.
On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians    (in Bulgarian)
.
Rasho Rashev, Shumen
(p. 23-33 in: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. In honour of Prof. V. Beshevliev, Veliko Tarnovo, 1992)


Every attempt to intervene in the century-old question regarding the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians inevitably makes its author repeat well-known facts and interpretations. All possible theories, it seems, has been proposed and most of them have been reviewed and scrutinised. The written sources, upon which the interpretations have been based, have been studied and commented many times over [1].

The archaeology, with its not so definite but more abundant data, however, gives hope for a new approach towards the problem. It cannot be said that these data have been overlooked so far. As it will be shown below, there exists a not large but authoritative group of archaeologists, whose view on the ethnogenesis of the Proto-Bulgarians differs from the officially imposed one. However, it has been laid down quite laconically, frequently just in footnotes, and its unpopularity should not come as a surprise. Another reason lays in the fact that this view was in apparent contradiction to the official one, which on its part is based on the written sources. A non-declared, hidden discussion was going on. This begs us to restate the question about the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, with stress at some relevant facts which shed a different light upon the question.

So, the question is: were the Proto-Bulgarians Türks? Were the people, led by Asparukh to the Lower Danube, Turkic-speaking? All modern scholars answer positively [2].

The Turkic anthropological type and the Turkicness of the Proto-Bulgarians have not been questioned. The linguistic data in the Namelist of the Bulgarian rulers, in the Byzantine written sources as well as the Proto-Bulgarian stone inscriptions are given as an irrefutable evidence to that. The Turkic names, phrases and words they contain, leave little room for discussion.

A number of Middle Asian elements in the material culture of the First Bulgarian kingdom, such as the 12-year cyclic animal calendar, the cult of Tangra, etc., all with undeniable analogies in the culture of the Turkic khaganate, are also brought forward [3].

An important point, which has evaded attention so far and which was the main reason for the imposition of the Turkic theory about the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, has to be mentioned from the start. It is that the Turkic linguistic remains and elements of material culture represent exclusively the language and the culture of the Proto-Bulgarian military-administrative and clan leadership. It concerns the khan, its family and court, but not the ordinary population. The available data has been generalised and mechanically transferred not only to the whole aristocracy but also to the rest of the population, designated as Proto-Bulgarian. We have no direct evidence about the language and origin of the latter. There is no evidence of a widespread worship of Tangra, the Turkic god of the sky. On the contrary, we have quite definitive evidence which leaves the Turkic theory in doubt. For example, the anthropological data portray the Proto-Bulgarians as Europeids with weak Mongoloid influences. The attested practice of artificial skull deformation was characteristic not for the Türks, but for the old population of the European steppes – the Sarmatians [4]. Especially indicative is the evidence regarding the old Turkic remains in the Bulgarian language. In the Old Bulgarian literary language they are represented solely by the words kumir (idol) and kapishte (heathen shrine). Some 15 other words resurface in the modern Bulgarian language [5]. Recently, the total number of Turkic words reached 40, but with the significant stipulation that they cannot be proven to be old-Turkic, i.e. pre-Ottoman and pre-Pechenego-Kumanic in origin [6]. In comparison, some 300 words of old-Turkic origin in the Hungarian language are said to be a Proto-Bulgarian legacy. Taking into account the widely held view about the Turkicness of the Proto-Bulgarians, the situation in the Bulgarian language appears strange. The linguist St. Mladenov tended to explain this phenomenon by the small number of Proto-Bulgarians, calling them in this connection “a Turanian band of people” (Turanski narodec). The question about the numbers of the Proto-Bulgarians has been studied too generally, relying mainly on one’s intuition rather than more definite data. This way, they were estimated from 30,000 (by V. Zlatarski, in the first quarter of the XX c.) to some 300,000 by some modern scholars. The only objective criterion is the data from the necropolises. They indeed offer a temporary but, nevertheless, objective picture, which will vary quantitatively in the future. As for now, the inhumations, which are the most reliable sign of Proto-Bulgarian ethnic affiliation, constitute 29 % of all graves in the pagan necropolises of north-eastern Bulgaria. The figure will increase by 2-3 % if we add the inhumations from the necropolises yet to be published and it will come to represent a third of all graves. This is not a negligible share. Therefore, not the alleged small numbers of Proto-Bulgarians is the explanation for the lack of old Turkic linguistic remains in the Bulgarian language. The conclusion may be unexpected, but looks completely natural – the majority of Proto-Bulgarians have not spoken a Turkic language.

We have grounds to speak of two Proto-Bulgarian groups and cultures – that of the Turkic in its origin aristocracy, which occupied the upper positions in the centralised military-administrative apparatus, and that of the ordinary Proto-Bulgarian populace, engaged in agriculture and stock-breeding. These were apparently two different groups, differing not only in their social status, but also in their language and traditional culture. St. Mladenov compared the role of the Proto-Bulgarians amongst the South Slavs to the role of the Franks amongst the Gauls, and to that of the Varangians amongst the Eastern Slavs. His comparison should be corrected in the sense that his “Proto-Bulgarians” should refer to the ruling Turkic Proto-Bulgarian elite, and not the Proto-Bulgarians as a people. It has long been established that during the early Middle Ages ethnical identification was a dynamic category because of the mass migrations and ethnic mixing. Thus, we should not be surprised when V. Beshevliev distinguishes three different ethnical components even in the homogeneous Proto-Bulgarian aristocracy: Turkic, Iranian and Ugro-Finnic [7]. To this we have to add the observations of eminent Turkologists on the strangely sounding Turkic language of the Danubian Proto-Bulgarians [8]. If such an ethnic variety had place in the narrow confines of the aristocracy, we should expect the same and even more within the Proto-Bulgarian massif as a whole.

This is exactly what some Soviet and Bulgarian archaeologists have been assuming [9]. They think that the remains of the old Iranian (Alano-Sarmatian) and Ugro-Finnic population of the Eastern Europe joined the proper Turkic Proto-Bulgarian group, when the latter appeared from the expanses of Central Asia. This population – especially the Sarmatians and the Alans, left a significant mark in the material culture of the Proto-Bulgarians, but were assimilated linguistically, adopting the Turkic language of the new-comers. The alleged process of the hypothetic Turkicisation, however, is not supported by any evidence, it has been assumed a priori, in the same way as the Turkic speech of the Proto-Bulgarians has been assumed. An indirect indication could be the Turkic language of the Danubian Proto-Bulgarians, reflected in the Namelist of the Bulgarian rulers, in the Byzantine chroniclers and in the Bulgarian stone inscriptions. But, as we pointed out already, this takes into account the language of the aristocracy only. Another indirect indication are the runic inscriptions, found in different places in the area of the Saltovo-Majack culture. Part of the runic signs have analogies in the Central Asiatic Turkic runic writing. It is entirely possible that this writing was brought to Europe by the Türks, who had the lands around the Sea of Azov and the North Caucasus under their control during the second half of the VI and the first half of the VII c. AD, and that there it had been preserved in the following centuries in a narrow circle of Turkic priests and educated people. This question (of the SE European runes) can be re-stated more generally. The newest research shows that two types of runic writing had been used in Eastern Europe, out of the six in total types of  runic writing spread from Hungary to Mongolia during the early Middle Ages. It cannot be excluded that the runic writing had been used not by Türks only, but by other ethnic groups as well [10]. Maybe the best example are the runic-like inscriptions from the Old Bulgarian monasteries at Murfatlar/Basarab and Ravna.

The presence of non-Turkic elements amongst the Proto-Bulgarians is supported by more lines of evidence, which have not been paid enough attention so far. Among them is the fact that in the North Pontic and the Lower Danubian regions, the regions of departure and of settlement, respectively, of the Proto-Bulgarians of Asparukh, there existed a significant massif of Indo-Iranian population. Its presence has been attested in several archaeological cultures which chronologically predate the formation of the Bulgarian culture on the Danube. There are several, significant from the ethnic point of view, similarities between characteristics of these culture and the Proto-Bulgarian culture from the period of the First Bulgarian kingdom, which can hardly be a coincidence.

The post-I c. AD Iranian population of the North Pontic steppe and forest-steppe region consisted of descendants of Sarmatians and late Scythians. The Sarmatians appeared on the Lower Danube at the very beginning of the first millennium and this had been amply reflected in the written sources. The material remains of their presence on the left bank of Danube, however, appear only in the III c. AD. The Sarmatians formed a wedge in the local Geto-Dacian population with whom they co-existed peacefully. They lived semi-nomadic life and the briefly occupied by them settlements do not register material remains. Their culture can be judged only from their burial rites and artefacts [11]. Some of the graves found so far were dug into older mounds, others form relatively small necropolises. The burials are always inhumations. Frequently, the bottom of the grave was fired or sprinkled with coals and pieces of limestone. The orientation of the skeletons is uniformly northern. There are cases of post-burial partial ritual destruction of the skeleton. Extremely characteristic is the artificial deformation of the skulls with the help of special circular bands. The Sarmatians belonged to the brachi- and mesocranic anthropological type. They were Europeids with small Mongoloid admixture. The grave artefacts consist of clay vessels, adornments, items of everyday life, weapons, equipment. All these characteristics of the Sarmatian burial practices have literal analogies in the Proto-Bulgarian ones. Of course, due to the large gap between the two periods, the forms of the burial artefacts are different, but the types of the artefacts coincide completely.

During the IV c. AD the Sarmatians, together with the many-tongued population of a large region, encompassing the steppe and the forest-steppe zone from the left bank of Dnepr to the Lower Danube, took part in the creation of the culture of Chernjahov-Santana de Muresh [12]. This is the culture of the Gothic tribal union. Its most characteristic monuments betray the signs of two major ethnic groups, co-inhabiting in common settlements and jointly using common necropolises. The dwellings were lightly-built ground-level huts with a fire-place on the floor in the centre, and rectangular semi-dugouts with a stone stove in one of the corners. Most of the necropolises, especially in the northern part, contain two burial types. The cremations were done in urns or in the small pits and are frequently accompanied by clay vessels as burial artefacts. [The inhumations] form two groups according to the orientation of the graves. The first group are oriented to the west, with scarce accompanying artefacts. In the southern regions, occupied mainly by the Sarmatians, the skeletons are oriented to the north and the grave goods are relatively numerous. Characteristic is the pottery with dark-grey surface, decorated with polished stripes. Special attention should be paid to the bi-ritual character of the Chrenjahov culture, to the types of cremation and the types of orientation of the inhumations. These ethno-defining characteristics are to be found in the pagan necropolises of the First Bulgarian kingdom as well.

During the V c. AD the archaeological map of the Lower Danubian lands seems completely empty. Apart from isolated finds of Hunnic cauldrons [13], there are no remains of settled population. The fate of the numerous Chernjahov population is not quite clear. Its disappearance over a vast region can hardly be explained by a mass migration to the west alongside the Gothic tribes proper or by its complete extermination at the hands of the Huns. One is certain – a part of the Chernjahov traditions were inherited by the V c. Kiev culture of the Middle Dnepr region [14]. Probably we deal with not just passing of traditions of manufacture of certain items, but the Chernjahov population itself took part in the formation of the Kiev culture. The same can also be said regarding the direct inheritor of the Kiev culture – the Penkovka culture of uncertain ethnic identification, which concerns directly our theme.

The Penkovka culture, dating from the VI-VII c. AD, occupied the forest-steppe zone, from the left tributaries of Dnepr to the river of Seret in the west. Beyond Seret it intertwines with elements of the early-Slav Prague-Korchak culture and also borders on the Ipoteshti-Churel-Kandeshti culture of Wallachia. To the north Penkovo borders on the Prague-Korchak culture and the Kolochin-Tushemlja culture, attributed to Balts, to the south – with the monuments of the Sivashovka type, attributed to Bulgars. The population of Penkovka was sedentary, engaged in agriculture and stock-breeding and living in unfortified settlements. Its multi-ethnic composition can be seen in any of its main characteristics. The dwellings were on ground level or dug in, with a stone stove in one of the corners or with a fire-place on the floor. The hand-made bi-conical pot is the predominant type of pottery, but hand-made pots with rounded shoulders/(upper sides) also occur. Characteristic are pots of grey clay, made on potter’s wheel and decorated with polished and incised stripes. These vessels are called the Pastirki type after Pastirki – the site where they are most numerous. Cremations in small pits or urns as well as inhumations were practised [15].

The ethical identification of the carriers of the Penkovka culture is still a matter of debate. Almost all Soviet scholars assume that it belonged to the Slavic tribe of Antes [16]. Due to the presence of pottery of Pastirki type and of jurt-like oval dwellings, the participation of Alano-Bulgar population has also been assumed [17]. Slightly different is the opinion of M.I. Artamonov. He unites the sites with pottery finds of the Pastirki type and decorations of the Pastirki type into an independent Pastirki culture which, according to him, belonged to the Bulgars-Kutrigurs, positioned according to VI c. Byzantine sources to the west of Don and to the north of the Black Sea. [18].  Artamonov concurs with D.T. Berezovec that bearers of the Pastirki culture took part in the formation of the culture of Danubian Bulgaria based on the finds of Pastirki pottery types in a number of VIII-IX c. settlements and necropolises from the Lower Danube. This idea is also supported by some Bulgarian archaeologists [19]. We must remind ourselves that the Pastirki pottery is found exclusively in the necropolises with Slavic type cremation. This important fact fits well into our account.

The burial rites of this distinctive, according to M. Artamonov, Pastirki culture have not been studied enough. Their Turkic origin is assumed a priori following the view about the Turkickness of all Bulgar tribes and because of analogies between some Pastirki decorations and metal objects with similar items from the culture of the First Avar khaganate. There are no direct data about the physical appearance of the “Pastirki” people. There are, however, indirect data about the ethnic identification of the Penkovka culture as a whole and of the “Pastirki” type monuments in particular. This is the recognised by all authors continuity between the Chernjahov and Penkovka cultures and, respectively, between their populations. That continuity is evident in their most characteristic elements – types of dwellings, pottery and burial rites. The cultural continuity and the mixed origin of the bearers of the “Pastirki” culture is accepted by M. Artamonov and his thoughts are so indicative that they deserve to be quoted: “We can hardly doubt that the Bulgar population of the North Pontic region was formed not only out of Turkic tribes, which appeared during and after the Hunnic invasion. It was formed to a large extent as a result of the Turkicisation of the local Sarmato-Alan population and inherited many of its traditions. Thanks to this process, Turkicised descendants of the Roxolans on the Dnepre appear amongst the western Bulgars under the name of Rossomons, who were part of the Gothic kingdom and adopted its Chernjahov culture” [20]. If the term “Turkicisation”, which is not supported by any kind of evidence, is removed from this excerpt, the ethnogenesis of the western Proto-Bulgarian group assumes more realistic contours.

The predominant participation of non-Turkic, Iranian in origin population in the proper Penkovka monuments has been determined by I.P. Russanova after a detailed analysis [21]. All Penkovka pottery types, including the Pastirki pottery which is attributed to Alano-Bulgar population, have their proto-types in the Chernjahov pottery. The characteristic bi-conical pots are non-Slavic in origin and are not to be found in the contemporary Prague culture, which is indisputably Slavic. Amongst the hand-made pottery a characteristic group can be distinguished, which has analogies in the early-Sarmatian, the Avar and the Saltovo-Majack pottery [22]. As a whole, the Penkovka culture is attributed to the Antes. There are ambiguities about  Antes’ ethnical identification. The Byzantine authors either say that the Antes and the Slavs were one people, or they distinguish between them. According to I. Russanova, this fact may be explained by the ongoing back then mixing between the bearers of the Penkovka culture proper (the Antes) and Slavs, penetrating from the region of the Prague culture. According to her the Antes can be described as descendants of the local Iranian population, with Slavs actively settling amongst them. The Iranian influence on the Eastern Slavs has confirmation in linguistic data as well as in the anthropological type of the Slavs of the Middle Dnepre region [23]. It can be assumed that the imposition of the Slavic language began soon after the first contacts in the VI c. AD and that the mixed population of the Penkovka culture of the VII c. had already spoken Slavic in its majority.

The second culture, which developed in that region, was situated in the steppe zone to the south of the Penkovka culture. It belonged to a nomadic population which left isolated, secondary graves dug into earlier mounds. After the name of one of the sites this group of monuments is designated Sivashovka and is attributed to the Bulgars [24]. These are predominantly warriors’ graves containing the characteristic for the period belt decorations, weapons and equipment. The clay vessels are represented by hand-made pots. A single wheel-made pot with a handle has been found [25] (the grave is dated to the beginning of the VIII c.).

This way, the proper Bulgar tribes (in the steppe zone) and the mixed, in the process of total Slavicisation, population of the Penkovka culture were situated in the path of Asparukh in the mid-VII c. Usually it has been assumed that the group, brought by Asparukh to the Lower Danube consisted solely of Bulgars-Onogurs, Turkic speakers from the lands to the east and to the south of the Sea of Azov, where the Great Bulgaria of Kubrat (Asparukh’s father) was situated. The boundaries of Kubrat’s tribal union are listed in the chronicles of Theophanes and Nicephorus. The territory encompassed by Great Bulgaria varies, it is subject to the interpretation of their geographical reference points but all interpretations agree that it included the lands around the Sea of Azov. However, not a single site that can be linked to the presence of a rich Turkic elite of the Dulo clan (the clan which assumed leadership in the Bulgar tribal union after the expansion of the Western Turkic khaganate at the second half of the VI c. AD) has been found there. Such finds are known from the steppe zone of the Lower Dnepr – the rich finds of the Malaja Pereshchepina - Glodosi type, especially Malaja Pereshchepina itself, which contains three golden rings, inscribed with the name of Kubrat [26]. This zone also contains the younger (first half of the VIII c.) Voznesenka complex [27] which, regardless of the diferring interpretations, betrays the presence of a rich Turkic aristocracy. To the north of this group, at the north-eastern periphery of the Penkovka culture, are the finds of the Martinovka and Pastirki type – bronze and silver decorations, figurines and belt applications. It is remarkable that all these finds, as well as the Penkovka culture and the monuments of Sivashovka type ceased to exist at the end of the VII c. It is important that the abandoned Penkovka settlements show no sings of forced abandonment, of destruction and fires. It seems that simultaneously or in a short period of time their population had left, looking for other lands. The presence of Pastirki type pottery on the Lower Danube indicates where these lands might be. Here, simultaneously and over a wide territory, a new culture was formed. A culture with no direct local predecessors but with a number of elements of these two North Pontic regions:
– semi-dugouts with a stone stove, Pastirki type pottery, bi-ritual necropolises, cremation in urns and in small pits, inhumations (of northern or western orientation) – from the Penkovka culture;
– inhumation of northern orientation, secondary graves dig into older mounds, burials containing a horse and weapons, remains of sacrificial animal food – from the nomadic culture.

Apparently this culture belonged to a mixed population and to describe it as “nomadic Turko-Bulgars from the Azov region” would be incorrect. Assuming a priori the latter, many scholars find themselves in difficulty in explaining the lack of distinguishable nomadic elements in the culture of the population of the First Bulgarian kingdom and the rapid and ubiquitous manifestation of settled forms of life and material culture. Some of them try to explain it by a lack of suitable, fit for nomadic life lands south of the Danube. Others explain it with an early sedentarisation of the Bulgars in the lands of Eastern Europe, prior to their movement to the Lower Danube [28] . We would rather say that the population brought by Asparukh (or which came soon after him) did not feel the need to fit into the local environment and to replace nomadism with sedentary life due to a lack of enough grazing ground because it, in its majority, was already sedentary. But this kind of economy can hardly be ascribed to a Turko-Bulgar population from the Azov steppes because around the Azov nothing but the remains of briefly-occupied camps, light ground dwelling and hand-made pottery have been found. Such was the situation in the VI-VII c. AD. [29] More probable is, as other scholars assume, that there was a movement of a relatively early settled Bulgar group from present Dagestan [30]. Such a possibility cannot be excluded, but theirs would not be the mass migration that initially filled the present Dobrudzha and north-eastern Bulgaria. The Caucasian types of pottery (cauldrons) have been found only at the Topola site (in Bulgaria), and the rest of the pottery has Chernjahov and Germanic proto-types [31]. Even if we assume, after St. Angelova, that the pottery complex of the First Bulgarian kingdom of the VIII-IX c. carries many and strong Dagestani traditions, it is important to remind that these traditions belonged to the local Iranian-speaking population. Whether it was Turkicised, to what degree and in which regions – both positive and negative answers had been given to these questions. In any case, there are no data confirming the absolute prevalence of the first possibility (V.K.: i.e. nomadic Turko-Bulgars from the Azov region?).

Under such a perspective, the question about the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians loses its Turkic tinge and leads us to look for the ancestors of the non-Slavic population of the First Bulgarian kingdom amongst the Eastern European population of Iranian origin. As we said, this possibility has been also assumed so far, but only together with the unconditional Turkicisation of this population – something for which there are no direct data. In the VI-VII c. this population, prior to its movement (to the Balkans that is, V.K.) was in prolonged contacts with other, northern, population which, in contrast, burned its dead and, naturally, spoke another language. These contacts continued in the following centuries and the complete disappearance of the Iranian language indicates that the Slavic one had dominated. That allows us to assume the imposition of Slavic even before the disintegration of the Penkovka culture.

This mixed population, speaking most probably Slavic, was prepared for an expansion to the south-west, as shown by isolated finds of Penkovka pottery in early Byzantine forts [32]. Forced soon after that to leave in its entirety its Dnepr settlements, most probably as a result of the expansion of the Khazars, it was content to find itself under the control of the group of Asparukh, looking for assurances of its safety. Asparukh had probably brought (or swept along) much more Indo-European than Turkic speakers, and that is why the Türks proper had easily lost their language in such an environment. The Turkic tradition, chiefly in its spiritual forms, military-administrative structures, names and titles was preserved by the ruling elite, who occupied predominantly the Pliska plain. A massive presence of proper Slavic and Slavicised Iranian population can more convincingly explain some widely known by unconvincingly interpreted so far facts of the early stage of the Bulgarian culture:

  1. The ubiquitous Slavic toponymy of the central region of the Bulgarian state;
  2. The Slavic names of the capitals Pliska and Preslav;
  3. The few Turkic remains in the Bulgarian language;
  4. The non-conflicting bi-rituality of the Bulgarian burials of the VIII-IX c. AD;
  5. The rapid consolidation of the Bulgarian ethnos which was a reality long before 865 AD and which was only formally legitimised by the adoption of Christianity.

Under such a perspective, the question about the origin of the “Proto-Bulgarians” (?) provides new opportunities to overcome the stereotypes enforced upon the Bulgarian historical studies between the two world wars, some of which live until the present day.


[Back]


1. For the latest overview see D i m i t r o v, D. Il. Prabylgarite po Severnoto i Zapadnoto Chernomorie. Varna, 1987, s. 30 sl.

2. This view is also supported in the latest academic edition of history of the Bulgarian lands, cf. Istorija pa Bylgarija. T. II. S., 1981, s.60.

3. B e sh e v l i e v, V. Pyrvobylgarite. Bit i kultura. S., 1981; R a sh e v, R. Dunavska Bylgarija i Centralna Azija. - Vtori mezhdunaroden kongres po bylgaristika. Dokladi. T.6. S., 1987, s. 205-210.

4. B a l a n. M., B o e v, P. Arheologicheski materiali ot nekropola pri Novi Pazar. -IAI, XX, 1955, s.347-370; J o r d a n o v, I. Antropologicheski izsledvane na kostnija material ot rannobylgarskija masov grob pri grad Devnja. - IKMV, XII (XXVII), 1976, s. 171-213. Similar are the preliminary conclusions of Dr Sl. Cholakov from the anthropological investigation of the skeletons of the bi0ritual necropolis near the village of Karamanite in the district of Varna.

5. M l a d e n o v, St. Verojatni i mnimi ostatyci ot ezika na Asparuhovite bylgari v novobylgarskata rech. - GSU, IF, XVII, 1920-1921, s. 286; Istorija na bylgarski ezik (fototipno izdanie). S , 1979, s. 32-35.

6. B o e v, E. Za predturskoto tjurksko vlijanie v bylgarskija ezik - oshte njakolko prabylgarski dumi. - Bylgarski ezik. XV, 1965, 1, s.16. Recently, B. Simeonov proposed an old-Turkic origin of several village names in the district of Shumen, but there have been no reviews of his work.

7. B e sh e v l i e v, V. Za raznorodnata syshtnost na pyrvobylgarite. - Pliska-Preslav. T. 2. S., 1981, s. 22.

8. B e sh e v l i e v, V. Prabylgarite..., s. 31 -32.

9. S m i r n o v, A. P. Volzhskie bulgaryj. M., 1951, s. 10-12; M e r p e r t. N. JA. O genezise saltovskoj kul’turyj. - KSIIMK, 36, 1951, s. 14 sl. A r t a m o n o v, M. L. Istorija hazar. L., 1962, s. 82-83; S t a n ch e v, S t., I v a n o v. S t. Nekropolyt pri Novi Pazar. S., 1958, s. 93; S t a n ch e v, St. Realnite vyrhu relefa na madarskija konnik. - V: Madarskijat konnik. Prouchvanija vyrhu nadpisite i relefa. S., 1956, s. 198-199; V a k l i n o v, S t. Formirane na starobylgarskata kultura VI-XI v. S., 1977, s. 28-29.

10. A f a n a s ‘ e v, G.E. Etnogeneticheskij aspekt burtasskoj problemyj i arheologicheskij istochnik. - Voprosyj etnicheskoj istorii Vologo-Don’ja v epohu srednevekov’ja i problema burtasov. Penza, 1990. s. 3-5; K yj z l a s o v, I.L. Novyje dannyje o proishozhdenii i rasprostranenii drevnetjurkskoj runicheskoj pis’mennosti Evrazii (doklad na III mezhdunarodna sreshta po prabylgarska arheologija v SHumen, 1990 g, pod pechat).

11. F e d o r o v, G.B., P o l e v o j, L.L. Arheologija Rumyjnii. M., 1973, s. 260-263; Ch. Bichir. Les sarmates au Bas-Danube. – Dacia. XXI. 1977, p.167-197.

12. F e d o r o v, G.B., P o l e v o j, L.L. Op. cit., s. 263-276; B a r a n, V.D. Chernjahivska kul’tura. Kiiv, 1981; M a g o m e d o v, B.V. Chernjahovskaja kul’tura Severozapadnogo Prichernomor’ja. Kiev, 1987.

13. F e d o r o v, G.B., P o l e v o j, L.L. Op. cit, s. 277-278.

14. Arheologija Ukrainskoj SSR. T. III. Kiev, 1986, s. 100-112.

15. Arheologija Ukrainskoj SSR, T. III. s. 153-166; Etnokul’turnaja karta territorii Ukrainskoj SSR v I tyjs. n.e. Kiev, 1985, s. 85-92; Slavjane JUgovostochnoj Evropyj v predgosudarstvennyjj period. Kiev, 1990, s. 202 sl.

16. Cf.. the literature in note No 15 as well as: S e d o v, V.V. Vostochnyje slavjane v VI-XIII vv. M, 1982, s. 19-28; P r i h o d n ju k,O. M. Arheologichni pam’jatki Seredn’ogo Pridniprov’ja VI-IX st.n.e. Kiiv, 1980; Ob etnokul’turnoj situacii v Dneprovskom lesostepnom pogranich’e vo vtoroj polovine I tyjsjacheletija n.e. - Problemyj etnogeneza slavjan. Kiev, 1978, s. 108-124; Antyj i pen’kovskaja kul’tura. - Drevnie slavjane i Kievskaja Rus’. Kiev, 1989, s. 58-69.

17. R u s a n o v a, I. P. Slavjanskie drevnosti VI-VII vv. M.. 1976, s. 89.

18. A r t a m o n o v, M. I. Bolgarskie kul’turyj Severnogo i Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ja. Dokladyj otdelenij i komissij Geograficheskogo obshtestva SSSR. Vyjp. 15, 1970, s. 22-23: Etnicheskata prinadlezhnost i istoricheskoto znachenie na pastirskata kultura. -Arheologija, 1969, 3, s. 1 sl.

19. B e r e z o v e c ‘, D. T. Slov’jani i plemena saltivskoj kul’turyj. - Arheologija, 19, 1965, s. 47-67; D i m i t r o v, D. Il. Po vyprosa za grobnite kameri s trupoizgarjane v rannosrednovekovnite nekropoli v Severoiztochna Bylgarija i Dobrudzha. - INMV, XII (XXVII), 1976, s. 17; A n g e l o v a, St. Tradicii v prabylgarskata keramika na Severoiztochna Bylgarija. - GSU, IF, t. 74. 1982, s. 40 sl.; V a k l i n o v, St. Op. cit., s. 31.

20. A r t a m o n o v, M. I. Etnicheskata prinadlezhnost..., s. 8.

21. R u s a n o v a, I. P. Op. cit., s. 85-112.

22. Ibidem, s. 92-93, fig. 33.

23. Ibid, s. 111, 112.

24. Arheologija Ukrainskoj SSSR, s. 225-231.

25. A j b a b i n, A. I. Pogrebenie hazarskogo voina. - Sovetskaja arheologija, 1985, 4, s. 191-197, ris. 7.

26. V e r n e r, J. Pogrebalnata nahodka ot Malaja Pereshtepina i Kubrat, han na bylgarite. S., 1988.

27. A m b r o z, A. K. O Voznesenskom komplekse VIII v. na Dnepre - vopros interpretacii. - Drevnosti epohi Velikogo pereselenija narodov. M., 1982, s. 205-222.

28. R a sh e v, R. Uskoreno razvitie na starobylgarskata kultura. - Pyrvi mezhdunaroden kongres po bylgaristika. Dokladi. Simpozium slavjani i prabylgari. S., 1982, s. 95-96 i bel. 3; S t a n i l o v, St. Selishta i auli (njakoi vyprosi za preselenieto i usjadaneto na prabylgarite na Dolnija Dunav VII-VIII v.). - Sbornik v pamet na prof. Stancho Vaklinov. S, 1984, s. 100-103. Srv. i G ju z e l e v, V. Ikonomichesko razvitie, socialna struktura i formi na socialna i politicheska organizacija na prabylgarite do obrazuvaneto na bylgarskata dyrzhava (IV-VII v.). - Arheologija, 1979, 4, s. 12-21.

29. P l e t n e v a, S. A.Ot kochevij k gorodam. M, 1967, s. 13-19.

30. A n g e l o v a, St. Op. cit., s. 55 sl.

31. Ibidem, s. 60-61.

32. P r i h o d n ju k, O.M. K voprosu o prisutstvii antov v Karpato-dunajskih zemljah. - Slavjane na Dnestre i Dunae. Kiev, 1983, s. 180-191; B o n e v, CH. Anti i slavini v Dobrudzha prez VI v. - Rusko-bylgarski vryzki prez vekovete. S., 1986, s. 56-61.