All talk about the origin of the modern Tatars from the Bulgarians from the evil one or is a propaganda project

PSEUDO DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE SO CALLED "BULGARISTS" AND "TATARISTS"

“If, in the presence of their multiplicity, they had unanimity with each other, and not enmity, then other peoples from the Chinese and others, and in general, not a single creature would be able to resist them. And nevertheless, with all the enmity and discord that reigned in their midst, they already in ancient times were the conquerors and rulers of most of the tribes and regions for most of the time, standing out for their greatness, power and full honor from others. Because of their extraordinary greatness and honorable position, other Turkic clans, with all the differences in their categories and names, became known under their name and all were called Tatars. "

The pseudo-discussion between the so-called "Bulgarists" and "Tatarists" is strongly engaged and in no way connected with the clarification of the origin of the Tatars. Its politicization is a long-standing (since Stolypin times) disease, the purpose of which is to divide the Tatars into separate peoples: Mishars, Kryashens, Nagaybaks, Siberian, Crimean, Astrakhan Tatars, Bulgars, and the distance between the Tatars and the Bashkirs, Nogais, Balkars, Karachais, Kumyks, Kazakhs. During the 2000 census, another attempt was made to dismember the Tatars into many ethnographic groups, all of which cannot be enumerated. At the same time, in the Tatar language, an inconceivable, or rather, a senseless number of “dialects” is being carefully sought out on the basis of a “scientific” basis.

WHAT IS THE FATE OF THE ETHNONYMS "BULGAR" AND "TATAR"?

Chuvash explorer N.I. Egorov writes: “Before the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment, neither the Tatars nor the Chuvash had any Bulgar identity. Ethnonym or, rather, ethnopolitonym bulgars begins to occupy a special place in the history of the peoples of the Volga region in the second half or even at the end of the 19th century. The Bulgar identity, undoubtedly, has a book-literary origin, which can be guessed already from the external phonetic appearance of the ethnopolitonym bulgars... It has been established that already in the language of the Volga Bulgars of the pre-Mongol era the ethnopolitonym bulgar has undergone some phonetic changes ( bulgar >* buljar > bü lä r) and took on a phonetic form bü lä r/ buhler "... Already from this quote it is clear that the self-designation "Bulgars" or "Bilyar" for the 9th - 12th centuries can be spoken very conditionally, with reservations, indicating exactly which tribe is being discussed. The written sources by which we judge the language do not give us the opportunity to resolve the issue of the ethnic origin of the modern Tatars.

Without going into the phonetic subtleties of the pronunciation of the Bulgarians / Bilyar / Buhler, we will call the medieval tribes that lived on the Volga, Azov, North Caucasus and Danube, Bulgarians. It should be borne in mind that the population of the Volga Bulgaria was multi-ethnic, there lived Baranjars, Savirs, Barsils, etc. In other words, the name "Bulgarians" was not an ethnonym, it is a political name. If one tries to divide the population of the Volga Bulgaria into some linguistic groups, then it is not clear what to rely on for such an assessment. Literary, epigraphic monuments, other inscriptions testify only to the "bookish" language. From this it is impossible to determine exactly what the spoken language was in fact and which tribe spoke which dialect. It can definitely be argued that both the Kypchak and Oguz groups existed.

Language in the Middle Ages did not perform such political functions as it does today, and therefore transferring our understanding to the 9th-12th centuries means deliberately confusing an already complex topic. In those days, the literary and also the state languages ​​bore the character of jargon for a narrow circle of people, and folklore as an example of a folk language was rarely recorded in sources, and, in any case, it was not of a national character, but reflected the characteristics of ethnographic groups. We can talk about the language of those times only in terms of linguistic, but not ethnic reconstruction, since the "book" and folk languages ​​do not coincide. In general, our understanding of language, people, citizenship carries a different meaning than in the past. The words sound the same, but in fact they are different terms.

THE TATARS ARE PROCEEDED FROM THE BULGARS BY THE DECISION OF THE CPSU Central Committee

All talk about the origin of modern Tatars from the Bulgarians ( bü lä r/ buhler) from the evil one, for they are a propaganda project. In 1944, the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a resolution prohibiting the study of the history and culture of the Golden Horde, the Kazan Khanate, as well as publishing the epic “Idegei”. Noteworthy is the year of issue of the decree - 1944. During the war, it was considered that the issues of history are no less significant than the victory at the fronts. The Tatars distinguished themselves in the war in the best way, the authority of the people began to grow. On the other hand, at the same time, Crimean Tatars, Balkars and others were evicted from the original territories. The question arose about the Kazan Tatars ... They were treated differently, deciding to deal not physically, but ideologically. The Bulgar concept of the origin of the modern Tatars served this purpose, which was "approved", without postponing, in 1946 at a specially convened all-Union conference. The question of the origin of the Tatars was considered by the leadership of the USSR as an important political step along with the post-war restoration of the national economy.

The Bulgarian civilization, of course, existed, as evidenced by the remarkable archaeological material, based on which one can confidently speak about the life of the tribes, their settlement and movement. The Bulgarian cultural (archaeological) layer can be traced throughout the Volga, in the Caucasus, in the Crimea, Bulgaria, and Hungary. It is not difficult to find traces of the Bulgarian tribes in Bavaria and Northern Italy. One can speak in the affirmative about the various Bulgarian tribes in connection with the advancement of the Western Huns from the Volga-Ural region to the Danube and beyond. If the Kutrigur and Utigur are considered Bulgarian tribes, then their mention dates back to the 6th century. Great Bulgaria on Azov emerged in the 7th century. Until that time, the Tatars already had a centuries-old history, and they created a number of states. The emergence of the Volga Bulgaria dates back to the 9th century. Long before that, the Türkic Kaganate already existed on the Volga, and not only with a nomadic, but also a sedentary population. For example, the foundation of Tetyushi as a military fortress can be attributed to 558 - 559 years. In other words, long before the mention of the Bulgarian tribes on the territory of modern Tatarstan, the ancestors of the Tatars had already built fortress cities.

The ethnonym "Turk" was formed as a result of ethnic mixing of tribes on the basis of a common language and culture at the end of the 5th century. In the Chinese historical chronicles "Suishu" it is written: "The ancestors of the Tujue [Turks] were mixed hu[Huns] Pinglian. Their generic nickname was ashina. When the Northern Emperor Tai Wu-di destroyed Juqu, Ashina with five hundred families fled to the Juju [Jujans]. They lived from family to family near the Jinshan [Altai] mountains and were engaged in the processing of iron. " A group of tribes headed by Asyan-shad, "great yabgu" Tuu and Bumyn, in 551 - 555, dealt a crushing blow to the Zhuangzhuan Kaganate, which can be considered the time of the emergence of the Türkic Kaganate, headed by the Ashina clan.

When the Tatars found themselves in the orbit of the stronger Türkic Kaganate, they already played an essential role in the relations of the Türks with the Chinese empire. In the VIII century, the Tatars are mentioned in sources as a union of tribes. The Terkhin inscription says that “when these letters were written - oh my khan! - then the eminent ones of my Heavenly Khan were present, eight-tribal Tatars, seventeen Az 'buyuruk, senguns and a thousandth detachment from the (people) of the Tongra, the Uighur people, together with my tegins "(753). In other words, the Tatars were already part of the kaganate. The subsequent entry clarifies that Eletmish Bilge Kagan (apparently in 742) “again subdued and eight-tribal Tatars", And just below it is stated that" in the year of the Pig (747), the three-tribe Karluks and nine-tribal Tatars... respectfully asked to become a khan. " The Tatars were originally one of the active historical subjects who participated in the formation of the Turkic people.

Aren't the Tatars native to the Jews?

After the collapse of the Western Turkic Kaganate in 658, the Khazar and Bulgar tribes appeared in the historical arena in the Azov region and in the Caucasus. Great Bulgaria arises, headed by Kubrat Khan... In the middle of the 7th century, a "prince" from the Turkic clan Ashina fled to the Khazars, which gave the right to declare the Khazar territory a kaganate. Following this, the Khazars captured Great Bulgaria. The sons of Kubrat fled to the Danube and Volga, where they united the tribes living there. Volga Bulgaria falls under vassal dependence on the Khazar Kaganate and pays tribute.

As a result of the Arab-Khazar wars in 737, the Khazar nobility was forced to convert to Islam, but not for long. At the kagan Bulane(Bolan - "deer" in Turkic) the aristocracy began to profess Judaism. Soon the Khazar Kaganate became one of the most influential states in Eastern Europe. In the letter of the Khazar Kagan Joseph Jewish dignitary Hasdai ibn Shaprut, an adviser to the ruler of the Cordoba Caliphate (mid-10th century), describes the enormous size of the state and the large population. About the peoples who lived near the Itil (Volga) river, he writes: “There are 9 peoples that do not lend themselves to (exact) recognition and which are innumerable. They all pay me tribute. From there the border turns (and reaches) to G-rgan [Caspian Sea]. All who live on the shore of (this) sea for one month's journey pay tribute to me. On the south side, there are 15 numerous and strong peoples, who have no count, up to Bab-al-Abwad [Derbent] ... On the west side live 13 numerous and strong peoples, located on the sea of ​​Kustantinia [Black] ... ". From this passage it is clear that the political name Khazars referred to many vassal peoples who spoke different languages ​​and professed different religions. Such a conglomerate was difficult to keep in check. In 922, the Volga Bulgaria stopped paying tribute to the Kaganate, adopted Islam as an official religion and was recognized by the Baghdad Caliph as an independent state, which was confirmed by the embassy ibn-Fadlan... In 965, the prince of the Rus Svyatoslav defeated the weakened Khazaria.

Today the issue of common genetic roots of Tatars and Jews is being discussed, in particular, with reference to the times of the Khazar Kaganate. It is difficult to determine the ethnicity of the Khazarian population, because even Khagan Yosif could not give accurate information. The Khazars themselves, for the most part, were Turks, except perhaps for the ruling elite. According to the chronicles, the Bulgarian and Khazar tribes spoke related languages. The Karaites of Crimea still speak a language close to the Crimean Tatar, which is also used for services in the synagogue. However, it is difficult to draw far-reaching conclusions from all this about the current proximity of certain peoples.

Recently, all over the world, genetic research has aroused increased interest, which made it possible to determine the ancestral home of all peoples. Based on the data obtained, some researchers are trying to compare haplogroups (groups with common ancestors) with ethnic characteristics. Y-chromosomal haplogroups are statistical markers for understanding the origin of human populations, but in most cases, such a marker does not say anything about the ethnicity or race of an individual. Any modern ethnos consists of representatives of several, at least two or three, haplogroups. It is not difficult to find common ancestors among Jews and Tatars from genetic tables, but this, apparently, should be attributed to an earlier period than the times of the Khazar Kaganate. The interpretation of haplogroups is complex and imperfect. It can be unambiguously argued that both among the Jews and among the Tatars there are a variety of haplogroups. Among the Tatars, they can be compared with the Aryan, Scandinavian, Finnish, Jewish (especially Ashkenazi) groups. My haplogroup stands alone and belongs to the Altai region. It is difficult to say what this means.

WHO IS NOT ONLY ATTACHED TO THE TATARS

The ethnonym "Tatars" has a rather difficult fate. In written sources, runic inscriptions, Tatars are mentioned in connection with the most important historical events in Eurasia. British historian Edward Parker, relying on Chinese chronicles, calls the Huns and Huns, Avars, Turks, Syanbi as Tatars. Chinese historical chronicles connect the homeland of the Tatars with the "Desht-i-Tatars" - the "Land of the Tatars", located to the north of the Great Wall of China between Gansu and East Turkestan. Due to the influence of the Tatars, the Chinese began to call all the peoples living north of China Tatars, using it as a collective term, that is, a political name. Some experts consider the early Tatars to be Mongol-speaking, but such authoritative medieval chroniclers as Rashid ad-Din and Mahmud Kashgar, well aware of the Türkic languages, unequivocally attributed the Tatars to the Türks. Mongols in historical chronicles are mentioned several centuries later than the Tatars.

The nomads who lived south of the Gobi Desert were called "White Tatars". Most of them were Turkic-speaking Onguts. "Black Tatars", including Kerait, lived in the steppe far from cultural centers. They were fenced off at night with a ring of carts, that is, they created a kuren. “Wild Tatars” of Southern Siberia hunted and fished, were ruled by elders, they did not have khans. Since various Tatar states arose (the Chinese and Arab chronicles number 6 of them), the ethnonym "Tatars" spread to many Mongol and Turkic-speaking tribes. Even later, when Genghis Khan became famous throughout the world as the Mongol conqueror, some of the historians called him a Tatar, and the Mongol Empire - Tartary. Munali, governor Genghis Khan in North China, he called himself "we, Tatars", which corresponded to the Chinese tradition, but did not correspond to ethnicity. Over time, all of Eurasia began to be identified with "Tartary", which is recorded on European maps.

One should not be embarrassed by the fact that sometimes the Tatars appeared in the historical arena under a different name. For example, the Kimaks, who founded the Kimak Kaganate in 840 together with the Kipchaks (Cumans), were one of the Tatar tribes. Ironically, the Kipchaks, whose language became dominant among a significant part of the Turks, ceased to exist as a people themselves. Al-Omari about Desht-i-Kipchak he writes: “In ancient times this state was the country of the Kipchaks, but when the Tatars took possession of it, the Kipchaks became their subjects. Then they mixed and intermarried with them, and the land prevailed over the natural and racial qualities of their [Tatars], and they all became exactly the Kipchaks, as if of one kind. " Kypchak roots can be found among Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Nogays, Bashkirs and even Russians (primarily Cossacks).

“Even to this day, in the regions of Hitai, Hinda and Sindh, in Chin and Machin, in the country of the Kyrgyz, Kelars and Bashkirs, in Desht-i Kipchak, in the regions north of it, among the Arab tribes, in Syria, Egypt and Morocco, all the Turkic tribes called Tatars. There are six Tatar tribes that are famous and glorious, and each individually has an army and its sovereign. "

Rashid ad-din. Jami at-tavarih. 1300 - 1311 years

To associate the appearance of the Tatars on the Volga only with the conquest campaigns of Batu Khan means deliberately shortening the history of our people. By the way, the ruins of the Bulgarians that we can see today are the first capital of the Ulus Jochi (Golden Horde), built Batu Khan. Before that, Bolgar looked like a settlement. The legends about the destruction of the city by the troops of Batu Khan greatly exaggerate the grandeur of the events. Likewise, stories about the heroic defense of the Bulgarian state from the Subudai expeditionary force misinterpret events. Subudai did not intend to conquer the Volga Bulgaria, he collected information about peoples, pastures, geography, roads, and ford places. It was reconnaissance in force, preparation for the future campaign of Batu Khan. Any defense of the territory is covered with legends, which has an independent meaning, regardless of victory or defeat.

ETHNONYMS LIVE THEIR LIFE

Their content changes over the centuries, although the name of the people remains. We want to see today's nations in ancient peoples, not considering that in those ancient times self-designation was not treated as strictly as it is today. Ethnonyms appeared and disappeared due to circumstances, but in reality there could be a usual shuffling of the same deck, in which one or the other tribe dominated or even a leader distinguished by outstanding abilities, whose name was given to the people and the state. The dominant name entered the chronicles or was engraved in stone. The rest were waiting for their time. Ethnonyms "On-Oguz" or "Dokuz-Oguz" mean 10 or 9 tribes. The ethnonym "Uigur" came from the name of the corresponding clan, "Karluk" - from the name of the area. The Nogays received a self-designation by the name of Bek Nogai. In Russian chronicles they are called “Nogai Tatars”. In some sources Ulus Jochi in the 14th century was called “Uzbek state”, “Uzbek ulus”, “Uzbekistan”. On this basis, it would be wrong to call the Tatars Uzbeks.

Fanatical Muslims of the Golden Horde in the 14th century adopted a new name - "Uzbeks" - in honor of the Khan Uzbek... In 1428 Tyumen withdrew from the Horde, where the khan Abul-khair and its ulus began to be called “the people and the Uzbek ulus”. Used them Timur in his fight against the Golden Horde. In Central Asia itself, at that time, Uzbeks meant the nomadic population of the eastern "Desht-i-Kipchak" (present-day Kazakhstan). Isfahani about this at the beginning of the 16th century he wrote the following: “Three tribes belong to the Uzbeks, who are the most glorious in the domain of Genghis Khan. Now one (of them) is the Shibanites ... The second tribe is the Kazakhs, who are famous all over the world for their strength and fearlessness, and the third tribe is the Mangyts ... ”Sam Sheiban - a son Jochi, according to his historian, meant by the Uzbeks the nomadic tribes of the Sheiban ulus (Western Siberia), and by the Kazakhs - the nomads of the Orda-Ichen ulus, who ethnically differed little from each other. Only in the 16th century did the Sheibanids conquer the Timurid state, capturing Samarkand, Bukhara and spread the name "Uzbek" to the Central Asian Turks. Then the differences between the Tatars, Uzbeks and Kazakhs begin to take shape. The fate of the ethnonym is sometimes very mysterious.

Any people are complex and are often connected by many threads with other ethnic groups. The Tatars and the Chuvash are united by the presence of the Bulgarian genetic line. It is difficult to separate the Bashkirs from the Nogai (after the collapse of the Golden Horde, the Bashkirs were ruled by the Nogais until the 1570s), at the same time, the Magyars who had been Tatar played a significant role in their formation. Plano Carpini even identified the Bashkirs with the Magyars: “Bashkirs are the great Hungarians” (bas-gard id est Magna Hungaria). Guillaume de Rubruck reports that the population of Bashkiria in the XIII century retained its own language, which was understandable to the Hungarians. Famous medieval historians Juvaini and Rashid ad-Din called the Hungarians of Eastern Europe "Bashgirds". "The princes conquered all the regions of the Bashgird, Madjars and Sassans and, having put their sovereign, the kelar [king] to flight, spent the summer on the Tisza River," Rashid ad-Din writes about the conquest of the Hungarians and Saxons. But sometimes the chroniclers called both the Hungarians and the Turkic-speaking tribes Bashkirs.

TURKS - EVERYTHING

Tatars and Nogays began to be considered different peoples only in Soviet times, but to this day in Central Asia, according to tradition, Tatars continue to be called Nugai. Famous Russian historian V.V. Trepavlov writes: “Nogai was the name given to the northern group of Crimean Tatars inhabiting the steppes outside the peninsula; for Kazakhs nugay- these are Bashkirs and Volga Tatars; for Bashkirs and Kazakhs in the past nogay- Siberian Tatars; for Kalmyks ishtig mangad(i.e. ishtyaki-mangyty) - Bashkirs, and uulun mangad(mountain mangyts) - Balkars and Karachais, etc. " Today we do not doubt the difference between the Nogais and the Tatars, but in the Middle Ages they were considered one people. In one of the Russian books of those years it is written: "He himself [Muhammad-Girey] did not begin to love the Crimean Tatars, but even more began to love the Nogai Tatars, he has a lot of them, and you keep them close to yourself and as if imputing them to yourself with good will." As you can see, here the Nogais are perceived as Tatars living in the steppes. Even in the 19th century, a Crimean gardener and farmer was called a Tatar, and a Zaperekop shepherd was called a nogai. By the way, the queen Suyumbeki was a Nogai princess from the same tribe as the Yusupov princes, and her husband Safa Giray was a Crimean prince.

With the collapse of the Golden Horde and the emergence of numerous Turkic-Tatar khanates, territorial differences become more pronounced. On the basis of the White Horde, Kazakhs are formed, in Central Asia, the Turkic language is influenced by Farsi, and a modern Uzbek language appears based on the Chagatai dialect, the Crimean Tatars have been under the protectorate of the Ottoman Empire for a long time, assimilating many elements of the Turkish (Oguz) culture, while other ethnic groups turn out to be in a situation of relative isolation and develop their local characteristics. Today they are called Azerbaijanis, Kumyks, Balkars, Karachais, etc.

One can agree that some people have more Kypchak "blood", while some have a stronger influence of the Finns, somewhere Khazar heredity has affected, and somewhere - Ugric. All Turkic peoples existing today are a kind of fusion of these tribes. But by and large they are all heirs of a common culture, based on the amazing stability of the Türko-Tatar dialects.

Fecesә m! Kalbeң dә no ser bar - gayan it,

Kilep Kichmeshlә Rә praised bә yang it.

Tү hep kү z yashlә reң don't go toә gasә ,

Neither moң ly uylaryң bar - fromө ylә bezgә !

Babalar kabre yanynda kүң ate zar,

Atalar ruhynyң armandә this bar ...

Kara tuprak tula mә zum nidasa,

Alar kemder? .. Alar kemnә p fidas?

Dәrdmәnd

Feather! Open - what secret do you own,

Draw the essence of fleeting life to me.

Your living tear is friendly with paper,

Tell your sadness, your desires.

At grandfather's graves, my soul, sleeplessly

The vexation of the fathers, breathe their bitterness!

Here is a black earth - all of grievances and groans.

Whose victims are these? Who are they - tell me!

Translation by N. Belyaev

VOLGA BULGARS. Riddles of origin

1. Who are the Volga Bulgars?

Who are the Volga Bulgars? Where do the origins of the culture of the people lie? These questions have worried people for many years. This issue has become especially acute today, when the government of "Tatarstan" is making great efforts to raise the "Tatar" culture and national identity. There is an official version according to which the Volga Bulgaria was formed on the basis of the Turkic tribes united by the Bulgar tribes (also Turkic), who migrated here from the Azov region, after the defeat of Great Bulgaria, destroyed in the 7th century by the Khazars.

But relatively recently, there were other versions of the origin of the Bulgar state, which are now undeservedly forgotten. Several years ago I became interested in this issue and started collecting material on the culture of Bulgaria. We didn’t have a lot, but this information makes us ponder. Are Bulgars nomads?

This question is very important, because the way of life of the people can determine its roots. It is known that in the III century BC - II century AD nomadic tribes of the Turks moved from Central Asia to the West. There is a version that the Bulgars are also relatives of these tribes. But if you look at it with an open mind, it turns out that the Bulgars are a sedentary people. Not nomads at all. Many facts are proof of this.

Firstly , already in the 9th century the Bulgars had a developed system of agriculture.

Secondly although the calendar of the ancient Bulgars has been forgotten, folk holidays remain, which prove that this calendar was solar, and not lunar, like among the nomads, and was associated with agriculture. For example, today in "Tatarstan" they widely celebrate Sabantuy - the holiday of the end of spring field work, and Sambele - the harvest festival. Also, Nauruz is widely celebrated - the holiday of the spring equinox.

Thirdly , the Bulgars have well-developed pottery, which is typical for sedentary tribes, since ceramics are not convenient when moving from place to place. Too fragile and heavy.

Fourth , well-developed metallurgy also testifies to the settledness. One can argue with this, but it is difficult to dispute such a fact: among the products of the Bulgar blacksmiths, castles occupy an important place. They, in fact, lock the doors of houses and sheds, but not yurts.

Fifth , the remnants of the pagan cults of the Bulgars clearly testify to the connection with the worldview of the Indo-European peoples.

At sixth , Bulgars do not have kumis, which is characteristic of all nomadic Turks, but they use a hoppy drink made from honey, beer made from barley, and birch sap. Special mention should be made of the first two. The fact is that among the Slavs and related peoples there was a custom, according to which surya, a drink infused with honey and herbs, was used during rituals dedicated to the sun gods, and during rituals dedicated to the night and underground gods, homa was used - barley beer.

So what happens? If Bulgars are not nomads, not Türks, then who are they? Related tribes usually live nearby. Which of the neighbors of the Bulgars are their relatives? Let's take a look at history.

In the 7th century, Great Bulgaria, located in the Azov region, disintegrated. During its dawn, it covered a large area. It included the lands around the Sea of ​​Azov, including the modern Voronezh region, the Dnieper region. Among the Bulgar cities there was also a small border fortress - the future Kiev. Great Bulgaria did not last long. It was created by Khan Kurbat (632 - 642), and with his death it disintegrated. In 675, Kurbat's son Asparuh led his hordes to the Danube, where Bulgaria was founded. Oddly enough, but already in the VIII-IX centuries in Bulgaria there are no tribes, except for the Slavic ones. The same happened in the Volga region, where the Bulgars also merged with the Slavs, which is discussed below. Maybe the Bulgars are Slavic tribes?

2. The riddle of the Bulgar "earring"

They say that Empress Catherine was once presented with an ancient Bulgarian earring made of gold. The Empress liked her so much that she wished to have another one of the same so that she could dress them. But the grain technique used by the Bulgar jewelers was so complicated that no one undertook to fulfill the royal order. In the end, this was entrusted to the Tula craftsmen, who, after a series of unsuccessful attempts, managed to make the second earring. These are how skillful the ancient Bulgar masters were.

Today it is known that this is not an earring at all, but a temporal ring. They were not worn into the ears, but attached to the headdress on the sides of the head at the temple, or woven into the hair. Such decorations were widespread among the Finnish and Slavic peoples of Europe. But the plot of the ring is especially important. It depicts a stylized duck holding a pebble in its beak, and three acorn-shaped pendants are attached to the bottom on chains. To a person who is not familiar with Slavic mythology, this plot does not mean anything. Meanwhile, the ancient myth says: “At the dawn of time, the god Rod, the creator of the world, created Heaven, Earth and Water. But the Earth was heavy and drowned in Water. Then a gray duck was created from the foam, which swam on the sea, nowhere finding a place for a nest. And Rod ordered the duck to dive into the sea and get the land. The duck dived three times, and got out the earth and the magic Alatyr stone. The stone began to grow and the earth was formed. And Alatyr turned into a magic mountain. The duck made a nest and laid three eggs - bronze, iron and gold. From the bronze the forces of Revelation hatched (the world in which we live), from the iron - the forces of Navi (the otherworldly world), I from the golden - the forces of Rule - the all-powerful gods that maintain the balance of the world ".

Isn't the plot of the ring fully consistent with the myth? Here we see a duck, a pebble in its beak, and three eggs. By the way, the ring is a symbol of Rod, like the duck.

The myth of the duck is also widespread among the Finnish peoples. It is not for nothing that duck legs are depicted on the noisy pendants of the ancient Fino-Ugric tribes of the Kama region. I agree that the myth could be borrowed from neighboring peoples. Let's turn to other facts.

3. What Gabdulla Tukay told about.

Of all the tales of the "Tatar" people, today the most popular is the tale "Shurale", set forth by the famous poet Gabdulla Tukai. The plot is briefly as follows: “A certain savvy horseman went to the forest at night on the full moon for firewood. There he met Shurale, who decided to tickle this guy to death. But the guy, don't be a mistake, asked the unclean man to help transfer the log to the cart, and when the naive forest dweller thrust his fingers into the crack of the log, the horseman knocked out a wedge, pinching Shurale's fingers in the deck ".

The tale is unusual, and at first glance, it has nothing to do with Slavic mythology. But this is only at first glance. The fact is that Shurale is the Russian Churila, the god of borders. The peculiarities of "Tatar" speech are such that there are no sounds "CH" and "Ts" in it. Ask a village Tatar grandmother, who does not speak Russian well, pronounce the word "Churila", and she will pronounce it exactly as "Shurale", or very close to it. But the point, in general, is not in the word itself, but in the fact that Shurale fully retains the functions of Churila.

The horseman went into the forest. A clear violation of the border. I went into the forest at night for firewood - a doubly violation. Of course, punishment must follow. And who will carry it out, if not Churile? And the punishment is original - to tickle to death. By the way, very characteristic of the Slavic evil spirits. This is how the kikimora and mermaids killed their victims. Whatever one may say, but again there is a Slavic trace. Borrowing again? Not at all. Let's take a look at all the evil spirits that are mentioned in the folklore of the Kazan "Tatars". Most of these spirits date from the pre-Muslim period.

We have already disassembled Shurale. We will not go back.

Albasty - the Slavs also have albasts. These are former mermaids. If people pollute the reservoir, and it turns into a swamp, then the mermaids, who, in general, treat people well, turn into albasts - ugly evil old women who drown unwary travelers, trapping them in the reeds.

Ubyr is a blood-sucking witch. The Slavs have a ghoul.

Diyu, peri - female evil spirits. What are its functions, I could not determine, but judging by the name, these are the companions of Dyya - the ancient Slavic god of the night and the night sky, the father of the underground gods. Perhaps the name is borrowed from Iran.

There are also spirits, the names of which, apparently, are either a direct translation from another language, or the original Turkic name. In any case, they will not help us in any way. Such are, for example, Su anasy - the mother of waters, water; Su kyzy - water girl, mermaid; Agach Khuzhasy is the owner of a tree (forest), a goblin, etc.

There is, in addition, evil spirits that have passed into the "Tatar" language from Arabic or Persian along with Islam. Such are, for example, wives (jin) and shaitan. Shaitan, in fact, is an Arabic word, and everywhere accompanies Islam. Corresponds to Christian Satan. As, for example, the word Shabbot turned into Saturday, so Shaitan turned into Satan (in Lithuanian - Satten).

Finally, let us recall the fairy tale ("Altynchech"?), Where Shurale kidnaps a beauty. By the way, there is a similar Slavic myth, according to which Churila seduces Tarusa, the wife of the god Barma, and bears a well-deserved punishment for this from Barma's son, Man. According to witnesses.

When disputes arise about an event, they call witnesses. Let us also turn to those people who saw the ancient Bulgars with their own eyes. Arab travelers of that time left a lot of written evidence about the Volga Bulgaria, and about other countries of Eastern Europe.

The most complete description of the Volga Bulgaria was left by Ibn-Fadlan, the secretary of the Arab embassy, ​​who visited Bulgaria in May 922 and left a report on this campaign. It is curious that he uses the words "Bulgars" and "Slavs" as synonyms: "... when the letter of Almush, the son of Shilka Yyltyvar, the king of the Slavs, arrived ..."

“On his minbar, even before my arrival, the khutba was already proclaimed on his behalf:“ O Allah! Save the king Yyltyvar, the king of the Bulgars! "

"The son of the king of the Slavs (Bulgars) is his hostage among the Khazars."

These passages clearly state that BULGARIANS AND THERE ARE SLAVS ... However, many modern researchers put forward the following version: Ibn Fadlan, being an Arab, did not distinguish between northern peoples. They, they say, were all the same for him. Indeed, if we go to Central Asia, for example, we will not be able to distinguish a Turkmen from a Tajik in appearance. However, one should not forget that Ibn-Fadlan did not arrive by plane to Bulgar. The embassy from Baghdad, having overwintered in Khorezm, on March 4, 922, continued on its way, and on May 12 came to the lands of the Volga Bulgaria. On horses and camels, walking an average of 32 kilometers a day, spending the night in villages along the way. And so on for 69 days. You know, you need to be blind and deaf so that you don't notice the difference between the Turks and the Slavs in two months. Or do you still disagree? Then I will cite one more passage: "... the merchants of the Bulgars go to the land of the Turks and bring sheep." This means that the Arab clearly distinguished the Bulgars-Slavs and the Turks. He also clearly distinguishes between the Rus (Scandinavians) and the Slavs. If someone still believes that the Rus are Russians who sailed to trade with the Bulgars, then I will cite another passage, but by another Arab author: “The Rus live on an island in the middle of the lake. The island can be circled in three days, and it is covered with forest and dense growth. They fight with the Slavs and use ships to attack ... ". The Rus are fighting the Slavs. How does it feel? Do you still believe that Russians and Russians are one and the same? Then I will continue: “... They have no villages, no farms, no fields. At the birth of a son, the father approaches the newborn with a sword in his hand; lowering the sword, he says: “I will not leave you anything. Everything you need, you will conquer with the sword! " Their only occupation is the sale of sables, squirrels and other furs, which they sell to anyone who agrees to buy it. " (Ibn-Rustakh, X century)

Perhaps Ibn Rustakh knew this, but Ibn Fadlan did not? Not at all. Here is an excerpt from Fadlan's book.

“If a ship arrives from the country of the Khazars to the country of the Slavs, the king will ride out on horseback and recount what is in it, and take a tenth of it. And if the Rus or any other tribes with slaves arrive, then the king, really, chooses for himself one head from every ten heads. " And again, the Rus and other tribes arrive in the country of the Slavs.

Is there any other information that allows us to assert that the Slavs and Bulgars are one and the same? This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that Bulgaria and Kievan Rus had a single economy. As in Russia, skins were used instead of money. Here is what Ibn-Rustakh writes about the Bulgars: “They have no minted coins of their own, ringing coins replace them with kunya furs. Each fur is equal to two and a half dirgems. White round dirgems are brought to them from Muslim countries by exchange for goods. "

Perhaps Volga Bulgaria was only one of the Slavic principalities, which in the VIII century were subordinate to the Khazar Kaganate? By the way, this assumption can be indirectly confirmed by the following passages:

"Outer Bulgar is a small town that does not occupy a large area and is known only for the fact that it is the main trade point of this state." Al Balkhi, X century.

“... the inner Bulgarians are Christians” (al-Istakhri).

"... Between the inner Bulgars there are Christians and Muslims" (Ibn-Haukal).

The king of the Rus tribe lives "in the city of Kuyaba, which is larger than Bulgar" (al Balkhi).

"Bulgar is the city of the Slavs, lies in the north" (Yakut, XIII century).

If we sum up all these passages, it turns out that the Volga Bulgaria is a Slavic principality that performed the customs function on the Volga-Kama waterway. And the inner Bulgarians are the Slavic population of the more western territories located between the Bulgar and Kuyaba (Kiev), because the existence of Christian burial grounds on the territory of Bulgaria is unknown.

4. Too rich to pay.

Many mysteries are caused by the campaign of Prince Vladimir in 985 against Bulgar. This is, in fact, one of the first mentions of the Russian-Bulgarian wars:

"Ida Volodimer to the Bulgarians with Dobrynya with his howl in boats, and bring the torques by the coast on horses, and win the Bulgarians in the speech of Dobrynya Volodymer looks at the prisoner, the essence of the bootsock, so we don’t give tribute, let's go look for lapotniks" (PSRL T1 stb 84) ...

It turns out an interesting situation, Volodimer and Dobrynya are leading an army along the river in boats, and a horse army of the Turks gallops along the bank. Vladimir won. Dobrynya examined the prisoners, noted that they were all in boots, i.e. quite rich, and said to Vladimir, let them say, we are not paid tribute. Let's go look for lapotniks, those who are poorer.

Strange affair. Conquerors have always sought to conquer rich countries in order to gain wealth and fame. And here the winner explicitly states that they are too rich to pay tribute. What do other chroniclers say?

"... And Volodimer make peace with the Bulgarians, and the companies wanting among themselves, and the Bulgarians decide: if there will be peace between us, and when the stone begins to float, and the hops on the water get dirty, then take a tribute to you" (Nikon Chronicle).

It is clear that the defeated Bulgarians agree to make peace with the winner. And the world, according to them, is eternal, until the stone begins to float and the hop begins to sink. But how does the winner look at the last phrase "... then you take a tribute ..."? That is, never take it? And the winner puts up with it? It is very similar to the situation described in the "World History, revised by" Satyricon ". Tatar ambassadors come to Prince Dmitry, and demand tribute. Dmitry replies: “If the khan needs money, let him go to work. You cannot feed all the beggars. " Why would Vladimir have such an attack of altruism? This means that the Red Sun did not come to a foreign country for a tribute. It turns out that for other reasons. It is known that wars are started either for economic, political or religious reasons. But the economic benefit is always there. What events preceded this war?

In 965, Prince Svyatoslav undertook a campaign against Khazaria. Under the blows of the troops of Svyatoslav, the Khazar state fell. The cities of Itil, Semender and Sarkel were plundered and destroyed. After that, the Russian princes are trying to subjugate the Khazar possessions. The Kiev Kaganate was created. Svyatoslav's son Vladimir declares himself a kagan, and demands obedience from neighboring peoples. Kievan Rus was also called the Kievan Kaganate in a later period. In 1051 - 1054, Metropolitan Hilarion wrote "The Teaching about the Old and New Law", which included "Praise to our kagan Vladimir": "... the great and wondrous deeds of our teacher and mentor, the great kagan of our land, Vladimir ...".

Apparently, the ruler of the Volga Bulgaria did not want to join the great and wondrous deeds of the Khagan Vladimir, having converted to Islam, he had already reoriented himself and was striving to get closer to the Baghdad caliph. As a result, our teacher and mentor came to Bulgaria and explained to the Bulgars all the perniciousness of such actions. The result was a peace treaty in which the vanquished swore an oath of eternal peace. Satisfied Vladimir returned home, and in the future there were no serious military clashes.

5. Where did the Bulgars come? Bulgaria 500 years before the Bulgars.

Indeed, where? Whose lands have they settled on? Who lived here before them?

In the IV century, in the era of the Great Migration of Nations, the Imenkov culture tribes penetrated into the Volga region. They occupy the territories of the Left Bank of the Kama and Volga, displacing the Azelin tribes from there. Today, many scientists agree with the version that the Imenkovites were Slavs, or tribes related to them. Under the onslaught of the Imenkovites, the Azelin tribes retreated to the north, to the Volga-Vyatka interfluve. The Imenkovites settled in the right bank of the Kama, populating the coast from the area of ​​modern Elabuga to the Volga, as well as the Volga-Sviyazhsky interfluve, in a narrow strip. According to some scientists, the Imenkov culture existed until the 5th-6th centuries, and then disappeared, and the population left somewhere. And the reason for this was the nomadic Turkic tribes who defeated the Imenkovites. But let me disagree with this statement. A holy place is never empty. If the Imenkovites were defeated and left, their territory would immediately be occupied by the Azelins, or other tribes. That did not happen. Later the Bulgars came and founded the Volga Bulgaria. And the main population was precisely the Slavs - Imenkovites. And the best proof of this is the maps of Imenkov and Bulgar lands. Look, the borders of Bulgaria exactly correspond to the boundaries of the settlement of the Imenkovites. Consequently, we have before us an unread page in the history of our people, which, through an oversight or deliberately, is kept silent by official science. Apparently the history of the Bulgar state should be added another 500 years. And we did not know anything about that. However, we did not know about many things. Reading the textbook on the history of "Tatarstan" for secondary school, one gets the impression that after the defeat of the Khazar Kaganate in Eastern Europe there were no other states except Kievan Rus, Novgorod land and Volga Bulgaria. Meanwhile, at least two more are mentioned in the annals - Arsania and Biarmia.

Arsania is mentioned in the messages of Arab travelers of the 9th - 13th centuries. The city of Arsy (Artab, Atra, Arsay) was named the capital. The location of this area is said indefinitely, it is only known that it was located to the north of the Volga Bulgaria. Many scholars believe that this is the Arsk land of Russian chronicles. The city of Arsk was mentioned in the XIII century. This territory was inhabited by Aras (southern Udmurts).

The Biar kingdom (Barmaland of the Scandinavian chronicles) occupied the north of the Perm region and the Komi ASSR. The capital was the city of Chardyn. It was an important center for the fur and leather trade. In the old years, it had connections with Barmaland, it was often attacked and robbed. In 920, King Erich of Norway ravaged the lands of the Biar kingdom. The Vikings plundered the Bor Barma temple on the Yamal Peninsula, where they captured so much loot that they could not load everything onto their ships.

In 1236 Biar was destroyed by the Mongols. Only scientists know about these two states. They are not taught at school. Only Magna Hungaria (Great Hungary), located to the east of the Volga Bulgaria, is mentioned in passing. It turns out that Bulgaria was not the only state, but one of many. From the west it was bordered by the Russian principalities, from the north - Arsania, from the east - Biar and Magna Hungaria, from the south - Khazaria.

6. Version.

So, let's try to reconstruct the history of the Volga Bulgaria in the light of the above facts. In the 3rd century AD, all of Eastern Europe is a single economic system, similar to Western Europe in the 13th century. All of it was inhabited by kindred tribes who spoke Indo-European languages, and was a network of principalities, which sometimes united under the rule of one kagan, then again declared their independence. Druzhinniki often passed from one prince to another, creating a special, druzhina culture. One of the largest state formations of the Slavs in the Azov Sea was Ruskolan, which occupied the territory that would later become part of the Great Budgaria Kurbat. The ruler of Ruskolani was Bus Beloyar (Bozh in the Byzantine chronicles). Ruskolan fought with the Goths of Germanarich. In this war, Germanarich was killed and his son took his place. As a result of a long-term war, Ruskolan was defeated, and Bus was crucified. This happened in 382. After that, the Avars and Khazars passed through the lands of the weakened Ruskolani. But the territories of Ruskolani, Tamatarkh, Tmutarakan, Taman were still considered Slavic principalities. Except for the period of Great Bulgaria. Most likely, after all, Great Bulgaria was inhabited by Slavic and related tribes. It is possible that the official language was Turkic, but the customs and way of life were preserved. In the time of troubles, in the IV century, when the invasion of the Huns, Avars, Khazars swept across the steppes of Eastern Europe, part of the Slavic tribes from the forest-steppe zone moved to the Volga region, occupied the lands of the Fin-Ugrians inhabiting the Lower Kama and the Middle Volga. The Slavs captured the Finno-Ugric fortresses, settling in them, and pushing the local population into the forests. Apparently, the natives were in no hurry to leave the invaders alone, so the Imenkov fortresses have impressive fortifications. In the 7th century, Bulgarians came here, immigrants from Great Bulgaria defeated by the Khazars. It is quite possible that the prince is with his retinue. Or maybe he was called to reign as Rurik? This practice was very common at the time. Several clans, or even a union of tribes, at a general meeting, choose a prince from those living in the neighborhood, and invite him to reign. By concluding an agreement, according to which the prince and his squad ensure the safety of the population, and the population, in turn, provides the prince and the squad with food. The contract could be terminated or renewed at any time. This practice existed in Novgorod for a long time. Greek authors point out that it existed from ancient times throughout Eastern Europe. Be that as it may, in the Volga region the Bulgars merged with the local Slavs without any special complications, and the Slavic tribes easily recognized the power of the Bulgars. That is why the borders of the Volga Bulgaria exactly coincide with the borders of the settlement of the Imenkov tribes. At this time, in the south, there is a powerful state - the Khazar Kaganate, which, as the strongest, requires obedience from the neighboring principalities. A small digression should be made. The fact is that Eastern Europe has long developed its own feudal staircase, which is little known to the modern reader. Boyars ruled large families. Tribes - princes. Unions of tribes, as well as small state formations - Grand Dukes. Only kings and kagans stood above. That is why the Russian rulers were in no hurry to appropriate the royal title to themselves, but were called the Grand Dukes. The title is a serious matter. The right to it must be earned.

So, the Khazar Kagan rightfully demanded obedience from the Kiev and Bulgar princes. But, apparently, the Bulgars and Kievans already felt their strength, and maybe the weakness of the Khazars, and strove for independence. It was then that Almas, the son of Shilka, decided to defect from the Khazar Kagan to the Baghdad Caliph. It seems that the Khazars did not have the strength to bring Almas to submission, or they solved more important issues, so the Bulgars were able to receive a blessing from the ruler of the faithful and converted to Islam. This, of course, influenced relations with Khazaria, but did not lead to serious conflicts. However, in Bulgaria itself there were disagreements. Not all Bulgars wanted to accept Islam. Because of this, the relations between Bulgar and Suvar became aggravated. The conflict dragged on for almost 50 years. During this period, pagan sanctuaries continued to function, and Suvar, in contrast to Bulgar, even minted his own coins.

In 965, under the blows of the troops of the Kiev prince Svyatoslav, the Khazar state fell. This freed the hands of the Bulgar rulers, and they led a tougher policy towards convinced pagans. In 976, the Muslimization of the country was largely completed. Suvar stopped minting his coins and recognized Bulgar as a political center. From that moment, Bulgaria stood in front of Baghdad, back to Kiev. From Kiev, Vladimir Yasno Solnyshko, who in 980 declared himself a kagan and successor of the Khazar kaganate, looked disapprovingly at this maneuver. In 985, Vladimir, most likely at the suggestion of the pagan priests, undertook a campaign against Bulgaria, clearly for political purposes. Apparently he wanted to force the Bulgars "to become the old way, as the mother set". Bulgar reluctantly turned a quarter of a turn towards Kiev. Eternal peace was concluded, with Kiev's obligation not to take tribute. Vladimir was satisfied. He himself had already conceived of reorienting his policy. The next year the Bulgars send Muslim preachers to Kiev to persuade Vladimir to their faith. But the winner is in no hurry to follow the lead of the vanquished. And why, after all, they will not go anywhere anyway. The world is concluded eternal. And if they do not, then it will be possible to take "tribute."

Whatever thoughts Vladimir was guided by, two years later Russia adopted Christianity. From that moment on, Bulgaria is getting closer and closer to the countries of the Muslim East. And the Turkic language is becoming more and more important. It is used for teaching, books and poems, scientific works and baits are written on it. For several centuries, the Slavic language has been unclaimed, and the population forgets it. The period of bilingualism is coming to an end. The Bulgar people become Turkic. If anyone doubts my words, take a look around. Today the situation is repeating itself exactly the opposite. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the "Tatar" language has become unclaimed. With the rejection of the Arabic script, the "Tatars" lost their centuries-old heritage. In universities, teaching was conducted in Russian. True, there were national schools, as well as lessons of the "Tatar" language for the children of the "Tatars". But where should those who graduate from the national school go to? Today many "Tatars" do not know the "Tatar" language. And although "Tatar" groups in kindergartens and "Tatar" classes in schools are open, parents are in no hurry to send their children there. Children in them do not receive proper development. And why be surprised? Are there many books in the "Tatar" language? How many TV channels broadcast their programs in the "Tatar" language? Do many universities teach in the "Tatar" language? Where will their graduates be able to work? Apparently, a similar situation developed with the Slavic language in the Volga Bulgaria. And he disappeared. And, perhaps, he did not completely disappear. Bulgar merchants were active in trade in all corners of Eastern Europe, and probably spoke Slavic with the Slavs. And the Arab authors up to the XIII century indicate that Bulgar is a city of the Slavs. The situation changed dramatically after the inclusion of Bulgaria and Russia into the Golden Horde. This period saw the flourishing of the Turkic culture. Russia was also under her influence. Afanasy Nikitin, describing his journey, used Turkic words and expressions. Russian coins were bilingual. The princes knew the Turkic language very well, because they often had to communicate with the Tatars, traditionally they entered into dynastic marriages. However, the description of the history of Bulgaria as a whole is not the purpose of this work. I just wanted to draw the reader's attention to the early Bulgar period, and to the connection between the culture of the Slavs and Kazan Tatars. Evaluating these facts, the phrase of the ancient author “... named from the Volga River Volgars or Bulgarians, which originated from the glorious and multinational people of Slovenia, looks not so fantastic”

The leading group of the Tatar ethnic group is the Kazan Tatars. And now, few people doubt that the Bulgars were their ancestors. How did it happen that the Bulgars became Tatars? The versions of the origin of this ethnonym are very curious.

Türkic origin of the ethnonym

For the first time the name "Tatars" is found in the 8th century in the inscription on the monument to the famous commander Kyul-tegin, which was erected during the time of the Second Turkic Khaganate - the state of the Turks, which was located on the territory of modern Mongolia, but had a larger area. The inscription mentions the tribal unions "Otuz-Tatars" and "Tokuz-Tatars".

In the X-XII centuries the ethnonym "Tatars" spread in China, Central Asia and Iran. The XI century scholar Mahmud Kashgari in his writings called the "Tatar steppe" the space between North China and East Turkestan.

Perhaps that is why, at the beginning of the 13th century, they also began to call the Mongols, who by that time had defeated the Tatar tribes and seized their lands.

Turkic-Persian origin

Scientist anthropologist Aleksey Sukharev in his work "Kazan Tatars", published from St. Petersburg in 1902, noticed that the ethnonym Tatars comes from the Turkic word "tat", which means nothing more than mountains, and the words of Persian origin "ar" or " ir ”, which means a person, a man, a resident. This word is found among many peoples: Bulgarians, Magyars, Khazars. It is also found among the Turks.

Persian origin

Soviet researcher Olga Belozerskaya linked the origin of the ethnonym with the Persian word "tepter" or "deftar", which is interpreted as "colonist". However, it is noted that the ethnonym "Tiptyar" is of a later origin. Most likely, it arose in the XVI-XVII centuries, when they began to call the Bulgars who moved from their lands to the Urals or Bashkiria.

Ancient Persian origin

There is a hypothesis that the name "Tatars" came from the ancient Persian word "tat" - this is how the Persians were called in the old days. Researchers refer to the 11th century scholar Mahmut Kashgari, who wrote that “tatami is the name given by the Turks to those who speak Farsi”.

However, the Turks called tatami both the Chinese and even the Uighurs. And it could well happen that tat meant "foreigner", "foreign language". However, one does not contradict the other. After all, the Turks could call tatami, first Iranian-speaking, and then the name could spread to other strangers.
By the way, the Russian word "tat" may also be borrowed from the Persians.

Greek origin

We all know that among the ancient Greeks the word "tartarus" meant the other world, hell. Thus, "tartarin" was an inhabitant of the underground depths. This name arose even before the invasion of Batu's troops to Europe. Perhaps it was brought here by travelers and merchants, but even then the word "Tatars" was associated with the Eastern barbarians among Europeans.
After the invasion of Batu Khan, Europeans began to perceive them exclusively as a people who came out of hell and brought the horrors of war and death.

Ludwig IX was nicknamed saint because he prayed himself and called on his people to pray in order to avoid the invasion of Batu. As we remember, Khan Udegey died at this time. The Mongols turned back. This assured the Europeans that they were right. From now on, among the peoples of Europe, the Tatars have become a generalization of all the barbarian peoples living in the east.

For the sake of fairness, it must be said that on some old maps of Europe, Tartary began immediately beyond the Russian border. The Mongol Empire collapsed in the 15th century, but European historians up to the 18th century continued to call all eastern peoples from the Volga to China as Tatars.

By the way, the Tatar Strait, which separates Sakhalin Island from the mainland, is called this way because “Tatars” - Orochi and Udege - also lived on its shores. In any case, this was the opinion of Jean Francois La Perouse, who gave the name to the strait.

Chinese origin

Some scholars believe that the ethnonym "Tatars" is of Chinese origin. Back in the 5th century, a tribe lived in the northeast of Mongolia and Manchuria, which the Chinese called "ta-ta", "yes-da" or "Tatan". And in some dialects of Chinese the name sounded exactly like "Tatar" or "Tartar" because of the nasal diphthong.

The tribe was warlike and constantly disturbed the neighbors. Perhaps later the name tartare spread to other peoples that were unfriendly to the Chinese.

Most likely, it was from China that the name "Tatars" penetrated Arab and Persian literary sources.

According to legend, the warlike tribe itself was destroyed by Genghis Khan. This is what the Mongol scholar Yevgeny Kychanov wrote about this: “This is how the Tatars tribe perished, which even before the rise of the Mongols gave its name as a common noun to all Tatar-Mongol tribes.

And when in distant auls and villages in the West, twenty to thirty years after that massacre, alarming shouts were heard: "Tatars!" ("The Life of Temujin, Who Thought to Conquer the World").

Tokharian origin

The emergence of the name could also be associated with the people of the Tochars (Tagars, Tugars), who lived in Central Asia, starting from the 3rd century BC.

The Tokhars defeated the great Bactria, which was once a great state and founded Tokharistan, which was located in the south of modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and in the north of Afghanistan. From the 1st to the 4th century A.D. Tokharistan was part of the Kushan kingdom, and later disintegrated into separate possessions.

At the beginning of the 7th century, Tokharistan consisted of 27 principalities, which were subordinate to the Turks. Most likely, the local population mixed with them.

All the same Mahmud Kashgari called the huge region between North China and East Turkestan the Tatar steppe.
For the Mongols, the Tochars were strangers, "Tatars". Perhaps, after some time, the meaning of the words "Tochars" and "Tatars" merged, and so they began to call a large group of peoples. The peoples conquered by the Mongols took the name of their kindred aliens, the Tohar. So the ethnonym Tatars could also be transferred to the Volga Bulgars.

BULGARIANS: UNKNOWN HISTORY OF A VERY FAMOUS PEOPLE.
Batyrov U.F., Sobyanin A.D.
Editorial foreword: “As the experience of recent decades shows, conflicts in such a multinational country as Russia are easiest to flare up not even on religious, but on ethnic grounds. local territories, which could not have been achieved in the event of a major sectarian strife in which the whole world would have been drawn. It does not matter that in Russia such territories may be larger than European countries. For our enemies this is very convenient. and perverted information, which is thrown into the right edition at the right time. This is one of the types of information war. The editors begin a series of publications on the history of peoples inhabiting the regions, marked in the previous editions of the magazine, according to American forecasts, as possible "hot spots" - zones of interethnic conflicts ".

THE STORY OF HOW THE PEOPLE WERE "FORBIDDEN"

It will focus on one of the largest peoples of Eurasia - the Bulgars (Volga Tatars). Great Bulgaria stretched from the Volga and Kama to the Danube in the 7th century. After its fall, the Danube Bulgarians lost the Old Bulgarian language (Turkic) and began to speak Slavic - the modern Bulgarian language. On the Volga and the Urals, they retained their language, but lost their name.
No one now even suspects that until 1917 only the descendants of the Polovtsian (Desht-i-Kypchak) Kypchak and Tatar-Mongol tribes who lived in the Steppe (Desht-i-Kypchak), scattered throughout Russia - Lithuanian, Crimean, Caucasian Tatars were called "Tatars" were called "Tatars" ... Also Tatars were called "service Tatars" - Nogays, Kasimov Tatars and other Turks, who since the time of Ivan the Terrible made up a significant part of the nobility. And on the Volga, as follows from the article "Russia" of the Brockhaus and Euphron Encyclopedic Dictionary, the Volga Bulgars lived.
Then there was the Revolution. Bulgars accepted it with joy, because the ideas of the Bolsheviks were consonant with the goals of the Volga Bulgar Muslims Movement (Vaisov movement). It was the Bulgar Muslims who established Soviet power in the Volga and the Urals. In gratitude for this and in memory of Sardar Vaisov, who died in 1918, the Bolsheviks allowed to decorate the Suyumbiki tower in the Kazan Kremlin with a crescent. But after the death of Sardar Vaisov, whom the Bolsheviks fully trusted, the "Tatarists" managed to convince the People's Commissar for Nationalities I.V. Stalin that the Vaisov movement is fraught with a threat to the integrity of the RSFSR. As a result, in 1923 the name "Bulgars" was banned, the leaders of the Movement were shot, and ordinary members were exiled. The Tatar autonomy was formed as part of the RSFSR, and the population has since been issued passports with the entries "Tatar / Tatar".

NO PEOPLE - NO PROBLEM ...

Outside the context of the Bulgarian history, there is nothing offensive in the word "Tatar". The same ethnonym as thousands of others: Uighurs, Chinese, Turks, etc. But for the Bulgars it is alien, because that is the name of those who drowned Bulgaria in blood, destroyed its capital Bilyar and the most ancient city of our people - Bulgar.
So, the Bulgar people were given an alien name. And for some seventy years the people began to disappear! According to statistical data for this period: in numerical terms, the Tatars have slipped from the fourth place in the country to the seventh. The census statistics for 1979 and 1989 do not even record a quantitative increase at all - as there were about seven million, it remains. Although at the birth rates that existed in the USSR at that time, population growth should have amounted to about two million people. Where are the children who were born during this time in "Tatar" families? They "went" to other nations for the same reason - they did not want to be the descendants of conquerors and destroyers.
But back in 1903 the outstanding writer Gayaz Iskhaki wrote the first fantastic story in the Bulgarian literature - "Ike yoz eldansong inkyraz" ("Death in two hundred years"). This book predicts that the terrible disease "Tatarism", which the Bulgar people contracted in the second half of the 19th century, will lead them to complete extinction in two hundred years. Then Gayaz Iskhaki keenly caught the trend, however, he was mistaken in the timing. We see that the process has gone much faster and may end with the death of the people earlier than two hundred years later. No, people will not go anywhere, they will just call themselves Russians. The Russian people will not become stronger from these half-Tatar-half-Russians. No one gets stronger from the inclusion of weak blood.
Only through the return of the name will we return the layers of culture hidden from us. The return of the native ancient culture will strengthen the largest Eurasian ethnos after the Russians, the indigenous population of the Volga, Kama and Urals.

Reference 1. Ethnic roots of the Volga ethnos, tribes and peoples.
FINNO-UGRY: mari, besermyan (bisherman), Udmurts, Mordovians, etc.
TURKI: Ases (Yases, Alans), Senny (Syunny-Hyun-Hung-Huns), Suars, Bulgarians, Burtases (Bortases), Biars (Biler-Bigger Bilyars), Iskils (Skydy-Scythian), Bersuls, Kypchaks, Nohrats , Temted, Koshans, Sarmatians, Chelmates, Sabakule, Khazars, Misers (Meshcher-Maggars-Magyars), Nugai (Nogai), Ishteks (Ostyaks), Bashkirs (Bashkirs), Turks (Torks, Uzy), Kazanly (Kashan-Koshan- Kushan), Iyirki, Suaslamari (Chuvash), etc.

FALSE NAME - FALSE ETHNOSIS?

More than once we have come across a situation in our life when strangers could not determine who we are by nationality. And when they heard: "Tatar", they were amazed. In the minds of many Tartars, this is a narrow-eyed, high-cheeked nomad with Mongolian features. And looking at us, those who ask, see completely different people, clearly non-Asian, in front of them.
Most of us are used to living under a false name. Although the inner feeling of wrongness remains. It is this feeling of inconsistency of our inner essence with the image associated with the name "Tatars" that in weak people leads to the appearance of an inferiority complex, all kinds of concealment of their "Tatar" origin, up to the change of name (there was Zukhra Flyurovna, and became Zinaida Yurievna). Strong people silently withdraw into themselves, although they understand that something needs to be changed. There is also a third group - those who, out of a feeling of inferiority, emphasize their Tatarness, are proud of the fact that "we, the descendants of Genghis Khan, kept Russia under our boots for three hundred years. Even though we are now small and offended by the same Russians, we were once" tough " and they took tribute from the Russians. "
Until now, the false name forced to rewrite history in order to explain how the Bulgars turned into Tatars. Supposedly there was some kind of pure, without impurities, the Bulgars, then came no less unalloyed Kypchaks, that is, the Polovtsians. They added up, and in total they turned out to be Tatars. A terrible absurdity that people calmly swallow.
Both the Kipchaks-Polovtsy, and the Tatar-Mongols, and other Turks poured into our blood at different times, but the basis remained the same - the Bulgar. Initially, the Bulgar people on their historical land, in the Volga region and in the Urals, consisted of different tribes - both living here and coming from outside. But a certain original Ural dominant remained, a spirit that shaped the people, forcing them to differ from others. Whoever joined our people - nomadic Turks, sedentary Finno-Ugrians - they perceived this spirit, our culture, and became part of the Bulgar people. The Kryashens and Mishars began to feel themselves not as separate tribes, but as part of a large people.
Not the least role in the struggle of forces within the Bulgar ethnos is played by the question of self-designation - "Tatars" or "Bulgars". If "Tatars", then the basis of the national character is nomadic (from the Tatar-Mongols who came in the 13th century) - the Great Steppe. Consequently, the recommendations of A.G. Dugin are substantiated from the point of view of the stability of the Russian state. However, if the name "Bulgars" is accepted, everything changes dramatically. The state of the Bulgars, even before Kievan Rus, combined the tradition of the Forest (excavations in the Urals show millennia of metal smelting and agriculture) and the dynamics of the Steppe (constant recharge from waves of nomads from Central Asia through the steppe mouth between the Caspian Sea and the Ural forests). No less important is the fact that the Volga-Ural ethnos existed without forcible unification of its constituent parts. This means that the Bulgars at the time of their heyday (in the 7th century) were not a nation in the European sense, but were a large community of Finno-Ugric and Turkic peoples.
When Great Bulgaria fell under the blows of the Khazar Kaganate, a smaller, but more active part of the Bulgars went to the Middle Volga region. The Bulgars became the next ruling tribe of this region, like the Alans, Hsiuns, Biars before them, but in the cultural sense they quickly disappeared among other sedentary Turkic-speaking tribes of the Volga region and the Urals. Modern Bulgars - first of all, Tatars and Bashkirs - are successive in their cultural and psychological characteristics to the indigenous sedentary population of the region.
It is characteristic that the sharp weakening of the control of the Volga Bulgaria over the Finno-Ugric lands of the Northern Urals and Western Siberia and the inability to fight the rapidly growing Muscovite state coincides with a large influx of the North Caucasian and Black Sea purely nomadic Turkic element, the rejection of the old Volga-Ural tradition of tolerance for religious , cultural and linguistic differences of peoples and with attempts at accelerated Islamization.

Help 2. Ethnocultural communities.
The following stable cultural zones of Eurasia can be distinguished, the population of which speaks the Turkic languages:
* The Middle Volga and the Urals, formed by the mutual influence of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric peoples;
* Central Asian, formed under the influence of the Persian-Tajik culture;
* the zone of the Turkic dialects of the Lower Volga, the North Caucasus and the Black Sea region, which largely coincides with the zone of the Cossack dialects of the Russian language;
* South Siberian (from Tien Shan to Altai), formed under the influence of the Kalmyk and Buryat-Mongol peoples.
In total, there are four quite different groups of Turkic peoples on the territory of the former USSR. With a common Turkic origin and constant interpenetration, the four groups have a rather different culture and stereotype of behavior. This selection of articles concerns only one zone - the Middle Volga and the Urals.

A LITTLE HISTORY

Part of our history has been "ripped out", we do not know the names of great ancestors, and knowledge of our native history is often limited to the feat of Queen Syuyumbike. For many of our people, the history of the Bulgar people begins with the capture of Kazan in 1552. What happened before?
According to the code of the Bulgarian chronicles "Djagfar Tarihi", the Russians and Bulgars are the descendants of the Volga-Ural Aryans - "Saklans" in Bulgar. These Saklans more than 15 thousand years ago strongly mixed with the Finno-Ugrians who came to the Volga-Urals from the depths of Asia. After that, one part of the Saklans retained their language and the name "Saklans" (Sklavins / Saklabs / Slavs), and the other part adopted the Turkic language from the Turkic Ugrians and began to be called Bulgars. The Bulgarian nobility creates a common state for the Slavs, Bulgars and Finno-Ugrians Idel - "Seven" (ide) Tribes (el) ", which in the 7th century receives the name of Great Bulgaria (Bulgaria).
The most ancient belief of the Bulgars before the adoption of Islam was Tengrianism (Torah), and the favorite object of worship was Birgun (Buran / Perun). Birgun, the first spirit created in the Universe by Tengri-God, was considered the patron saint of hunters and warriors, which is why especially rich sacrifices were made to him.
In 737. part of the Bulgars converted to Islam, and in the 850s a war broke out between it and the Bulgars-Tengrians. After several years of war, the Tengrians, led by the Bulgar clan of the Berendeys (whose center was the city of Berendeichev / Berdichev), ousted the Muslim king Gabdulla Djilki from Ukraine to the Ural-Siberian part of Great Bulgaria. There Gabdulla Djilki founded in 865 the Islamic state of Volga Bulgaria (Bulgarian kingdom) and became its ruler-emir.
In 988. The Bulgar nobility of Russia adopts Christianity, but retains their family names.
Both Russia and Volga Bulgaria fought fiercely with the troops of the Tatar-Mongol khans. The only thing that divided the feudal lords of Russia and Bulgaria was their state religions. Extremist parts of the church and mosque tried to separate the Russian and Bulgar peoples as much as possible. Not the bad character of Ivan the Terrible, but Christian-extremist circles pushed him to conquer the Volga Bulgaria in 1552. But few people remember that Tsar Ivan the Terrible left the Bulgar kings the right to rule the eastern part of the Volga Bulgaria with the capital in the city of Vasyl-Balik (Ufa), and only after his death in 1584 this part of Bulgaria was annexed to Muscovite Rus.
The pogrom during the capture of Kazan on October 2, 1552 and the forcible baptism of thousands of Bulgars in 1552-1556 were organized by circles headed by the princes Vladimir Staritsky and Alexander Gorbaty-Suzdal. But by 1557 Ivan the Terrible managed to weaken his dependence on extremists and immediately made a sharp turn in his policy: he announced the termination of forced baptism, and the recognition of the rights of the Bulgar feudal lords. The rulers and judges of the Bulgars were the abyzes, elected by the Bulgar people themselves. At least 15 thousand Bulgars entered the Russian service and made up the striking force of the army. This Bulgar corps in 1558 crushed the Livonian Order, and during the Oprichnina period became the guard of Ivan the Terrible. Tsar Ivan executed all the leaders of the Kazan campaign in 1552, and in 1575 declared the Bulgar bek Sain-Bulat to be the interim ruler of Russia ("the Grand Duke of All Russia").
For the Bulgars, the annexation of the Volga Bulgaria to Muscovite Rus was not a conquest, but a reunification of the western and eastern parts of the former Great Bulgaria. Only now the newly united Great Bulgaria began to be called Russia. Therefore, the Bulgars already in the 16th century, from 1557, began to consider Russia their state.
But after the death of Ivan the Terrible, the Christian extremists of Russia again began to forcibly baptize the Bulgars and declared the Bulgars "Tatars". A stratum of persons (about 50 thousand) of those who agreed to call themselves "Tatars" and help them "otatar" the Bulgars from the inside was created. Our people began to call these bribed people "Tatars" (this word has two meanings - "vile / bloodsucker" and "pretending to be a Tatar").
Bulgars in the XVII-Ser. XVIII centuries. several times they tried to secede from Russia, but when, in the 1770s, Catherine II announced the end of forced baptism, the Volga Bulgars immediately became the most devoted citizens of Russia. All the words of the "Tatarists" about the constant striving of the Bulgars to separate from Russia are a lie. After the reforms of Catherine II, nothing in Russia threatened the Bulgar ethnos anymore, and the Bulgars again began to treat Russia as their native state.
The largest Bulgarian ideologist and poet of the 19th century. Gali Chokry Bulgari wrote, expressing the cherished feelings of his people: "The seventh part of the world, which is called Russia, is Bulgaria ..." We call Gali Chokryi the "Bulgarian Derzhavin", although Derzhavin himself is a distant descendant of the brave Bulgar Bek Bagrim. Gali Chokryi's contemporary, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, admired the Bulgar people, and called the leader of the Volga Bulgarians Sardar Gaynan Vaisov his dear brother and personally met him in Yasnaya Polyana ...
In 1918, J.V. Stalin brought the Tatarists M. Sultan-Galiev and G. Ibragimov closer to him. These two "Tatars" intimidated Stalin with the threat of the restoration of the independent Bulgarian state and persuaded him to form the Republic of Tatarstan. In 1923. all Bulgar organizations in Russia were closed, and the self-designation “Bulgars” was prohibited. In the 1930s, all Bulgars of Russia were given passports with the inscription "Tartars", and those who protested against this were shot or imprisoned. Stalin did not harbor any special enmity towards the Bulgars - he only saved Russia from disintegration in his own way. However, a little later, Stalin realized that he was misled, and in the late 1940s he allowed him to say: "Modern Tatars are the descendants of the Bulgars."
The "Tatarists" were quiet for a while. But in the 1970s, when the head of the Tatar ASSR F.A.Tabeev tried to officially return the historical name of the Middle Volga region - Bulgaria - the "Tatarists" again intimidated Moscow with the threat of "Bulgar separatism" invented by them and achieved the removal of Tabeyev.
When the thunder of Perestroika struck, the "Tatar patriots" began to secretly prepare the destruction of Russia and the separation of Tatarstan from the Russian Federation. In the 1990s, their separatism ceased to be a secret, but a strange thing - the federal center continues to support the "Tatar patriots" -separatists and with all its might suppresses the attempts of the Bulgars loyal to Russia to obtain passports with the inscription "Bulgar" / "Bulgar". A detachment of "federal Tatarists" has formed in Moscow!
People do not want to know all this now. But ancestors are an example for us, by which we focus in our life.

Reference 3. Some historical events of the Volga-Kama region.
VIII century BC - agadir (akatsir-agacheri); 1st-5th centuries A.D. - as part of the Hunnic Empire; VI century - Türkic Kaganate; VII-VIII centuries - Biarym ("My country Biaria", Biarmia of the Russian chronicles, Biarmland of the Scandinavian sagas); IX-XVI centuries - Bulgars (Volga Bulgaria); VII-X centuries - the lands are controlled by the Khazar Kaganate or the V-VIII centuries of Greater Hungary; XIII-XV centuries - Desht-i-Kipchak (Juchiev Ulus of the Chinggisid empire); 1552 - the capture of Kazan by the Russian troops, the eviction of the Bulgar population from the banks of the Volga and Kama, and the settlement of the lands along the Kama and Volga by Russians; XVII-XVIII centuries - armed uprisings against the Russians and participation in the uprisings of Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev; 1920 - the creation of the Tatar ASSR - the first in the history of the state of the new Tatar nation; August 30, 1990 - declaration of state sovereignty of Tatarstan, preparation of a special agreement between the Russian Federation and Tatarstan.

BULGARIA AND BULGARS

Most of all of us, including those who perfectly understand the need to return the name, subconsciously awaits the hour when Kazan or Moscow will announce: "tomorrow begins the exchange of passports with a change for all who wish the nationality" Tatars "to" Bulgars ". since then, supposedly, it is necessary to increase the number of supporters, to convince people so that someday there will be so many of us that the authorities would decide to meet us halfway. This will never happen.
The passport office will tell you that the official list does not include such a people at all - the Bulgars. Righteousness can be defended through the courts, and more than one hundred and fifty people have done this. But not everyone is capable of this. I understand that there can be no mass replacement of passports through the courts, this is a bluff. If you do not have enough determination to go to court, give up the wrong name at least in your personal life. You and I are Bulgars.
Several hundred Bulgarians in 1991-1994 through the courts achieved the right to obtain passports with the inscription "Bulgarin", but the entire 7-million Bulgar people are not in a position to go to court for two years. In 1995, the prosecutor of the Republic of Tatarstan Nafiev, fulfilling the order of the leadership of the Republic of Tatarstan, asked his Moscow colleague to officially prohibit the issuance of passports with the entry "Bulgarin" / "Bulgarin", and the Federal Prosecutor's Office immediately banned the issuance of passports with such an entry throughout the Russian Federation!
The Bulgars deleted under Stalin from the "List of the peoples of Russia" do not have any state educational, cultural and scientific institutions, do not receive any funds from the state for the development of their culture, have completely forgotten their literary language "Bulgars Türks" (they have not been taught anywhere since 1923, and books written in Bulgar were not republished) and holidays (they were also banned in the 1920s).
The Bulgars have neither their scientists, nor their own cultural figures - and as soon as they appear, they are immediately killed by "unknowns". Only in the last few years have been killed the remarkable Bulgar enlightener G. Khabibullin and the founder of the newspaper of the Volga Bulgarians - "Bolgar Ile" ("Bulgaria") R. Sharipov (our memory is blessed for them!).
Recently, prohibitive instructions of President Shaimiev were published: "The history of the Tatars is complex. It cannot be reduced only to the Bulgars ... I would urge historians and everyone involved in the study of the past not to reduce all cultural diversity to only one component ..." (Kazanskie Vedomosti No. 167, 1997). The orders of M. Shaimiev on the "limitation" of the Bulgar "component" in the Republic of Tatarstan are being blindly fulfilled. All Bulgar in the Republic of Tatarstan is called "Tatar". Instead of the Bulgar history, the "Tatarists" force the Bulgars to study the history of the Tatar-Mongols of the 13th-15th centuries, passing it off as "the history of the Tatars," and declare Genghis Khan, the exterminator of the Tatars, a "Tatar national hero".
No one, except ourselves, will solve our problems, and even less will return our name. Only through inner conviction that you are right can you regain your name. Let's show our will, break our silent movement towards death, disappearance. Let's take the path of rebirth and return of the spirit, the spirit of a warrior, a farmer, a worker! Let's say to ourselves: "I am Bulgarin!" Let's say to a friend and neighbor: "I beg you, do not call me a Tatar nickname anymore, call me Bulgarin!" Let's say to the enemy: "Don't you dare call me a Tatar, I am Bulgar and I am proud of my ancestors!"

BULGARIA AND RUSSIA

For Russians, the Tatar-Mongol yoke and the struggle against it mean much more than just a fact of history. When we accept the name "Tatars", for the Russians we immediately become the descendants of those who walked with fire and sword across the Russian land. This is how our peoples become enemies. And this is my fault and yours. If we do not need it, then who will need to correct the historical absurdity - the alien name of our people?
When we say that we want to return our name, our history, the question often arises from the Russians: why do you need all this? Indeed, why? Maybe it's enough that we live honestly and work well? Labor, thrift, housekeeping have always been the main virtues that are revered by our people. But this is not enough.
The Volga issue is not the most pressing issue for Heartland's geopolitics - Russia. For example, Russia's entry or non-entry into the war against NATO is much more pressing.
A.G. Dugin, in his "Geopolitical Future of Russia", is right that Russians should become an ethnically cohesive and rapidly growing core ethnos holding the entire structure during the construction of the New Eurasian Empire, which should further take on the mission of establishing a new geopolitical order on the planet. Accordingly, the future of Tatarstan is illuminated only from the point of view of the interests of Russia and the Russians in relation to the Volga Bulgars (Tatars, Bashkirs). It turns out that these momentary interests may well contradict long-term ones.
The threat from the Volga and the Urals, about which A.G. Dugin, will arise "in the most unfortunate development of the geopolitical situation." It is now proposed to split the Bulgars by strengthening the "differences". What does the preventive weakening of the region and ethnic group mean? This reminds of a very "non-Eurasian" view of the Bulgars not as a subject of relations with the Russian ethnos, but as an object of manipulation by Moscow.
Bulgars as an ethnos differ from Russians in that they never had a single language (Finno-Ugric and various Turkic languages ​​and dialects coexisted in one ethnos), not a single confession (pagan, Tengrian, Muslim and Christian groups). The weakest points of the Bulgar self-consciousness: the attitude to the most ancient parts of the Bulgar people - the Chuvashes and Mishars - as "less developed" in comparison with the Kazan and Bashkirs; overestimation of the importance of economic well-being and a strong economic structure (this gives rise to a paradox - Tatars drink less than Russians, and work better and live more prosperously, and the ethnic group is getting smaller and more and more children from mixed marriages consider themselves Russian); reduction of the entire complex of relations between Russians and Bulgars in history to armed confrontation and the dominance in literature and ideology of the theme of the capture of Kazan (1552).
With all this, the Russians and Bulgars have an almost absolute complementarity. It would be possible to propose recommendations for overcoming the "genetically inherent weaknesses" of the Russian and Bulgar ethnic groups. We must stop arguing about the extent to which nationalism can be developed so that it does not turn into radical forms. In the current situation of national shame, when big Russia - the USSR - was defeated and defeated by the Americans and their accomplices from Europe, any radicalism in the development and strengthening of the narrowly national (and Russian in the first place) spirit and national self-esteem is insufficient in advance!
This will be the opposite of the current tendency to unify, "erode" ethnic self-awareness, when both the Russians are not quite Russian, and the Bulgars are not very Bulgars - a kind of "population in general". Strong Bulgars can really threaten the unity of the state, because in the thesis "strong regions - a strong center" there is a considerable amount of guile. In Russia, regionalism goes hand in hand with separatism and the destruction of the country's unity. However, this will only happen if the Bulgars are still perceived by the Russians as something alien (not native, not close). But if the Russian civilization is larger than the "Soviet" template, then it will be possible to realize the kinship and cultural community with the Bulgars without forced assimilation and, on the part of the Bulgars, without fear of "Russification".

Reference 4. Russian surnames of Turkic origin.
They speak for themselves: Atamanovs, Abdulovs, Adashevs, Aksakovs, Almazovs, Alyabyevs, Apraksins, Arakcheevs, Arsenyevs, Artyukhovs, Atlasovs, Akhmadullins, Akhmatovs, Babichevs, Bazhanovs, Bazarovs, Baklanovs, Balasuvs, Barasukovs Bakhteyarovs, Bashkins, Bashmakovs, Bayushevs, Beketovs, Berdyaevs, Bichurins, Boborykins, Blokhin, Bogdanovs, Bulgarian, Bulgakovs, Bulgarins, Bunins, Burnashevs, Buturlins, Bukharins, Davyaminovs, Egorovs Zagoskins, Zamaleevs, Zlobins, Zubovs, Izmailovs, Insarovs, Kablukovs, Karamazovs, Karamzins, Karamyevs, Karataevs, Karaulovs, Karachaevs, Kamynins, Kantemirovs, Kashaevs, Kireevskys, Korsakovs, Kochubeyovs, Kuropotkins Mothers, Mamonovs, Mansurovs, Melikovs, Meshcherovs, Michurins, Minins, Muratovs, Musins, Molostvs, Naryshkins, Ogarevs, Ogarkovs, Peshkovs, Pozharskys, Prokudins, Rostopchins, Rachmaninovs, Sablukovs, Sadyrins, Sadyrins, Sadyrins ovs, Scriabins, Starkovs, Stroganovs, Suvorovs, Sundukovs, Syundyukovs, Tagantsevs, Taishevs, Talyzins, Tairovs, Taneyevs, Tatishchevs, Tarkhanovs, Tevkelevs, Temirovs, Timiryazevs, Tretyakovs, Tulubyutams Ushakovs, Khitrovo, Khodyrevs, Khomyakovs, Khrushchevs, Chelyshevs, Churikovs, Shadrins, Shakimovs, Sharapovs, Shashurins, Shakhmatovs, Sheremetyevs, Shishkins, Shcherbakovs, Yushkovs, Yazykovs, Yaushevs and hundreds of others.

GEOPOLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF INFORMATION WARS

Today, the main question dividing Bulgarists and Tatarists is the self-name of the people. If the policy of Tatarization of the Volga Bulgars is correct, then the Tatars are the descendants of the Mongol invasion, enemies and foes of the Russians. If the Bulgarists are right, then the Tatars and Bashkirs, the original population of the Volga and the Urals, were just as enslaved by the Mongols, just like the Russians. Will the Bulgar people unite? Will the false name "Tatars", imposed in the 1920s, cease to exist? Or will only the enemy "Voice of America" ​​treat them as a single people - "Tatar-Bashkir"?
For Europe it is not important - "Tatars" or "Bulgars". Europe needs one thing - to complete the destruction of Russia.
Where did the "federal Tatarists" come from and who now pays for the subversive work of the "Tatarists" in Moscow and Kazan? One "Tatarist" told me: "Certain circles of the West want to use the" Tatar sword "to cut the whole of Russia in the central, Volga-Ural region. These circles understand that now there is no other way to destroy Russia, except for the one that consists in playing off the" Tatars " with Russians on the basis of "historical hatred" of Russians and "Tatars" for each other. This can destroy Russia, and therefore the West spares no money, directing them both to Kazan and to Moscow. "
Faina Grimberg cites the fact of the West playing the "Bulgar card" back in the 19th century. When, in 1878, Russian troops defeated the Turks and occupied Danube Bulgaria, "Western Europe raises a scandal with its characteristic cunning - Russia declares that it has the right to free the Bulgarians, but what about its own Bulgarians, after all, they are sitting unreleased ... That is what Bulgarians, - rushes in response, - we don't have any Bulgarians! We only have Tatars ... Meanwhile, the Kazan Tatars continued to remember that they were Bulgars, and Ivan the Terrible conquered the Bulgarian kingdom, and not the Kazan Khanate; and the movements are different socio-political for the return of the ethnonym rose ... But as soon as the West achieved its real goal - the departure of Russians from Danube Bulgaria, as the "passions for Bulgarians" inflated by it "subside".
Now it is advantageous for the West to play off the "Tatars" with the Russians in order to destroy Russia. And here is the same West, which in 1878 shouted about the oppression of the Volga Bulgars by Russia, is now sending money for the "otatarization" of the Bulgars!
To thwart the sabotage, it is necessary to include the name of the Bulgars in the "List of the peoples of Russia" and ensure that passports are obtained with the entry of their dear nationality "Bulgar" / "Bulgar". Within a few days the people of "passport Tatars" will cease to exist, and the Middle Volga region will return its historical name - Volga Bulgaria. And then the threat to the unity of Russia will disappear forever - after all, the Bulgar people consider the Cyrillic alphabet as their national alphabet, and Russia as their state, and will not allow anyone to destroy Russia - the new Great Bulgaria. Let the Russian brothers know about this!
Let the Russian people remember: as long as the Bulgar people exist, Russia will also exist. Together we will save our native Fatherland - our Russia, born by the will of God - Tengri!

Help 5. As of today, there is no scientific agreement on the following issues:
* Iranian-speaking or Turkic-speaking of the Scythians and Sarmatians;
* History of the region under the Huns;
* Presence or absence in the Volga and Ural regions in the V-VIII centuries. AD "Greater Hungary";
* Assessment of contacts between Kipchak and Oguz groups of the Turkic population;
* Assessment of the Bulgaro-Khazar contacts and the degree of influence of the Khazar culture on the culture of the Bulgars;
* Is it possible to talk about the "Altai" relationship of the Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages;
* How to name (and accordingly evaluate) the region after the Tatar-Mongol conquest)

RUSSIA IS THREATENED BY GREAT TURAN, NOT BULGARIA

The Russians do not have the possibility of normal European development along the path of Etat-Nation - State-Nation. Our people cannot be raised without returning people to self-respect and involvement in great deeds and goals. The very return of Russian dignity is inextricably linked with the building of a new empire. And for this future Empire, both narrow Russian nationalism with attempts to return to the "Aryan" East Slavic fold, and the separatism of its strong non-Russian and non-Slavic components, are equally dangerous. The second threat must be judiciously weighed and evaluated. The only "but": in the above geopolitical constructions, too much resembles staff war games. It has long been known that general staffs are always late and in peacetime are preparing for military maneuvers of past wars. In this case, a geopolitical response is proposed to the challenge of the Volga Turks of past centuries or the beginning of this century.
The uniqueness of the moment lies in the fact that the destruction of the Soviet social system was the first large-scale phenomenon in history, the significance of which in the life of both Russians and Bulgars turned out to be exactly the same. Now both peoples are constantly subjected to a kind of ideological violence, with the goal of splitting a single ethnos into separate, disunited people who do not feel their unity. Such then it is easier to easily dissolve in other peoples. At the same time, the pro-Turkish forces in Tatarstan are trying to adjust the Bulgars to a certain conventional common Turkic template, turning them into "some of" in Great Turan.
If the ethnonym "Bulgars" is adopted in a very short time, perhaps during the life of one generation, many false stereotypes of the perception of the Volga-Ural ethnos by the Russians and the Bulgars themselves will be destroyed.
This is all the more necessary since the contemporary challenge of History to the Russian people has no precedent. Thesis - the "Golden Horde" threat of separatism. The antithesis is the delivery by the Russians of preemptive geopolitical strikes: the assimilation and Christianization of the Volga-Ural population, the fragmentation of the territory and the ethnic group, the imposition of the "Tatar-Mongol inheritance" on the Bulgars, the accentuation of the linguistic, cultural and religious differences of the various constituent parts of the Bulgar ethnos. However, it would seem illogical to further historical expansion of the Eurasian geopolitical space and the strengthening of the Russian ethnos with the synchronized splitting, division, fragmentation of its heart - the region of the Middle Volga and the Urals, the Bulgar ethnos. This will threaten the new Empire with "garbage in the pocket", hatred of the new state structures (only the place of the "accursed Council of Deputies" will be taken by some other "-ya"), hidden sabotage of activities useful for the state, separatism, and so on.
Consequently, after the thesis / antithesis of the confrontation between the Russian and Volga Bulgars, a synthesis should follow - the Tatar and Bashkir parts of the Bulgar ethnos unite and develop as the core of the common Eurasian space and part of a single Eurasian (Russian) civilization. In this case, the current situation would be impossible in which the Tatar Public Center - by the way, the largest public organization of Tatarstan - sends volunteers to Chechnya and prepares to send people to help the Kosovo Liberation Army, flirts with the Turkish Atlantic project "Great Turan", imposes the Volga -Ural region, where there is a centuries-old tradition of Islamic thought, alien (Arab or Turkish) forms of organization of the Muslim community.
At the same time, a calm analysis of the threats posed by the possible rapprochement between Tatarstan and Bashkortostan is needed. The threat will come only with a possible breakthrough to the sea in the Tyumen region (Bulgaria has a historical precedent of control over the West Siberian region between the Irtysh, Tobol and Ob rivers), with the theoretical unification of the territories of the Middle Volga and the Urals with the Northern Urals and access to the Arctic Ocean, or with the transformation of Northern Kazakhstan into lands tightly controlled by pro-Turkish Muslim leaders. That is, there is only one danger - Tatarstan's exit to the external borders of Russia through the surrounding Russian lands. Accordingly, the "Russian" isolation of the region by the Perm, Tyumen, Sverdlovsk and Ulyanovsk regions is quite sufficient.
As for the methodology, apparently, in order to search for more effective solutions, it is necessary to supplement the dry German geopolitical thought with the Russian heritage, the Eurasian doctrine that studies not only geographical, but also living dynamic features of the development of peoples.

THE POWER MUST BE ONE

The key to the solution of the Bulgar question lies not in the Kazan Kremlin, but in the Moscow one. Secondly, so fashionable today A.G. Dugin is loyal to his French and German teachers. He projects onto the entire globe the concept of the European "new right" - the concept of a Europe of regions. If any madman tries to implement Dugin's recommendations in practice, then instead of a strong Russian state, he will receive "Eurasia of regions", regions so independent that there will be no talk of any power. The geopolitical madman will get pro-Iranian Central Asia, pro-German Baltic, etc. And there, you see, and will share priceless Siberia with the Japanese.
You cannot drag Russia away to national apartments.

Arabic Bulgarian Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Latvian Lithuanian Malagasy Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Thai Turkish Vietnamese

phrases

Bulgars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bulgarians, Bulgarians(lat. Bulgares, Greek. Βoύλγαρoί, modern bulg. prab'lgari, protob'lgari) - nomadic tribes that inhabited the steppes of the eastern Black Sea region from the 4th century to the Caspian Sea and migrated in the 2nd half of the 7th century to the Danube, and later to the Middle Volga region and a number of other regions. They took part in the ethnogenesis of such modern peoples as Bulgarians, Kazan Tatars, Gagauz, Chuvash, Balkars, and passed on their name to the state of Bulgaria. In modern historiography, they also use the terms proto-Bulgarians, great Bulgarians, ancient Bulgarians.

Terminology

In modern Russian historiography, to distinguish between different ethnic groups, b O It is customary to call the people inhabiting modern Bulgaria lgars. Their ancestors, as well as the population of Volga Bulgaria, are usually called b at lgars. However, this rule is not rigid. The form of "bulgars", using a solid Have, used by the Byzantines. Modern Bulgarians call themselves българи using the hard vowel "b".

Origin and ethnic and linguistic affiliation

According to the most widespread view, the Bulgars were part of the Ogur massif of tribes that originally lived in Central Asia and are called tiele in Chinese sources. From this point of view, the Bulgars were one of the earliest Turkic groups that advanced to Europe during the Great Migration. The Bulgar language is one of the Western Türkic languages ​​and, along with the extinct Khazar and modern Chuvash, constitutes their special, most archaic, group.

In the 1990s. the theory of the Eastern Iranian origin of the Bulgars gained popularity among some of the Bulgarian historians. According to this view, the ancient Bulgars were Iranian-speaking and lived in the zone lying between the western part of the Hindu Kush, Parapamiz and the Oxus river - (Amu or Higon), which separated it from the north of Sogdiana. In ancient times, this area was called Bactria (Greek), or Balkhara (self-name), with the capital in the city of Balkh. From here the Bulgarian historians derive the ethnonym "Bulgarians", attracting the fact that the Bulgars were called by Armenian sources bulhi, as well as mentions in Indian sources of the people balkhiki and the homeland of the Bulgars in the Imeon mountains (where Bactria was) in the early medieval sources. Anthropology is also used as a justification, some data of which suggest the origin of the Bulgars from the paleo-European groups of the population. Supporters of the theory believe that the ancient Bulgars at the initial stage spoke the Eastern Iranian language, but then changed it to the Turkic language. Outside Bulgaria, these theory did not receive noticeable distribution.

In medieval sources, the Imen (Imeysk) mountains appear as the Asian ancestral home of the Bulgars, traditionally identified with the border region between Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

In the Armenian geographical atlas of the 7th century "Ashkharatsuyts", compiled on the basis of more ancient information, the Bulkhi tribe is placed next to the Sakas and Massagets. ... Agathius of Mirine, telling about the raid of Khan Zabergan in 558, gave a brief description of the ancient history of the "Huns" (Bulgars) who once lived in Asia for Imeyskoy mountain:

“The people of the Huns once lived around that part of Lake Meotids, which faces to the east, and lived north of the Tanais River, like other barbarian peoples who lived in Asia beyond the Imeian mountain. They were all called Huns, or Scythians. As for the tribes separately, some of them were called Kotrigurs, others Utigurs. "

The earliest retrospective mention of the Bulgars is contained in the Armenian historian of the 5th century Movses Khorenatsi. According to him, under the Armenian king Arshak I, the son of Vagharshak, the Bulgars settled in the Armenian lands: “ In the days of Arshak, great troubles arose in the chain of the great Caucasus Mountain, in the Land of the Bulgars; many of them separated and came to our country.»The reign of Arshak I dates back to the 1st half of the 2nd century. BC e. , which raises doubts among historians about the reliability of this message. Movses Khorenatsi refers to the earlier chronicler Mar Abas Katina, who lived at the latest at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries.

Further, evidence of their activity disappears from sources until the collapse of the Hunnic Empire. This gives grounds to assume that the Bulgars were part of that huge union of tribes, which their contemporaries called the Huns.

Bulgars and Huns

The early medieval historiography traces the confusion of the Bulgar tribes with the Huns, who left an indelible mark on their contemporaries with their destructive campaigns in the middle of the 5th century. Zecharius the Ritor in his "Church History" (mid-6th century) includes all the tribes (including " burgar"), Living north of the Caucasus in the Caspian region, to the Hunnic. However, Jordan separates the Bulgars and the Huns, describing the places of their settlement in the middle of the 6th century: “ Further behind them [the Akatsirs] stretch over the Pontic Sea the places of settlement of the Bulgars, who were greatly glorified by the misfortunes [committed] due to our sins. And there the Huns, as the most prolific growth of all the most powerful tribes ...»

Bulgars on the Danube. V-VI centuries.

The first evidence of the appearance of the Bulgars in the Balkans is contained in the chronicle of the 7th century by John of Antioch: “ Two Theodoriches again confused the affairs of the Romans and devastated cities near Thrace, forcing Zeno for the first time to lean towards an alliance with the so-called Bulgars.»The union of the Byzantines with the Bulgars against the Ostrogoths dates back to 479.

Shortly before that, the Bulgars appeared on the Danube. A note on the margins of the Bulgarian translation of the Greek poetic chronicle of Constantine Manasseh (XII century) dates the resettlement to 475.

At this time the Bulgars lead a nomadic way of life. They periodically disturb the borders of the Byzantine Empire. The first foray into Thrace is recorded in or according to the chronicle of Marcellinus Comitus in 499.

Byzantine diplomats immediately used the Avars to fight against the Bulgars pushing against Constantinople. In exchange, new nomads are offered money and land for settlements. Although the Avar army is not numerous (according to some estimates, 20 thousand horsemen), it turns out to be stronger. Perhaps this is facilitated by the plight of the Avars - after all, they are fleeing from the Turks (Türkuts) following them. The Utigurs () are attacked first, then the Avars cross the Don and invade the lands of the Kutrigurs. Khan Zabergan becomes a vassal of Kagan Bayan. The further fate of the Kutrigurs is closely related to the Avar policy.

Establishment of the Bulgarian states. VII-VIII centuries

After the departure of the Avars to Pannonia and the weakening of the Türkic Kaganate, which, due to internal troubles, lost control over their western possessions, the Bulgar tribes again got the opportunity to declare themselves. Their unification is associated with the activities of Khan Kubrat. This ruler, who headed the Onnogur (Unogundur) tribe, was raised from childhood at the imperial court in Constantinople (according to some controversial assumptions, he was baptized at the age of 12).

Great Bulgaria. ~ 626-650 y.

Two more sons of Kubrat - Kuver (Kuber) and Alcek (Alcek) went to Pannonia, to the Avars. One group of Bulgars, led by Kuver, played an important role in the politics of the Avar Kaganate. During the formation of Danube Bulgaria, Kuver rebelled and went over to the side of Byzantium, settling in Macedonia. Subsequently, this group, apparently, became part of the Danube Bulgarians. Another group led by Alcek intervened in the struggle for succession to the throne in the Avar Kaganate, after which it was forced to flee and seek asylum from the Frankish king Dagobert (- gg.) In Bavaria, and then settle in Italy near Ravenna. Until the end of the VIII century, these Bulgars retained their language.

Volga Bulgaria

Bulgar. Black chamber

Bulgar. Black chamber. Interior

Bulgar. Big minaret

Bulgar. Khan's tomb and small minaret

To a later period, to the end of the VIII century, the appearance of the Bulgar tribes on the Middle Volga and Kama, where they soon switched to a sedentary way of life and created the state of the Volga Bulgaria, which at first was dependent on the Khazar Kaganate, and after its fall (in 60 10th century) became completely independent. The descendants of the Volga Bulgars, in the formation of which a number of Finno-Ugric tribes also took part, are the Kazan Tatars.

Part of the Bulgars remained on their native lands - in the Ciscaucasia and the Black Sea steppes. Soon they, as evidenced by archaeological data, occupied the Crimean peninsula and partially advanced in the northern direction - in the steppe and forest-steppe of the Dnieper region. In medieval sources, they were mentioned until the middle. X century and were known as "Black Bulgarians".

Archeology and paleoanthropology

File: Proto-Bulgarian necropolises.JPG

Proto-Bulgar necropolises

The materials of the Zlivka necropolis (Ukraine), the Crimean necropolises and burial grounds on the territory of the Volga and Danube Bulgaria show that the Bulgars belonged to the brachiocranial (round or short head) Caucasians with a slight admixture of Mongoloid. According to the craniological materials of the Zlivka burial ground belonging to the Saltov-Mayatsk culture, the anthropological type of the Bulgars is established as “ brachycranial Caucasoid type with average sizes of face and skull". Caucasian brachiocrania is typical for both Asian and part of European Sarmatians, excluding Alans, whose anthropological type was dolichocranic Caucasoid, for the interfluve of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya from the supposed homeland of the Proto-Bulgarians among the necropolises of the Iranian-speaking peoples, also among the modern Pamir peoples. The origin of the Caucasian brachyocrany of the Proto-Bulgarians is associated with the so-called paleo-Europoid groups of the population.

It was not possible to distinguish the ethnographic features of the Bulgars among other nomadic peoples in the archaeological material in the period up to the VIII century; some archaeologists attribute the burials of the early period as belonging to the Bulgars only on the basis of information from written sources about the residence of the Bulgar tribes in this area in the corresponding era.

General information about the funeral rite, compiled from the burial grounds of the 8th-9th centuries: pit burials, bodies were laid on their backs in shallow rectangular pits in an elongated position. The orientation of the head is north or west. Related items: earthen pot and some meat. Horses and weapons began to be found in burials in Bulgaria. At a later time, there are also undercut graves. In particular, they were present at the Volga Bulgars according to the descriptions of Ahmed ibn Fadlan (920s) who directly visited the Volga Bulgars:

And when a Muslim dies from them, and (or) when some Khorezm woman (dies), they wash him by washing the Muslims (i.e., according to the Muslim ritual), then they take him on a cart that drags (him) little by little ( together) with the banner until they arrive with him to the place where he will be buried. And when he arrives there, they take him from the cart and lay him on the ground, then draw a line around him and put him (aside), then they dig his grave inside this line, make a side cave for him and bury him. And in the same way they (the inhabitants) do with their dead.

Further, this custom of burying in the sidewall began to dominate among the Volga Bulgars, judging by the archaeological materials, and Kazan Tatars still practice sidewall graves.

The dwellings of the Bulgars were yurts on stakes, with a hearth in the middle of the dwelling.

Artificial deformation of the skull is characteristic of the Proto-Bulgar Utrigurs; in some necropolises, up to 80% of such skulls are found. In another tribe of the Proto-Bulgar-Kutrigurs, this custom is found insignificantly. The custom itself was first recorded in the steppes of Central Asia among the Iranian-speaking nomads, then it began to prevail among the late Sarmatians, Kushans, Khorezmians, Alans and other Iranian-speaking nomads and serves as an ethno-determining feature.

Inscriptions in Greek letters in the Bulgarian language

There are 15 known inscriptions and fragments of inscriptions in the Proto-Bulgarian language in Greek letters.

• The Preslav inscription is the most voluminous inscription of its kind.
• The inscription from Nagy-Saint-Miklos is the second largest and most significant inscription.
• 4 short inscriptions from Silistra.
• A short two-part Pliska inscription.
• 7 partially preserved inscriptions found in the villages of Chatalar and Popina, and in Pliska; only 4 of them lend themselves to translation.

All Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions in Greek letters originate from one clearly delineated region - North-Eastern Bulgaria (together with Dobrudzha). No such inscriptions have been found outside its borders, with the exception of an inscription from Nagy-Saint-Miklos. The language of the inscriptions fixed the language of the royal court.

Religion

Paganism

Monotheistic religions

History decreed that the descendants of the Volga and Danube Bulgars followed different religious paths. The Danube Bulgarians under Tsar Boris I adopted Christianity from Byzantium, and the Volga Bulgars, under Almysh, converted to Islam from the Baghdad Caliphate. Subsequently, the Danube Bulgarians were conquered by the Muslim Ottoman Empire (Turkey). The Volga Bulgars were conquered by the Mongols, and the descendants of the Volga Bulgars - by Christian Russia.

Notes (edit)

1. P. B. Golden An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. - Wisbaden, 1992. - C.92-104., Chinese sources (,) list the Pugu (Pugus, Pugu) among the 15 tribes of the Tele people who lived east of the Aral Sea in northern China and Mongolia. This information refers to the 7th-8th centuries. Bulgarian linguist B. Simeonov came to the conclusion that in ancient times the word bulgars should have sounded "poo-ku" or "boo-gu". This name of a tribe or group of tribes is often mentioned in Chinese sources in the period from 103 BC. e. to the VIII century.
2. Gadlo A.V. Ethnic history of the North Caucasus IV - X centuries. - L., 1979 .-- p. 57.
3. The impetus for this was given by the work of P. Dobrev (the author is a specialist in economic history, not a linguist), where he proposed a reading of the Bulgarian runic inscriptions, suggesting their similarity to the Sarmatian-Alan writing, which, according to his assumption, originated from the Pamir-Issyk script. He also established the type of the Bulgar language (East Iranian) written in Greek letters. Dobrev published a version of the translation of runic inscriptions from the village of Murfatlar using Alan script. See In the process of deciphering, Dobrev established the language of the inscriptions as East Iranian, akin to the Pamir languages.
4. Historical study and translation and semanticata on the entonym Българи; "Bulgarians", doc. film, dir. and screenwriter P. Petkov, opera. Cr. Mikhailov. BTV production. 2006, Bulgaria.
5. Ch. ac. Dr. Petar Goliiski, SU “St. Kliment Ohridski ”, Center for Refinement of Yezitsi and Kulturi, cathedra“ Klassicheski Iztok ”, article“ Pre-Conversation ”
6. See O. Pritsak. [ O. Pritsak The Slavs and the Avars. http://www.kroraina.com/slav/op/op_slavs_avars_4.htm]
7. The Russian translation uses the names "bulkhi" bhuhi and bushhi:
8. Map of Central Asia according to Armenian geography "Ashkharatsuyts" of the 7th century. : reconstruction by S. T. Eremyan
9. Agathius of Mirine. About the reign of Justinian. 5.11
10. Theophylact Simokatta. Story. 7.8.7
11. Michael of Syria, the 12th century author, retold a legend from the unpreserved History of the earlier 6th century writer John of Ephesus.
12. Quoted from and
13. Chronographus anni 354. Cap. XV. Liber generationis. Monumenta Germaniae Historia. Auctor. Antiquissimi, t. X1, p. 105.
14. Moses Khorensky. History of Armenia, Vol. II, 9
15. Armenian kings Vagharshak and his son Arshak are considered semi-legendary, the time of their reign has not been precisely established. Presumably Arshak ruled around 190 BC. e. Cm. .
16. Jordan, "Getika", 36
17. For example, Fredegar, in his chronicle, talks about the war of the year within the Avar Kaganate between the Avars and the Bulgars, who were previously often referred to in other sources as the Kutrigurs subservient to the Avars. Theophan notes: “ tribal Bulgarians"(Chronography, year 6171), in kotragahs they usually see kutrigurs.
18. V. T. Sirotenko. Written evidence of the Bulgars of the 4th-7th centuries. : Slavic-Balkan Studies, Historiography and Source Study, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of Slavic Studies and Balkan Studies. Ed. "Science", Moscow, 1972
19. "The Chronicler of the Wise Manasseh, the gathering is summer." State Historical Museum. Synod. manuscript No. 38, fol. 78; “Under Anastasia, the tsri will start a blgar to pick up the land that passed at Bydynya. And before you start poemati dolnaya land Ohrid. And then this land is yours. " On folio 79: "From the outcome of the same balgar to Nin 870 years." Thus, the glossa on sheet 78 asserts the beginning of the Bulgar colonization of the Balkan Peninsula during the reign of Anastasius (491-518), and the glossa on sheet 79 emphasizes that the “exodus” of the Bulgars (their arrival from the Caspian Sea) did not take place during the reign of Anastasius, but earlier in 475, since at the end of the manuscript (fol. 140) it is noted that it was compiled in 6853, that is, in 1345. Consequently, the date of the “exodus” of the Bulgars (from the Caspian Sea region) is 1345 minus 870. Cm.
20. According to Paul the Deacon, the Ostrogoths killed in battle the king of the Bulgars Buzan (Pauli. Hist. Romana, XV, 11, Monum. Germ. Hist. AA II, p. 213-214.). The exact dating is established by reference to the great fire in Constantinople, which happened in 491 according to the chronicle of Marcellinus Comitus.
21. Chronicle of Marcellinus Comitus. 499: " Bulgares thraciam deuastantes»
22. Chronicle of Marcellinus Comitus. 502 Theophanes in his "Chronography" placed this raid under the year 5994 (or 503) with the note: " The so-called Bulgars invaded Illyria and Thrace, about which no one knew anything before.»
23. Pletneva S.A. From nomads to cities. Saltovo-Mayatskaya culture - M., 1967.- p. 39.
24. Benevolenskaya Yu.D. Anthropological materials from medieval burial grounds of the southwestern Crimea. - MIA, 1970, No. 168. - P.196