The Bulgars

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

temujin said:

isn't Bulgar two words anyways? like Bul-gar?

No, it is one word: "Bulga" (mixed, confused) + the suffix "r".

[nikebg]

Sorry for reviving a bit old thread now, but I thought I'd just add my two cents on the subject. Or, actually, I'll just quote some things that I had quickly translated a long time ago, a part of prof. Dimitar Ovcharov's (one of the best modern historians working on the Proto-Bulgarians and especially on their grafitti) book "Introduction to the Proto-Bulgarian culture":

From the introduction to the book
"It is necessary to clear out another question, concerning the origin of the Proto-Bulgarian [shortly called on English "Bulgar"] ethnos and the culture created by him. In this direction there are several and different hypotheses, which reflect the two main directions of the scholarly searchings. One of them joins the Proto-Bulgarians to the Turkic ethnical community, while the other suggest their Indo-European background. A precondition for the diversity in the opinions is the presence of a number of characteristic features with Turkic or Indo-European character, contained in the cultural arsenal of the Proto-Bulgarians, which created their own state on the Balkan Peninsula. The stiff maintaining of one or the other concept is an extreme, which could hardly be argumentated and supported.
A number of "clues" [sorry, can't find the right word] from different nature are showing that various ethnical groups have taken part since the very beginning of the Proto-Bulgarian ethnogenesis. In this correlation, most perspective seems to be the opinion, according to which the Proto-Bulgarians have the biggest propinquity with the eastern part of the Usuns (Alans, Assi), which could be traced back to the earliest stages in the regions of Central Asia. Already then, however, Turkic elements have actively joined that community, and later on there's a strong influence upon it by the cultures of Chinese, Indians, East Iranians. Only this way could the different (and for some researchers - unexpected) expressions of the Bulgarian culture from later times could be explained. In the end, there's the undoubtful fact that the Proto-Bulgarians arrive on the Balkan Peninsula highly Turkicized, which could hardly be denied."

Later on, in the first chapter "From East to West - in search of the homeland", there's one interesting paragraph, which I would like to quote as well:
"In correlation with the realized connections of the Proto-Bulgarians with the Indo-Iranian world, there's an interesting statistics about the 186 known Proto-Bulgarian names from the period IV-Xc. The origin of 145 names (78%) has been precisely determined. 41% of them are showing resemblance with the pagan names of the Altaic peoples, 51% - with Iranic and Caucasian names and 8% - with the names of other peoples. This fact is a direct indication for the strong mixing of various ethnical components of the Proto-Bulgarian community."

And another quote, from the Epilogue of the same book
"Tracing the sophisticated process of creation and development of the Proto-Bulgarian culture leads us, as it was seen so far, to several important conclusions, from which the main ones are three:

1. The initial stages of this process show that the Proto-Bulgarians are not Turkic in their basis. Their ethnogenesis is directly connected with the Indo-European tribes (mainly Alan-speaking). During centuries, however, they were also in very close relations with Turkic communities within the limits of powerful, although eclectical, state systems � First and Second Turkic khaganates, Avar khaganate, Khazar khaganate. This peculiarity had a strong influence on the overall culture, which was put to a heavy Turkicization and this was proven more than once in the presentation.
2. The Proto-Bulgarian ethnos began its consolidation far to the east in the regions of Central Asia and not in the Near (Middle) East, as some authors try to prove. Due to this there are the numerous borrowings from highly developed cultures, such as the Chinese, the Indian, the Iranian� The contacts with them were realized during the long centuries of moving from east to west.
3. It�s without a doubt that the beginning of the Bulgarian state was established in the first decades of the VII c. by Khan Kubrat and not in 165, as the legendary rulers from the �Nominalia of the Bulgarian rulers� are considered to be. Until then they led a nomadic way of life. This, however, does not diminish their cultural-historical importance. On the contrary! Coming across one or other cultural influence-centre, they manage to borrow and rationalize different cultural achievements. One famous specialist on the Eastern cultures isn�t far from the truth by saying that the nomad, sitting on his horse, has a wider outlook and can see further in the space (including in the cultural one) rather than the pointed in the ground after the plough sight of the farmer. This truth doesn�t oppose the two ways of existence to each other. The agrarians, standing firmly on the ground, are stable and connected to it. Exactly this is why the unification of these different ways of life is maybe the greatest achievement of the Danubian Bulgarian state, which Khan Asparuh created�



�It was seen well from all said so far that there are traces from other cultures, including the Byzantine one, in all spheres of the material and the spiritual culture of the Proto-Bulgarians. In a number of cases the Byzantine culture is a mediator, a re-translator of ideas and models of the art of the East. Unconditional is the Byzantine influence in the sphere of the language (the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions on the Greek language), of the administrative and the military titles/ranking, of the acquiring of a number of insignia and characteristic symbols, connected to the Christianity. Very important are also the influences from the culture of the North Black Sea [Pontic] and the Caucasus regions (the building technique, a number of architectural plans), of the Iranian art and religion, directly or through the culture of Alans and Sarmatians (architecture of the kapishtes [pagan sanctuaries], the Madara rock-relief, the Nagi sent Miklosh treasure and others) and, of course, of the Turkic and the Turkic-speaking communities, which were historically connected with the Bulgarian ethnos. The Proto-Bulgarians borrow, although very limited, ideas and notions of the found local Thraco-Roman culture when elements of it were preserved in the universal Byzantine culture. Hence we see that the Proto-Bulgarian cultural complex (or model) is based on original distinctive features and introduced from outside elements�



�The argue whether the transition to another cultural plane in the middle of the IX c. � Christian by its character � is negative or positive is a scholastic one. There can be no doubt that in the contemporary historical conditions it was positive, as much as it joins a state, nation and culture to the most advanced at that time in Europe � the Byzantine. But it�s important to note that what was previously created in the region of the culture is joined to the new values system, enriches it, makes it more active and more diverse than those of the other nations. That�s exactly why the Bulgarian nation and culture, formed as Slavic, have a number of specific traits, which distinguish them from the rest of the Slavic nations. A natural contribution for this is given by the Proto-Bulgarian culture, which keeps reminding about herself also in the next historical ages."

I'd also add the article of the late prof. Rasho Rashev "On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians", as well as the work of the young, but quite promising Georgi Vladimirov whose book about Danube and Volga Bulgaria from the VII to the XIc. makes a good archaeological comparison of the two groups, which formed the Danube and Volga Bulgarias, and their distinctive life-styles (just as Zacharian the Rhetor mentions the Bulgars both as living in cities and as living in tents to the north of the Caucasus, which suggest at least a dualistic culture and/or ethnos).

So, in my personal opinion, the ancient Bulgars were indeed mixed and neither "only Turkic", nor "only Iranic", but rather "Turko-Iranic" (be it "Iranic people led by a Turkic military elite" or just Turkic and Iranic tribes lving together and becoming one).

[vikarrw]

Hallo,
Could you explain me why arabic traveller Ibn Faddlan have wrote that in Bulgar the ruller was The Tzar of Slavic Tribes.And why Bulgars people were Muslims. The name of Volga looks as Finno-Ugric because Tatarian name of Volga was Idel.

Regards

Vikarrw

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Interesting post Nike, thank you.

Indeed, no one can deny that the early Bulghars (or Proto-Bulgarians) had a mixed ethnic and cultural composition. In fact, you can hardly find any steppe people which has it's "pure" culture. However, I still keep up with the idea that the first Bulghars, as a political union established by the Oghurs, were a Turkic people in the beginning. However, the traces of Iranic culture and pehaps ethnicity is also not contradicting with this view, because the area settled by the Oghurs was in fact the region where once the Sarmatians lived. Even though the Sarmatians were erased politicially by the Huns, I am sure they were not genocided, which is almost impossible back then. There must have been fragments of Sarmatian tribes left in the Pontic Steppe - apart from the Alans, who had become a distinct people apart from the Sarmatians some time before.

You can find Iranic influences even in Mongolia at that time, so there is nothing to surprise

Hallo,
Could you explain me why arabic traveller Ibn Faddlan have wrote that in Bulgar the ruller was The Tzar of Slavic Tribes.And why Bulgars people were Muslims. The name of Volga looks as Finno-Ugric because Tatarian name of Volga was Idel.

Regards

Vikarrw

Greetings Mr. Vikarrw, welcome aboard.

Ahmad ibn Fadlan and other Arabic-Iranian scholars at that time considered the Slavs, Turks, Mongols, Tibetans, Chinese, etc as one big group of people, so tribal/ethnic/political/state names were usually wronged inaccuratly. The Volga Bulghars were living very close to the Slavs, so Arabic geographers and travellers hardly distinguished those peoples. No wonder why some Arabic and Iranian geographers named Rus' and Tibetans as "Turks", even though they were not Turkic.

Not all Volga Bulghars were Muslim at that time. Islam had started to expand in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe after the 8th century. Through 9th century, Arabic missionaries and Khwarazmian merchants kept spreading Islam in the Khazar Empire and it's vassal the Bulghar Kingdom of Volga. By the end of the 9th century, an important part of the Volga Bulghars had become Muslim, though not all. During the 910s-920s, Almush, the Ilteber of Volga Bulghars, decided to convert to Islam and make it the state religion. No one exactly knows if Almush himself was influenced by some merchants/missionaries, or he decided to convert purely of political reasons (to get support from Muslim Abbasids against Judaist Khazars - of whom only the ruling élite were Judaist; most of the rest of the people believed to other religions), or maybe both.

The Umawwids had tried to conquer Caucasia and convert Khazaria to Islam, but both the natives and the Khazars resisted this invasion wave and finally repulsed the Arabs. In fact, during the Abbasid period, there were only a few border clashes between the Caliphate and the Khazar Qaghanate. During the 9th-10th centuries, the Muslims tried to spread their religion in rather peaceful ways, especially via merchants, and eventually they succeeded. However, on the Jaxartes (Sir Darya, Sayhun) frontier, religious wars between Muslims and non-Muslim Turks continued for a much longer period. That is why the Turkic peoples living there who became Muslim kept most of their original believes after converting to Islam, because hetherodox Muslim preechers had to approach them under the disguise of the own believes of Turkic nomads.

The name Volga is the heavily Russified version of the very name Bulghar... Bulghar -> Bolgar -> Volgar -> Volga. The Russians named the river from the Bulghar people. As you told, Turkic peoples used the name Itil/Etil/Idel, which has nothing to do with the name Bulghar.

Regards,
ihsan

[nikebg]

Yes, indeed. Btw, Ihsan Erkoc, please, it's written as "Bulgar", not "Bulghar", there is no "h" in the name.

vikarrw, that's a very interesting question you give there. Though, IIRC, Ibn Fadlan isn't Arabic, but Persian (although he was supposedly Arabic in the movie "The 13th Warrior", where Antonio Banderas played Ibn Fadlan).
I'm currently reading a book, which analyses the Jagfar Tarihi (Джагфар Тарихьi) and I've reached exactly around that part - the Islamisation of the Burdjans and their creation of Volga Bulgaria, under the wing of Karabulgar. Though I'd also add to Ihsan's post that it's believed that Almush wasn't the one who converted first to Islam, but that was actually Ugir Aidar (805-855), who "ruled for 50 years and first accepted Islam". And also that Ibn Fadlan did make distinction between Turks, Bulgars, Slavs and Rus (Vikings).
But the really interesting question is about the connection of the Volga Bulgars and the Rus/Slavs. It's known that Karabulgar/Volga Bulgaria had connections and even ruled over several Slavic tribes and f.e. Ibn Dasta says that "Rus has a tsar who is called Hakan-Rus". The Annales Bertiniani also mention that in 839 "messengers of the Russian kniaz" visited Constantinople, but their direct route back was blocked by "hostile people". So the emperor Teophilos asked the Frankish emperor Luis the Pious to help them return to their homeland, also mentioning that these messengers called their ruler as "hakan". At that time there were two hakans in that region - the Khazar and the Karabulgar one (Ugir Aidar, who had recently proclaimed himself "emir of the Bulgars and hakan of the whole Saklan"), but the Khazars were bordering Byzantium and wouldn't need any help from the Franks, while there were Magyars between the Karabulgars and the Byzantines. So the explanation of D. Ilovaiski is that "the Black Bulgars were also known under the name Rus", though it's also possible that they may have meant Ros instead of Rus.
Anyway, the relations between Volga Bulgaria and the Slavs/Saqaliba is quite an interesting one indeed. There are even some theories like Omelian Pritsak's idea that the Slavs were actually not one people, but were actually "specially trained slaves" of the Bulgars (which would mean that the Bulgar ruler of those Slavs actually has many trained slaves), which is quite a popular idea now among the racist Bulgarians of today. And which, of course, completely ignores any historical logic and factology too. But what seems clear is that Volga Bulgaria was a multi-ethnic state, which can only explain how (according to the Djagfar Tarihi) Ugir Aidir's census from 840 showed that there are 1 100 000 people living in his state (Karabulgar, including Volga Bulgaria) "from different ethnoses", which apparently included Slavic tribes as well.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

I prefer writing Bulghar or more correctly Bulġar when I am talking about the Bulgars of Pontic Steppe and Volga Bulgaria. To distinguish them from the Bulgarians. Since Bulgar is a Turkic name, I have to add the "hard g" (ġ, but when I am lazy, I just write it as gh) sound

Hmm I thought Ahmad ibn Fadlan was Arabic

[nikebg]

Yes, my bad, I was left with the impression that he was of Persian origin, only in service of the Abbasid caliph, but it seems he's actually Arab himself too.

[vikarrw]

Hallo
If carefully analize the text by IbnFadlan we could say that Bulgar is not Turkish Tribe.Ibn Faddlan have said about Turkish Tribe Oguz and about " the worse of Turkish Tribes -Baskird/it is have said Ibn Fadlan not me/. About Bulgar Jbn Fadlan have term "sakaliba"Tradition translation it is "Slavic Tribe"Some Tatarian scholars claim that it is not true and "sakaliba" it is Turkish Tribe.If it was so IbnFadlan could have said , for example, 'the best Turkish Tribe '"sakaliba".But he have said definetly "Sakaliba".May be it is not Turkish Tribe and not Slavic Tribe but it is the Tribe Ðakaliba"Who could be Ðakaliba" so?Here on the Forum I have seen Old Arabian Map.At the map near Volga and near Sea have lived "Rus', "SAkaliba", Arij".May be "Sakaliba" have migrated up Volga and it is "Bulgar"!

By myself 20 years ago I have lived some time in Tatarian and Chuvasian villiges near Kazan.That time I hav,nt so interesting in history.The Tatarian and Chuvasian peple looks like another nationality.And don,t like one another.By my opinion/ not scholar/Tatarian looks like the Mixture nationality of Iranian people, Slavic People and Turkish People.But Turkish deal is too small.Chuvashian People looks like the Mixture nationality of Finno-Ugric and Prototurk/Altaic/ Tribe .With the good deal of Finno-Ugric.

Vikarrw

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Well, there are also some Islamic sources which say that the Khazars were different from the Turks, but it is prooven fact that the Khazars were Turkic Even if Ahmad ibn Fadlan calls the Volga Bulghars "Slavs", that doesn't necessarily mean that the Volga Bulghars were Slavic. How would you explain all the Turkic names of the Volga Bulghars found at ibn Fadlan's work itself?
The reason why the Chuvash and Kazan Tatars won't dislike each other is probably because of religion, as the Chuvash are non-Muslims, while the Kazan Tatars are devout Muslims.

[vikarrw]

Hallo,
There are Russian, Chuvashian and Tatarian villiges.Russians live good with Chuvashian and With Tatarian.They married one another.But Chuvashian and Tatarian dont, like one another, dont, married one another.It is not Religous reasons.It is something historical reasons, I dont, know exactly.
About Turkish names in ibn Faddlan.
They are
Almus ibn Shilky Baltavar
or Almashin ibn Shilky Biltivar
it depends on the translator.
I dont, know Turkish language and for me difficult say Turkish it is names or not.
Baltavar I could translate from Balts languages .It means 'White Tzar',
"The Tzar of Balts" or "Mighty Tzar"
Some later with my friend whom Arabian language is native we try define exactly pronansations of the names from Arabian text.

Vikarrw

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Among that name, only Šilkî ﺸﻠﻜﻲ is un-known.

Almuš (Alms ﺍﻠﻤﺲ in the work of Yâqût ﻴﺎﻘﻮﺖ) means "Someone who has taken" in Turkic, which is "Almış" in Modern Turkish.

According to Alessio Bombaci, the title Bilṭivâr ﺒﻠﻄﻮﺍﺮ is a mis-writing for Yilṭivâr ﻴﻞﻄﻮﺍﺮ, which is the famous Turkic title Iltäbär.

For more information, please check this work: Bombaci, Alessio, "On the Ancient Turkic Title Eltäbär", Proceedings of the IXth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Instituto Universitario Orientale – Seminario di Turcologia, Naples, 1970, pp.1-66.

Plus, the wife of Almuš Iltäbär carried the Turkic title Ḫâtûn ﺨﺎﺘﻮﻦ, which is Khatun/Qatun.

[Azadan Januspar]

is there any online website where the ibn Fazlan's books is fully available?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

I haven't seen any

[Asparuh]

Hello,I have read a lot of materials upon our history.
We seem to be a mistery for the scientists,but i think we are more close to Scythians and Sarmatians.

[Asparuh]

Hey, i would like to know,how can i post some photos here.

I have some nice photos of ancient bulgarians.