The Origins And The History Of The Bulgars

• published: 23 May 2015
• views: 0

The Bulgars (also Bolgars, Bulghars; Proto-Bulgarians) were a semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction who flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region in the 7th century AD. Emerging as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, their roots can be traced according to some researchers to Central Asia. During their westwards migration across the Eurasian steppe they had enveloped also other ethnic groups and cultural influences. They became sedentary during the 7th century in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, establishing the polity (khanate) of Old Great Bulgaria c. 632 AD. However it was absorbed by the Khazar Empire in 668 AD. In c. 679 AD Khan Asparukh conquered Scythia Minor, opening access to Moesia, and established the First Bulgarian Empire, which was however Slavicized, thus forming modern Bulgarians. Another state called Volga Bulgaria was established on the middle Volga circa 670 AD. Volga Bulgars preserved their national identity well into the 13th century by repelling the first Mongol attacks in 1223. They were eventually subdued, and their capital Bolghar became one of the major cities of the Mongol Golden Horde. The etymology of the ethnonym Bulgar is not fully understood. It is considered that it cannot be completely traced before the 4th century AD. It is generally considered that it derives from the Turkic bulğha (to stir, mix, disturb, confuse). From the time of Wilhelm Tomaschek (1873), it was considered Common Turkic bulga- or bulya (to mix, to become mixed) and consonant suffix -r (mixed). Talat Tekin considred that bulgar means "mixing", and not "mixed". Gyula Németh and Peter Benjamin Golden initially both advocated the "mixed race" theory, but later like Paul Pelliot, they only considered "to incite", "rebel", "to produce a state of disorder", ie. the "disturbers", what would be a suitable name for nomads. Among many other theories, D. Detschev considered it was Germanic in the meaning combative people, called so and attributed by the Gepids and Ostrogoths to the descendants of the European Huns; G. A. Keramopulos considered the burgi along the Roman limes; that the ethnonym is related with the city name of Balkh in Bactria, river Volga (yiylga, "moisture"), while Zeki Velidi Togan considered unattested form bel-gur or bil-gur from balağur (five Oğhur). Karatay considered Kutrigurs and Utigurs two relative and ancestral people, later prominent tribes in the Bulgaric union, but different from the Bulgars. Golden considers the Kutrigurs and Utigurs origin obscure and their relationship to the Onoğurs and Bulgars who lived in the same region, or in its vicinity, as unclear. Golden noted the assumption of being related to the Šarağurs (Oğhur. šara, "White Oğhurs"), and that according Procopius were two Hunnic tribal unions of Cimmerians descent and common origin. The reason for the later Byzantine sources frequent linking of the names Onoğurs and Bulgars is also unclear. According to Karatay, the "mixed" theory cannot prove the usual scholars explanation about the making of Bulgars. He considered that the coming of Oğurs tribes and withdrawing Huns, who met in the north of the Black Sea, faulty because the Oğurs came to Europe in 463, while Bulgars are first formally mentioned in 482, a too short time period for such an ethnical process. According to Sanping Chen, the "mixed" and "disturbers" theories may not be mutually exclusive as can coexist with the 4th century Buluoji of China, a Barbarian group represented as both a "mixed race" and "troublemaker". This theory was considered by Peter A. Boodberg, who noted that the Buluoji (Middle Chinese b'uo-lak-kiei) in the Chinese sources were recored as remnants of the Xiongnu confederation, and had strong Caucasian elements.