четвъртък, 29 март 2012 г.

How Bulgarians were left without a history, by Nik Simeonov

Post-Attila Huns - myth or reality? Are Bulgarians really Proto-Turkic?


Written by Cyril Milchev


The idea that the Bulgars were Turkic-speaking people comes not from a real examination of records and the empirical lexical material in some of the stone inscriptions but from the interpretation of words in the "Name List of Bulgarian Khans". It is also clear that a part of military titles as "chorguboil", "yabgu" (syubighi, Yuvigi) is also Turkic. But to form a definitive theory about the historic turkic-speach of the Bulgarians, it is necessary to take into account the records, including Arab and medieval historical sources, which very clearly and categorically stated that the Bulgarian and Khazarian languages ​​are similar, but differ from Turkic.

In other words, it is important to clarify the reason for the existence of turkic-speach among the Bulgarian elite and when it originated? If the question could be put this way, one cannot miss the fact that Turkic speech in Bulgarian society originates long after 565 A.D. when the Avars (Turks) and Kutrigures (Huns) founded a common military administration and a new state in Pannonia.

At the same time the Bulgarians (Utigurs) and Savirits (Khazars) fall under the dominion of the Turkic tribes in the area of Azov sea and Caucasus mountain, and that the rule of Turcik kaganate lasted until 629. In the same year Organa and Kubrat - Bulgarian heirs and rulers restore the state of "Old Great Bulgaria" ( acc. to Theophanes, Nikephoros) . This ways it is obvious that the lack of careful examination of the Avar-kutrigur state, founded in Pannonia, known in the annals as Avaria and Hunnia, is the real reason not to be known how and when the Turkic-speaking of Bulgarians originated.

Let us investigate how the hypothesis that Proto-bulgarians were Turks from the Altai Mountains occurred?




This hypothesis has been imposed in the USSR after 1950 and was launched as a dogma in the textbooks in the People's Republic of Bulgaria. In the early twentieth century scientists who studied "Name List of Bulgarian Khans" as Mykola for example, are much more cautious in their conclusions, when they compare unknown words "Name List of Bulgarian Khans" with words from Chuvash language, which is known as not being Turkic at its’ basis.

More importantly, in the period 1920-1950, under the influence of the so called "Japhetic theory" of Nicholas Marr, the origin of Chuvash and Bulgarians had been in general sought in Mesopotamia. As much as it was peculiar the linguistic dogmas of "Japhetic theory" of Marr; it cannot be denied that he favored the topic Bulgarian ethnogenesys and no one in the Soviet Union up until 1950s sought Bulgarians to be considered a Turkic tribe from Altai.

One can conclude that one reason for the Soviet Union after 1950s’ to raise the argument that the Bulgarians are Turks, is the collapse over Marr and his "Japhetic theory", imposed by Stalin himself in a pseudonymous article: “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - Joseph Stalin's work, most of which was first published June 20, 1950”.




This way the start of annihilation of Marr’s visions and consequently led to total disaster of Bulgarian cause in the scientific society. Next step of Soviet scientist was to banish the idea of tracing Bulgarian and Chuvash languages to Mesopotamian; and contrary to all evidence of the Arab sources, Bulgarian language had been equaled to the language group of the Turks.

Soviet-Russian hypothesis claimed the Bulgarians were Turks of Altai and when Hsiung-nu tribes started the "Great Migration", they dragged along Bulgarians with them up to the Volga river basin. This was for too long the official dogma of the origin of the Bulgarians, and it continues to be repeated to this day. As we know, the Russian-Soviet hypothesis of Huns’ origins is that they are the same people with Hsiung-nu, for which Chinese historians gave information up to the I century AD, then Hsiung-nu were defeated by Sjan-bi tribes /"Xianbi"/.




But what happened in science circles in recent years?

Over the years, archeology developed and showed no migration of Hsiung-nu actually occurred and no artifacts (acc. to S.S. Minyayev, Миняев С.С. Сюнну//Природа, вып.4, 1986.) are discovered to prove a migration towards Europe. Already in 1945 the American scientist Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and ethnographic proximity between European Huns (IVth / V th century AD) and the inhabitants of the Yellow River and Ordos Hsiong-nu (latest data of them is of Ist century AD).

Arguments of Helfen (The Huns and Hsiung-nu. Vol. 22.; The legend of origine of the Huns. Vol 22; Byzantion, 1945) obviously influenced E. A. Thompson, who in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the continuity of European Huns from Hsiong-nu http://books.google.bg/books?id=k3-yZXnhtZgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Thompson+Huns&hl=bg&sa=X&ei=6wY2T7zPF4bJswbiqvmsDA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Thompson%20Huns&f=false.

In 1960 Soviet historian L.N.Gumillev criticizes the objections made in the 50s by Otto Maenchen-Helfen, indicating that the origin of European Huns still has not been definitively proven. In his article Gumillev aims to protect the case from 1900, when the Russian scientist Inostrantsev sought the average Asian people Hsiong-nu and European Huns (Huns), to have been of the same ethnicity. Defending Inostrantsev, the founder of Russia's hypothesis of continuity Gumillev being seen as the guru of Russian historical research for Central Asia, perceives himself to be part of a long tradition of Russian science in this region, and claims Soviet Russia to hold the monopoly on historical knowledge of Central Asia. For our view from 21st century, this sounds very obscure as an official scientific position.

In this article Gumillev developed an idea of ​​a single "cavalry dispatch" of Hsiong-nu, who escaped from their foes- the Sjan-bi /"Xianbi"/ tribes and eventually reached Volga river basin, where they took local women and according to the logic of Gumillev they managed to give birth to a new nation – the European Huns.

As it is clear, apart from Soviet Union, already around 1960, in the scientific community arose the hypothesis that there was no "Great Migration" of Hsiong-nu westwards, but what is strange – the idea that Bulgarians were dragged along with Hsiong-nu to Volga did not changed. Let us ask ourselves, who could “take” them to Volga, a single cavalry dispatch?!

It's very interesting how without general review of late ancient annals and chronicles, one can answer the question "Are Bulgarians the Huns we know about in Europe", provided that the answers are actually ridiculous because Hunilogy is the least developed historical discipline in Europe.

German scholars of the nineteenth century and twentieth century just avoid this theme, simply because they do not want a revision to the outdated assumption that “after the fourth century Europe became a Germano-Roman synthesis” which suits them best.

There is no greater challenge for the new historical approach in Bulgaria than to join the "European debate" who actually in the fourth century and in the Vth century created the foundations of Europe and why Hunnic past is recreated in the books only with negativity. What lies behind this one-sided view of modern historians? In the origin of Bulgarians lies a long pledged bomb from our national historians that “Hunnic question has no connection with Bulgarian origins”?

With the end of Attila’s empire of the Huns in 453, it is widely proclaimed by modern historians that it’s the end of the Hunnic state and (some even officially state that after 468, the Huns existed no longer), although Organa is called by Nicephorus in the ninth century "lord of Hun people ", and in the eighth century the chronicle of John Nikkea Kubrat is called "king of the Huns”.

The question “Who were the Huns” is inherently wrong placed looking at the work of most of the modern historians, although it is reported in sixth century by Syrian author Pseudo-Zacharias Ritor (and not only by him) and 13 hunnic tribes were enlisted but neither one of them are the "Huns" (Zachariahof Mitylene, Syriac Chronicle, 1899).

In German history it was “forbidden” to mention that up until 455 Ostrogoths were part of the Hunnic confederation and the same goes, being equally true for Bulgarians (Paul the Deacon wrote in eighth century that Bulgarians attacked the first Langobard ruler and the time of this attack coincides with the Hun invasion of Europe in the fourth century).

Some writers underline that the Huns and Bulgarians are distinguished by a number of late antique historians and they are correct in this observation but because detailed history of the Huns is not yet developed, these authors ignore the fact that post-Attila Huns were actually two tribes – Kutrigurs and Utigurs, and what is more obscure - the so-called "Kutrigurs" are totally forgotten by historical science, given the fact their exploits are so numerous in the records that deserve a separate monograph.

Kutrigurs are also post-Attila Huns and when talking about "Huns and Bulgarians" as two separate ethnic groups, it is not too far sighted to point out who exactly were those so-called Huns...

The official historical dogma imposed in European academic circles, says Huns disappeared after 468; but actually in late antique and medieval chronicles, Huns and Bulgarians are still mentioned up until the rule Asparuh /680/.

How then without a boost in developing of the historical discipline Hunology in Bulgaria /and Europe/ it will be possible to create a methodological approach and a real hypothesis for Bulgarian origins?

It is therefore obvious that in Bulgaria there are no Hunologists, or Khazarologists, nor Avarologists, and consequently not even one Bulgarian scientist had developed a book on the Huns, their origin and post-Attila Huns, although all late antique chronicles underline a linkage between Huns and Bulgarians.

In 1918 a Bulgarian scientist - Zlatarski properly investigated late ancient evidence of post-Attila Kutrigurs and Utigurs; and proved the correct assumption that under the name Utigurs in late antique chronicles of authors such as Procopius, Agatius, Menander, Theophylact - lies the original Bulgarian ethnic substrate.

Undoubted merit of Zlatarski is the indication that the two tribes Kutrigurs and Utigurs (= Bulgarians) together formed the nucleus of 680s’ Asparuh Bulgarian state and his views are widely accepted worldwide.

Therefore, if Zlatarski had talented followers, they would of examine the pre-Hun and Hun past of the tribes of Kutrigurs and Bulgarians, and to their efforts aid would be the great aid of Procopius, who first reported that these are the two key tribes who created the Union of Huns in the fourth century and also that they originate from Cimmerians. Henceforth it is now imperative to examine Kutrigurs, who they were, how they acquired the ethnonym "Kutrigurs", if they were the ones the authors from Caucasus call “ Burdjan, Vnndr, V-n-n-t-r”.

Consequently, instead of Proto Altaic school books, we could have had already a thick monograph on Kutrigurs and Bulgarian tribes in their ancient past, but also for their late-antiquity history from the fourth century, and their history of 5th century, e.g. what is now known as - history of the Hun Empire.

Undoubtly we should go back to the best European scientists in the first half of the twentieth century ( G. Vernadsky, Runciman, J.B.Bury, J. Marguart, Musset) and accept their extremely important for our history view, that Irnik from the "Name List of Bulgarian Khans" is really Ernak /Ernach/ - the third son of Attila.

If so, Ernak of the kutrigur Dulo dynasty became "the first Bulgarian king" (of 465); the Bulgarians after the collapse of Attila’s Empire (acc. to Paisii) in 484 conquer "Armenia and Media" i.e. Persia – under their ruler / Shahinshah Peroz ( acc. to Yeshua Stylit; Pseudo-Zacharias Ritor, Bar Ebrey, Georgian life book of Shushanik).

"Hunic Empire" at the time of Irnik transformed itself into "Old Great Bulgaria" (Theophanes, Nikephoros) and this country with built towns (Pseudo-Zacharias Ritor), lasted from 465 until 565, when it was raided and conquered by the Turkic tribes of Istemi ... which yoke is ended with the resurrection of irnik’s State by Khan Kubrat in 629.

Therefore, to uncover the truthful history about the origin of Bulgarians it is required to unite areas of knowledge as Cimmerology, Urartulogy, Bosporology, Hunnology, Avarology and Khazarology.

And also let us not forget that the true sources remain Latin, Greek, Syrian, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, Bulgarian and Khazar records and sources. As a side supporting materials could be used the Russian “skazove”, West German, English and Scandinavian sagas, Bulgarian folk art (especially "Veda slovenah") and critical analysis of the Volga-Bulgarian compilations known as "Jagfar Tarihi".

We have already pointed out how, according to official historians, Huns disappear from existence in 468, and post-Attila Huns were forgotten ... But let us draw your attention to another "official version" to other hunnic associated problem area, under which Persia in 484 was not captured/conquered by the post-Attila Caucasus-dwelling hunnic tribes /Ephtalites -called “The white Huns”/; but was instead concurred, according to contemporary historians by some Ephtalite huns, who dwelled east of Persia.

However, in 503 Kavadh I, the son of Persian ruler Peroz, who owed his throne to the "great army" of Huns, that the king of the Ephtalite huns gave him in 499, managed to attack and conquer the Byzantine cities of Edessa and Amida, taking many prisoners and sending gifts to his fellow - king of Huns. These prisoners, according to Pseudo-Zacharias Ritor and Procopius, were not sent somewhere to the east but in Bosporus / Crimea Peninsula on the North Black sea coast/ That is to demonstrate that the Hun king who defeated Peroz and who later became a benefactor of his son Kavadh I is actually from ... Bosporus / North-West/, rather than somewhere east of Persia.

Apparently it is not a coincidence that at the end of VII century, a chronicle unknown today, but used in the ninth century by Theophanes and Nicephorus calls this Bulgaria - "Old Great Bulgaria”. Apparently the unknown author means an old, ancient state of Bulgaria, not created by Organ and Kubrat at the beginning of VII century.

This country could not be "old" for the unknown author except, obviously, he would mean the State founded by Irnik (465-565), which in the "Name List of Bulgarian Khans" appears as with 100 years of known existence, under the name of Irnik of the DULO clan.






This is not the only "clue" against official historical dogma that states that Huns-Ephtalites do not originate from Caucasus. There are many others as well. Let us not be so moderate or ignorant to ask why "Avitohol" and "Ephtalite" are similar words and may point out Bulgarian connection; given the fact Syrian author Bar Ebrey of 13th century quite directly writes in his chronicle that Peroz had been defeated by the Huns, “who previously took taxes from the Byzantines” and that they attacked him in 484 coming from north-west of Persia.

As to answer the question “How Bulgarians were left without a history” cannot be easily answered before we could go beyond the deep layers of officially imposed in modern European history Hunnophobic perception. Study of the history of Proto Bulgarians is not a question of misled patriotism, but rather a topic of scientific merit and dignity.първоизточник http://history.rodenkrai.com/new/proizhod_na_prabylgarite/kak_bylgarite_ostanaha_bez_istoriq_za_prabylgarite.html



Otto J. Maenchen - Helfen. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press, 1973 http://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&printsec=frontcover&hl=bg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Аммиан Марцеллин. История. Киев., 1908,

Die Chronik des Marcellinus comes in Neues Archiv für ältere deutsche Geschichte .,1876

Dindorf Historici Graeci minores, I, 275 – 352

П. К. Коковцов. Еврейско-хазарская переписка в Х в., Л., 1932

Ибн Фадлан. Пътешествие до Волжка България, С., 1992

Веда Словенахъ., Обрядни песни от езическо время. Упазени со устно предание при Македонско-Родопските Българо-Помаци, С. - Петербург, 1881, том. ІІ.

Н. Пигулевская. Сирийские источники..., М., 1941, Захария Ритор, с. 9 - 15; с. 148 - 168.

At - Tabari. Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit Sasaniden, Leyden., 1879 – 1901

Hudud al-Alam. The Regions of the World. A Persian Geography 372 A. H. - 982 A. D./Tr. and expl. by V. Minorsky; §§ 45, 46.

Обращение Грузии. Тбилиси. Мецниереба. 1989

Constantine Porphirogenitus. De administrando imperio. Washington., 1967

Райна Заимова. Арабски извори за българите.,С.,2000

Л. Н. Гумилев. Хунну, М., 1960; Хунны в Китае, М., 1974.; Л. Н. Гумилев. Хунны в Азии и Европе: В. Ритмы Евразии, С. - Петербург, 2000, с. 474 - 529; препечатка от „Вопросы истории”, 1989, № 6 - 7.; Л. Н. Гумилев. Некоторые вопросы истории хуннов; В: журнале Вестник древней истории, 1960, №4/74/; Лев Гумильов. Хуните (историята на народа хуну). С., 2007.

Procopii Caesariensis. Opera omnia/Rec. J. Haury. G. Wirth. Lipsiae, 1962 - 1963. Vol. 1 - 3.

Абу-ль-Фарадж/Григорий Бар-Эбрей. Всеобщая история. //Древние и средневековые источники по этнографии и истории Африка южнее Сахары. Т.4. Арабсккие источники ХІІІ-ХІV вв.; Восточная литература., 2002

Паисий Хилендарски. История славянобългарска (Зографска чернова, 1762 г.); Факсимилно издание, С., 1998, с.177

Н.Я.Марр. Чуваши-яфетиды на Волге, Чебоксары:Чувашское

государственное издательство, 1926, с.с. 3-74

Баба Худжей. Барадж тарих; В: Бахши Иман. Джагфар тарихи, С., 2005.

Н. Пигулевская. Месопотамия на рубеже V - VІ в. в. н. э. Сирийская хроника Иешу Стилита как исторический источник, М., 1940

Агафий Миренейски (536 - 582). О царствовании Юстиниана. М., 1992

Яков Цуртавели. Мученичество Шушаник. Тбилиси. Мецниереба, 1978

G. Vernadsky. A History of Russia. Vol. 1, New Haven, 1943; vol. 2 - Kievan Russia, New Haven., 1948

Runciman. The History of the First Bulgarian Empire, 1930, P. P. 279 - 281.

J. B. Bury. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XX, P. P. 135 - 136 (1910 г.

J. Marguart. Osteuropaische und ostasiatische Streifizuge, Hildesheim, 1903.

Васил Златарски. История на българската държава през средните векове, т. 1. Първо българско царство, част 1 - Епоха на хуно-българското надмощие, С., 2002, трето фототипно издание.

Люсьен Мюссе. Варварские нашествия на Западную Европу: волна вторая. С. - Петербург, 2006, с. 20.

К. А. Иностранцев. Хунъ-ну и Гуннье. Живая старина, Х, 1900; с. 353 - 386; с. 525 – 564

Joannis Malalae. Chronographia/Rec. L. Dindorgf. Bonnae, 1831

Zosimus. New History. London, Green end Chaplin, 1814

Chronikon edessenum/ Chronica minora (Ed.I.Guidi. Parisiis, 1930, p. 1-13)/CSCO, SS. Ser.3,T.4/

Cyril Milchev was born 1963 in Karlovo, obtained Philology degree and docturanture in Medievistics. He is an author of 21 books, including novels, philosophy, theological and historical research pieces, Member of “Union of Bulgarian writers” and of the philosophy circle known as “Atelier of phenomenology”. During 2010 Kiril Milchev won a prize of Bulgarian culture ministry for the book entitled “First Bulgarian ruler”. He had been a member of Bulgarian parliament in 39th National parliamentary assembly, member of NDSV political party and his activities included proposals to the assembly of the following acts: “Law against discrimination”, “Law for ombudsman” and “Law for religious rights and regulations”.

Procopius of Caesarea, discussing Huns and Cimmerians in “The war with the Goths”

Procopius of Caesarea / c. AD 500 – c. AD 565/ was one of the most prominent Byzantine scholar from Palestine. Accompanying the general Belisarius in the wars of the Emperor Justinian I, he became the principal historian of the 6th century, writing the Wars of Justinian, the Buildings of Justinian and the celebrated Secret History. He is commonly held to be the last major historian of the ancient world.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Beyond the Sagins lived many Hunnic tribes. Expanding from that point country is called Evlisia (Procopius evidently used information from "Anonymous Periple of Pontus Euxinus," where this country beginning form the Sagins dwelling places and up to Don and the Azov Sea is actually spelled "Evdousiya"), Its coastal area, aswell the interior is inhabited by barbarians up until the so-called "Meotian swamp " (Sea of Azov ) and the river Tanais (Don), which flows into that "swamp". In turn, the swamp overflows into Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea). The people who live there in ancient times were called Cimmerians, now they are called Utigurs. (Book .ІV.4, The war with the Goths). "

"A huge number of Huns in ancient times, who back then were called Cimmerians, lived in these areas, that we have mentioned, and one king ruled over them. Then ruled over them a king who had two sons, one of these was called Utigur and the other - Kutrigur. When their father died, they shared the rule and named their subjects in their own names. And by my time, part of them are still called Utigurs and the other part - Kutrigurs ... (Book .ІV.5, The war with the Goths). ”.



Много малко знаем за древната кимерийска история, независимо, че през VІ в. Прокопий Кесарийски дава сведение, че утигурите-българи произхождат от кимерийците.



„Зад сагините живеят много хунски народи. Простиращата се оттук страна се нарича Евлисия (очевидно Прокопий ползва сведения от „Анонимният Перипъл на Евксинския Понт”, където тази страна от сагините до Дон и Азовско море, е изписана всъщност „Евдоусия”-бел.ред.); крайбрежната й част, както и вътрешността е заселена от варвари чак до така нареченото „Меотийско блато” (Азовско море – бел.ред.) и до река Танаис (Дон – бел.ред.), която се влива в „блатото”. От своя страна то се влива в Евксинския Понт (Черно море – бел.ред.). Народите, които живеят там в древността са се именували кимерийци, а сега се наричат утигури.(кн.ІV.4, Войната с готите)”.



В древността огромен брой хуни, които тогава наричали кимерийци, живеели по тези местности, за които стана дума, и един цар стоял начело на тях. После над тях властвал цар, който имал двама сина, от които единият се казвал Утигур, а другият – Кутригур. Когато баща им починал, двамата си поделили властта и нарекли поданиците си по свое име. И по мое време едните се наричаха още утигури, а другите – кутригури...(пак там, кн.ІV.5)”.

Pope Leo I meets Attila in Italy in year 452

by Cyril Milchev
and Nick Simeonov


Prosper Tiro of Aquitania; (around 390 by Limoges; † after 455 in Rome) is a late antiquity writer of 5th century. He works in the office of Pope Leo I “The Great”, to whom he was a secretary. He was advisor on questions of basic Christian dogmas. Prosper took part in preparation of Pope’s correspondence, thou he managed to write his own works as well. Prosper is the author of “World Chronic”, comprising information up to year 455 and of this chronic we have the following account of events:

Attila, the leader of the Huns, who was called the scourge of God, came into Italy, inflamed with fury, after he had laid waste with most savage frenzy Thrace and Illyricum, Macedonia and Moesia, Achaia and Greece, Pannonia and Germany. He was utterly cruel in inflicting torture, greedy in plundering, insolent in abuse. . . . He destroyed Aquileia from the foundations and razed to the ground those regal cities, Pavia and Milan ; he laid waste many other towns, and was rushing down upon Rome.

Then Leo had compassion on the calamity of Italy and Rome, and with one of the consuls and a lar,e part of the Roman senate he went to meet Attila. The old man of harmless simplicity, venerable in his gray hair and his majestic garb, ready of his own will to give himself entirely for the defense of his flock, went forth to meet the tyrant who was destroying all things. He met Attila, it is said, in the neighborhood of the river Mincio, and he spoke to the grim monarch, saying:
"The senate and the people of Rome, once conquerors of the world, now indeed vanquished, come before thee as suppliants. We pray for mercy and deliverance. O Attila, thou king of kings, thou couldst have no greater glory than to see suppliant at thy feet this people before whom once all peoples and kings lay suppliant. Thou hast subdued, O Attila, the whole circle of the lands which it was granted to the Romans, victors over all peoples, to conquer. Now we pray that thou, who hast conquered others, shouldst conquer thyself The people have felt thy scourge; now as suppliants they would feel thy mercy."
As Leo said these things Attila stood looking upon his venerable garb and aspect, silent, as if thinking deeply. And lo, suddenly there were seen the apostles Peter and Paul, clad like bishops, standing by Leo, the one on the right hand, the other on the left. They held swords stretched out over his head, and threatened Attila with death if he did not obey the pope's command. Wherefore Attila was appeased he who had raged as one mad. He by Leo's intercession, straightway promised a lasting peace and withdrew beyond the Danube."




From the accounts translated by J. H. Robinson,
Readings in European History, (Boston: Ginn, 1905), pp. 49-51


REMARKS ON THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT:

Attila had risen to great power and gloriously triumphed throughout the Eastern and the Western part of the Roman Empire. During 451 he arrived in Belgica with an army, exaggerated by Jordanes to half a million warriors and soon made his intentions clear. On April 7th Attila captured Metz; and Aetius moved his forces to oppose him, gathering troops from among the Franks, the Burgundians, and the Celts, etc. A mission to him led by Avitus, and Attila's continued westward advance, convinced the Visigothic king Theodoric I to accept alliance with the Romans. Their combined armies would reach Orleans before Attila, thus checking and turning back the Hunnish advance. Aetius gave chase and reached the Huns at a place called Châlons-en-Champagne. The armies clashed in the “Battle of Chalons”, whose outcome commonly, though erroneously, is attributed to be a victory for the Gothic-Roman alliance. Theodoric was killed in the fighting. Aetius failed to press his advantage, and the alliance quickly disbanded. Attila withdrew to continue his campaign against Italy.
Attila returned in 452 to claim his marriage to Honoria once again, invading and ravaging Italy along the way; his army sacked numerous cities and razed Aquileia completely, leaving no trace of it behind. Emperor Valentinian fled from Ravenna to Rome; Aetius remained in strategic position close to Attila’s forces but lacked the strength to offer a battle. Some accounts suggest that this time the mighty Aetius was scared. Attila finally halted at the Po, where he met an embassy including the prefect Trigetius, the consul Aviennus, and Pope Leo I. After the meeting he turned his army back, having claimed neither Honoria's hand nor the territories he desired. On the next year- 453, Attila dies.





The Hunnic Empire. Utigurs and Bulgarians… is that the same thing?

by Cyril Milchev
and Nick Simeonov

   Who are the Utigur and the Kutrigur tribes – on which there is so many accounts from 6th century chroniclers as Procopius of Caesarea, Agathias of Mirena, Menander, Theophylact Simocatta?

    The scientific conclusion that the ethnonym "utiguri" refers to the Bulgarian ethnicity and that all information in the ancient Greek-language records referring the "utiguris", are an integral part of early Bulgarian history, is backed up sequentially in the western and the Russian history science up until the midst of twentieth century.

   Already in 1772 (Allgem. Nord. Geschichte, 358), the German historian August Schloetzer  identified the utigurs and the kutrigurs with Bulgarians, on the basis of the information provided by Greek-language late antiquity chronicles (Procopius, Agathias of Mirena, Menander, Theophylact Simocatta).

  This hypothesis saw light, as written in 1890 by D.I. Ilovayskiy almost by all science representatives and has continuity in the works of Tunman, Engel, Chertkov and Ilovayski himself, who in his essay "The beginning of Russia" (M., 1890) dedicates a special chapter, named "Utigurs and Kutrigurs in the works of Procopius and Agathias.”

    After 1950s in the Soviet historical science a new theory about the origin of Bulgarians had been imposed, which equates them with the Kaganate Turks /of Istemi/ movement west of Volga river, but whose presence in the notices about the areas of Caucasus mountains and Azov sea begin from the mid-sixth century on. Apparently timing is crucial as to be understood that utigurs and kutrigurs actually predate the Turkic invasions with few centuries. Never the less, the wrong had already been done by the soviet scientists, while the “old European theory” that kutrigurs and utigurs are of Bulgarian ethnicity just vanished from historical science of the Soviet block.

    Last of the works on utigurs and utrigurs from the Soviet science block had been written in 1962 by M. Artamonov. The Turkic-Kaganate hypothesis for the origin of Bulgarians is still held tight and imposed officially by USSR scientists as Sirotenko, Pletneva, Novoseltsev, Gumillev and Artamonov himself.

   It is important to stress out that the main reason of this switching on the theme of Bulgarian origins, still imposed by Soviet scientists and their followers is the total public rejection and disgrace upon the works of N.J. Marr, which rejection had been directed personally by Josef Stalin. Leading soviet historian - N.J. Marr in his works already in 1920s suggests the so-called Japhetic theory – a Mesopotamian origin of Bulgarians and Chuvash peoples. No one in the Soviet Union up until 1950s sought Bulgarians to be considered a Turkic tribe from Altai. One can conclude that one reason for the Soviet Union after 1950s’ to raise the argument that the Bulgarians are Turks, is the collapse over Marr and his "Japhetic theory", imposed by Stalin himself in a pseudonymous article: “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics” - Joseph Stalin's work, most of which was first published in June 20, 1950. This way the start of annihilation of Marr’s visions and consequently led to total disaster of Bulgarian cause in the scientific society. Next step of Soviet scientist was to banish the idea of tracing Bulgarian and Chuvash languages to Mesopotamian; and contrary to all evidence of the Arab sources, Bulgarian language had been equaled to the language group of the Turks.

    Careful interpretation of the data on utigurs and kutrigurs, given by Procopius of Ceasarea, points out that they were Huns. Procopius gives a very interesting genealogy: the origin of the Huns is Cimmerian, he writes, but then two brothers named Kutrigur and Utigur split their father’s empire into two separate tribes, which bore their names from now on. These two tribes attacked the Goths, who dwelled west of Meotida (Azov Sea) (c. 375).

   Because utigurs and kutrigurs attacked the Goths together, Procopius himself had been convinced, and writes that actually the Cimmerians attacked the Goths, even thou it is well known that Cimmerians did not exist for many {8} centuries before that account. Apparently Procopius sees Cimmerians as forefathers of utigurs and kutrigurs and does not see any difference between them.

     After the collapse of central European empire of the Huns, ruled by Attila, the later- utigurs and kutrigurs came back via Panonia – to their former lands around northern coast the Black sea. Utigurs returned to their "old dwelling places" to the east of Don river, "to rule alone", while the kutrigurs settled the areas from Bospor to Kherson (now Sevastopol). As we see, kutrigurs settle on a Hun conquered lands, while the utigurs, according to Procopius, returned to their ancient lands.

     We should notice one more interesting thing in Procopius. In his anti-Justinian treatise "Secret History", he gave up on the names "utigurs" and "kutrigurs", which he himself had first introduced previously in his works, but now, when he writes about them in "The Secret History," Procopius  calls them with the common name - "Huns”.

    That is because utigurs are allies of the Emperor Justinian I (527-565) after 528, while the kutrigurs constantly attack Byzantium, Procopius was apparently is held responsible by the Emperor to distinguish between those two hunnish tribes (?).

     Nevertheless in his later anti-Justinian work "Secret History", the same Procopius gave up this division /utigurs-kutrigurs/, which distinguishment, as we learn from Agathias was a favorite subject of Justinian I to discuss in the Senate, while he boasted that he actually made those tribes open hostilities between themselves.

     The same Agathias of Mirena, who works after Procopius, wrote that utigurs and kutrigurs have killed one another because of Justinian’s clever diplomacy, and then those tribes “disappeared”. This conclusion is obviously incorrect given the fact that Menander, who writes after Agatius’ works, again mentions utigurs and kutrigurs as fierce powers of the day, in the times of emperor Justin IІ  (565-578).

    Procopius writes: "Beyond the Sagins live many Hunnic tribes. Expanding from that point country is called Evlisia (Procopius evidently used information from "Anonymous Periple of Pontus Euxinus," where this country beginning form the Sagins dwelling places and up to Don and the Azov Sea is actually spelled "Evdousiya"), Its coastal area, aswell the interior is inhabited by barbarians up until the so-called "Meotian swamp " (Sea of  Azov ) and the river Tanais (Don), which flows into that "swamp". In turn, the swamp overflows into Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea). The people who lived there in ancient times were called Cimmerians, now they are called Utigurs. (Book .ІV.4, The war with the Goths). "

     Procopius further states that in his time kutrigurs lived west of the river Don: "If you go from Bospor city to Kherson city, which is located in the coastal area and has long been subject to the Romans, all these lands between the two cities are inhabited by barbarians of the hunnish tribes" (Book .ІV.5).

    The riddle that Procopius of Caesarea has left to us, needs to find a suitable solution, he states that even by his own lifetime (mid-sixth century) the utigurs, who neighbored the sagins, but north of them up to to the Don river are called utigurs; hence by the same time (555) an author from Syria, known as Pseudo-Zacharias Ritor placed there the "burgar" tribe, i.e. called them "Bulgarians". Pseudo-Zacharias Ritor lists 16 different tribes north of the Caucasus, but in that name list we cannot see the utigurs.

   Adding to that, the goth’s late antiquity historical accounts also knows nothing about the ethnonyms "utigurs" and "kutrigurs" who would attack the goths during the fourth century, in the time of Hermanarich ... Somehow, Cosmas Indicopleustes in his topography from the mid-sixth century, placed Bulgarians between girkanians {who dwelled to the south of Caspian sea} and the heruli tribes {dwelling to the north of the Black sea}.

   Theophanes in his chronicle from the 9th century is strictly following Procopius’ logic, but occasionally corrects it. Procopius wrote that "utigurs and kutrigurs" are "of one origin", while Theophanes already knows nothing of “utigurs” thou writing of “bulgars and kotrags” who were /according to him/ "of one origin".

    It is thus clear that the name "utigurs" is interchangeable with "bulgars" and that Procopius puts it into circulation not by a chance but because it has some connection with the bulgarian prehistory. What could this connection be? Procopius introduces the name "utigurs" in the same moment when he gives (for the first time) some kind of genealogy to the utigurs, and thus this genealogy leads to cimmerians.

    Priscus of Panion reports in fr.33 of his historical work from the 5th century on: "Helhal, born a hun" who up to 467 commanded legions of the Byzantine army of Aspar.

   Obviously the name of this hun is a sobriquet, which contains the name of his native village Helhal, and it is located, according to Armenian historian Movses Kalakantuatsi in the gavar of Utik, south of the Caucasus, where there actually is a town, named Helhal.


    Armenian historian of the Vth century Elishe also mentions this village, "near the border of Iberia and across the city of Halhal" (History, Part III).  
        

    Utik is the Armenian name for the region Uti (Long before that Strabo writes that the inhabitants of this region call themselves "Udins"). This area is located on the border between southern Georgia and northern Armenia.




        Exactly the same territory is connected to the history of Cimmerians during VIII-VII century BC and exactly there was the historical homeland of cimmerians (A.I. Ivantchik).





    The term "Bal", according to onomastyc data and according to Ivantchik was known to the Scythians (οὐαδτόβαλος) and means "a favorite of the {battle} group". In Ossetian language - cognate with the scythian language, the term "balz" meant " mobile military squads" and is associated with several degrees of initiation, during which young people undergo to become men. In iranian language, "cimmerians", according to the etymology of Dyakonov, comes from Iranian gam-ira {e.g. mobile military squad}. We can easily conclude it holds the same meaning.

   Those facts raise many questions that cannot be solved in a breaf but thou need serious attention because early Bulgarian history is poorly studied. The term "Balgar" probably consists of "Bal" (Scythian-Ossetian word for participants in military campaigns) and of "Gar" ("Gu / Qu-ri-a-ni-a"), as was known the land to the north of Urartu; from where towards south began the cimmerian invasion of Urartu /VII-VIII century BC/and the defeat of Urartian king Rusa.

   After 4th century BC this Caucasian toponyme was without any doubt brought to the north of the Caucasus as "gerua" (mentioned in Ptolemy in 2nd century AC and in the Armenian geography of Annan Shirakatsi from the 7th century,), because indeed to the end of 4th century BC . in Southern Caucasus appear the ibers (proto-georgians).

   Apparently the post-cimmerians; which Procopius points out to be predecessors of the huns utigurs have migrated during the 4th century BC, from Southern Caucasus, where the gavar Utik was located, up to north of Caucasus Mountains.

   We do not think that the riddle that Procopius of Caesarea left to us regarding the name "utigurs" but definitely it is of utmost importance those questions to be properly addressed by historical community. As for example we have accounts from 7th century B.C. of a Cimmerian ruler Sandakshatr and 9 centuries later- a utigur ruler named Sandilch [6th century A.D.}.




   The question of the origin of utigurs, bulgars and cimmerians still remains unsolved although some scholars easily put them among Scythian tribes without paying attention to their differences compared to Scythians and later Sarmatians. It is repeated over and over again that the utigurs crossed the Volga and entered into Europe around the year 460 within the larger context of the Great Migrations and the Turkic expansion. What contemporary scholars fail to explain is where are the evidence of such migration from east-to-west? And surely comparison cannot be made because fact is- evidence shows by utigurs a continuity of living in the areal and dwelling along Crimea-Caucasus-Caspian Sea and nothing suggests deployment of those tribes from the north or from the far east. Many facts remain outside the attention of researchers of early Huns and Bulgarian past. In our view, interconnection between cimmerians, huns, utigurs and their successors – the Bulgarians has to be made clear or to be rejected by the means of science and not by the means of political speculation as we saw done in early 20th century.




Used sources:

Н.Я.Марр. Чуваши-яфетиды на Волге, Чебоксары:Чувашское государственное издательство, 1926, с.с. 3-74
Procopii Caesariensis. Opera omnia/Rec. J. Haury. G. Wirth. Lipsiae, 1962 - 1963. Vol. 1 - 3.
Агафий Миренейски (536 - 582). О царствовании Юстиниана. М., 1992
Л. Н. Гумилев. Хунну, М., 1960; Хунны в Китае, М., 1974.; Л. Н. Гумилев. Хунны в Азии и Европе: В. Ритмы Евразии, С. - Петербург, 2000, с. 474 - 529; препечатка от „Вопросы истории”, 1989, № 6 - 7.; Л. Н. Гумилев. Некоторые вопросы истории хуннов; В: журнале Вестник древней истории, 1960, №4/74/; Лев Гумильов. Хуните (историята на народа хуну). С., 2007.
Плетньова. Хазары, М., 1976.
А. П. Новоселцев. „Хазарское государство и его роль в истории Восточной Европы и Кавказа” , М., 1990.
М. И. Артамонов. История хазар. Л., 1962
Otto J. Maenchen - Helfen. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press, 1973
Прокопий Кесарийский. О постройках, М.,1996.
Dindorf Historici Graeci minores, I, 275—352.
Елише. Слово о войне армянской, http://www.vostlit.narod.ru/.
Орозий. Historiae Adversum Paganos, кн.І, 2, 36
Zachariah of Mitylene, Syriac Chronicle, London.,1899.
Феофилакт Симокатта. История. Вступ. ст. Н. В. Пигулевской. Перевод С. П. Кондратьева. (Серия «Памятники средневековой истории народов Центральной и Восточной Европы»). М., 1957.
Византийские исторические сочинения: "Хронография" Феофана, "Бревиарий" Никифора". М. Наука. 1980.
Менандр Византиец. История. // Византийские историки: Дексипп, Эвнапий, Олимпиодор, Малх, Петр Магистр, Менандр, Кандид Исавр, Ноннос и Феофан Византиец. / Пер. Г. С. Дестуниса. СПб., 1860.
И. Н. Медведская. О скифском вторжении в Палестину / Вестник древней истории , 2000 г., № 2.
A.I. Ivantchik. Les Cimmriens au Proche-Orient // Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. CXXVII. Fribourg, 1993.
Lanfranchi G.B. Cimmeri // History of the Ancient Near Eastern. Studies. II. Padova, 1990.
Kristensen A.K.G. Who were the Cimmerians and where did they come from? , 1988.
http://books.google.bg/books?id=ab0BkKSx4TgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=bg&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false