Klyosov A. Türkic DNA genealogy
Muhamadiev A. Hunnic Writing
Muhamadiev A. Turanian Writing
Muhamadiev A. Türkic Coins in Eastern Europe and Chorasm
Muhamadiev A. Kurbat Ring
Kisamov N. On Scytho-Iranian Theory
Ogur and Oguz
Ethnic Affiliation Scythians
Scythians and their descendents
Stearns P.N. Zhou Synopsis
|Huns and their descendents|
A NEW LOOK
at history of Huns, Khazars, Great Bulgaria and Kipchak Khanate
Kazan, Tatar publishing house, 2011, print 2000 copies, ISBN-978-5-298-01846-3
Copyright© Azgar Muhamadiev, Àçãàð Ìóõàìàäèåâ 2011
Itil area prior to Mongols
Table of Contents see Title page and Introduction
The posting's notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are highlighted in blue font, shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes. Page numbers are shown at the end of the page in blue. Itil is the native name of the river called Volga in Russian sources. The Russian colloquial phrases “Golden Horde” ~ “Çîëîòàÿ îðäà”, “Golden Horde period” ~ “çîëîòîîðäûíñêèé ïåðèîä”, and its untranslatable contracted form “Horde period” ~ “îðäûíñêèé ïåðèîä” are replaced with their semantical contents “Kipchak Khanate” and “Kipchak Khanate period” respectively. The term Great Bulgaria, first applied to the Kurbat Bulgaria that included autonomous sister communities centered in Pannonia and Lower Danube area, in 7th-10th cc. was overshadowed by the term Khazaria, the bulk of which remained the same population and political structure of the Great Bulgaria; the dissolution of the Khazar Kaganate reverted back to the Great Bulgaria state (Greater Bulgaria, aka Bulgar, aka Ak Yourty Bulgar = Great Bulgaria), better known in the new political situation as the Itil/Volga Bulgaria. The spelling of the ethnonym Savir is most varied, due to the varied sources; in the Itil area they were called Suvars, in Slavic sources Severyan, also Sabirs, Sabaroi, Sabiri, Savari, Sabans, Sibirs, Zubur, Subartuans, Chuvashes, Aksungurs, Sevruks, and some more.
A NEW LOOK
at history of Huns, Khazars, Great Bulgaria and Kipchak Khanate
Itil area prior to Mongols
After all, if Islam is a service to God,
1. Distribution and official adoption of Islam in the Caucasus and the Itil river basin
Still during the life of the Prophet Muhammad, some twenty years after a start of his preaching, almost entire Arab world accepted the new religion. A study of the spread of Islam in the Caucasus and Itil basin forces a recognition that more convincing were not theological arguments, but the force of arms. Initially, the Arab army consisted of small but militant equestrian regiments of Bedouin nomads. However, at the head of the Bedouins stood noble citizens of Mecca and Medina, “armed” with novel young religion, acceptable to both the settled farmers and the nomads in the Caucasus and Eurasia.
After the death of Prophet Muhammad in 632, the political situation in the north of the Arab world formed under an influence of the Persian-Byzantine War, where Khazar state played not a small role, supporting the Byzantine crown. It is in this direction that Islam began its more intensive spread.
A companion of the Prophet Muhammad, a first Caliph Abubakr (632-634) sent Khalid bin al-Walid to spread Islam in the north up to the headwaters of the Euphrates. Khalid had a small two thousand-strong detachment, and set out in the month of Muharram (633). Along the way, the Khalid's squad “was gaining” Bedouin converts to Islam. According to one of the Bedouin: “Khalid bin al-Walid attacked us with his cavalry, and we said, “We are Muslims!” Then he left us alone, and we went on a campaign together with him”.
Gradually, the Khalid squad reached 10 thousand soldiers. The Arabs refusing to accept Islam Khalid handled cruelly. Moving toward north, he won a victory after victory over the heathens, and soon encountered the Persian army. Two Persian commanders Zarmihr and Ruzbeh came out with their troops in support of their Taglibit Arab allies from the side of the Persian village Baghdad, the future caliphate capital. At al-Husayda Khalid joined fight with the main forces of Persians, both commanders were killed in battle, and the remnants of their army dispersed.
Khalid was not content with the defeat of Taglibits and their allies, and moved up the Euphrates,
where within the limits of the Byzantine Empire was gathering forces a second Taglibit group. In a night attack
Taglibits were crushed, and the remaining troops retreated, but a further pursuit of enemies in the
Byzantine territory threatened Khalid with encounter with the forces of the Emperor.
However, Khalid did not succeed in avoiding an encounter with more powerful enemies. The return way was blocked by a joint Arab-Byzantine-Persian army from the border garrisons and Taglibit remnants. Khalid succeed in badly routing the combined forces of the enemy, and the 800-mile trek that began with no preparations, with just a two-thousand strong squad, ended successfully.
That campaign characterizes not only the talent of Khalid and his tactics, but also the advantage of his army, the understanding by the soldiery that the new religion requires submission to the common cause, which stands above personal desires and attitudes. It was a manifestation of the superiority of the young Arab state, armed with new ideology. over defenders of individual interests.
Soon the Arabs turned their attention toward Iraq and especially the Khazar state - a powerful ally of Byzantium in its endless war with Persians. The further spread of Islam in the north is already associated with the activities of the next caliph, Omar (634-644.).
In 637 the Muslim armies crushed the troops of the last member of the Sassanid dynasty Ezdiger III (632-651) and captured the Persian capital Ctesiphon. This important victory opened the way to the Caucasus. According to the famous Arab historian al-Tabari (839-923), after Ezdiger's son Shahriyar in 637 fled, “broke (their future) ways with the residents of Azerbaijan and al-Baba (Timer-Kapug, Derbent)”. A military camp Kufa in Iraq became a center (635-637 g), later it became not only a center of culture and commerce, but also a capital of the caliphate. There subsequently starts the minting of the so-called Kufic dirhams.
In 639 AD, Azerbaijan was completely conquered by Bukaira ibn Abdullah. Has survived a document, drawn up after annexation of Azerbaijan, between the Caliph Omar and the people of Azerbaijan, which states that it is granted by “Umar ibn Khattab, the ruler of believers, to the people of Azerbaijan, to the people of its plains and mountains, its suburbs, members of his religious community. All of them are guaranteed safety (aman), property (mal) of the religious community and (respect) of their laws (shariga) with the condition of their payment of jizya according to their ability (but jizya is not imposed on adolescents, on women without means of livelihood, on hermits, on pilgrims without income...). Compiled in 639”.
Soon Caliph Omar appointed Surak ibn Amr a new commander in the Caucasus,, under whose command
Bukaira and Abdurahman set out from Azerbaijan to al-Bab. Foreseeing a danger of a
campaign, to help Suraka, Caliph Omar appointed Habib ibn Maslamah to help. The campaign was a success,
the ruler of al-Bab Shahrbaraz, a Persian in origin, sent a letter to the Arab commander Abdurakhman and
requested a release from the shameful jizya, ”... I am obeying to what you do, Allah bless us and
you”. Surak explained the purpose of jizya, “Jizya is certainly taken from those who stay (at
home) and does not participate (in the fight against the enemy. And it became a custom...”. Then was
concluded an agreement with the Derbent ruler Shahrbaraz: ”...the same as for the inhabitants of
After that Suraka sent Bukaira, Maslamah and some other commanders against the inhabitants of the mountains surrounding Armenia, against Tbilisi, etc. Of all these events and of the Muslim victory the over the heathens Surak reported to the Caliph. But soon the commander died. When the news of his death reached the Caliph Omar, he appointed a commander Abdurahman and ordered him to launch a campaign against the Türks. That was the first encounter with the Khazar Kaganate, the state of the Türks.
After emergence of the Türkic Kaganate in the 6th c., stretched from the Altai to Crimea, the various Hunnic-Türkic tribes, the Khazars, Bulgars, Suvars, even the Magyars, etc., started to be called “Türks”, which literally meant “belonging to the state”.
Back in the 5th c. Hun period, after the death of Attila, the Hun empire fragmented into separate states. In the west formed a young country, the Avar Kaganate, named after Avars (Wars/Uars, an Ephthalite tribe), a strong Hunnic tribe. In the east formed a Khazar Kaganate state (named after the tribe of Khazars). During Islam expansion in the Caucasus, the capital cities of the Khazars, such as Belenjer (aka Varachan, capital of Kayis and later of Suvars, aka future Khamzin, in Dagestan in the Khazar state) and Semender (capital of Kayis and later of Suvars, in Dagestan in the Khazar state), were located in the North Caucasus, in the Kuban area “the land of the Huns” (actually in Dagestan). The (Kul Gali) work “Kyssa-i Yusuf” (written 1193-1203), these lands are called “Kangan”, i.e. “Possession of Kagan”.
Following the Caliph Omar order, Abdurahman gathered troops to march against Khazars and set out of Derbent. According to al-Tabari, Shahrbaraz asked Abdurahman: “What are you going to do?” That said, “I want (to march against) Belenjer”, i.e. the Khazars' capital. Shahrbaraz said: “Indeed we should be happy with them (the Khazars), if they leave us (alone) beyond the al-Bab”. Abdurahman proudly replied, “But we would be unhappy until we catch them in their own country”.
Abdurahman did not realize how strong an enemy of Islam he would face. Although, the first campaign was a success. His cavalry reached the Khazar Kagan court at al-Baida (Itil city), located on the Itil river 200 farsahs (one farsah is approximately 3 miles, or 5-6 km) from Belendjer. However, further clashes with the Khazars became more persistent. Caliph Uthman (644-656) warned Abdurahman: “Stop (further advance) and do not subject Muslims tof danger”. However, according to al-Tabari, he did not stop attacking Belenjer until Khazars crushed him in 635, and he was killed.
The war with the Khazars become endless. It went on with mixed success. For example, in 724 Maslamah, a commander knows no defeat, was appointed a governor of the S. Caucasus . In 724, Maslamah organized a major campaign against Khazaria, but was defeated.
Another commander, Jarrah, in 730 AD was crushed and killed by Bardjil, a son of the Khazar king. However, the incessant attacks
of the “armed” with the new religion Arabs stunned the Khazars.
According to al-Tabari, who passed the words from the lips of a warrior from a tribe Banu: “When (Muslim)
campaigns against Khazars started following one after another, they began to complain and decry, saying:
“We were a people that
no one dared to approach us, until came this smallish nation...”. They (the Khazars) were saying to each
other:” Yea, they do not die, if they were dying, they would not be rushing boldly at us”.
The ease of adopting Islam, which only required to recognize the Allah above and participate in the actions of the Muslims, as can be seen from the above examples, facilitated its rapid spread in the Caucasus. However, an official adoption of Islam by the Khazars was far away. The Byzantines, like in the wars with the Persians, in clashes with the Arabs tried to use Khazars as a human shield. In 732, Emperor Leo the Isaurian married his son Constantine to a daughter of Kagan, her name was Tsitsek (chichek) - flower.
The official adoption of Islam in the Itil basin is associated with the name of the commander Marwan ibn Muhammad, appointed a ruler of the S. Caucasus by the Caliph Hisham (Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik, 724-743). In 733, he undertook several campaigns against tribes subordinated to the Khazars, and asked Caliph for additional 12 thousand troops to fight the Khazars.
In the war with Khazars, Marwan used not only his strength, but also sought different diplomatic approaches. In 735, he sent troops to the Caucasus against the Kagan's subject tribes, and meanwhile sent an embassy to the Khazar ruler with an offer of peace. In response to the Marwan embassy, Kagan also sent an ambassador. But in 737 Marwan detained the ambassador. At the head of a 150,000-strong army Marwan broke into the Khazarian lands. Only then he released the Khazarian ambassador. The ambassador's news of the invasion by the huge Arab army was a complete surprise to the Kagan, and he had to flee to the north, leaving his new capital Itil at the mouth of the Itril river.
But Marwan chased Kagan with accelerated march, plundering on the way the Kagan's subject Burtas (Mordva) tribes. That shows that Marwan was moving to the north on the right bank of the Itil. The Khazar troops were on the left bank. At night, Marwan crossed over to the left bank, and his scouts in a chance encounter killed the Khazar's commander. The Khazar army, headless and not expecting the enemy attack, was defeated. The Kagan sued for peace. Marwan demanded adoption of Islam by the Khazars.
The Khazar Kagan first desired to learn from the exegetes about basic canons of the religion, and then converted to Islam. Thus, in 737, occurred an official adoption of Islam by the Khazar Kaganate. The main role in the grand event played Marwan ibn Muhammad with his army, later he became a Caliph (744-750).
The formal adoption of Islam by the Khazars and many sources indicate the nature of the Itil basin: mass chasing
lettering “Kufi” dirhams in the capital city of Itil, based on the Arabic
In the Khazar cities after conversion to Islam were opening schools and mosques. But the most wondrous for the Khazars' early medieval history was the construction of the Christian churches and synagogues in the cities. Al-Istahri (849-934) wrote that the the Khazar king is surrounded by “about four thousand people, the Khazarian Muslims, Christians, and Jews; among them also are those who worship idols; a smaller part are Jews, and larger part are Muslims and Christians” .
The spread of Islam among the Khazars was not straightforward. In 750, was killed Caliph Marwan ibn Muhammad, who as the governor in the Caucasus organized a campaign to Itil river, and apparently with his death the usual favorable treaty between him and the Khazar Kagan to some extent lost its force. To power came a new Abbasid dynasty with the Caliph Abul Abbas (750-754), whose nickname was “al-Saffah/as-Saffah” (bloodsucker).
Under the reign of the next caliph Mansur (754-775) the teaching of Islam was reformed. Apparently not accidentally Mansour was not recognized not only in Spain, still ruled by the Umayyads not destroyed by Abul Abbas, but also in the North Africa. And the Egypt has recognized Abbasids in name only. The Abbasid coup has caused a number of religious movements dangerous for Islam, including in the Middle Asia.
Surrounded by Persian satraps, Caliph Mansur undertook an expedition against the Khazar possessions in the Caucasus, he reached the Baku districts, and imposed a tribute on the oil wells. The oil (in Arabic - “naphtha”) Arabs used with siphons. Later, Byzantines also borrowed this weapon (“Greek fire”).
The grown influence of the Persians at the Abbasid court, the capture by Mansur of the areas in the Caucasus where passed very important for the Khazara trade routes, and where the interests of the Persia and Khazars conflicted since ancient times led to a breakdown in the relations between the Khazar Kaganate and Caliph Mansur.
Khazar Kagan was surrounded not only by the supporters of the Umayyads, who had escaped from the Caliphate, but also the Jews. Under their influence, the population adopted Judaism. Rupture of relations with the caliph is traced by the Khazar dirhams. Their minting continued, deliberately following the old traditional Umayyad type.
2. High level of agriculture and nomadic lifestyle in the ancient Türkic society
...Great Bulgaria is the last country that has cities.
Neither the Khazar Empire (7th-10th cc.), the first feudal state in the Eastern Europe, nor its successor after
its disintegration, the Great Bulgaria (10th - 13th cc.), with numerous cities and
located on the Itil river capitals Itil in the Lower Itil and Bulgar in the Middle Itil, were not “nomadic
This formulation is a designed for a wide audience modern cliche, offensive, biased, and politicized. It conducts that the nomadic lifestyle of some nomadic tribes in the the above-mentioned highly developed countries in the arid saline steppe zones defines their social system.
For example, some Samara historians came in what I would call a conscious ideological narrow-mindedness to the point of asserting that before the Ivan the Terrible conquest, the Itil river basin was populated by half naked nomadic tribes who lived in their tents like the Canada Indians. That is illustrated by the Samara Provincial History Museum calendar in a booklet form, with pictures of archaeological finds from the exposition “Masters of steppes: Ancient Nomads of Russia and Canada”.
It all would have passed allright if the exhibits did not display carved bone plates with images of superbly armed supposedly Khazar warriors, with magnificent body armor of helmets and chain mail. The Archaeological Museum of KSU (Kazan State University) also has related to the Huns, that is to the ancestors of the Khazars and Bulgars, similar weaponry (straight two-handed sword, helmet, and chain mail suit), discovered in the Turayevo burial kurgan in the RT (Republic of Tatarstan) by the famous archeologist V. Gening (Russian form of V. Henning). Such advanced weapons of war in the Early Middle Ages were not known not only to the Europeans, but also to the Romans or Byzantines, who used short gladius swords in battles, from which, by the way, came the word gladiator. So much for the naked “nomads”! (Fig. 13).
Probably, there is not need to venture that far. Perhaps, the Samara historians could have paid attention and to peer a little at medieval maps of the Itil basin, where are shown more trhat a dozen fairly large cities of the Eastern Europe built by the “nomads”, including the very city of Samara (Samar)!
200 years before the quite non-Mongol Russian army destroyed them
and 550 years before the Russian textbooks, encyclopedias, and historians instituted systematic fraud
By the way, the cities' layout on the maps makes it clear that later, the Russian colonization of the Itil river basin from Kazan to Astrakhan went not by the steppes and yurts, but by the cities and other homely deep-rooted settlements. The aliens were destroying grandiose ancient sepulchers and religious temples for their bricks, stone, and iron for their own construction, for example, for the construction of the Astrakhan kremlin (Tr. kerman = citadel > Rus. kreml/kremel > Eng. kremlin). Incidentally, this valuable building material in Russian they continued to call with the Tatar word kirpich = “brick”. Why would that be?
In contrast to the Tatar community of the Saratov that wants to celebrate the real anniversary of the city with the date of the ancient settlement, the Samarians do not want to look at the maps or compelling illustrious ancient archaeological materials - their eyes are clouded with the dregs of pride. In all fairness some in Samara should be credited with some advance, but they consider it below their station to delve into the antiquities of the “nomads”. They wish to date the foundation of the city starting with a voyage in the 14th c. of the Metropolitan Alexius I down the Itil river.
The archaeological excavations in the Great Novgorod show that in the 14th c. Rus people primarily wrote on a bark or on a parchment. Later, in the 16th -18th cc., went on a boisterous chronicling on the paper and, most importantly, a brisk editing of nearly all chronicles in line with the militant ideology of the Josephites. So, where are to be found reliable primary sources on the origin of the ancient city? Why are not acceptable the known maps of the 14th c., clearly and reliably dating of the presence of the cities by the time of drafting the maps by the medieval European cartographers?
The idea of the public celebration of the city of Saratov700-year anniversary dated by the ancient settlement in the territory of the city, was endorsed by the former provincial governors. We do not know how the dilemma will be solved by a new governor. Of course, it would be desirable that the matter was settled scientifically, legally and humanely.
The Khazaria and the Great Bulgaria, with numerous cities on the Itil and Don rivers, in the North Caucasus and Crimea (e.g. Kertz (aka Kerch); as late as the 15th-16th cc., Italian tradesmen called the Crimeans “Khazars”) were not only a world-class trading nations, but also centers of the coin mint, evidenced by the hundreds of thousands coins minted there. The cities of these states were also sources of bread, because they were surrounded by numerous villages and countryside settlements (Russian “selo”, from the Tatar “sala”) of the “nomads”.
For example, the famous Tatar poet Qutb in his poetic book “Khosrow and Shirin”, written in 1342, writes of the adventures of his hero, who was searching for his beloved:
Kicher ashyp saladin ber salaga,
With head filled with grief,
On the other hand, by the whims of nature these states did also have arid steppe areas,
sometimes brackish, where lived only nomads. In these areas, they did animal husbandry,
especially horse ranching. No doubt, excellent horses were the shine of the cavalry ,
including as transportation means and support of the welfare of the city dwellers. Judging by the medieval sources, some
rich steppe ranchers had tabuns (Russian tabun, from Tr. tabun = herd) in thousands of horses!
The significance of the horse breeding industry was
not a defect, but rather it was in step with the rapid development of technology of our time.
On the walls of the Tatarstan Republic History Institute and the National Cultural Center “Kazan” still hang small framed pictures of one M.K. Gorelik. They depict Turko-Tatar warriors (one'd think it is a caricature on the Negroid race, typological gangsters) riding almost the goats, that is on grossly undersized horses. This begs a question, why would he try to insult the ancient Türkic or Tatar people, portraying obscene cartoons? As someone quite familiar with archaeological data, he clearly knows the material of his countryman, the Moscow anthropologist L.T. Yablonsky. The restored from the found in the graves and tombs of the Middle and Lower Itil basin skulls physical appearance of the Türko-Tatars makes it difficult to visually determine an age of the person, because almost every skull has 32 teeth. In his comments on the restored from the skulls drawings we writes that “the forming role in the ethnogenesis of the Türkic-speaking peoples of the Itil river basin played mesomorphic brachycranic Caucasoid component, known in the Lower Itil territory from the Sarmatian time”, i.e., from the beginning of our era.
Regarding the midget horses, it appears that M.K.Gorelik has no idea that the Türko-Tatar languagehas about a dozen names for horse breeds. Some of them were adopted into the Russian language, such as loshad (horse) (“alasha at” is gelding) or a warhorse - “argamak”. The depicted in the paintings of Mr. M.K.Gorelik under the “gangsters” horses are “kochug” (from the Türkic word “to coach”), the free-range steppe horses, kept for their meat.
The self-respecting soldiers mounted warhorses - argamaks (in Türkic it means “strong”). On the march, to spare their horses for decisive battles, soldiers rode special “reserve” horses, called “kush at” (A form from the same “koch” = “to coach”).
On this subject, the famous Persian poet Omar Khayyam expressed an interesting thought: “In the past, no people knew horses, their merits and vices, better than the Persians, because then they ruled the world... Today, no nation knows this better than the Türks, because day and night they deal with horses, and thus they rule the world”.
But, as attest archaeological and written sources, still in these countries the first place occupied much respected agricultural estate and highly developed farming, widely spread in the areas with fertile soil.
This is evidenced by numerous archaeological finds: the Khazars and Bulgars agricultural tools.
For the first time in the Eastern Europe, they have created and used a fairly well thought of iron
saban (plow) with
a special appurtenance, a cutter. Sometimes detractors write that Bulgar plows were heavy, and for
this reason they did not
gain a wide popularity. Such an assertion is not true. These sabans were ten times lighter
than a modern iron plow used
in the countryside. The trick was that besides the iron plowboard all other components, including the
wheels, were made of wood.
Although in fairness should be mentioned again the equally interesting cast iron plowshares (Huns produced pig iron two thousand years before the Europeans!) found in the Baikal area 2nd-1st cc. BC settlements of the Huns, the Türkic ancestors. Just in the excavations of a single Ivolginsky village were found 24 such plowshares! Perhaps it would be difficult to even find a similarly high sedentary culture not only in the Eastern, but also in Western Europe of that period!
Also should be mentioned the agricultural terms. Not only the tools, but also their names have reached us: “saban” (plow), “sokha (sulk)”, “kitmen (Russian form “ketmen” ~ hoe)”, “urak” (sickle), “chalgy” (scythe), and also “aryk” (water channel), “tegermen” (mill), and many more. No less interesting are preserved grains (charred) and their names: “arpa” (barley), “bodai” (wheat), “borchak” (peas), “borai” (spelt), “tary” (millet), “orlyk” (swather), “urug” (seeds), and many more, all are words of purely Türko-Tatar origin.
Sometimes this kind of medieval Türko-Tatar terminology is overwhelmingly rich and abundant. For example, a poet Qutb said in a poem book “Khosrow and Shirin” (1342), devoted son of the Sultan (the official title on the coins and documents) Tinibeku Uzbek prince and his wife - Princess Iraq, said (and as it is written!)
Urugny kem salyr yiirge - igenche,
Who would put a seed in soil is a farmer,
Kaichan kem niyat izge kylsa Ilhan,
When Khan of land's intention is kindness,
Verses of the poet Yusuf Balasaguni in his book “Blessed knowledge” (11th c.) list major classes in Türkic society. They explain and list what approaches should the authorities use in respect of different classes: scientists, farmers, traders, artisans, nomads, lowborn, and the poor. Regarding farmers, it emphasized that “throughout the country, people and animals live thanks to agriculture, the farmers provide everyone with food and drink”. About the nomads, they said that “they have a lot of cattle. They are simple, but straight people who love the truth. No scientists are among them. They do not harm anyone, but they are useful for all”.
When it comes to the nomads, naturally immediately come to mind the records of the Kyiv chroniclers.
Khazar or Bulgar states never led major military campaigns against the Ruses. The Ruses were resolving
their territorial problems with the neighboring nomads every season in particular area, with small tribes.
With few exceptions, such as Bajanak or Mongol invasions, Khazars and Bulgars never threatened the very existence of the Kievan state.
Some skirmishes could have taken place even in the Kipchak Khanate period and,
judging from the archaeological research, the “lawful” within the same state colonization of the “vacant”
lands by the Slavic population continued to the south and east!
It is interesting to recall that the “Blessed knowledge” (Yusuf Balasaguni) has been well known in the Itil river basin even to the simple artisans, as attested by the magnificent in content couplet inscribed on a jug by a potter. One of these says:
Tagy kürk keshege - belek hem höner,
Also adorn a man knowledge and art,
Also should be noted the creation and development of international trade and exchange. The Khazar and Bulgar cities of the Itil river basin, and trading people intensively traded with the Arab Caliphate. After Khazars' adoption of Islam in the 8th c. (737), the Itil city, and a little later Bulgar, began minting coins imitating the Arab dirhams, and provided silver coinage not only for the Eastern Slavs, but also the countries of Central and Northern Europe (they are found even in England!).
The students of the history departments in the universities for years are studying the articles of the old law code “Rus' Justice”. However, often they arte given no clue as what coins were in circulation during that period. And that the penalties defined in the laws for stealing a tretyak (calf) and for yanking a beard of a reputable man, had to be paid with the cash silver coins spread in trade and exchange with the Khazar-Bulgar cities in the Itil river basin!
Applying some elementary respect for the history of other peoples and paying attention to the own history
would make many things obvious.
For example, the processes of exchange and trade, including the entire medieval Russian monetary system, primarily emerged under the influence of the Tatar culture. The first Moscow coins were minted during the reign of Dmitry Donskoi, his son, and even grandchildren, imitating the Tatar coins of the Sultan Toktamysh. The appointed Grand Dukes were forbidden to have on their coins the name and titles of Toktamysh, because they were symbols of sovereignty. The monetary circulation (and not only it!) was saturated with highly civilized, not typical for the nomads (the coins were minted and circulated not in Mongolia!) Türko-Tatar terminology. For example, it is sufficient to cite such well-known words like “altyn” (six half-pennies ), “artel” (team, crew), “bazar” (bazar), “denga” (coin, money), “kazna” (treasure), “kaznachei” (treasurer), “pul” (copper coins during Ivan the Terrible time), “summa” (sum), “tovar” (goodies for sale), “tovarisch” (“tovarisch” is a partner in “tovar”)”, “caftan” (coat), “shtany” (pants), “kirpich” (brick), “utug” (ironing iron), and many more. The last word, by the way, is recorded in the dictionary of the 11th c. known philologist M.Kashgari.
Perhaps all of these facts are military secrets behind seven seals. For example, the textbook on “Russian history” for 6th grade, the first and the largest in the Eastern Europe Khazar feudal state of the early Middle Ages, and its successor the Great Bulgaria together occupy only two pages!
Apparently, an objective study of the ancient Hunno-Türko-Tatar (Eurasian) civilization with the centers located in the Itil river basin means nothing for the Russian historians. Know how to malign and mock other peoples, calling them (primitively, but conveniently, even without a need to study history!) “Nomads” or “Tatar-Mongols”. The last cliche was first used and introduced into (the Russian) scientific circulation in our time, in the 19th c., by a professor at St. Petersburg University P.Naumov. Although the author himself wrote that “these fierce nomads were not the Tatars, but Mongols”. And with the moniker “Tatars” (from the Chinese “da da” - barbarian, nomad) (conventionally accepted that “da da” stands for “alien”, and the origin of the word, like any other word that requires explanation, even ascribed to the Persian origin) at that time Russians called almost all Eastern nations subjugated by the Russian Empire: the inhabitants of the Itil basin, Crimea, Dagestan, Ichkeria (Russ. Chechnya), Azerbaijan, and so on (read the works of N. Karamzin or stories by L. Tolstoy!).
Reflect, why not to objectively also write on the aggressive campaigns of the “sedentary” nations that not everything was that decent and cloudless. In their cruelty, because of the fanatical religious motives, their campaigns were much worse than that of the heathen Mongols, and are associated with systematic extermination of individual nartions. For example, Vasili Shuisky instructed his commanders: ”...Kill the Cheremiss (Mari) and Tatars, take captive their wives and children, rob their property and burn their villages”. Not accidentally professor A.H.Khalikov in his time had written a book about 500 prominent Tatar surnames. For example, Aivazovsky, Gogol, Derjavin, Karamzin, Kuprin, Kutuzov, Prakhanov Saburov, Turgenev, Yusupov, etc., that switched to the Russian service. Then the young people of the skinhead type, who keep killing innocent people, would get it that they are not that “purebred”.
Likewise, it seems that there is no point to be shy about the Tatar roots of the Itil river basin cities.
People should learn to be proud of
the highly civilized heritage! A Sorbonne professor, Tatar historian Sadri Maksudi, still in his
young age, stated in 1917 in Ufa that “our ancestors created a great civilization”. Even in the
smaller cities located by the Itil river, archaeologists are finding evidence to this effect. For
example, in the Beldjamen fortress, located on the riverbank near the town Dubovka (between Volgograd
and Saratov), we have unearthed remains of a magnificent mosque and houses of residents.
They were made of adobe or fired bricks, sometimes with central heating (for several houses). The large
rich homes often have water pipes, and hot water pipes are run in the subfloor
heating channels. There also has been found a copper samovar in a form of an ordinary
clay pot, but with an inner tube-furnace for coals and a Bulgar tamga resembling the letter “A” on the
A Tatar poet Saif Sarai, a native of the city Kamyshin in the Itil river basin, 140 years before the Copernicus wrote that the Earth revolves around the Sun:
On seeing Suhail, she started spinning at once,
But unfortunately, the chronic dismissively negative attitude of the city governments in the Astrakhan, Volgograd, Kamyshin, Dubovka (Beldjamen), Saratov, Samara, Ulyanovsk (Simbirsk) to the ancient Tatar archaeological monument correspondingly influences the behavior of the Itil basin population. Everything is being destroyed, excavated, and broken, as though the people live in an enemy territory. Once in 1957, when the author of these lines served in the army in the Baltic on a destroyer as a turbine machinist, he had a chance to see this attitude. Bulldozers cut and destroyed whole acres of marble monuments in one of the cemeteries in the Kaliningrad city (Actually, the Königsberg, or Royal City; the cemeteries of the Kaliningrad had yet to be built. The same barbaric scenario went on across the entire Russia, at different times and under different pretensions, always followed with a flood of shameless lies)...
To the credit of the Astrakhan province authorities should be said that at some of the ancient sites are being studied. For example, south of the Astrakhan is an island with a Khazar-Bulgar-Tatar settlement Samodelkino (Saksin), judging by the cultural layers. Also, annual protective scientific archaeological excavations are conducted at the site of the Museum-Preserve of the capital Sarai al-Mahrusa (aka Sarai-al-Maqrus) (Selitrennoye fortress) located on the banks of the Akhtuba channel of Itil the river, the Museum's director is a candidate of historical sciences E.M.Pigarev.
On August 15, 2008, for the first time in more than forty years of excavation, was celebrated an Archaeologist Day, with participation of the provincial and local administration of the village Selitrennoye of the Kharabalinsky district of the Astrakhan province. The air was filled with a dream of the regional administration to turn the plundered for centuries unique archaeological site, the ruins of a medieval capital of Sarai al-Mahrusa, into a desirable place for touristic visits. The celebration resembled a large sabantui (Tatar traditional festival) on a district scale with solemn speeches, pop concerts, games, and even modern car races. In a solemn ceremony were awarded Merit Certificates, including to the author, on behalf of the ruling echelon of the Astrakhan province.
However, in the Astrakhan, which kremlin boasts thick walls and houses grand (Orthodox Christian) cathedrals built of Tatar square bricks, and beneath which lie the ancient archaeological layers of the Hadjitarhan (9th cent.), in 2008 was celebrated not the 1000-year anniversary, but a 450-year anniversary of the city...
Back in the 1970s, being the students, with the late Professor of Moscow State
University G.A.Fedorov-Davydov, we installed by the periphery of the Bodyansk (Beldjamen) and Royal
(Sarai al-Jadid) ruins of the cities large stone preservation guide-blocks.
Cast iron plates with the names of cities, time of their existence, and notice that they are protected by law, cast at the Volgograd Tractor Factory, were fixed on the stone guide-blocks. All of these plates were demolished, remained only cement crumbs, i.e. practically almost no trace of them was left... One can only wonder, how the militant Josephites, who came to power in the first half of the 16th c., (before that such hatred did not exist!) were able to instill in the people such hatred for their fellow citizens... You can bet your head that the mighty rich medieval Türko-Tatar literature in thousands and thousands of its lines would not have a single word directed against Russian and other peoples! So this can not be a punishment to the people for some imaginary sins of past the times...
In the Royal city, for example, some “black archeologists” conduct some disorderly excavations at large. Because they are technically well-armed and have special instruments, the pits left by them well indicate that something was found there. If it is a ordinary material, although important for scientists, it is discarded. However, if the find is a rare and valuable item, traditionally it “slips” to the West. Thus, numerous artistic vessels of precious metals from the looted burial kurgans of the Itil basin, Urals and Black Sea areas adorn displays of many museums in the capital cities of Europe and America...
Standing at the edge of the looters' excavated trench, one could not help not to think: the wild devastating barbarian invasion... did it come from the East, or from the West...
3. Language and Literature of the Great Bulgaria
The language and literature of the Great Bulgar is well known and has been studied in detail. Historians, archaeologists and anthropologists (in Russia, or rather “Russian”) usually with some disdain treat the Bulgar period, and on the contrary exaggerate the role of the Kipchak Khanate period in the formation of the Tatar people. The author of these lines is surprised with such lacking awareness or rather inattention to the important elements in the Bulgars' history of the the pre-Mongol period, to the rich and developed Turki language in the Itil river basin, the literature and Islamic ideology in the spiritual culture of the population. Naturally, they also continued to exist later, and were essential elements of the spiritual culture of the society in the Kipchak Khanate period, they smashed to pieces the heathen tenets of those Mongols who remained in the Eastern Europe, if such beliefs remained after the changes and reforms of the Sultan Berke Khan (r. 1257-1266), who followed Islam. Therefore I would like to point out this perspective, although it is generally The language and literature, fairly well studied by individual scientists, is addressed below.
GOLDEN ladle. Naturally, the famous Kul Gali poem “Kyssa-i Yusuf” is not a sole example of the use of the Tatar language (Hunno-Khazar-Bulgarian, i.e. Kipchak Türki) in the early Islamic period, not only in literature, but also in everyday life. For example, the Hermitage keeps a perfectly ornamented, magnificent golden ladle with a unique inscription (Fig. 16).
The ladle was bought to the Kunstkamera (Cabinet of Curiosities) collection at the beginning of the 18th c.. First, it drew the attention of Christian Martin Frähn. The inscription reads as follows:
“Senei, Hezret Mekkedin Medinega bargali, alty yor un iti”.
He translated the inscription as follows: In the year: since master (Prophet Muhammad) left from Mecca to Medina (passed) six hundred and seventeen (years).
A renowned scientist, Hermitage researcher M.G.Kramarovsky, in his article on the ladle, cites reading versions of some other authors. However, the professor of the Kazan University C.M. Frähn was a scientist who hundred times mused before speaking, and reflected on what to say. His reading in the main does not rise doubts.
According M.G.Kramarovsky, the inscription and the ladle ornaments were made simultaneously, and constitute a single decorative complex. Indeed, not only in the ornamentation, but also in the design of inscription is felt a skillful hand of the same craftsman.
L.Yu.Tugushev in her article draws attention to the graphical peculiarities of individual letters. For example, the letter “s” with extra the three dots at the bottom or writing the numeral “yor” instead of “yoz” (one hundred). The pattern of distinctions in the inscription she rightly sees as a “reasons for attributing it to the Itil river basinTürkic areal”.
But in the arguments of the scientists one question remains unresolved. Why such a gorgeous inscription on the equally gorgeous golden ladle was made cryptographically, i.e. in mirror image, which demands even more skill and much greater work to accomplish?
Viscerally, rises another question: what does the date 617 (1220-1221) signify? If it states the manufacture date of the vessel, why is it done so (mirror image) that not everyone can read its content? It is definitely not the manufacture date of the ladle, otherwise it is difficult to understand why it is hidden from the eyes of the common people?
It seems that to solve the puzzle by our time was accumulated new, quite significant, and convincing
additional material. The subjects are the jade talisman with the Hunnic mirrored inscription found in
the Hunnic burial, and a gold
dinar with a secondary ritual word from the burial of a Khazar. The same can be said of the signet
rings with mirrored design of individual letters on the golden rings of the early Bulgar rulers.
This ladle turned up in the Kunstkamera in the 18th c., but it is clear that in those centuries there fell mostly things from marauding excavations of the ancient kurgans graves, particularly widespread in the Itil and Kama areas. The distinguishing features of the inscription's language indicate that the ladle was a funeral appurtenance.
Confirming the conclusion of the ritual nature of the ladle text is its consonance with inscriptions on the later 13th-14th c. 2nd style Bulgar tombstones!
However, a very important and interesting property of the inscription is that unlike the texts on the 2nd style headstones it has no indications of the later “disappearance” of some unknown Bulgar language that existed prior to 14th c. It is written in normal literary Türkic-Tatar (Khazaro-Bulgar language), with only few letters and some design distinctions reminiscent of the 2nd style tombstone inscriptions, testifying that they originated in the Itil basin and have a ritual character.
Such distinguishing features of this inscription are few, but they are very important and interesting. These distinctive properties are still unique, sole interspersions into some older, even say for the 12th c., ritual distinctions, and are specially inserted into a normal, conversational, or say a literary sentence. As stated above, such small inclusions are typical for early Bulgar heathen burial monuments.
Look at the numerals or the date in the ladle inscription, “alty yor un iti”, i.e. 617. The only “hidden” in the text unusual word “yor” with the letter “s” replaced with “r” is easily guessed in the context of the word “yuz” (hundred).
“Senei, Hezret Mekkedin Medinega bargali, alty yor un iti”.
“Ñýíýè, Õýçðýò Ìýêêýäèí Ìýäèíýãà áàðãàëè, àëòû éîðóí èòè”.
The inscription incites a great temptation to read the last words of “iti” as “was”, i.e. to read the end of the text in the form of “six hundred tenth year was”. But in the medieval Bulgar-Tatar sources this word as a rule only means “iti” (seven), and nothing can be changed!
Now, for comparison is an example from the later 14th c. 2nd style Bulgar tombstone inscriptions. The same word “seven” on the tombstones is written in eight versions, “jiaat”, “jiat”, “jdate”, “jit”, “jeti”, “jiaj”, “jejd”, “jiej”! The versions for the other numerals are fewer, but also are quite numerous. These examples seem to demonstrate not of existence of some unknown ancient standard language with unitary rules, but of the phenomenon of a ritual funerary euphemism, which in general, compared with the golden ladle inscription, reached us in distorted form of individual words.
Like the funerary inscription on the golden ladle of the Bulgar period, euphemisms were really used by the ancient Huns. For example, on the above jade talisman from the Hunnic burial the word was spelled correctly, but its duplicate was written in mirror image, like the inscription on the ladle.
The inscription on the golden ring of the Bulgar king Kurbat (reigned in 7th c.), educated at the Court of the Byzantine Emperor, all letters are written clearly and without modifications. Apparently, he wore the ring during his lifetime. But on the seals on the golden signet rings of the Arhandy and Queen Arhandacha, who ruled before Kurbat, some letters are engraved clearly and correctly, and the other mirrored, i.e. are notable obvious inscription features of the ritual nature (Fig. 17).
It is clear that these changes, like in the golden ladle inscription or on the 14th c. 2nd style Bulgar epigraphic monuments, replacing some words with ancient heathen words or letters, have played some important role in the ritual life of Hunno-Bulgars! The tombstone texts are not mirrored, like on the golden ladle, that would be too much for the common people. But what about lettering!? It has long been obsolete, and in addition is distorted (mixed with “Naskh”) (Naskh, Nash, Naskihi) lettering of the “Kufi” type, used in the Itil basin several centuries ago, mainly in the mints of the 9th-10th cc. Kufic Khazar dirhams, and in the 10th c. Bulgar dirhams.
The golden ladle inscription shows that in the 12th c.., i.e. in the pre-Mongol period, Bulgars already used the “suls” style. The same normal Türko-Tatar language and “Suls” style are mostly written all Bulgar epigraphic monuments of the 1st style, therefore they are older in their origin than the monuments of the 2nd style with a fake “Kufi” that arose only in the 1380s!
As is seen form the title of the Kul Gali composition “Kyssa-i Yusuf”, poets were fond not only the of Persian poetry. At our house we had a manuscript copy. In the evenings, in a circle of our neighbors, friends, and kids the aunts and grandmothers read this poem with tears in their eyes, and naturally called this poem not in Persian, but Tartar, with transposition of the words “Yosyf kyyssasy” or “Yosyf kitaby”, i.e. “stories (about) Yusuf”.
It appears that the ladle inscription and its phrased in Persian fashion expression “sene-i” - “in the year”, in the Türko-Tatar is understood somewhat differently and more logically. It is engraved as follows:
“Sene-i, Hezret Mekkedin Medinega bargali, alty yor iti”.
For proper understanding of the text is necessary to account for the presence in the text of the ancient Türkic gerund “bargali”, and correlate “sene-i”, like in the example of “Kyssa-i Yusuf”, with a corresponding meaning in the Tatar language:
Hezret Mekkedin Medinega baruga (bargali!) alty yor un iti sene.
From the time of the trip (bargali!) of Hazrat from Mecca to Medina six hundred seventeen years.
Such specific dating from the Prophet's travel from Mecca to Medina, i.e. anchoring to the specific origin
of the early Hijra chronology has a simple explanation: Bulgars from the ancient times had their own chronology
12-year cyclic Türkic calendar. Older generation of the Tatars used the
12-year cyclic calendar even in the 20th c.
Central to this case is that most of the words in the ladle inscription, including borrowings from Arabic, are written in the Khazar-Bulgar official language - the Turki of the Itil river basin. The only ritual features are replacement of the “s” to “r” in the word “yor” and the unconventional writing of the letter “s” with the three dots at the bottom. Thus, in 12th c. existed no archaic Bulgar language. That is clearly demonstrated, in addition to the ladle inscription, by the dozens of classic works of the 13th-14th centuries Bulgar-Tatar poets. Only some words are ritual inclusions from the graveyard jargon, discussed below. That explains the whole puzzle!
“Kyssa-i Yusuf”. The greatest literary work of the Bulgar period is the Kul Gali poem “Kyssa-i Yusuf,” written in the Itil river basin Turki, its first version is dated by 1212, and the last version by 1233.
Important and worthy of attention is the fact that Kul Gali is a founder of the entire Turkic-Tatar (Khazar-Bulgar-Tatar) literature.
The influence of the Oguz dialect. Some linguists tried to excel in tarnishing, and “appropriation” of that Bulgar-Tatar greatest work! Apparently, the whole discussion in the 1970s got “stuck” because of poorly learned not only the issues of language, but also the objective ancient history of the Khazars and Bulgars, as well as archeology and numismatics of the Itil river basin, which revealed, especially in the recent years, many examples of a wide use of this language long before the “Kyssa-i Yusuf” poem.
It should be stated that the many literary works do not state that they are written in a “Khazar” or “Bulgar” or “Kipchak Khanate” languages. Such languages, other than their dialectal or temporal distinctions, never existed, in the Khazar, Bulgar, and likewise in the Kipchak, i.e. in the “Golden Horde” (this cliché appeared in the Russian historiography only from the 17th century) states was used a common and understandable for all Turkic dialects official language. The contemporaries in their literary works commonly referred to this language as “Turki”.
This language differs from the ancient Türkic tongue that existed still during the Türkic Kaganates only by some occasional features typical for the Khazar or Bulgar dialects. Therefore, the modern scholars usually call it a Turki of the Itil river basin.
The Turki of the Itil river basin, according to the written sources, was naturally developing during the Khazar, Bulgar, Kipchak Khanate, and Kazan periods as a unified state and literary language, including some features specific to each period. For example, in the Kazan period (by the way, according to the tens of thousands of Kazan coins, the mint place was officially denoted “Bulgar”, i.e. Bulgaria) the famous Tatar poet of the 16th c. Muhammadyar (1497 -1547) wrote:
Hadith meaning is clear, and its words are bright:
From the numerous works and documents of the time, the state language Turki of the Itil
river basin is fairly well known for the Khazar, Bulgar, Kipchak Khanate, and the Kazan periods. As
to the official
language of the Khazar state, one of the three early medieval world powers along with Persia and
Byzantium, apart from individual words like “zakan” (the law, Russian “zakon”), “Tsitsek” (Flower - the name of
the princess married to the son of the Byzantine emperor), or preserved in the Caucasian sources
etc., almost nothing is known about it. The study of the Khazar dialectal language should account
for the strong
influence of the Oguz dialect of the ancient Türkic language on the Itil river basin Turki during the
fading of the Khazar state
Archaeologists are well aware that in the process of decay and weakening of the state, many Khazar cities fell during Bajanak invasion. Boasting by some modern historians that some Khazar cities were destroyed by Prince Svyatoslav is not truthful. The Bajanaks not only smashed and burned the Khazar villages (according to the Karaim dialect, i.e., in the Khazar dialect “sala” = Russ. “selo”) and cities, but also crushed the Svyatoslav's troops, and according to the chronicles, have made from his skull a gold-rimmed cup for kumys, with an inscription: Have found what was seeking.
Archaeologists also know that in the Itil river basin are many Oguz burial complexes, that is, the Bajanaks', although so far they have not been isolated as a separate group, which is quite possible. Therefore, it is impossible to deny a strong influence of the Oguz dialect on the Itil Türki.
The early Bulgars in the Middle Itil were a part of the Khazar state; therefore, the Bulgar Turki in that period also formed under influence of not only the Khazar, but also the Oguz dialect. As after the natural weakening and collapse of the Khazar state that lasted from 7th to 10th c. (quite normal age for medieval states) many cities with the Khazar population, such as located at the mouth of the Itil river Saksin, or the city Mashaek (Astrakhan), and many others, became part of the Great Bulgaria!
Such inordinate opinion matching historical reality advocated the KSU (Kazan State University) professor of the Tatar language chair Javad Almaz, who was a favorite teacher of many students, including the author. It is rightly asserted that that monument could only be composed in a country with advanced culture, as evidenced by the fully-formed language of the poem “Kyssa-i Yusuf”. The Bulgar state at that time, with a mixed Turkic-Khazar language, was precisely that. At that time, in the Seljuk, Karakhanids, and Khorezmshahs states the literary language was Persian. In contrast, the language of the poem “Kyssa-i Yusuf” does not have an expressed influence of the Persian language.
Before the Javad Almaz' assertion, other scholars also had theories on the “Kyssa-i Yusuf” language, and correspondingly on the monument's place of origin. Citing their views, a known linguist of the Soviet period E.Nadjip in one of his articles criticized J. Almaz' views: “But is all this so? Is it well established that the Khazar language was Turkic!”. After this, to put it mildly, not very intelligible statement of E.Nadjip, the rest of his article could have been skipped, but he comes to the conclusion that a “careful study of the “Kyssa-i Yusuf” language shows that it is mixed, with Oguz features predominat in its phonetics, morphology, and vocabulary...”. In other words, the issue is the Oguz invasion, which is confirmed by archaeological materials. Then he writes: “Therefore, this monument could be created where the bulk of the population were Oguz tribes, among whom also lived Kipchaks”.
To bring final clarity on the origin of “Kyssa-i Yusuf”, it should be added that perhaps the poem is not only Bulgar, but was composed by Kul Gali from the earlier Khazar traditions or monuments about the Prophet Yusuf. incidentally, Yusuf (Joseph) is also a name of the Khazar Kagan who converted to Judaism. The dialectal features of the poem indicate that the great poet spoke one of the dialects of Bulgar language - the Khazar (Mishar) dialect!
This observation is not surprising, especially because from archeological excavations in recent years and materials found it became known that not only the cities along the Lower Itil basin, but also along Don and Sura (near Penza) after the collapse of the Khazar empire became a part of the Great Bulgaria.
As is known, after adoption of Islam as a state religion of the empire, some part of Khazars, Bulgars and Suvars adopted Judaism. After the collapse of the Khazar empire and its main lands joining the Great Bulgar state, the Emir of the Great Bulgaria deported Khazars, Bulgars, and Suvars who accepted Judaism to the western regions (unfortunately, al-Gharnati reported this without naming the Emir). Perhaps that is why Karaim language, in contrast with the Tatar language, has a curious presence for the terms “teptyar”, “teptyarlik” of the meanings “stomping”, “trampling” (of human rights).
Knowing the above events, the question can be stated in this form: where could have appeared not only the work with such dialectal distinctions, but also with such unusual plot, where the main characters of the poem, the handsome Prophet Yusuf blessed with amazing abilities, his father, and numerous brothers are not only Muslim Jews, but often speak in Hebrew! For example, the poem describes a case of an alien youth who happen upon the Egypt capital, and was weeping and wandered around the city, asking something passers-by in his own language that nobody understood. When the rumor of that reached the Egyptian ruler Yusuf, he went to look for him, found him, and the young man turned out to be his younger brother. Yusuf spoke to him in Hebrew, and then brought him to his palace.
The birthplace of the poem “Kyssa-i Yusuf” heroes is a country Kangan. As a name of a state
this word is found in several other sources. According to the
opinion of the author of these lines, the country Kangan is Koman or Komania of the European authors. Thus, it
comes out that Kalgan generally is the Khazar lands or state, likely called so after the name of the general population.
Indeed, where else could the Jews in that period live as regular full citizens of the
state, after being persecuted not only in Europe, by also in the bMuslim countries?!
Regarding the J. Almazov opinion, whom the then system ended up “finishing off”, he was forced form his job (and died in obscurity and poverty), that the poem was written in the Türko-Khazar, i.e. Khazar-Bulgar language, we can assert that in the end he was likely right.
E.Nadjip, who examined thoroughly the language of the “Kyssa-i Yusuf” poem at the end of his above-mentioned article cites more than three dozen archaic lexical elements in the poem that are not even found in the “Divanu...” of Mahmud Kashgari, or in the “Kutadgu Bilik” (“Beneficent knowledge”, Kutadgu Bilig, or Qutadgu Bilig).
A search for the meanings of these archaic words in the contemporary languages should turn to the dialectal languages of the Khazars (Mishars), Bulgars (Tatars), etc. But such historical detail dialectical dictionaries are not yet known.
There is a dialectical dictionary of the Karaim language, i.e., descendants of the Khazars who converted to Judaism. When the linguist E.Nadjip doubted even the Türkic nature of the Khazar language, the presence in the Karaim language of some words, absent even in the M.Kashgari “Divanu...”, with meanings characteristic of the archaic linguistic elements in the Kul Gali poem “Yusuf and Zuleikha” is astounding!
For example (from the poem “Yusuf and Zuleikha”):
ayruksy - the other, different, otherwise,
In the Karaim language (in the brackets are shown pages of the Karaim-Russian-Polish dictionary):
ayryksy - special, different (p. 54),
A well-known literary critic Fazil Faseev in the introduction to the composition “Kyssa-i Yusuf”, comparing in detail examples form the Kul Gali poems and from the works of the following poets of the Kipchak Khanate period Qutb and Mahmoud Bulgari, of the Kazan period Muhammadyar, 17th c. poet Mawl Kolyi, and others, draws a quite natural conclusion: “In the period of enrooting and rapid development the new national Tatar literature, i.e. in the 19th-20th cc., the influence of “Kyssa-i Yusuf” in the works of the poets and writers not only did not decrease, but on the contrary it becames even more significant and profound”.
That book has a map showing settlements from the Astrakhan to the Kazan and Perm, in where in
large numbers were found manuscripts of the poem “Kyssa and Iusuf”, and the names of the people who saved
One of the poem manuscripts, the “Muhamadiev's” is in custody of the author of these lines. For reference, here are some details. In the manuscript of a shorter version, at the end is an interesting poem “Djumdjuma-Sultan” of a 14th c. poet Hisam Kyatib. The book apparently was preserved in my mother's family, at my grandfather Galimardan, because in 1979 a seriously ill younger sister of my mother Terjime-apa gave me the book manuscript, saying: “Enem (my younger brother), now in our family besides you no one can read: no one knows the Arabic letters. Take this book of “Yusuf” and take care of it”.
To give some idea to the reading public about the subject of the conversation, here is a word for word translation of the beginning and the end of the poem from the book:
Everything that happened to Yusuf,
With that said, I'll turn to wisdom,
Of stories and
wise tales the most delightful,
Diamond is a stone, not every stone is diamond,
This sinner relies on you, our Lord,
With the help and support of Almighty,
It seems that from the cited unique ancient written sources starting with the antique times, including this poem, is quite clear not only what language spoke Khazars and Bulgars, but also what kind of world religions they professed and what is their history of world importance.
One may ask, what are the facts and arguments of the scientists who pose as experts on Mongolian
history and began to Mongolize the history of the Itil river basin?
At present, and in the present situation, no one is going to reject the naming of the Tatar people. True, to call us Khazars or Bulgars is also impossible. These were just the ancient tribal names. Especially that with the formation of the empires they stated to call their bown national language “Türkic”, and themselves “Türks”, even the Khazar state was called Turkestan. For example, the Armenian source of 7th c. “History of Alvans” (“History of Agvans”) says: “Which of the Persian kings could come face to face with the king of the Turkestan?” Or “showed to the Khazar Kagan many feats of bravery in Turkestan”.
The Khazar and Bulgar Türki was a Kipchak dialect of the ancient Türkic language. Not accidentally in the state restoration period under Sultan Berke (r. 1257-1266), the borders of the Great Bulgar ended up more expansive and included not only the Bulgaria proper, but also the Rus' and Kazakh possessions. Therefore, the Great Bulgaria started to be called “Kipchak” or “Kipchak-bashi”, and the Persians called it “Dasht-i Kipchak”.
It would seem that the right, such as renaming a people, can only have the highest agency of a sovereign state. But that's not a reason to deny the historical truth, trail in the tail of outdated ideas and concoctions of the 17th c.-18th cc. historians, and manufacture multi-volume works on the history, constantly calling the Türkic population of the Itil river basin “Tatar-Mongols”!
Great-powers' historians often quite deliberately distorted the history of the peoples for a false patriotism (not only the history of the Itil basin population, but also Azeris, Chechens and other peoples), accusing the modern Tatars in all the sins of the Mongol invaders. The Khazar-Bulgars (Türks) of the Itil river basin in fact, like the Slavs, were hard hit by the Mongol invasion, but they were not broken, they defeated the Mongolian troops still during the first Mongol campaign under Chingis Khan.
During the second Mongol campaign, i.e. at the time of Batu, the Muslim population of the Itil basin has destroyed not only the Batu Horde, but destroyed the whole system of direct dependency from the Mongolian yurt.
In Eastern Europe after Batu was created a powerful state, with the skeleton consisting of mostly two unions of the strongest Uluses, Bulgar and Rus. Such multiethnic state naturally could be called the “Great Bulgaria”, because in addition to the Bulgars and Ruses it was also inhabited by other nations, for example, Khazars (Crimeans), Nogais, Dagestanis, Azeris, Karachai-Balkars, Kazakhs, and others, that is, in the main by the Türkic people who spoke Kipchak dialects of the Türkic language, and the Türks began to call her “Ulus Kipchak”, “Kypchakbashi” or simply “Kipchak”, and the Russian historians starting on the 17th c. began to call her “Golden Horde”, excluding is from the structure of the Rus Ulus.
However, it should be understood that with the emergence of one of the major uluses of the Mongol Empire,
the names of the internal uluses have disappeared, such as the Nogai or Rus, etc. uluses. The Great Bulgaria Ulus not only existed, but also
naturally and rapidly progressed. This is demonstrated not only by the existence in the entire space of
the Ulus Kipchak of the single state language, Türki of the Itil basin, i.e. the Bulgar
language, but also
by the intensive development of the cities in the Itil river basin, where was spoke the same
language, judging by the large number of the literary
4. Collapse of the hypothesis on the “special” Proto-Bulgar language - Part 1
A lecturer of Tatar languages in the St. Petersburg University Husain Faizkhanov (1828-1866), who first discovered inscriptions of the 2nd style on the Bulgar epigraphic monuments, approached the problem as a true scholar, soberly, practically, and traditionally, without offending any kindred neighboring nations: “should be just read, without diving into any conjectural assumptions, jiati, jur, i.e. yiti, yur (seven)?.. In favor of my opinion also testifies the Tatars' custom to pronounce the initial y (like y in York) and transcribe it as j, and with regard to the letters r, used instead of z in the word jur, it can be explained partly by the contextual clarity even without a diactric dot mark (as in the word sekr, i.e. sekz) (eight), partly by the use of the Chuvash numerals in the epitaphs of the time; Chuvashes call “hundred” chur) (normalized form yüz)...”.]
However, then in large numbers appeared peculiar one-eyed hypotheses of the men of science, most of whom are practically unfamiliar with the ancient history of the Itil basin, nor especially familiar with the language and medieval literature of the Bulgar-Tatar monuments. Just a historiographical review of such works would constitute a multi-volume work, but the problem virtually remained without a convincing resolution.
I should state that the author does not belong to “Bulgarists”, especially to those who usually write in Russian and pass their “works” for “old” writings. All the more so the author does not belong to the “Mongol-Tatarists”, who usually never specifically studied either the Mongolian nor the Tartar history, archeology, and numismatics, but are the masters of verbiage in history, who inherited a legacy of the past known times, and subsist by fabricating multi-volume subjective works on the “History of the Tatar people”.
The history, archeology, and numismatics of the Itil river basin in the Early and Late Middle Ages, when emerged and practically till the late Middle Ages existed the first major feudal states of Eurasia with centers around the Itil river basin, are so interesting and exciting that they resemble an adventure novel. Consequently, there is no need to invent or decorate anything. The real challenge is to overcome the usual subjectivity in respect to the Tatar history in the Russian historiography, and the attempts of its objective research.
Unfortunately, the author's article “Coins as a study source for the Bulgarian language”, published back in the 1980s, which addressed a comparative analysis of the language of the dated Bulgar coins and the language of the epigraphic monuments of the almost the same time, as they say, went past the ears of the scientists.2
This is a typical ignoring and biased dismissive attitude for any survived intact medieval normative Bulgar linguistic material pertinent to this problem!
In the Carnival distortion mirror, it turns out that the language of the 13th-14th cc. (1280-1350) 2nd style tombstones, that appeared later in the Kipchak Khanate period, and existed for a limited short period of time, of the secondary and archaic clerical nature judging by the lettering, is the real language of the “Proto-Bulgars”. And the language of the numerous, and much older epigraphic monuments of the 1st style, and of the literary works, and of the tens of thousands of Bulgar-mint coins of the same period, i.e. the live spoken and written language of masses, including the official language of the Bulgars of the 12th-16th c., is not the Bulgar language! (Fig. 18).
Muhamadiev A. Coins as a study
source for the Bulgarian language // Source research on history of Tatarstan. Kazan, 1980. pp. 122-135
In the same article the author reviews under-researched, but linguistically important for the Bulgars' history inscriptions on the coins. For example, it cited inscriptions in literary Bulgar language on the dated puls, i.e. on the copper coins most widespread among population, written in the Kufic script, unlike the tombstone inscriptions written in the “Naskh” script: “Bolgar puli” (Pul of Bulgar). Or the inscriptions addressed to the whole population that prescribe the relative ratios of the silver and copper coins, such as “Unalty pul - denke” (sixteen puls - denga), i.e. sixteen puls are exchanged for one silver denga (weight fraction), which is half the weight of a silver coin. This inscription means that a whole silver coin “jarmak” (2 dengas) is exchanged for 32 puls , and 3 jarmaks, i.e. six dengas (altin) are exchanged for 96 puls (Fig. 19).
Needless to say, these inscriptions contain very important, live information, and it had to be understood not only by the trade people, but by the entire population of the country. That's why the inscription used the nationwide Bulgarian spoken language.
After the 10th c., the so-called “coinless period” (11th-12th cc.), coin minting was restored and continued in the Bulgara in the name of the Caliph Nasir al-Din (1180-1225). They also had a rare inscription in the Bulgar language: “Bolgar mali” (from the property of Bulgar). The terms “jarmak” and “mal” are found in the 13th c. poem “Kyssa-i Yusuf”.
In the early Kipchak Khanate period, in 1250-1280, coins minted in Bulgar circulated from the Middle Itil to the Itil estuary. In the Lower Itil basin, south of Astrakhan, was located a large Khazar-Bulgar-Tatar city Saksin, attested by archaeological excavations and found materials, it existed from the 9th c. to the 1340s, as attested by the coins of Uzbek-Khan and, judging by ,. 14th c. i.e. to the time of flood (by the rise of the Caspian Sea level).
The design and weight standard of the Bulgarian coins were etalons, at least in the Itil basin, i.e. in the Bulgar ulus from the Perm to the Caspian Sea. During the reign of the Batu Khan, the coin minting interrupted during the second Mongol campaign was resumed in the name and with tamga of the Supreme Kagan (Kağan = Kaan) Munke-Khan (Möngke-Khan, 1251 – 1259) (the only attribute of the Mongolian origin).
Later in the 1280s. also appear coins minted in Horezm and Crimea. Unlike the coins
of the Itil basin, the size and weight of those coins were different, because they were minted in other
but in weight they were correlated, dependent of the Bulgar coins, and had a direct and clear ratio with
the weight of the Bulgar
Since the Bulgar was the largest commercial and industrial center, on the coins are also appearing propitious inscriptions for buyers, i.e. intended for wide range of people, such as: “Kotlug bulsyn yanga pul” (New pul for luck!) and so on. Moreover, as was noted above, all these prescriptions and good wished feature the same accepted language, like all 12th-14th c. literature works or documents of public nature, i.e. the Bulgar language and “Naskh” script type, the undisputed existence of which in the Itil river basin is documented by convincing linguistic materials at least from the beginning of the 12th c.
In the above article, the manufacture dates of the stone 2nd style tombstones were selected for comparison of the linguistic features in such a way that they chronologically coincide with some dated puls. Some epitaphs have unique linguistic elements (unlike the coin inscriptions). often atypical for the common statewide Bulgar language, which in reality was not called Khazar (in the earlier period) or Bulgar language, but was called the Itil basin Türki. Unlike Oguz-type languages, it was belonged to the Kipchak dialect of the common Türkic language.
Ancient texts. Once the well-known German researcher G.Doerfer aptly remarked about the rhotacism and lambdaizm (lambdacism) of the Proto-Bulgar language, “I'm not sure that this problem will ever be solved... We need to wait for the discovery of ancient texts of the 1000 BC. Since they we do not have them, and a hope to find them is not likely, the problem would remain unsolved”1.
Fortunately, such texts that existed from the 2nd c. BC were found and read. These well-preserved to this day words, minted on the coins and included in the religious texts of the early Bulgars, are really original and unique. They document interesting and peculiar ancient titles, phrases, and terminology, and it is not a fictional Proto-Bulgar, but a Hunno-Bulgar Türki, i.e. the Bulgar-Tatar language that reached us in its natural development in the form of numerous sources and literary works.
No theories and constructs of N. Ashmarin, Z. Gombots, or A. Rona-Tash on a special Proto-Bulgar language proved to be true. So apparently G.Doerfer was right in a sense that for them the problem would remain unresolved, because the constructs of the above authors were a theory sucked from a finger (far-fetched), i.e. hypothesis not confirmed with either historical, nor archaeological, nor numismatic, and certainly nor any fundamental linguistic material.
With frequently repeted, but comprised of only about 15 distinct “corrupted” words (really interesting and unique, but not Bulgar's words!) on the 13th-14th c. 2nd style tombstones, detected and cited in his work by the known researcher M.Z. Zakiev2, they decided that the language belongs to the “Proto-Bulgars”...
Doerfer G. Khalaj Materials. Bloomington, 1971. p. 275.
It seems the main error of Z.Gombots and A.Rona-Tash was that they did not realize that the trumped-up problem (i.e. the “Bulgar” origin of some peculiar Turkisms in the Hungarian) had from the very beginning a militant ideological character, and its proponents were such famous great-power zealots as Ilminsky, distinguished by his nationalistic bias historian Tatischev, known censor Ashmarin, and others.
In the Khazar and later in the Bulgar state, have always primarily existed three major dialects of the Hunnic-Türkic language: Khazar, Bulgar and Suvar. According to the epigraphic monuments, they continued to exist in Kipchak Khanate period.
Of interest is the presence of preserved medieval, i.e. purely dialectal Türkic words in the Danube Bulgarian and Hungarian. But in the first place the question is why in some features they differ from the ancient Bulgarian language, if they are really of Bulgarian origin?
More specifically, the question can be phrased like this: from which dialectal language - Khazar, Bulgar, or Suvar - were borrowed these elements? The Hungarian tribes were forced to migrate from the Eastern Europe to the west, apparently because of the serious reasons related to conflicts with other tribes. But with what tribes they lived in a common linguistic space? According to the specifics of the borrowed words, not with the Bulgars, who in that period (8th-9th cc.) are never mentioned next to the Hungarians.
This is fairly well known from the written sources, for example from the book of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire”. His work clearly shows that the Türks (Magyars) were in close contact not with the Bulgars, namely, but specifically with the Khazars, and especially with the in the Savirs at the Lower Itil, whose rulers with their cohorts served at the Khazar Kagan. According to the emperor: “The people of the Türks (Magyars) had an ancient settlement near the Khazars, in a place called Levedia, so called after their first voivoda (commander)”.
On the Levedia exists an extensive literature. However, usually is missed the fact that the head of Magyars serving for the Kagan of the Khazar state, had to be titled not with a foreign, but with the Türkic title. For example, the first ruler of Kazan Sultan Giazetdin, who reigned before Ulu Muhammad, the Russian annals usually call “Libei”, i.e. with a title equivalent to the “Great Prince” - “Ulubiy”. The “Biy” or “Beg” (aka “Bek”) usually was a title of the ruler of a small tribe (Not exactly, Ulubiy/Ulubek is a position of a Prime Minister in numerous Türkic empires).The title “Ulubey” (Ulubey > Sl. Libei > Levedia), apparently the Magyar ruler was a large enough figure within the Khazar state, that after his title was called the area of Magyar residence.
On the map of the 12th c. Arab cartographer Idrisi the “remaining despicable”, i.e. unable to take the difficult migration and remaining in their ancient homeland, the poor Hungarians (Safil ard basgirt min al atrak - Land of remaining low Bashkirs) are placed somewhere in the north-east of modern Bashkortostan, not at the Middle Itil river. And north of Bulgar city by the Kama river in the area of Perm are noted Bulgars (Bakija bulgar min al turk - Remaining Bulgars of the Türks) (Fig. 20).
That is a clear proof that once there really were centers of the early Bulgars. In this same area were primarily found large numbers of skillfully made vessels with Hunno-Bulgar inscriptions. The archaeologists in the same territory have studied a fair number of relatively large Bulgar cities of the 10th-12th cc.
According to the Emperor Constantine book, the Magyars crossed Atelkuzy, i.e. the Lower Itil basin (in the ancient Türkic language “kuzy” is Lower Itil-Don river basin) (qozï = down, at the bottom; bottom of smth., located below in position, knowledge, etc., OTD p. 462), and the next stage of their resettlement were already somewhere in the Lower Don.
According to archaeological data, still earlier, after the defeat by the armies of a known Arab commander Marwan in 737, a considerable part of the Khazar population from the Caucasus foothills migrated and settled in approximately the same areas (Atilkuzu and Pannonia), and because the medieval sources do not particularly mention Bulgars in the Caucasus, it means these mihgrants probably were primarily Khazar-Suvars. The question can be phrased this way: from what peculiar dialect had Magyars borrowed the peculiar Türkisms in their language?
The Hungarians, whom the emperor constantly calls in his book “Turks” (Türks), fell into the Byzantine historians' field of vision later. In this case the composition is striking with the author being so well informed about the history of the Magyars, “In those days (before the migration to the land of the Türks. - AM), they were not called Turks, but for some unknown reason were called Savarts-Asfals”.
Apparently, this is a self-appellation of the Suvars and Magyars, and it is a most interesting fact. The the final “t” (-at, -it) in the ancient Türkic language is a plural marker, hense this compound should be read as “Savars-Asfals”. The Emperor also calls Badjinaks, like Suvars, with the Türkic plural marker “Pachinakits”.
The author of these lines in the above cited article ““Coins as a study source for the Bulgarian language”” made a productive and convincing attempt to deduce the origin of the ethnonym “Chuvash” from the name “Suvar” that had filled the sources of the early and late Middle Ages.
Equating these ethnonyms is no accident. The ancient Türkic rulers after creation of their states populated threatened by the attacks borderlands with friendly or allied tribes. Therefore peculiar is the fact that many tribes populating the border areas of the Khazaria, Great Bulgaria, and later Kazan, as a rule at the end (sometimes at the beginning) of their self-identification have the ancient Türkic word “ish”, “ash”, “as” (companion, that is an ally). For example, Chirmesh (Mari), Chuvash, Bortas, Mortas, Mokshi (Mordovians) Ishtyak (Bashkirs), etc.
This word is widely used and is still used in the Türkic languages, including Tatar. For example,
the common word “tovarisch” consists of two independent Türkic components: “Tawar” (property) and
“ish” (ally), literally “Partner in trade stock”.
Each ethnonym requires a right historical approach, and requires a detailed, albeit a rather complex analysis. For now the analysis is restricted to the ethnonym “Chuvash”. The “choking” pronunciation in this case is one of the hallmarks of the Khazar-Suvar, and possibly partly of the Bulgarian language. For example, researchers of the hydronyms explain the stepwise origin of the name of the p. Chusovaya in the Perm province, where were located the earliest Hunno-Bulgar centers as follow. The initial syllable “chu” of the word in the name of the river in the Hunno-Bulgar language means “water”, and the second syllable “so” is “water” (in common Türkic “water”), the third syllable “wa” is “water” (“wa” in the Komi-Permian is “water”), and the ending “aya” in Russian also means “water” (fem. ending, for fem. river). According to the linguists' research, the divergence of the languages in the Khazar-Suvar Union into the “y”, “d”, “s”, “j” and “ch” dialects went on before the 5th c. AD.
Then, the message of the above Emperor Constantine becomes ever more interesting and informative. He writes: “When between the Turks (Magyars) and Pachinakits (Bajanaks, Bechens), who then were called Kangar, took place a battle, the troops of the Turks (Magyars) were defeated, and split into two parts. One part settled to the east, in the lands of Persia, where till now they are called with the ancient Türkic name Savarts-Asfals... ”
Indeed, quite well-known are the ancient hydronyms and toponyms associated with Suvars in the northwestern Persia in the Caucasus region. Then, Constantine continues: “Since then, the Turks (Magyars) did not experience war from the Pachinakits. To the above noted people of Turks which settled to the east, in the lands of Persia, these just named Türks (Magyars) who live to the west still send traders and visit them, and frequently deliver from them response messages”.
About linguistic relations between the Magyars and Khazars the emperor tells in connection with an internecine war among the Khazars as follows: “Some of them were slaughtered, others (Khazars - AM) fled and came and settled together with the Turks (Magyars) in the land of the Pachinakits, became friends with each other, and became known as “Kavars”. Therefore, they taught the Turks (Magyars) the language of the Khazars, and they themselves to this day speak their (Khazar) language, but they also have another language of the Turks (Magyar)”. With regard to the Magyar bilingualism this information is interesting enough. As is seen from the text, the word “Kavar” is a moniker, not an ethnonym. In the ancient Türkic language “qopar” means “troublemaker”, in this case the “rebels”, i.e. apparently they were rebellious Suvars, who settled with the Magyars and taught them their language.
So, why the above Proto-Bulgarist authors did not pay a better attention to the very important
factor, the Ephthalites or Savar Türks named by the Byzantine emperor, these were the tribes that
included Magyars. Indeed, why did they go for the Bulgars, who are not even mentioned in
this fairly objective and serious source? Apparently, that legitimate objective
approach would have had destroyed all of their constructions and would have had put everything in its place!
Apparently, in that dangerous period (730-740), when Bechens roamed the Eastern European steppes crushing and leaving burns behind not only the Hungarians, but also the Khazar cities, and of the skull of the Great Rus prince Svyatoslav made a golden-bound drinking vessel for kumys; an important backbone of the immigrant Magyars were the warlike Suvar tribes that split off from the Khazars. Subsequently, like the Danube Bulgars (and possibly Suvars, who also spoke one of the Bulgar dialects!), Suvars disappeared from the stage of history, leaving some elements of their dialectal vernacular in the Hungarian and Danube-Bulgarian languages.
5. What language spoke the Ancient Bulgars?
The preserved Proto-Bulgar or ancient Hunno-Bulgar written records allow to answer that with rare exceptions they spoke a Türkic Common Bulgar language, the language of many written records.
As can be seen from the many extant ancient Hunno-Bulgar inscriptions, their language timewise has a wide range, because according to the ancient and early medieval Horezmian coins, inscriptions on the vessels of precious metals, and golden signet rings of the Bulgar rulers, it is traceable from the 2nd c. BC to the 8th c. AD.
The reference to the 2nd c. BC and early Middle Ages coins should not be surprising or alarming. Coins are is one of the most reliable and credible linguistic sources. Frequently, they have persevered in large numbers, because they were minted in thousands. These Horezmian coins were minted almost regularly from the 2nd c. BC to the beginning of the 8th c. AD, i.e. prior to the advent of Islam in Horezm.
Thus, these sources witness the development of Hunnic-Türkic-Bulgarian language from
the 2nd c. BC
to the 8th c. AD, i.e. in a thousand-years period. These rings, earrings, and especially
vessels with inscriptions in the same Horezmian-Hunnic alphabet existed among Bulgars as main tenets of
the Manichaean-Buddhist religious persuasion till the 8th c. AD, till the official adoption of Islam by the Khazars in 737. Apparently, these religions
waned as a result of advent of Islam. Probably, their script by tradition continued to exist
some time. The 10th c. Arab author Ibn al-Nadim (d. 998) in his book “Kitab
al-Fihrist” (Book of listings on sciences) stated that Bulgars and Tubbat (Tibetans) use Mani script.
Because the Hunno-Bulgar language belongs to the agglutinative languages, reading inscriptions is not too difficult task or present excessive complications, although naturally there are some problems. For example, fairly competent and clear inscription that mentions the name of the Attila's son Diggizih (the author carefully read it in the Hermitage), possibly was stamped with a punch, i.e. with a punch for each letter (Fig. 7a). The first word of the title “King” is written in the form of “kingkg” with an affix of possession “g” at the end. The first letter of the second word is written with a glottal hard “k”, but then were used letters with soft consonants, hence the word is read with implied soft vowels, pronounced as “kingkeg”.
More ancient similar spelling of this title in the same form is found on numerous early medieval Horezmian coins. For example: “Kngü törgüi Asukjügr”, i.e. King of the state Asukjaügar, where after a nasal “ng” in the title was punched a special soft Türkic letter “ü”.
In a later form the title with a soft initial “k” is used on the golden ring of the Bulgar ruler Kurbat: “Kingg Kurbat”, i.e. King Kurbat's (Fig. 8).
anagram is read from top to bottom and left to right: K(u)br(a)tng
In that respect, the famous historian A.N. Bernshtam believed that the Huns brought to Europe feudal system, more advanced than the slave society. Perhaps the title “King” and the system of dependent royal relationships belonged precisely to that change.
The spelling of the known from written sources name Diggizih is clear, and the accuracy of the reading is not in doubt. The third word “ükü” or “ögə” meaning “wise” in the ancient Türkic language is apparently an integral part of the name. According to the medieval Türkic philologist M.Kashgari (11th c.), prefix or the word “ögə” was an appellation for the younger sons of Kagan, and the Attila son Diggizikh was a younger son.
Generally, all words of the inscription are clear at a first glance, and familiar enough, but some of them shifted their meaning. For example, in the modern Tatar language the phrase “kisu-kəe” (finely cut) means, say, the noodles. However, in the ancient Türkic language “bashyn kesdi” means beheaded with a saber, and “kesimchi” means a swordsman, warrior.
Because the inscription “accompanies” a rider with a sword, the phrase with diminutive-differential particle “kiyü” apparently means a special or a favorite strike with the sword.
“Veles book”. A majority of the sufficiently wordy inscriptions on the cups of the 4th-8th cc. are mostly religious Manichaean-Buddhist type.
This type of inscriptions usually begin with such words like: “Kürk mengizi turkurmu kim...”. (Who
creates reincarnation...) or “Kürk mengizi nengsezmü kimmü mükkün...” (Reincarnation.
Either poor, or other, worship...), or “Uvky im Vrkhan kyti kürk mengizi...”. (Read the symbol of
Buddha bliss, reincarnation...). In all inscriptions a center place occupies “embodiment” or “reincarnation” of the soul.
The excerpts of inscriptions on various bowls are cited here because the author of these lines spent quite a number of years studying mountains of literature, including religious of Manichean or Buddhist origin. So, when I saw in the internet and in the book “100 great mysteries of history” not only the familiar script, but also the familiar phrases, at first I was wondering why these tablets with inscriptions were placed upside down. At first I was blaming the editor, thinking that that was a mistake, but then realized that that was a way the inscription was attempted to be “read”. Although it is kind of clear that the demarcation underlines of the text lines should be at the bottom rather than at the top of the text lines (Fig. 21).
It is said that Napoleon had uttered: “Scratch a soul of any Russian, and a Tatar would come out”. Perhaps this is exactly the right case.
In the text almost all the characters are familiar, but depending on the quality and properties of the surface (gold, silver, parchment, or wood) some peculiarity may mark the individual characters of the lettering. For example, usually resembling the letter “o” character “m” on the wood obtained somewhat elongated graphics. However, a credible reading of the inscription naturally requires a visual inspection. As a curiosity, I will quote the opening words in the first line of the inscribed tablets, quite familiar from the above cited texts: “Tenggrum kürk mngizem mungm-tarm sachng...”, i.e. My Tengri, my incarnation, disperse my grief and my sufferings...
If any reader wants to try reading the tablets' text, about which the
internet is fiery with heated discussion, I recommend to first turn attention to the alphabets
compiled by the author. The 45
beech planks is a hefty book, they can contain complicated religious and philosophical treatise.
For example, well-known scientists W.W. Radloff and S.E. Malov published such a 10th c. composition Sutra “Altun jaruk” (Golden shine). The compendium of ten books, later copied in Uigur script, also has frequent the above expression “kürk mengizi” (incarnation): “Revealing in the four elements, in five worlds, on the six paths of existence most varied forms of incarnation”.
The real discovery story of the above beech planks book does not contradict such reading of the characters. Apparently, it was found in the kurgans, like the other numerous finds, such as the signet golden rings with the seal-stamp inscriptions of the name and title of the Bulgar ruler Kurbat and of the king of Arhandy. Wax-impregnated beech planks could nicely survive to the present days.
For comparison are also interesting similar inscription on the objects from the Hungarian medieval burial kurgans (Fig. 22).
Located in the middle of beautiful gold earring as an ornament, the signet-inscription in the ancient Türkic language is read as “Aptm”, i.e. “Apit” (consolation). The inscription on the signet ring is read right-to-left “Ahsum” in the same alphabet, it is found in the antique sources and is a name of an Ephthalite king.
The study of ancient and other relatively late circle of language materials convincingly shows that the Hunno-Bulgars did not speak an r-language. As has been demonstrated, rhotacism is not typical for the Bulgar-Tatar language, although there are some examples of such linguistic features.
Before the Mongol period the notorious tombstones of the 2nd style, with pronounced rhotacism, are not known. But the inscriptions on the vessels or locks in the Bulgar-Tatar language are known from 1146, that is in the pre-Mongol period, while the earliest known tombstone of the 1st style dates back to 1244 (642 h.).
The only speakers of the r-language features are the inscriptions on the 2nd style tombstones. Although they are very interesting,
they no way represent the fictional
language. On the 2nd style monuments the they appear as archaic clerical elements unrelated to the Bulgarian language, which we know quite well. It is the language of some allied tribe
to Islam before the Bulgars, speakers of the dialectal r-language, most likely Suvars.
The 2nd style tombstones are distinct not only by their linguistic traits expressed in peculiar lettering of some individual words, but also by the Arabic script of the texts written with the long obsolete in the Itil basin, distorted by mixing with “Naskh”, “Kufi” style lettering.
The original magnificent lettering “Kufi” in the Itil river basin was used in olden times, in the 8th - 9th cc. judging by the Khazar dirhams minted after adoption of Islam, and on the Bulgar coins during the whole of the 10th c.
It seems that these Kufic texts on the 2nd style monuments mimic some archaic texts in the Suvars' parchment religious books, preserved since the adoption of Islam in the 8th c.
Surprisingly, such unique peculiarity of the 2nd style epigraphic monuments did not alert researchers at all. And the matter does not even ends there.
The very appearance of the 2nd style monuments only in the Mongol period (1280s) calls for a particular interest. And their further abrupt disappearance in the early 1350s is quite a unique phenomenon and shows the archaic, reproached, and proselytizing nature of some texts on the 2nd style monuments.
Klyosov A. Türkic DNA genealogy
Muhamadiev A. Hunnic Writing
Muhamadiev A. Turanian Writing
Muhamadiev A. Türkic Coins in Eastern Europe and Chorasm
Muhamadiev A. Kurbat Ring
Kisamov N. On Scytho-Iranian Theory
Ogur and Oguz
Ethnic Affiliation Scythians
Scythians and their descendents
Stearns P.N. Zhou Synopsis