Some voices never die. The fact that the Hunnic, or Hsiung-nu/Xiongnu, language was of a Türkic linguistic family was firmly established for at least a century, albeit some dissention survived to 1970s-1980s, when a series of contemporary works added their heft to the subject. Since Shiratori, 1902, the Hunnic Oracle has conclusively demonstrated its Türkic lexicon and morphology. The western vocabulary reported by Priscus and Jordanes number 3 words, of which two, kamos (drink), and strava (funeral feast) are reflexes of the Türkic kumiss (drink) and ystrau (funeral feast, in Karaim records), and one is a local medos (honey); the Caspian Huns' vocabulary numbers 5 clearly Türkic words. The Chinese sources in part stem from the Han era and in part from the post-Han period after 2nd c. AD,  E.G.Pulleyblank inventoried 278 Hunnic words¹ without meaningful analysis. Aside from the proper names, almost all simple Hunnic words have old Türkic prototypes identified by reconstruction over all Türkic languages (Table 1), the common Türkic words like Tangry (sky, Heaven) - the Pra-Türkic Tangry, rong - Pra-Türkic headquarters, orun - place, throne, kyngrak - sword, a large knife; and many archaic Türkic words did not reach the written Türkic languages.²  By now, the consensus on the equivalency of the Hsiung-nu/Xiongnu with the Huns (W.B. Henning, 1948), and on equivalency of the Hunnic and Türkic languages are generally unequivocal, with numerous specific aspects still waiting for permanent conclusion, and some odious narrow-focused dissidents still reanimating the past controversies.

The listing is not overwhelming, but sufficient as immediate evidence for a high level of confidence. History knows that languages were classed as Indo-European on a far slimmer evidence, and at times at contravention of the evidence.

The offered excerpt from the Peter B. Golden Khazar studies: an historico-philological inquiry into the origins of the Khazars adds more to the known Caspian Huns' vocabulary. It would be wonderful if the other Caucasian Hun's words were given a similar treatment.

Page numbers are shown at the end of the page in blue. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author, are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers. Diacritics may need verification against the original. The unusual spelling forms are translated to pronounceable English and shown in parentheses in (blue italics): Khwarazm (Horezm) etc.

Movses Dasxuranc'i (i.e. Movses Khorenatsi, Movses of Chorene, Movses Kalankatuatsi, or Movses Kagankatuatsi; the choice of the form depends on which side of the fence sits the translator), whose Patmut'iwn Aluanic' is a veritable gold mine of information for the little known peoples of the North Caucasus, has a rather long account of the religious customs of the North Caucasian “Huns” (see. pp. 90-91 of this work). In the course of his notice, he mentions three “Hunnic” words:

Movses Dasxuranc'i, ed. Emin, p. 273 : քուար (k'uar)] p. 273: թանգրի իան (T'angri Xan)՝, p. 292: չոփայ (Č՛op՞ay), variant: p. 293: չափայ (č'ap'ay)

K'uar and T'angri Xan are names of gods. T'angri Xan is clearly Turkic tanrı, tangn, tengri “God” + Xan.

K'uar might, perhaps, mask *kök (“heaven”, “sky”, “blue”) + ar/er (“man”), köğer >kö-er (cf. Κοναρτζι = *küârci “blau”,⁸⁹⁰) k'uar = *köâr (?).
Another possibility is Turkic qağur-/qogur-/gavir- “zarit’”, “kalit’” (Sl., heat, fire)⁸⁹¹ (cf. Paasonen, Tschuw. W., p. 71 kəvar “gliihende Kohle” (Gmn. burning coal), Čuvaš.-Russ. 81., p. 146 kâvar (i) “goriačie ugli” (Sl., hot coals) “žar” (Sl., heat, fire), (ii) “ogon” (Sl., fire), “plamia” (Sl., flame), “pyl” (Sl., heat)). The god K'uar, according to Dasxuranc'i was associated with fire and lightning.⁸⁹²

č'op'ay (which in the British Museum MS OR 5261, ff. 183v, line 21, 184r, line 20 appears uniformly as č'op'ay ιηΦ“ν) is a puzzle. According to Dasxuranc'i, the č'op'ayk' (Armenian plural form) were the royal burial mounds (kurgans). Dowsett, upon L. Bazin’s suggestion, offers Turkic čöp (see Gronbech, Kom. Wb., p. 76 čöp “Überbleibsel” (Gmn. remnant), “Abfâlle” (Gmn. waste), tirki čöbü “Überbleibsel vom Opfer . . .” (Gmn. Remnants of the sacrifice)). He notes that “the word is preserved in various Caucasian languages, In Ossetic čoppay means a ceremonial dance around a victim struck by lightning, a refrain sung at the burial of the same, and a rite at the time of drought”.⁸⁹³

890 See Nemeth, Die Inschrifien, p. 50.
891 DTS, pp. 406, 437, 452.
892 Dasxuranc'i, History, trans. Dowsett, p. 156.
893 Ibid, pp. 165-166, n. 2.
259

Other sources (Byzantine, Latin and Ethiopian) mention a number of sixth century “Hunnic” chieftains who were drawn into the Perso-Byzantine entanglements of the 520’s as the two empires competed for allies in the strategically important North Caucasian and Pontic steppelands.

The earliest mention of the North Caucasian Hunnic chieftains (Theophanes calls him “King of the Huns”⁸⁹⁴) is Ζιλγίβις (Zilgevis, Zilevis)

Io. Malalas (Bonn ed.), pp. 414-415: Ζιλγίβις; variants: Ζιλγίβι, Ζιλγιβί, Ζιλγίβιν⁸⁹⁵
Chronicon Paschale (see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 131): Ζίλγβις, Ζίλγβι, Ζίλγβιν, ζιλγβίν, τζιλγβιρος
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. de Boor, I, p. 167 :⁸⁹⁶ Ζιλγβί, Ζιλγβιν.
Variants: ζιλίγβις, ζιλγβής, ζιλίγδης, Zelicbes, ζιλίγβιν, ζιλίγδην Zelicben, etc.
John of Nikiu: Züigdes; Landolfus : Ziligdes,⁸⁹⁷

Comments: There is no satisfactory explanation of this name (silig/silik pure, faultless + Bi/Biy/Bek, “Ideal Prince, Perfect Prince”. The Bek truncated to Bi is typical for the western, Sarmat vernaculars, attesting to Bulgar phonetics. Both semantics and phonetics of the form Ζιλγίβι are near perfect, the absence of “satisfactory explanation” is more than puzzling).

Some seven years after the intrigues involving Ζιλίγβις, two “Hunnic” kings appear in the Byzantine sources : Γλώμ ~ Γλώνης and Τύραγξ ~ Στνραξ:

Io. Malalas (Bonn ed.), p. 431: Γλώμ, Τύραγξ.
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. de Boor, p. 175 : Γλώνης, Στνραξ.
Scylitzes-Cedrenus (Bonn ed.) I, p. 644 : Γλώης, Στνραξ.
John of Nikiu (trans. Charles, p. 140): 'Aglânös, Astern

Pronunciation: Γλώμ/Γλώνης/ 'Aglânös = *Oğulom?, *Oğlan (? certainly not as a personal name at this early date). Τύραγξ /Στύραξ/ Astern = *Tûrâk?, *Türängäš ?, *EStüräk ?, *Astüräk? (Oğlan can certainly be a personal name at that time or any time earlier or any time later, Cf. Eng. clan ~ oğlan “offspring” ~ Gaelic clann  “offspring”, concurrent on the opposite ends of Europe, and separated by a round-trip timespan of ca. 5,000 years from the Celts to the Huns, and at least 1400 years from the English to the Huns. Also. thousands of adult males for centuries were called “boy” in the USA and elsewhere)

Comments: Moravcsik notes in regard to Γλώμ/Γλώνης that a Persian called Γλώνης is mentioned in Procopius and Theophanes.⁸⁹⁸ It is impossible to discern from the forms we have what name (or title?) may be hidden here (really?).

We encounter similar problems with Τύραγξ /Στύραξ/Asterä. Moravcsik comments that the name Στύραξ is found in classical and Byzantine Greek as a Greek personal name.

894 Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. de Boor, I, p. 167.
895 For these and other manuscript variants given here, see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 131.
896 See also Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 131.
897 The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, p. 138, Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 11, p. 131.
898 Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 114.
260

Our Byzantine authors may simply have Grecized a similar sounding foreign name. Moravcsik cites the alternative explanations: *Öz-turaq or Iranian Stürak (both followed by question marks).⁸⁹⁹·We venture to propose an etymology: tιğraq “one who is renowned for cleverness” [see Houtsma, TAG. (Arabic text), p. 25; tiraq “rasch, energisch” cf. Grenbech, Kom. Wb., p. 263].⁹⁰⁰ Another possibility is *Tülâk (with r-l oscillation), an Uyğur name found in a thirteenth century juridical document from the Turfan oasis (see DTS, p. 596).

Byzantine tradition has preserved the names of two other “Hunnic” chieftains prominent in the Pontic steppes at this time (c. 527): Γορδάς/ Γρώδ who was won over to Christianity and killed by his fellow-tribesmen as a result and his brother Μυυαγέρις-Μουγελ who succeeded him as king:

Io. Malalas (Bonn ed.), pp. 431-432: Γρώδ, Μουγελ
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. de Boor, I, pp. 175-176: Γορδάς, Μουάγερις. Variants : Χορδάς, Gorda; Μουαγέρης.
Scylitzes-Cedrenus (Bonn ed.), p. 644 : Γορδάς, Μουαγέραν. Variants:⁹⁰¹ Μουάγερον, Μοναγέρα.

Nemeth has suggested that Γορδάς/Γρώδ = *Oğurda (the tribal name Oğur + Hung, suffix -da) (Türkic locative suffix -da, “Of Ogurs”), Μουάγερις = *Mogyeri (the Hungarian tribal name)⁹⁰² (a derivative of Türkic bögü:/bögö:/bok (n.) “magic, sage, wizard, sorcery, witchcraft”, with m/b alteration and extended meanings “might, rich, miracle, bogus, etc.”). It is not clear, however, that the Hungarians, or elements of them, were present in the steppelands north of the Kuban at this time (Neither is clear that*Mogyeri is Hungarian, most of the E. European ethnonyms are Türkic exonyms adopted as ethnonyms). We may perhaps agree with Nemeth that Γορδάς/Γρώδ does contain the element *Ogur (in the Ogur phonetics with the initial prosthetic g-). The treatment of δας/δ, however, fraught as it is with other consequences, cannot be further elucidated at this time (Türkic vernacular noun suffixes -č diminutive, endearing, -d locative, both suitable semantically). Our second name, Μουάγερις, is even more troublesome. Its rendering as *Mogyeri (Mod'eri) faces formidable philological difficulties (in the Greek of this period it would have been pronounced Muager(i) or Muayer/Muayeri) (The same root mag- with -ar “man”, i.e. generic “mighties, rulers”, in Greek rendition). Any resolution of the question based on data at hand must, perforce, rest on various emendations and ultimately speculation.

899 Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, pp. 292-293.
900 Cf. also Kuryszanov, Issledovanie, p. 202 and the literature cited
901 Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 193.
902 Nemeth, HMK, pp. 167-168, cf. also Schönebaum, “Die Kenntnis der byzanti-nischen Geschichtsschreiber” Ung. Bibl., Erste Reihe, 5, pp. 1—3.
261

In any discussion of Khazar ethnic affinities, we are handicapped by the lack of any texts in the Khazar language. On the basis of the limited material presented in the Wordlist (which contains all the material we have on the Khazar language in literary sources), we can, I think, arrive at certain general conclusions. The bulk of Khazar titulature is identical with that known to the Turkic world at that time in general and is, in almost all respects, one and the same with that of the Kök Türks in particular. The majority of the personal names are Turkic (two are probably Iranian (“probably” is an echo of other “expert” speculations, positively wrong in case of Kundajiq): Hazar and Kundajiq = *Kundagiq, the latter with a Turkic diminutive suffix). A number of names (Barjik, Baštwa, Bulčan, Čat, Čatn, Cul/Culı etc.) and several titles (K.nd.r, Jawašigar, Salifan) remain unexplained (The title Sulifa, Mandarin Pyn. Xielifa/Sylifa 苏李发?/葛李发?, Khazar Khalifa, and the title K.nd.r, Mandarin Pyn. 汗 “khan”, 可汗  ke-han “kagan”, corroborate the attribution of the Bulgars with the tribe Pu-ku (Bugu, 布谷/布库/布苏) of the Chinese annals, the head of Pu-ku was titled with identical “Sulifa Kenan Bain”, and the attestation of the Khazar sources points to the Khazars being a fraction of Bulgars). This is due to either garblings in our texts (cf. Barjik, *Yazir (?) ?lâš) or lack of comparative material.

 Khazar hydronyms and toponyms, once we leave the North Caucasus where substratal elements appear to predominate (Balanjar, Samandar, Varačan) (Balanjar/Balyndjer/ and Varačan are allophones, meaning either Bülün Jar “”Military headquarter”, or Balan Jar “Tribute (collection) center”, or Balan Jar “terrible place”, Cf. Grozny “terrible (place)”, or  Balyn Jar “Meadow Land” (lit. Honeyed Earth), Samandar from saman “adobe”) and come to the lower Volga-Don steppelands, are Turkic (Sarkel, Sariğšin, Xamlix = *Xan Baliq (?), Qutluğ (?), Atıl/İtil).

 The structure of the Khazar Qağanate, as we have seen, clearly parallels that of the Kök Türks both in its broader outlines and its specific features (cf. the Qaganlıq budun ~ il täbärlik budun relationship between the Khazars and the North Caucasian Huns) (Kaganate's people  ~ commune people, lit. people of cohort land).

Given all of the above, we must conclude that ethnically the Khazars were a Turkic people (borrowing might explain some of these elements but not all of them). Our real difficulties begin when we attempt to determine what kind of Turks the Khazars were. On the basis of a notice in Istaxri (see above) attempts have been made to connect the Khazars with the Oğuric Turkic peoples. Our Wordlist provides little justification for this. The toponym Sarkel (*Šarı kel) is perhaps the only word that may be viewed as specifically Oğuric, but even here it is by no means clear. Other words, such as Tudun (= Oğuric/Bulğaric Turun) are clearly not. The problem is complicated by the multinational (and presumably multilingual) character of the Qağanate in the period in which the accounts forming the basis for our sources were collected. The Qağanate, like all great Altaic state formations was a confederation of tribes. Undoubtedly, there were present in the Qaganate Turks speaking a variety of Turkic dialects (both standard and Oğuric), bi-lingual or even multilingual Finno-Ugrians, Iranians (??), Slavs etc. One may well suppose that some of these ethnically non-Khazars were informants for our sources. Obviously, our literary sources may have missed some of the finer ethno-distinguishing points. Thus, the Wordlist cannot give any definitive answer regarding the exact ethnic place of the Khazars \262\ within the Turkic world (only texts in Khazar can). In its broader outlines it strongly indicates to us that the Khazars were Turks. Its comparative material should prove useful for both Turkologists and historians dealing with the vagaries of steppe history.
262

The ninth century, the period in which Khazar power reached its zenith and then began to decline has been for the scholar (even with Marquart’s monumental Streifzüge as a guideline) a difficult century. In Eastern Europe, the two most important events (the rise of the Rus and the decline of Khazaria) are still not fully elucidated. It is hoped that by having gathered all the available linguistic and ethnographic material on the Khazars (combined with an historical narrative) more light has been shed on this important people and thereby somewhat more illumination has been given to the area and events as a whole.