Proto-Bulgar inscriptions vs Orkhon inscriptions

[Nykyus]

The Huns considered themselves descendants and heirs of the Royal Scythians, because Attila found the Scythian sword and declared it sacred. The ancestral home of the Scythians is southern Siberia and Altai. The only word left from the Huns is strava, a Wake at the funeral of a nobleman.
The mixing of Caucasoid Scythians with the Mongoloids occurred in ancient times

[PAGANE]

While the evidence of the Asiatic period of the Proto-Bulgarian history is still hypothetical, there are, still short, but reliable sources about their live in Europe although,that their ethnicon had been known much earlier to the Chinese, but in a rather altered form because of the peculiarities of the transcription of foreign names in Chinese. . Most numerous are the records in Latin and Greek. Few, but very important, are the data from some historical, geographical and other works by eastern authors - Armenians, Arabs, Syrians, Persians, etc. Their use, however, is accompanied by serious difficulties because of the rather free way they convey the events and facts and because of the peculiarities of the phonetic systems of their literature, in which the foreign names are sometimes changed beyond recognition.
The earliest European record about the Bulgarians is the so called Anonymous chronograph, a list of tribes and peoples written in Latin in 354 AD by an unknown chronicler. He mentiones among the offspring of Shem a certain 'Ziezi ex quo Vulgares'
The Bulgarians as inhabitants of the lands north of the Caucasus are mentioned by the Armenian writer Moses Horenaci. In his History of Armenia, written in the 80's of the 5-th century AD, he speaks about two migrations of Proto-Bulgarians from Caucasus to Armenia. The first of them is mentioned in connection with the campaign of the Armenian ruler Vaharshak to the lands, 'named Basen by the ancients... and which were afterwards populated by immigrants of the vh' ndur Bulgar Vund, after whose name they (the lands) were named Vanand.' The second migration, according to Moses Horenaci took place during the time of the Armenian ruler Arshak, when 'great disturbances occurred in the range of the great Caucasus mountain, in the land of the Bulgars, many of whom migrated and came to our lands and settled south of Kokh.' The migrations are dated to the second half of the 4-th century AD. It appears that the 'disturbances' which caused the Proto-Bulgarians to migrate to the south are linked to the expansion of the Huns in the East-European steppes. The authenticity of the settlement of groups of Proto-Bulgarians in Armenia is confirmed by some toponymic data: a river flowing though the Mungan steppe in South Azerbaijan and emptying in the lake Mahmud-chala, is called Bolgaru-chaj (Bulgarian river), one of the tributaries of the river Arax near the town of Kars (the land Vanand) is even now called Vanand- chaj (river of Vanand).

Bulgarians in Eastern Europe IV-V c. AD according to documentary evidence. Migrations of Proto-Bulgarians - Vh'ndur-Bulgar at the end of the IV c.AD, and Onogurs in around 463 AD.
(After D.Dimitrov, The Proto-Bulgarians north and west of the Black Sea, Varna, 1987; The map was produced using XEROX Map Viewer)

With the Hunnish invasions, the documentary evidence about Bulgarians cease for a while. They appear again in the beginning of the 5-th, this time from the north-western slopes of the Carpathians. According to the 8-th century Langobardian chronicler Paulus Diaconus the Bulgars dwelling in those places attacked their neighbours the Langobards, killed their king Algemund and captured his daughter. After that they had two more battles, first of which they won and the second lost. Apparently, the Bulgarians reached Central Europe together with the Huns. It is well known that in their drive to the West the Huns carried away many of the subdued by them peoples. After the defeat of the Hunnish tribal union, the Bulgarians, as well as the remains of the Huns, returned back and settled near the borders of Byzantium, entering in active, both friendly and hostile, contacts with it. The first record of Bulgarians from the Balkans mentions the help they have rendered to the Byzantine emperor Zeno against the Goths of Theodoric, the son of Triarius
In 486 and 488 they fought again against the Goths, first as allies of Byzantium , and later - as allies of the Gepids . At those times the Proto-Bulgarians had been regarded as a brave and invincible in war people
Later, since the 90's of the 5-th century, they, independently or accompanied by the Slavs, repeatedly invaded the territories of the Byzantine empire and were among its greatest enemies till the middle of the 6-th century.
Some indications about the territory, occupied by them during these centuries, are found in 'Getica' of the Gothic historian Jordanes. According to Jordanes 'beyond the Akacires ... above the Pontus (Black Sea) coast are the dwellings of the Bulgars, who became famous because of the bad consequences of our sins.' Their neighbours were the Huns Alcnagiri and Saviri, and further the Hunugurs (Onogurs), who trade with sable pelts. Thus, the Bulgarians occupied the steppes to the north and north-west of the Black Sea.

In the time when north of the Black Sea, next to the Balkan territories of Byzantium, lived a significant and strong Bulgarian group (5-6 century AD), another group of the same people lived in the steppes to the east, in the north-eastern Caucasus. The 'Church history' of Zachariah the Rhetor, compiled in Syrian language soon after the middle of the 6-th century AD contains reliable data about the Bulgarians. Utilising first-hand accounts the compiler produced a list of the peoples, who had inhabited the lands north of the Derbend pass (the Caspian gates) during the first half of the 6-th century: "The land Bazgun ... extends up to the Caspian Gates and to the sea, which are in the Hunnish lands. Beyond the gates live the Burgars (Bulgars), who have their language, and are people pagan and barbarian. They have towns. And the Alans - they have five towns. ... Avnagur (Aunagur) are people, who live in tents. Avgar, sabir, burgar, alan, kurtargar, avar, hasar, dirmar, sirurgur, bagrasir, kulas, abdel and hephtalit are thirteen peoples, who live in tents, earn their living on the meat of livestock and fish, of wild animals and by their weapons (plunder)."
The Bulgars and the Alans are mentioned twice - once as a settled populations with towns, and once more as nomads. Zachariah the Rhetor points out that the Bulgarians who have towns inhabited the lands immediately next to the Caspian gates, while the others - the steppes north of the Caucasus.
Besides the Bulgarians the sources speak about other ethnic groups who were more or less connected with the Bulgarians, and some of them later joined the Bulgarian people. Important among them are the Onogurs (Unogurs). They appear in the European chronicles in the middle of the 5-th century. According to Priscus in 463 Byzantium was visited by an embassy of Saragurs, Urogs and Onogurs, who, dislodged by the Avar's drive to the west, conquered the lands of the Akacirs and asked for a union with Byzantium

Most probably the Onogurs lived in the lands east of the Bulgarians, along the northern coast of the Black Sea. According to the Syrian compilation of Zachariah the Rhetor, Avnagur-Aunagur inhabited the steppes north of Caucasus, living as nomads. However, Theophilactus Simocatta informs us that they had towns - in earlier times they had built the town of Bakat. More precise about their dwellings is the 'Cosmographia' of Ravennatis Anonymi who locates 'Patria Onogoria' above the Pontus near the lake of Meotida (the Sea of Azov).
Judging from some eparchial lists from the end of the 7-th or the beginning of the 8-th century, in the 7-th century there was an Onogurian episcopate in the Gothic eparchy. This attests the early spread of the Christianity among the Onogurs.
The Onogurs are also known to some eastern authors, but there their name is so altered that their identification is very difficult and sometimes even impossible. Most numerous are the records about the Onogurs in the Armenian sources. The earliest are in the work of Egishe, written between 458 and 464. Egishe mentions that to the north of the land Chora (the Derbend pass) lived the Huns Hajlandur (hajlandur'k). They already had a 'royal clan', that is, tribal aristocracy, and Christianity was beginning to spread among them. They maintained connections with the Kushans - in 454 a young Hajlandur at the service of the Persian ruler Yazdgird II (438-457) ran away to the Kushans, warned them about the forthcoming Persian attack and thus contributed to the victory of the Kushans. According to A.D. Gadlo the identification of the Hajlandurs with the Onogurs is confirmed by a fragment of the history of Egishe, preserved in the 10-th century Armenian author Moses Kagankatvaci, where the country of the Hajlandurs is called Aguandria (Aluandria), that is, country of the tribe Aguandur. This name resembles the ethicon auangur-avnagur by which the Syrian texts call the Onogurs.
The texts also locate north of the Caucasus the Unogundurs, a name that is very similar to that of the Onogurs. Almost all chroniclers connect the Unogundurs with the Bulgarians. For example the Byzantine patriarch Nicephorus calls the ruler of Great Bulgaria khan Kubrat "the ruler of the Unogundurs", and both Theophanes the Confessor and Constantinus Porphyrogeneus explicitly state that the Bulgarians, settled in the Balkans, had been called earlier Unogundurs
The Armenian geography, written at the end of the 7-th century and attributed to Ananij Shirakaci, also attests the Bulgarian affiliation of the Unogundurs. It says that north of the Caucasus "live the peoples Turk and Bulgar (Bulgark), who are named after the local rivers: Kupi-bulgar, Duchi-bulkar, Oghondor(Olhontor)-blkar - the immigrants and Chdar-bolkar."
The name Onghondor-blkar in the Armenian geography is a variant of the older Vh'ndur-bulgar in the History of Moses Horenaci and the both works give the Armenian form of the ethnicon transcribed in Greek as Unogundur or Unogur. Because of the similarity of the two names as well as the location of the two tribes, it is generally accepted that Unogundurs and Unogurs are two written forms of one tribe. This is confirmed by the deacon Agathius - hartophilacs of the Constantinople patriarchy and compiler of the acts of the VI-th ecumenical council in 680-681 AD, who in a rider to the council's acts from 713 AD names the Bulgars of khan Tervel "Unogurs-bulgars".
The localisation of the other three tribes in the Armenian geography is not so clear. Using the remark in the Geography that the Bulgarian tribes were named after names of rivers, the historians try to find these rivers. They are almost unanimous that Kupi-bulgar are the Bulgarians of the river Kuban, the old Kuphis. Many of them accept that Duchi-bulkar should be read as Kuchi-bulkar, pointning to the ancient name of Dniepr (Kocho) also attested in the Armenian geography. Most unclear is the location of the Chdar-bolkars - they are put in the basins of Big Rombit (Eja) or Don, in the eastern part of the Crimea or in Northern Dagestan. It is remarkable, that in all four cases the tribal name of the Bulgars is slightly different. This is an indisputable evidence of dialect differenciation in the language in the various Proto-Bulgarian tribes which had affected even their common ethnicon.
Thus, sources speak that not later than the 4-th century AD in the steppes north of Caucasus there was a considerable Bulgarian mass, in which the tribe of Unogundurs (vh'ndur) played the leading role. During the Hunnish invasions ('the great disturbances') part of the Unogundurs-bulgars were forced to cross the Caucasus and take refuge in Armenia; another group moved westwards to the shores of the Sea of Azov. After the departure of the Huns for Central Europe, a group of Unogundurs occupied the plains of maritime Dagestan and became known to Egishe under the name Hajlandurs. At the beginning of the second half of the 5-th century part of the Onogurs from the Eastern Fore-Caucasus was pushed out by the Sabirs to the west and settled at the plain at the north-eastern corner of the Black Sea. Agathius (second half of the 6-th century) informs that these Onogurs long time ago had attacked the Colkhis at the Black Sea coast, but were defeated. On this occasion the place of the battle and a fortress nearby were named Onoguris
Another tribe, akin to the Bulgarians, were the Utigurs. They are mentioned only by the Byzantine historian Procopius Caesariensis and his continuators Agathias and Menander in connection with events that took place during the middle and the second half of the 6-th century. Most detailed is the record of Procopius: "Beyond the Sagins dwell many Hunnish tribes. The land is called Evlisia and barbarians populate the sea-coast and the inland up to the so called lake of Meotida and the river Tanais (Don). The people living there were called Cimmerians, and now they are called Utigurs. North of them are the populous tribes of the Antes."
Thus the Utigurs have occupied the lowlands of the river Kuban. Probably it is their lord (prince) who is mentioned in the story narrated by Ioanis Malalae, Theophanes and John of Ephesus. In 528 AD (534 according to John of Ephesus) this lord, called Gord (Grod), with a large suite arrived in Constantinople. In the Byzantine capital he was baptised by emperor Justinian himself, who endowed Gord with rich presents and sent him back home with the task to protect the city of Bosporus from the neighbouring barbarians. After his return Gord, as a zealous Christian, ordered the venerated by his people golden and silver idols to be melted down. Outraged by this action, the priests together with his brother and the army revolted and killed him
Later the Byzantines at the expense of many gifts were able again to win the friendship of the Utigurs. In 551 Justinian turned the Utigurs against their relatives the Kutrigurs, whose army of 12,000 in that moment devastated the Balkan provinces of the empire. Using the absence of the main enemy's forces, the Utigur khan Sandilkh crossed the river Don and invaded the lands of the Kutrigurs, who were badly defeated and many of their women and children - enslaved. In this war thousands of captured by the Kutrigurs Byzantines were able to return to their homes. In 558-559 again the Utigurs and Kutrigurs were at war. As a result the two tribes were weakened so much that they lost even their tribal names, according to Agathius. Still, the Utigurs continued to play some role. For example, their army, subjected to the Turcuts, took part in the taking of the Byzantine city of Bosporus.
The Kutrigurs were an akin to the Utrigurs tribe. This is evident from the genealogical legend, preserved by Procopius: "In the old days many Huns, called then Cimmerians, inhabited the lands I mentioned already. They all had a single king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one called Utigur and another called Kutrigur. After their father's death they shared the power and gave their names to the subjected peoples, so that even nowadays some of them are called Utigurs and the others - Kutrigurs." This is also confirmed by the words of the Utigur khan Sandilh when he was asked by Justinian to attack the Kutrigurs: "It is neither fair nor decent to exterminate our tribesmen (the Kutrigurs), who not only speak a language, identical to ours, who are our neighbours and have the same dressing and manners of life, but who are also our relatives, even though subjected to other lords." The Kutrigurs occupied the lands west of the Sea of Azov and the river Don. In the middle of the 6-th century they had the leading role in a powerful tribal union which was able undertake massive attacks against the Balkan provinces of Byzantium, returning home with great spoils and tens of thousands of enslaved Byzantines.
The bloody internecine war between the Utigurs and Kutrigurs during the whole fifth decade of the 6-th century sapped their strength. They were relatively easy subjugated by the Avars who crossed Volga in 558. After a short stay in the East-European steppes the Avars, carrying away with them a considerable number of Kutrigurs, were forced by the Turcuts (tu-cu) to leave for Central Europe and to settle in Pannonia. An evidence for the Kutrigur's presence in Central Europe is the information of Menander that in 568 a 10,000 strong army of Kutrigurs, following orders of the Avar khan Bajan, attacked and sacked Dalmatia.
There is a great variety of opinions among the historians regarding the origin of the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs. Some of them think the Utigurs and Kutrigurs represented correspondingly the eastern and the western branches of the Bulgarians, another think the Utigurs and Kutrigurs were akin but different from the Proto-Bulgarian tribes. Particularly close were the contacts between the Bulgarians and the Kutrigurs, who inhabited adjacent territories During their combined attacks on Byzantium and their joining, first in a Bulgarian, and later - in a Kutrigurian military-tribal union, the Kutrigurs were gradually incorporated in the Bulgarian group. Since the 7-th century the tribal name of the Kutrigurs was generally substituted by the name of the Bulgarians, although they are still mentioned in few cases as 'Kotrags'. In fact, Kutrigurs and Utigurs are mentioned by very few authors and only during three decades (50s to70s) of the 6-th century
And since the end of the 6-th century the name of the Kutrigurs in Central Europe was replaced by that of the Bulgarians. For example, Theophilactus Simocatta when speaking about the campaign of the Byzantine general Peter against the Slavs in 596, informs us that in the environs of the town Asimunt near the mouth of the river Osum, there was a 1,000 strong detachment of Bulgarians, subjects of the khan of the Avars. The replacement of the name of the Kutrigurs is shown even clearer in Fredegarius who narrates about the contest for power over the Avar khaganate, kindled between the candidates of the Avars and the Proto-Bulgarians in 631-632. This also evidences about the great number of the Proto-Bulgarians. The victory of the Avar pretender forced 9,000 Proto-Bulgarians to leave Pannonia and to find refuge in Bavaria of king Dagobert.

[Nykyus]

Although Ogur in this case is possibly a tribe, because the ancient Uighurs called Togus Ogus (Nine Ogus). Ogur and Ogus are most likely dialectical or linguistic differences

[-Invictus-]

...

Yep. That article made me dig deeper about Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Onogurs and their connection to the Huns.

Only thing I disagree with is "The earliest European record about the Bulgarians is the so called Anonymous chronograph, a list of tribes and peoples written in Latin in 354 AD by an unknown chronicler. He mentiones among the offspring of Shem a certain 'Ziezi ex quo Vulgares'"
I've read somewhere else about it and most people say that it doesn't mean Bulgars. A quick translation from Latin in Goggle shows "vulgare" to mean "common" and "vulgares" means "folk". Bulgarians in Latin is "Bulgari". If you search the quote in Google you will find some really crazy theories about "Ziezi being Zeus" and "Zizimene the Mother Godess". I found the most sane discussion here : https://www.forumnauka.bg/topic/7956...%82-354%D0%B3/

[PAGANE]

Sabirs, Barsils, Belendzheris, Khazars

Another associated with the Bulgarian ethnic group were the Sabirs. Initially they had lived in Western Siberia, which was named after them. According to Priscus, in the mid-fifth century the Sabirs conquered the lands of the Onogurs, Saragurs and Urogs in the steppes around the north-western Caspian coast. Especially active they became in 6-th century when they created a powerful federation of akin tribes, usually know as the "Kingdom of the Huns". They were quite populous and could organise an army of 20,000 well equipped cavalrymen. They were masters of the art of the war and could build siege machines unknown even to the Persians and the Byzantines. Very early on the Sabirs were in close contact with the Khazars, and some eastern authors confuse them. After the defeat of their main forces by the Avars, the Khazars took the lead in the Sabir-Khazar federation. It is unknown when and what forced part of the Sabirs to move to the north, in the region of Middle Volga, among the settled there Proto-Bulgarians tribes. Their main city Suvar was later among the greatest centres of Volga Bulgaria.
Another tribe in close contacts with the Bulgarians were the Barsils. They are mentioned in the documents only in the second half of the 6-th century in connection with the crossing of the East-European steppes by the Avars (pseudo-Avars) According to Theophilactus Simocatta, when the Avars appeared in their lands "the barsilt (the Barsilians), the unogurs and the sabirs were struck with horror ... and honoured the new-comers with brilliant gifts." The ethicon bagrasik, included in the list of the steppe peoples north of Derbend in the Syrian compilation of Zachariah the Rhetor, most probably represents their ethnic name. More accurate data about the Barsils contains the so called New List of the Armenian geography from the 7-th century. It narrates that in the Volga delta "there is an island, where the people of basli (the Barsils) take shelter from the bushki (bulhi - the Bulgars) and from the khazars... The island is called Black because of many basli living there together with their numerous livestock." The 'island' in question is probably the land between the river Eastern Manuch and the present Volga mouth. The region is called 'Black lands' since a long time and it is even nowadays an excellent winter grazing ground for the population of Northern Caucasus. Very important is the note of the Armenian geographer that the Barsils possessed numerous livestock, that is, they were a typical nomadic people.
M.I. Artamonov locates the country Bersilia in present Northern Dagestan, but his view is not supported by the available data. The archaeological material from that region points to the presence of a settled population that lived in permanent settlements and created impressive fortresses. At the same time the Armenian geography portraits the Barsils as a nomadic people even in the 7-th century. It was their remoteness from any cultural centres that they appeared so late in the documentary sources. Also, Theophanes tell us that the 'populous people of the Khazars came out from the innermost parts of Bersilia in Sarmatia Prima.' It is well known that the lower course of Volga was the eastern frontier of Asiatic Sarmatia. That is why the country Bersilia was probably located near the mouth of Volga. To the same region points the other informer about the coming of the Khazars - patriarch Nicephorus. According to him "the tribe of Khazars lived near the Sarmatians." When the Barsils left these lands they settled in the Middle Volga region and merged with the Volga Bulgars. Ibn Ruste (the beginning of the 10-th century) says that they represented one of the three branches of the Volga Bulgars: "the first branch was called Bersula, the second - Esegel, and the third - Bulgar." What drove the Barsils to run away to the Volga Bulgars is implicitly mentioned by the Khazar khagan Joseph in the description of his domain (main territory) in a letter to the Jewish dignitary Hasdaj Ibn Shaprut. The domain included also the territory which most probably was the land of the Barsils. This shows that in their expansion the Khazars drove out their intermediate neighbours.

Main Proto-Bulgarian groups in Eastern Europe in VI-VII c. AD. The supposed boundary of Old Great Bulgaria is given by a dashed line.
(After D.Dimitrov, The Proto-Bulgarians north and west of the Black Sea, Varna, 1987; The map was produced using XEROX Map Viewer)

Another very important for the early medieval history of Northern Dagestan problem concerns the people, the country and the town whose name is given in the Arab sources as Belendzher or Balandzhar. The ethicon is mentioned for first time by the Arab historian at-Tabari in connection with events from the 60s of the 6-th century . First, he informs that the vassal to Iran Armenia was invaded by four peoples - abkhaz, b-ndzh-r (bandzhar), b-l-ndzh-r (balandzhar) and alan. Later, between 566 and 571, the khagan of the Turks (Turcuts) Sindzhibu (Istemi) defeated the peoples b-ndzh-r, b-l-n-dzh-r and khazar, who agreed to serve him. A.V.Gadlo concludes that the name "bandzhar" refers to the Ogurs, and 'balandzhar' is a Perso-Arabic form of the ethnicon of the Onogurs=Utigurs.
Besides the information about the people balandzhar-belendzher at-Tabari informs also that "beyond Derbend there is an entire kingdom with many towns, which are called Belendzher" . According to the same author the Arab general Abdurahmen ibn Rabi'a "penetrated 200 miles into the country (Belendzher), converted many towns to the law of Mohamed and returned to Derbend". Obviously, that country extended over a large territory
Most disputed, however, is the location of the town of the same name. Later documentary sources tell us that during his campaign of 652-653 the Arab general Abdu-ar-Rahman ibn Rabi'a reached the town Belendzher which had a considerable garrison and a watch-tower. The other great Arab campaign of 721-722 under Dhzarrah also "reached the Khazar town of Belendzher. The inhabitants had tied together and positioned around the town more that 3,000 wagons." Belendzher was taken after several brave Arabs cut the ropes holding the wagons, thus eliminating the defence line. The invaders found great spoils which they shared among them. After its taking by the Arabs Belehdzher is not mentioned anymore.
The story of at-Tabari shows that Belendzher was rather a military camp, not a real town. The Arabs of Dzharrah captured many Belendzheris, among them the family of the ruler of the town, called sahib (mihtar). He had been subordinate to the Khazars but still independent enough: Dzharrah bribed him and he switched his allegiance to the Arabs. Other documentary sources contain indications about the ethnicity of the ruler and the population of Belendzher. For example in the Turkic copy of the history of at-Tabari, used by Kasem Beg, the name of the town is given as Bulkhar- Balkh, which could be also read as Bulkar-Balk . That makes Kasem Beg to believe that there was not any town with the name Belendzher and that because of transcribers' negligence and misunderstanding that name was transferred to another town, called Bulkar-Balk . The same name for the town is preserved in a local history of Derbend, compiled from older documents and local traditions
The description of the campaign of the Arab general Salman in 652-653 (based on a manuscript of Ahmed-bin-Azami) mentions: "After leaving Derbend, Salman reached the Khazar town of Burgur... He continued and finally reached Bilkhar, which was not a Khazar's possetion, and camped with his army near that town, on rich meadows intersected by a large river."
That is why several historians connect that town with the Bulgarians. The Arab missionary Ahmed ibn-Fadlan also confirms that connection, as he mentions that during his trip to the Volga Bulgars in 922 he saw a group of 5,000 Barandzhars (balandzhars) who had migrated long time ago to Volga Bulgaria
According to Ibn al-Nasira, after capturing Belendzher-Bulker, Salman reached another big town, called Vabandar, which had with 40,000 houses (families?). M.I. Artamonov links the name of that town with the ethnicon of the Bulgars Unogundurs, which is given as v-n-nt-r by the Khazars (in the letter of their Khagan Joseph), as venender or nender by the Arabs, and as Unogundur-Onogur by the Byzantines. Interpreting the documentary evidence Artamonov concludes that the early medieval population of Northern Dagestan consisted of Proto-Bulgarian tribes, so that the mentioned by several authors Kingdom of the Huns and their country should have been rather called Kingdom of the Bulgars . He regards as Proto-Bulgarian also "the magnificent town of Varachan", the main centre of the Huns, located by Moses Kagantvaci north of Derbend

We know details about Varachan thanks to a member of the embassy of the Albanian missionary bishop Israel, who visited the Kingdom of the Huns in a proselytising mission in 682. According to the description, preserved in the work of Moses Kagantvaci (10-th century), Varachan was different from the typical nomadic strongholds in its architectural setting. There was a central square which accommodated important assemblies, streets at whose crossings were executed some of the pagan priests. There was also a 'Royal court'. Especially interesting is the information about the religion of the inhabitants of Varachan. Next to the town there were wooden barracks and rich presents were offered to the magicians serving in these heathen shrines. Especially venerated were the sacred trees, notably a giant oak tree. Horses were sacrificed to that oak, their blood poured on its roots, while their heads and skins were hanged on its branches. Horse races and wrestling contests, fought under the beating of drums and timbales, accompanied the sacrifices. The people wore golden and silver amulets, depicting dragons. Besides the priests there were plenty of shamans - soothsayers and medicine-men healing wounds and making charms. The thunder god Kuara was especially held in reverence. Tangrikhan, called Aspandiat by the Persians, was the main deity, who helped in need and cured the ill. Animals, mainly horses were sacrificed to him. There are both Persian and Turkic characteristics in this cult of Tangrikhan-Aspandiat.
Besides towns like Varachan, the story about the bishop Israel's mission speaks of "numerous royal camps", that is - typical nomad settlements. On the order of the ruler of the "Huns" Alp-Ilitver churches were built both in the towns and in the villages.
A direct relation to the history of the Eastern Fore-Caucasus in those centuries has the late (12-th century) chronicle of the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch Michael of Syria, based on earlier sources. Particularly important is the excerpt narrating about the three brothers 'Scythians', set out on a journey from the mountain Imaon (Tien-Shan) in Asia and reached the river Tanais (Don). Here one of the brothers, called Bulgarios, took 10,000 people with him, parted from his brothers and with the permission of emperor Maurice (582-602) settled in Upper and Lower Moesia and Dacia. "The other two brothers came to the country of the Alans, which is called Barsalia (Bersilia) and whose towns were build by the Romeans, as Caspij, called Torajan Gates (Derbend). The Bulgars and the Pugurs (puguraje), who had inhabited those places, were Christians in the old days. And when a foreign people started to reign over that country, they were named Khazars after the name of the older brother, who was called Khazarig (Kazarig). And that people became strong and expanded." The story comprises facts pertaining to several events of different age, all of them united around the story of the expansion of the Khazarian political power in the second half of the 7-th century. The earliest event, described in the chronicle, is the coming of the three brothers to the lowlands between the Caspian Sea and the river Tanais (Don). Here Bulgarios occupied the lands next to Tanais, and Khazarig and the unknown brother - the Alan country of Barzalia. Also, there were pre-Khazarian towns in the outlying southern parts of Barzilia. Only one of them is mentioned in the chronicle - Caspij and it is identified by most historians as Derbend, which other name is Caspian Gates. This town, built by Persia with a Byzantine assistance as a stronghold against the pressing from north steppe peoples, was well known to the Byzantines. That is why its name appeared in the chronicle. The author had only vague ideas about other towns, but still he informs us that their inhabitants were Bulgars and Pugurs. It is difficult to decipher which etnical group is lurking under the ethnicon Pugurs. Perhaps the key to the problem is the above mentioned hypothesis, according to which the Chinese documentary sources have written down the ethnicon of the Bulgars in the form pu-ku/bu-gu
The second historical event in that Syrian chronicle is the 'parting' of Bulgarios from his 'brothers'. Important here is the clear indication that on his way to the Balkans Bulgarios had to cross the river Tanais. The third event is the increasing power of the Khazars, leading to the 'departure' of Bulgarios and to the imposing of a foreign rule over the older inhabitants of the country. Only then "they (the Bulgars and the Pugurs) were named Khazars after the name of the older brother". The text unambiguously States that not the Khazars, but the Bulgars and the Pugurs were the main population of the East Fore-Caucasus, especially of the towns. The became Khazarian only when the Khazars established their political power over that region.

As the history of the Khazars closely interweaves with that of the Bulgars, it is worth to provide more info about the Khazars' past.
In Northern Caucasus they appear no earlier than the 6-th century . The first unequivocal information about them is found in At-Tabari, who wrote that between 566 and 571 the Turcut ruler Sindzhibu (Istemi) subjugated the peoples bandzhar, balandzhar (belendzher) and khazar. To that time refers also the Church history of Zachariah Rhetor, where the Khazars are mentioned as a nomadic people north of Derbend. Their influence apparently increased after the Turcs (Turcuts) conquered Northern Caucasus, as the Khazars became their closest allies and assistants. The close ties between the Turcs and the Khazars are confirmed by the fact that after the collapse of the Turcic khaganate the ancient Turcic clan of the Ashinas headed the newly formed Khazarian state.

[Chelubey]

I don't say that this is the absolute truth. I just read stuff and connect the dots. That's what made most sense to me out of all these theories. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, you actually outlined the canonical version of ethnogenesis of Turkic peoples. This is better than the non-canonical Iranian version. This is progress. A great advance will be your criticism of the canonical version, which has many internal contradictions. According to the canonical version, just Chuvashs are descendants of the European Huns, all other European Turkic people migrated to Europe during the Tatar-Mongol invasion in 13 century. Genetics refutes this claim. Just Nogais(partly), Crimean steppe Tatars (descendants of Nogais) and Romanian-Balkan Tatars (Nogais) came to Europe with Tatar-Mongols. All other Turkic people - Volga Tatars, Bashkirs, Kumyks and Balkars - are descendants of pre-Genghis Khan Turkic peoples, Huns, Sarmatians, Scythians.

[-Invictus-]

Well, you actually outlined the canonical version of ethnogenesis of Turkic peoples. This is better than the non-canonical Iranian version. This is progress. A great advance will be your criticism of the canonical version, which has many internal contradictions. According to the canonical version, just Chuvashs are descendants of the European Huns, all other European Turkic people migrated to Europe during the Tatar-Mongol invasion in 13 century. Genetics refutes this claim. Just Nogais(partly), Crimean steppe Tatars (descendants of Nogais) and Romanian-Balkan Tatars (Nogais) came to Europe with Tatar-Mongols. All other Turkic people - Volga Tatars, Bashkirs, Kumyks and Balkars - are descendants of pre-Genghis Khan Turkic peoples, Huns, Sarmatians, Scythians.

Yes. Going "balls deep" into the topic and reading stuff from different sources and conflicting opinions showed me why the Turk( and more recently Hun ) origin of the Bulgars is the most accepted explanation. Sure, they mixed mostly with Iranic people and took some of their names and traditions. The evidence shows that their ruling elite and the main culture spread by their conquest were Turkic. The genetic makeup and how East Asian they were is another topic. I hope archaeology coupled with genealogy can answer these questions soon.

I don't know about this topic, but it doesn't make sense Chuvash people to be the only descendants of the Huns. The Hun Empire was big in territory and also was split in 3 parts. I would bet that there is more than one people group who were descendants of them.

About "Turkic peoples, Huns, Sarmatians, Scythians", aren't Scythians and Sarmatians considered the Iranic people who were assimilated into the Hun Empire?