Danube Bulgaria. The emergence of Danube Bulgaria

Keywords

DANUBE BULGARIA / BALKANO-DANUBE CULTURE/ BALKAN-DANUBE CULTURE / SALTOV-MAYATSK CULTURE/ SALTOV-MAYATSKAYA CULTURE / CREMATION FROM IZMAIL/ CREMATION FROM ISMAIL / BURIAL GROUND OF SLOBODZEYA/ CEMETERY AT SLOBOZIA / FIRST BULGARIAN KINGDOM

annotation scientific article on history and archeology, author of scientific work - Russev Nikolai Dmitrevich

Bulgaria arose in the region of the Danube Delta, which was an important part of the Khan's possessions. After the baptism, the north-east of Bulgaria gradually became isolated, becoming a refuge for the followers of the traditional way of life. Burials associated with the Bulgarians Balkan-Danubian culture not numerous, but varied and performed according to pagan rites cremation from Ishmael, burial near Sadovoe and Slobodzeya burial ground.

North-Eastern Possessions of the First Bulgarian Kingdom in 7th-10th cc.: History and Burial Sites

Bulgaria emerged in delta of the Danube River, which was an important area of khan's possessions. A?er Christianization, north-eastern part of Bulgaria gradually got separated and became an asylum for advocates of the traditional way of life. Burials of the Balkan-Danube culture associated with Bulgarians are not numerous, but they are diverse and follow pagan rites: cremation from Ismail , a burial from Sadovo and a cemetery at Slobozia .

The text of the scientific work on the topic “North-Eastern possessions of Danube Bulgaria of the 7th-10th centuries. : history and funerary monuments»

N. D. Russev

North-Eastern Possessions of the First Bulgarian Kingdom in 7th-10th cc: History and Burial Sites.

Bulgaria emerged in delta of the Danube River, which was an important area of khan's possessions. After Christianization, north-eastern part of Bulgaria gradually got separated and became an asylum for advocates of the traditional way of life. Burials of the Balkan- Danube culture associated with Bulgarians are not numerous, but they are diverse and follow pagan rites: cremation from Ismail, a burial from Sadovo and a cemetery at Slobozia.

Tinuturile nord-estice ale Taratului Bulgar Tn sec. VII-X: istoria si monumentele funerare.

Bulgaria a parut Tn delta Dunarii, o zona de mare importanta pentru tinuturile hanului. Dupa adoptarea cre§tinismului, nord-estul Bulgariei treptat s-a isolat, devenind astfel un refugiu pentru adeptii modului traditional de viata. Cu toate ca mormintele ce se atribuie culturii balcano-dunarene asociate cu bulgari nu sTnt numeroase, ele sTnt diverse §i executate conform traditiilor pagTne: mormTntul cu crematie de la Ismail, mormTntul din Sadovo §i cimitirul din Slobozia.

N. D. Russev.

North-Eastern possessions of Danube Bulgaria of the 7th-10th centuries: history and funerary monuments

Bulgaria arose in the region of the Danube Delta, which was an important part of the Khan's possessions. After the baptism, the north-east of Bulgaria gradually became isolated, becoming a refuge for the followers of the traditional way of life. The burials of the Balkan-Danubian culture associated with the Bulgarians are not numerous, but diverse and performed according to pagan rites - cremation from Izmail, burial near Sadovoe and the burial ground of Slobodzeya.

Keywords: First Bulgarian Kingdom, Balkan-Danube culture, Saltov-Mayatskaya culture, cremation from Ismail, cemetery at Slobozia.

Cuvinte cheie: Taratul Bulgar, cultura balcano-dunareana, cultura Saltov-Mayatskoye, crematia de la Ismail, cimitirul din Slobozia.

Key words: Danube Bulgaria, Balkan-Danubian culture, Saltovo-Mayak culture, Izmail cremation, Slobodzeya burial ground.

In the second half of the 7th c. along a narrow strip of steppes adjacent to the Black Sea coast, the Bulgarians of Asparuh made their way to the Danube. According to the reports of Byzantine authors, the khan "settled near Istra, having reached a place convenient for settlement, harsh and impregnable for the enemy, called in their language Oglom." Among its swamps, rivers and steeps, the Bulgarians built a kind of fortress. Here in 679-680. Asparuh for the first time defeated and drove out the troops of the Romans, forcing the emperor Constantine Pogonat (668-685) to pay

tribute (Chichurov 1980: 61, 162). The Tale of Bygone Years noted that they came “from the Khazars, the so-called Bulgarians, and settled along the Danube, and were settlers in the land of the Slavs” (PVL 1996: 10/146). In another interpretation, the ending of the phrase is conveyed by the words “there were rapists to the Slavs” (PVL 1950: 208), which fixed the dominant position of the Bulgarians on the Lower Danube. Probably, since that time, interdependent processes of mastering the Byzantine experience by the Bulgarians and parting with the traditions of the steppe have been developing.

1. Between civilization and barbarism

Already Tervel (700-721), the son of Asparuh, intervened in the dispute for the Byzantine crown. Having moved to Constantinople "all the people of the Bulgars and Slavins subject to him", he returned power to the dethroned Justinian II (685-695, 705-711). For this service, the emperor ceded some border territories to the Bulgarians, although the khan's native possessions were still in the lower reaches of the Danube. This is indicated by the route of Justinian II, who arrived from the Crimean exile "to Tervel, the lord of Bulgaria", Emperor Galiad did not accidentally drop anchor at the mouth of the Danube (Chichurov 1980: 63, 163-164). Obviously, the nearby lands on both sides of the river were the core of "Bulgaria" and were reliably controlled by the central government.

In further Bulgarian-Byzantine relations, the Slavs became a key factor. Under Constantine V (741-775), they moved in large numbers from the Bulgarian possessions to the lands of the empire, whose troops made at least five large campaigns against their northern neighbors. It is significant that in the wars with the Bulgarians, the basileus, like his predecessors, repeatedly sent the fleet to the mouths of the Danube. Up to 500 Roman ships participated in the campaign of 756: “Finding themselves near the Istra River, they set fire to the lands of the Bulgars and took many prisoners.” In the events of 763, the emperor sent about 800 ships to the Danube. At the same time, 20 thousand Slavic warriors "from neighboring tribes" fought on the side of the Bulgarians. In 774, a “fleet of 2,000 Helandians” was advanced against them, and the basileus himself headed for the river delta (Chichurov 1980: 68-69, 166-167; Zlatarski 1970: 278-306).

The crisis in Bulgaria, which came, among other things, in connection with the end of the Dulo dynasty, was overcome only under Krum (803-814). Invasions of this khan into Byzantium 811-813. led to the destruction of many fortresses in Eastern Thrace, and the Bulgarians took a huge prisoner from Adrianople - only up to 10 thousand men. By order of the Khan, slaves with their families were settled "in Bulgaria beyond the Danube", somewhere in the lower reaches of the Seret, Prut and South Bessarabia. The Christians, referred to in the sources as "Macedonians", retained the right to bear arms and even a military organization headed by a stratilate. The future emperor Basil I (867-886), the founder of the Macedonian dynasty (Zlatarski 1970: 357-358), was among the displaced Romans as a child. Apparently in the lands to the north

from the Danube Delta, the Bulgarians experienced a particular lack of a settled population.

It is assumed that the definition “beyond the Danube” (Bozhilov 1979: 176-185), which appeared then to designate the northern possessions of Bulgaria, on the left bank of the river, referred to the territories established by an agreement with the Frankish Empire. Apparently, they passed along the Tisza to the headwaters of the Prut, and further down the river, the Leovo-Bendery line and then along the Dniester to the sea (Zlatarski 1970: 323). The “Acts of the Hungarians” unequivocally states that the Bulgarian Khan took possession of the space between the Tisza and the Danube “to the very limits of the Ruthenians and Poles, and settled the Sklaves and Bulgarians there” (LIBI 2001: 13, 25). "Description of fortresses and regions on the northern bank of the Danube" by a Bavarian geographer at the beginning of the 9th century. says that the Transdanubian lands of Bulgaria are vast and there are five fortresses on them. Their population is very numerous, which, according to the anonymous author, explains why this people do not need to build a large number of fortresses (Gyuzelev 1981: 68-70, 80). Some researchers extend the transdanubian territories of Bulgaria to the Dnieper (Bozhilov 1979: 183-184).

Indeed, Khan Omurtag (814-831) fought against the Khazars in the northeast. Around 818-824 during a campaign in the lands of the khanate, the Bulgarian commander Okorsis drowned in the Dnieper (Beshevliev 1979: 212-214, no. 59). It is possible that the ruler of Bulgaria intervened in the affairs of his neighbors, seeking to protect his kindred "kavars" or "kabars" (Konstantin Porphyrogenitus 1991: 163). It is assumed that we are talking about "black Bulgarians" who rebelled against Judaism, which was being implanted in Khazaria (cf. Dimitrov 1998: 21; Zlatarsky 1970: 393-395).

Carrying out territorial and administrative transformations, Omurtag divided the expanded Bulgarian state into 10 parts, undermining the tribal autonomy of the Slavs. From now on, the central region, called "internal", was surrounded by 9 provinces - "komitats", whose chiefs were appointed from Pliska and were often close relatives of the khan. One of the counties with the center in Dorostol (Silistra) consisted of the lands of Dobruja and the south of the Carpatho-Dniester region. The most important task of his committee was to protect the mouths of the Danube from the Byzantine fleet. Another northeastern comitat, probably including sparsely populated areas up to the Dnieper, could be headed by the mentioned Okorsis (Venedikov 1979: 92-95).

Around 837, the Byzantines managed to bring home the captives settled beyond the Danube Krum. Ships sent by the Emperor Theophilus (829-842) entered the river, on the left bank of which the Bulgarian komite entered into battle with the "Macedonians". In the absence of the main forces located near the southern borders of the country, the Bulgarians resorted to the help of the Hungarians who lived nearby. Nevertheless, part of the Byzantines managed to break through to the ships and return to their homeland together with their families (GIBI 1964: 156-157; 1965: 136-137; cf. Zlatarsky 1970: 432-435; Venedikov 1979: 92-93; Dimitrov 1998: 21-22). As it is said in the Old Slavonic version of this story, among the surviving Romans is the future basileus “from the evil ones he escaped the nets of the Bulgarians” (KhKM 1988: 197).

A sharp turn in the history of Bulgaria took place with the adoption of Christianity, when “the very cruel and warlike Bulgarian people for the most part abandoned idols, renounced pagan superstitions, believed in Christ” (Gyuzelev 2006: 188). The feat of Khan Boris, baptized as Michael, consisted in the fact that “by the power of Christ and the sign of the cross, he defeated the callous and recalcitrant Bulgarian tribe, ... destroyed their altars” (Bogdanov 1980: 66). For Christ's sake, in 865, he destroyed 52 clans of the old Bulgarian nobility, personifying the top adherents of paganism (Gyuzelev 1969; 2006: 188; Bozhilov 1995: 86; Rashev 2001: 124).

Meanwhile, his son Vladimir-Rasate, having taken the throne, began "by all means to return the newly baptized people to pagan rites." However, in 893, the father, who had gone to the monastery, took up arms, deprived Vladimir of power and "called his whole kingdom" - the cathedral, which elevated Simeon to the throne. The old prince had to publicly intimidate his youngest son by repeating his brother's fate in case he "departs from true Christianity" (Gyuzelev 2006: 188; Rashev 2001: 150-152).

"Half-Greek" Simeon sought to create a new empire, in which Byzantium saw a threat to its existence. Therefore, in 922, the ecumenical patriarch assured the king of the Bulgarians that the emperors "won't stop stirring up every nation for your death" (Tikhomirov 1947: 137). Back in 894-896. The Hungarians, having ravaged the transdanubian possessions of the Bulgarians from the Dniester to the Tisza, crossed the Danube with the support of the imperial fleet, devastated Dobruja and reached Preslav. Only after making peace with the Greeks, Simeon, in alliance with the Pechenegs, crushed the Hungarians (Dimitrov 1998: 29-37).

It is obvious that the isolation of the possessions of Bulgaria beyond the Danube took place as the Christianization of the Balkan lands and the influx of new waves of nomads. The influence of the Pecheneg factor became more and more significant. The Bulgarian leadership was forced to maneuver between fellow Byzantines and ethnically close Turkic pagans. It is no coincidence that the Patriarch of Constantinople in 917 reproached Simeon for his repeated attempts “through the marriages of his children” (MDSB 1991: 83) to achieve an alliance with the Pechenegs, whose camps were already near the Danube. In the middle of the X century. it is clearly recorded that “the Bulgars show constant diligence and concern for peace and harmony with the Pachinaks”, clearly fearing the aggression of their neighbors. The lands of the Pechenegs were separated from the possessions of Bulgaria by only half a day's journey (Konstantin Porphyrogenitus 1991: 41, 157, 163). Of course, the Bulgarians and Pechenegs communicated with each other in their Turkic dialects. Mahmud of Kashgar directly indicates that the language of the Pechenegs is related to the dialects of the Bulgarians and Suvars (Koledarov 1977: 57).

The above facts reflect the close relationship of the pagan Bulgarians who remained in the steppes of the Northwestern Black Sea region with the Pechenegs, who were kindred in language and culture. It should not be forgotten that from time to time new groups of Bulgarians proper moved to the Danube from the east. Thus, the Kavars, having lost the war to the Khazars, fled from their native places and "settled in the land of the Pachinakites" (Konstantin Porphyrogenitus 1991: 163).

As it turns out, the traditions of their ancestors were kept for a long time among the Bulgarians. Nothing threatened them on the periphery, and in the Christianized lands they only retreated, taking on latent forms of existence. In the middle of the X century. elements of Turkic paganism are noted even in the reigning house. Bayan - one of the sons of Simeon - "learned magic so much that he could suddenly turn from a man into a wolf and into any other animal." Together with their brother John, they did not wear Byzantine-type clothes accepted at the court, but the traditional “Bulgarian dress” (Gyuzelev 2006: 189, 263). The royal authorities had to turn a blind eye to demonstrative manifestations of paganism, ranging from purely external attributes to shamanistic rites. Apparently there was still idolatry with the cult of Tangra. The zealots of the old religion had to address both their deities and their co-religionists in the old-fashioned way, in the Bulgarian-Turkic dialect.

Such a situation in the northeastern regions of the state of Simeon and his successor Peter (927-970) contributed to the peaceful penetration of the Pechenegs here. New settlers from the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region strengthened the vitality of Turkic paganism in the Danube region, gradually giving the region a different vector of ethnopolitical development.

In modern historical science, there is no clear idea of the fate of the population that, after the baptism of Bulgaria, preserved the foundations of the material and spiritual culture of their ancestors, including the Turkic language and the Tangrist religion (see Dobrev et al. 2008). A significant part of the Turkic-speaking Bulgarians, deprived of the aristocracy, partly slavified, partly destroyed, was pushed to the margins of public life. Apparently, they survived in the steppes on both sides of the Lower Danube, including the historical "Ogl" ("Onglos") and the "Bulgarian desert" - Dobrudzha, where there were conditions for a pastoral way of life and even in the middle of the XII century. "huge herds of wild animals" grazed (Bozhilov, Guzelev 2004: 379). Such politically amorphous groups relatively easily interacted with the more active pagan Turks, whose representatives, in a favorable situation, could form the core of a newly emerging ethnopolitical conglomerate. This process was noticeable already in the middle of the 10th century, when Bulgaria surrendered to the Pechenegs almost all of its steppe possessions northeast of the lower Danube without resistance.

The accelerated layering of a significant “Pecheneg addition” on the Bulgarian basis occurred after the establishment of Byzantine power in the Lower Danube, where the stay of the so-called. "mixovarbarov" (T'pkova-Zaimova 1976: 126-128). Mikhail Attaliat argues that the “Scythians” (Pechenegs) who came from behind Istra not only brought the “Scythian way of life” to urban everyday life, but also radically changed the mood of the townspeople - some of them planned to throw off the power of the Romans, using the “Pecheneg people”. When the Bulgarian Nestor, sent by a catepan to Dristra (Silistra), who did not want to obey the emperor, discovered his relatives who had transferred the fortress to the Pecheneg leader Tatrush, he defected to the side of the “locals” and began an uncompromising war with the Byzantines, adding to it “and the Pecheneg tribe” (GIBI 1965: 183).

Archaeological projections of the historical picture unfolded here, although they exist in historiography, are still far from being interpreted unambiguously.

2. Weave of buried traditions

The Balkan-Danubian culture is associated with the early medieval Bulgarians in the interfluve of the Prut, Lower Danube and Dniester, which for a number of decades has been brought closer to the Old Bulgarian culture in Bulgaria (Vaklinov 1977), the Drida culture in Romania (Eabana 1967), the Saltov-Mayak culture in Russia and Ukraine (Artamonov 1962; Pletneva 1981). Despite the fact that the study of this range of antiquities has been going on for a long time, the problem as a whole remains not entirely clear even for specialists. In particular, this also applies to funerary monuments that preserved the most characteristic signs of ethnic traditions of the pre-Christian era.

At one time, the point of view was expressed that on the territory of the Moldavian SSR one should distinguish 4 variants of the Balkan-Danube culture, named after the most studied monuments - Kalf, Khansk, Petruh and Stynkautsa. Within the framework of the same generalization, the first attempts to analyze the funeral rite were carried out (Hinku 1974: 143-147).

Of particular interest are the materials of two soil necropolises of the forest-steppe belt located near the settlement of Khanska - Capraria and Limbar, which are dated to the 10th-11th and 12th-14th centuries, respectively. Burials here were carried out mainly according to the Christian rite, but with separate pagan elements, which are more pronounced on the Capraria monument. Within the boundaries of this cemetery, where 75 burials were discovered, a territorially isolated group of 8 crouched burials and 7 cenotaphs was identified, which do not find analogies among the 96 graves excavated at Limbar. It was assumed that they are Turko-Bulgarian (Saltov); their carriers have already lost their ethnographic characteristics, but still retained their anthropological specificity. In both necropolises, cases of ritual burials of domestic animals and dismemberment of the dead were recorded, as well as elements that may indicate the spread of the Bogomil rite of placing the dead in the grave (Khynku 1970; 1973; 1974: 140-143).

In addition, burials were discovered in the forest - Orhei codru - on the monuments attributed to the Petrukha variant. Thus, within the settlement of Lukashevka V, three inhumations with a western orientation were recorded. A distinctive feature of the burial ground near the Braneshty XIII settlement is the presence

against the background of the absolute majority of cremations performed in a Christian way - 97 against three (Hinku 1969; 1974: 140).

Among the dwellings and pits on the site of Kalfa, 6 burials of different orientations were excavated, of which only one contained objects. All of them are interpreted as non-Christian, belonging to the Proto-Bulgarians and dated to the end of the 10th century. - the time when life at this point completely ceased (Chebotarenko 1973: 73-75).

The interpretation of the totality of the described archaeological complexes as variants of a single Balkan-Danubian culture met with rather sharp objections (Fedorov, Chebotarenko 1974; Byrnya, Rafalovich 1978; 1983; Chebotarenko 1982). As a result, the cultural and chronological attribution of sites, including burial sites, was revised. Settlements such as Stynkautsy had to be excluded from the list of monuments of the Balkan-Danube culture. The material culture of the settlements in the central part of the Prut-Dniester interfluve (variants of Petrukh and Khansk), according to another interpretation, developed in the contact zone of the Old Russian and South Slavic population under the influence of nomadic waves that arrived here through the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region, and as a whole dates back to the 10th-12th centuries. (Chebotarenko 1982: 41-42). Another opinion is that sites like Petrukha - Lukashevka are the result of an ethno-cultural synthesis of the Old Russian population with the Saltovites who settled in the region (Rabinovich, Gukin 1991: 208-211).

After the revision of the artifacts, the Braneshtsky burial ground is considered to have been abandoned by the Christian population of the second half of the 10th - the first half of the 11th centuries, which retained some pagan features of the funeral rites. In particular, this was expressed in the presence of a significant number of things (more than 300 copies in total) and the cremation of individual deceased. An analysis of the grave goods - ceramics, jewelry, tools and weapons - gave grounds for determining the ancient Russian ethnicity of the monument. A comparative anthropological study made it possible to establish the East Slavic appearance of the people buried in the Branesht region and their ethnogenetic connection with the Drevlyans living to the north (Fedorov, Chebotarenko 1974: 105-108; Velikanova 1975: 91-113; 1983: 25).

The settlement of Lukashevka V belongs to the last period of habitation of the Old Russian settlement.

Lukashevsky settlement. Burials without inventory were found here, two of which were made simultaneously inside an abandoned dwelling, but oriented in different directions. Apparently, the corpses of people were buried in a hurry without strict observance of the rite. It is no coincidence that a skeleton of a dog was found near them, almost at the same level. It is possible that the discovered remains are evidence of the death of the settlement, dating back to about the middle of the 12th century. In the settlement there are materials characteristic not only of the Eastern, but also of the Southern Slavs, which is noted in semi-dugout 5 with two buried people. Finds of things typical of nomads are also known on the monument (Fedorov, Chebotarenko 1974: 103-105; Fedorov, Chebotarenko 1982: 30, 42-45). A typologically and chronologically similar situation with dead people buried in the pit of an abandoned dugout was also noted at the settlement of Braneshty XIII, which may indicate the common destinies of this group of inhabitants of the Orhei codras (Rabinovich, Gukin 1991: 213-214).

The cemeteries of Capraria and Limbar are recognized to be largely synchronous within the 11th century, although burials at the former began and ceased earlier. The burials of Capraria belong to a mixed population, which included the Slavs and the nomads who settled next to them - Alano-Bulgarians and Pechenegs. The materials of the Limbar necropolis turned out to be heterogeneous, associated with the eastern and southern Slavs, and to some extent with the steppes. Craniological measurements showed that the people buried here represented a "mechanical mixture". The study established the proximity of the female skulls of this burial ground to the local Slavs, and the male skulls to people with some Mongoloid features. This population, which came to the Prut-Dniester interfluve from the east, found a close relationship with the Bulgarian group of bearers of the Saltov-Mayak culture, but in anthropology differed significantly from the inhabitants of the Balkan-Carpathian region (Fedorov, Chebotarenko 1974: 108-116; Velikanova 1975: 114- 138; 1983: 25-26; Chebotarenko 1982: 54).

Thus, the Balkan-Danubian culture proper included only sites of the Kalfa type, defined as South Slavic, in many respects identical to the Old Bulgarian settlements, which hardly survived the death of the First Bulgarian Empire for a long time. Four decades ago, it was about 89 monuments, divided into two groups: the Lower Danubian of the 8th-10th centuries. - 62 settlements

Fig.1. Plan of burial No. 10 from mound No. 1 near the village of Sarovoye, 1990

and Lower Dniester X c. - 27 (Chebotarenko 1969: 211-229). The latest summary data on the number of "Old Bulgarian (South Slavic) settlements in the steppe interfluve between the Danube and the Dniester" relate to 137 sites of the late 8th - early 11th centuries: 102 settlements were recorded in the region of the Danube lakes, and 35 - on the right side of the Lower Dniester (Kozlov 1991; 1996: 109, Fig. 5; 1997: 103, Fig. 1, 3). It is significant that if even authoritative researchers initially considered part of the settlements of the Prut-Dniester region to be a variant of the Saltov-Mayak culture (Pletneva 1967: 7-8, 12, 187-188; 1981a: 64-65; 1981b: 75-77), then the controversial monuments began to be perceived as "a single culture of the Bulgarian state of the 9th-10th centuries." (Pletneva 1990: 88).

The features of the archaeological complexes of the region in the 8th-12th centuries, of course, testify to the conventionality of their assignment to one cultural and chronological horizon. As for the burial monuments, the available data for precise conclusions, unfortunately, are not enough. For this reason, too, geographically “broad-spanning” approaches cannot make the results of new scientific work either expressive or plausible in terms of science (see Tessus 1996; Musteata 2005).

Certain hopes for this appeared recently, in connection with the publication of the most interesting burial ground of the era under consideration, discovered on the left bank of the Dniester. Back in 1994, between the settlements of Chobruchi and Slobodzeya, in the northeastern part of the cape formed by the river, a burial mound was excavated in the Eneolithic era. 43 burials of different times were found in it, of which 26 are inlet and the latest ones belong to early medieval nomads. Simple pits, western orientation with seasonal deviations

zhenii, the ritual destruction of most of the skeletons and the grave goods found in 14 graves made it possible to attribute this undoubtedly pagan necropolis, which functioned for about half a century, to the end of the 8th - the first half of the 9th centuries. According to the publishers of materials, the burial complex on the left bank of the Dniester can be attributed to the Bulgarian steppe variant of the Saltov-Mayak culture and, at the same time, to the early period of the Balkan-Danubian culture (Shcherbakova et al. 2008: 4-6, 12, 69, 91 -92, 137).

Probably comparable with the burials from under Slobodzeya can be the inlet burial No. 10, discovered in 1990 during excavations located on the banks of the Dniester estuary near the village. Sadovoye (Belgorod-Dnestrovsky district of the Odessa region of Ukraine) of mound No. 1. It has been partially preserved - only the bones of the legs and part of the foot. Judging by the position of the legs, the buried person was laid with his head to the west (Fig. 1). The grave pit, the contours of which were not clearly traced, was subrectangular in shape with rounded corners - 150 ^ 55 cm, the depth did not exceed 60 cm. As it is said in the field diary, "fragments of broken pot (pottery) of the Balkan-Danube culture with a characteristic wavy ornament. They are the basis for classifying the burial among the Bulgarian antiquities. Unfortunately, searches in the funds of the Odessa Archaeological Museum for these rather large ceramic fragments have not yet brought the expected results1.

1 For information about this burial, I would like to thank the author of the excavations, a researcher at the Odessa Archaeological Museum of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine A.E. Malyu-kevich.

In September of the same 1990, protective archaeological excavations were carried out on the territory of the former Turkish fortress of Izmail (Odessa region of Ukraine). The excavation stretched from the Danube along the dormitory of the local college of mechanization and electrification of agriculture, from the side of the diorama “Storm of the Izmail Fortress” located in the building of the former mosque. Here I found traces of an early medieval burial ground, apparently almost completely destroyed by the cultural strata of the Ottoman period.

We are talking about three fragments of bottoms and several fragments of walls of pottery ceramics discovered about 100 m from the Danube bank, as well as a crushed pot with the remains of cremation. The cultural layer of the time of existence of the found ceramics was almost completely destroyed by the later activities of people, presumably in the 17th-18th centuries. For this reason, it was not possible to trace it. With the exception of the pot-urn, the remaining fragments of the early medieval utensils were recorded in a displaced state at a depth of 0.6-0.8 m from the modern day surface - sq. 301 and 307 (Rosokhatsky 1991: 4, fig. 18, 2-4).

A pot with non-inventory cremation (Fig. 2) was found on the remnant at the transition to the mainland soil - the northeastern corner of the square. 315, depth 1.2 m. The shape of the pit in which it was placed was also not traceable due to later excavations. Scorched human bones filled about two

Fig.2. Pot-urn from Izmail, 1990

one third of the volume of the vessel. The cremation can be classified as clean, although along with calcined bones, several embers of a funeral pyre were found. The remains of the skeleton (fragments of tubular bones 4-6 cm long and the cranial cover) make it possible to conclude that the burial belonged to an adult.

The funeral urn was a pottery vessel of elongated proportions, characteristic of the Balkan-Danube culture. Pot dimensions: height - 26 cm, rim diameter - 18 cm, maximum body diameter - 23 cm, bottom diameter - 11 cm. The complexly profiled rim is bent outwards. The neck of the vessel is short, rather abruptly passing into a steep shoulder, where the pot reaches its largest diameter and then tapers towards the bottom. In the central part of the flat bottom there is a relief brand - a circle depicted by a wide line, into which a square with a cross is inscribed, filled with thin lines (Fig. 3).

The pot is made of dense clay dough containing an admixture of coarse sand. Furnace firing, fermented. The body of the vessel is almost completely covered with a cut-in ornament of straight horizontal lines. The ornamental field begins immediately below the rim and descends to the bottom of the pot (Rosokhatsky 1991: 5, fig. 18, 1). Judging by the found nearby in the square. 301 and 307 ceramic fragments, other vessels, of which only fragments have been preserved, can be similarly characterized.

It is absolutely obvious that on the territory of the Ottoman fortress Izmail of the 16th-19th centuries. once there was an early medieval necropolis with cremations in urns, unfortunately, completely unpromising for purposeful archaeological study. It can be assumed that the burial ground belonged to the settlement of the Balkan-Danubian culture Matroska2, discovered in 1979 by S.V. Palamarchuk, located down the slope on the bank of the river. Repida, which flows into the Danube within the modern Izmail port (Kozlov 1991: appendix 1, no. 40).

A close analogy to the burial urn from the Izmail fortress was found among the rich ceramic material of the Orlovka IV settlement, located 6 km north of the village of the same name in the Reni district of the Odessa region. Discovered by intelligence

2 The lifting material from the monument is stored in the funds of the Izmail Museum of A.V. Suvorov.

Fig.3. The bottom of a pot-urn with a brand (a), a drawing of the brand (b).

L. V. Subbotina in 1964 on the plateau of the eastern shore of Lake Cahul explored a small settlement with an area of 200x100 m (Chebotarenko 1969: 222-223) in 1985 and 1987. V. I. Kozlov. Of considerable interest is the ceramics of Orlovka IV, in particular 1142 fragments from building 2 (cellar). They belong to no less than 54 pots, 40 of which have been reconstructed. Among them was found a vessel very similar to the pot-urn from Ishmael. These products turned out to be similar up to the coincidence of details in the form, size, character of ornamentation and stamps on the bottom (Kozlov 1991: add. 1, no. 65, fig. 67: 33)

The diversity and "cultural hybridity" of relatively few burial sites require a more correct formulation of the question of the specifics of the development of ethno-cultural processes in the north-east of the possessions of Danube Bulgaria in the 7th-10th centuries. and in the same places, but after the fall of the Bulgarian state - in the XI and partly in the XII centuries.

In the second case, it must be borne in mind that groups of settlements such as Khanska and Petrukha - Lukashevka undoubtedly appeared when Bulgaria, as a state, lost power over most of the region. It seems that the possible participation in their formation of the carriers of the Balkan-Danubian, as well as the Saltov-Mayak cultures should be the subject of a separate study.

It seems that both arrays of early medieval settlements, which are actually Balkan-Danubian, arose as a result of the development of the southern part of the Prut-Dniester

interfluves by oncoming waves of migrants of different times from the Danube, the Dniester region and the Transnistria region. The only burial belonging to the Danubian group, the cremation from Izmail, fits perfectly into the circle of this kind of pre-Christian antiquities known in Bulgaria and Romania based on materials from the 9th century. The funerary monuments of Transnistria, on the contrary, are represented exclusively by inhumations. According to a number of features, they should also be interpreted as pagan, to some extent close to nomadic.

Particular attention is drawn to the Slobodzeya burial ground, which, despite its geographical proximity to the Transnistrian group, is located in a zone where not a single monument of both the Balkan-Danubian and Saltov cultures has yet been discovered. By nature, it is certainly heterogeneous, which distinguishes it from the already known pagan necropolises of the Bulgarians. According to some features (burial of effigies

Fig.4. A pot from the Orlovka IV cellar (according to V. and Kozlov).

horses, the presence of separate vessels) it can be assumed that not only Bulgarians, but also representatives of other tribes, in particular the Pechenegs, were in the group of nomads who advanced here from the east. This is also indicated by the possibility of a later (up to the first half of the 10th century) dating of part of the burials - Nos. 16, 17, 36, 38, 40.

The monuments of the Balkan-Danubian culture are characterized by the almost complete absence of typically Christian burials and cult objects, for example, finds of pectoral crosses and medallions common and even massive for the northeastern lands of modern Bulgaria. This may indicate that the Transdanubian lands after Christianization,

Indeed, they remained a kind of refuge for the pagans.

Of course, not all the assumptions and conjectures expressed here have found reliable confirmation. As before, one has to count on the early discoveries of new burial complexes of the cultural and historical circle under consideration, as well as on the improvement of methods for accurate dating of artifacts. In a word, the “undeveloped issues of chronology” as the reason for the discrepancies in the interpretations of these antiquities (Pletneva 1967: 7-8, 12, 187-188; 1981a: 64-65; 1981b: 75-77) remains a stumbling block for medieval archaeologists.

Literature

Beshevliev V. 1979. Parvob'lgar inscriptions. Sofia: BAN publishing house.

Bogdanov I. 1980. Bezsmarni words. Commentaries on the literature of the monument. Sofia: publishing house on the Fatherland front.

Bozhilov I. 1979. "Anonymous on Khaz": Bulgaria and Byzantium on Dolni Dunav in the region for the X century. Sofia: BAN publishing house.

Bozhilov I. 1983. Tsar Simeon the Great (893-927): Golden Age in the Middle Ages Bulgaria. Sofia: publishing house on the Fatherland front.

Bozhilov I. 1995. Here is an etude on Medieval history. Sofia: Anubis.

Bozhilov I., Gyuzelev V. 2004. History of Dobruja. T. 2. Middle Ages. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber.

Bozhilov I. Dimitrov Kh. (Notes on the history of the Proto-Bulgarians until the middle of the 9th century). Bushnepoblidaxa IX, 7-61.

Byrnya P. P., Rafalovich I. A. 1978. The problem of the local population of the Dniester-Prut interfluve of the X-XII centuries. and Balkan-Danubian culture. News of the Academy of Sciences of the MSSR. Social Science Series (1), 65-75.

Byrnya P. P., Rafalovich I. A. 1983. Problems of the ethnic history of the Dniester-Carpathian lands at the end of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd millennium AD. e. V.: Zelenchuk V. S. (responsible ed.). Slavic-Moldovan relations and the early stages of the ethnic history of Moldovans. Chisinau: Shtiintsa, 79-98.

Vaklinov S. 1977. Formiran on the old Bulgarian culture of the VI-XI century. Sofia: Science and Art.

Velikanova M. S. 1975. Paleoanthropology of the Prut-Dniester interfluve. Moscow: Nauka.

Velikanova M. S. 1983. Results and prospects of paleoanthropological research in the Dniester-Prut interfluve. V.: Zelenchuk V. S. (responsible ed.). Slavic-Moldovan relations and the early stages of the ethnic history of Moldovans. Chisinau: Shti-Inca, 20-30.

Venedikov I. 1979. Military and administrative structure in Bulgaria prez IX and X centuries. Sofia: military publishing house.

GIBI 1964, 1965: Grutsky Izvori for the Bulgarian history. Vol. V, VI. Sofia: BAN publishing house.

Guzelev V. 1969. Prince Boris I. Sofia.

Guzelev V. 1981. Medieval Bulgaria in Svetlinata

on new izvori. Sofia: Narodna prosveta.

Guzelev V. 2006. Protection and Christianization in Bulgarian. Izvorovedchesko izsledvane with application. Sofia: Tangra TanNakRa IK.

Dimitrov D. 1987. Prabulgarite along the Northern and Western Chernomorie. (Km question for the tyahnoto presence and history in today's Russian land and roleta they were formed on the Bulgarskata Derzhava). Varna: Georgi Bakalov.

Dimitrov H. 1998. Bulgarian-Ungar relations pre-medieval. Sofia: Academic publishing house “Prof. Marin Drinov.

Dobrev et al. 2008: Dobrev P., Aleksiev-Hofart A., Nankinov D., Ikonomova I., Dobreva M. Bulgarska north of the Dunav is a politically and culturally phenomenal phenomenon. Sofia: Tangra TanNakRa IK.

Zlatarsky V. 1970. History in the Bulgarian dzharzhava transcends the Middle Ages. T. I. First Bulgarian kingdom. Part 1. Sofia: Science and Art.

Yotov V. 2004. Invasion and equipment from the Bulgarian Middle Ages (VII-XI centuries). Varna: Zograf; Veliko Tarnovo: Abagar.

Kozlov V. I. 1991. The population of the steppe interfluve of the Danube and Dniester in the late VIII - early XI centuries. n. e. (Balkan-Danubian culture). Diss. ...cand. ist. Sciences. Leningrad. (A copy of the manuscript is stored in the VAS library).

Kozlov V. I. 1997-1999. Rich I - a settlement of the First Bulgarian Kingdom on the left bank of the Danube Delta. Dobruja 14-16, 98-130.

Koledarov P. S. 1977. Historical geography in the North-Western Black Sea region according to data from Konstantin Bagrenorodni. IP (3): 50-64.

Konstantin Porphyrogenitus 1991. On the management of the empire. Moscow.

Kuzev A. 1980. Early medieval necropolis near Varna. In: Rapports de III-e Congres International d "Archeologie Slave. 1975. T. 2. Bratislava: Veda, 259-263.

LIBI 2001: Latin izvori for bulgarskata history. T. V. Sofia: BAN publishing house.

MDSB 1991: International agreements on medieval Bulgaria (681-1396). Sofia.

Pletneva S. A. 1981. Saltovo-Mayak culture. In: Pletneva S. A. (responsible ed.) Steppes of Eurasia in the era

middle ages. Moscow: Nauka, 62-75.

Pletneva S. A. 1982. Nomads of the Middle Ages. The search for historical patterns. Moscow: Nauka.

PVL 1950: The Tale of Bygone Years.Ch. I, II. Moscow; Leningrad.

PVL 1996: The Tale of Bygone Years. Ch. I, II. St. Petersburg.

Rabinovich R. A., Gukin V. D. 1991. Results of excavations at the settlement of Braneshty XIII and some controversial issues in the study of sites of the Petrukha-Lukashovka type. V.: Byrnya P.P. (responsible ed.). Antiquities of the South-West of the USSR (I - the middle of the II millennium AD). Chisinau: Shtiintsa, 205-224.

Rashev R. 1982. Old Bulgarian fortifications before Dolni Dunav (VII-XI centuries). Varna: Georgi Bakalov.

Rashev R. 1995. Northern archeological border on Pervoto Bulgarian kingdom. BSP 4, 89-95.

Rashev R. 2000. Prabulgarite prez V-VII c. Veliko Tarnovo: Paber.

Rashev R. 2001. Prabulgarite and the Bulgarian Khanate on the Dunav. Sofia: "Klassika Steel" OOD.

Rosokhatsky A. 1991. Report on security excavations in the Izmail fortress in 1990 Odessa. Archive of the Museum of the History of the Danube Region, Izmail, Odessa region of Ukraine.

Tikhomirov M. N. 1947. Historical ties between the Russian people and the southern Slavs from ancient times to the half of the 16th century. In: V. I. Picheta (responsible ed.). Slavic collection. Moscow: OGIZ, 125-201.

Telnov et al. 2002: Telnov N., Stepanov V., Russev N., Rabinovich R. “And... the Slavs dispersed over the earth.” From the history of the Carpatho-Dniester lands of the VI-XIII centuries. Chisinau: High Anthropological School.

T'pkova-Zaimova V. 1976. Dolni Dunav - the border zone to the Byzantine west. Km istoriyata on the north and northeast of the earth, the region in the X-XII centuries.

Sofia: BAN publishing house.

Fedorov G. B., Chebotarenko G. F. 1974. Monuments of the ancient Slavs (VI-XIII centuries). AKM 6, 40-116.

KhKM 1988: Middle Bulgarian translation of the Chronicle of Constantine Manasses in Slavic literatures. Sofia.

Khynku I. G. 1969. Settlements of the XI-XIV centuries in the Orhei codri of Moldova. Chisinau: RIO AN MSSR.

Hyncu I. G. 1970. Limbar - a medieval burial ground of the XII-XIV centuries in Moldova. Chisinau: RIO AN MSSR.

Hyncu I. G. 1973. Capraria - a cultural monument of the X-XII centuries. Chisinau: RIO AN MSSR.

Khynku I. G. 1974. Monuments of the Balkan-Danubian culture (X-XIV centuries). In: Zelenchuk V. S. (responsible ed.). Ancient culture of Moldova. Chisinau: Shtiintsa, 127-150.

Chebotarenko G.F. 1973. Kalfa - hill fort of the 8th-10th centuries. on the Dniester. Chisinau: Shtiintsa.

Chebotarenko G. F. 1982. The population of the central part of the Dniester-Prut interfluve in the X-XII centuries. Chisinau: Shtiintsa.

Chebotarenko G.F. 1983. Balkan-Danubian archaeological culture in foreign historiography. V.: Zelenchuk V. S. (responsible ed.). Slavic-Moldovan relations and the early stages of the ethnic history of Moldovans. Chisinau: Shtiintsa, 58-79.

Chichurov I. S. 1980. Byzantine historical writings: "Chronography" by Theophanes, "Breviary" by Nicephorus. Moscow: Nauka.

Shcherbakova et al. 2008: Shcherbakova T. A., Tashchi E. F., Telnov N. P. Nomadic antiquities of the Lower Dniester region (Based on materials from excavations of a mound near the town of Slobodzeya). Chisinau: Elan Poligraf SRL.

Musteatä S. 2005. Populatia spatiului pruto-nistrean in secolele VIII-IX. Chisinau: Pontos.

Tentiuc I. 1996. Populatia din Moldova centrala în secolele XI-XIII. Iagi: Ed. Helios.

Nicolai Russev (Kishinev, Moldova). Doctor habilitate of history. High Anthropological School. Nicolai Russev (Chi§inau, Moldova). Doctor habilitât in istorie. Universitatea "Çcoala Antropologicâ Superioarâ". Russev Nikolay Dmitrevich (Kishinev, Moldova). Doctor habilitate of history. University "Higher Anthropological School". Email: [email protected]

Asparuh In 675, the youngest son of Kubrat Asparukh with his people went to the west, to the Danube River. Numerous Slavic tribes lived in these places. Asparuh became their leader and created the state of Danube Bulgaria in a new place, which quickly became a prosperous state. At one time, even proud Byzantium paid tribute to her. Gradually, the Bulgarians mixed with the Slavic population, and since there were many more Slavs, they almost completely forgot their Bulgarian language. Now it is the modern state of Bulgaria. And in the name of this state, the ancient name of the Asparukh tribe is preserved.

Migration of the Bulgar tribes In the VIII century, the Bulgarians began to gradually move to the places where the Kama River flows into the Volga. And during the 9th and 10th centuries, more and more groups of Bulgarians and other tribes of the Khazar Khaganate, including the Suvars, converged there, as this state began to be attacked by nomadic tribes and Arab troops.

Check your knowledge 1. Batbai belonged to the following tribes: a) Silver Bulgarbs) Golden Bulgars c) Black Bulgars 2. Batbai tribes were subordinated to: a) Khazars b) Slavs c) Alans d) Sarmatians 3. Bulgars remaining between Cherny and Kasp. seas later became part of: a) Chechens b) Balkars c) Ukrainians d) Bulgarians 4. Asparuh and his tribe went to the river: a) Seversky Donets b) Volga c) Kuban d) Danube 5. To the places where Asparuh went, tribes lived: a) Mari b) Ukrainians c) Polovtsians d) Slavs 6. In these places, the Bulgars began to rule because: a) they were richer and stronger b) they were higher in culture and they had experience in organizing the state c) they were better equipped with weapons d) were militant and knew how to organize the state 7. The state of Asparuh was called: a) Danube Bulgaria b) Golden Bulgaria c) Silver Bulgaria d) Slavic Bulgaria 8. The first capital of Bulgaria Asparukh: a) Phanagoria b) Sofia c) Pliska d) Bulgar 9. The capital of modern Bulgaria: a) Phanagoria b) Sofia c) Pliska d) Bulgar 10. State language of modern Bulgaria: a) Slavic b) Chuvash c) Russian

Great Bulgaria.

Preliminary remarks.

Based on the works of G.V. Vernadsky and other historians of the 19th-21st centuries.

Great Bulgaria founded by Kurt (Kubrat), in the last years of his

BULGARIANS

reign was independent as from the Avars, and from the Turks. After the failure of the Avar raid on Constantinople (626), the threat of danger from the west was definitely over. The situation in the east was not so favorable for the Bulgars. During the first attack on the North Caucasian lands

to the Turks after which they penetrated into Taurida,

to the Turkselk to establish control over the Utigurs, after which they penetrated into Taurida,

After the death of Taspar, a crisis arose caused by the lack of a clear mechanism for succession. Before his death, Taspar bequeathed to leave the throne to Toremen. But Toremen, the son of Mukan-kagan and his younger wife, was considered low-born and the nobility decided not to make him a kagan. Under pressure from Shetu (the future Baga-Yshbara Khan), the nobility leaned in favor of Amrak, the son of Taspar. Toremen plotted to remove the newly-minted kagan and take the throne, he and his servants publicly insulted the kagan, remaining unpunished. Deciding not to take risks, the council of the Turkic nobility proclaimed the bold, enterprising Shetu as kagan. Toremen received the title of Abo Khan and left for the north. Shetu became Baga Yshbara Khan. Subsequently, these feuds led to a civil war in the Turkic

participation there in civil war. For for almost twenty years the Turkic state was weakened oh because of

599-603 - SPLIT AND COLLAPSE OF THE TURKIC KAGHANATE

Western Khagan Kara-Churin and Eastern Khagan Zhangar. In 597, the Turkic kagan Yun-Ulug asked for help from Kara-Churin, since the Chinese decided to make Khan Zhangar kagan and had already lured many Turks to his side. This year, Kara-Churin defeated the Volga tribes and began to move troops to the east. In 599, the Chinese generals were able to defeat the Kara-Churin army. The death of Yun-Ulug removed the last obstacle of Kara-Churin on the way to the kagan throne, and at the end of 599, he, without convening a congress of the Turkic nobility, proclaimed himself kagan. Zhangar was proclaimed kagan with the support of Chinese troops. Zhangar was completely dependent on the Chinese emperor and lived under the protection of the Chinese troops who defended him from the Kara-Churin. In 599, the elderly Kara-Churin led the crumbling Khaganate. The Chinese immediately went on the offensive and sent Shi Wansui to attack the kagan. Kara-Churin evaded the battle and sent his son to attack the Eastern Turks, but the approaching Chinese reinforcements forced the Turks to retreat. In 601 Kara-Churin seized the initiative and defeated the Chinese general at Khinan. Zhangar and the Chinese generals set out against Kara-Churin, they camped on the northern bank of the Yellow River, north of the Ordos. The Turkic detachment under the command of Sygin crossed the river and, with a clever maneuver, captured livestock and people from Zhangar. Chinese generals Yang So and Liang Mo caught up with the Turkic detachment and recaptured their prey, other Chinese detachments went along other roads, across the way. Despite the defeat, another Turkic detachment attacked Zhangar's headquarters for the second time. In 603, an uprising of the Tele tribes broke out in the rear near Kara-Churin, who defeated the commanders of Kara-Churin. The Eastern Turks, seeing the defeat of Kara-Churin, began to leave him for Zhangar, and the Tatabs joined them. Little is known about the fate of Kara-Churin. According to Chinese information, abandoned by most of his subjects, he fled to Togon, where he died or was killed.

THE AGE OF THE HAGHANATES

603-630 AD. – EASTERN TURKIC KAGANATE

The power of the Turkic state was soon shaken. There is a weakening of the Turkic Khaganate, the main manifestations of which were the intensification of internecine wars, the aggravation of social contradictions, China's offensive on the borders of the Khaganate, and wars with neighboring countries. In 603, the Turkic Khaganate disintegrated into the Western Turkic Khaganate and the Eastern Turkic Khaganate. Initially, the rulers of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate were subordinate to the Chinese emperors (Zhangar Khagan). Zhangar Khagan was a loyal vassal of the Chinese Sui Empire until his death. In 608, Zhangar visited Luoyang and returned to headquarters, where he soon died. His son Shibir-Kagan became the heir. Unlike previous khagans, Shibir khagan was not elected at the congress of princes, but was appointed by the Chinese emperor Sui Yangdi. In 615, the son of Zhangar Khagan, Shibir Khagan, restored independence from the Chinese Empire. Since 615, there have been a number of wars between the Eastern Turkic Khaganate and the Chinese Empire. In 617, the Sui Empire actually ceased to exist. Unexpectedly, the Turks again became the most powerful force in East Asia, in 619 Shibir Kagan died. His brother Chulo-Kagan, who died in 620, became the heir. After Chulo-Kagan, Kat il-Khan was elected as the ruler. In 621-624 he waged war against the Chinese Tang Dynasty. After the truce of 624-625, the war between the Turks and China resumed until 626, when a new truce was concluded. In 627, Seyanto, Uighurs, Baiyrku rebelled against Kat il-Khan. As a result, Kat il-Khan was captured by the Chinese, and the Eastern Turkic Khaganate ceased to exist.

603-704 years. – WESTERN TURKIC KAGANATE

In 603, the Turkic Khaganate disintegrated into Western and Eastern. The borders of the Western Turkic Khaganate were located from the Sea of Azov and the Don to the eastern spurs of the Tien Shan and northeastern India. The core of the state was the region of Dzungaria, inhabited by the Dulu tribes, and the Western Tien Shan with the Nushibi tribes. It was ruled by the Khagans from the Ashina dynasty. The capital was the city of Suyab (near the city of Tokmak in Kyrgyzstan), and the summer residence of Ming-Bulag (near the city of Turkestan). The center of the state was in Semirechye. In the first period of the existence of the Western Turkic Khaganate, there was a certain anarchy within the Khaganate. It is also worth noting that at this stage the rulers of the Western Turkic Khaganate were dependent on the Chinese emperor. In the second period (610-630) the Western Turkic Khaganate became an independent state and an active player in the global geopolitical field. In the third period (630-704) civil strife took place in the Western Turkic Khaganate, where two tribal groups Dulu and Nushibi fought, which supported certain representatives of the Ashina clan. The last real independent ruler of the Western Turkic Khaganate was Khallyg Yshbara-Dzhagbu Khan (653-657), who achieved the reunification of the Khaganate for a short time. He got involved in an unequal war with the Chinese Tang Empire, which led to the loss of independence of the Khaganate. From 657 to 704, the Western Turkic Khaganate existed within the fourth period, when it was actually part of the Tang Empire.

610-618 AD. – THE BOARD OF THE WESTERN TURKIC HAGAN SHEGUI

Shegui, son of Yang-Soukh-tegin, grandson of Kara-Churin Turk - Khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate from 611/612 to 618. In 598, Kara-Churin-Turk installed his grandson Shegui to rule in Shash, in the area where present-day Tashkent is located. After the flight of Taman-kagan, he was elected khan by the Nushibi tribes. During the reign of Shegui, there were periodic clashes with Shibir-khan Türk-shad - the Eastern Khagan. These clashes did not bring any benefit to the Western Khaganate. Shegui made Altai the eastern border of the kaganate and extended his power to the entire Tarim basin and the eastern Pamir region. The short-term heyday of the Western Turkic Khaganate was the time of the maximum territorial expansion of the new state, the rapid enrichment and growth of the influence of the military-tribal nobility, which united the forces of the tribes under the auspices of the Khagan's power for almost continuous and always successful campaigns. Under him, the state strengthened and stabilized.

618-630 - BOARD OF THE WESTERN TURKIC HAGHAN TON-JABGU

Ton-jabgu is the son of Yang-Soukh-tegin, the son of Kara-Churin Turk. His reign is considered to be the heyday of the Western Turkic Khaganate. In 619, he subjugated the Kibi and Seyanto tribes. After that, he conquered East Turkestan, Samarkand and the borders of his state reached the territory of modern Pakistan. Ton-jabgu tried to conclude an alliance with China against the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, wooing a Chinese princess. In 626, the troops of Ton-dzhabgu captured Tbilisi. From 626 to 630, the Turkic troops were able to capture many Caucasian possessions, which belonged to the allies of Iran. Ton-jabgu carried out an administrative reform and appointed his representatives - tuduns in the region to monitor and control the collection of tribute. It is believed that he issued his coins with the Sogdian inscription - Tun yabgu kagan. He was killed by the rebellious Dulu tribes, led by his uncle Kulyug-Sibir Khan.

632-671 AD. – BULGAR KAGANATE

A short-term association of Turkic-speaking Bulgar tribes (632-c.671), which arose in the steppes of Eastern Europe shortly after the turmoil in the Western Turkic Khaganate and the weakening of the Avar Khaganate. The main territory was located in the Black Sea and Azov steppes. The basis of the association was the Bulgar tribe Kutrigurs. Khan Kubrat (632-665) managed to unite his horde with other Bulgar tribes of Utigurs (formerly dependent on the Turks) and Onogurs. The unification of the Bulgar tribes was started by Khan Organ, the uncle of Kubrat. Nicephorus, describing the events of 635, noted: “At the same time, Kuvrat, a relative of Organa, the sovereign of the Hunno-Gundurs, rebelled again against the Avar Khagan and all the people who were around him, subjecting him to insults, drove him out of his native land. (Kuvrat) sent ambassadors to Heraclius and made peace with him, which they maintained until the end of their lives. And Heraclius sent him gifts and honored him with the rank of patrician. After the death of Kubrat, the territory of the Bulgar Khaganate was divided by his five sons: Batbayan, Kotrag, Asparukh, Kuber, Alcek. Each of the sons of Kubrat led his own horde, and none of them individually had the strength to compete with the Khazars. During the clash with the Khazars, which followed in the 660s, the Bulgar Khaganate ceased to exist.

internal strife among the khans. The Utigurs took advantage of this situation and managed to free themselves from Turkic control.. However, the Turks retained their possessions in the eastern part of the North Caucasus, as well as and in the region of the lower Volga. AT result internal discord in Turkestan the western group of Turks broke away from the main khanate in Turkestan. The Western horde of the Turks could not be very numerous, and local tribes, conquered by her, to a large extent maintained their self-government. Ethnic the composition of the tribes of the North Caucasus was very mixed. To original various racial traits were added to the Japhetic basis, introduced by new tribes that came to this territory, such as Sarmatians, Hunno-Bulgars and Ugrians. During the fifth and sixth centuries one of these mixed tribes became known as the Khazars. Together with other local tribes The Khazars recognized Turkic domination over themselves around 570. Soon they became loyal supporters of the Turkic state and gradually mixed with the Turks. By the time the western Turkic horde in the North Caucasus separated from the main horde in Turkestan, the Khazars already formed the main basis of the North Caucasian state, which soon became known as Khazar Khaganate. Due to the geographical location, the Khazars, like the Alans before them, were destined to play

650-969 - KHAZAR KAGANATE

Founded by the Khazars, led by a prince from the house of Ashina. He controlled the territory of the Ciscaucasia, the Lower and Middle Volga regions, modern North-Western Kazakhstan, the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, the eastern part of the Crimea, as well as the steppes and forest-steppes of Eastern Europe up to the Dnieper. The center of the state was originally located in the coastal part of modern Dagestan, later moved to the lower reaches of the Volga. Part of the ruling elite converted to Judaism. A number of East Slavic tribal unions were politically dependent on the Khazars. Initially, the Khazars were one of the many nomadic tribes that moved from Asia during the Great Migration. They spoke one of the early Turkic languages and belonged to the tribes of the Ogur group, the first of which appeared in Europe in 463. The earliest reliable news about the Khazars is considered to be the mention in the list of tribes listed by Pseudo-Zacharias in 555. The rise of the Khazars is connected with the history of the Turkic Khaganate. As a significant military force, the Khazars were first mentioned in connection with the Iranian-Byzantine war of 602-628, in which the Khazar ruler Dzhebukagan became the main conductor of the Turkic-Byzantine alliance directed against Iran. In 627, the Khazar army plundered Caucasian Albania and, uniting with the Byzantines, stormed Tbilisi. Starting from 630, numerous internecine clashes led to the collapse of the Western Turkic Khaganate. The result of this was the emergence of two new political formations on its periphery in the steppes of Eastern Europe. Great Bulgaria, founded by Khan Kubrat in 632, arose in the Black Sea region, and Khazaria in the Caspian region. The Khazars did not show themselves at first. By the end of the 7th century, the Khazars controlled most of the steppe Crimea, the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov and the North Caucasus. In 737, the Arab commander Marwan ibn Muhammad (the future caliph), at the head of a 150,000-strong army, suddenly invaded Khazaria simultaneously through Derbent and Daryal. The troops stormed the Khazar capital Semender and reached the city of Al-Bayda, where the headquarters of the kagan was located. Kagan fled deep into his possessions. In pursuit of him, the Arabs went further north than ever: up to the Don and the Volga. The Khazar army was defeated, and the kagan asked for peace. In exchange for keeping the throne, he promised to convert to Islam. The geopolitical consequence of the Arab onslaught was the movement of the population of Khazaria from the dangerous Caucasian borderlands to the hinterland - the Don region, where the Alanian tribes settled, and the Volga region. In the lower reaches of the Volga, a new Khazar capital arose - Itil, which soon turned into a major trading center. Dagestan with the old capital Semender turned from the central region into the southern outskirts of Khazaria. Around 740, one of the Khazar commanders, Bulan, converted to Judaism. At the beginning of the 9th century, a descendant of Bulan, Obadiah, took the second post in the state after the kagan and concentrated real power in his hands. From that moment on, a system of dual government was established in Khazaria, in which nominally the country continued to be headed by kagans from the old royal family of Ashina, but the real control was carried out on their behalf by beks (kings) from the Bulanid clan. It is very likely that the establishment of a new order was accompanied by internecine clashes. Part of the Khazars, known as the Kavars, rebelled against the ruling dynasty and, after the suppression of the rebellion, went over to the Hungarians. At the end of the 9th-first half of the 10th centuries, the Khazar Khaganate weakened, but still continued to be an influential state. In 965-969, the Khazar Khaganate was defeated by Russians and Oghuz

important role in international politics in Asia Minor. As we have seen, the Byzantine Empire in 626 was subjected to

simultaneous attack of Avars and Persians. Emperor Heraclius needed allies and quickly realized the opportunity use of the Khazars against the Persians. As a result a Byzantine envoy was sent to the Khazar Khagan with an offer of alliance against Persia. Byzantine interests in this matter coincided with the interests of the Khazars, and kagan with readiness agreed to the alliance. In 627 he he himself led his army to Iberia

1 Do you know how the locals call their country? Sakartvelo - this is the beautiful word Georgians call their "baby". And all because the Cartwell people lived here earlier. The name "Georgia" came to our lips much later, from the 17th century.

2 It is interesting that the inhabitants of the country became Christians much earlier than the Ukrainians, back in 319.

3 Do you know that in the distant history with Spain, Georgia had the same name - Iberia?

Sakartvelo was the first country where ancient human remains were discovered. They were found in 1991, but they date back almost 2 million years of antiquity. They were even "called" names - Mzia and Zezva.

and laid siege to the city of Tiflis(Tbilisi)Heraclius, from my side, went to Tiflis (Tbilisi)from Lazika, known

later as the western part of Georgia. Allies met near Tiflis, and Heraclius treated the kagan at a sumptuous feast, after which he gave the kagan his golden dinner service. Siege of Tiflis, but, continued two months without results. Tired of inaction the kagan returned home, leaving Heraclius military corps - forty thousand people, according to the sources. Probably, this body was mainly white eels (saragurs) who were vassals of the Khazars. Anyway, in the Slavic translation of the chronicle of George Amartol

George Amartol
George Amartol. Miniature from the Tver list "Chronicles of Georgy Amartol", 1st half. 14th century
Date of Birth:	9th century
Country:	Byzantium
Occupation:	historian

stated that White Ugric helped Heraclius in his war against Persia. Other Ugric horde, Onogurs, was part of the Great Bulgaria under the rule of Khan Kurt, as already noted. In this way, Ugric tribes of the North Caucasus in this period divided in their commitment between Khazars and Bulgars. Bye Kurt was alive, he had enough strength to withstand the onslaught of the Turko-Khazars. After his death, however, Great Bulgaria was divided by his sons, also like the Hunnic Empire was divided after the death of Attila. Each of the sons of Kurt was now at the head of his own horde, and none of them didn't have enough strength, to deal with the Khazars. Under the onslaught of the Khazars, the Bulgar hordes were forced to leave their former habitable places and look for safer regions. One of the hordes consisting mainly from the Kutrigur clans, moved to the north and, finally, settled in the region of the middle Volga and Kama.

reflects the Turkic origin of the former ruling clan; but the new nation as a whole is Slavic in language and civilization.

Great Bulgaria is a large, strong union of the Turkic-speaking Bulgarian tribes of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov. The state arose in the first half of the 7th century. and occupied the territory of the lower reaches of the Don and the Taman Peninsula. The capital of the state was the city of Phanagoria (a former ancient city on Taman). Another large city was Tamatarkha, later known as Tmutarakan.

Great Bulgaria was a semi-nomadic state, i.e. in the summer, the population wandered in the steppes of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, and in the winter they lived in cities.

After the death of the last ruler of Volga Bulgaria, Khan Kubrat in the 50-60s of the 7th century. the state is falling apart. The penetration of the Khazars also contributed to the collapse of the state. One of the sons of Kubrat, Asparukh, with a part of the Bulgarian tribes, goes to the Danube, where he subjugates the Slavs and subsequently creates a state - Danubian Bulgaria. The main part of the Bulgarians, led by Khan Batbay, remained on their lands and became part of the Khazar Khaganate. Subsequently, in the eighth century part of the Bulgarians leaves the territory of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov and appears in the Middle Volga region.

Historian's testimony:

“Krovat (i.e. Khan Kubrat), the owner of Bulgaria and Kotragov, died, leaving five sons, whom he bequeathed never to disperse, because only in this way could they always rule and remain unenslaved from another people. But not for a long time at his death, five of his sons came in disagreement and all dispersed. Each with the people subject to him.

Byzantine chronicler and historian of the ninth century.

Theophan the Confessor

From the document:

“But it's time to tell about the beginning of the so-called Huns and Bulgarians and their position. At the Meotid Lake (Sea of Azov), along the Kofis (Kuban) River, there is located Great Bulgaria, which was called in ancient times, and the so-called kotragi, their tribesmen. During the time of Constantine (Konstantin II, 641 - 668), who died in the west, someone named Kovrat (Kubrat), who was the sovereign of these tribes, changed his life (died), leaving five sons, whom he bequeathed in no case to separate from each other. friend, so that by mutual good will they guard their power.”

From the work of Patriarch Nicophorus of Constantinople

(758-829) “Breviary” (“Brief History”) about the Bulgarians.

From the works of historians:

“The Bulgarians, led by the energetic and talented Khan Asparukh, resisted the Khazars, but Batbay did not support his brother, and Asparukh, along with his Horde, migrated to the Danube. Batbay remained in the Azov region and submitted to the kaganate. The size of Khazaria immediately doubled. The population of the khanate also increased. Moreover, the ethnic and linguistic proximity of this population with the tribes of the Khazar coalition led to their rapid merger into a single, fairly monolithic union.”

S.A. Pletneva

Bulgarians on the Danube

Asparuh managed to hold back the Khazar onslaught for about three decades. But he was pressed. In the middle of the 7th century The Khazars, who had already freed themselves from the power of the Turkuts and were building their own kaganate headed by the Ashin dynasty, broke into the Zadneprovsky steppes. Asparuh with his horde was forced to leave the Dniester. Here the Ant population was denser, and the khan had a fairly strong settled rear. However, he was looking for more reliable places of settlement protected by nature itself.

He found them in the lower reaches of the Danube, in the valleys of the Prut and Siret. The swampy lands of the Lower Danube were inconvenient for nomads who did not know the terrain during an attack - but they served well in defense. The Carpathian Mountains rose from the north and the “crown of rivers” of the Lower Danube basin flowed. Here Asparuh placed his horde for some time. The Bulgarians named the area as a sign of this "Aul". The Khazars, however, continued to threaten because of the Dniester. Then Asparuh finally secured his place of residence. He struck at the “island of Pevka”, still occupied by the Avars - the Danube Delta, knocked out old enemies from there and settled in this hard-to-reach place himself. The Avars fled to the west, within the limits of their Khaganate.

The Slavs north of the Danube submitted to Asparukh. Without their help and skills in establishing crossings, he would hardly have been able to conquer the delta from the Avars, and indeed to gain a foothold in the "Aul" inaccessible to the Khazars. The leaders of the northern Danubians were especially interested in an alliance with Asparuh in view of the Vlach unrest and the new strengthening of Byzantium. Therefore, they, like the Ants behind the Prut, agreed to unite under the rule of the Bulgarian Khan. In any case, the sources do not report any violence.

But violence was indispensable south of the Danube. “Having set up Istres with tents,” Asparuh began to look closely at the Transdanubian lands. Scythia and Moesia Inferior, populated largely by Slavs, seemed to him a reliable stronghold against enemies pushing from the east and no less reliable source of income. Perhaps the leaders of the Slavs north of the Danube also encouraged Asparuh to push the nomadic Vlachs away from the river. This coincided with the interests of the Bulgarian Khan himself. So far, the Bulgarians have begun to disturb the Transdanubian inhabitants with their raids. Suffered from them, of course, and the Vlachs, and the Slavs.

In 680, the devastating raids of the Bulgarians became known in Constantinople. Self-confident because of his outstanding victories, Emperor Constantine finally decided to move himself with an army to Thrace. The expedition was a big one. Heavily armed troops from Asia were transferred to Europe. The Roman fleet went to the Danube Delta. The detachments of the Bulgarians, wandering through the Danube villages, were dumbfounded by the sudden approach of a huge imperial army. When it appeared near the Lower Danube in combat formation, and a squadron appeared near the shore, the Bulgarians did not dare to accept the battle. They retreated headlong into the swamps of the delta, already well fortified by Asparuh. The army and fleet approached Pevka and laid siege to the Bulgarian Khan. The Romans did not dare to go deep into the swamps of the delta. This gave the defending Bulgarians courage. Unfortunately for the Romans, on the fourth day of this siege, Constantine fell down with severe pain in his legs. The emperor hurried to sail for treatment in the city of Mesemvria with its ancient baths.

Constantine left the siege camp with his inner retinue and five warships. In parting, he ordered his commanders to continue the siege. However, it was difficult to hide the departure of the sovereign, and a rumor arose in the Roman cavalry that he had fled. The false news that immediately spread caused turmoil among the Romans. The horsemen were the first to abandon the siege camp, and the rest of the army rushed after them. Asparuh did not fail to take advantage of the unexpected opportunity. The Bulgarians rushed after the retreating enemies in disorder, throwing them into a stampede. Many Romans, overtaken by the nomads, died, and even more were wounded. The persecution continued up to the Varna River near Odissa (now the city of Varna). Here Asparukh stopped his warriors.

Khan found that Lesser Scythia is very convenient for settlement. From the north and from the north-west it was covered by the Danube, from the south by the Balkan Range, from the east by the Black Sea. These lands have been inhabited by the Slavs for more than a hundred years, and it was they who gave the river Varna (Vrana) flowing in the south of the former province its name. Most of the Roman cities lay in ruins, and the shadow of imperial power in these places had long since disappeared. Asparuh ordered the horde to migrate to the vicinity of Odyssus and set up a new headquarters here.

This was followed by a quickly ended war with the Seven Clans and local Vlachs. Not all Slavs of the Lower Danube, of course, welcomed the arrival of the Bulgarians - especially since Asparuh's soldiers robbed their villages for some time. Nevertheless, in the end, Asparuh managed to persuade the enemy to submission. The Slavinians of Moesia and Scythia retained autonomy and their own princes. But the union of the Seven Clans Asparuh shattered. Like the Avar Khagans, he allocated special territories to the Slavs, at the same time resettling them from their homes. In the new lands, the Slavs had to pay tribute to Asparukh and cover the borders of his khanate from enemies - Avars and Romans. Severov, the strongest of the tribes, the Khan settled on the border of Roman Thrace - from the Veregava Gorge in the eastern part of the Balkan Range to the coastal regions. The remaining tribes of the "Seven Clans", evicted from Scythia and eastern Moesia, moved to the west, to the border of the Avar Khaganate. The center of their settlement was the valley of the Timok River, where later the Timochan tribal union, subject to the Bulgarians, was formed. Many lands north of the Danube, in Muntenia, were abandoned as a result of the actions of the Bulgarians. At the same time, some part of the "semikornevtsy" remained there - also recognizing the power of Asparuh.

Asparuh also conquered the Vlachs. Their free settlement stopped. The Bulgarian Khan's transfer of the Slavs from their usual places to densely occupied border regions deprived the Vlachs of the opportunity to "sit down among them." The Vlachs were driven south and west. Having settled south of the Balkan Range, in Roman Thrace, the Vlachs gradually absorbed the local Thracians. The Romanians and Thracians of the Lower Danube, at least the settled ones, almost completely mixed with the Slavs over the next decades. A new influx of Vlachs here occurred already in the 8th-9th centuries.

On the Danube, under the leadership of Asparuh, a powerful Bulgarian Khanate arose - a worthy successor to Great Bulgaria. It included lands both north and south of the Danube. From time to time, reinforcements approached Asparuh and his heirs from across the Danube - Bulgarians pressed by the Khazars or fleeing from under their rule. Neighbors were forced to reckon with the new reality. With the Romans while the war continued. The Bulgarians now "began to devastate the villages and towns in Thrace", "became proud and began to attack the fortresses and villages under Roman control, and enslave them." Under these conditions, the western neighbors - the Serbs - preferred to conclude a peace and union treaty with the Bulgarians. He acted for more than a century, providing the Bulgarian Khanate with calm on the western border. It spread (or subsequently spread) to all the tribes of the Serbian root - in any case, the Duklians attributed its conclusion to their prince Vladin Silimirovich, the grandson of Vsevlad. At the same time, it is obvious that it was the Serbs from Raska, the immediate neighbors of Lower Moesia captured by Asparuh, who were the first to conclude an agreement. This did nothing to hinder their pact with the Empire. Far from the theater of hostilities, Serbia eventually managed to maintain good neighborly relations with both sides.

The original khan's headquarters south of the Danube - an earthen fortress protected by ditches and swamps - was located in Nikulitsel, just above Pevka along the river. Then Asparuh, according to legend, chose the residence of Dristra (Dorostol, Roman Silistria), located on the Lower Danube, surrounded by Slavic settlements. To the east of Dorostol, Asparukh renewed the line of ramparts, which now covered the Bulgarian horde from the threat from the south to the sea.

Later, the khan decided to migrate from Dristra to the depths of the conquered Moesia. On the site of the Slavic village destroyed during the war with the Seven Clans or their subsequent eviction, near the modern city of Shumen, Asparukh erected his new headquarters. From the former Slavic village, she inherited the name - Pliska. The total area of the khan's headquarters is 23 km 2, it was surrounded by a ditch about 21 km long. The headquarters had the form of a huge trapezoid with a second, smaller one enclosed in it. The latter was assigned to the actual residence of the khan, around the same, but under the protection of the same moat, there were yurts of his fellow tribesmen and pens for cattle. In the very center of the nomadic camp there was a stone fortification - a fortress behind a wall of massive limestone 3 km in perimeter. Inside the fortress were the khan's palace and other buildings made of limestone or less often brick, a bathhouse, pools, dug-in cisterns for storing water. The fortress was clearly built by captured Romans, experienced craftsmen. The local Slavs also helped them in some ways, some of whom remained to live in the Bulgarian Pliska. The nomadic Bulgarians were not yet capable of such a grandiose construction.

Initially, the Bulgarians tried not to mix with the Slavs. The Bulgarian camps were clustered in the Pliska region and further to the east and northeast, to the coastal regions and the Danube. The Slavs, on the other hand, lived along the outskirts allotted to them and along the Danube, on both of its banks. Both peoples retained their cultural identity and almost did not mix with each other. The formation of the Slavic-Bulgarian medieval people has not yet begun. But Asparuh - himself, perhaps, a semiant - took into account the interests and ideas of his Slavic subjects. In this he was fundamentally different from the Avar Khagans. The Slavs made up a clear majority of the population in the conquered lands, despite the ever new injections of the Bulgarians. A long experience of communicating with the Slavs led Asparuh to a sound idea about preserving their tribal principalities on the terms of paying tribute and protecting borders. The Slavic tribes were thus withdrawn from the sphere of direct control of the Khan and his close associates - the Boils. The princes of the Slavins were directly subordinate to the khan, bypassing the Bulgarian governors of individual lands - Tarkans and Zhupans. Taking into account Slavic customs and beliefs, after crossing the Danube, Asparuh began to let his hair go in Slavic instead of a nomadic haircut. This fact was given such a great ideological meaning that it is specially noted in the brief "Namebook of the Bulgarian princes" - separating the nomadic khans from their Danubian descendants.

But for a real merger with the Slavic mass, this was, of course, very, very little. On the contrary, the isolation of the independent Slavs only hindered the transformation of the Bulgarian Khanate into a Slavic state. The very possibility of this was laid from the very beginning - by a long-standing mixture of Bulgarians and Slavs, by the Bulgarians' craving for a semi-sedentary life. But the time has not come. Bulgarian Khanate of the 7th–8th centuries was not yet a Slavic state. Of course, the Slavs lived in it much easier than in the Avar Khaganate. But the Slavs who obeyed Asparuh still remained under foreign rule, and this is how it was perceived by the Slavs. In the memory of Russian neighbors, this perception was preserved even at the beginning of the 12th century. - when the southern Slavs no longer opposed themselves to the Bulgarians and regarded them as the same Slavs. So, the history of the Bulgarian Khanate has not yet become part of the history of Slavic Europe - but the fate of a number of its tribes turned out to be intertwined with the fate of the new nomadic power. In this plexus, slowly, century after century, the future unity was built.

The era of the Great Migration for the Slavs was coming to an end. The birth of Danube Bulgaria became, as it were, its last chord. The map more or less stabilized, the tumultuous movement of the tribes subsided. The Slavic world now stretched from the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea, from Laba to the Desna. A new time was coming - the consolidation of borders (however, they continued to expand to the northeast), the difficult defense of independence. The first of the future medieval states of Slavic Europe have already appeared - Serbia, Croatia, Duklja, and now Bulgaria. And along with them - a lot of disappeared later for various reasons, but then more or less strong Slavs from the Baltic to Hellas. We can talk about the first embryos of Czecho-Moravia, Krakow Poland, Kievan Rus. Even if it is still fragile, but in some places the sprouts of the Christian faith and churchliness were grafted. In the next period - at different times, under different circumstances, under various influences or almost without them - Slavdom sets out on the road to the civilization of the Middle Ages.

This text is an introductory piece. From the book Empire - I [with illustrations] author

2. 4. Who are the Bulgarians Khomyakov: In defense of the theory of the rebirth of peoples, Bulgarians are usually cited and argued: the Bulgarians now speak Slavonic, look like Slavs, in a word, they are perfect Slavs. And in the old days, the Bulgarians belonged to the Turkish or Tibetan or in general

From the book The Truth about Nicholas I. The slandered emperor author Tyurin Alexander

Operations on the Danube The 2nd Army, numbering 95 thousand soldiers and under the command of Field Marshal P. Wittgenstein, was supposed to occupy the Danubian principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia (now Romania). Then the task was set - to cross the Danube, to capture Shumla

From the book Slavic Europe of the 5th-8th centuries author Alekseev Sergey Viktorovich

Bulgarians on the Danube Asparukh managed to hold back the Khazar onslaught for about three decades. But he was pressed. In the middle of the 7th century the Khazars, who had already freed themselves from the power of the Turkuts and were building their own kaganate headed by the Ashin dynasty, broke into the Zadneprovsky

From the book Tatar-Mongol yoke. Who conquered whom author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

1. Volga and Bolgars N.A. Morozov rightly wrote: “In the Bible, the Volga River appears as the Faleg River. The Greeks mixed the Wallachians with the Bulgarians (in Byzantine - the Volgars), and this should not be surprising, since both names come from the same word Volga. BULGARIANS MEAN VOLGARI,

From the book Russian History. Part 1 author Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

8. BULGARIANS Along the Volga, Kama and other flowing rivers, a great people, skillful in crafts, abundant in fruits and rich in merchants, glorious in the buildings of cities, about which above, ch. 24 shown. They mention different principalities, but a detailed description is neither foreign nor

From the book Slavs. Historical and archaeological research [Illustrated] author Sedov Valentin Vasilievich

Bulgarians Izvestia, contained in the historical writings of the authors of the 6th-7th centuries, reliably testify that the eastern regions of the Balkan Peninsula, in that part of it where the Bulgarian ethnos was formed, were inhabited by Slavs. Unfortunately, the archeological monuments of this time

From the book Mysteries of the field Kulikov author Zvyagin Yuri Yurievich

We are all a little Bulgarian And now the promised "Bulgarian version". It owes its appearance to the Kazan source specialist Fargat Gabdula-Khamitovich Nurutdinov. According to him, he keeps the ancient Bulgarian chronicles and other works. The history of their appearance

From the book The Millennium Battle for Tsargrad author Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich

RUMYANTSEV ON THE DANUBE In 1770, the left bank of the Danube from Kiliya to Viddin was cleared of the enemy. Only two fortresses remained behind the Turks - Zhurzhu and Turno. In 1771, the Russian army was located in three departments: the right wing under the command of General-in-Chief Peter Ivanovich

From the book History of Byzantine Wars author Haldon John

From the book Alexander Nevsky. Savior of the Russian land author Baimukhametov Sergey Temirbulatovich

Forbidden Bulgarians From a letter from designer Rustem Abdullin (Minsk): From the fifth grade, I fell ill with the history of Russia. It all started with a history lesson at school. It was in Kazan, where I was born and raised. Passed the topic "Tatar-Mongolian yoke." And then Russian classmates began to poke at

From the book Book 1. Empire [Slavic conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Russia as a medieval metropolis of the Great Empire] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

9.1. Volga and Bulgarians N.A. Morozov rightly wrote: “In the Bible, the Volga River appears as the Faleg River. The Greeks mixed the Wallachians with the Bulgarians (in Byzantine - the Volgars), and this should not be surprising, since both names come from the same word Volga. BULGARIANS MEAN

From the book Knights of St. George under the St. Andrew's flag. Russian admirals - holders of the Order of St. George I and II degrees author Skritsky Nikolay Vladimirovich

On the Danube On September 12, 1789, Repnin drove the troops of the Turkish seraskir Gassan Pasha into Izmail, but on the orders of Potemkin retreated 20 miles. Perhaps the prince did not want to let the commander excel. In any case, the task of capturing Izmail and other fortresses arose again in

From the book Heading for Victory author

On the Danube The situation on the Black Sea by August 1944 was developing favorably for us. The German-Romanian fleet after the battles for Odessa and the Crimea was significantly reduced, in addition, he lost many bases. Now only Romanian and Bulgarian ports remained at his disposal.

From the book Slavic Encyclopedia author Artemov Vladislav Vladimirovich

From the book Heading for Victory author Kuznetsov Nikolai Gerasimovich

ON THE DANUBE The situation on the Black Sea by August 1944 was developing favorably for us. The German-Romanian fleet after the battles for Odessa and the Crimea was significantly reduced, in addition, he lost many bases. Now only Romanian and Bulgarian ports remained at his disposal.

From the book Encyclopedia of Slavic Culture, Writing and Mythology author Kononenko Alexey Anatolievich

Bulgarians The main role in the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarians (Bulgars) was played by the Slavic tribes who moved to the Balkans in the 6th-7th centuries, the Thracians who lived in the east of the Balkan Peninsula from the Bronze Age, and the Turkic-speaking proto-Bulgarians (self-name - Bulgarians), who came from