kama area are also in the preservation until now in the Kama area of the ethnonym Pardy/Bardy, which is read as a Bar-dy/Par-dy (Bar-ly) ‘people having wealth’. A part of the Perm Tatars is called Bardy/Bardym, i.e. Bardymians. This ethnonym Bardy/Barda has also preserved as the name of the settlements, localities and water objects.
Thus, the ancestors of the Itil-Bulgarian people turned out to be the local Scythians (Skythy/Skyly), Barsuly, and also Pardy/Bardy.
89. The ancestors of the Bulgarian people were local Koshans/Kasans, Usuns, Avars, and Alans.
Once again we remind that the Koshans/Kushans/Kusans, as well as the Kwarezmians, Sakas , Sogds, Parthys (Parthians), in the traditional historical science are recognized as Persian-lingual, ostensibly all of them were Türkicized only after the arrival into the Middle Asia of the nomad Türks in the 4th century AD. The facts confirm that all of them were Türkic-speaking from the very beginning. A recognition of their Persian-linguality is a result of the tendentious research by Indo-Iranists, or even wider - by the Indo-Europeans.
In the places of their dwelling the Kushans have left traces of their ethnonym Kushan in various forms: Kusan, Kasan, Kazan, Koshan, Kashan, etc. The word Kusan consists of the parts ku ‘white, light’, San from Son, i.e. Sün/Sun/Hun, as a whole it means ‘white Huns/Süns’. The A.N.Bernshtam's research concluded that the Kushans in another way were called Usuns, and the Usuns are globally recognized as Türkic tribes of Ases and Süns: As+Sün > Asün > Usun. In the A.N.Bernshtam's opinion, the Tochars were also an integral part of the Kushans [Bernshtam A.N., 1947, 41-47]. The Tochars/Dagars/Dogarma are also recognized Türks. Only some German researchers artificially imposed to the Tochars the Iranian language [Krauze Â., 1959, 41, 44].
The etnonyms Tochar, Taur, Tagar, Dagar are the phonetic variations of the same ethnonym Dag-ar ‘mountain people’. In the form Dagar it was preserved in the Hebrew language as a generic name for the Türks, used with the Hebrew plural affix -ìà, in the form Dogarma.
The Kushans (Kusans) in the 1st century BC created a strong state in the Middle Asia, its center initially was the Aral marine lands where previously was the center of the Khoresm-Kanghi. In its development the Kushanian empire occupied the territory of the Greko-Baktrian kingdom. S.P.Tolstov writes about the role of the Horesm in the creation and expansion of the Kushan empire: "The nomadic tribes of the political periphery of the Kanghi-Horesm, the Massagets, Sakaravaks (aka Sakauraks - Translator's Note), Apasiaks of the Aral marine lands, and the Tochars of the Lower Syr-Daria (Ceyhun, Jaxartes etc. - Translator's Note) destroy the Greko-Baktrian kingdom and establish the foundation for the new Baktrian kingdom of Üechji-Kushans that in the 1st-2nd centuries AD grew into a mighty Middle Asian-Indian empire that also included the ancient Kanghu" [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 342]. Here it should be noted that in the opinion of the historians, the Kushan empire from the Aral area was extending for some reasons to one side, toward India. This opinion, apparently, does not match the reality. Actually, the Kushan empire, following the tradition of the ancient Khoresm, and the later Parthys (Parthians), naturally was also looking to the northwest, at least to those regions of the Kama area where was spread the hegemony of both Kwarezmians and Parthys. And in fact, in the Kama area we find the traces of the Kushans in the names of the settlements and water objects. On the right coast of the Lower Kama and in the Middle Itil region the Kushans (Kashan/Kasany) erected the cities of Koshan, Kazan, and there we also notice the hydronyms Koshan and Kasansu/Kazansu.
Thus, the Kushan empire has also spread its hegemony into the Itil-Kama area, and naturally, the local Kushans (Kashans/Kazans) were one of the ancestors and components of the Bulgars.
Scientists have established that in the north of the Caspian and Aral area lived Lans (i.e. Alans -Ases) and Aorses. About the Türkic-speaking of the Alans-Ases we already discussed (see the 5-th chapter of the first part of this book). As to the Aorses, it should be noted that their name is taken from the Greek sources in the Greek format: in the ethnonym Aoros the element -os is a nominal indicator in the Greek language, the Aor is a Türkic ethnonym Auar/Awàð/Aor. In the present Russian language Auar/Awàð is pronounced as Avar (and "Obr" in the Old Slavic records - Translator's Note).
The ethnonym Avàð/Aor/Auar is formed based on the Türkic model: au-ar 'hunter people' or ‘people having houses’. It has a definition àw 'hunting' or əw 'house'. Apparently, the Avars in fact lived in the settlements, and built houses. This is confirmed by the old Rus variation of their ethnonym Obrs. The Obr consists of the roots oba and ar, where oba in the ancient Türkic had a meaning of 'village', 'settlement'.
The official historical science recognizes that Avars came to Europe from the East only in the 6th century following the Türks. But Herodotus still in the 5th century BC mentions the word as Aor as a name of one well-known big river. The Aor/Awar, in the recognition of many scientists, is the name of the river Itil or its headwaters. Apparently, the river was called Aor because on its banks lived the Aors. But Herodotus does not have a message that the word Aor is also a name of a people. But already in the 1st century AD the Greek sources record that the Aor is also the name of a people [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 147].
Hence, the Aors, Alans-Ases, Kusans/Kasans/Kashans were spread in the Middle Asia and Eastern Europe long before our era, they also lived in the Ural-Itil region, and in the Itil-Bulgarian state and, naturally they were a part of the Bulgarian people, being one of their ancestors.
90. The ancestors of the Bulgarian people are local Ases, Ostyaks, Burtases, Suases and the Ved.
The word As is one of the most ancient Türkic ethnonyms. In the paragraph 58 of this book is given a mass of proofs about the antiquity of this ethnonym, and about the Türkic-speaking of its carriers. In addition to the opinion of Al Biruni about the affinity of the Alan-Ases, Kwarezmians and Besenyos (Badjinaks) languages cited there, it can be added that that fact is also trustworthy for the following reasons: the Kwarezmians were formed by consolidation of Suars (Huars ) and Ases, in the result appeared a new secondary ethnonym Huar + As > Huaras > Huaras + m > Horasm > Horezm. Besides, the ancient Horasmies (Kwarezmians) had another ethnonym Kangüy/Kangar which also was the ancient name of the Besenyos (Badjinaks).
The Ases lived in the Middle Itil region, apparently, since the most ancient times, and that went into the substrate for other secondary local ethnonyms: the Suases, Burtases, and Ostyaks. In the Middle Itil region was found a fortress Asly/Ashly. The local Ases at the formation of the Bulgarian people integrated with it as a significant component. It is evidenced that, as already after the formation of the Bulgarian people in its structure was recorded the presence of the Ases. For example, the Ruses called the Bolgarian wife of the prince Andrey Bogolübsky, who lived in the12th century, "knyajna-Yasian" [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 115; Tatishchev V.N., 1962, 375].
The Ases from the most ancient times occupied, apparently, one of the leading positions in the Ural-Itil region: there they were divided into a few groupings: Ostyaks, Burtases and Suases.
The ethnonym Ostyak/Ishtyak is formed from the ethnonym As by means of an affix -tyk/lyk: Astyk > Ostyk > Ostyak expresses the meaning 'Asian'. Hence, the Ostyaks are not Ases proper, but some other tribes, but strongly admixed with Ases.
The first Russian researchers of the Perm and Siberian Tatars, hearing alongside with the external ethnonym Tatars also their own internal ethnonym Ostyak, attributed this ethnonym to the Ugro-Finns, and in particular to the Khantyes. Actually, the western Siberian and Permian Tatars and Bashkirs were called Ostyaks/Ishtyaks. The Ostyaks were also included in the Itil Bulgar people, and they retained their initial ethnonym for a very long time, even after they lost their common ethnonym Bulgars.
It should be also noted here that the ethnonym Ostyak/Ishtyak became a subject of a special study, especially by the Hungarian scientists. Hoping to detect in the Ural-Itil region any evidence in favor of the existence of the Great Hungary, they tried to find Hungarian roots in the ethnonym Ostyak/Ishtyak. So did A.Rona-Tash, who also specifically studied this ethnonym. First he lists the opinions of the scientists about the etymology of the word Ishtyak:
1) in G.J.Klaprot's opinion, Ostyak/Ishtyak historically goes back to the Finno-Ugric As-yah, where As is the name of the river Ob, yah is people, Asyah is ‘Ob People’;
2) G.Vamberi thinks that Ishtyak consists of roots ust 'top' and yak 'side': the Ustyak/Ishtyak means ‘upper side’;
3) in the B.Munkachi's opinion, Ostyak means ‘Ob Ugor’;
4) V.Shtainets suspected that Ostyak comes from the word Votyak;
5) R.G.Kuzeev identifies the word Ishtek with a name of a khan, etc.
From these opinions A.Rona-Tash concludes that the Ishtyaks in the Bashkir lands were not natives, they came from the outside and represented, apparently, the ancestors of the Magyars [Rona-Tash À., 1987, 49-58]. As we see here, the scientists who were were engaged in the etymology problems of the Ishtyak/Ostyak did not have sufficient specialized Türkological linguistical knowledge.
Burtases also were one of the ancestors and components of the Bulgarian people. Despite the acceptance of a common ethnonym Bulgars, Burtases also retained their own ethnonym for a long time.
In a traditional historical science it was regarded that like Ases, the Burtases also were ostensibly Ossetian-lingual, but under an influence of the Bulgars they Bulgarized, adopted Türkic language, and from them ostensibly came the Mishars. As a confirmation of this opinion A.H.Halikov gives such an example: in the regions of the Great Hungary (i.e. in the Ural-Itil region) the ethnonym Magyar in the 12th-14th centuries was replaced with the word Burtas, and in the 15th-16th centuries the ethnonym Mojar/Mojeryan/Macheryan [by Halikov A.H., 1990, 96-97] settles there. Even though it is difficult to find logic there, A.H.Halikov calls Burtases not simply Burtases, but systematically: Bulgarized Burtases.
But many scientists, from the indisputable facts, proved that the Burtases from the very beginning were Türkic-speaking [Zahoder B.N., 1962, 234; Priests A.I., 1973, 116-120; Zakiev M.Z., 1990, 21-29].
The etnonym Burtas means special Ases, distinguished from others by their occupation of the wild-hive beekeeping. A determining part of the ethnonym Burtas acts the Nostratic word bor/bura/bort/mur/murt in a sense ‘a hollowed tree’ [Illich-Svitych V.M., 1971, 186-187]. In the Bulgaro-Tatar language is the word murt in a sense ‘rotted tree’, ‘moldered tree’. The mold is the original cause for the hollowing of the trees, from which people learned to extract honey of wild bees. And the Tatar umarta 'beehive', murta in the Misharian dialect, also goes back to the common Nostratic bort/murt. Thus, the Türkic ethnonym Burtas > Burta-As means Ases engaged in wild-hive beekeeping. According to the Arabian travelers, Burtases considered honey the most valuable product, even wine they made not from the grapes, but from honey [Zahoder B.N., 1962, 245].
From the vague statement of Istahri: "the language of Bulgars resembles the language of Khazars, and Burtases have another language, and the language of Ruses is not the same as the language of Khazars and Burtases" [Zahoder B.N., 1962, 238-239], the supporters of the Burtasso-Iranian concept make far-reaching conclusions that the Burtas language is not Türkic. But in the second part of the this citation the languages of the Khazars and Burtases are put in opposition to the Rus language, hence, the Burtasian had a close relation to the Khazarian language. Therefore in the Gothic manuscript of Istahri it is written: "the language of the Bulgars resembles the language of the Khazars and Burtases" [Zahoder B.N., 1962, 239].
Thus, the Burtases were Türkic-speaking ancestors of the Bulgars.
Still another ethnonym Suas ‘Water Ases’ is based on the ethnonym As. In their relation with water (their life was connected with rivers or water was their totem) Suases are related to Suars and Bulgars (bulg/bulag is 'rivers'). Apparently, that's why in many places they live together, as neighbors.
Mari from the time immemorial called the ancestors of their Bulgaro-Tatar neighbors Suases, and now a part of the Mari calls Tatars Suases/Süases. Some people try to explain that by the Maris ostensibly having a little confused the Bulgaro-Tatars with the Chuvashes/Süases. This suggestion does not sustain criticism, for the same Mari, without confusing Chuvashes with Tatars, call Tatars with the ethnonym Suas, and call Chuvashes with the ethnonym Suaslamari.
The Suases, during formation of the common Bulgarian people, were included in the composition, but did not lose their own ethnonym. During the first census carried out after the capture of the Kazan by the Russians, the population beyond Kazan registered as Suases.
Some historians, the so-called Tataro-Tatarists, are not distinguishing the Suases and Chuvashes, and try to assert that even after the fall of Kazan near it ostensibly lived Chuvashes, who were then ostensibly assimilated by the newly arrived Tatars.
Here it should be noted that the ethnonym Chuvash also comes from the ethnonym Suas. The ancestors of the Chuvashes were called by the ethnonym Veda, which historically also goes back to the Finno-Ugrian veda, i.e. 'water'. The historical conditions developed so that the Vedas very closely interacted with Suases (the ancestors of the Kazan Tatars), and adopted from them the Türkic language and the ethnonym Suas, which later became the word Chuvash. It is known that the local Vedas and the Chuvashes (in Mari: Suaslamari), who befell in the territory of the Bulgarian state, to some extent became one of the components of the Bulgarian people.
92. The ancestors of the Bulgarian people were local Baylars/Bilyars/Bigers/Biars, Bashkirs, Mishars/Madjgars.
The most ancient tribes were those which had the initial ethnonyms Bi/Pi/Bay/Bek, As/Az/Uz/Us/Yas, Sün/Sön/Sun/Hun/Hun/Gun, Men/Min, Saka/Sak/Dah/Daha/Sog, Ar/Er/Ir, etc. Later, as a result of their development, the tribes began receiving secondary ethnonyms formed on the basis of the initial ethnonyms.
The ethnonym Bi/Bay (pronounced Bee/Bye - Translator's Note) in our region was modified and started to be used in the forms Baylar/Bilyar/Biger/Biar. Of those, the ethnonyms Baylar/Bilyar are formed with a help of a plural affix, and the Biger and Biar are formed by means of another initial ethnonym Ar/Er ‘people, men’. In an antiquity these ethnonyms were considered to be more widespread among the Bashkirs, and therefore the Bashkirs consider Bilyars one of their main components. But the Bilyars became world famous, a huge fortress under the name Bilyar remained from them in the lower course of Kama, then they spread across all Kama area, where they succeded in creation of the first state formation Biarm, which traces we observe in the name of the city Perm.
The local Baylars/Bigers/Biars were one of the numerous components of the Bulgarian people, but they also retained their ethnonym, for their neighbors, Udmurts, always (and earlier, and within the Bulgarian state, and in the Kazan Khanate, and at present) called them with their former, initial ethnonym Biger ‘rich people, owners’.
There is an opinion that the ethnonym Biar/Biger in an antiquity had the phonetic form the Iyirk, which used Herodotus describing the Scythian tribes. The word Iyirk consists of two roots, Iyi ‘good, great, owner’ and Érk (from Érkek) ‘men, people’. The Iyi as a result of alternation y <--> d (like York to Dork - Translator's Note) had the form Idi ‘great, owner, god’. The word Iyirk was used in the 5th-7th centuries BC. Apparently, later its meaning was preserved, but the form has changed and became Biar/Biger/Bilyar.
As to the Bashkirian tribes, it should be noted that they were a part of the population of the Itil Bulgaria, and some Bashkirs became one of the many components and ancestors of the Bulgarian people.
Mishars also were part of the Bulgarian people. Recognized by some Russian and Hungarian Türkologists, still in the antiquity the Mishars were depressively settled in the huge territory from the Northern Pontic to the Altai mountains, and consequently this ethnonym in various linguistic environments was pronounced differently: Misher/Mijer/Mesher/Mescheryak/Mijer/Mojar/Madjar/Madiar/Majgar/Mijgar/Machar/Mochar/Bachar/Becher/Beser etc. [Nemet Þ., 1971, 256]. But Ü.Nemeth is mistaken in deducing all these words from the ostensibly Hungarian Madjar.
G.P.Samaev, who has been studying the ethnogenesis of Altai peoples, notes that ethnonyms Magyar, Madjar, Majar, Matar, Mader, Madyr, Modor are documented in Altai already during the Türkic Kaganate [Samaev G.P., 1987, 170-171].
The etymology of this ethnonym has various hypotheses. In our opinion, Mishar is a secondary ethnonym, it is formed from the primary Türkic ethnonym ar ‘people, man’ by adding to it the definition mishè, which still in the Nostratic time designated ‘tree, forest’: Mishè-ar > Mishar ‘forest people’, or ‘people with tree totem’.
In the modern conditions the Nijny Novgorod Mishars to emphase their difference from the Penza Mishars call themselves with the ethnonym Mishgar. In this variation of the ethnonym between the mishè and ar is inserted the sound [g], which contradicts the above etymology. But even this position also has two solutions:
1) here as a definition is applied not the mishè ‘tree, forest’, but mashka ‘tree mushroom’;
2) or the word Mishgar is formed from the ethnonym Ugor with a definition mishè ‘tree, forest’: Misha-ugor > Mija-ugor > Mij-ugor > Mishgar. But these are only hypotheses.
Apparently, Mishars during the Scythian time were called Agathyrs/Akathyrs/Agachèrs (the Greek spelling Αγαθιροσ because of the conversion in Russian of the interdental [θ] to [f] is accepted as Agafiros). The Agathyr/Akathyr also are ‘forest people or people with tree totem’. Some scientists identify the people Agathyr/Akathyr/Acatzir with Utigurs and Cimmerians [Jordanes, 1960, 221].
V.V.Veliyaminov-Zernov and R.G.Muhamedova's opinion that the Türkic-speaking Mishars are ostensibly Türkicized Mordvainians, who were carrying the ethnonym Meshchera/Machar/Mojar [Veljaminov-Zernov Veljaminov-Zernov V.V., 1863, 30-31; Muhamedova R.G., 1972, 17] does not match the reality. As was stated above, the Mishars in the extreme antiquity lived in the huge territory from Altai to Balkan peninsula. And because they also lived in the Ural-Itil region even before the Bulgars coming to power, so they were also included in the Bulgarian people, and were one of the ancestors of the Bulgars.
In spite of the fact that Bulgars themselves lost their ethnonym, the Mishars, who were at some time in the Bulgar, retained their ethnonym during both Bulgarian and Kazan times, and now carry their ancient ethnonym with pride.
It is telling that, on the one hand, during the capture of the Kazan the Mishars actively participated in the Russian armies, and on the other hand, among the defenders of the Kazan they distinguished themselves among the citizens of the Kazan (Kasans/Kazans), and after the capture of the Kazan the ambassadors to the Russian government were sent the separately from the citizens of Kazan and from Mishars [Mojarovsky A.F., 1884, 18].
92. The ancestors of the Bulgarian people were Kumans, Sarymans, Besermyans, Khazars, Ugors.
The etnonyms Kumans, Saryman, Saralyman, Besermyan are formed from the primary ethnonym men/min by means of the definitions expressed by words kyu/ku ‘blond, light gray’, sary 'yellow', and beser which, apparently, is a phonetic variation of the ethnonym Bishar/Mishar. In the 3rd millennium BC the ethnonym Kuman (aka Cuman, Couman - Translator's Note) is met in the Near East, from where it could have already penetrated across the Caspian Sea, across the Itil and into the Ural-Itil region. The Kumans could consolidate with many other Türkic tribes of the Ural-Itil region and could, accepting other ethnonyms, enter the people of Bulgars. In their "pure" state Kumans did not spread in the Ural-Itil region, maybe they lived there under the name Kypchaks, which is a synonym of the word Kuman.
The presence in the Ural-Itil region of the Sarymans is evidenced by the presence of a toponym Sarman. The Besermyans and now have not lost their ethnonym, and they remember their Bulgaro-Tatar origin, though they speak the Udmurt language. Apparently, when they were a part of the Bulgarian people, they spoke Türkic, i.e. the Bulgarian language.
The local Khazars (aka Hazars, and even Kuzars - Translator's Note) also became components of the Bulgars, they were one of the ancestors of the Bulgarian people. Many scientists were studying the etymology of the word Khazar . The French scientist Deni conjectured that the ethnonym Khazar ascends to the word kuzar which means ‘Northern People’. Paul Pelliot conjures the word Khazar to the word Kazakh which is ostensibly formed from the word kaza/kaz and means 'nomad' [Pelliot, 1950, 222-224]. N.A.Baskakov, on one hand, agrees with that, on the other hand, conjures it to the Mongolian word kasar that means a breed of a dog [Baskakov N.A., 1985, 39].
In our opinion, the Khazar/Kasar consists from ar ‘people, men’ and a definition kas 'rock': the Khazar/Kasar is ‘Mounaineers’. Also another possible etymology is: ku-as-ar, where the ku is ‘light, white’, As and Ar are initial Türkic ethnonyms: Ku-as-ar > Kas-ar > Kazar. The Azerbaijan scientist equate the ethnonyms Khazar and Azar and consider Khazaria to be the ancient Azerbaijan state [Firidun Agasyoglu, 2000, 25].
In the West-European and Russian Türkology dominates the opinion that the first Khazars came to the Eastern Europe in the 4th century, together with the Huns [Luchinsky G., 1903]. The Byzantian historians Theophanes (d. ca. 813 - Translator's Note) and Nicephorus (d. 828 - Translator's Note)inform that the Khazar people formed in Bersilia, they were a branch of the Sarmatians. And Bersils, in the opinion of Herodotus, were a part of the Royal Scythians. Hence, the Khazars were the natives of the Caucasus, instead of being the newcomers [Magomedov M.G., 1997, 52-58]. (Priscus in the 5th century tells that the Khazars were known by the name of Akatzirs in the Hun Empire - Translator's Note).
As was said above, in the Bible which was written long time before our era, Togarmah/Dogarmah are Türks; in the same place (Ch. 10) it is stated that among ten Togarmah's sons were Khazars (Hazarmaveth ? - Translator's Note), Bulgars, and Sabirs that proves the ethnic affinity of these peoples. (The author evidently is referring to the interpretation given in the letter of the Khazarian Bek or Kagan Joseph to Cordoba's Hasdai, where Joseph provides a genealogy of his people, he traces their ancestry to Noah’s third son, Japheth, and Japheth’s grandson, Togarma, the ancestor of all Turkish tribes, and his ten sons Uigur, Dursu, Avars, Huns, Basilii, Tarniakh, Khazars, Zagora, Bulgars, Sabir. The Khazars are the sons of Khazar, the seventh son of Togarma - Translator's Note).
The Syrian sources of the 6th century tell that three men left from Scythia, one of them by the name Bulgar went toward the Roman empire, two others, including Khazar, came to the country of the Alans called Barsilia/Bersilia. The Alania approximately coincides with the modern Dagestan. From that, the Türkologists believe that Khazars were formed in the Northern Caucasus near the Caspian Sea [Pletneva S.A., 1976, 15-16]. They quickly won the territories near the rivers Yaik, Itil, Kuban, and Don. But in the 7th century Bulgars separated from Khazaria, and they create Great Bulgaria headed by Kurbat (called by the author by his Greek version Kubrat - Translator's Note). At the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 8th centuries in the Kama area formed the state Biarm. Khazaria, despite its economic development (they built many cities there), because of the weakening of the leadership and an absence of ideological cohesiveness (Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism were practiced there) gradually lost its influence in those regions where other peoples and tribes predominated.
Thus, the Khazars were the main opponents of the Bulgars in the creation of an independent state. But the Khazars which remained in the Itil Bulgaria, became a part of the Bulgars.
The Ugors not only were a part of the Bulgars, but they were their direct ancestors carrying the ethnonyms formed based on the word ugor: Utigurs/Uturgurs, Kutrigurs/Kuturgurs, Hunugurs/Honogurs, etc.
A opinion is common in both the Türkology and Finno-Ugrology: ostensibly the Ugors/Ugrs is an initial FinnoUgorian word which applies only to the Finno-Ugrians. This opinion was also confirmed because in the main ethnonym of the Finno-Ugrians is the word Ugr/Ugor. In reality, the ethnonym Ugor is formed by the Türkic model from undoubtedly Türkic initial ethnonym ar ‘people, men’; as a definition of this ethnonym serves either ak ‘white, noble’, or the Türkic ethnonym ok, or uk' (uq) ‘understand, comprehend’. So, the semantics of the ethnonym Ugor is either ‘Noble People’, or ‘Ok People’, or ‘comprehending people’. Therefore we assert that by ethnonym Ugor/Ugr were called the Türkic tribes, they were closely connected with the Huns, and apparently therefore was widely spread the form Hunugr/Hunogur/Onnogur/Onogur. The Hungarian Turkologist Geza Kuun still in the 19th century has come to a sure conclusion about the initial Türkic-speaking of the Ugrs [Kuun G., 1881, LXII].
According to the historian of the 7th century Theophilact Simokatta it was known that the Ugors/Ogors were numerous people, they live by the river Til which Türks call Kara. Their ancient leaders were called Uar and Hunni, therefore Ugors are frequently calling themselves Uars and Hunni [Simokatta Th., 1957, History, 160]. If the river Til were also called as the word Kara it coincides with the Türkic name of the river Kama, Kara Itil ‘Black Idel’. From this message it becomes clear that the Ugors/Ogors also bear the name Uar (Awar) and Hunni (Huns). Consequently, all of them spoke the same one Türkic language. The Ugors, like the Avars, constituted a part of a larhe Hunnian people. Also about this exposes the fact that Ugurs were also called by a composite ethnonym Hunugur/Onogur, which precisely was the name of the direct ancestors of the Bulgars.
93. Early Bolgars/Bulgars in the works of the Danube Bolgarian scientists.
In the compendiumeological works by the name early Bulgars are called the Bulgars before the creation by them of the Itil-Kama Bulgaria. In a special compendium called "About the history of the early Bulgars" (Kazan, 1981), is examined the early history of the Bulgars, and also the history of the tribes which participated in the formation of the Itil-Bulgarian state population. The publication, naturally, does not preclude the possibility of finding information about the earlier periods in the history of the Bulgars.
It is difficult to establish now, from where the Bulgars came to the Itil region: from the Northern Pontic, or, on the contrary, they came from the Itil region to the Northern Pontic. A new group of the Danube Bolgaria scientists holds an opinion that the Bulgars on the way from the Middle Asia to the Balkan peninsula at first settled in the Ural-Itil region, and then moved to the west.
On March, 23, 1997 in Sofia was created an organization with All-Bolgarian fund "Tangra TanNakRa". The name of the organization Tangra is reverberate with the name of the God-Tangra of the ancient Bulgars, and the name TanNakRa means a philosophical tri-unity of the concepts Tan (Universe), Nak (Man), Ra (God). The written sources about it come from the first millennium BC. From these and other sources the Bulgarian scientists who created the All-Bolgarian fund "Tangra TanNakRa" conduct the research to reveal the most ancient ethnic roots of the Türkic-speaking Bulgars.
Peter Dobrev from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences after careful research of this question has come to a conclusion that the ancestral home of the ancient Bolgars (Bulgars) was not Altai, not Mongolia, not Caucasus, not Turkestan, but Pamir and Hindukush. By their physical appearance the ancient Bulgars remind the Pamiro-Fergana racial type which arose in the most civilized part of the southern Middle Asia. According to Peter Dobrev, in the geographical map enclosed to the Armenian geography, "Ashharatsuytsu", published recently by the academician S.Eremjan, Bulgars are located precisely where the western ranges of the mountain Imeon (euphemism for Pamir and Hindukush - Translator's Note) meet the northern ranges of the Zeravshan ridge of the Pamir. In the well-known Latin anonymous chronograph of 345 AD the name of the ancient Bulgars is used for the name of the ancient Baktrians, who were living in the territory near Pamir and Hindukush. This points that the composers of this early historical source listed the Bulgar between the peoples living in the territory between Persia and Turkestan. The Sogdians called them (i.e. today, not the Bulgars of the 1st c. AD who were living in Zeravshan valley ? - Translator's Note) Blgar, the Arabs called them (i.e. today, not the Bulgars of the 1st c. AD who were living in Zeravshan valley ? - Translator's Note) Burgar, the Tadjiks called them (i.e. today, not the Bulgars of the 1st c. AD who were living in Zeravshan valley ? - Translator's Note) Falgar or Palhar. They are also mentioned in the Indian sources, continues Peter Dobrev. In accordance with the Byzantian historian Agathius, around the mountain Imeon lived Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Vurugunds (presumably: Unogundurs). In accordance with Simokatta, in the same district was located the Onogurian city Bakat. The same area is also the ancestral home of the Kotsagir (ka-sag-er ‘White Sakas’ - M.Z.) tribe.
The Michael the Syrian (Antiochian patriarch, d. 1199) annals note that in those days from the Central Scythia (Middle Asia) 30,000 Scythians went to the Eastern Europe, and in 60 days they reached the river Tanais (Don). The Romans called this Scythian people Bulgars [Dobrev Peter, 1999, January].
In area of Pamir Bulgars established two ancient and well-known states: Balgar and Balhara. Three more Bulgarian states appeared in Europe later: Kurbat's Great Bulgaria, Itil Bulgaria and Asparuh's Bulgaria. In last the Türkic-speaking Bulgars were gradually Slavisized. Kurbat's Great Bulgaria crushed the army of the Arab conquerors and saved the besieged Constantinople and, hence, saved from a slavery the Eastern and Central Europe. In the Middle Ages the army of the Itil Bulgaria won a convincing victory over the Mongolo-Tatar conquerors and softened the strike against Europe [Eternal Bolgararian calendar, December, 1999] .
Thus, the Bulgarian scientists deem the Bulgars an ancient people of the Middle Asia, from where they spread, long before our era, in the Caucasus, in the Eastern and Central Europe, and reached the territory of the present Italy.
The formation of the Bulgarian scientists' viewpoint about the arrival of the early Bolgars/Bulgars from the East to the West was influenced by the traditional view about movement of the peoples. Actually, in the first millennium BC Bulgars lived both in the Middle Asia, and in the West.
There is undisputable information that in the 6th-7th centuries BC Onogurs (Honogurs, Phonogurs), who are regarded to be the direct ancestors of the Bulgars, lived in the Northern Pontic. The ancient Greek sources preserved this information.
During the colonization of the Northern Pontic the Greeks built the cities of Phanagoria and Panticapaeum [Sevostyanova O.I., 1972, 233], in the place of the same-named Türkic settlements; Phanagoria is the city founded by the Onogurs (Unogurs > Phanagors) (Phanagoras appear to be a Greek name of unknown etymology; the Greek sources mentioned one Phanagorus not connected with the Taman peninsula; foundation of Phanagoria is attributed to a person named Phanagorus, which could be a city myth). Panticapaeum is also the Türkic name with a meaning ‘Pontus Gate’. The ancient name Ponty of Black Sea is also a Türkic word from the root bun > pon ‘soup, potage’ and an affix -ty with the meaning 'having', Ponty as a whole was used in sense ‘feeder, rich in food’. In the place of the ancient city Panticapa ‘Pontus Gate’ stands the city Kerch named from the Türkic keresh 'entrance'.
Hence, in the N. Pontic still in the 1st millennium BC lived the Türks, including the early Onogur Bulgars. It is quite probable that these Bulgars in the same period also settled in the Ural-Itil region, but unfortunately, there they were not recorded in the written sources, for no such sources for this region were found yet.
In the opinion of the Bulgarian scientists, the Bulgars on the way from the Middle Asia to the Balkan peninsula settled in the Ural-Itil region, but then they had neither the economic, nor the social opportunities to become famous by a creation of their own state.
94. Early Bulgars in the compendium of the Bulgarian annals "Djagfar Tarihy" and "Legend about Shan's daughter".
The Annals of Bahshi Iman "Djagfar Tarihy" was composed in the 1680, in 1939 it and "Shang kyzy dastany" were translated to Russian by I.M. K.Nigmatullin, an inhabitant of (the ancient Kyzyl Yar, re-Christened by Russian overlords - Translator's Note) Petropavlovsk. The original was lost. Then the I.Nigmatullin's translation through his relative's links came into the hands of Fargat Nurutdinov, who prepared the manuscript for publishing in the Russian language. The annals were published in Orenburg in 1993, and "Shang kyzy dastany" (Legend about Shan's daughter) by Mikail Bashtu was published in Turkey in the 1991 in Russian and Turkish languages. Later came out the 2nd (Orenburg, 1994) and 3rd (Orenburg, 1997) volums of the annals, with an added research by F.Nurutdinov (Vol 1 print size not known, Vol 2 print size 350 copies, Vol 3 print size 230 copies, in a contry of 146 mln people and a tremendous hunger for truth. "Shang kyzy dastany", the real linguistical evidence of the 10 c. Bulgarian, never saw a light in Russia. Yet. - Translator's Note).
The destiny of the "Djagfar Tarihy" annals and "Shang kyzy dastany", like the fate of the "Tale about Igor's troops" or "Velesa Book", is identical: the original was lost. Therefore some Tatar historians and writers who were brought up only with the (dubious, in the context - Translator's Note) high school textbooks, who are not familiar with the ancient Assyrian, Urartian, Chinese, Indian, Greek, and Persian sources, took these historical writings antagonistically. Instead of studying them closely to compare them with other data available in the ancient multi-lingual sources, some historians and writers set out on a path of a total denial.
I myself, having studied all ancient accessible multi-lingual sources about the history of the Türks, recognize the Bahshi Iman annals "Djagfar Tarihy" to be the most ancient source about the history of the Bulgars, while at the same time I recognize not all of its parts are unconditionally accurate. Trustworthy are those messages of the "Djagfar Tarihy" that are also confirmed by other linguistic, archeological, folklore, mythological records, or by the messages of other ancient sources. The historians know well that the annals of all peoples, written or edited much later after the described events, do not always give exact information, but from their analysis scientists extract reliable historical facts.
In the compendium of the Bulgarian annals "Djagfar Tarihy" is felt the notion that the author ascribes almost all of the Türkic world to the Bulgars. But nevertheless, already the information about Bulgars, that they in the extreme antiquity formed in the Ural-Itil region, and from there with the growth of their number spread to other regions, coincide with the conclusions of the serious archeological and linguistical research of K.T.Laypanov and I.M.Miziev, who from the results of their research assert that the ancestral home of the Türkic peoples was in the Ural-Itil region [Laypanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 16-28].
"Djagfar Tarihy" tells that according to the legends, about 15 thousand years ago the Idelians subordinated all other tribes of the Itil-Ural and formed the state Idel. And the word Idel is 'seven tribes’ (yede el) became the first name of our people. On the Idelians' banner was an image of the wolf head. Therefore this banner was called Bulgar "wolf's or black head": black is bulg, head is ar. In fact the wolf was a Bulgarian totem.
About 12 thousand years ago, because of the internal conflicts, some groups of the Bulgars had to leave to other lands. One of them left to America, and in language of the American Indians are preserved some Bulgarian words until now. Another group of Bulgars left to the Northern China, where it became known under the name Syanbi or Huns. A third group of the Bulgars settled in the Middle Asia, the fourth settled in the Northern India, the fifth settled in the Near East (Balkans, Asia Minor, Southern Caucasus, Iraq, Western Iran, Syria, Palestine, Northern Egypt). The Middle Eastern Bulgars formed the state of Samar (Sumer)... Only in the Asia Minor the Bulgars managed to preserve their ethnic individuality. The Bulgars of the western part of the Asia Minor founded a large city of Atryach (Troy), and they started to be called Atryachians (Ethruskians), and in eastern part of the Asia Minor they started to use one of the names of their favorite Harvest Deity of the Samar, the Türk ‘great bull’ and were called Türks. In the second millennium BC the ancient Greek tribes seized the Balkans from the Bulgars and attacked the Troy. The Ethrusks (Atryaches) fled to the Apennine peninsula, and gave it the name of their ancestors Idel, and from there came the word Italy [ Bahshi Iman, vol. 2, 7-10].
This message in the "Djagfar Tarihy" raises doubts for the definition of the timing when Bulgars consolidated, therefore the time frame of the 15 and 12 thousand years ago requires additional archeological research. Besides, as was already stated above, the word Bulgars should not be applied in a global Türkic sense, i.e. to call Bulgars all the Türks.
And the name Idel comes from the mythology for the Bulgars, the fantasy is based on the assumption that the word Idel ostensibly comes from yede il, i.e 'seven tribes’. Actually the hydronym Idel is formed from the word yul/yiyl (pronounced y-oo-l/y-ih-l - Translator's Note) i.e. 'river' (a later full form is: yiylga 'river'), by defining it with the word idi ‘great, god’: Idel is ‘great, big river’ (yiylga > Volga, see the pattern of the change of the first vowel in the Türkic loanwords into Slavic languages - Translator's Note).
The totem of the wolf is also taken for the Bulgars from the common Türkic mythology, especially that the word Bulgar does not express the semantics of the ‘wolf head’ or ‘black head’.
At the same time there are interesting records, whose adequacy is also evidenced by the other sources. For example, as tell the annals, in the Northern China the Bulgars were called Syanbies or Huns. Only lately the study of the Türkic ethnonymy discovered that Syanbies were Türkic-speaking, and their name consists of two ethnonyms: Syan/Sün i.e. 'Huns', and bi/bek/baj ‘rich, owners’. If they were formed as a result of consolidation of the Süns (Huns) and Bies, then they are also related to the Huns, which is what is written in the "Djagfar Tarihy" annals.
The message of the annals about the creation in the Near East by the Bulgars (more accurate: Türks) of the state Samar (Sumer) also presents an interest. In fact, it is known from the other sources that the word Sumer historically ascends to the ethnonym Subar > Sumar > Samar > Sumer > Shumer.
The research of the last years also confirms the information of the annals that the Türkic tribes (called Bulgars in the annals) have spread in the huge territory from the Yenisei to Danube, including all of the Eastern Europe [ Bahshi Iman, 1994, vol. 2, 16-17], thus once again rejecting the doctrine of the traditional Türkology about the arrival of the Türks to the Eastern Europe, to the the Near East and to the the Asia Minor only in 4th-11th centuries AD.
The compendium of the Bulgarian annals and the "Legend about Shan's daughter", the reliability of whose messages is recognized by the Ukrainian, and Bulgarian scientists, have a very important for the Türkic history message about the life of the early Bulgars, namely that the Bulgars before and during the Great Bulgaria times occupied the Ukrainian lands, and that the city of Kyiv was founded by them.
The Ukrainian historian Yury Oleynik noted, after he came to know the Shamsi Bashtu poem "Legend about Shan's daughter", that the mythological culture of the Bulgars rendered an enormous influence upon the Slavic peoples. It is reflected in a multitude of the common for both peoples mythological characters and storylines. It is quite probable that the author of the "Tale about Igor's troops" was well familiar with the Bulgarian cultural traditions (and maybe also with the "Legend about Shan's daughter")... An extremely important moment for us, in the poem of Shamsi Bashtu, is the testament about the founding of the Kyiv by Shambat, the brother of the Bulgarian khan Kurbat, for it is a known fact that Kyiv in antiquity had one more name, Sambatos (i.e. Shambat) [Oleynik Yu., 1992, 76-78].
Interesting in this respect is the research of another Ukrainian journalist-historian Anatoly Jelezny, published in the public and cultural newspaper "Maydan" (Kyiv, ¹ 1-3, 1998). As a separate book they were published, per the initiative and assistance of the Regional charitable organization "Moscow Tatar culture society 'Tugan tel' (Native language)" in the 2000 by the publishing house "Insan" under the name "Sketches about prehistory of the Kyiv Rus". From the study of many specific records about the ancient history of Kyiv, of the linguistic materials, and using the above named poem of Michael Bashtu ibn Shams Tebir, Anatoly Jelezny comes to a conclusion that "the Slavic Kyiv Rus state was formed not from the half-civilized tribes of the Polyans, Severyans, Drevlyans, etc., but arose by Slavyanization of the Türkic-speaking state that already existed there, the Great Bulgaria (the Black Bulgaria), the capital city of which was the Bashtu-Kioba … in the ethnogenesis of the Old Rus people both those (the Slavs) and the other (the Türks) played an equal role. The same can be also said about the old Rus language, Slavic by its grammatical system, but half Türkic by its dictionary composition [Jelezny A., 2000, 5].
The "Djagfar Tarihy" annals have useful information about connections of the early Bulgars (Great Bulgaria) with the Byzantium, Khazaria, Scandinavia, etc. All this data is also confirmed by other sources.
Thus, Bulgars, the ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars, were formed as a result of consolidation of many Türkic and Türkicized tribes, i.e. the ancestors of the Bulgars and early Bulgars, which one way or another befell in the Western Siberia, the Ural-Itil region, in the Caucasus and Northern Pontic during the creation and development of the Itil Bulgaria, which was very closely linked with these regions.
95. Archeological cultures of the tribes in the formation regions of the Bulgaro-Tatars.
As we already know, the archeological cultures correspond to specific groups of the ancient population, and also to the particular ethnic groups, and therefore the scientists tried to attribute the ethnic characteristics of the archeological cultures in the Ural-Itil region.
In the opinion of the archeologists, an intensive ethnogenetical process began in Neolith (the newest, latest period of the Stone Age), i.e. in the 8th-3rd millenniums BC. In the Bronze Age, especially from the 4th millennium to the end of the 2nd millennium BC, large language families congealed in the Eurasia [Arutünov S.A., 1989, 75]. Hence, from then on began the movement of the Türks, Finno-Ugrians, Indo-Europeans, etc. for the establishment of their ethnic interests (Helicobacter Pylory in Scientific American, Feb. 2005 - Translator's Note).
On a basis of the Mezolithitic (10th-7th millenniums BC) cultural and economic achievements in the Euro-Asian steppes, especially in the Itil-Ural region, on the boundary of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC emerged a steppe, so-called Pit-Grave, or Kurgan, culture. It was born in the steppes of the Itil-Yaik interfluvial [Laypanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 20].
From the results of the studies of the archeologists is known that the complex of ethnocultural elements in the Itil-Ural "ancient Pit-Gravers" has persisted almost without changes in the life and culture of all Türkic-speaking peoples of the Eurasia up to the 16th-17th centuries AD.
I.M.Miziev notes the following among these specific features:
1) Kurgan barrow;
2) Burials in timber, troughs, waggons;
3) Felt or reed underlayment in a tomb;
4) Accompanying of the deceased with sacrificial horses or sheep
5) Mobile cattle-breeding character of life;
6) Use in food of horsemeat and koumiss;
7) Residing in felt yurts [Laypanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 22].
All these facts and other reasons lead the author to the conclusion that in the extreme antiquity, during several millenniums, the pra-Türks lived together with Finno-Ugrians in the Ural-Itil region, but that in the forest-steppe, and especially in the steppe zone of that region, the pra-Türks were nevertheless the prevailing population.
At the end of the 4th - the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC main territories of the pra-Türkic and other cattle breeding tribes had considerably extended from the Emba in the east to Dniestr in the west. At the same time in the ancient ancestral home, in the Itil-Ural region, remained a significant part of the ancient Pit-Gravers. "They formed a substrate for the formation of the Itil region Türkic-speaking peoples: Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvashes" [Ibid, 22, 26].
All stated above is also evidenced by the linguistic research. So, non-aggressive interaction of the Türkic-speaking and Finno-Ugrian-lingual tribes which continued for millenniums in the Ural-Itil region formed a Türko-Finno-Ugric linguistic union, known in science as Itil-Kama linguistic union. This means that the languages of the local Türkic tribes (the ancestors of the Tatars, Bashkirs and Chuvashes), under the influence of the local Finno-Ugric languages attained such features that distinguish them from the Türkic languages of other regions, just as the languages of the local Finno-Ugric tribes (ancestors of Mari, Udmurts and partly Mordins) differ from the other Finno-Ugric languages by their Türkic inclusions. The development of the original local Türkic language in the Itil region and Urals went on quite steadily, and it easily absorbed the languages of various newcoming tribes. So, the Central Asian Türkic language of the the Tatars, who came to the Itil region with the Mongolian armies, quickly and completely assimilated by the original local Türkic speech.
The owners of the Pit-Grave and Timber-Grave cultures of the Itil-Ural were Caucasoids, but among them also were types with insignificant Mongoloid, or more correctly, Lapanoid features. K.T.Laypanov and I.M.Miziev came to this opinion based on the objective research of M.N.Gerasimov [Laypanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 25], which confirms the thought of the scientists that the Eastern European Türks in the anthropological relation almost did not changed since the time of the emergence of the Pit-Grave culture until today. If the modern Bulgaro-Tatars were formed only during the Kipchak Khanate times from ostensibly the Mongolo-Tatar newcomers from the east, among them would be much more Mongoloids.
The descendants of the Pit-Grave culture tribes in the Ural-Itil region played a major role in the formation there of the Timber-Grave culture during the advanced bronze age (the 2-nd half of the 2nd - the beginning of the 1st millennium BC), widespread in the steppe and forest-steppe zone of the Eastern Europe. The economy of the tribes of the Timber-Grave culture: in a steppe belt mostly nomadic cattle breeding, in the forest-steppe belt agricultural and local ranch cattlebreeding. The unions of the Timber-Grave culture tribes played a significant role in the formation of the known Cimmerians, and later of the Scythians [Merpert N.Ya. BSE, 3rd edition, vol. 24-1, 384]. As we have already proved in the first part of this book, among the Cimmerians and Scythians the Türks were a major component, and hence, their ancestors also were basically Türks.
By the middle of the 2nd millennium BC next to these large archeological cultures is also noted the presence of the Abashev, Balan, Kazanian and Pozdnyak cultures. Apparently, their owners were Finno-Ugrians and Türks.
Further, for our zone of great importance are the conclusions of the studies of the Ananian archeological culture. That archeological culture belongs to the Iron Age (8th-3rd centuries BC), it is distributed in the basin of the Kama, partly the Middle Itil, Vyatka and White rivers. The tribes of this culture were engaged in a clear-cut agriculture, cattle breeding, hunting and fishery; they knew the metallurgy of the copper, bronze and iron [BSE, 3rd edition, vol. 1, 572]. The tribes of the Ananian culture usually are considered to be Finno-Ugrians. But in reality the zone and time of the Ananian culture coincide with the zone and time of the spread of the Scythian tribes, among whom were both Türks and Finno-Ugrians. The Ural-Itil region by that time was already closely tied with Khuarases (Suar+As), i.e. the ancient Kwarezmians and the Middle Asian Sakas. And the word Saka is just another name of the same Scythians.
The direct descendants of the Ananians were the tribes of the so-called Pianoborsk archeological culture (from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD) with an economy of hoe agriculture and cattle breeding [Valeev F.H., 1975, 37].
In 4th-7th centuries AD into the lower reaches of the Kama and Middle Itil region move in the tribes of Imenkov culture. In the traditional historical science it is believed that the tribes of both the Pianoborsk, and the Imenkov cultures can be anybody, but only not the Türks, for the Türks ostensibly came to the Ural-Itil region only in the 4th-7th centuries AD, and they ostensibly were only the nomads, and the Imenkovs are farmers. If we have had recognized that the Türkic tribes in the Ural-Itil region lived long before our era, that there they also were engaged in the agriculture, it is self-evident that the Imenkovs there were the Türkic-speaking ancestors of the Bulgars.
Thus, in the Ural-Itil region, Western Siberia, in the Northern Caucasus, where was formed the Bulgarian people, lived the local ancestors of the Bulgars and the so-called early Bulgars.
|Origin of Türks-Contents · Introduction · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Fifth chapter · ORIGIN OF TATARS|
|Part 2 - ORIGIN OF TATARS · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Conclusion · Name and Ethnic Index · Literature|
Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
|© Çàêèåâ Ì.Ç., 2002|