2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 1/11

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - Contents

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzTheophylact Jujans,Scythians, Türks, and AvarsWestern Huns Income InGoldSwords, Masks and BalbalsBulgars and AlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

BesenyoDateline

Bulgar DatelineHuns Dateline

Karluk Dateline

Khazar DatelineKimak Dateline

KipchakDatelineKyrgyz

DatelineSabir Dateline

SeyantoDateline

L.Gmyrya

HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIANGATE

Caspian Dagestan during epoch of the Great Movement of Peoples

Dagestan Publishing, Makhachkala 1995, ISВN 5-297-01099-3

© Гмыря Л.Б. L.B. Gmyrya1995

CONTENTS

Links

http://turkicworld.org/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/GmyryaHunCountryRu.djvu (In Russian)

Foreword

The author L. Б. Gmyrya is a PhD, DSc of historical sciences, a senior scientific associate of IAE DNC

of the Russian Academy of Science Institute, is an archeologist, an expert in the area of early Middle Ages.

She penned monograph “Caspian Dagestan during epoch of the Great Movement of Peoples

(Makhachkala, 1993), and tens of other scientific publications (http://www.ihae.ru/personnel/Gmirya.htm, in

Russian).

After the groundbreaking work of Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen (1973) The World of the Huns, andseminal works of L.Gumilev Ancient Türks (1964) and The Huns in China (1974), this work is probably

the most important contribution to the history of the Huns, not because it attempts to paint a wide synopsis

like the above two authors, but because the monograph mines the microcosm of the Caspian Huns to the

depth far exceeding the depth of the prior wide-spectrum outlines. It suffices to state that L.B. Gmyrya

attracted 678 references to many aspects of the Hunnic life in the Caspian littoral, exhausting all known

ancient sources and analyzing the prior scholarship in Russian-language. The case of Caspian Huns is a

proverbial test-case, blessed by availability of multi-faceted sources from local Armenian and Georgian

authors, and from a range of areal players including Byzantine, Roman, Arabic, Persian, Jewish, and Slavicauthors.

Probably due to technical limitations of the tumultuous time around 1995 period, the monograph did not

include customary indexes guiding a reader through the maze of the names, cities and geographical locations,

and political events, nor did it include a chronology. These shortcomings are ameliorated with the electronic

media that allows similar access in search for quick references. An acceptable chronology listing can be

found at M.I. Artamonov (1962) Khazar History, with a caveat that it follows the Arabic anopia to the

ethnic composition of the “Khazars”.A quite extensive introductory section with panoramic background of

the historical scene, and review of various angles within historiographical approaches would also make the

monograph more universal, but since the background references became readily available on-line shortly

after publication, its absence became a minor glitch. The nearly complete absence of archeological

information, with its typological insights, anthropological and biological specifics probably reflects the state of

affairs at the time of publication, and the confinement of the scholarship to exclusively Russian sources adds

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 2/11

to the disconcert. L.B. Gmyrya have performed a monumental task, bringing to the surface innumerabledetails in the area that not only straddles the histories of the Eastern and Western Huns, but also carries a

reflection of the Northern-Central and South-Central Huns.

The Caspian Huns fit neatly into the partial maps of Hunnic migrations composed by M.Erdy, who

archeologically traced Hunnic migrations from east to the Central Europe, without addressing the Caspian

Huns and South-Central Huns. The maps of M. Erdy do not show the artifacts of the Hunnic branch in

Dagestan and its vicinity, but that does not mean that they were not found.

The monograph contributes mightily to one highly speculated and thoroughly obfuscated subject of the

Caucasian Aguania, floodlighted by the Armenian sources. The story about the Aguanian King of Maskutsand Huns Sanesan allows an insight into otherwise murky subject, the temporal correlation between the

Maskuts (Alans) and Huns, which for a time puts the Kayi Huns in a secondary position in respect to theMaskuts. That signals that the Huns did not come to the S.Caucasia as powerful conquerors, but rather as

refugees seeking shelter and patronage from the Maskut-Massaget tribes. That also signals that parallelingthe Caucasian Huns - Western Huns situation, the Caucasian Maskuts were an appendix of the Middle

Asian Maskuts, an extension of a greater Maskut power centered in the greater Horezm area, and notadequately reflected in the surviving written sources.

Poor print quality hurts the accuracy of this posting, but fortunately the contents are not impacted. Page

numbers of the original are shown at the beginning of the page in blue. Page breaks in continuous text areindicated by //. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are

shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers.

3

INTRODUCTION1. ANCIENT AUTHORS ABOUT CASPIAN DAGESTAN

4

1. Antique and Early Byzantian writers 8

2. Syrian chronographs and historians 19

3. Armenian historians 22

4. Aluankian (Albanian) historians 26

5. Arabian geographers and historians 30

2. CASPIAN COUNTRY

1. Limits of the Huns (2nd-4th centuries) 46

2. Country of the Huns (5th-7th centuries) 54

3. Caspian political centers in the 8th century 66

“Hun Country” - Possession Semender 67

“Balandjar Country” 76

“Vabandar Territory” 82

“Haydak Land” 83

“Khazar's Country” 85

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 3/11

Historical Geography 86

3. CASPIAN PEOPLES 89

1. Population of the “Huns' country” 91

2. Endoethnonym of the “Huns' country” inhabitants 101

3. Language of the “Huns' country” population 103

4. Outward appearance of the Caspian Huns 106

4. NATIONAL ECONOMY OF THE HUNS

1. Cattle breeding, crafts, agriculture 115

2. Craft and trade 119

3. War as a means of enrichment 127

5. CITIES IN THE HUNS COUNTRY

1. Cities 134

2. Houses of inhabitants 156

6. GREAT PRINCE OF HUNS

1. Consolidation of the Hunnish union 164

2. Power and weakness of Hun Khan authority 166

3. Closest circle of the Khan 171

7. ARMY AND WAR

1. Huns Army 174

2. Soldier's armaments and equipment 178

3. Battle tactics 184

4. Military campaigns and military assistance 187

5. Caspian Huns and Arabo-Khazarian wars 204

8. SUBJECTS OF HUN “GRAND PRINCE”

1. Commoners 207

2. Population of subject territories 209

3. Slaves 210

4. Family and marriage 212

9. GODS AND CULTS

1. Nature Deities 219

2. Fertility cult 221

3. Tengri-khan god 237

4. Amulets and fetishs 239

5. Priests and cult clergy 241

10. ON A PATH TO THE WORLD RELIGIONS

1. Christianity 244

2. Islam and Judaism 253

11. BURIAL

1. Funeral ceremony 259

2. Memorial ceremonies 263

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 4/11

3. Ancestor cult 267

LITERATURE 269

WORKS OF RESEARCHERS 274

ABBREVIATIONS 282

CONTENTS 284

LITERATURE

Sources (not properly edited)

268

Agafangel. - Patkanian K. Attempt on history of Sassanid dynasty according to reports of Armenian writers

/ Works of BOI RAO. SPb., 1869. Ch 14.Agathias. - Agathias. On reign of Justinian / Translated by M.V. Levchenko. Moscow, Leningrad, 1953.

Ammianus Marcellinus. I. - Ammianus Marcellinus. Book 23 / Transl. V.V.Latyshev. //VDI. 1949. № 3.

Ammianus Marcellinus. II. Ammianus Marcellinus. History / Transl. Yu.A. Kulakovsky. Kiev, 1908,

Apollinaris Sidonius. - Apollinaris Sidonius. Poems. II. Panegric to Antemius Augustus, secondly a consul /Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1949. № 4.

Armenian geography. I. - Armenian geography of the 7th century (Attributed to Moisei Khorenatsi) / Transl.

K.P. Patkanov. SPb., 1877.

Armenian geography. AP - K.P. Patkanov. From the new manuscript of geography, attributed to MoiseiKhorenatsi / JMNP. 1883. March.

al-Balkhi. - Abu Zayd al-Balkhi / Transl. D.A.Chvolson //News on the Khazars, Burtas, Bulgarians,

Hungarians, Slavs and Ruses by Abu Ali Ahmed Ben Omar Ibn Dust, hitherto unknown Arabic writer of thebeginning of 10th century. SPb., 1869.

al-Baladhuri. - From Opus of Baladzori “The Book of the conquest of countries” / Transl. P.C. Jouseph

//Materials on the history of Azerbaijan. Baku, 1927. Vol. 3.

269 Vardan the Great. - World History of Vardan the Great / Transl. N. Amin. M., 1861.

al-Garnati. I. - Murib an bad adjaib al-Maghrib (Clear account of some miracles of Maghreb) / Transl. O.G.

Bolshakov //Journey of Abu Khalid al-Garnati to Eastern and Central Europe (1131 - 1153). M., 1971.

al-Garnati. I. - Tuhfat al-wa albab va nuhbat al-adjab (Gift to minds and example of rarities) / Transl. O.G.Bolshakov //Journey of Abu Khalid al-Garnati to Eastern and Central Europe (1131 - 1153). M., 1971.

Ghevond. - History of Caliphs by Vardapet Ghevond, 8th century writer / Transl. K. Patkanyan. SPb.,

1862.Herodotus. - Herodotus. “History” / Transl. E.A. Bessmertny //VDI. 1947. № 2.

Derbent-name. I. - Said M.S., Shikhsaidov A.R. “Derbent-name” (to the question of the study) / Transl. AR

Shihsaidova //Oriental sources on the history of Daghestan. Makhachkala., 1980.

Derbent-name. II. - Aktas Mohammed Avabn. Derbent-name / Transl. MR G. Orazaeva. . Makhachkala.,1992.

Derbent-name. III. - Schihsaidov AR, Aytberov TM, G. Orazaev M.-R. Dagestani historical writings /

Transl. MR G. Orazaeva. M., 1993.

Dionysius. - Dionysius. Description populated land / Transl. IP Tsvetkova //VDI. 1948. № 1.Yeghishe. - Yeghishe. About Vardan and the Armenian War / Transl. IA Orbeln. Yerevan, 1971.

Eusebius Hieronymus. - Eusebius Hieronymus. Letter 77. To the ocean. On the death of Fabiola, Letter 60.

By Gelnodoru / Transl. V.V.Latyshev / 7VDI. 1949. № 4.Zosimus - Zosimus. New History / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1948. № 4.

270

Ibn al-Asir. - From the Tarikh al-Kamil (the full set of stories), Ibn al-Asir / Transl. PK Joseph //Materials

on the history of Azerbaijan. Baku, 1940.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 5/11

Ibn Rust. - Ibn Rust. Al-Alaq Al-Nafis / Transl. VF Minorsky //In Manorsky, F. History of Shirvan andDarband 10 - 11 centuries. Appendix IV. Ibn Ruste of Dagestan. M. 1963.

Ibn al-Faqih. - Ibn al-Faqih. From the “Book of Countries” / Transl. NA Karaulov //Information Arab

writers of the Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1902. Vol. XXXI.

UPS Haukal. - Ibn Haukal. From “The Book of ways and kingdoms” / Transl. NA, Karaulov //InformationArab geographers 9 - 10 centuries of Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1908. Vol.

XXXVIII.

Ibn Khordadbeh. - Ibn Khordadbeh. The book of ways and / Transl., Comments, research, guides and

maps of N. Velihanovoy. Baku. 1986.Yeshu Styles. - Chronicle of Yeshu Stylitea. Chronicles the tale of the misfortunes that were in Edessa,

Amida and throughout Mesopotamia / Transl. N. Pigulevskaya //Pigulevskaya N. Mesopotamia at the turn

of the 5 - 6 cc. BC The Syrian news Yeshu Stylite as a historical source. Moscow, Leningrad, 1940.Joseph I. - Response letter to the Khazar King Joseph (short version) / Transl. PK Kokovtsev //Kokovtsoff

PK Hebrew-Khazar Correspondence in the 10th century. L., 1932.

Joseph. II. - Response letter to the Khazar King Joseph (the longer version) / Transl. PK Kokovtsev

//Kokovtsoff PK Hebrew-Khazar Correspondence in the 10th century: L., 1932.al-Istahri. - Al-Istahri. From “The Book of ways kingdoms” / Per .. H, A. Karaulov //Information Arab

writers of the Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1901. Vol. XXIX.

271

al-Iakubi. - Yakub. History. / Transl. PK Joseph /. / Materials on the history of Azerbaijan. Baku, 1927.Vol. IV.

Claudius Claudian. - Claudius Claudian. To Rufina. Book I, N II / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDN. 1949. №

4.Claudius Ptolemy. - Claudius Ptolemy. Geographical guide / Transl. IP Tsvetkova //VDI. 1948. № 2.

al-Kufi. - Al-Kufi. Book gains (Excerpts from the history of Azerbaijan 7 - 9 cc.) / Transl. 3. M. Bunyatova.

Baku, 1981.

Leonti Mroveli. - Mroveli Leontius. Life Kartli kings. Extracting information about Abkhazia, the nations ofthe North Caucasus, Dagestan and / Transl. GV Tsulaia. , 1979.

Al-Masoudi I - Masoudi. From the book “Meadows of gold mines and precious stones” / Transl. NA

Karaulov //Information Arab geographers 9 - 10 centuries of Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1908. Vol. XXXVIII.

Al-Masoudi II. - Masoudi. Murudj al-Dzahab (Gold Placers) (Chapter XVII) / Per, W. F; Minorsky

//History of Shirvan and Darband 10 - 11 centuries. Annex III, Masoudi the Caucasus. M., 1963.

Al-Masoudi III - Masoudi, from the “Book of communications and knowledge” / Transl. NA Karaulov//Information Arab geographers 9 - 10 centuries of Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. SMOMPK. Tiflis,

1908. Vol. HHHUSH.

Menander Byzantian. (Protiktor). - Menander Byzantines continued stories Agafievoy / Transl. S. Destunisa

//Byzantine historians, St. Petersburg., 1860:Movses Kalankatuatsi. I. - History Aghvan Kagankatvatsi Moses, the writer of the 10th century. / Transl.

K. Patkanyan. SPb., 1861.

272 Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. - Movses Kalankatuatsi. The country's history Aluank / Transl. S. V. Smbatyan.

Yerevan, 1984.

Moses Horenskny. - Armenian History of Movses Khorenatsi / Transl. N. A. Emin. M., 1893.

al-Muqaddasi. - Al-Muqaddasi. From the book “Best of the divisions for knowledge of climates” / Transl.NA Karaulov //Information Arab geographers 9 - 10 centuries of Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1908. Vol. XXXVIII.

P. L., - The Tale of Bygone Years. Moscow, Leningrad, 1950. Vol. I.

Prisk Pannonian. - Prisk Pannonian. Gothic History / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1948. № 4.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 6/11

Prnstsian. - Prnstsian. Zemleopisanie / Transl. IP Tsvetkova //VDI. 1949. № 4.

Procopius of Caesarea. Ia - Procopius of Caesarea The history of wars with the Romans by the Persians in

the two books / Transl. S. Destunisa. Book. I. SPb., 1876.Procopius of Caesarea. 1b. - Procopius of Caesarea The history of wars with the Romans by the Persians /

Transl. S. Destunisa. Book. 2. SPb., 1880.

Procopius of Caesarea. II, - Procopius of Caesarea. The war with the Goths / Transl. SP Kondratiev.

Moscow, 1950.Pseudo-Zacharias. - Chronicle of Zachariah of the rhetorician (Mitilenskogo) / Transl. N. Pigulevskaya

//Syrian sources on the history of the USSR. Moscow, Leningrad, 1941.

Rufy Avien Fest. - Rufy Avien Fest. Description of the Earth circle / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1949. №

4.

Sebeos - History of the Emperor Heraclius. Bishop Sebeos essay, the writer of the 7th century. / Transl. K.

Patkanyai St. Petersburg., 1862.Stepanos Taronetsi. - World History of Stepanos Taronetsi (Asohnka) / Transl. N. Amin. M., 1864. at-

Tabari. 1. - Dorn. Proceedings of the Khazars Oriental historian Tabarn, with excerpts from Gafis-Abru, Ibn

Alzem El Kufi, etc. / Transl. P. Tyajelova //ZhMNP. 1944, August.

at-Tabari. II. - Shikhsaidov AR Book of at-Tabari, “History of Messengers and Kings” on the peoples of

the North Caucasus / Transl. AR Shihsaidova //Monuments of History and Literature of the East. M., 1986.

Tarikh al-Bab. - History of Shirvan and al-Baba / Transl. VF Minorsky //Minorsky, Vladimir F. History ofShirvan and Darband 10 - 11 centuries. M., 1963.

Favstos Buzand. - History of Armenia Favstosa Buzand / Transl. MA Gevorgian //Ancient Monuments of

Armenian literature. Yerevan, 1953.

Theophanes Byzantian. - Excerpts from the history of Theophanes / Transl. S. Destunisa //Byzantine

historians. SPb., 1860.

Theophanes Confessor. - Theophanes Confessor. Chronographia / Transl. and commentary by JS

Chichurova //Chichurov Byzantine historical works. , 1980.Theophylact Simokatta. - Theophylact Simokatta. History / Transl. SP Kondratiev. M. 1957.

Flavius Vegeta Renat. - Flavius Vegeta Renat. A brief sketch of military / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI.

1949. № 4.

Hudud . - Hudud al Alem. Manuscript Tumanskii with the introduction and index Bartol'd. L., 1930.

Julius Honorius. - Julius Honorius. Description of the world / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1949. № 4.

Works of researchers (not properly edited)

273

Abduldaev I. X. 1976. Derivational model oikonyms Dagestan //Onomastics Caucasus. Makhachkala.

Agashirinova S. 1978. Material culture Lezgins 19th - early 20th centuries. M.

274

Akopian, AA 1987. Albania - Aluank in the Greco-Latin and ancient Armenian sources. Yerevan.Alekseev, NA 1980. Early forms of religion of Turkic peoples of Siberia. Novosibirsk.

Alimov, BM 1977. Marriage and marriage customs Kumykov past and present (late 19th - 20th centuries)..

Abstract. Dis. cand. Hist. Science. L.

Alimov, BM 1992. Tabasarantsy. 19 - early 20 th century. Makhachkala.

Alikhanov AA 1978. Ancient stories in the tradition village Mekegi //Monuments of Bronze and early Iron

Age. Makhachkala.

Artamonov, MI 1936. Essays on the ancient history of the Khazars. L. Artamonov, MI 1962. History Khazar L.

Atayev JM, Magomedov, MG 1974. Andreyaulskoe settlement //Antiquities of Dagestan. Makhachkala.

Ashurbeyli SB 1983. State Shirvanshahs (6 - 16 cc.). Baku.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 7/11

Bank A. 1966. Byzantine art in the collections of the Soviet Union. L., M.

Bartold VV, 1963, Place of littoral areas in the history of the Muslim world. Cit. M. II. Part I,

Barthold, VV 1973. On the question of the origin of “Derbent-name”.Cit. M. VIII.

Baskakov, NA 1960. Turkic languages.

M. Bernshtam 1951. Essay on the history of the Huns. L.

Bichurin J. 1950. Collection of information on peoples in Central Asia in ancient times. Moscow, Leningrad

Bromley, YV 1983. Essays on the theory of ethnos. M. Bromley YV, Kozlov, VI 1987. Ethnicity and ethnic processes as a subject of research //Ethnic Processes in

the modern world. M.

Bulatov A. Laks 1971. Makhachkala.

275

Bulatov, A. 1980. Some family and public rituals of rural people in mountainous Dagestan 19th - early. 20.

Associated with the spring-summer calendar cycle. //Family life of the peoples of Dagestan. Makhachkala.

Bulatov, A. 1984. Ideological representation of the Avars, as reflected in the celebration of the first furrow

(19 - early. 20..) //The mythology of the peoples of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Beletskaya, NN, 1978. Slavic Pagan Symbols of the archaic rituals. M.

Vernadsky, G. 1992. Ancient Russia. / Transl. and comments A. X. Bekuzarova //Alana and the Caucasus.

Vladikavkaz

Vysotsky, TN 1979. Naples - the capital of the state late Scythians. Kiev.

Hajiyev, GA 1980. Vestiges of ancient ideas of funeral and burial rites Lezgins //Family life of the peoples of

Dagestan. Makhachkala.

Hajiyev, GA 1991. Pre-Islamic beliefs and practices of the peoples of Dagestan, Nagorno. M.Hajiyev, M. 1990. To localize Varachan //XVI “Krupnovskie read” the archeology of the North Caucasus

(abstracts of reports). Stavr.

Hajiyev C. S. 1959. Marriage and wedding ceremonies in Kumykov in 19 - early 20 th century. //Uch.zap.

IIYAL Doug Branch of the USSR. Makhachkala. Vol. VI.

Hajiyev C. S. 1961. Kumyks. M.

Hajiyev C. S. 1985. Family and marriage among the peoples of Dagestan in the 19th - early 20th century.

M.Hajiyev C. S., Adjiev AM 1980. Funeral rites and lamentations Kumykov //Family life of nations. Dagestan.

Makhachkala.

Gadlo AV 1979. Ethnic history of the North Caucasus 4 - 10 cc. L.

Gadlo AV 1980. Religious reform in the “country of the Huns” in the 7th century. as an expression of social

conflict, the formative period of the class of the society //genesis, milestones, and common ways of

feudalism, especially among the peoples of the North Caucasus. Proc. Abstracts. Makhachkala.

276

Genko AN 1941. Arabic and Caucasian: Proceedings of the second session of the Association of Arabists.Moscow, Leningrad

Gmyrya L.B. 1979. The social composition of Hun society (6 - 7 cc.) //II Conference of Young Scientists,

Doug. Branch of the USSR. Proc. Abstracts. Makhachkala.

Gmyrya L.B. 1980. Some information about the Huns in Dagestan //Ancient and medieval archaeological

sites in Dagestan. Max.

Gmyrya L.B. 1986. The pagan cults in the Huns of the North-East Caucasus //Rites and worship of the

ancient and medieval population of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Gmyrya L.B. 1987. Obsequies Palace syrtskogo cemetery (ethno-social interpretation) //Ethno-cultural

processes in the ancient Dagestan. Makhachkala.

Gmyrya L.B. 1988. Of social relations among the Huns of the North-East Caucasus 6 - 7 cc. //The

development of feudal relations among the peoples of the North Caucasus. Makhachkala.

Gmyrya L.B. 1993. Caspian Dagestan in the era of the Great Migration. Burials. Makhachkala.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 8/11

Grach A.D. 1980. Ancient nomads in the heart of Asia. M.

Gumilev L.N. 1966. The opening of the Khazars (Historical geografnchesky study). M.Gumilev L.N. 1992. Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe. M..

Gumilev L.N. 1993. The ancient Turks. M.

Darkevitch VP 1960. The symbols of the heavenly bodies in the ornament of ancient Russia. CA. № 4.

Darkevitch VP 1974. Bucket of Khazar and Turkic heroic epic //Xia. M in. 140.

277

Darkevitch VP 1976. Art metal East. 8 - 13 cc. M.

Jafarov J. R. 1981. Huns and Azerbaijan. Abstract. Dis. . cand. Hist. Science. Baku.

Jafarov J. R. 1985. Huns and Azerbaijan. Baku. Djidalaev NI S. 1984. Notes on two ancient Bulgar magical terms //mythology of the peoples of Dagestan.

Makhachkala.

Djndalaev NI S. 1990. Türkizms in the Dagestan languages. Experience the historical and etymological

analysis. M.

Dibirov M. A, 1986, Nature and genesis of the funeral games of the Caucasian peoples //Proc. Doc. All-

Union session on the field ethnographer, and anthropology. Issled. 1984 - 1985. Yoshkar-Ola.

Dyakonov, M., 1961. Essay on the history of ancient Iran. M. Eremin, S.T. 1939. Moses Kalankatuatsi of the Albanian embassy Prince Varazi-Trdat to Khazar Haqqani

Alp Ilitveru //Proceedings of Institute of Oriental Studies. M., LT VII.

Zasetskaya IP 1994. Culture of the nomads in the southern Russian steppes Hun era (late 4th - 5th cc.).

SPb.

Zahodsr BN 1962. Caspian collection of information on Eastern Europe. Gorgan and the Volga region in the

9th - 10th centuries. M.

Znlfeldt-Simumyagi. AR 1988. On the question of language, Khazar (1937) //Soviet Turkic Studies. № 6.Byzantine history. 1967. M. I.

History of Dagestan. 1967. M. I.

History of the North Caucasus since ancient times to the late 18th century. 1988. M.

Ichilov, MM 1961. Family and household in Tabasarantsev in the late 19th - early. 20th century. //Uch. app.

IIYAL Doug Branch of the USSR. Makhachkala. Vol. IX.

Klyashtorny SG 1981. North Caucasian Huns Pantheon and its relationship with the mythology of the

ancient Turks of Central Asia //Cultural links the peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus with the outside

world and ancient i.srednevekove. M.278

Klyashtorny SG 1983. Hun power in the East (3. BC - 4th century AD.) //The history of the ancient world.

The decline of ancient societies. M

Klyashtorny SG 1984. Prabolgarsky Tangra Mr. ancient Turkic pantheon //Collected in memory of

Professor. Stanchev Vaklikov. Sofia.

Kotovnch VG and 1974. On the location of the early medieval town Varachan, Belenjer and Targu

//Antiquities of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Kotovich VG 1974 b. Archaeological evidence to a question about the location of Semender //Antiquities of

Dagestan. Makhachkala.

Krachkovskii IY 1957. Arabic geographical literature. Huts. cit. M., LT 4.

Ksenofontova RA 1981. Folklore and cultural patterns of Japanese pottery production of the early 20th

century. //Material culture and mythology. L.

Kudryavtsev AA 1976. The city is not dependent ages. Makhachkala.

Kudryavtsev AA 1979, “Long wall” in the Eastern Caucasus //B. I. № 11 Kuznetsov, VA 1984. Essays on the history of Alan. Ordj.

Kurbanov, KE 1974. Marriage and wedding ceremonies in Tsakhurs in 19 - nach. 20th century. //Questions

of History and Ethnography, Dagestan. Makhachkala.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 9/11

Lares R, I. 1958. Tarki until the 18th century. / (Uch. app. IIYAL Dagfiliala Academy of Sciences.

Makhachkala. Vol. IV.

Lazarev, J., 1859, about Huns Dagestan. Tiflis.

Lipetz RS 1982. Reflection of a funeral ceremony in the Turkic-Mongolian epics //. Rites and ritual folklore.

M.Magomedov, MG 1983. Education of the Khazar Khanate. M.

279

Farid Mammadov. 1977. “The history of Alban” Moses Kalankatutskogo as a source for the social order of

early medieval Albania. Baku.

Mammayev M. 1967. On the origin of one of the Dagestan ornamental motif //Uch. app. IIYAL.

Makhachkala. Vol. 17.

Mammayev M. 1976. About Christian symbols and subjects of medieval arts and crafts Dagestan//Dagestan art history. Mack.

Mikailov K. S. 1976. Rubas and Samur. //Onomastics Caucasus. Makhachkala.

Minorshy VF 1963, History of Shirvan and Darband 10 - 11 centuries. M.

Mythology. 1984. - Mythology of the peoples of Dagestan;. Max

Miryan, M.M. 1969. Khorenatsi. Yerevan.

Nechaev, LG 1975. On the southern dwelling nomads in Eastern Europe during the Iron Age (1st millennium

BC - the first floor. 2 thousand BC) //An ancient dwelling peoples of Eastern Europe. M.Novoseltsev, A.P. 1980. The genesis of feudalism in the Caucasus. M.

Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. Khazar state and its role in the history of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. M.

Pigulevskaya NV 1940. Mesopotamia at the turn of the 5 - 6 cc. BC The Syrian news of Yeshu Stylite as a

historical source //Proc. IV. Vol. 31. Moscow, Leningrad

Pigulevskaya N. 194]. Syrian sources on the history of the USSR. Moscow, Leningrad

Pletnev, S. 1986. The Khazars. M.

Pokrovsky, LV 1983. Agricultural rites //calendar customs in the countries of Europe overseas. Historicalroots and development practices. M.

Potapov, LP 1991. Altai shamanism. L.

Prjetslavskny P, 1860. Manners and Customs in Dagestan //War collection. № 4.

280

Putintseva ND 1961. Verhnechiryurtovsky Cemetery (preliminary report) //MAD. Makhachkala. Vol. 2.

Reshetov AM 1981. Dragon in the cultural tradition of Chinese //Material culture and mythology. L.

Rybakov, BA 1952. Russia to Khazaria (A historical geography Khazar) //Academician BD Grekov

semides the day. M.Fishermen B, A. 1981. Paganism of the ancient Slavs. M.

Sagalayev AM 1991. Ural-Altaic mythology. Symbol and archetype. Novosnb.

Sevortian EV 1974. Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages. M.

Sychev, LP 1972. The traditional embodiment of the principle in China's Inya ritual garb //The role of

traditions in the history of Chinese culture. M.

Dictionary of antiquity. 1989. M.

Modern culture. 1971. - Modern culture and way of life of the peoples of Dagestan. M.Tokarev, SA 1983. Sex customs //calendar customs and traditions in countries overseas in Europe.

Historical roots and development practices. M.

Tokarev SA, Filimonova TD 1983. Rituals and practices associated with vegetation //calendar customs and

traditions of foreign countries in Europe. Historical roots and development practices. M.

Trever K. B. 1959. Essays on the history and culture of Caucasian Albania. 4th century. BC - 7, AD

Moscow, Leningrad

Turkic-Dagestan linguistic contacts. 1982. Makhachkala. Udaltsova 3. B. 1967. Sources on the History of Byzantine 4 - the first half of the 7th century. // Byzantine

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 10/11

History, M. Vol. 1

Udaltsova 3. B. 1984. The development of historical thought // Byzantine Culture, 4th - first half of 7th

century. M.281

Fedorov Ya.A. 1972. Khazaria and Dagestan // A short ethnographic collection. M,. 5.

Fedorov Ya.A., Fedorov, G. S. 1978. Early Turks in the North Caucasus. M.

Khazanov, A.M. 1975. Social history of Scythians, M.Khalidova, M.R. 1984. Mythological characters in oral prose peoples of Dagestan // Mythology of the

Dagestan peoples. Makhachkala.

Khalilov Kh. M. 1984. Reflection of pagan notions of ritual and folklore Laks // Mythology of the Dagestan

peoples. Makhachkala.

Chichurov 1980. Byzantine historical works: “Chronographia” Theophanes, “Divine Office” Nicephorus. M.

Shihsaidov A.R. 1957. On the penetration of Christianity and Islam in Dagestan // Scolarly Notes. Dag.

Branch of the USSR AofS. Makhachkala. Vol. 3. History.Shihsaidov A.R. 1969. Islam in Medieval Daghestan (7 - 15th centuries).. Makhachkala.

Engels, F. 1982. Origin of the Family, Private Property, l state. In connection with investigations of Lewis H.

Morgan. M.

ABBREVIATIONS (not properly edited)

281

BAH - Bulletin of the history. M.

WI - Questions of history. M.Vlad. - Vladikavkaz.

ZhMNP - Journal of the Ministry of Education. SPb.

IIYAL - Institute of History, Language and Literature

MAD - Materials on the Archaeology of Dagestan.

Makhachkala. - Makhachkala

Novosnb. - Novosibirsk

Ordj. - Ordjonikidze282

PVL - Chronicle Tale of bygone years

Stavr - Stavropol

SMOMPK - Collection of materials for the description of places and tribes of the Caucasus. Tiflis

Works of VOI RW - Proceedings of the Eastern Branch of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society.

SPb.

Works of IV - Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Studies. Moscow, Leningrad

Publication data

L. B. GMYRYA

THE HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE

Caspian Dagestan during epoch of Great Movement of the Peoples

Dagestan book publishing house, Makhachkala, 1995, 228 pp

© Гмыря Л.Б. 1995ISВN 5-297-01099-3

Gmyrja L.B., 1995

Hunnic name index (addendum to the book)

Source Historical

Ziligd (Zilgbi)King of

Huns521 Bulyak-Bolgar Djilki, “Bolokh” King of Huns r. 520-522

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Table of Contents - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/HunsGmyryaContentsEn.htm 11/11

Bolah

(Valakh)

King of

Huns521 Bulyak-Bolgar Djilki, “Bolokh” King of Huns r. 520-522

BoariksQueen of

Huns527 Boyarkyz

Queen of

Hunsr. 520-535

Stirax commander 527

Glonis commander 527

Alp-Ilitver

(Salifan)

King of

Huns

664,

682

Bahadyr Chebe, son of Bulan Shad/Alp-

Ilitver ? (Ashina)

Savir Elteber,

Sylifa

r. ?-664,

682-?

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - Contents

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

BesenyoDateline

BulgarDateline

Huns DatelineKarluk

Dateline

KhazarDateline

KimakDatelineKipchakDatelineKyrgyz

DatelineSabir

DatelineSeyantoDateline

12/9/2005

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 1/32

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - Contents

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

Besenyo DatelineBulgar DatelineHuns DatelineKarluk Dateline

Khazar DatelineKimak DatelineKipchak DatelineKyrgyz DatelineSabir Dateline

Seyanto Dateline

L.Gmyrya

HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATECaspian Dagestan during the epoch of the Great Movement of PeoplesDagestan Publishing, Makhachkala 1995, ISВN 5-297-01099-3

© Гмыря Л.Б. Gmyrya L.B.1995

Chapters 1-2ANCIENT AUTHORS ABOUT CASPIAN DAGESTAN, GEOGRAPHY

Book Contents Chapters 1-2 Chapters 3-5 Chapters 6-8 Chapters 9-11

Posting Foreword

Posting introduction see the contents page.

The Caspian Huns fit neatly into the partial maps of Hunnic migrations composed by M.Erdy, who archeologically traced Hunnic migrations from east tothe Central Europe, without addressing the Caspian Huns and South-Central Huns. The maps of M. Erdy do not show the artifacts of the Hunnic branch inDagestan and its vicinity, but that does not mean that they were not found.

Poor print quality hurts the accuracy of this posting, but fortunately the contents are not impacted. Page numbers of the original are shown at the

beginning of the page in blue. Page breaks in continuous text are indicated by //. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and notnoted specially, are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers.

INTRODUCTION

From most ancient times, from the end of the 3rd - beginnings of the 2nd millenniums BC, masses of nomadic tribes were coming to the Caspian littoral

Dagestan (Caspian Dagestan). In the early Middle Ages this region was a permanent homeland for numerous nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes of theTürkic-speaking world: Maskuts (Gr. Massagets), Alans, Hailandurks (Haidaks ~ Kayi + dag < Mountain Kayi), Huns, Basils, Ugors, Saragurs,Onogurs (Hunogurs), Savirs, Khazars, Türks, etc. The most important political and military force in the Eastern N.Caucasus from the end of the 4th to the

beginning of the 8th centuries where the tribes of the Hunnic circle, and the Caspian Dagestan is called in the ancient writings a land, a country or an empireof the Huns.

It is possible that the ethnonym “Huns” is a collective name for a multi-lingual population of the Caspian Dagestan during the Hunnic epoch, including thelocal agricultural population that lived since ancient times on the lands where along the western coast of the Caspian Sea run important trading roads.

Noting the fateful consequences of the global movement of the nomadic tribes in the early Middle Ages for the history of the South-East Europe

peoples, including the Northern Caucasus, many researchers do not take into account the complex processes of interaction of the local sedentary-agricultural and nomadic population with the migrant nomadic tribes.

The archeological research in the Caspian Dagestan revealed a large number of fortresses, settlements and burials of the early Middle Ages time, many

of them were excavated. The excavation materials do not confirm the opinion settled in the literature about a mass destruction of the settlements, or declineand desolation of significant territories (see, for example, works of S.A.Pletneva). On the contrary, the cultural layers of the 5th-7th centuries demonstratea rise of the economic and cultural development.5

This research is completely based on the tidbits in the written sources about Caspian Dagestan scattered in the historical works, geographical treatisesand atlases, chronographs and annals, and also in the diplomatic documents and poetic compositions.. We attempted to recreate an objective picture of thehistorical development of the Caspian. Dagestan tribes during the early Middle Ages: a political history, social-economic, ethno-cultural development and

ideology.

This work reflects contributions to the Caspian Huns subject (M.И. Artamonov, N.V. Pigulevskaya, I.C. Gadlo, p.G. Klyashtorny, А.P. Novoseltsev,A.P. Shihsaidov, Ya.A. Fedorov, G.p. Fedorov, V.G. Kotovich, Yu.R. Djafarov, etc.). The work widely used ethnographic materials collected by

researchers from the territory of the historical location of the Hunnic tribes in Dagestan, linguistic research and folklore materials (p.Sh. Gadjieva, B.M.Alimova, A.G. Bulatova, G.A Gadjiev, A.M.Adjiev, Kh.M Halilov, N.p. Djidalaev).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 2/32

6

1. ANCIENT AUTHORS ABOUT CASPIAN DAGESTAN

(The following section is only a brief summary that abbreviates the discourse to names and essential facts. For complete contents please referto the associated Russian text - Translators Note)

About the Caspian tribes during the time of the Great Movement of Peoples left records antique and eastern authors. The works containing data aboutCaspian tribes are written in Latin, Greek, ancient Armenian and Georgian languages. About Caspian tribes is plenty of data in Arabic and Persianliterature, in the sources in Hebrew and Turkish languages. These works are diverse: historical compositions, geographical guides, guidebooks, maps,annals, travelers notes, military reports and state employees, poetic compositions of the court poets.

1.1. ANTIQUE AND EARLY BYZANTINE WRITERS

The works of western Roman and early Byzantine writers, along with extensive data about many countries and peoples, include many records aboutCaspian Dagestan, but all of them mainly relate to the Hun circle tribes.8

The most ancient records about Caspian Huns belong to the 2nd c. AD. In the middle of the 2nd century a Classical writer Dionisius Periegetes in apoetic composition “Description of the inhabited Earth” names Huns (Unns) living at the northwestern side of the Caspian Sea. Dionisius is from Egypt

during emperor Hadrian (117-138) Much of his data about location of tribes is authentic and agrees with ancient eastern data.

In the second half of 2nd c. AD, famous Alexandrian astronomer and geographer Claudius Ptolemy notes Huns (Uunns), living at the time of RomanEmperor Marcus Aurelius (160-180).

Dionysius PeriegetesMap ( 124 AD?)

Ptolemy's HunsE Europian tribes scheme

In the works of the Ancient and Byzantine authors, contemporaries of the Great Migration, information about Caspian Huns appear at the end of the 4th

c.

The earliest information about the Caspian Huns for that time is in Eusebius Hieronymus (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus, St. Jerome) - one of

the most famous church historians. Eusebius Hieronymus was born about 348 in Stridon, a town on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia, was educated in

Rome, and extensively traveled. In 389 he retired to a monastery he founded in Bethlehem, where he wrote most of his works: historical - “Translation andcontinuation of Eusebius Chronicle (Chronicon of Eusebius)”, works on the translation of scripture, sermons, letters, etc. In one letters, written in 396's.

Eusebius tells of an invasion in 395 of the Caspian Huns to Asia Minor and Syria. The same event he describes in another letter, written in 399.

Some information on the Caspian Huns has the Eusebius contemporary Claudius Claudian (375-404). Claudius Claudian was born in Alexandria, in394 moved to Rome. For a long time he served at the court of a prominent military and political leader Stilicho. Numerous poetical works of Claudius

Claudian have survived, where he often touches on a variety of political events, a contemporary of which he happened to be. One of his poems against

Rufinus, a courtier of Eatern Roman Emperor Arcadius (395-408), “On Rufinus” contains information that Caspian Huns penetrated into the eastern limitsof the Byzantine. Claudius Claudian also gives an ethnographic portrait of the Huns.

Another Latin poet, Rufus Festus Avienus, who lived in the second half of the 4th c., composed a poetic translation of Dionysius “Description of the

World” . It contains data on the fact that near Caspian Sea, next to Albanians, live Scythians, under which the name apparently were meant Caspian Huns.Books against Rufinus were written in 395 - 398 (Latins knew Huns as generic Scythians, i.e. Türkic-speaking horse pastoralists).10

One of the most brilliant and original secular historians of the 4th c. was Ammianus Marcellinus. Ammianus Marcellinus does not have direct

evidence on the Caspian Huns, but we used information given his “History” on European Huns, echoing the descriptions of the Caspian Huns by otherauthors. It is mostly. ethnographic information.

Ammianus Marcellinus was a Greek by origin, he was born about 333 in Antioch, died about 400 AD He came from a Greek intellectual Gentile family

in Syria. From 354, he served for several years under famous Roman general Ursicinus. Under his leadership, he participated in a war with Persia (359),and the barbarians in the West, in Germany and Gaul. Ammianus Marcellinus also witnessed military campaign undertaken by the emperor Julian (361-

363) against Persians in 363, that ended with a rout of the Roman army and a death of Julian (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984. pp. 124-125).

In 363, Ammianus Marcellinus left military service and returned to Antioch. He traveled widely, visiting Egypt and Greece. At the turn of the 380s

Ammianus Marcellinus moved to Rome, where he began compiling his work, “Acts” or “History”,consisting of 31 books. The first thirteen books did notreach us, the preserved books describe events of 353-378.

The value of Ammianus Marcellinus work is first of all that it was based on his personal observations during his own life. They also used eyewitness

accounts and documents in state archives.11

For our theme of interest is the detailed description of the visible appearance of the Huns, type of their food, and dwelling architecture. We find in the

Ammianus Marcellinus “History” //11// information about social structure of the Hunnic Union in the early period of the Great Migration, the level of military

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 3/32

art and arms. Ammianus Marcellinus also provides some evidence of the Huns' occupations.

Probably most prominent, and least explored in the Ammianus Marcellinus work is his treatment of the Hunnic state as a Türko-Germanic state, where ethnically Türkic Atilla is as much a Türkic leader as a Germanic leader, where Germanic subjects partake in the

most Türkic Tengrian rituals, partake in the affairs of the state, and the Germanic language is an equal language alongside with the Türkiclanguage. The ease of communications at the Hunnic court demonstrates bi-bilingualism at all levels at least of the upper strata, and the

saturation of the Germanic languages with cultural Türkisms finds an easy, though not exhaustive, explanation. The deeper lexical layer of

such innate words as Atta - father -atta, antler - anten, body - bod, castigate - kast, clan - oglan, coal - kül/köl, coney - kuyan, dawn -tang, etc. point to much deeper connections; and the uneventful Germanization of such Türkic tribes as Turing and Burgund also points to

the presence of much deeper Türko-Germanic links. Demonization of the Germans during WWI as Huns, and likewise episodic

demonization during WWII reflected vestigial memories of the Türko-Germanic union of the 4th-6th cc. and beyond, of the Germanictribes being in fact Huns for many generations, of the Etzel/Atilla as the hero of the Germanic epos, and of the Scandinavian sagas of their

ancient As royalty.

General information about arms of the European Huns provides Flavius Vetatius Renat, a Latin writer, the author of “Short essay on military art” in 4books. The essay was written between 383 and 450. Flavius Vetatius Renat notes that the weapons and defense, adopted from Alan, Goths, and Huns,

had its influence on the development of military arts in the Roman army.

The authors of the 5th c. know of the Caspian Huns as little as their predecessors. The Byzantine historian and diplomat Prisk Pannonian,distinguished by a deep and versatile knowledge, wrote in 470s his famous work “Byzantine history and deeds of Attila” (name to Priscus works is per

Udaltsova Z.V. (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 872)), which contains a detailed account of the Byzantine 448 AD embassy to the ruler of the European HunsAttila, preserved only in fragments. Priscus was born in the first quarter of the 5th c. in Panione in Thrace, and putatively died after 472 (Udaltsova Z.V.

1967. pp. 19-20, 1984, p. 371). Priscus was a member of the patrician Maximen Byzantine embassy to Attila in Pannonia.12

It is believed //12// that Prisk based his work on his diary. Perhaps he also used records of diplomatic correspondence, reports of the Byzantine

ambassadors, and other documents from the Imperial Library (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984. pp. 372-73).

Although the Prisk's detailed story about Atilla capital contains much information about the European Huns, for us it is of interest as a comparative

material for certain aspects of life of the Caspian Huns. In his work Prisk describes the Hun settlements, describes palace architecture of Attila and his

courtiers, in detail describes the interior of Attila and his wife Kreka (known as Kharka => Khark + ev = Kharka + house => Kharkiv) suites.

For our theme is also of interest the detailed description given by Prisk of various machines for storming fortifications in the Huns' armed forces in 440's.

The storming machines of European Huns have direct analogies among similar weapons of the Caspian Huns-Savirs, described by Procopius of Caesarea

(6th c.).13

Information about early history of the Huns has another Byzantine historian of the 5th c. Zosimus. He is the author of epic composition, known as

“New History”.Created during the reign of the Emperor Anastasius (491 - 518) at about 498, and was published posthumously. The Zosimus “New

History” covers the history of the Roman state from the reign of August //13// (27 BC) to 410 AD. Little is known about the life of Zosimus: he lived in thesecond half of the 5th c. in Constantinople, where he served in senior positions in financial apparatus of the Byzantine state (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 145).

His “New History” contains information on the appearance of the Huns in Istria in 375, and more importantly, Zosimus stated that Huns came to Europefrom Asia. It is believed that describing the events of the 4th - 5th cc. Zosimus relied on writings of the Byzantine historians Eunapius (345 - 420) and

Olympiodorus (5th c.), which were preserved in fragments. In 412 Olympiodorus visited the Huns with a diplomatic mission of the Byzantine embassy,during that period they lived (I.e. their field capital was located) by the north-western coast of the Black Sea (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984. pp. 143 - 144).

Information on the territory of the Caspian Huns (Scythian Huns) (Latins knew Huns as generic Scythians, i.e. Türkic-speaking horse pastoralists)

a 5th c. Roman geographer Julius Honorius placed in his comments to his map “Description of the World”.

In the “Description of the World” by Priscian, who lived in the second half of the 5th - the beginning of the 6th cc.., was preserved a Latin paraphraseof the “Description of the World” by Dionysius Periegetes.

This work used some information about the European Huns, given in the poem of Apollinarius (Apollinaris) Sidonius, a Bishop of Clermont, wholived ca. 430 - 480 AD. Have survived a collection of his poems and nine books of letters. In one of his poems, “Panegric to Antemius Augustus, secondlya consul” Apollinarius Sidonius gives a physical description of the Huns, tells about method of skull deformation customary among the Huns, he also has

information about weaponry of the Hun warrior, organization of military, and some evidence on the economy of the Hunnic society.14

Most valuable information about tribes of the Caspian Dagestan give the works of a prominent 6th c. Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea.Procopius was born in Palestinian Caesarea between 490 and 507 AD (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984 p. 149). He was a Syrian Greek, descended from a noble

family, and received an excellent education. In 533, Procopius became an adviser to the famous Byzantine commander Velisarius, which gave him anopportunity to witness all wars fought during Justinian I (527 - 565). He accompanied Velisarius twice in the campaigns against Persians: 527-531 and541. In 543 Procopius started writing his first historical work “History of Roman wars with Persians, Vandals and Goths” in eight books, the first edition

was published in 550 (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 152).

Procopius sources are diverse: his own experiences, works of predecessors, information reported by participants of the events. Procopius writings arejustly considered to be an invaluable source for the study of ethnogenesis, social structure, religion, life and customs of many tribes and nations encountered

by Byzantines in the 6th c. (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 159). His ethnographic, socio-economic and geographic information //15// is recognized byresearchers as very significant (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 159.)15

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 4/32

For our theme, the “History” of Procopius has much valuable evidence. Procopius was well informed about location of the Caucasus passes used by

the Caspian Huns marching to S.Caucasus. In Chapter XV of the book he first mentions the Huns-Savirs in the service of the Persian king Kawad (488 -496, 499 - 531). Most of evidence on Savirs is in the sections of the book allotted to the Persian-Byzantine war in the Caucasus for Lazika (550 - 556).In the second book, with an assortment of information, Procopius also gives in a description of territories, cities and nations controlled byt Persia and

Byzantium, putting Huns-Savirs next to Alans, Avasgs (Abkhazes) and Zihs (Adygs, who at that time probably included Nakhs). Very important is theProcopius information about the level of the Caspian Hun tribes socio-economic development, military-political alliances of the Caspian Huns, thedescriptions of the Huns-Savirs military equipment are of interest.

Much information on the Caspian Huns also have the Procopius contemporaries - poet and historian Agathias of Myrina (Agathias Scholasticus, bornca. 536 - d. ca. 582). Agathias was a native of Myrina in Asia Minor. Agathias childhood and adolescence was spent in a wealthy and educated family, hereceived classical education in Alexandria. Subsequently, he was earning living by jurisprudence. In a ripe age he became a historian. Agathias work “On

the reign of Justinian” //16/// covers Byzantium history from 552 to 558 as a direct continuation of the Procopius “History of Wars”.Agathias began writinghis work ca. 570, and it remained unfinished, Agathias died at about 46 years of age (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 162). The value of Agathias work is that hewas a contemporary of the events, many details he gleaned from the writings of ancient and Byzantine authors, and most importantly, from Persian

chronicles that have not survived. Agathias also used official documents of the Byzantine Court, stories of officers, ambassadors, merchants, andtranslators.16

Agathias pays main emphasis to the events of foreign policy, the Byzantium wars with various peoples. In his book Agathias gives much space to the

peoples of the Caucasus and Northern Pontic, the participants in the Persian-Byzantine war for Lazika. Among the mercenaries of Romans and Persians henames the Huns-Savirs, cites the names of their leaders. Especially interesting are the Agathias reports about Savirs' art of war.

A follower and a younger contemporary of Agathias was Menander Byzantine (Protector). He was born in Constantinople (date of birth and year of

death are unknown) in a middle-class family, a lawyer by education. His preserved in fragments “History” covers the period from 558 to 582. Menandersources were original of historical materials: official diplomatic and military //17// documents, historical writings, eyewitness accounts, and personalobservations (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 387). In his “History” Menander notes the importance that Byzantium assigned to the North Caucasian peoples,

including the Caspian Savirs in the war with Persia.17

At the end of 6th c. historian and diplomat Theophanes the Byzantine wrote a historical work in 10 books, covering a period from 565 to 581, itremained fragmentary in extracts made by the Patriarch Photius. The parts of Theophanes the Byzantine work that reached us mostly address the foreign

policy history of the second half of the 6th c. The author focuses on the relationship of Byzantium and Persia. The Theophanes the Byzantine work reportson involvement in the Persian-Byzantine war of 571 - 591 of the Caspian Savirs as allies the of Persians.

The Byzantine historian 7. Theophylact Simokatta was a successor of Menander Byzantine. He was born in Egypt in a noble family, and received a

broad education in Athens. Theophylact Simokatta “History” was written between 628 and 638 (Udaltsova Z.V. 1967, p. 37), it covers events from 582to 602. In his historical treatise Theophylact Simokatta used earlier works of Byzantine authors, documentary materials and stories of contemporaries. Inhis “History” Savirs are mentioned in connection with their defeat by Pseudo-Avars who invaded the Caspian steppes.18

Theophanes Confessor (ca. 760 - 818) is an author of “Chronography” that covers period from 284 to 813. He was a son of a noble and richByzantine official. Theophanes Confessor began as a clerk, but later devoted himself to monastic life, and founded several monasteries, their ruins survivedto this day (Chichurov I.p. 1980, 17). Theophanes Confessor compiled “Chronography” as a continuation of the world chronicle of his friend George

Syncellus. Theophanes Confessor work was written in 810 - 814 AD. Sources for his writings were the works of his predecessors.

In the “Chronography” under 516-517 Theophanes Confessor tells about Huns-Savirs that invaded countries of the Caucasus and Asia Minor throughthe Caspian Gates. Theophanes Confessor repeats the records of a Syrian author John Malala (491-578), who wrote in Greek, about the nature of the

Huns-Savirs' policy in relations with Persia and Byzantium, he also repeats the valuable information of John Malala concerning internecine struggle of theHun tribal leaders, and the size of the Caspian Hunnic union at the beginning of the 6th c. The Theophanes “Chronography” contains some of informationabout political history of the Caspian Huns in the first quarter of the 7th c., and about the events of the Arab-Khazar wars of the first half of the 8th c.

1.2. SYRIAN CHRONOGRAPHS AND HISTORIANS

The testimony of the Syrian authors about Caspian tribes of the Hun circle is remarkable for its information about various aspects of their work and life.19

A very important source for our theme is the “Chronicle” of the Syrian monk Yeshu Stylite, composed ca. 517. To our time, the Yeshu Stylite“Chronicle” came as a part of the Dionysius Tellmahr (9th c.) “Chronicles”. The value of the data provided by Yeshu Stylite, as pointed out by N.V.

Pigulevskaya, is that “the author tells about events with which he was involved, survived them, and at least was their contemporary” (Pigulevskaya N.V.1940 p. 9). The “Chronicle” relays some episodes of the Persian-Byzantine war, 502 - 506. In particular, it reports about the siege by the troops of thePersian Shah Kawad of the cities Fedosiopol, Apadna, Edessa, and Haran. The chronicler reported that in the Persian army fought mercenaries of the

Caspian Huns. Also important is the Yeshu Stylite's information about the arms of the Huns, and organization of their troops within the Persian army.

In the first part of the “Chronicle” Yeshu Stylite recounts the records of the earlier authors, in particular, on the campaign of the Caspian Huns in 395-396 in the Byzantine possessions, when was looted Syria.

A particular source for our topic is the “Chronicle” of another Syrian author - Pseudo-Zacharias, composed not later than 570-571 (PigulevskayaN.V. 1941, p. 23). The anonymous author, referred to in the historical literature as Pseudo-Zacharias, was said to be born in Amidah (Udaltsova Z.V.1984, p. 226). //20// In his “Chronicle” he used a number of sources, mainly Greek books. A part of his work (Books 3 - 6) became the “Ecclesiastical

History” of Zacharias Rhetor (Zacharias of Mytilene, ca. 480 - ca. 560), Bishop of Mytilene.20

The “Ecclesiastical History” of Zacharias Rhetor describes history of the Byzantine Empire from 438 to 491 (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941, p. 11 Udaltsova

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 5/32

Z.V. 1967, p. 51). Pseudo-Zacharias continued account of events to 569 AD. Books 1 - 2 and 7 - 12 are collected by the author from the works ofpredecessors (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941. pp. 11 - 13; Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 226).

In books 8 and 9 Pseudo-Zacharias placed information about recruitment of the Caspian Huns by the Persians during the siege of the Makferkat (532),

on the Hun raid in 532 to the Byzantium-ruled Mesopotamia. The author cites the name of the Caspian Hun troop commander, who led one of theByzantine divisions during Persian siege of the city Dary.

In the seventh chapter of the book 12 Pseudo-Zacharias placed a fragment from the Ptolemy's geography, mistakenly attributing the work to the

Egyptian king Ptolemy (VI) Philometor (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941, p. 80). Syrian compiler makes an addition to the Ptolemy's “Geography”,which in theopinion of N.V. Pigulevskaya is of outstanding interest (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941, p. 80). This part of the Pseudo-Zacharias “Chronicles” was prepared, assuggested by N. Pigulevskaya, in 555 (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941, p. 81). For our theme of fundamental importance Pseudo-Zacharias statement //21// thatthe Caspian gates and the Sea were “within the Huns' limits”.Among thirteen people living “outside the gate, “ Pseudo-Zacharias also names Sabirs.21

Of exceptional interest is that part of the Syrian compiler chronicles which contains a number of details about a mission of the Armenian bishop Kardosto the Caspian Huns that carried out Christianization of some Hun Union tribes in the period from 537 to 544, and information of 544 about Hunnic writing.

The Syrian compiler reports about continued Christianization of the Huns in the period from 544 to 555 by the Armenian Bishop Makar.

This information is relayed by Pseudo-Zacharias from the words of two Byzantine prisoners who have lived among the Caspian Huns for thirty-fouryears. Details of their personal life during their stay at the Huns (503 - 537) relayed by the Syrian compiler illuminate many aspects of the Caspian Huns'

life, including relationship between the Hun Union and Byzantium in the first third of the 6th c., the level of social and economic relations, and the type of thepopulation's occupations.

1.3. ARMENIAN HISTORIANS

21

The Armenian Historical works preserved data about early penetration of the Huns to the p. Caucasia in the first quarter of the 3rd and the first decadeof the 4th centuries (which drastically contradict with the popularly accepted notion about Huns crossing Itil ca. the 370 AD - Translators note).22

Agafangel (writing in the beginning of 5th c.) in his “History of Trdat and conversion of Armenians to Christianity”, which covers a period //22// from226 to 330 AD, for the first time in the Armenian historiography mentions Huns in a 227 AD joint military campaign of the Armenians and Caucasians

against the Persians, the second mention of the Huns in Agafangel is dated to the reign of Trdat III (287-330).

A quote from Agafangel in the M. Artamonov (Artamonov, M.I. 1962, p. 51) book with a list of the Caucasian tribes:

The Armenian historian of the 5th c. Agafangel mentioned Huns in connection with a legendary story of emergence of the Sassaniddynasty (224-226). The Armenian king Khosrow I (217-238) allegedly foght against the founder of that dynasty Ardashir togethre with

Iberia, Albania, and the Huns 29. Another Armenian writer of the same 5th c. Favst Buzand (Faust the Byzantine) reported that Hunswere involved in the events of 330s. According to him, the king of Maskuts, a tribe known in Southern Dagestan on the Caspian Sea,

“the ruler of numerous Hun army, “ called Sanesan, cruelly executed a Christian preacher Grigoris, who came to his country, and then,quarrelling with his relative, Armenian king Khosrow III (332-338) gathered an army of “Huns, Pohs, Tavaspars, Hechmataks, Ijmahs,Gats and Gluars, Gugars, Shichbes and Chilbs and //51// Balasiches and Egersvans, and a myriad of other disparate nomadic tribes”,and

attacked Armenia 30. Here is no need to review the details of this war or engage in correlation of Maskut Sanesana with Paitakaran ruler

Sanatruk, with whom he is identified 31... in the Sanesan army that, as shown by the above list, mainly consisted of Caucasianmountaineers, were the Huns...

The Armenian text of Favst Buzand named not Huns, but Hons ... Outlining the legendary story of the Maskut king Sanesan invasion ofArmenia, Favst Buzand particularly emphasizes the size and “motleyness” of the militia he raised, which consisted of horse-riding

nomadic archers and foot highlanders armed with bludgeons... 34. The author epically describes the huge size of the Sanesan troops ....the listing of tribes, of which it was composed, can be seen from the description of his defeat. There, along with the Huns and Maskuts,

appear not mentioned earlier Alans 35.

29 V. Lamglois. Collection, I, 1865, p. 115; K. Patkanian. Attempt on history of Sassanid dynasty, according to Armenian writers.

Proceedings of Eastern Branch of Archaeological Society, Part XIV. St Petersburg., 1869, pp. 20-21; Trever Essays on historyand culture of the Caucasian Albania 4th c. BC - 7th c. AD. Moscow-Leningrad. 1959, p. 193.30 History of Armenia by Favstos Buzand. Translation from Old Armenian and comments by M.A. Gevortian. Monuments of Old

Armenian literature, I, Yerevan, 1953, p. 14, 15. Compare L.M. Melikset-Bek. Khazars by Old Armenian sources in connectionwith the problem of Moisei Khorenatsi. Studies in History of the Orient. Collection in honor of Acad. I.A. Orbeli, Leningrad,1960, p. 113.

31 K.V. Trever. Essays, p. 188, ff.34 History of Armenia by Favstos Buzand, p. 15.35 Ibid, p. 16.

Moisei Khorenatsi is one of the most famous historical writers of Armenia, in his book “History of Armenia” he repeats the account of Agathangel. It

is believed that Moisei Khorenatsi was born. between 410 and 415 AD., his work was created between 475 - 480. when the author was 65 - 70 yearsold (Mkrian M.M. 1969, p. 17). Also exists a view that the work of Moisei Khorenatsi belongs to the 7th or 9th c. (See: Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 29).It is also possible that additions of later copyists were inserted in the Moisei Khorenatsi “History”.His “History” covers events from ancient times to 428

AD. The second of Moisei Khorenatsi three books refers to the “Land of Huns” (Djidan, Jidan, and Suvar of the Arab authors), to the boundaries ofwhich pursued Basils the Armenian king Tiridates III after they invaded S.Caucasus. A.P. Novoseltsev believes that the subject is the events of the 6th c.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 6/32

AD (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. pp. 29 - 60). The “History” of Moisei Khorenatsi also contains interesting information that to the domains of the Huns are“expelled” the followers of the “pagan heresy” of Armenia (The quite un-Christian “Christian” religious cleansing must have been a pretext forethnic cleansing, to occupy the fertile valley pastures used by the Scythians and later migrants of the Scythian circle, who in the descriptions of

the same authors did not amalgamate with the farming populations, and were keeping their culture and religion. The consequence of that is thatthe local pastoralists of Sakastan/Sistan, known as As-kishi from the Assyrian records, were deported or fled to their kins in Hunnia, becomingone of the components of the Hun/Kayi and Savir people. Huns were giving refuge to “heretic” refugees from Armenia expelled by Christians).

The most reliable information of Armenian writers on the Caspian Huns belongs to the 5th c.23

Egishe Vardapet (aka Yeghishe) (5th c.) in a historical //23// composition “On Vardan and the Armenian War” testifies of the Caspian Huns supportof the Armenians who in 450 - 451 rebelled against Persian rule.

A younger Egishe contemporary Favstos Buzand in the “History of Armenia”,written in 470s, tells of the Hun participation, together with Alans, in thefaight of Armenians, led by King Arshak II (350 - 368) against the forces of the Persian king Shapur II (309 - 379) (The Huns military assistance to theArmenians indicates that the religious persecution had sporadic or incidental character that have not incited hostile retributive hatreds or broke

the tradition of neighborly co-habitation).

The “History of Armenia” of Lazarus Parbetsi, written in 485 (Jafarov Yu.R. 1985, p. 68), provides some interesting details on the tribes of theCaspian Huns circle. In particular, he reports on the 450 AD capture by the Caucasus countries allied forces of the castle bearing a name “pahak Hons”(defense against Hons) (See: Тревер К.В. 1959. pp. 209, 271; Artamonov M.I. 1962, p. 58). The author suggests that in the anti-Persian uprising of 481- 484 AD, the Armenians have sought to enlist the support of both the Byzantines and the Caspian Huns (See: Jafarov Yu.R. 1985, p. 70).

Much information about the Caspian Huns is in the “Armenian geography”,whose authorship for long time has been ascribed to Moisei Khorenatsi, thewriter of the 5th c. It is now believed that the two extant editions of the “Armenian geography” were composed in the 7th c. (Тревер К. В. 1959. pp. 19,Artamonov, M.I. 1962, p. 17; Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 30). Many researchers believe that the author of “Armenian geography” was an Armenianmathematician and astronomer of the 7th c. Anania Shirakatsi //24// (For details, see the bibliography: Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 43).24

The shorter version of the “Armenian geography” points to the Huns living north of Derbent, and names their apparently main town Varachan. The

longer version of the “Armenian geography” names the “Kingdom of Huns”,located north of Derbent near the sea, and its three cities - Varadjam,Chungars, and Mondr. It also tells about location of the Savirs, Maskuts, and other tribes. This information is dated by 660s - 680s (Novoseltsev, A.P.1990, p. 30).

Another historical treatise “History of Emperor Heraclius”,is written by Bishop Sebeos in 650's - 660's. The recent literature has challenged the Sebeosauthorship (See: Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 30). The Sebeos history presents the ancient history of Armenians, but the most original part of it is thesection from the end of the 6th c. to 661, which ends the narration (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 30).

The Sebeos “History” has a number of valuable evidence on the localization of the Caspian Huns. The author also reports on the participation of theCaspian Huns in some operations of the 571 - 591 Perso-Byzantine War, about their struggle against the Arab invasion.

A later historian Vardapet Ghevond (aka Ghevond) (late 8th c.), whose work “History of Caliphs by Vardapet Ghevond” is an important source on

the history of Arab-Khazar Wars, mentions to the north of Derbent //25// the “Country of Huns”and the “Hun city Targu”.Also interesting is the Ghevond'sdescription of the Hunno-Khazar relations. Ghevond's information about the Arabs raid of 716 - 717 into the “Land of Huns” is also recited by StepanosTaronetsi (Stepanos Asoghik) (born ca. 928, died in 1040s.) (112 years?) In the “Universal History” he also repeats the story of Agafangel and MoiseiKhorenatsi about Basil (i.e. Barsil) invasion into the S.Caucasus in the first decade of the 4th c. (ca. 305 AD).25

The author of the 13th c. Vardan the Great in his “General History”,brought to 1267, reported the capture during the campaign of 737 of the Hun cityVarachan by the Arab forces led by Marwan.

1.4. ALBANIAN HISTORIANS

25

The main source on the history of the Caspian Huns is the “History of Alvan country” (Patmutʿiwn Ałuanicʿ, where ł is variously transliterated as land g and gh, producing Aluan/Alvan and Aguan/Agvan and Aghuan/Aghvan, apparently as a matter of the individual translator's preference.L.Gmyrya is using both designations, apparently following the cited sources) about Caucasian Albania. It was written in ancient Armenian language.

Had survived 28 copies of the “History of the Alvan country”, the oldest of which was copied in 1289. In publications the name of this work varies:“History of Agvans” (K.Patkanian), “History of the Aluank country” (Sh.В. Smbatian), “History of Albania” (A.A.Akopian). The early copies do notcontain the name of the composition or the name of its author. The author name for the first time appears on the manuscripts of the 18th c. (Akopian A.A.1987, p. 166) as Movses Kalankatuatsi (The original says “...village of Kagankatuk, which is in the same province of Uti where I too am

from”; it appears that the original name was distorted to take advantage of ł/l/g/gh ambiguity, to get rid of the obviously Türkic “Kagan” and“Katuk”, a form of “Katun, Hatun”; the name is likely derived from the compound “Kagan-Hatun”, which stands for the traditional Hunnicand Türkic dual rule of the royal King and Queen, but may be applied as a name to their capital, and the like. At the very least, the name pointsto the Türkic presence in the Uti province predating the birth of little Movses. The unsung part of the controversy is the brazen falsification ofthe author's name). 26

The authorship of the //26// “History of Alvan country”, and its dating are addressed in extensive literature (See: Akopian A.A. 1987. pp. 150 - 242).Modern scholars largely believe that the “History of Alvan country” was not written by Movses Kalankatuatsi. There are yet other points of view. The

dating of the original composition is also a problem. On dating of composing the “History of Alvan country” are two points of view. Proponents of the first

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 7/32

believe that this historical work was written in the 7th c. AD (or 8th c.) and included the first two books, the third book (or a substantial part of it) wasadded in the 10th c. (or early 11th c.). (Trever K.V. 1959, p. 16; Artamonov. M. I. 1962, p. 18; F. Mamedova F., 1977, p. 65 and other researchers)

(See: A.A. Akopian. 1987. pp. 169 - 170).

A number of researchers (See: Akopian A.A. 1987, pp. 170 - 177) believe that “History of Alvan country” is a compilation of Movses Dashurantsi(Daskhurantsi), composed in the 10th c. Or more precisely between 982 and 988 AD, from earlier sources (Akopian A.A. 1987, p. 223).

The compiler of the “History of Alvan country” used works of Movses Khorenatsi, Agafangel, Peter Syunetsi, Egishe and other Armenian historians, aswell as epistolary sources, lives of the Saints.27

For our theme of great interest are those parts of the “History of Alvan country” (chapters 9 - 45 of the second book) where is evidence on theCaspian Huns. The events narrated in these chapters are dated by the 7th c. //27// (Trever K.V. 1959, p. 16; Artamonov, M.I. 1962, p. 18; Akopian A.A.1987. pp. 169, 189 - 199, Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 81). Akopian A.A. believes that chapters 9 - 45 of the second book were written at different timesby two authors. According to A.A. Akopyan, that part of the “History of Alvan country” which tells of the events of the second half of the 620's (chapters9 - 14 and 16 of the second book) was written between 630 and 632 (Akopian A.A. 1987. pp. 191 - 195). It is dubbed “History of the Catholicos Viro”and is ascribed to-native of the village of Kalankatuyk (Kagan-Katuk) of Uti province, which belonged to the Caucasian Albania. The other part

(Chapters 18 - 45 of the second book), which contains information about events at the end 630's - early 680's, was composed between 683 and 685.According to A.A. Akopyan, belongs to an anonymous author, and is dubbed “History of 684 AD”.

Like most researchers, by tradition we refer to the author of the “History of Alvan country” as Movses Kalankatuatsi. For our theme, it is important that

the above mentioned parts of the composition 2nd book, containing information of the Caspian Huns, are reliably dated 630-680 AD.

Textual analysis of the “History of Alvan country” shows that its composer was well educated and knowledgeable of the events. It is possible that thebase for those parts of the second book were diaries of the participants of the Albanian Catholicos Viro embassy (596 - 629) to the Shat (i.e. Shad), the

Prince of Tyurkuts (e.g. Ashina Türks) (Akopian A.A. 1987. pp. 195 - 196) (i.e. to the Bulan Shad, Crown Prince (Shad) of Tun-Yabgu Kagan, akaBulu Shad, a young prince in 629) and the Albanian embassy of Bishop Israil //28/ to the Caspian Huns in 682 (Gadlo A.V. 1979. C 142; Akopian A.A.1987, p. 198) (i.e. to Elteber Bahadyr Chebe, a grandson of Tun-Yabgu Kagan who appears in the Armenian chronicles as Alp Ilitver).28

In terms of importance, the bright, full of minute detail reports about the life of the Caspian tribes, and the accounts of the Albanian embassies can becompared with the descriptions of the Byzantine embassies of Prisk Pannonian to the Attila court (448) and of Menander Byzantine to the country of Türks(568).

Most valuable is the information on a variety of aspects of the Caspian Huns life in the 680's - localization of the “Country of Huns”, information aboutcities, of the “Hun society” social order, reporst about internal struggle of the spiritual and secular elite, description of the population religious views.

The “History of Alvan country” recites correspondence between the Grand Prince of the Huns, Alp Ilitver with state and religious leaders of Albaniaand Armenia, whose authenticity is not disputed (Akopian, A.A. 1987. pp. 198 - 199). These documents are of great value for reconstruction of socio-economic relations in the “land of Huns”,and for assessment of the culture.

A.P. Novoseltsev believes that related to the 7th c. information of the “History of Alvan country” pertains to the history of Khazars, although he rightlynotes that the source does not provide clear information about Khazars, who are difficult to distinguish from among the North Caucasus nomads kindredwith Khazars (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 31).29

The “History of Alvan country” also contains information //29// on the military-political events of the 6th c. Perso-Byzantine wars for the Caucasus,

where also participated the tribes of the Caspian Hun circle. The external relations of the Caspian Huns the “History of Alvan country” reflects in the reportabout the Hun alliance of 664 with the contiguous Albania and the terms of the peace treaty.

1.5. ARABIAN GEOGRAPHERS AND HISTORIANS

29

A special category of sources for our theme are the works of the Arabian geographers and historians of the 8-10 centuries.

Geographical literature in Arabic was thoroughly and comprehensively evaluated by academician I.Yu. Krachkovsky (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957), whohas identified two lines of development: scientific geography and descriptive geography with travel stories (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957. pp. 16 - 17).

The Arabic descriptive geography formed by the 9th c. It was diverse in content - it had gazetteers for clerical officers (compendiums), and referencebooks for educated people, realistic travel stories and stories of travels of fantastic character. In the 10th c. formed a classical school of Arab geographers,with emphasis on descriptions of the routs and countries, a major development was a popular travel literature, which became more diverse.30

The writings of Arab geographers do not give too many details, they all primarily contain historical geography information, on the religious views of the

population and their language. They also supply information on the peoples of the Caspian littoral, but in contrast to the Byzantine, Armenian and Syrianauthors, the Arab writers do not know (i.e. do not name specifically) the Caspian Huns neither for the middle of the 6th c., . nor later. Among the peopleliving in the North-East Caucasus foothills, they name Alans, Khazars, and Türks. The ethnic name of the Khazars, the inhabitants of the powerful Khazarstate, as it usually happens, absorbed the names of other nations subject to Khazaria. However, a careful examination of information on Caspian Dagestanin the Arab geographical literature allows to trace historical fate of the “Country of Huns” and its cities in the period of the Khazarian might.

Among the extant works of descriptive geography, the work of Ibn Khordadbeh “Book of Roads and Kingdoms” is the earliest composition. It mostlyconsists of travel guides with varying degrees of details, //31// and gives a variety of information of official nature, also are included reports on geographicalcuriosities.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 8/32

31

The exact date of Ibn Khordadbeh birth is unknown (ca. 205/820) * He was a Khorasan Persian by birth. His father held a high post of Tabaristangovernor, for a long time he was a chief of Post Office in the Persian province al-Jibal (northwestern Iran) (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 148). Postmastersof the Caliphate different areas reported to the head of the Post Office, who from their memos was compiling a report for the Caliph. In the 840s IbnKhordadbeh served as chief of the Post Office (Ibn Khordadbeh; II, p. 11. Introduction by N.Velihanova). To the present, the work of Ibn Khordadbeh

came in a shortened version.

* Here and later: the first number is a year by the Muslim chronology (AH), the second according to the Gregorian chronology.

Ibn Khordadbeh's sources were archival documents, to which he had access at the court of Caliph al-Mutamid (870 - 892), he also used othermaterials (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 10).

For our subject are important the Ibn Khordadbeh messages about the Caspian cities.

The work of the Arab geographer Ibn Rustah (Ahmad ibn Rustah, Ibn Rustah, Ibn Rusta, Ibn Ruste), who in the first decade of the 10th c. wrote

the “Book of Precious Records”,a multi-volume encyclopedia of which has survived only the seventh volume devoted to astronomy and geography. Thewriting of Ibn Rustah belongs to //32// a type of popular literature intended for secretaries. It is believed that Ibn Rustah wrote between 290 - 300/903 -913, but also were expressed opinions that Ibn Rustah information ascends to the full edition of Ibn Khordadbeh and are dated by the 9th c. (See:Novoseltsev A.P. 1990. pp. 11 - 12). V.F. Minorsky believed that the events described by Ibn Rustah date from no later than the 290/902 (MinorskyV.F. 1963, p. 217).32

For our subject is important the Ibn Rustah detailed description of pagan rituals of the inhabitants of al-Serir, which strikingly coincides with the

description of the Albanian historian Movses Kalankatuatsi about the beliefs of the inhabitants of the “Country of Huns”, dated exactly to the 680s.

From Wikipedia:

“Sarir or Serir was a medieval Christian state lasting from the 5th c. to the 12th c. in the mountainous regions of modern-dayDagestan. Its name is derived from the Arabic word for “throne” and refers to a golden throne which was viewed as a symbolof royal authority.”

Sarir was bordering Hunnia in the east, it occupied a mountain range along Kazikumuh Koisu river (in Türkic Kazikumuh SheepRiver) in the foothills, separated from the Hunnic plain by mountain ridges and connected with it by inhospitable mountain passes, withthe Sarir center around the modern aul Kumuh (population 3000, 42.15N 47.1E ). Naturally, the Arabic “throne” in Wikipedia is

nonsense, Sarir predates the Arabs by at least a century. Most likely, the Nakh Laks, who live there now, lived in the inaccessiblemountain enclave long before our era.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 9/32

The works of the Arab encyclopedist al-Masoudi (an apostrophe in the name of al-Mas'udi is dropped) is held as a most informative historicalsource among the Arab geographers. Al-Masoudi (born in early 10th c. - died in 345/956) is an Arab, he descended from one of the Muhammad

companions called Massoud (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 171). Al-Masoudi probably was born in Baghdad, he extensively traveled visiting easterncountries, he also visited South Caspian littoral. Al-Masoudi was a great scholar, a connoisseur of ancient authors (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 13). He leftseveral works, but only two of his books have survived.

Of greatest interest to our subject is the Al-Masoudi book “Nuggets of gold”, a historical and geographical compilation he compiled in 332/943, with adescription of //33// what al-Masoudi saw in his travels. The spectrum of the sources used by al-Masoudi in his book “Nuggets of gold” is rather wide: fromtranslation of the works of the Classical authors to the Arab writers and geographers of the 9th - first half of the 10th c. (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 14).33

In the seventeenth chapter of his book Al-Masoudi provides detailed information about the Caucasus (Kabh mountains) and on some of the 72 tribesliving within the Caucasus. He names the tribes adjacent to the Kabh mountains, to defend against their attacks were erected the Derbent fortifications.

Near Derbent al-Masoudi locates the Principality Haidah* with its capital Semender, subject to the Khazars. The information about the HaidahPrincipality is dated by the author by 332/943, which is very valuable. The al-Masoudi text names the principality as Djidan.

* The al-Masoudi text names the principality as Djidan. V.F. Minorsky believes that writing “Djndan” is erroneous (Minorsky V.F. 1963, p.127. Note 55) (Contrary to Minorsky, Djidan < Djilan ~ Jilan is synonymous with Hai < Kayi, the Hunnic ancient dynastic tribewith snake ongon. Like in English with its originated from two sources double terms of “snake” and “serpent”, the Türkic hadinterchangeable“kayi” and “djilan”. This is one more confirmation that the names Kayi and Djilan were interchangeable. TheGuilan (گیالن ) area during Clasical times and beyond was known as part of Hyrcania ~ Yirkania ~ Gorgan, and in addition to

Gilans, Yirkania housed Tokhars Dahae and Parthians Parthy/Pardy).

Herodotus Gelones and Yirkae ca 440 BC(reconstructed map, Yirks = Tr. “nomads”)

Al Masoudi Djidan ca 1000 AD

(Djilan ~ Kaidag ~ Kayi)

Modern Iran Gilan Province (top)Provinces Mazandaran and Golestan east of

Gilan were the land of generic Yirks (Tr.“nomads”)

Historical Hyrcania

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 10/32

In his another book “Notification and Review”,written in the year of his death, al-Masoudi provided only geographical information.

Al-Balkhi is held as a founder of classical geographic school, whose adherents were composing descriptions of the Muslim areas, complete with maps.Al-Balkhi essay “Maps of climates” is explanatory text to systematically assembled collection of maps. Al-Balkhi was born about 235/850, he began his

work as a teacher (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 195). He was a desk scholar and in his life made only two trips, to Baghdad, where he got acquaintedwith libraries, and a Hajj to Mecca. Most of his life al-Balkhi spent in his native city of Balkh (now Afghanistan), which already at an old age (ca. 308 -309/920 - 921) he compiled his work “Maps of climates”.It has not survived in original, but was included in the al-Istahri work “Book of ways of states”..34

The al-Balkhi's geographical guide contains topographic and ethnographic information about the later capital of the “Hun Kingdom” Semender.

Al-Ystahri (conventional spelling al-Istahri) was a native of Central Persia (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 196) (Ebu Isaak Abraham bin

Muhammed el Farisi el Ystahri/Ebu Abu Esḥaq Ebrahim b. Moḥammad Faresi Karḵi, d. 957. In 1957 Russia, it was still imprudent to to behonest, so the Jewish boy from the city Ystahr/Estakhr in Persian/Faris province of the Arab Caliphate and writing in Arabic goes under a safe,but delusory, Persian identification), he traveled extensively. Around 340/950, al-Istahri composed his work “Book of roads and kingdoms”,where heincluded the work of al-Balkhi, supplementing it with new information collected during his travels. In places it is impossible to detect in the al-Istahri workthe author's text (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, 15).

Al-Istahri describes only the Muslim countries, he gives numerous information about states and cities located by the Caspian (Khazar) Sea and river Itil(Volga) (map). For us especially important is the information about cities along the western seacoast of the Caspian Sea. In particular, al-Istahri givesinformation on the land between Derbent and the capital of the “Land of Khazars” Itil, he names city Semender and its lands, which are the Khazardependencies. //35// He indicates the position of Semender relative to Derbent, Itil, and country Serir, providess ethnographic information about religion inthe Semender country, residential buildings, and the economy of the population.35

Successor of al-Istahri, his younger contemporary Ibn Hawqal (Ibn Hawqal). He came from a city Nisibin (modern Turkey). As a merchant in the940 - 960, Ibn Hawqal crisscrossed all Muslim countries, was in India, Italy, Central Africa, and at the end of 960s traveled on the southern shores of theCaspian Sea, was in Jurjan (Djurdjan, Gorgan, Gurgan, Hyrcania, Yirkania). At about 340/911 - 952 he met al-Istahri. His work “Book of ways ofstates” (“The face of the Earth”) was composed in 367/977 (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 199), it is a description of the Islamic countries, relatively littleattention is paid to other areas.

The work of Ibn Hawqal has information about Semender and “Semender area” completely taken from al-Istahri “Book of ways of states”.However,the author comments on al-Istahri, noting that information about Semender relates to its history. Apparently, Ibn Hawqal had information about the crushingblow inflicted by the Ruses upon Khazars and of their centers, including Semender (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 16). However, his information on the timingof the Rus campaign (968-969) differs from the 965 date of the defeat of the Khazars by the Ruses given in the “Tale of Bygone Years”.Researchers try to

explain this contradiction; some believe that Ruses conducted two campaign against Khazars, and Ibn Hawqal reports on the second of them //36// (See:Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 16). During that campaign were devastated Itil and the cities of the North-East Caucasus, including Semender.36

Bulgarian annals provide background information on the Rus campaign, depicting it as a Bulgar liberation war of joint Bulgar-Rusalliance, where Bulgaria paid Ruses for the campaign by leasing out provinces Djir (future Rostov province and city of Russia), Kan

(future Murom province and city) and the western Kortdjak (future Moscow, Vladimir and Ivanovo provinces), for an annual tributeequal in size to the tribute from Djir (Bulgar-Rus Treaty of 964). In the campaign participated Turkmens (Oguzes), recently defeated inthe lengthy Bulgar-Turkmenian war (ca. 947-ca. 960), and Bajanaks, whose territory the Rus army had to cross, as Rus allies in thecampaign. The annals describe Rus army as consisting of 20 thousand Vikings and 50 thousand Slavs.

The most important member of the Arab geographical school at 10th c.is considered to be al-Muqaddasi (born in 335/946 - 947, the year of hisdeath is not known and held as late 10th c., about 990/1000). He was born in Jerusalem, in the 980's after a long journey he composed a description ofMuslim countries, “The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions”.

Al-Muqaddasi work gives a detailed description of the Khazar cities, among which are mentioned Semender and Belenjer.

The historical literature in Arabic appeared in the first half of the 9th c. They were mostly compositions such as “Book of campaigns” or “Book ofconquests of countries”,which narrated on the Arab conquests. Later, during the second half of the 9th c. formed another genre - “Stories” - the workscontaining the compositions on general history, though much of these works addressed, as the writings of the first type, history of the Arab conquests.

Work of al-Baladhuri (d. 279/892 was) “Book of conquests of countries” belongs to the first type of the historical works. Very little is known about theal-Baladhuri life. Born in Egypt, his ancestors were of Persian erxtraction. Al-Baladhuri was close to the court and was a tutor of the Crown PrinceAbdullah, a son of Caliph al-Mu'tazz (866-869), for whom, as is thought, he wrote //37// “Book of conquests of countries” (al-Baladhuri (al-Baladhuri), p.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 11/32

3. Preface, P.C. Jouseph).37

The al-Baladhuri work reflects history of the early period in the spread of the Caliphate, but by definition of I.Yu. Krachkovsky it is not a dry militaryhistory, but a book packed with historical and cultural details (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 156). The al-Baladhuri book gives a concise overview of theArab conquests from Muhammad to the Caliphs Al-Mutawakkil (847-861), Al-Musta'in (862-866) and Al-Mu'tamid (870-894) (Dates may differ indifferent sorces). The sources of al-Baladhuri were not extant writings and documents, as well as information he gathered from scholars of historicalscience in the conquered areas (al-Baladhuri (al-Baladhuri), p. 3. Preface, P.C. Jouseph). Al-Baladhuri subjected available information to critical analysis,and included in his work only those that he deemed most likely.

For us, particular importance is the section of the book devoted to Armenia, which contains information about the first Arab campaigns in the CaspianDagestan in 640s, and detailed reports on the Arab-Khazar wars of the 7th c. That section describes in particular the history of the Arab conquests of al-Bab (In Arabic Bab بلد is akin to “country”,here: Derbent), Southern and Central regions of Dagestan, and some settlements subordinated to

Khazars.

The al-Baladhuri work has important information on Arab tax policy in the conquered Caspian areas and mountain areas of Dagestan, about draftingsome Dagestan fiefdoms to fight //38// with Khazars. Al-Baladhuri gives interesting information about Persian relationship with the Caspian tribes during the

reign of Khosrow Anushirvan..38

Similar to the work of al-Belgazuri is al-Kufi work “Book of conquests”.This three-volume work in eight parts is covering the history of the Caliphatefrom the rise to the throne of Caliph Abu Bakr (632) to the death of Caliph Al-Musta'in (866). About al-Kufi, little is known, presumably, he was acontemporary of at-Tabari, died in 926. His historical work is known in Persian translation made in 596/1199-1200. More recently, in 1930, was found anArabic text of al-Kufi. His work has some interesting details relating to Arab-Khazar wars, missing in the writings of al-Baladhuri, al-Yakubi, at-Tabari,etc. In some cases, al-Kufi messages relate to the stories of eyewitnesses.

The “Book of conquests” al-Kufi contains information about the first Arab aggressive moves in the Caspian Dagestan in 640s. It recites with sufficientdetail the story of the conquest of the Caspian littoral and Dagestan mountainous regions during the 8th c. Chronology of events important to our themeends in 799.

Al-Kufi, in his book gives detailed information on some of the major battles of the Arab-Khazar wars, as a rule it names the troops number of theparties in the battle.39

Very valuable is al-Kufi information about differentiated //39// Arab tax system, used in conquered principalities of Dagestan. The work of al-Kufi alsocontains some ethnographic information. Unlike al-Baladhuri, who in his book named besides Derbent only two settlements, Belenjer and Khamzin, al-Kufialso knows in the Caspian Dagestan other cities. The “Book of conquests” of al-Kufi is not a dispassionate description of the scenes with Arab militaryoperations, it is a very lively story with a place for individuals (rather clearly are delineated the prominent Arab and Khazar generals), it proved byexamples a role of luck in the outcome of military operations, the value of the military intelligence, and organizational methods. In the al-Kufi book is visiblehow changed with time the aggressive tactics of the Arabs in the politics of conquest in the Caucasus, which despite some successful operations was stillineffective, because it did not bring the desired stability. The peoples of Caspian littoral and Mountain Dagestan steadfastly defended their independence,and the conquered by Arabs principalities and cities refused to pay tributes, in spite of repressions, deportations to other lands, and introduction of specialprivileges to those who helped the Arab army.

The work of the greatest Arab historian at-Tabari “History of Prophets and Kings” belongs to the Arabic literature of the second type historical works.Al-Tabari was born in 889 in Amul of the Tabaristan province, on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea (modern Mazandaran). A Persian by //40// origin,he received a classical Arabic education, extensively traveled, he died in 923. His “History of Prophets and Kings” is the world's history, starting from thecreation of the world and covering histories of the known to the Arabs major Muslim nations to 302/914-915.40

Al-Tabari sources were mostly works of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), al-Vakidi (d. 823), Abu-l Hassan Ali al-Mada'in (died in 848 or 849) (See:

Shahsaidov A.R. 1986, p. 66.) Researchers have noted a complete absence of criticism of their sources at at-Tabari, his work often contains severalversions of the same event. However, the veracity of the at-Tabari contents is corroborated by another Arab historian Ibn al-Athir (1160 - 1234), whoused the work of at-Tabari in his work, distinguished by high integrity and a critical attitude to the sources noted by many researchers.

The at-Tabari “History of Prophets and Kings” contains information on the Caspian Dagestan, and on some mountainous regions of Dagestan. Thebook has sections on activities of Sassanid rulers of Persia - Peroz (459 - 484), Kawad, Khosrow Anushirvan in reinforcement of the Caucasian passes,and their relations with the tribes of the North Caucasus.

For our subject is also of interest the information of at-Tabari on the Arab-Khazar wars in the Caucasus in 640s and in the first half of the 8th c. The at-Tabari information is of great value, //41// despite a lack of criticality to the sources, because it is based on eyewitness accounts about the battles in theCaspian Dagestan or recollections of their relatives. Al-Tabari included in his “History of the Prophets and Kings” information on the Khazar largestcampaign in S.Caucasia of the 799/800, and he transmits two versions of that event.41

In comparison with al-Kufi, the al-Tebari narrative differs by its terseness and absence of lively discourse.

Al-Yakubi is known for his two-volume “History” and geographic composition “Book of countries”.He is a contemporary of Ibn Khordadbeh, he wasborn in Baghdad, he lived in Armenia, Khorasan, and Egypt, visited India and Palestine. Al-Yakubi grandfather and father were major officials of the PostOffice. His geographical work was written around 278/891, shortly before his death (284/897), it was intended for the officials of the Abbasid Caliphate,and it contains information necessary for travel. By I.Yu. Krachkovsky definition, “Book of countries” is not a dry road road guide, but a tractate written inpopular science style (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 154).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 12/32

The “History” of al-Yakubi in the assessment of the same I.Yu. Krachkovsky “in its field is of outstanding importance” (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p.154). In preparation of his works Al-Yakubi used the works of his predecessors, but he introduced much of his own. The author was well informed aboutthe affairs in Armenia and Azerbaijan, where he personally collected //42// information he needed. The events in his book are brought to 873.42

In Al-Yakubi is given a description of the Arab-Khazar wars, mainly of the first half of the 8th c., also is given information about one of the first Arabraids into the Caspian seaboard in the 640's. In the al-Yakubi narration the individual military operations and important battles are chronologicallyseparated, which distinguishes his “History” from similar works of the other Arab authors. However, the accounts of the events in al-Yakubi are very

concise, without important details found for example in al-Baladhuri and al-Kufi.

The apex of the universal history genre in the Muslim world, in the figurative definition of A.P. Novoseltsev (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 27), was a 12-volume work of Ibn al-Athir (Ali ibn al-Athir, 1160-1234) The “Complete History” of Ibn al-Athir has used various sources, including historical worksof his predecessors, at-Tabari, Ibn Miskawayh (Yaqub Ebn Miskawayh) and others, comparing information available to them and complementing them.In his “History” he brought the account of events to 1231, his narrative is arranged chronologically year-by-year.

For our theme are important those parts of the Ibn al-Athir “History” that describe events in the S.Caucasus, the Caspian seaboard and Caucasus

mountain regions. Ibn al-Athir informs on the Persian expansion in the North Caucasus during Kawad and Khosrow Anushirvan (531 - 579).43

A major place in the Ibn al-Athir composition is given to the description of military operations in the Arab-Khazar wars of the 7th-8th cc. Of the events//43// in the 7th c. are given descriptions of the 640 - 650 Arab military campaigns in the Caspian seaboard. Very interesting is the Ibn al-Athir message thatfor the Persians a preferred line dividing zones of influence with the Khazars was the Derbent pass, and for the Arabs the objective was to establish totaldominance in the region.

On the pages of Ibn al-Athir much attention also received the 8th c. Arab-Khazar wars in the Caucasus.

For us, new and interesting appear any Ibn al-Athir information that invasions of Arab armies in the Khazar country originated from different directions:from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Tiflis (Tbilisi) and the Allan (Alania) country. The Khazars and Turks raided the S.Caucasus from the territory of Azerbaijanand the the Allan (Alania) country. Ibn al-Athir names some political entities in Dagestan.

This book used some other important sources, but the print volume of this work does not allow to address them in detail. Among them is the ancientGeorgian Chronicle of 11th-12th cc. “The Life of Kartli Kings” by Leonti Mroveli, geographical treatise “Limits of the world” of an anonymous Persianauthor written in 372/982-983, some documents of Jewish-Khazar correspondence of the 10th c., and Dagestani chronicles - the “History of Shirvan andal-Bab (In Arabic Bab بلد is akin to “country”,here: Derbent)“, composed in Derbent at about 500/1106, the “Book of Derbent” by MohammedAvabi Aktishi written in the village Endirei in the 17th c.44

That concludes our overview of the key //44// written sources containing information about the tribes of the Caspian seaboard Dagestan during the era of

the Great Migration. The testimony of the ancient authors on the Caspian seaboard region of the 4th - 8th cc. makes it possible to reconstruct events of thepolitical history, shed light on the socio-economic development and ethnic tribes, characterize ideological beliefs of the population. They allow to identifyboth the common interests of Dagestan neighboring states with the Caspian “strategically” important region, and the local goals driven by tactical andstrategic objectives of foreign and domestic politics for each of them.45

2. CASPIAN COUNTRY

Caspian Sea and Caucasian Mountains are connected with Hunnic tribes from the middle of the 2nd c. AD and down to the 740s. However, theterritory occupied by the Huns in the Caspian seaside did not stay unchanged for almost six centuries, of which ancient authors inform us.

2.1. BORDERS OF THE HUNS (2th-4th centuries)

In the middle of the 2nd c. AD Dionisius Periegetus already noted on the western side of the Caspian Sea a tribe of Huns (Uns).

Next to the Huns, in his records, lived peoples known in Europe: to the north from the Huns' pastures were Scythians (at the northwestern side of theCaspian Sea), and to the south of them were Caspians and Albanians (Greeks knew Huns as a branch of Scythians, i.e. Türkic-speaking horsepastoralists).46

In the 2nd c. AD the northern borders of the Caucasian Albania went through Derbent, which Albans owned from the 68 AD, and the Huns' tribesapparently coached in the steppe areas of the Western Caspian down to the Derbent pass.

In the context of the Hunnic history, Albanians were conquered by the Arabs in 636, and the Huns found themselves bordering on theRashidun Caliphate, which changed the political status quo.

In the 2nd c. AD the northern borders of the Caucasian Albania went through Derbent, which Albans owned from the 68 AD. DuringParthian rule, Albania was a Parthian client-state, ruled by Arsacid branches, together with Iberia (East Georgia), as a pan-Arsacidfamily federation, with sporadic suzerainty of Rome. In 252-253, the Sassanid Empire conquered and annexed Albania, along with Iberia

and Armenia, Albania became a vassal of the Sassanid Empire. Among the conditions Djebukagan (Tun-Yabgu Kagan) demanded in628 from Albania to submit to the Türks, transfer over the cities and fortresses, and allow free trade. In his letter to the ArmenianCatholicos Sahak and prince Grigor (682), the Huns' Prince Alp-Ilitver calls Aluank (Aguania/Albania) a nearest country to the Huns.

It is difficult to define exact location of the territories occupied by the Huns according to Dionysius, because the author does not provide cleargeographical reference points. The localization issue //46// of Dionysus Huns (Uns) is still controversial (see: Jafarov Yu.R. 1985. pp. 12-14). Given that inthe 2nd c. AD the northern boundary of the Caucasian Albania run through Derbent, which belonged to the Albanians from 68 AD (Trever K.B. 1959. pp.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 13/32

123, 127), the Hun tribes were apparently coaching in the steppe regions of Western Caspian seaboard down to the Derbent pass (Gmyrya L.B. 1980.pp. 153-156, 1993, p. 278).

The Huns were also known to Claudius Ptolemy. He names them among numerous tribes inhabiting south-eastern Europe in the second half of the 2ndc. AD (Claudius Ptolemy, p. 465). Information of the ancient geographer is general in nature, so a consensus on the location of the “Huns” has notdeveloped.

Almost no information survived on the fate of the Hun tribes in the Caspian littoral in the period of the 200-370s. But the available fragmentary evidencesuggests that they not only became stronger in the newly acquired territories of the Caspian littoral, but also were actively interfering in the political andmilitary events in the S.Caucasus. The works of some Armenian historians of the 5th c. tell about the Caspian Huns' military campaigns in the S.Caucasusregion in the 230s and the 310s. So, Agafangel reports on participation of the Huns in a joint military campaign with Armenians and some Caucasianpeoples against the Persians in 227 (Agafangel, p. 20 - 21). He also talks about expulsion of the Huns, who invaded the Caucasus, during the reign //47// ofthe Armenian king Trdat the Third (287-332) (Jafarov Yu.R. 1985. pp. 15).47

Information about the Huns was taken from Agafangel by Movses Khorenatsi, who wrote in 480s. The Huns home territories Movses Khorenatsi callsthe “land of Huns” and “possession of Huns” (Movses Khorenatsi, p. 131, 201). It is probably the first evidence that early in the 4th c. Huns location in theCaspian littoral was stable. However, it also can't be excluded that to indicate Hun areas in the Caspian littoral in the 4th., Movses Khorenatsi usesdefinitions established only in the 5th c.

The old Georgian chronicle “Life of Kartli Kings”,recorded at the turn of the 11th - 12th cc. illuminated Caucasian history of the first half of the 4th c.with participation of the North Caucasian tribes. The author of the chronicle Leontius Mroveli calls all North Caucasus nomads with a collective name of“Khazars.” According to Leonti Mroveli, “Khazars” in the alliance with Iberia (Georgia) and Armenia in 330 repulsed the expansion of Sasanid Persia in

the Caucasus, frequently foray into the Persian possessions; against the “Khazars” in the first half of the 4th c. conducts successful wars the King of Kartli(Iberia) Marian the Third, with the major battles of these wars taking place near Derbent; according to Leontius Mroveli “Khazars” were used asmercenaries by some mountain tribes - Leks (branch of Nakhs, also Laks; there also belong Lezgies, intentionally misidentified), Didoys (branch ofNakhs, also Didois, Tsezes) Durdzukami (Nakhs; also Dzurdzuks in Georgian) in conflict with Kartli (Leontius Mroveli, pp. 25, 37-39).48

As noted above, in the events of the first half //48// of the 4th c. described by Leonti Mroveli, were involved not the Khazars, but the Hun tribes. Theirhomeland is not clearly denoted in the source, it is the steppes of the Northern Caucasus. With information of Leonti Mroveli can be concluded that the

Derbent pass in the first half of the 4th c. appears as a southern border of the North Caucasus nomads.

Leontius Mroveli follows the same path as did innumerable authors before and after him. Countless Armenians and Georgians,Persians and Chinese, Russians and Americans were called not by their own ethnicon, but by politonym of the time. In Russia during itscolonial expansion, nearly all 200+ indigenous peoples in the captured lands were called Tatars. In America, nearly all indigenouspeoples were called Indians. In this case, nearly all Türkic-speaking people in the alien eyes of the Arabs were Khazars, be that Savirs,Huns, or Kayis.

In the literature went on a big controversy over reliability of the information on the Caspian Huns in the period prior to the 4th c. AD. By now, the ideathat infiltration of the Huns in the Eastern Caucasia in the 2nd c. AD preceded the mass migration of the Hun circle tribes in 370's is firmly established(Jafarov Yu.R. 1985. pp. 12 - 14; Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 69; Zasetskaya I.P. 1994. pp. 132 - 137).

In the 395, the Caspian Huns led a grandiose military campaign in the countries of S.Caucasia and Asia Minor. Records about this military action werepreserved by some Latin writers, the contemporaries of that event. Eusebius Hieronymus tells about it in two letters written at the beginning of 396, and in399. He definitely outlines the territory of the Caspian Huns at the Derbent pass “...south of the extreme limits of Meotida..., where the Aleksander locks

constrain the wild tribes with the rocks of the Caucasus, burst out the Huns... “. Claudius Claudian also locates Huns in the same place, by the Caspianpass. Like Eusebius Hieronymus, //49// he was a contemporary of the Hun's 395 AD campaign, his information relates to the 395-396 AD.49

Other authors of the 4th c. refer to the location of the Caspian Huns less distinctly. A poetic translation “Description of Land by Dionisius” by 4th c.Rufius Fest Anien relayed Dionisius information about Caspian Huns, but changed “Uns” to “Scythians” (Thus Rufius equated supposedly “Ossetian-Farsi”-speaking Scythians with Türkic-speaking Huns. Latins knew Huns as generic Scythians, i.e. Türkic-speaking horse pastoralists. The “forsome reasons” sounds quite absurd: Rufius, like all his predecessors and contemporaries, knew that terns Scythians and Huns were synonymous,

Huns were a branch of Scythians, a fact that was remanufactured only in the mid of the 20th c., making all Huns' European contemporariessomewhat demented. Not a single contemporary “for some reasons” confused Huns or Turks or Scythians with any flavor of Persians).

Up until the 5th c. information in the sources on the location of the Caspian Huns remains vague, which probably reflects not only the level of awarenessof the 2th-4th cc. Latin and Armenian writers, but also the real situation in the Caspian littoral. Probably in this period went on ensconcing of the newterritories; the Huns periodically changed their coaching routes, in the Caspian littoral were pouring new waves of nomadic tribes. The Caspian Hunsboundaries in that period have not yet settled. At least the sources lack any information. The only specific geographical reference point associated with theCaspian Hun is the Derbent pass. Although, the sources do not address whether the Huns limits were confined in the south by the Caspian gates, or by the5th c. they extended to the south of the famous pass. One fact is certain, all military endeavors of the Caspian Huns in the 4th c. were starting at theCaspian passage.50

The majority of the (Russian - Translator's Note) researchers hold on to the dogma that the arrival of the Hun tribes in the eastern N.Caucasia andtheir settling at the Caspian pass (Derbent) and along the coast of the Caspian littoral from the 370s (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary -Translator's Note). N.V. Pigulevskaya believed that the tribes of the Hun origin at that time settled in the eastern part of the N.Caucasus adjoining theSouth Russian steppes (in the poisoned terminology of the state policy of Russian chauvinism, N.Pontic steppe after their occupation by Russia

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 14/32

become “southern Russian steppes”,now divided into the “Russian Steppe” and “Ukrainian steppes”.Thus, Kalmyks and Oguzes live not in theKalmyk and Oguz steppes, but in the “southern Russian steppes”) (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941. pp. 85, 108). M.I. Artamonov places Huns Between seaand mountains (Artamonov M.I. 1962, p. 189). He subdivided the chronological stages of the Hunnic period in the North Caucasus. Thus, the period from395 to the early 5th c. he connects with the Huns-Hailandurks, reported on by the Armenian historians (Artamonov M.I. 1962 p. 53) (Apparently,Hailandurk is the Armenian version of the Haidags ~ Mountain Kayis in plural, for some reasons not elaborated by the Russian scholars). In the“History of Dagestan” the arrival of Huns to the Caspian Dagestan was also attributed to the late 4th c. (History of Dagestan. 1967, p. 116) (That is A

Soviet “history” written by Soviet “scientists” for “Soviet” children and adults. Not for nothing the teaching of history in Russia, on 1/6thterritory of the whole globe, was halted in the 2000s, while the new textbooks with newly created history were rewritten for the nth time). A.V.Gadlo believes that in the 330's in the span between Derbent and r. Terek appeared a tribal union, which included Hun and Alan groups of populationGadlo A.V. 1979 p. 26). The coastal territory of Dagestan (near Caucasus mountains to Derbent) is also associated with the early Türkic tribes from thefirst centuries AD by S.B.Ashurbeili (Ashurbeili S.B. 1983 p. 55). The settlement of the Hunnic tribes in the North Caucasus, particularly in NorthernDagestan, is also dated to the 4th c. by V.A. Kuznetsov (Kuznetsov, V.A. 1984 p. 51). Yu.R. Jafarov identified three main stages of the Hun tribes'migration to the Eastern N.Caucasus. The first period he defined as 160 - 395 AD. It is characterized by appearance in the north-western Caspian steppesof small groups //51// of Bulgar tribes (Jafarov Yu.R. 1985. pp. 13 - 14, 19) (The scientific views in the post-post-Stalin Russia roughly correlate withthe origin of the last name: Russian, Turkic, other. In the Stalin's Russia all scientific opinions were strictly uniform. The truth is not in-betweenby triangulation, it is generally opposite of what the Russian “scientific standing” is, much like in the case of proverbial “Gypsy horse”.In thiscase, how would “small groups” of pastoralists displace the existing groups of pastoralists, where the displaced people and their herds would bedisplaced to, and what is small in the eyes of the bedesked scholar: is a 1000 people tribe with 200 cavalry and 35,000 heads of horse herdsrequiring 5,000 km2 of round-the-year pastures small, or it takes 10,000 people tribe with 2,000 cavalry and 350,000 heads of horse herds

requiring 50,000 km2 of round-the-year pastures to be at the same time small and effective in displacement of equal-size indigenouspastoralists? One can't be a shoemaker or a mason with this kind of perception, but he surely can be an acclaimed scholar qualified to be citedand recited).51

This discrepancy is caused by vagueness of information in the written sources about the Huns of that time, and a vagueness of the borders of theHunnish possessions, and quite possibly, by the subjectivism of the modern researchers of the Hunnish problem (a very gentle formulation of thestatement that “the modern researchers” distort history because they have less to do with history than with the politics of the day - Translator's

Note).52

S.A. Pletneva dated the settling of the Hun tribes in the Caspian littoral and the Don steppes by 370s (Pletneva S.A. 1986 p. 14). S.G. Klyashtornydated the Huns migration to the Caspian steppes by the 2nd c. AD (Klyashtorny S.G. 1983. pp. 175 - 176). The “History of the North Caucasuspeoples” timed the cinching of the lowland Caspian Dagestan by the Huns by the end of the 4th c. (History of the North Caucasus peoples. 1988 p. 96).Early migration of the Huns to the Caspian steppes (2nd - 4th cc.) is recognized by L.N. Gumilev (Gumilev, L.N. 1992, p. 37), as well as A.P.Novoseltsev (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 69). I.P. Zasetskaya attributes the emergence of the Huns on the west coast of the Caspian littoral to the middle

of the 2nd c. AD (Zasetskaya I.P. 1994 p. 136).

K.V. Trever believed that Albanians and Armenians encountered Huns closely only in the 6th c. (Trever K.V. 1959, p. 193), and that mentioned bythe Latin authors of the 2nd c. “Uns” and by the Armenian historians “Hons” (for 3rd - 4th cc.) were the Caucasian tribes of that time in the the territory ofthe Caspian littoral from the r. Samur to the r. Sulak and further north (Trever K.V. 1959 p. 192) (Between 1950's and 1960's K.V.Trever repeatedlyrewrote her chapters in the newly minted official, aka academic, “Histories” of the newly minted “Soviet Republics”;a single reference to heropinion may show only one-time stand, leaving out her steady views, but classing the Latin “Uns” and the Armenian “Hons” as Caucasiantribes, K.V.Trever unwittingly extends the presence of the Huns in the Caucasus to the 2nd c. AD).

As can be seen, the question of when the Hun tribes settled in the Caspian littoral and where, for the period prior to the 5th c. is not easy. Its complexityis caused by a vagueness of the details on the Hunnic time in the written sources and by the vague boundaries of the Hun possessions in the Caspian littoral,and also possibly //52// by the subjectivity of the modern researchers of the Hun problem (What a sweet way to describe the scientific dishonesty, a“subjectivity of the contemporary researchers”. For a hierarchically lowly scientist, this is an equivalent of a child's scream “The King isnaked!” and “Fucken fakers!”).52

Fig 1. Caspian Dagestan in the 5th-6th centuries.Country of Huns

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 15/32

2.2. COUNTRY OF THE HUNS (5th-7th centuries)

53

For the first time the territory of Hun tribes in the Caspian littoral has been named a “Country of Huns” by the Armenian historian of the 5th c. EgisheVardapet. In his work he also uses other, identical concepts: “area of Huns “, and also the “country of Hailandurks” and the “land of Hailandurks”,referring to the Hun tribes of Hailandurks (Egishe, pp. 79-80, 117, 127, 170). The frontier boundary between the possessions” of the Caspian Huns and

the countries of S.Caucasia, per Egishe, were the Derbent fortifications, which he also sometimes called “Hunnish Gates” (Egishe, p. 31, 53, 79, 92, 117).

Kayi (pl. Kayis):

Kayis are known under the name Uryanhai, a part of today's Tuvinians. The Chinese knew Kayis as Hi (�) and Si (Xi �), andcorrespondingly we know of their history since they fell into the Chinese field of vision, with their prehistory in the Chinese interpretation.A part of them, after Chinese devastated the Eastern Huns, joined with free Mongols called Syanbi, and were strongly affected by theMongolian language, but among Mongols they were known as Türks, and they themselves held themselves to be Türkic, and did noteven suspect that their dialect was heavily Mongolized. Other parts of the Kayi people escaped Mongolization, and they were in theKimak Kaganate, speaking Kipchak, and are associated (i.e. identified) with Kipchaks in the N.Pontic Kipchak state, 990-1223,(Sharukhan, Zmiev, Cheshuev).

They also were in the Oguz Yabgu State as a prominent tribe, and achieved prominent positions in the Seljuk and Ottoman states,including leading independent states. Naturally, they spoke the Oguz Turkic. Herodotus knows their Türkic name, Gilan/Djilan (in Ogurpronunciation) as Gelons, and they lived around Caucasus and in the N.Pontic long before Herodotus. So, when they returned to theCaucasus with the Huns, they were coming back to their own people and their old territories, but their kins, who never left the Caspianarea, must have spoken a significantly different dialect. Thus, the newcomer Kayis stayed with their Eastern Hunnic federation, and didnot rejoined the Caspian Djilans, as they are known from the Arabic books. That is how the Arabs know separate people Kayidag in thenorth, and Djilans in the south. The names Hailandurk in Armenian and Haidah in Arabic rendition refer to the Hunnic tribes of Kayis.The adjective “dag”~ “mountain” in the name of the Kayidags hints of the existence of the non-mountain Kayis in the valleys below. Thetribe Kayi was an “old” maternal dynastic tribe Huyan �� of the Eastern Huns, replaced before 200 BC by the “new” maternal dynastictribe of Uigurs, aka Sui-Luanti, S>uibu �� pin. Xubu.

The presence of the Kayis in the Caspian Hunnic state is one more evidence that the European Huns and the Eastern Huns are oneand the same people.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 16/32

Another Armenian historian Lazar Parbetsi, who wrote in the 480s, gives one of the numerous names of the Derbent defense complex in the form“pahak Hons” (defense against Hons) (Trever K.B 1959, p. 209, 271; Artamonov M.I. 1962, p. 58). Description of Lazar Parbetsi indicates that Huns,who in the second half of the 5th c. inhabited territory north of Derbent were at that time a major military and political force in the Eastern N.Caucasia.

Compositions of some Roman and Byzantine authors of the 5th - beginning of the 6th cc. repeat the words of Dionisius Periegetes about Caspian Hunsfrom the middle of the 2nd c. AD (Zosimus p. 713; Julius Honorius p. 1077; Priscian p. 1104). All attention of the western authors in the 5th c. was pinnedto the European Huns, who created their state in the Pannonia (middle course of Danube), which can explain the search of the 6th c. writers for the recordsabout Huns in the works of their predecessors. But likely the stories about participation of the Caspian Huns in the events of the Persian expansion in theCaucasus at the end of the 5th - the beginning of the 6th c. also reached them, which also could generate interest toward them.54

In the 502 begun continuous wars of Persia and Byzantium for a world supremacy. “The Caspian “Hun's country” was drawn into militaryconfrontations, the Hunnish armies assisted sometimes one, sometimes another side. The compositions of the 6th c. Byzantine historians abound with dataabout Caspian Hunnish tribes, among which most frequently at that time were mentioned the Huns-Savirs. While providing reliable details about Huns-Savirs, most of it on their participation in military operations, the Byzantines know next to nothing about location of their country.

Procopius Cesarean is one of more competent Byzantine historians, familiar with many sides in the lives of the Caspian Huns, their social and economicdevelopment, military-political orientation, arms and military technique, he describes in sufficient detail the Caucasian overpass roads, which Huns-Savirsused to cross to the S.Causasia, but his knowledge about localization of the “country of Huns” is not distinguished by specifics. Procopius only noted that

Savirs and other Hunnish tribes live at the south-eastern spurs of the Caucasian mountains, and two main passes are near their possessions, the CaspianGates (Derbent pass) and //55// Teur pass (Darial) (Procopius Cesarean Ia .p. 112; II, p. 881, 407). The Huns, as informs Procopius Cesarean, occupiedflat terrain, “...fields, level and smooth, irrigated by the plentiful waters, convenient for herding of horses” (Procopius Cesarean Ia, p. 112).55

Albans owned Darial Pass from the 68 AD on. Darial Pass fell into Sassanid hands in 252-253, when the Sassanid Empireconquered and annexed Albania, Iberia. and Armenia. Albania became a vassal of the Sassanid Empire. The control of the Darial Passswitched to the Western Turkic Kaganate in 628, when Tong Yabgu Kagan (Djebukagan of Armenian annals) signed a treaty withAlbania, transferring over to the Kaganate the control of all its cities and fortresses, and establishing free trade. Control of Darial Passswitched to the Arab Rashidun Caliphate in 644. From 890 to 929 it belonged to the Sajid Dynasty of Azerbaijan. Afterwards, it wascontrolled by Tzanaria, Alania, Seljuks, Atabegs of Azerbaijan, Qara Qoyunlu and Aq Qoyunlu (Koyunlu is a Kayi tribe), Shirvanshahvassal state of Timur's Empire, Safavids and Qajar state, until it was captured by Russian Empire in the Caucasian War of 1817–1864.Nominally under control of local Khanates, it remained a strategic Russian forepost under Russian control until the dismemberment of the

Soviet Union.

Agathias, a contemporary of Procopius, mentioning the Huns-Savirs, only narrated the military events of the 555, without discussing their Caspianpossessions (Agathias p. 88).

The earliest account about Huns-Savirs belongs to a Byzantine chronographer Theophanes Confessor, who wrote between 810-814.One of themilitary campaigns of the Huns-Savirs in S.Caucasia and Asia Minor he dated by 516/517 (Theophanes Confessor p. 49). Locating the source of thisTheophanes' message was impossible. One more message about Savirs is in the Theophanes “Chronography”, under the years 527 - 528. It is connectedwith the defeat by the Huns-Savirs Queen Boariks of the armies of “two other Hunnish tribes” (Theophanes Confessor p. 50). This story Theophanesgleaned from the Syrian chronographer John Malala. Like Malala, Theophanes connects the Caspian Gates with the location of the Huns-Savirs. Butdeviating from the primary source, he discriminates between territories occupied by the “internal Huns”, and the lands on the way from the EasternN.Caucasia to the possession of the Persia, apparently located at near the Derbent pass. The message of Theophanes allows to assert that the tribes of the

Hunnish union in the Caspian basin occupied separate territories controlled by the leaders of the tribes.56

Other Byzantine authors in the second half of the 6th - beginning of 7th century also know about Caspian Huns and Savirs, but they give no details ontheir location (Menander Byzantine, p. 411, 415-416; Theophanes the Byzantine, p. 494; Theophilact Simocatta, p. 160).

By virtue of various circumstances more particulars on the Hunnish union in the in the Caspian littoral had some Syrian authors of the 6th c.

Yeshu Stylite testifies that the territory controlled by the Huns “was sufficiently separated from the possessions of the neighboring peoples. To designateit, Yeshu Stylite uses word combinations: “their lands” and “borders of their land” (Yeshu Stylite, p. 131). This information is supported by a contemporaryof Yeshu Stylite Pseudo-Zacharius (aka Zacharias Rhetor - Translator's Note). He noted that the lands subject to the Huns were on the seacoast, andwithin the Huns' limits were the Caspian Gates (Pseudo-Zacharius p. 165). Pseudo-Zacharius also points that the “Bazgun land” adjoined the “limits ofHuns” from the south to, Caspian Gates served as a border between them. From the context of the source, it can be deduced that the author lists westernneighbors of the Huns. Pseudo-Zacharius lists five peoples professing Christianity that live to the “northern side”: the Gurzan (Georgia) land, the Arran land(Caucasus Albania), the Sizgam land, the Bazgun land, and the Hunnish limits (Pseudo-Zacharius p. 165-166). He contrasts with them 13 pagan peoples.57

Zacharias Rhetor description of the Caucasian lands which dates precisely from 555 (according to the text, 28th regnal year ofJustinian, 866th of Alexander, Olympiad 333). The source of this excursus seems to have been the report of a mission sent to the(Caucasian) Huns before 523 by bishop Qardust of Arran.

South of the mountains we find five Christian peoples, those of Armenia, Georgia, Albania, Sizgam (corrupted to Siwnik byA.Alemani, aka Sistan = Saka land in S.Caucasus, MPers. Sagastan, Gr. Σακαστανή, NPers. Sistan, originally Saka = Scythians(cf. Gr. Σα'και), who came to this region, between Arachosia and Drangiana, in the 2nd c. BC) and Bazgun (corrupted to

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 17/32

Balasagan by A.Alemani) (i.e. Armm, Gurzan, Arran, Sisagan, Bazguri = Bash gurs, i.e. Head Tribe ~ Mas gurs in -m dialect =>Masguts), with twenty-four bishops and a resident Catholicos in the city of Dvin, in Persarmenia.

Balasagan (Masguts) is adjacent to the Caspian Sea and to the Darband pass, which lie in the land of the Huns (Hunaye). BeyondDarband, we find the Bulgarians (Burgare), “the Alans, who have five cities”, and the Dido (Dzurdzuks ~ Georg. for Nakhs).

The following is a list of thirteen Hun or Turkic peoples who live in tents:

Zacharias Byzantine sources ByzTurc II s.v. Posting Notes

1.'wngwrΌνογουροι OnogursHuns, East of Maeotis, 5th-6thc.

Actually, “Eastern Ulus”

2.'wgr Οΰγωροι OgursItil and Caucasus area, 5th-6thc.

3.sbr Σάβιροι Sabirs Huns, near Caucasus, 5th-6th c.aka Huns-Savirs

4.bwrgr Βούλγαροι Bulgars Bulgars, 6th-7th c.

5.kwrtrgrΚουτριγουροιKutrigurs Huns, near Maeotis, 6th c. Actually, “Western Ulus”, i.e. in Danube area

6.'br “Αβαροι Avars Avars, 5th-9th c.

7.ksr Άκατζιροι (?)Acatziri Huns, 5th c.Actually, Hun's allies Türkic Agathyrsi described by Ptolemy3.5, ethnically very different from the Huns

8.dyrmr Ίτίμαροι (?) Itimari near Danube, 4th-5th c.

9.srwrgwrΣαραγουροιSaragurs near Caucasus, 5th c. aka Sary/Shary/Kumans/Kipchaks (all synonymous terms)

10.b'grsyqΒαρσήλτ (?)Barselt Huns, 6th c.aka Barsils = Bars + Il = country of Bars (leopard) people,from which split the Khazars

11.kwls Χολιάται (?)Choliatae Turks, 6th c.

12.'bdl Άβδсλαι Abdelae = Hephthalites Kushans/White Huns, so called “Imenkov Culture” along Itil

13.'ptlyt Έφθαλιται Hephthalites= Hephthalites Kushans/White Huns, so called “Imenkov Culture” along Itil

Further North there are only peoples of fantasy, some of them also mentioned by Pseudo-Methodius (§ 14.6): Pygmies (Amzar-te),Dog-men (klb brns), Amazons (Amazonides) and the enigmatic Hrws (Speculatively, because of hapax, reference to Kangar tribeCharaboi of Porphyrogenitus)...

(Agusti Alemany, Sources on the Alans, p. 393)

The author defines location of the political entities //57// in the N.Caucasia as follows: “Bazgun (Masguts) is a land with (its) language which adjoins andreaches the Caspian Gates and the Sea, which are in the Hunnish limits. Behind the Gate (live) Burgars with (their) language, pagan and barbarous people,they have cities; and Alans, they have five cities “(Pseudo-Zacharius p. 165). At first sight the text is self-contradicting. Calling the Caspian Gates a frontierboundary between the “Bazgun land” (Masguts) and Hunnish limits, the author locates position of Bazgun south from the Caspian Gates, and the “Hunnishlimits” north of them, further clarifying that the Gate and the coast of the Sea are within the “Hunnish limits”. But the author points out that “behind the Gate”

live “Burgars” (Bulgars) and Alans. In our opinion the contradiction is imaginary. “The author meant that the possessions of “Burgars” and Alans werebeyond the “Huns' limits”, but all of them were north from the Caspian Gates, i. e. “Behind the Gate”.

Only Armenian and Albanian historians connected Caspian Dagestan with Huns in the 7th c.

Bishop Sebeos wrote in the 650s - 660s, his information about localization of the Huns is specific enough. Sebeos does not use the name “places whereHuns live”, but designates them with a word-combination “country at the foothills of the mountains” (Sebeos, p. 164). In another place of his compositionSebeos points out that Huns lived “at the mountainous country of Caucasus” (Sebeos, p. 30 - 31). The author points to one more //58// geographical

marker, Derbent Pass, called in the source under different terms: Djor Pass, Hun's Gates, and Caspian Gates (Sebeos, p. 164).58

Possessions of the Huns in the “Armenian geography” of the 7th c. are also placed by the sea north of Derbent (Armenian geography. I, p. 38; II, p.30). In this work the territories subordinated to the Huns are called for the first time the “Kingdom of Huns”.

Movses Kalankatuatsi, whose “History of Alvan country” is the most comprehensive source on the history of the Dagestan Caspian seaboard peoplesin the 7th century, surprisingly shows very poor and vague knowledge of the location of the “Country of Huns”repeatedly mentioned by him. In the sectionsof the book on the 7th c. events in the Caucasu, the Caspian Huns lands are mostly called the “country of Huns,” very rarely is used any other name, likethe “Land of Huns,” “Northern Country”,the “lands of Khazars and Huns” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 69, 123, 128, 132-133, 148).59

The source clearly //59// delineates among the adjacent political entities the territories occupied by the Huns. However, it does not name specificgeographical points of the “Hun country” location, and it also does not have a detailed description of its location. The absence of these details is difficult to

explain, because a part of the Movses Kalankatuatsi historical composition describes events within the territory occupied by the Caspian Huns.

Among geographical reference points connected with Huns, Movses Kalankatuatsi mentioned only the Derbent Pass “Chor Gate” through which Hunswere crossing into S.Caucasia, usually calling them “Huns Gate” (Movses Kalankatuatsi 2, p. 69, 90, 99, 101, 103). However, the “History of AlvanCountry” has indirect pointers that allow to determine location of the “Hun country”. For example, the author of the “History of Alvan Country” notes thatthe road from the capital of the Caucasian Albania Partav to the capital of the “Hun country” Varachan was “long”, which testifies to a significant distancebetween the two cities (Movses Kalankatuatsi 2, p. 123). From the Movses Kalankatuatsi description it appears that the duration of the travel was 51

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 18/32

days. The embassy of the Albanian bishop Israil, which in 682 went from Partav to the “Hun country” with an important mission, was on the road that long(Eremian S.T. 1939, p. 183 - 134). Some researchers explain the travel duration of the Alvan embassy by complications of the military-political conditionsin the Caspian area, and weather conditions of the winter travel (Eremian S.T. 1939, p. 138-139; Bartold W.W. 1963, p. 128; Kotovich V.G. 1974, p.183-184). By the way, V.G. Kotovich believed that the road from Partav to Derbent in those days took no more than 15 days (Kotovich V.G. 1974, p.185), and only by virtue of the Albanian embassy unusual route “that travel was so long”.60

However, Movses Kalankatuatsi indicates that the road from Partav to the first large settlement, the “city of Lbins”, already took 12 days. Notably, thatthis initial travel segment was not burdened by any difficulties. The main difficulties that fell on the travelers came in crossing the main Caucasus ridge.Movses Kalankatuatsi writes that Aluanian embassy stayed in the “Chilb country, located on the slope of the great mountain”, for three days. A snowstorm did not allow the embassy to continue, because the passes were closed. And only when the blizzard stopped, the travelers “passed over the top ofthe enormous mountain”. But probably soon the weather deteriorated again, because the source noted that “...still for many days afterwards the stars werenot visible, neither was the sun, and continued strong frosts” (Movses Kalankatuatsi 2, p. 123). Further on in the Movses Kalankatuatsi composition

follows a paragraph, translations of which differ in different editions, though its meaning is essential. 61

In the edition of 1861 (translated by K. Patkamian) //61// the substance of this fragment is that after difficulties in crossing the pass, “exhausted and tired,against their wishes they took the other road” and “after many days of travel arrived at the ancient residence of the kings, in the place where St. Gritoriswas martyred” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, I, p. 191). Some authors are explaining the long duration of the travel precisely by the forced change of theAlbanian Embassy route (S.T. Eremian, V.G. Kotovich).

But the modern edition of 1984 (translated by W. S. Smbatian) does not mention the change in the original route. Content of this same passage in thenew translation is: “. .. Tired and exhausted, they walked for many days, until arrived at the ancient royal residence, the one where the Aluank CatholicosSaint Grigoris was awarded a crown of martyrdom” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 123-124).

The new translation of the “History of Alvan Country” has no hint on any reasons obstructing the choice of the route to the “Land of Huns”.Moreover,despite the urgency of the planned trip, it was carefully prepared. The author tells us: “Prepared gifts and presents, supplied him (Israil) provisions andthose who have had to accompany him on the long journey” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 123).

The organizers of the mission to the Caspian Huns were well aware of the difficulties of the upcoming trip and its duration.62

It appears that //62// the route of the Albanian embassy was usual and probably safer for that time than the other routes. By the way, the Christianmission of the Armenian bishop Kardost, which approximately in 530 set out from Armenia to the “Hun limits” also got there by the mountain road. “Theyhave not passed through the gates, but were lead through the mountains” notes about it the Syrian author Pseudo-Zaharias (Pseudo-Zaharias p. 166).

The urgency and “imperativeness of the tasks” facing the Israil embassy made necessary the choice of route, which partly passed through the mountainareas of the Caucasian Albania. The author of the “History of Alvan Country” describes precisely that section of the road thoroughly and in detail,apparently to emphasize the Israil and his companions self-sacrifice in implementing the high mission the Prince of Albania assigned to them. And the sourcedescribed the part of a route which went by the seaside areas of the Eastern S.Caucasia laconically, for no feats fell on the travelers there. They arrived atthe ancient royal residence, and having left it in some days, reached Derbent. To the Varachan, the oject of the embassy travel, Israil was guided byDerbentians, apparently already in the Hun lands. Thus, considering the difficulties of the winter travel, its duration was normal.63

In her excellent analysis, L.Gmyrya omits the main reason for the winding route: to minimize the number of border crossings to ensure

safety, because crossing every petty principality exposed embassy to costly and unpredictable demands of the customs, which withoutproper armed escort could doom the whole endeavor. The embassy route Partav-Kabala-Derbent-Varachan crossed just a single, safe,and predictable border, at Derbent.

Based on the information of Movses Kalankatuatsi, it can be concluded that the “Hun country” was located immediately adjacent to the northernborders of the Caucasian Albania, and the boundary between the two countries were the Derbent fortifications. The Hun Prince Alp-Ilitver in his messageto the Armenian Catholicos Sahak and prince Grigor (682) names Aluank (Albania) a country nearest to the Huns (Movses Kalankatuatsi 2, p. 133).Soon after the end of the Israil's mission to the Huns the messengers of the Huns' Grand Prince went with important assignment “through Aluank toArmenia” (Movses Kalankanuatsi 2, p. 133).

Thus, as shows the analysis of the written sources, by the end of the 7th c. AD the “Hun country” had a stable, formed territory that extended from thelower course of Itil in the north to the Derbent fortifications in the south, it included steppe and open plain territories adjoining the Caspian littoral, and alsofoothill areas (Fig 1) (Gmyrya L., 1980, p. 156-158; 1993, p. 286-287).64

Caspian Hun CountryFig 1. Caspian Dagestan in the 5th-6th centuries.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 19/32

Huns called their territory “Huns land”, “Our Country” (Movses Kalankatuatsi 2, p. 200, 207-208), and the Huns Grand Prince Alp-Ilitver calls her“my country” (Movses Kalankatuatsi 2, p. 132).64

The opinions of researchers in respect to the location of the Hun country in the 5th-7th centuries are generally unanimous, it is the Caspian Dagestan.But the judgments of the majority of the authors are not distinguished by geographical details, or by chronological phases in its territorial changes. Thenotions of the researchers are most general, the “Hun country” //64// was located north of Derbent (Bartold W.W. 1963, p. 670), in the Northern orNortheastern Dagestan (Artamonov M.I. 1936, p. 97-98; Fedorov Ya.S. 1972, p. 19, 22, 35, 39; Kuznetsov, V.A. 1984, p. 51; Gumilev. L.N. 1992, p.51, 59), in the North Caucasus (Bernshtam A.N. 1951, p. 174), in Dagestan (Vernadsky G.V. 1992, p. 229). Some authors view the localization of the“Country of Huns” somewhat more specifically: littoral areas north-east of the main Caucasus range (Pigulevskaya N. 1941 p. 46), littoral areas(Artamonov M.I. 1962, p. 183; Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 20), Maritime and Northern Dagestan (Dagestan History, 1987 p. 127).

The localization of the “Country of the Huns” in the “History of the North Caucasus” in the span between the modern city Makhachkala, and r. Ulluchai

in the middle of the Coastal Plain as very specific, but no justifications are given in support of that point of view (History of the North Caucasus. 1988, p.96 - 98). Only the opinion of two authors, A. Gadlo and Yu.R. Jafarov, on the location of the “Country of Huns” in our view is based on detailed analysisof written sources of information, with parsing of information from the ancient authors in chronological order, but their views do not agree. One has it asopen space from the Lower Itil to Derbent (Jafarov Yu.R. 1985, p. 46, 62-63), the other has it as a local district in the Dagestan coastal plain and foothills(Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 152 .)65

Probably, the disarray in the opinions of researchers and their vague notions are caused not only by weak awareness of ancient authors about this

subject, but also by the ethical motley of the Hunnic circle tribes in this region. In our opinion, the reason is in the methodology of the research analysis ofthe sources (The unspecified weakness in the allusion must relate to prejudices and partial blindness endemic to state-run scientists).

3. POLITICAL CENTERS OF CASPIAN LITTORAL IN THE 8TH CENTURY.

65

The period of greatest activity of the “Country of Huns”in the Caspian littoral coincided with the beginning of the Arab Caliphate advance to the Eastern

N.Caucasus. The researchers date the first appearance of the Arab troops at Derbent to the 642/643. From that time begins a long period of the Arabsmilitary campaigns in the Dagestan plains and mountains, which lasted for almost a hundred years (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. pp. 173-190). The main forceleading the struggle of the Northeast Caucasus peoples against the aggressive policies of the Arab Caliphate became the Khazar state. The main impact ofthe Arab expansion might fell on the nations of the Dagestan Caspian littoral. This region from the beginning of the 8th c. to 740s suffered almost continuousdevastations, many economic centers ceased to exist, bloody battles claimed tens of thousands of lives, and the women and children, along with materialloot, became war spoils for the Arab fighters. In the Arab army was a special post of the “Custodian of Spoils” (“mukasim/mukhasim”,a Persian forca. “adversary (spoils)”).66

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 20/32

Sources testify that the resistance of the Dagestani peoples to the Arab aggression was strong and sustained. The struggle went on with varying success.The Arabs had to repeatedlyconquer the same Dagestan regions and cities. And as soon as the Arab power in the region slackened, the lands abandonedby the population were re-populated again. Only by the beginning of the 10th c. the Khazar-Arab relations stabilized, Derbent became a demarcationdividing spheres of influence of two states, the Arab Caliphate and the Khazar Kaganate, it strongly guarded by the Arabs (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p.191). In the 8th c. on the political map of the Caspian littoral, and on the Dagestan mountainous regions befell significant changes.

Sources report the existence in this period in the Caspian littoral north of Derbent of several political entities: the “Country of Huns”- “PossessionSamandar”,“Balanjar “Country”, “Territory Vabandar”,“Haidak Land”,“Khazar Country”.

3.1 “HUN COUNTRY” — “POSSESSION SEMENDER”

66

In the 8th c. the “Land of Huns”is mentioned by two Armenian historians - Ghevond and Stepanos Taronetsi.

Vardapet Ghevond, writing in the late 8th c., indicates “that the military campaigns of the Arabs in the period from 713 to 737 went on mainly in the“Country of Huns”(Ghevond. C 28, 81). In some cases he also calls her the “Land of Huns” (Ghevond. pp. 72, 80).67

The author clearly distinguished political entities adjacent to the “Land of Huns”.They are called “Land of Maskuts”,, from the context of the sourcelocated south of the “Land of Huns”,and Derbent pass (Ghevond, p. 72). The Khazar territory is denoted by the author with a vague term - “NorthernCountries” (Ghevond, p. 72). The Khazar territory unambiguously is located north of the “Land of Huns”,evidenced by the description of the Khazar

troops route on a military campaign in the S.Caucasus (683? 730?): “... The commander with assembled army went through the land of the Huns, andthrough the Djor pass by the land of Maskuts, and forayed into the Paitakaran country” (Ghevond. pp. 71-72). This is further evidence that the sources notonly in the 7th c., but also in the 8th c. clearly distinguished between the Caspian littoral “Land of Huns”,and the “Lands of Khazars” located in theimmediate vicinity of the Hun possessions at their northern borders.

During the days of Great Armenia, before it was dismembered by the joint efforts of the Parthians and Romans, Armenia was a multi-ethnic expansive state with substantial populations of Türkic horse pastoralists inside and in the neighborhood. In the Armenian form ofthe name Paitakaran can be readily seen a Türkic composite title Bai-Tarkhan, i.e. autonomous ruler not subject to taxation. Bai and Bekare dialectal variations, in Khazaria it was Bek, in Azerbaijan it is Bai.

Greater Armenia ca. 70 BC(At that time the Caspian Sea was called Hyrcanian Sea ~ Tr. “Nomad (Sea)”,and Caucasus was called Cau Cas ~ Tr. “White

Rockies” [Herodotus 1.104] and Croucas(is) ~ Tr. “White with Snow (Rockies)” [Pliny 6.XIX] in Scythian)

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 21/32

Armenian Province Paitakaran(Hewsen, Robert H. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. ISBN 978-0-226-33228-4

“Paitakaran doubtlessly was populated by ethnically non-Armenian population”)

Ghevond does not specifically describe the location of the “Country of Huns”, but the content of the text reveals that its southern borders started withDerbent pass or, in the author's words, the “Caspian Gates”,“Chor Pass” and “Djor Pass” (Ghevond. pp. 27 - 28, 72). Ghevond does not name other

geographical landmarks, although for example one of the stories in the Ghevond “History” allows to conclude that the “Hun city of Targu” was located atthe “thickly” wooded outer spurs of the Caucasus mountains. To the “Cocos” (Tr. Kuu Kas) mountains fled the Arab commander Maslama fleeing fromthe defeat after a failed //68// seige of the city (Targu) in 713/714. (Ghevond, p. 28). In 737, another Arab leader Marwan (Marwan) captured anunnamed city in the “Land of Huns” located on the sea coast (Ghevond, p. 80).68

It is believed that that city could be the Huns country's capital city Varachan. About taking it by the Arab forces led by Marwan informs the Armenianhistorian of the 13th c. Vardan the Great. His message is succinct, the tragedy of the events is depicted in one sentence: “Marwan (Marwan) went on a

campaign against Varachan - the city of the Huns, and returned from there victorious” (Vardan the Great p. 95). However, addressed below are otheropinions about the unnamed city of Ghevond. Here it is important to note that Ghevond, writing in the wake of events of the Arab-Khazar war, in contrastwith the Arab historians of the 9th - 10th cc. who were describing the same events (al-Kufi, at-Tabari), in the first half of the 8th c. localized in the Caspianlittoral the “Land of Huns”,and its cities (I.e. long after the Caspian Huns accepted supremacy of Khazaria, and the appointment by Khazaria as aHun's Elteber an alien from the Ashina dynasty, Armenians still called the Hun lands the “Land of Huns”,and not the “Land of Khazars”).

The Armenian historian of the 11th c. Stepanos Taronetsi repeats Ghevond's information about the Huns in the Caspian littoral, connecting with themthe defense of Derbent in the 713/714. (Stepanos Taronetsi p. 95).

The writings of the Arab geographers and historians of the 9th - 10th cc. with general information about the Caspian littoral of the 8th - 10th cc. do notmention the “Hun country”.However, under the staggering layers of information about major milestones of the Arab-Khazar wars is still traceable the fateof its peoples even during // 69// the Khazar supremacy, whose tributaries has become the country of the Huns.69

As the following indicates, to call Huns “tributary” is inaccurate, tribute was paid only by non-Türkic sedentary population, the resthad to participate in the governance of the country and in the wars. A better term would be “allies”. But notably, while Belenjer was

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 22/32

Timeline of Khazar Kagans

589Invasion of Khazars, Greeks and Georgians of Aguania(Agvania) is repelled by Persians. The term “Khazars” isapparent backward projection, a misnomer for Hunno-Savirs

604

Kara Churin Türk Boke Khan of Goktürk Kaganate dies,Kaganate split into West and East. Tuli (Jangar) becomes Kaganof Eastern Goktürk Kaganate, Taman becomes Kagan ofWestern Goktürk Kaganate (604-610).

610Taman Yabgu dies, Buri Shad (Shad=prince) Yabgu becomesKagan of Western Goktürk Kaganate (610-618)

618 Buri Shad Yabgu dies, Tung Yabgu becomes Kagan of WesternGoktürk Kaganate (618-630)

626

Avar Kaganate looses control of its eastern half to Western

Türkic Kaganate. Caspian Huns, Bulgars, Barsils, Sabirs,Khazars fall under control of Western Türkic Kaganate underTung Yabgu of Ashina dynasty.

626

Khazars and Bulgars under Khan Kurbat confederated(voluntarily, not conquered) into W. Goktürk Kaganate. Khazarssupply military contingents and participate in division of capturedwealth. Bulgars man western border with Avars and don't benefitfrom captured wealth

628Khazars (Western Türkic Kaganate) capture Tbilisi and conquerAlbania. “Khazars” is apparent backward projection, amisnomer

628

Tong Yabgu Kagan (Djebukagan of Armenian annals, WesternTürkic Kaganate) signed treaty with Albania, transferring over tothe Kaganate control of all its cities and fortresses, andestablishing free trade

630

Family feud within and disintegration of Western TürkicKaganate. Sibir-khan becomes Kagan of a split Western TürkicKaganate. Sibir-khan accedes to Bulgarian independence underKhan Kurbat of Dulo dynasty. Caucasus Huns remain loyal toSibir-khan

642

Arab campaigns against Huns and Khazars: Salman ibn Rabiahal-Bahili (648?), Abd Al Rahman (642-652), Jarrah (721/722),Maslama (727/728), Marwan (737/738), and al-Fadl Ibn Yahya

allied with the Bulgars, or was in the Bulgar sphere, the Caspian Huns never allied with the Bulgars, and in the Bulgar-Khazar conflictsremained allied with the Khazars.

It is also viable that the Hunnic confederation included different tribes that were allocated separate pasturing ranges, with the BülünJar - Balanjar (Military Headquarters) serving as the center for the Huns proper, and the other tribes, like the Kayis, allotted their ownterritories.

Two Arab writers, Al-Kufi and at-Tabari, wrote in the early 10th c. They fairly in detail account on military operations in the Caucasus in the first half ofthe 8th c., their information overlaps with that of the Armenian historian Ghevond.

Geographic information about the Caspian Dagestan in al-Kufi is rather vague; the author labels areas north of Derbent by various terms, as a rule, the“Khazar” possessions. The author employed some generic, non-specific notations: “Khazar side” and “his (Khazar) country” (al-Kufi.p. 17), or generalabstract - “Khazar land”,denoting areas generally controlled by Khazars (al-Kufi, p. 41). In some instances in the al-Kufi book can be “discerned” thenames of political entities located in the Caspian Dagestan. Al-Kufi refers to “countries” in alliance with Khazars. These political entities al-Kufi calls“godless countries”,they had kindred relation with the Khazar King, “were with him of the same faith and descent” (al-Kufi p. 21). Al-Kufi informationattests that these “godless countries” had to participate in particularly important military operations, but upon their consent, which indicates their greatpolitical independence (al Kufi p. 22). To the “godless countries” //70// apparently belonged the “Country of Huns”of the Armenian sources, with its newcapital Semender.

The confederated structure of the Türkic states has a lengthy literary tradition, starting from the Zhou state in 1600 BC, highlighted byHerodotus for the Scythians in the 600 BC, and by al Kufi for the Khazar Kaganate in the 700 AD. This fundamental phenomenon ispredicated by the mobility of the constituents, organizationally it is more akin to the pre-Civil War United States than to the post-CivilWar United States. The confederated structure of the Türkic states was rarely appreciated, and more frequently ignored at point blank

by the historians conditioned in the sedentary farming states, where the poor agrarian population does not have an option of voting withtheir feet, and therefore predicates their enfeoffment and a rule of ruthless absolutism. Accordingly, the accounts of the mentallysedentary historians need to be rectified with a reverse prism, where the dispersed color spectrum is reconstituted into its original brilliantform.

70

Al-Kufi mentions Semender repeatedly in describing military operations inthe Caspian littoral (al-Kufi, p. 19-20, 41, 49). But he is not stating aboutArabs taking this city by storm. In 722 The Arab commander Jarrah wasplanning a campaign against Samandar (Semender), after first conquering the

lands subordinated to Khazars - the “Balanjar Country” and “territoryVabandar”,but having received a warning from the “possessor ofBalanjar”,who became an Arab ally, of the impending upon him huge Khazararmy, Jarrah quickly led his troops to beyond Derbent.

During a campaign against the Khazars in the 727/728, the Arabcommander Maslama entered several cities, abandoned without a fight by theKhazars, among them also was Samandar (This Scythian tactics survivedto Modernity, it was used by the Türkic scion Kutuzov in the Franco-Russian War of 1812).

The Arabs had to flee Samandar after learning of the enormous forcesgathered against them by the Khazars (And the same happened to Dariusin 512 BC and Napoleon who fled from Moscow in 1812).

In the years 737/738 the Arab leader Marwan, with the campaignobjective to capture the capital of the “Khazar Kingdom” al-Baida (Itil) onthe Volga, first had to reach Samandar. He came there by crossing the landof Alans, ravaging them. The author is silent on the storm of Samandar or itswillingness to surrender to the Arabs. We only know that in the vicinity ofSamandar Marwan thoroughly prepared troops to march on al-Baida. Thetroops were reorganized, re-equipped with new spears, re-dressed,apparently into special white robes, including everybody - the militarycommanders, // 71// subordinates and servants (al-Kufi, p. 49). The Marwan150 thousand army set out from Samandar to al-Baida. The author does notsay another word about Semender.71

In general, al-Kufi's Semender remains in the shade, compared forexample with another city Balanjar. According to al-Kufi, the Arab majormilitary operations in the Caspian littoral fell on the “Land of Balanjar”.And ifBalanjar serves at al-Kufi as “Land” or “Ruler of the Balanjar Country”,as amain city of the political entity, as will be discusses in detail below, the al-KufiSamandar (Samandar) - is just another “one of the Khazar cities” (al-Kufi, p.49). But we know from other, earlier Armenian sources, that in the 7th c. the

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 23/32

al-Barmaki (791/792)

642 First Khazar - Arab war (642-652) against Abd Al Rahman

648

Arab commander Salman ibn Rabiah al-Bahili enters Derbentabandoned by more than 300-thousand troops “Khazar” army,reached city Yargu (Bar'uza) (i.e. Targu/Semender)... and thenheaded on to Balanjar, where he was killed and his armydestroyed

650?-…

First Kagan of Khazars Kaganate, a splinter from WesternTürkic Kaganate, Irbis (650?-657?), from Ashina dynasty. SeeA.S.Pletneva for Khazarian domain. See Djagfar Tarihi forsequence of Khazarian Kagans.

651Defeat of Khazar-Alan army by Abd Al Rahman Arabs inEuphrates battle

652Arab attack Balandjar, Khazar Kagan Irbis mobilized fordefence 300,000-strong army

653653-654 Arab first campaign against Hunno-Savir state, defeatof Arab army

657Khazar Kagan Irbis (650?-657?) died, Kalga of Ashina dynastybecame Khazarian Khakan

662 Arabs fight Khazars for Derbent

663

Khazar Kagan Kalga died, Kaban from one clan of blackKhazars clans became Khazarian Khakan. Khazarian KaganKaban subjugates Eastern Bulgaria (Ak Bulgar Yorty), extendingKhazarian borders from Dniepr to Itil

664Hun treaty alliance with the contiguous Albania and the terms ofthe peace treaty.

670 Khazars under Alp-Ilitver defeat Bulgars

683683-685 Khazar raid to Armenia. Khazars invaded S.Caucasia,inflicted much damage and took much booty. Khazar invaderskilled rulers of Armenia and Georgia

690Khazar Kagan Kaban died, son of Kalga Aibat (690-693?) of

Ashina dynasty became Khazarian Khakan

693?Khazar Kagan Aibat died, Kuk-Kuyan (693?-745) of Ashinadynasty became Khazarian Khakan

703Khazar royal princess .... marries Byzantine emperor Justinian IIto become Empress Theodora.

713Capture of Derbent by Arab commander Maslama and intrusionof his armies into depth of Khazaria

718Khazars invade Azerbaijan, which belongs to Arabs afterS.Caucasian countries submitted to Arab Caliphate's dominance

in 652

721Arab campaigns against Huns and Khazars: Jarrah (721/722),Maslama (727/728), Marwan (737/738), and al-Fadl Ibn Yahyaal-Barmaki (791/792)

721

Arab commander Jerrah campaign against Huns (“Khazaria”);

Belendjer (aka Varachan, “Old” Belenjer, capital of Kayis andlater of Suvars, aka future Khamzin) surrendered to Jarrah andpromised to pay an annual tribute to the Arabs; capture of UlugBender/Vabandar

723 723-944 Massive Jewish emigration to Khazaria

727Arab campaign against Huns and Khazars: Maslama (727/728),and Marwan (737/738)

727 Khazars invade Azerbaijan. Muslam's raid against Khazars

730

Khazar commander Barjik led 300K Khazar troops through

Darial Pass to invade Azerbaijan. At Battle of Ardabil, Khazarsdefeated entire Arab army. Battle of Ardabil lasted for threedays, and resulted in death of major Arab general Jarrah.Khazars then conquered Azerbaijan and Armenia and for a brieftime northern Iraq

730 Khazarian Kagan Bulan of Ashina dynasty accepts Judaism

732Leo III Isaur's son prince Constantine Copronim's (ConstantineV, 741-775) dynastic marriage to sister of Khazarian KaganChichak (Flower) (Empress Irina) from Ashina clan

city Samandar was one of the largest cities in the “Country of Huns”, whichwas in alliance with Khazars. Al-Kufi has no information about the “Countryof Huns”. However, some al-Kufi writings indirect evidence suggests that inthe first half of the 8th c. Samandar was the principal city in the “Country ofHuns”, after the demise of its former capital Varachan. The residence of theHun Prince was transferred to Samandar, located in the inner, northern partof the “Country of Huns”bordering on Khazaria. and according to al-Kufi in

the first half of the 8th c. Samandar appears to be more an ally of the KhazarKing and the “Ruler of the Balanjar Country”,and not a territory totally in theKhazar power. To the Samandar “flees” the Ruler of Balanjar after thecapture of his residence by the Arab //72// commander Jarrah; Khazar Kingusually assembled a large force if Semender was threatened by the Arabswith capture.72

On one of the very large battle, probably in the realm of the “Country ofHuns”, is relayed in one of the al-Kufi stories. In the 722/723 the Arabcommander Jarrah, pursuing Khazar forces retreating under pressure of theArabs and Azerbaijani troops, reached abandoned by the Khazars Derbent.6 farsakhs (aka parasang = 5 3/4 km, about 42 km) north of the river Al-Ran broke the first battle between the Arab and Khazar forces, which endedin defeat for the Khazars (al-Kufi, p. 17-18). In the same campaign Jarrahtook al-Hasin (probably a fortress) and a city Bar'ufa, besieged by the Arabsfor 6 days. Apparently, the named fortified settlements also were located inthe “Land of Huns”,because only after destruction of its possessions theArabs passed to the “Balanjar lands”.

A recital of these events is also in the composition of the Arab historian ofthe 13th c. Ibn al-Athir. But the names of some settlements occupied byJarrah during the 722/723 campaign are transmitted by Ibn al-Athirsomewhat differently than by al-Kufi (Ibn al-Athir, p.24).

At-Tabari (also at-Tabari, 839 - 923) has some information aboutSamandar in the first half of the 8th c. During the Arab commander Marwancampaign of 737, organized to capture the capital of the Khazar Kings on theriver Volga (r. Siklab), the Arab commander first leads his troops toSamandar (In this paragraph the most interesting is the Arab name ofItil, different from the Türkic Itil and from the Slavic Volga. Siklab is arendition of the form sing. Saklab pl. Sakaliba, lit. Sakaliba areKipchaks, the word Saklab/Sakaliba is a loan translation of the Türkicethnonym Kipchak/Kipchaks ~ Kipchak/Kipchaklar ~ White/Pale Saka.The word Saklab/Sakaliba applied to Bulgars and to Bulgar King/MalikAlmasi-Khan (895-925), and to Sakaliba military titles of Suji Mlk ~

~ Head (Mlk) of Army and Subanj - ) ~ Subash ~Army Commander, lit Head of Army. In Arabic, the river Itil was calledSaklab river ~ Kipchak river. The ethnonym Saka was a part of thenames Saklan and Saksin, two Bulgarian provinces, and of the Bulgar

city Saksin-Bulgar on the Itil/Saklab river. In the Russian phonyphonologism, Saklab was routinely translated as Slav, endowing theSlavs with Türkic ethnology ad history even when such translationscreams of the fake, like Slav King Almush, Slav Subashi ~ ArmyCommander, or Slav Suji ~ Tr. Sweet Water).73

About it also wrote Al-Kufi. But al-Kufi also did not explain why theArabs set a goal to reach Samandar and why they did not take it. Al-Tabariin addition says that in the Samandar “...was living Hakan, the king of theKhazars, who hurried to leave town”,so Marwan went further, leavingSamandar in the rear, and sat a camp on the river Siklab and attacked thecamp of the infidels...”.(at-Tabari. I p. 87). As can be seen from thequotation, city Samandar is defined as not only as ostensibly a Khazar city,but also as a capital, where was located a headquarters of the Khazar King.However, the depiction of the subsequent events in at-Tabari suggests thatthe capital city of the Khazars was a city on the river Siklab, because at-Tabari calls it “my (Khazar Khakan) city”.As a gratitude for accepting Islam,Marwan left the Hakan of Khazar a ruler in “his city”,despite the “brutaldefeat inflicted on the Khazars” (at-Tabari. I, p. 87). The lodging on the

Khazar King in the Samandar was probably temporary, and connected withoverseeing military operations in the Caspian littoral against the Arab

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 24/32

737 Arab campaign against Huns and Khazars: Marwan (737/738)

737

Khazar Kagan Kuk-Kuyan looses war to Arab commanderMarwan, and agreed to accept Islam in exchange for Arabconsent for him retaining his power

739

Varachan (“Khamzin”)mounted a stubborn resistance toMarwan's Arabs, fortress fell after month-long siege, and wasdestroyed, Arabs captured 500 people into slavery, and

imposed annual tribute of 30,000 mudds

x(1 mudd = 8.7 l ~ 2 gal) of grain(“مد”)

745

Khazar Kagan Kuk-Kuyan died, and Bardjil (745-760), son ofAibat from Ashina dynasty and adopted son of Kuk-Kuyan ofAshina dynasty became Khazar Kagan (“Khakan”). Bardjildeclared his acceptance of the Jewish faith

760Khazar Kagan Bardjil’s son Bulan (760-805) deposed Bardjiland became Khazar Kagan (“Khakan”). Bulan patronizedconversion of multi-ethnic Khazar population to Judaism

762Khazars defeated Arab occupant army of Musa ibn Ka'b, andliberated Varachan (“Khamzin”), Lakz and Alan

Arab campaign against Huns and Khazars: al-Fadl Ibn Yahya al-Barmaki (791/792)

791Khazars repulsed attack by al-Fadl Ibn Yahya al-Barmaki onVarachan (“Khamzin”)and forced him to flee

805Khazar Kagan Bulan died, his son Ben-Amin of Ashinadynasty became new Khakan

810Ben-Amins brother Karak strangles Khazar Khakan Ben-Aminand became Khazarian Khakan

822

Khazar Kagan Karak fled after a defeat in Tengrian revolt, andUrus, a pagan son of Asankul who was a grandson of Kuk-Kuyan of Ashina dynasty became Khazarian Khakan. Khazarianruling elite professed Tengrianism

840

Khazar Kagan Urus fights his rising Bulgarian subjects and isdefeated, encouraging Khazarian Jews for a revolt with help of

Bek Burtas which sacked Urus and installed Manas asKhazarian Khakan. Manas acceded to split of Khazaria andseparation of Bulgaria. Aidar from Dulo dynasty was Khakan ofBulgars at that time

840

Beks become heads of Khazarian Kaganate, with Kagansholding nominal titular supremacy. Khazarian Khakans mostlydisappear from chronicles. Khazarian ruling elite professedJudaism

855After death of Kagan Aidar, Bulgaria is split between his sonsDjilki and Lachyn

858Bek Ilyas orders killing of Khakan Manas, and installed Ishak,son of Manas, with alias Aksak Timer, as Khakan

870 Bek Ilyas died, next Bek Arslan

895Bek Arslan provoked Khazarian Khakan Iskhak killing, andraised Ishak’s son Bakchuar as Khakan

921Khazarias Burtasian and Kumanian army revolted, overthrewBek Arslan, and installed Modjar, son of Arslan as Bek,

922Conversion of Itil Bulgaria to Islamic state. Independence of ItilBulgaria from Khazaria

expansion.

Thus, only of the Armenian historians, and mostly Ghevond, provide mostlucid evidence on the fate of the “Country of Huns”in the Caspian littoralduring Arab expansion in the Caucasus. This is understandable, for he wrotehis work about 60 years after the described events. According to him, it wasthe “Country of Huns” that first fell to the devastation brought over to theCaspian littoral by the Arab forces.74

The “Land of Huns” in the fight against the Arabs serves //74// as an ally ofthe Khazars, as one of the major forces in the Caspian littoral, able towithstand the onslaught of Arab expansion. At al-Kufi and at-Tabari, whowrote about 150 years after the events, details about Caspian Dagestan in the8th c. are vague, their conveyance was apparently superimposed by thenotions of the region from the following centuries. But they still have traceablefate of the of the “Country of Huns”.

As demonstrates the comparative analysis of the Armenian and Arabsources, the “Country of Huns” of the Armenian authors and the Samandar ofthe Arab authors are identical concepts in the first half of the 8th c., theydelineate the Caspian littoral area between cities Derbent and Samandar. Onthe northwest the “Country of Huns” bordered on “Balanjar country”, in allprobability carved up from the possessions of the “Country of Huns”,addressed below. Its northern neighbor were the Khazar lands.

As noted A.V. Gadlo, the kingdom of Huns was the first to take on tookblow of the Arab forces. In his view, the clash with the Arabs weakened thethe Hunnic confederation, and Khazars took advantage of it (Gadlo A.V.1979 p. 126) (Since the left wing of the European Hunnic state joinedthe Türkic Kaganate in 560s, and remained in the Kaganate till thedismemberment of the Western Türkic Kaganate in 660s, andsubsequently remained in the Khazar splinter of the Western TürkicKaganate with a status of constituent tribal union ruled by an appointedviceroy Elteber. Khazars had nothing to take advantage of, and theA.V. Gadlo concept is hanging in thin air without any foundation. TheHuns, responsible for securing southern border of the states theybelonged to since 560s, suffered a debacle, their Elteber lost his positionand probably his life, and his functions were assumed by the centralgovernment, and for local matters delegated to a new Elteber. TheCaspian Huns received their first Elteber appointed by the newly formedKhazar Kaganate in 660s, and the sequence of Eltebers ruled Huns tillthe debacle of 737). Inclusion of the “Country of Huns” territory into the

forming Khazar state's sphere of influence occurred, as rightly believes A.V.Gadlo, on the background of the Arab-Khazar war for the Caucasus (GadloA.V. 1979, p. 153). In his study, A.V. Gadlo repeatedly emphasizes, and weconcur with the author, that the Huns of the “Country of Huns” led by AlpIlitver can not be identified with the Khazars //75// and Khazaria, because it isinconsistent with the evidence of the sources (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 139,Note 194, p. 141). M.I. Artamonov noted that Khazaria evolved as afederation of tribes that even under supreme authority of the Khazar Kaganhave preserved their independence (Artamonov M.I. 1962, p. 184, 189).Gumilev also noted that the Dagestan foothill and steppe areas werepopulated by non-Khazars (Gumilev, L.N. 1992 p. 48).75

Synopsis of Khazar background, as suggested by p.G. Klyashtorny in The Asian Aspect of the Early Khazar History,Florilegia Altaistica, Hirrassowltz Verlag, 2006, ISSN 0571-320X, ISBN 3-447-05396-6, ISBN 978-3-447-05396-9

A part of Tele tribes, headed by the Se part of Seyanto = Sirs/Seres = Saka = Türks, in turn headed by the Ashina tribe, in the 4th c.formed the On-Ok union of “Ten tribes”. In about 600 due to internal wars with the Siker dynstic tribe of the Red Huns “Hermihions”(Esgil/Ezgel/Esegil/Eseg/Izgil/Ishkil/Ichgil/Äsägel/Askel/Askil/Sekler/Szek(ler)/Ch. Asitsze/Pin. Asijie, Sijie/Hermihions), the Sirsleft the On-Ok union, yielding control of the Tokuz-Oguz “Nine tribes” union to Jalair (Yaglakar) family of Uigurs. The Khazars (Kosa�� pin. Kesa) and the Bersils (Barsils) belonged to the Seres/Sir secessionists. A part of the Khazar tribe remained in the Yaglakar'sTokuz-Oguz “Nine tribes” confederation, and these Khazars, Yaglakars, Tokuz-Oguzes, and Uigurs after 600 AD have their ownhistory.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 25/32

The period leading to the 600 AD, and shortly thereafter saw major jolts in the Türkic populace. The Türkic Kaganate split into

Western and Estern Kaganates (604), the On-Ok Western Kaganate had 5 On Shadapyt “Nushibi” right wing tribes and 5 Dulu (Tele)left wing tribes. The Nushibi coalition included Khazars in the N. Caucasus, and Bulgars in the N. Pontic steppes, and allied withSogdiana, Byzantine, and China. In 605 the Tele tribes Seyanto and Kibir seceded from the Western Türkic Kaganate into anindependent Kibir Kaganate (605-610 AD). After temporarily dissolving their Kaganate, in 628 it was resurrected as a SeyantoKaganate, which for 631 - 646 took over the remains of the Eastern Türkic Kaganate, but crushed with innumerable consequences forthe innumerable Türkic tribes. In 630 Bulgaria, including Caspian Huns and Khazars, seceded from the Western Turkic Kaganate. In647 as a result of Ili River treaty the Western Turkic Kaganate split into two independent Nushibi and Tele states. Then, at about 720,Nushibi and Dulu (Tele) unions were forcibly re-incorporated into revived Second Turkic Kaganate. Somewhere in this upheaval fits therevolt of the Bedi Bersil and Kadyr Kasar, who split from the Nushibi and conquered the Ak-Bulgar and the Caspian Huns to form in660 their own Khazar Kaganate. Contrary to the stipulations of the Tes inscription, Bersils and Kasars not only did not perish, butflourished. Historical records point in the direction that ethnically Bulgars, Bersils, and Khazars were separate tribes of the same people,were of the Hunnic extraction, and had their pasturing ranges in and around Balkh..

The Tes inscription (762) states: “Of the worthless Kölö (Kuls = subordinated allies, sometimes interpreted as “slaves”) of thetwo eminent, it became weak and perished... Bedi Bersil and Kadyr Kasar perished then. That people of mine started much civil strifeand quarrel”.

Tes inscription reflects the stable division of the Oguz people into two wings, two tribal unions - Buzuks and Uchuks. The Buzuks, theleft eastern wing, had the seniority in the Oguz structure. Only of their number could be chosen the great Khan (Kagan). The position ofthe Buzuk aristocracy was higher than that of the Uchuks. Tes inscription laid the whole blame for the dissent and discord on the Buzuks,

the chiefs of the Türkic Oguz tribes. If Uchuk is Uch Ok “Three tribes”, according to the accepted Türkic naming convention, thenBuzuk could be a dialectal or distorted Besh Ok “Five tribes”, or Bash Ok “Head tribes”.

The Khazars and the Bersils were ascribed to the Uchuks, i.e. to the right western wing of the Oguz tribes. The early history of theKhazars and the Bersils (Barsils) was closely interconnected. Bedi, the leader of the Bersils, and Kadyr, the chief of the Khazars(Kasars), took their tribes westward, unless they were alredy in the “westward” but gained prominence after the revolt, like did theKurbat's Great Bulgaria.

3.2 “BALANJAR COUNTRY”

75

In the 8th c. on the political map of the Caspian Dagestan of the Arab historians al-Kufi and at-Tabari is denoted the “Land of Balanjar”. Apparently,under the “Land of Balanjar” al-Kufi understands the remote Caucasian province of Khazaria. To refer to it Al-Kufi also used other designations: the “land

of Balanjar Ruler” or “Country of Balanjar Ruler” (al-Kufi. pp. 11, 19). Its main city was Balanjar, where was located the residence of the ruler of the“Balanjar Land” (al-Kufi. pp. 10-11, 19, 20, 41, 47-48). The Arab invasion of the the Caspian province of Khazars, the “Country of Balanjar Ruler”raised a special alarm of the Khazar King, forcing him to. undertake a large-scale retaliatory military operation against the Arabs. On receiving the news ofthe Arab entry into the Balanjar domain, the Khazar King sent envoys to all subordinated to Khazars countries to call them to the war with the Arabs (al-Kufi. pp. 21, 41).76

Was assembled a great //76// army. Thus, in the battle for Balanjar in 652/653 against 10-thousand Arab troops was staged a 300-thousand Khazararmy (al-Kufi. pp. 10-11). After the Arab commander Jarrah took Balanjar in 722, the Khazar King mobilized “a huge number of Khazars”,and Jarrahhad to flee (al-Kufi, p. 19-20). In yet another military campaign, when Arab armies under command of Maslama again invaded the land of Khazars -Balanjar, Samandar, and Vabandar, immediately upon receiving the news about capture of Balanjar, Khazar King began gathering troops from the entireKhazar land, and soon was on the march heading a vast multitude of the troops ( al-Kufi p. 41). The author notes, “So numerous were they that the Arabswere not able to resist”.The Arabs quickly retreated to Derbent, gushing two day's march in a day. Another Arab leader Marwan in 735 took Balanjar anddestroyed the “Country of the Khazars” (al-Kufi, p. 48). Two years later, Marwan, assembling an unprecedented number of soldiers - 150 thousand(usually in the Arab operations the in the Caspian littoral participated from 10 to 40 thousand soldiers) (al-Kufi. pp. 10-11, 18, 47), ventured on asuccessful offence to capture the Khazar capital Al-Baida on the Itil. There, the Khazar King was able to counter the Arab forces with only 40 thousand ofhis soldiers (al-Kufi, p. 50).77

Topographic data on the country of the “Balanjar ruler” in al-Kufi is very scarce. It is known that within its territory is a fast river, with overgrown bydense forest //77// banks (al-Kufi, p. 10). The Balanjar apparently was located near Semender, its ruler fled there after the capture of Balanjar by Jarrah.

The modern translation of the at-Tabari “History” from Arabic, in the description of the Arab military operations in the Caucasus, mentioned “owncountry of Türks” and “land of Türks” with a city Balanjar, which sometimes is simply called Balanjar (at-Tabari. II, p. 74). It is interesting to note that the

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 26/32

652/653 military operations in the Caspian Dagestan years are called by at-Tabari “Balanjar campaign”,the Caliph was personally appointing personsresponsible for them (at-Tabari. II p. 75).

In at-Tabari the “Balanjar Country” in some cases is denoted as “Khazar Country” or the “Khazar side” (at-Tabari. II pp.76-77). Exact identification ofthe location of the city (or country) Balanjar is impossible, although available indirect evidence in the at-Tabari book gives some idea about it. Somepolitical entities conquered by the Arabs are located, by at-Tabari definition, “beyond the Balanjar mountains” (at-Tabari. II p. 79).

Very important is the message of at-Tabari that before foraying against Balanjar in 652/653 one of the Arab commanders Salman ibn Rabia wasappointed to control the Balanjar passes (at-Tabari. II p. 75). Apparently the subject are passes on which paths stood the city Balanjar (More logical tocontrol passes to Balanjar. The suggested site of Balanjar at modern Shura, Russian Buinaksk, 42.8°N 47.1°E, places it away from any passes).78

On the Balanjar location in the foothills also testify other facts. Speaking about the defeat of the Arabtroops at Balanjar in 653, at-Tabari reports someinteresting details. On their retreat, the Arabs split into two groups, one of them went in the direction of al-Bab (In Arabic Bab بلد is akin to“country”,here: Derbent), and another by the “Khazar Country roads” and came to Jilan and Jurjan (southern coast of the Caspian Sea) (Gilan andHyrcania/Gorgan respectively) (at-Tabari, II. C . 76-77). The first fraction was advancing to Derbent, apparently by the Caspian seashore road that ranthrough the non-Khazar-controlled territories, and therefore was more secure. As stresses the author, the choice of the road saved the Arab troop. Theauthor has not disclosed the fate of the other Arab group, but perhaps considerable number of them perished, because the author contrasts these twodecisions of the Arab military leaders on the retreat road, and the preference is given to the Caspian seashore road. Retreat by the Khazars' possessions,bypassing the Caspian seashore route, through the mountain passages, would have made it possible to reach the inner areas of the Arab-controlledterritories. The Balanjar of at-Tabari, in all probability, was located aside from the Caspian coastal route, in the foothills on the way to the Caucasuspasses.

The closest western neighbor of Balanjar was the “Country of al-Lan” (Alania), its towns and fortresses “were behind Balanjar” (at-Tabari. II p. 78).Often, the Arabs organized military forays against Khazars from the territory of the Bab (In Arabic Bab بلد is akin to “country”) al-Lan, suggestingthat “the Country of Türks” bordered directly on the “Country Alan”.79

Ibn al-Athir (13th c.) also writes about Balanjar, and it is known that his source is at-Tabari “History”.Indirect indicators of the author suggest that inmost cases Ibn al-Athir with the toponym Balanjar was designating not the city, but the country.Like at-Tabari, he called some Arab military operations inthe Caspian littoral “campaigns against Balanjar” (Ibn al-Athir. pp. 13-14).

Very laconic information about the 8th c. Balanjar is given by two other Arab historians who wrote in the late 9th c., Al-Baladhuri and al-Yakubi. Al-Baladhuri called the areas north of Derbent with collective definitions: “side of the Khazars” or “Land of the Khazars” (al-Baladhuri, p. 16-19). Heidentified some geographic landmarks in the “Land of the Khazars”.These are the river Balanjar and the location of the grave of the legendary Arabcommander Salman - Balanjar (al-Baladhuri, p. 14). Balanjar in the second case may be a battle-field or a valley where Salman died. The land belongingto the Khazar King the author called differently - “his (the Khazar King's) territory” (al-Baladhuri, p. 18). The author meant Khazaria with the capital on theriver Itil.

Al-Yakubi, who wrote his historical work shortly before the death of al-Baladhuri (891), in describing the Arab military operations in the Caucasusdescribes about the same milestones of the conquest of the mountain and Caspian littoral Dagestan as al-Baladhuri. But unlike him, al-Yakubi calls theterritories where took place battles //80// of the first third of the 8th c. “Türks' country” (al-Yakubi, p. 6-7), and only once it denotes a “country belongingto the Khazars” (al-Yakubi, p. 7). Like al-Baladhuri, al-Yakubi also does not give clear toponymic description for the “Country of Türks” and cites thesame geographical landmarks that are mentioned by al-Baladhuri: Balanjar river and so-called Balanjar (city and possibly country or region), which iscomquered or submits to the Arabs (al-Yakubi, p. 5-6).80

Balanjar as an independent political unit apparently split from of the “Country of Huns”. When that event occurred, and in what connection, the sourcesare unclear. And if in the late 7th c. the “Country of Huns” is “a kind of unified political entity, in the first half of the 8th c. on the Caspian littoral politicalmap is found an independent “Possession Balanjar”,tightly connected with the Khazars, militarily, and possibly also by kinship. Balanjar was allied with the“Country of Huns” for joint defense against the Arabs.

Balanjar occupies a prominent position in the Bulgarian historical epos as a Bulgarian political entity with ethnically Bulgarianpopulation that coagulated into a geographically distinct sub-ethnos. Later, migrated Balanjars are traced as settled along Itil and distinctcommunities in the Bulgar cities. Considering that the Khazar splinter in the Caspian littoral was small, possibly in low 5-digit numbers,and that the bulk of the Khazar population and administration consisted of of Bulgar and Sabir numerically large tribes and nobilityrespectively, makes it clear that the community of Balanjar Bulgars was historically straddling between their kins Bulgars in the west andtheir distant kins in the east. Before their escape from the Arab carnage, for centuries they remained the allies and subjects of the powerto be, and their later status has changed only in the eyes of the Arabs, who could only perceive the military implications.

M.I. Artamonov explains the secession of the “Balanjar Country” after the destruction of the Caspian Dagestan by the Arabs: in the region formed two

separate political entities. In the southern Caspian littoral formed the “Khamzin Country” with the main city Khamzin, and in the north formed “PossessionBelenjer” with a capital Varachan and later Samandar (Artamonov M.I. 1962. pp. 228-229).81

A.V. Gadlo, unlike Artamonov, believes that Balanjar formed as a separate ethnic entity and political force before the first campaigns of the Arabs inthe Caspian Dagestan (653/654). After the defeat of 721/722, it lost its independence and became a vassal of Khazars (Gadlo A.V. 1979. pp. 120-121),A. Gadlo localizes Balanjar in the steppes of Central N.Caucasus, east of the Alan country and west of Semender (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 122). M.G.Magomedov believes that the “Balanjar Country” covered a vast territory: the valleys of rivers Sulak, Aktas, and Yaryksu centered at Sulak (Magomedov,M.G. 1983. pp. 28-36, 183).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 27/32

82

M.G. Magomedov suggested to identify with Belenjer the largest fortress in the region of the Terek-Sulakinterfluvial Upper Chur Yurt fortress, located on the right bank of the Sulak River at its exit from the foothillsto the plain. Presently the monument is flooded with water reservoir of the Chur Yurt Power Plant No 1(43.2°N. 46.8°E). The monument was examined in 1950s-1970s.

M.G. Magomedov's suggestion is consistent with the historical records and and political-ethnical events.Allowing for a vast territory for the the Belenjer county confirms the numerosity of the Belenjer populationand its role in the Great Bulgaria and post-Khazar Bulgarian state.

3.3 VABANDAR LAND

82

The sources have very little information about this political entity. It is first mentioned by al-Kufi in the description of the Arab military operation in theCaspian littoral in 722/723 headed by Jarrah. The author writes “After the capture of Balanjar, al-Jarrah led Muslim troops from the Balanjar lands andcame to the territory of Vabandar. At that time it had 40 thousand homes” (al-Kufi, p. 19).

Ibn al-Athir has a brief restatement of that event. He writes: “After Balanjar, al-Jarrah encamped by the castle Olubandar (Olugbender) (Ulug bender= Great Cupola [of the yurt]), which had about 40 thousand Türkic houses (families), and concluded a peace treaty on terms of them paying a certainamount each year” (Ibn al-Athir p. 25) (Ibn al-Athir gives the name of the city in the form Vbndr; that agrees with the form in the Kagan Josephletter, written in Hebrew alphabet). The sources do not have other information on the Vabandar. Judging from the “number of families” in the “Vabandarterritory”,40 thousand, the country's population was about 300 thousand people. According to A.V. Gadlo it was 200 - 250 thousand people (Gadlo A.V.1979, p. 121). Based on indirect evidence can be concluded that the Vabandar nearest neighbor was “Balanjar Possession” to the east. A.V. Gadlothought that Vabandar was one of the tribal unions or a country. The author defines its location vaguely - deep in the North Caucasus steppe (Gadlo A.V.1979, p. 121).82

M.G. Magomedov suggested to identify Vabandar with the modern Elderi. On possible connections of Ulug Bender ~ Olugbender ~Olubandar ~ Vabandar with the Türkic Kumyk settlement Elderi and Hunnic/Bulgarian Balkh see the Sidekick annals History of ElderiSettlement (In Russian). V.G. Kotovich offers his alternative identification for all locations, in On location of early medieval townsVarachan, Balanjar and Targu//Collection Antiquities of Dagestan, Makhachkala, 1974.

3.4 “HAIDAK LAND”

Kayi is one of the most ancient known Türkic dynastic tribes that never lost a sight of their glamour. Chinese annals call them Hi (�)

and Si (Xi �). Kayi is synonymous with Ilan/Yilan, in the Hunnic Ogur phoneticized Gilan/Jilan/Djilan, also in this text this ethnonym ismentioned in its Arabic form Djidan and Djilan, synonymous with Haidak: Djidan ~ Djilan = Haidak. Kayis played ruling roles in historiesof many Türkic nations. Some Kayis at some periods were a part of Kipchaks, and as consequence they were erroneously identified withKipchaks.

Another appellation of the Kipchaks is Kayi/Kayis, analyzed for 10th-12th cc. by A.S.Pletneva in her book “Kipchaks”. From al-Kufirecords, we learn that Kipchak Kayis had an established foothold in the Eastern Caucasus long before they reportedly crossed from Irtyshto N.Pontic and became known to Byzantine and Eastern European chroniclers, running ahead of the chronicle records by at least 300years, and showing their late migration to be only in the eyes of the particular observers. The ethnonym Kyiy Dak is etymologically “PaleDacae”, and “White Dachae”, the Dachae are being known from the Herodotus' times. Herodotus knows Kayis as Gelons.

82

“Haidak Land” (Kaitak) (Kaitag) is first mentioned by the Arab historian al-Kufi in connection with military actions of the Arab commander Jarrah inthe Caspian littoral in 722/723. Jarrah decided to cunningly lure the Khazar troops, hunkered down in their country and apparently avoiding an openencounter with the Arabs (al-Kufi, p. 17) (The traditional nomadic tactics was to prepare an ambush and wait for the enemy to fall in it). The mainforces of the Arab army in a day secretly streaked from the river Rubas through Derbent to the river ar-Ran (ar-Ran was read erroneously < ar-Vak =Darvak/Darbak), and a large 3-thousand strong detachment the Arab commander secretly sent to Haidak. By the next morning this detachment was tojoin the main force of the Arabs on the river ar-Ran (Darbak). Jarrah thus was faking the small size of his troops to draw Khazar forces into a battle in aconvenient place. Apparently, Haidak had allied relations with the Khazars, because on receiving the news of the devastation produced by the Arabs in theHaidak, the Khazar //83// troops immediately came to the river al-Ran (Darbak), where a 25-thousand Arab army was already waiting for them. Anddespite the fact that the Khazar army numbered 40 thousand men, apparently the effect of surprise played its role. The Khazars fled from the battlefield.83

The exact localization of Haidak from the dwscriptions of al-Kufi is impossible. This political entity was located somewhere on the way to the battle atthe river ar-Ran (Darvak/Darbak), located 6 farsakhs (~ 42 km) (north) of Derbent, i.e. at a distance of one day's march. A.P. Novoseltsev identifies p.ar-Ran with the modern river Ullucha (Tr. Great River, Türkic “chai” = river is allophonically identical to the Chinese “shui” = river, one of thetwo Chinese words for the river, and a good candidate for a Chinese borrowing from the Zhou language) or Ortozen (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. p189) (Tr. “orto” = center, middle, i..e. Middle Zen).

The same episode about Haidak, described by al-Kufi, also repeats Ibn al-Athir, without naming Haidak. Ibn al-Athir writes: “And he (Jarrah) enteredthe city (Derbent) and sent his cavalry against the neighboring tribes to rob and attack, and they took much booty and returned the next day” (Ibn al-Athirp. 24).

The story of al-Kufi about Jarrah ravaging Kaitak is repeated in the “Book of Derbent” (Derbent-name. I, p. 34; II. pp. 58-59; III. pp. 28-29). Thedetails of the narrative are different - the annals exaggerated the size of the Arab forces ravaging Kaitak, and the size of the booty captured there.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 28/32

84

The “Book of Derbent” mentions the 8th c. Haidak (Kaitak) in connection with two events, the conquest of Kaitak by Maslama in 733/734 and theMarwan attack on Kaitak in 737/738. The Arab sources do not mention //84// Haidak among political entities in Dagestan conquered by the Arabs inmilitary campaigns of the 733/738. The Rumyantsev manuscript of the source describes the results of the 733/734 campaign as follows: “Then (AbuMuslama) went into Possession Kaitak. In battles and fights he had killed the brave Kaitak ruler. He captured Kaitak, converted to Islam most of thepopulation, and assigned them an annual kharaj. Abu Muslim appointed as a ruler (of Kaitak) a man named Hamza (Hence, the name Hanzin) fromamong his people” (Derbend-name. Ш p 33).

The annals define the location of Kaitak in the 8th c. as north of Tabarsaran (Tabasaran) and south of Tuman (Derbend-name. I, p. 29; II p. 45; III p.21).

As a result of political machinations that strived to combine antagonistic tribes in single administrative division dominated by mostpliable ethnicity, the Mountain Kayis Kayidags/Kayitags/Kayitaus (dag, tag, tau are dialectal forms for Türkic “mountain”) endedpolitically attached to the Darginians, and their language gained a political-linguistic classification as belonging to the Darginian linguisticfamily, a branch of Nakh linguistic family. That classification is (or was) disputed by dissenting linguists. The influence of the Armenianannalistic school brought about some spotty acknowledgement that in the first centuries of our era the terms Haidak/Kayitak and “HunKingdom” were synonymous. In the Russian-lingual scholarship, that news was first introduced by K.P.Patkanov From NewGeographic Manuscript ascribed to Moisei Khorenatsi// Journal of the Ministry of Education, Part 226, 1883, http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/VII/Arm_Geogr/text1.phtml?id=2184 (In Russian), but a review of the post-1883 worksindicates that the “Hun Kingdom” still did not sink in the mainstream of the Russian politohistorians, who prefer to take literally the laternomenclature of the Arabic sources. V.F.Minorsky History of Shirvan and Derbent, pp. 126-129, stipulated that Kayitag soundsAltaic, and that was a pinnacle of perception. Even the direct synonymy of the Al-Masoudi Djidan did not click a thinking muscle of theloyal scientific subjects who were inoculated in 1944 to stay away from the Türkic subjects (References http://

www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus2/Bakihanov/primvved.phtml, http:// lib.mexmat.ru/abc.php?letter=%EF, http:// lib.mexmat.ru/books/86802).

From the 12th till the 19th centuries, the territory of Kayitag (Kaitak) was a fief called Kayitag Uts. And the Upper or MountainKayitag (Shabah-Haidak) was called Kayitag, it consisted of 4 subdivisions: Utsari, Shurakat, Kayitagan and Irdjamul. The lower, or flatpart was known as Kar-Haidak (Ubah-Haidak) (V. Gadjiyev Works of Gerber, p. 118). The leading Soviet anthropologist AlekseevV.P. Origin of the Caucasian peoples, pp. 203-204) morphologically classed Kayitags with Türkic Kumyks and Lezgins, to the typicalCaspian type, in contrast with the Nakh Avars, Nakh Laks, and the Nakh Dargins of the central Dagestani highlands who belong to theCaucasian (Iberian ) type. The historical reasons for contrasting anthropological constitution versus linguistic attribution did not gaintraction with the scholars.

3.5 “KHAZAR COUNTRY”

84

As was noted above, the areas north of Derbent the Arab authors in the first half of the 8th c. often called “Khazar” possessions. The definition “Khazarlands” usually was a generalizing concept that referred to the territories that to a varying degrees were dependent on the Khazars. So, in al-Kufi in one casethe term “his (the Khazar King) country” applied to the Balanjar Possession (al-Kufi, p. 41). For example, the political entities in the N.Caucasus (Balanjar and Vabandar), to which settlements returned “Khazars” after a temporary slackening of the Arab aggressive policies, are called by the author“their (Khazar) lands”.In another case the “country of the Khazars” designated territories in the Caspian littoral //85// newly regained by the Arabs (al-Kufi,p. 47).85

However, the terminology used by al-Kufi to denote Khazar possessions becomes more specific when the author describes events in the domain of theKhazar King with its capital at al-Baida. Al-Kufi calls it non-uniformly, but semantically always distinctly - “Country of Khazars”,“Khazaria”,“his (theKhazar King's) kingdom” (al-Kufi, p. 49-52, 69).

Other Arab historians of the 8th c. also distinguish the “country of the Khazars” with its capital on the Itil from the “Khazar lands” in the Caspian littoral- al-Baladhuri and at-Tabari (al-Baladhuri, p. 18; at-Tabari. I p. 88). Ibn al-Athir also repeatedly refers to the “land of Khazars”.Sometimes this name isused as a collective designation for the Khazars and their allies' territories from among the inhabitants of the Caspian littoral (Ibn al-Athir, p. 23, 29), but inmost cases it is used as a name for the main territory of Khazars (Khazaria) with the city al-Baida (Itil) on the Itil (Ibn al-Athir, p. 26, 31 - 32).

The sources do not delineate clear boundaries of the the 8th c. “Khazar Country”. Her southern boundary adjoined the “Samandar possession”(Makhachkala) in the Caspian littoral.86

As was noted above, some researchers believe that the North-Eastern Caucasia fell into political dependence on Khazaria only in 660's, when theArabs devastating campaigns in the region weakened the “Country of Huns”, which took upon the first attack //86// of the Arab aggression. L.N. Gumilevbelieved that the Khazar domain territory from the 2nd c. AD was in the lower courses of the Terek and Sulak rivers, later in the 3rd - 4th centuriesKhazars moved along the coast to the mouth of the Itil (Gumilev L.N. 1992 p. 38). By the early 9th c. Khazaria, subjecting many people, expanded itsborders. Her possession, according to Gumilev, were limited in the west by the r. Don, in the south they reached the Caucasus and Yayla, in the east theyreached r. Yaik (Gumilev L.N. 1992 p. 62). from the Eastern Wing of their confederation

Any attempts to handle Khazars as a distinct ethnicity, aside from the motley political Khazars, is an exercise in futility. None of theresearchers “researching” the Khazar ethnicity has a faintest idea what distinguishes Khazars from their brethren in any ethnological aspect,in life or death. The only real ethnological fact, apart from their name, is the tamga of the Khazar tribe or Khazar dynastic clan, depictedon the coin: . The little off-branch on the left indicates an individual family modification from the base tamga of the clan or tribe, thetamga has a nickname “bird paw” or “chicken paw”,or “bird foot” or “chicken foot”,all of them, naturally, in Türkic. This tamga has a

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 29/32

patriarchal pedigree, at first it marked Cimmerian arrowheads undug in the Cimmerian kurgan burials, and then it was documented onSarmatian artifacts, and on Sarmatian bridle cheekpiece from Pokrovka 2 kurgan burials (Malashev, Yablonsky, 2008), and on artifactsfrom the Middle Syrdarya area. The people were spreading their seed far, wide, and for a long time.

The sedentary investigators with sedentary mentality, skillful in discerning sedentary court coups, get lost between two trees examiningthe phenomena of the cattle ranching states. The premises needed for reading historical testimonies on the pastoralists are few and simple,ignoring them is perilous. First, the cattle husbandry need territories able to continuously support their mobile property. That necessitateswinter and summer pastures, pasturing routs, winter kishlaks, summer auls, and anything in between. And the extent of the pastures definesthe domain territory. Second, the state is the people, not the territory, it is the people with all their mobile and unmovable property thatconstitute the state, plus the hard-working tributary sedentary population. Thirdly, the state is a confederation of independent constituentswith their own kyshtyms (tributary allies) coordinated by elected leaders selected from a dynastic line. These premises are universal for allnomadic state of all times, form antiquity to modernity.

The Western Huns, or the Western Hunnic confederation, was headed by the line Dulo. After the Türkic Kaganate extended theircontrol to the Eastern Europe (550s), Dulo had to submit to the Ashina dynasty, or to their rival Avar dynasty. No demographical changeshave occurred, but the European Hunnic confederation was split into two politically opposing camps. The tribes of the Bulgar circle,consisting of Bulgars, Suvars, Akatirs, Esegs, Khazars, to name the few major tribes, had to chose their dominating ally, while retainingtheir tribal integrity and hierarchy. The eastern part of the Hunnic confederation received a Türkic Ashina Shad (Prince) as a viceroy, firstappointed by the Türkic Kaganate, and then by the Western Türkic Kaganate (600s). While the Khazar tribe of the Bulgars and theirallies retained their allegiance to the Ashina line, the rest of Bulgars switched their supreme allegiance to their old Hunnic ruling line Dulo(630's), and it took a generation for the Ashina line to partially regain their dominance. After disintegration of the Western TürkicKaganate (660s), its Ashina Shad assumed the title Kagan, which for the people in this new realignment did not changed anything. Later,the Khazar constituent tribes, i.e. Bulgars, Suvars, Esegs, and Khazars, elected successor Kagans from the available members of theAshina line. The Khazar expansion theories are nonsensical, all neighboring tribes had to utilize their traditional available pastures, exceptthat the pastures lost to the Arab control had to be replaced by the pastures outside of the Arab reach, and the whole center of gravityshifted north, putting more pressure on the northern pastures, and probably initiating a chain reaction of displacements that radiallyreverberated from the southern borders of the state. Neither the location, nor the tributary relations were affected by the loss of somekyshtyms to the Arabs, and more extensive exploitation of the old pastures toward the Don and Itil rivers has nothing to do with“expansion” of the Khazar political rule . That the Khazars controlled territories way beyond Don is well documented, Kyiv was a Khazarcity before gaining independence.

A rudimentary demographical assessment illustrates the scope of the demographical picture. Within their immediate surroundings, theKhazars had 40,000 army. At a rate of 1 recruit per average family of 5.1 members, with the assumed accuracy of the sizing of the army+/-50%, the call for arms was answered by 200,000 +/-50% population, of 100,000 to 300,000 people. That is the Kagan's domain ofhis and closest allies tribes that together constitute the orta “center”, from which came the name ordu for Horde = “center”. At 35 headsof cattle per family, in terms of a mixed herd of predominantly horses and sheep, that constitutes 1.4 mln heads of cattle belonging to the

Khazar domain. Thus, just to maintain their herds, Khazars needed a mean 0.15 mln km2, to assemble that cavalry force, allowing a virtual

0.1 km2 for 1 virtual horse for year-around pasture. This equates to the territory of the modern Bulgaria.

Accordingly, because the 300,000 army was mobilized and assembled on a short notice, pointing that it was a cavalry army, and notan infantry force, the population that supplied that army numbered a mean of 1.5 mln people, living off 10 mln herd, with pastures

extending to 1.1 mln km2, or twice the size of the modern France. These roughshod estimates agree well with the outlines of Khazaria onhistorical maps.

According to A.V. Gadlo, the most ancient territory of Khazars, the core of the Khazar Confederation, were the modern black soils of Kalmykia(Gadlo A.V. 1979 p. 186). According to S.A. Pletneva, the Khazar federation by the beginning of the 8th c. occupied steppes and foothills of Dagestan,

the r. Kuban basin, the Azov steppes, and most of the Crimea (Pletneva S.A.1986 p. 23).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 30/32

Khazar Kagan royal domain(S.A.Pletneva)

A.P. Novoseltsev believes that the Khazar homeland was in Eastern Caucasia. In the 7th c. they settled at the mouth of the Volga, and then Khazarcolonies were located in the Crimea and the Don basin. According to the researcher, “The Khazars in their state did not have a compact territory, andwere “like islands in a world of cosmopolitan south-east Europe” (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 112) (Very deep and timeless thought that applies topractically every ethnic group in practically every multi-ethnic country: Russia, China, USA, you name it. Apparently, the Novoseltsev's 1990idea is to belittle the Türkic mother-country of Russia).

3.6. Historical Geography

86

Thus, for the 8th c. various sources record in the Caspian Dagestan at least five political entities. Closest to Derbent was the “Country of Huns” or“Semender Possession”,at this time located in the plains between Derbent and Semender (Makhachkala).87

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 31/32

Apparently, west of the “Country of Huns” in the foothills was the “Haidak Land”.In the steppe regions north of the “Land of Huns' stretched theKhazar possessions, and at the north-western frontiers of “Hunia” in the foothills was the “Balanjar Country”,in the west the “Balanjar Country” probablyadjoined possession of Alania and “Vabandar Territory”.The Caspian political entities were in various relations with the Khazar state, as will be discussedbelow.

Rough graphical scheme depicting results of L.Gmyrya's analysis

Hunnic cities:

Bülün Jar - Balanjar ~ Belenjer ~ Varachan (Military Headquarters)Bar'ufa - distorted Targu Yargu/Йаргу (Bar'uza/Бар'уза)Chungars ~ Hongurs? < Hun + gur?Choga (Чога) < Chungars?Derbent (Chor, Sula) (42.1°N. 48.3°E)Haidak Hamzin/Hasin/Hashin/Haizan/Jidan/Jandan/Guznain/Haidan (modern KayaKent, 42.4°N 47.9°E, probably the same Haidak after conquest of 737)Msndr (distortion of Armenian “Msndr”, which is a distortion of Semender)Ranhaz (aka Rnhs, location of sacred tree, 60 km fr Haidak)Semender (~ Zabender, i..e. another Bender ~ Dome [of a yurt]) - Targu(modern Tarki, 42.95°N 47.5°E) Ulug Bender - Vabandar (modern Endirei, 43.2°N 46.65°E))Varachan - Varajan - Balanjar ~ Belenjer - Bülün Jar (modern Buinaksk,native Shura 42.8°N 47.1°E) (42.6°N 47.9°E)Targu (modern Tarki, 42.95°N 47.5°E) - Semender

The idea of a tribe Zabender belongs to Theophylact Simocatta, and was thenpropagated by Minorsky and Artamonov. In view of the Huns' use of theword “bender” as a synonym of “sarai”, this name for the “Palace tribe”appear to be a figment of Theophylact imagination and a victim of hisbombastic style, reaped from the title of the city. Semender is localized at theMakhachkala fortress (Kotovich V.G. Archaeological information, pp.232-255)

Thus, the territory of the “Land of Huns” in the Caspian littoral evolved historically. In the 2nd - 4th cc. the Hun possessions still are not clearlydistinguished from the neighboring territories. The Hun tribes lived in the Caspian littoral from the mouth of Itil to the northern borders of the CaucasianAlbania. Although the Derbent pass was at that time the southern boundary between the nomadic world of the Huns and the agricultural states ofS.Caucasia, this boundary was completely permeable for the Hun troops, and at certain stages Huns also occupied the Caspian littoral space located southof the Caspian Gate.

This statement is a total misstatement. After the Caspian Huns appear in the records of the middle of the 2nd c. AD as anundifferentiated global ethnonym, the first detailed record belongs to the 330 AD, the Albania King is the king of the nomadic Masgutsand Huns, and naturally he is also the king of sedentary Albanians, so there was no border whatsoever between the sedentaryagriculturalists and nomadic pastoralists. The Huns and Masguts in the Caspian Albania are not differentiated, there is no reason topreclude Masguts from pasturing north of Derbent, or Huns south of Derbent. On the contrary, the Huns are known south of Derbent,and Masguts are known north of Derbent. Thus, the Hun belt extended from beyond Itil to Itil and down to Gilans along the westernCaspian littoral, and the Masgut belt extended from Makhachkala down to Gilans along the same western Caspian littoral. WhyMakhachkala? Because next we find Alans, “former Masguts”,in the foothills west of Makhachkala, undoubtedly driven off from theluxurious coastal pastures by energetic Savir newcomers. Masguts disappear from the Hunnic alliance, and instead appear the SavirHuns.

In their own borders, the “Country of Huns” took shape as early as the 5th - 7th cc. The Caspian lowlands bound on the west by forward spurs of theCaucasus mountains (from Derbent to the modern Makhachkala), and the Derbent Pass - Caspian gate on the southern fringe of their possessions in thisperiod are closely associated with the Huns. But apparently, the steppes of western Caspian littoral to the mouth of Itil also belonged to the Huns, //88//although the constantly changing political situation in the steppes in this period could also affect the extent of the Hun possessions. However, until the mid-8th c. her main territory in the Eastern N.Caucasus remained unchanged..88

To put things in perspective, many things changed around Caspian littoral in the 5th - 7th cc. The rise of the aggressive Sassanids inthe south, culminating with the rise of the aggressive Arabs, and capture of Derbent by the Sassanids and the Arabs split the continuity ofthe Türkic belt along the western Caspian littoral, pushed the Türkic tribes north, and contracted the Türkic tribes in the south. The riseof the Jujan Kaganate far in the east, and its attempts to control the Tele tribes on its west initiated a chain reaction that brought Savirs tothe Caspian littoral that completely changed the tribal hierarchy, putting Savirs at the helm of the Hunnic confederation, and bringingnumerous Kazakhstan tribes in the neighborhood of the Caspian Huns, to be played out in the following centuries. The rise of the TürkicKaganate brought about another change of the guard in the Hunnic confederation, and another realignment of its tribes. By the end of theperiod even the politonym Huns faded, completely obscured by the new politonym Khazars. The state terrain and footprint did notchange, the demographical and political landscape changed dramatically. The first Huns apparently were a Hun Kayi tribe and their

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm 32/32

affiliates hidden under ethnonym Kayi (ca 150s AD - ca 450s AD). By the mid of the 5th c. Kayis are supplanted by Savirs, a tribe ofTele confederation that statutorily was a member of the Eastern Hunnic state, and belonged to the same linguistic branch, but was outsideof the 24 Hun tribes that constituted the core of the Eastern Hunnic state (ca 450s AD - ca 730s AD). By the mid of the 7th c. theCaspian Savirs are supplanted by Khazars, another offshoot of Tele confederation from the same linguistic branch outside of the 24 coreHun tribes, who led the Kayis, and Savirs, and other confederated tribes till the disintegration of the Khazar state (ca 730s AD - ca 960sAD).

In the first half of the 8th c., probably after the destruction perpetrated by the Arabs in the Caspian Dagestan, its territory is divided into severalseparate holdings. That is the actual “Country of Huns” with the new capital Samandar; its possessions stretched at that time from Derbent to the modernMakhachkala. In its northern area broke off the “Balanjar Country” and the “Vabandar Territory”,located in the foothills of the Western Caspian littoral,and the steppes of the Western Caspian littoral controlled Khazars with the center in Itil.

In the subsequent periods (9th-10th cc.) the “Country of Huns” is known as “Semender Country”,at that its borders time frequently change, mostly thesouthern border shifting northward. In the 10th c. the “Country of Huns” was completely absorbed by the adjacent polity, the “Haidak Kingdom” whichpossessions prior to the Ruses' (Vikings) predations in the Caspian littoral extended to the Semender in the north and to the Derbent in the south. In the

second half of the 10th c. Haidak occupied only foothill areas adjacent to the Derbent possessions. In the mid-11th c. the deserted areas of the northerncoastal plane began to revive anew, including rebuilding of the city Semender, and the Haidak possessions grew again. In the 12th c. Polovetses (i.e.Kipchaks) established their dominance in the Caspian littoral.

Book Contents Chapters 1-2 Chapters 3-5 Chapters 6-8 Chapters 9-11

HomeeBackIn RussianHuns - Contents

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

Besenyo DatelineBulgar DatelineHuns DatelineKarluk Dateline

Khazar DatelineKimak DatelineKipchak DatelineKyrgyz DatelineSabir Dateline

Seyanto Dateline

12/9/2005

“” ~ –&ndash;

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 1/22

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - Contents

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

Besenyo DatelineBulgar DatelineHuns DatelineKarluk Dateline

Khazar DatelineKimak DatelineKipchak DatelineKyrgyz DatelineSabir Dateline

Seyanto Dateline

L.Gmyrya

HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATECaspian Dagestan during epoch of the Great Movement of PeoplesDagestan Publishing, Makhachkala 1995, ISВN 5-297-01099-3

Chapters 3-5

CASPIAN HUN PEOPLES, ECONOMY, CITIES

4. ВНЕШНИЙ ОБЛИК ГУННОВ ПРИКАСПИЯ

Book Contents Chapters 1-2 Chapters 3-5 Chapters 6-8 Chapters 9-11

Posting Foreword

Posting introduction see the contents page.

Poor print quality hurts the accuracy of this posting, but fortunately the contents are not impacted. Page numbers of the original are shown at the beginning of the

page in blue. Page breaks in continuous text are indicated by //. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are shownin (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers.

3. CASPIAN PEOPLES

89

Modern theoretical works on origin of peoples and processes of their development in ancient and modern society show that the formation and development ofany ethnic group is complex and multifaceted interaction between components contributing to the development and reproduction of ethnicity, such as: the presenceof certain territory and stable language, and components that define ethno-cultural characteristics, “the existence of self-consciousness, expressed in self-name(ethnonym). Equally important is also the ethnos psyche. All specific properties of an ethnic group should be stable and traditional (Bromley, Yu.V. 1983. pp. 55,57, 63, Bromley, Yu.V. Kozlov, V.I. 1987, p. 6).

The culture of ethnos consist of such specific elements of spiritual and material culture “that are distinct by their tradition and stability (customs, rituals, religion,folk art, behavioral norms, habits, food, clothing, medicine, housing, etc.)” (Bromlei Yu.V. 1983, p. 55). Ethnos (in a narrow sense of the term) is defined as“historically rooted in a particular area stable group of people with common, relatively stable traits of language //90// and culture, and consciousness of its unity anddifferences from other similar formations (consciousness), denoted in self-name (ethnonym)” (Bromley, Yu.V. 1983. pp. 57 - 58).90

Latin historian of the end of the 4th cc. Ammianus Marcellinus quite clearly distinguished outward signs of ethnicity, in which the peoples of adjacent territoriesdistinguish alien ethnicities among others: “Alans ... are fragmented into many tribes, to list them is not necessary. While they are coaching like nomads in the vastspace at far distance from one another, but over time they united under a single name, and all are called Alans because of the uniformity of their customs, wildlifestyle, and uniformity of arms” (Ammianus Marcellinus. I, p. 241). Such approach to distinguishing other nations was typical for the ancient authors. We will trysummarize the ethnic names of the Caspian littoral tribes during the era of Great Migration (2th - 8th cc.), provide their self-name, address language andappearance, drawn by their contemporaries.

The post-Attila Western Hunnic Empire in the European theater, and how the Caucasian Huns fit into the large picture.

Irnik Bulgars460 AD

Djurash Masgut Bulgaria460-500 AD

3.1. POPULATION OF “HUN'S COUNTRY” 2nd-9th centuries

91

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 2/22

2th-4th Centuries.

Since the middle of the 2nd century (defined as 160 AD), on the western coast of the Caspian Sea, to the north of Aluans (Albans) and Caspies lived “Unns”(Huns) or “Huns” (Dionisius, Claudius Ptolemy). Some authors of the 5th - beginnings of the 6th centuries, retelling information of //91// Dionisius about “Unns”, call

them with a collective name used in the literature for all nomads. The early Byzantine historian Zosimus calles them as Dionisius, “Unns” (Zosimus, p. 713), theRoman geographer Julius Honorius (“Cosmography”, early 5th Century AD) calls them “Scyths-Huns (Julius Honorius, p. 1077), and the Latin writer Priscian,

traditionally calls them Scythians (Theodorus Priscianus Caesariensis, fl. 500 AD, p. 1104).

Тhe authors of the 4th c. called the nomadic tribes in the Caspian “Huns”. So, Favstos Buzand (470's) informs that Huns, together with Maskuts, Alans and

“other various nomadic tribes raided Armenia in the 430's (Favstos Buzand, p. 19-16). In the 460's, he reports that Huns, together with Alans, already fought onthe side of Armenia against Persia (Favstos Buzand, p. 113).

Moisei Khorenatsi (5th c.) at even earlier time, 410s, names among participants of the events in the S.Caucasia (Moisei Khorenatsi, p. 131). Moisei Khorenatsicalls the places of Hun settlement “the land of Huns”, however the population of the country he calls with an ethnonym “Basils” (Moisei Khorenatsi, p. 131, 201)

(Basils/Barsils are Khazar partner tribe; with time, references to Barsils fade, supplanted by references to Khazars; in the matrimonial partnership thepaternal tribe is usually better known to the outsiders; the change in references may reflect the dynamics of matrimonial hierarchy in the union. Barsils-

Khazars apparently maintained their allegiance to the Hunnic confederations, resisted Jujan pretentions, and forcefully revolted against Ashina Türkictakeover noted by S.Klyashtorny).

The contemporaries of the Hunnic campaigns in S.Caucasia and Near East know them as Huns (Eusebius Hieronymus, Claudius Claudian).

5th Century.

From the middle of the 5th c. the sources begin noting in the Eastern N.Caucasia steppes a conglomerate of tribes of the Hun circle. Armenian historian Egishe

Vardapet the inhabitants of the country of the “Huns” //92// or “Hailandurks” calls “Huns-Hailandurks” (Egishe, p. 31, 127) (The Kayi tribe, aka Hailandur,Kay, Kaiyg, Kian, Kiyan, Kiat, Ch. Hi � and Si/Xi �, Qiang ��, Huyan �����, Хуянь ��, Jiang �, a perennial Hunnic and Türkic dynastic tribe,the earliest known marital partner of the Zhou, and the former marital partner of the 3rd c. BC Eastern Huns that carried their dynastic pedigree into

the Ottoman times. Kayi go as No 2 Kaiyg on Mahmud Kashgari list, they were subjugated by Maodun in 200 BC, they played leading role in

history of Kimeks, Western Kumans, China, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Persia, and Russia. Kashgari list depicts two more nearly identical tamgas, No 18

Tügers (also spelled Düver and Düğer, Töker or Tüker, these are the Tochars of Strabon and the Digor component of Ossetes) , and No 19

Becheneks (also spelled Bechenek, Pechenek, Pecheneg) . These three tamgas have an element of Kipchak tamga I and V element that alsoincludes No 1 Kınıks “Today they are kagans”, these are Kangar dynastic tribe , No 16 Tutırkas (Dondurgas) and No 7 Begtilis (Begdilis orBeydilis) [M. Kashgari, Divanu Lügat-it-Türk, 1939 Reprint, Ankara, pp. 56-59]).92

Prisk Pannonian knows in the Northern Caucasus other Hunnic tribes: Ugors, Saragurs, Onogurs (Prisk Pannonian, p. 843) (S.A.Pletneva in her book

“Kipchaks” tells us that Kipchak tribe Saragurs - Sary - “Yellow” appeared in the N.Pontic only with Kipchaks in the 11th c., though they wererecorded by Ptolemy as Sargati before 148 AD. The Onogurs gave the name of Phanagoria to the Greeks before 5th c. BC, a later myth refers to apresence among the first Greek colonists of a sailor with a patently Türkic name Onogur)

Events in the political history of the Hunnic tribes in the Northeast Caucasus abound with the facts of Huns' tight contacts with Iranian-speaking (Sic!) Maskutand Alan tribes (The author, not a linguist, follows or restates the false doctrine concocted in Russia at the end of the 19th - first part of the 20th c. thatcontradicts direct testimony of Biruni, ethno-linguistical analysis (e.g. Mamay H. Alans in Pyrenees, for one), ethnological and historical studies, and, as

should be expected from a false, politically motivated and state-driven scientific paradigm, is totally unproductive (e.g. Agusti Alemany, 2000, “Sourceson Alans”). Of the two premises used to fabricate the Alanian Iranism, one is a hoax, and the other is disputed. Biruni defined Alan language as a mix ofTürkic and Horesmian, with no mention of 10th c. Middle Persian whatsoever. To call the ethnologically Türkic nomadic pastoralists of Türkic andHoresmian creole to be “of Iranian circle”, without quotation marks and ignoring their belonging to the “Türkic circle”, is a sheer misrepresentation,

as is demonstrated by the author below. This type of misrepresentation is endemic to the Slavic-centric and European-centric pseudoscience).Information about Huns' contacts with Maskuts is in the works of Armenian authors of the 5th c. (Agafangel, Favstos), Buzand, Egishe), though about Maskutsliving in the Huns' neighborhood also mentioned the authors of the 7th c. (Movses Kalankatuatsi, Armenian geography of the 7th century), and of the 8th c.(Ghevond). The information of the sources allows considering the presence of these military, political, and ethnocultural contacts to be an objective reality.

Agafangel in his composition named the country “Masakha-Huns”, and describes its location within the limits of the northeastern part of the Caucasian Albania, anddescribed its status in the political system of the Aluania state.93

We can only admire the dexterity of the scientists with agenda: the written tradition of ancient contemporaries equated Masguts and Huns, asequence of 6 authors separated by 3 centuries deliver their unprejudiced testimony, but some modern scientists use their own logicalconstructions to dismiss the evidence that is totally consistent with numerous other independent testimonies.

In historical aspect, in the 2nd c. BC the Masguts were Hunnic subjects, had a Hunnic viceroy, and participated in Hunnic campaigns inexchange for a share of booty. The viceroy belonged to the Shanyu immediate family, he was one of the Royal Princes, known as Shads and

Tegins, and stayed in that position for about a decade, until another vacancy up the hierarchical ladder became available. Some 6-8 generationslater, at around 100 BC Masguts accepted the first wave of the Hunnic refugees, probably of not very high status. The Huns fled to theirsubjects, first, and to their kins, second. They did not flee to non-Türkic aliens like Persians or Indians, because the refugees fled a militaryconflict, and were not in position to initiate a conquest. The second wave of the Hunnic refugees came after another military conflict with China

at about 50 BC, or another 2 generations later, when the Hunnic Jiji Shanyu was killed. At that time can be expected an arrival of some higherstatus refugees, who initiated construction of their castles, now known a tepe. A third of the Hunnic refugees came another 8 generations later,after the debacle of 160 AD, suffered from China and its allies. At that time, the center of the Hunnic Empire moved to the land of Masguts inthe Aral area, and Shanyu replaced his viceroy with the home rule. That empire is known as European Hun Empire, since it was the empire that

reached Central Europe. The fourth, and last, wave came in about 215, or 2 more generations later, after another military defeat, when theeastern fringes of the empire were evacuated. Huns retained their supremacy among the Türkic pastoral tribes, and expanded their control tonew sedentary subjects, taking over Sogdiana at about 350 AD. The archeological remains illustrate and elucidate the historical events fairly

well, and the motion picture can be reconstructed in a number of vary emblematic aspects, from Hunnic caldrons and diadems to kurgan

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 3/22

cemeteries and castles. The terminology used for the local tribes, like Masguts or Massagets, is somewhat conditional, because every authorwho described Masguts, later called Alans, noted that they consist of numerous tribes, each with their own individual name, there are too manynames to mention, and the terms Masguts or Alans apply only to the leading tribe.

Another interesting trait that the Huns brought over to the Caspian area is the phonetical interchangeability of b and m that lasts to this day.The Huns brought this trait to China, and to the Eastern Europe. Practically every word with b has its twin with m, like Blkar/Mlkar for Balkars.

By the time of the 460 AD events, debated by the renowned scholars, the Hunnic/Masgut symbiosis lasted for 660 years, or about 26generations, and the ethnic affiliation of Sanesan is as mute as the ethnic affiliation of the modern leaders of any ethnicity.

Favstos Buzand, describing the joint military //93// campaign of Maskuts, Huns and other tribes of Northeast Caucasus against Armenia, names Sanesan, who

headed the campaign, “king of Maskuts and ruler of the Hun army ”.

The chronology of the military campaign by the king of Maskuts-Huns Sanesan, in the opinion of A.V.Gadlo, belongs to the end of the 4th - beginning of the 5th

c. AD, and is a description of one of large seasonal raids of the Caspian nomads not reflected in other written monuments (Gadlo A.V., 1979, p. 37). In theopinion of A.V.Gadlo, the Agafangel's message about the land of Masakha-Huns can be dated to 460s, because till 458, in the records of Egishe, Maskuts livednorth of the Derbent fortifications (Gadlo A.V., 1979, p. 31). We take as completely correct the opinion of A.V.Gadlo that the ancient authors' equating of theMaskuts and Huns, “testifies about certain integration of the Iranian-speaking (Sic!) Massaget descendants with the Türkic-speaking Huns” (Gadlo A.V., 1979, p.

36) (As it turns out, this is an integration of Türkic-lingual Masguts with Türkic-lingual Huns, where both ethnic terms are fuzzy phenomena: e.g. Kayisare Huns too, they are the Kayi Huns, and the land of Masaha-Huns may in fact be the land of Masaha-Kayis. Masguts were heavily Sogdianized orHorezmianized Türkic-speaking per Biruni “half-Horezmian half-Bajanak”, where Horezmian/Sogian is peculiar non-Iranian “Sprachbund” or arealgrouping of languages per A.Dybo and W.B.Henning)..94

6th Century.

In the 6th c. in the written sources appear indications testifying about heterogeneity of the Caspian Hunnic tribes. Procopius Cesarean (ca 536 AD) knowsHuns of Eastern N. Caucasia (Procopius Cesarean, Ia, p. 112; II, p. 381), and almost always talks about them in plural, emphasizing their heterogeneity. Among

the Hunnic tribes Procopius names only Sabirs (Savirs), constantly emphasizing their kinship with the Huns (Procopius Cesarean, 1a, p. 180-181; 1b, p. 221; II, p.381, 407, 416). In some cases Procopius Cesarean uses a double ethnonym “Uunns-Savirs” or “Huns-Savirs” (Procopius Cesarean, 1а, p. 180-181; II, p. 432).

Procopius was the first of contemporary to him authors who noted Savirs among the tribes of the Hunnic circle. The information about Savirs in the Procopiusrecords is dated by the time of the reign of the Persian king Kavad (488-496; 499-531).

Agathias especially emphasized an affiliation of the Savirs to the circle of the Hunnic tribes. Describing the siege of the Archeopolis in Lazika (Colchida), heinformed that in the Roman army there was a group of hired Huns, “who are called Savirs” (Agathias, p. 88).

In the second half of the 6th - beginning of the 7th c. the Hunnic tribe of Savirs was already well known to the Byzantine historians. They name Savirs amongother tribes of the Hunnic circle without any clarifications about their origin //95// (Menander Byzantine, p. 411, 415-416; Theophanes the Byzantine, p. 494;Theophilact Simocatta, p. 160).95

Yeshu Stylite, describing the events of the 4th-5th cc., applies in relation to the Caspian Huns an ethnonym “Huns”. His data testify to that the territorycontrolled by the Hunnic tribes at that time had defined borders (Yeshu Stylite, p. 131).

Pseudo-Zacharius knows 13 peoples in within the “limits”, localized by him beyond the Caspian Gate, to the north of them: “Avgar, Sabir, Burgar, Alan,Kurtargar, Avar, Khasar, Dirmar, Sirurgur, Bagrasik, Kulas, abdel, ephalit” (Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 165). And the Huns, as the people who accepted Christianity inthe middle of the 6th century, are rated by the author as five believing peoples of the Caucas, while the others 13, including Sabirs, were, in the definition ofPseudo-Zacharius, peoples pagan and barbarous (Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 165) (see table note for page 58).

The Arabian authors do not know Huns in the Caucasus, even for the events in the beginning of the Sassanid expansion in the Caucasus (end of 5th century).So, at-Tabari among the Northern Caucasus tribes making at that time constant attack on Armenia, are named peoples Abhaz, Bandjar, Balanjar and Alan (at-Tabari, II, p. 69). The same peoples, but already as allies of the Khahan of the Türks Sinjibu, are mentioned by the author later, in the description of events in thebeginning of The Persian-Türkic stand-off in the Caucasus //96// during the rule of Hosrov (Khosrau, Khosrow) Anushirvan. 96

By same time belongs the early mention of Khazars at at-Tabari (at-Tabari, II, p. 69-70).

Al-Belazuri calls the population of the “Khazar lands”, including Caspian, for time of the Iranian domination of the Caucasus “Khazars” Or “Turks” (Al-Belazuri, p. 5-7).

7th century.

Armenian historian of the 7th c. Sebeos calls “people living at the Caspian gate” Huns (Sebeos, p. 8 30-31, 54, 164). In the “Armenian geography” are listed afew tribes of the Hunnic circle: Huns, Basils, Savirs.

In composition Movsesa Kalankatuatsi the population of “ the country of Huns ” is unequivocally designated by an ethnonym “Huns”. In chapters 9-45 of thesecond book, related to the events of the 7th century, the ethnonym “Huns” is used by the author 32 times (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 99, 102 - 103, 119 -

121, 123 to 125, 127 - 134). A number of researchers argue that the ethnonym “Huns” for the description of 630-670s events is an anachronism, at that time theprevailing position in the Caspian was already occupied by Khazars (Novoseltsev A.P., 1990, p. 74 - 75, 84). However in the second book of the “History of theAlvan country” the ethnonym “Khazars” is used only in 4 cases, concerning the events of the 7th c. (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 77-78, 100, 127).

But the author distinguished the “Huns” and “Khazars” in their ethnic attributes, and also by their territories (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 148). He alsodistinguished the supreme authority of each of the polities. So, the supreme ruler of the “Hun country” is called “prince of Huns”, and of the Khazar Kaganate iscalled “Khakan of Khazars” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 127). Their relationship shows up only in military operations, in all other spheres of life of the Hunnic

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 4/22

union, as testifies the source, the “Grand Prince of Huns” showed independence.97

In the first book Movses Kalankatuatsi also mentions other tribes living at different times in the Caspian: Maskuts (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 128, 37, 38,45, 48), Hailandurs, Basles (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 28, 33). In eight cases he also talks about Caspian Huns (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 28, 33, 38, 45,62, 64).

8th century.

The Armenian historian Vardapet Ghevond knows at that time in the Caspian the “Huns country”, “Hunnic” cities. The author calls the population “Huns”(Ghevond, p. 27-28, 72, 80-81). The Huns are not confused with Khazars, who sometimes are allies of the Huns in some military operations (Ghevond, p. 28),and independently carry out other operations (Ghevond, p. 72). Later Armenian authors also narrate about the 8th c. Huns (Vardan the Great, p. 95; StepanosTaronetsi p. 95).98

The Arab historian al-Kufi (9th - begining of the 10th centuries) does not call with a special name //98// the population of the Caspian areas in that period, as arule he tells about Khazar troops (al Kufi, p. 10, 14-15, 17-22, 24, 29-31, 35), which the Arab faced in the region. Only once al-Kufi mentions “other tribes ofgodless”, whose soldiers constituted the Khazar army (al-Kufi, p. 21).

At-Tabari, a contemporary of al- Kufi, to designate the main, opposing the Arabs of force in the Caucasus, applies two terms: “Khazars” and “Türks”, andmostly “Türks” (at-Tabari, II, p. 74, 76 - 80). For the time of the first Arabo-Khazar wars (640 - 650s) at-Tabari made distinction between the Türks andinhabitants of Balandjar (at-Tabari, II, p. 76). And for the period of Persian domination in S.Caucasia among the peoples campaigning in Armenia, the authornames “Abhaz, Bandzhar, Alan” (at-Tabari, II, С. 69). For time of the Türkco-Iranian confrontation the author names Türks and Khazars (at-Tabari, II, p. 70).

Ibn al-Athir (13th century) used the works at-Tabari, and contrasts the inhabitants of Balandjar with Türks and Khazars. The inhabitants of Balandjar ,according to the author, were subordinated to the Türks, and in military operations served as their allies (Ibn al-Athir, p. 9, 13). The Balandjar people, together

with some other tribes of the Northern Caucasus (“Abkhazians, Bandjars”) lived in the region before the arrival of the Türks. They lead active military operationsagainst Persia, which paid them annual compensation //99// for abstaining from annual raids on the lands controlled by Persia (Ibn al-Athir, p. 9).99

The population of the Caspian littoral in the time of the Arab military campaigns of the first half of the 8th century Ibn al-Athir called in different ways: Turks (Ibnal-Athir. pp. 13, 15, 21-23 25-26, etc.), Khazars (Ibn al-Athir. pp. 9, 24-26, 28, 30, 34) and “Balanjar” residents (Ibn al-Athir, p. 9). The also sources mention

other Turkic tribes as Khazar allies (Ibn al-Athir, p. 23), and other Arab enemies along with the Khazars (Ibn al-Athir, p. 23), and the peoples “living beyondBalanjar” (Ibn al-Athir, p. 29).

In the majority of cases the author uses ethnonyms “Khazars” and “Türks” as generalized terms for the main military forces opposing the Arabs in the Caucasusmilitary operations. More often the author calls “Türks”, in some military operations the “Türks” и “Khazars” oppose the Arabs as allies (Ibn al-Athir, p. 19, 26,34). Ibn al-Athir does not have specific data about other Caspian peoples.

For al-Baladhuri (end of the 9th century) the main opposing force for the Arabs in the Caspian in the 7th-8th centuries were Khazars (al-Baladhuri, p. 5-7, 16-19).

Al-Yakubi uses ethnonyms “Khazars” and “Türks” as synonyms (al-Yakubi, p. 7-9).

Al-Yakubi calls the residents who stubbornly resisted the Arabs in what he called the “country of Türks” with ethnonyms “Türks” and “Khazars”,and in one

case “the Khazar people” (al-Yakubi. pp. 7-9). Possibly, under al-Yakubi “Türks” in the events of 726 - 731 should be understood //100// the dependent on the>Khazars tribes of the Caspian region.

3.2. ENDOETHNOMYM OF THE “HUN COUNTRY'S” INHABITANTS

100

A great value in the ethnic process flow is disclosed by a self-name ((endoethnonym) of a people. Analyzis of the “History of Aluank country” sections wherethe author relays speeches of the Hun Great Prince Alp-Ilitver, and also of the copies of the letters he addressed to the upper spiritual and secular rulers of

Armenia and Aluania attracts attention by the fact that Alp-Ilitver calls the country “Hunnic” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 132). Some expressions of Alp-Ilitverrelayed by the author of the “History of Aluank country” can serve as a proof that the Huns distinguished themselves from the neighboring peoples of Aluania andArmenia not only as a separate ethnic mass, but also as a society standing in cultural relation on a lower level of development (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 133).101

Khazar Kagan Joseph illuminates the question of the Türkic peoples origin as related to Khazars. The letter of the Kagan (10th century) reflected the

understanding of the Khazars about the origin of his people and other Türkic tribes. It is based on oral tradition, but, probably, also on some written sources. Toconfirm the accuracy of the information about the pedigree of Khazars and related tribes, the author refers to “genealogical books” of the Khazar ancestors(Joseph, I, p. 75). The records in these books had historical character, since telling about the rise of the Khazars, Kagan Joseph refers to the source of hisinformation, “I have it written down.” (Joseph, II, p. 92).

The letter of Kagan Joseph gives a list of ten Türkic tribes with roots of common origin. In the expanded edition the letter of Kagan Joseph are named Aviyor,Turis, Avaz, Uguz, , Tr-na, Khazar, Yanur, B-lg-r, Savir (Joseph, II, p. 91-92), in the brief edition of the letter, the transcriptions of some ethnonyms are different(Joseph, I, p. 75).

King Joseph's reply letter, with tentatively reconstructed vowels, [] shows vocalization of Kokovtsoff P.K. Hebrew-KhazarCorrespondence of the 10th c. Leningrad, 1932.

...You ask us also in your epistle: “Of what people, of what family, and of what tribe are you?” Know that we are descended from Japheth,through his son Togarmah [In the Hebrew Old Testament bible, Togarmah is the father of all Türks]. I have found in the genealogical books ofmy ancestors that Togarmah had ten sons. These are their names: the eldest was Ujur [Aviyor/Авийор] (Uiur < Uiğur < Uigur), the secondTauris [Turis/Турис] (Taur < Tağur < Tagur = Tokhar), the third Avar [Avaz/Аваз] (Uar = Avar = Abdaly/Ephtilite), the fourth Uauz

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 5/22

[Uguz/Угуз] (Uauz < Uğuz < Oguz = Oguz), the fifth Bizal [Biz-l/Биз-л] (Biz-l < Bečen < Bechen = Bajanak), the sixth Tarna [Tr-na/Тр-на] (?), the seventh Khazar [Khazar/Хазар], the eighth Janur [Yanur/Янур] (aka Zagur/Zabuk/Zakhukh/Zebuc/Zabub = ZabulKabul?), theninth Bulgar [B-lg-r/Б-лг-р], the tenth Sawir [Savir/Савир]. I am a descendant of Khazar, the seventh son. ...

From the spelling of words with silent ğ Uiur < Uiğur = Uigur, Tağur = Tagur = Tokhar, and Uauz < Uğuz < Oguz = Oguz can be seen thatthe Khazar dialect is similar to Kazakh and Oguz dialects, which do not articulate the common Türkic g.

In his list the Türkic tribes Khazars and Suvars are called relatives, but nevertheless different peoples. Kagan Joseph especially emphasizes that Khazars of theJoseph time descend from the sons of Khazar (Joseph, I, p. 74; II, p. 92), i.e. those Khazars who ethnically (?) and politically separated from a mass of the Türkictribes. However, possibly Kagan Joseph means here not the Khazars as a whole, but just his clan. Then only the ruling royal clan had the Khazar origin, the otherclans, mentioned by the Khazar Kagan many times in the letter, could //102// ethnically differ from Khazar Kagan and his relatives, and be one of the ten listed tribes(The ruling hierarchy of Khazar Kaganate is fairly well known: initial presiding Ashina Türk clan and Bulgar-Suvar-Khazar parliament of nobility, bythe 10th c. replaced, as can be deduced from the letter, by ethnically Khazar presiding Kagan).102

The ancient history given by Joseph is written obscurely with blurry colors. No clear information is given about Khazar infancy as a separate ethnic group. Evenby the time of composing the letter, information about the ancient history of the Khazars has almost legendary character. Kagan Joseph noted: ”.... My ancestorswere few in number...” (Joseph, I, p. 76). Apparently, the Khazars were not too distinguished among other Türkic tribes migrating to the Caspian areas at the timeof the Great Movement of Peoples. The wars, which Khazars fought with many peoples, elevated and strengthened them.

Accepting the record of the Tes inscription (762), the Khazars that split from their tribe and established a domicile north of the Caspian Hunswere refugees and a splinter, headed by chieftain Kadyr sometime around 600 AD. Their allies were Bersils headed by a chieftain Bedi, theylikely were connected with the Khazars by matrimonial ties, were not necessarily of the Türkic origin, but in any case were unrelated by blood,two tribes united in a dual exogamy. The likelihood that the rebellious refugees carried along any tribal archives is nil, thus the chances that KingJoseph could turn in the 10th c. to the archives of the 7th c. are way too remote. More likely, his origin information came from a verbal sherjere.

In addition, the first Kagan of the Khazars was an Ashina viceroy who assumed the title Kagan upon disintegration of the Western TürkicKaganate, and established his own dynastic line. His Hatun (Queen, First Wife) was from the Bersil tribe. With time, and under politicalpressures, Khazars re-aligned with new, local tribes for matrimonial union, relegating the Bersil tribe to a status of the “old dynastic tribe”, and

sending them to the background of the historical scene. If King Joseph was a Kagan, an offspring of the Ashina tribe, any records related to theruling house sherjere would have been limited to the Ashina dynastic line, within the framework of the Ashina tribe and Ashina state. In thatcase, his genealogy would be closer to the version recorded by Rashid-ad-Din and Abulgazi. Alternatively, if King Joseph was a Bek (PrimeMinister), which is probably more likely, he was either ethnically Jewish, or a converted ethnic Khazar. As a Jewish noble, he would not beprivy to the Khazar or Ashina sherjere, taught to each member of the clan and tribe throughout their adolescence, and would only know, likelyin broad strokes, what he can absorb from interviewing his underlings, because Jews did not have a tradition of learning their genealogy formchildhood. But since he runs his personal genealogy from Yapeth, it is more likely that he is an extract from a Khazar family converted from

Tengriism, his genealogy is part of his personal sherjere, and he relayed it as accurately as he was taught.

The Khazar and the Bersil tribes were ascribed to the Uchuks, i.e. to the lowly right western wing of the Oguz tribes. In the transition from

the European Hunnic Empire to the First Türkic Kaganate, their classification changed from the Eastern Wing of the European Hunnic Empire tothe Western Wing of the First Türkic Kaganate, and remained the same Western Wing, or Nushibi, in the successor Western Türkic Kaganate.The list of the King Joseph enumerates the tribes of their Tele confederation in the Western Wing: Ujur/Uigur, Turis/Tağur = Tokhar, Avar/Uar= Avar, Uguz/Oguz, Bizal/Bečen, Tarna, Хазар, Yanur/ZabulKabul?, Bulgar, Savir.

The apparent contradiction between the Tes inscription (762) on the events of 600s and the record of Moisei Khorenatsi (5th c.) on theevents of 410s, that place Basils/Barsils in the Western Türkic Kaganate and in the Caucasus littoral respectively, is probably only apparent;Barsils were in fact located in the Caucasus littoral which at 600s belonged to the realm of the Western Türkic Kaganate.

3.3. LANGUAGE OF THE “HUN COUNTRY” POPULATION

103

Specialists on ethnic processes point to a close relationship of the ethnos with language, which “is not the only a condition for the forming ethnos, but also aresult of ethnogenesis”.Language serves as a key objective attribute of the ethnos, and as a symbol of ethnicity (Bromley, Yu.V., Kozlov, V.I. 1987, p. 6).

Pseudo-Zacharius (aka Zacharias Rhetor - Translator's Note) has a message that still in the first third of the 6th c., in 544 (Pigulevskaya N, 1941, p. 86) or520 (Djafarov Yu.R., 1985, p. 87) during stay with the Huns of a Christian mission from the Caucasian Albania headed by bishop Kardost, was produced a“Testament”, //103// i.e. the Holy Bible in the Hunnic language, as writes the author, “in their language” (Pseudo-Zacharius p. 166) 103

This fact testifies that the population of the “Hun country” at that time already had a common everyday language. Production of such important in its ideologicalinfluence on the Hun population work, as was the “Testament”, “ could not be done in a language of any one, even a powerful tribe. The contents of the work hadto be understood by at least a significant part of the population.

The “History of the Aluank country” has two copies of letters written from the Great Prince of Huns Alp-Ilitver. One of them is addressed to the AluankCatholicos Elizar and Aluank Prince Varaz-Трдаt, another one is addressed to the Armenian Catholicos Sakhak and Armenia Prince Grigor. The letters requestedan establishment in capital of the “Hun country” Varachan a separate church seat (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 133). The author does not note anything unusual

about the language in which these documents were written. This allows to suggest that the letters were written in the Aluank and Armenian languages, because allauthor's attention is concentrated on the contents of the text in the documents, and the script language is not something unusual for the Aluank writer. Apparently, inthe Alp-Ilitver country were translators who knew the languages of the countries with which Huns maintained mutual relations (Aluania, Armenia, Georgia, Persia,Byzantium).104

In addition to addressing the translation, which should not have been a problem since multilingualism is a norm in the Caucasus, the question of the

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 6/22

alphabet is more puzzling. The newly developed Armenian and Albanian alphabets are unlikely candidates for diplomatical correspondence, and thenumber of people literate in these ecclesiastical alphabets must have been extremely limited, but it can't be excluded that the scribe had to travel with theletter to read it. The spread of the Türkic runiform script of the western Central Asian variety is possible because the abundance of the inscriptionsdemonstrates the widespread literacy of the lay population, and both western and eastern sources of population had a tradition of written diplomaticcommunications. The Greek alphabet is also a suitable candidate, with a long tradition of being a common alphabet for many nations.

Pigulevskaya N.V. Syrian sources on the history of the USSR peoples. Ans. Editor Struve M. Academy of Sciences, 1941

Of exceptional interest is the account on introduction of writing to the Huns. About Kardost and the “men” with him it states that theytaught some “of the Huns”. Apparently then the visitors learned the Hun language.87

“They remained there for 7 years (literally, “a week of a year”) //87// and composed there the Scripture in the Hunnic language”. If thearrival of Kardost is dated by 537, thirty-four years after the capture of the prisoners in the city of Amida in 503, the consequent mastering ofthe language and translation took another seven years, and then about 544 “the Scripture was publicized”. In respect to the translationlanguage it is clear that it was the Hunnic language, but the used script can only be surmised. In 568 the (Karmichion = Red Huns) Turksbrought a Kagan's letter to Constantinople, which was τό γράμμα τό Σκυθικον (the letter from Scythians) [Menander, Fragmenta, 18; t. 4,p. 226, ed. Dc Boor, II, p. 451.]. It is likely that both the Hun and the Turkic, called the Scythian, script (of the letter) were in the Sogd-

Manichean or Sogdian script. The reason for this premise is the following. The Huns in their forward movement came to the areas populatedby Sogdians, where they could get familiar with that script. On the other hand, Kardost, who came from Arran that was the area inhabited by

the Aryans, who maybe spoke one of the Iranian vernaculars; in that case his familiarity with the Sogdian script may not be surprising. In anycase, this is only a suggestion that so far (1941), however, it did not evoke opposing arguments. Multiple reasons allow to suggest that

Kardost and Makar were dealing with the Huns who were the Huns-Sabirs. The Byzantine writers make numerous references to the “Huns,

called Sabirs”. In the middle of the 6-th c. they were fighting sometimes on the side of the Persians, sometimes on the side of the Romeans(Romans); they numbered about one hundred thousand people. Breaking through the Caspian Gates, they attacked the Byzantine provinces.

Although the Irano-Arrano-Arian premises are wrong and irrelevant, the substance of N.V. Pigulevskaya suggestion, without the verbal fluff, is solid:

the Huns operated the Silk Road alongside with Sogdians for at least 6 centuries, must have been familiar with the Syriac script used by the Sogdians forrecord-keeping, had a Silk Road taxing system documentation, and used Sogdians for their diplomatic missions. The Albanian bishops were definitely

comfortable the Syriac script, since they translated the Bible from Syriac to Albanian, and the Syriac script and language were lingua franca of theMiddle East, especially in ecclesiastic sphere. By the 5th c. AD the Sogdian Syriac script was well-known across Central Asia, from Mediterranean to

China.

Al-Ystahri (10th c.) noted //104// that the “language of Khazars is unalike the language of Turks and Persians, and in whole is unalike the languages of any

people we know” (Al-Ystahri, p. 45). Possibly, the author characterized the language of the local Caspian population, associated by him with the Khazars.

The follower of al-Ystahri, ibn Hawqal (10th century), apparently visited Caucasus, and noted the existence of 360 languages of the Caucasian peoples in the

region, and of the Azeri and Persian as widely used languages: “This ridge (Kabk) is colossal; it is said it has 360 languages; earlier I disavowed it, until I myself

saw many cities, and every city has its own language besides Azeri and Persian” (Ibn Hawqal, p.97).

This testimony of Ibn Hawqal flies in the face of the Rissian and Persian postulates that Azeris were “Türkified” after, in one version,

Kipchaks came to dominate N.Caucasus in the 11th c., and in another version, Kipchaks came to dominate N.Caucasus as the troops of the

Mongolian conquest in the 13th c., widely found in the authorized versions of their respective historiographies.

The Arabian traveler al-Garnati (11th century) also recorded a multitude of languages in the Dagestan, including Khaidak, Türkic, Alanian, Asian (Azeri),

Arabian, Persian, and Tabasaran, which were spread among the nearest neighbors of Derbent (al-Garnati, I, p. 26).

The analysis of the proper names of the Huns' tribal chiefs and military leaders of the Caspian points to their Türkic and Persian origin (Zilfeldt-Simumyagi A, p.,

1988, p. 84; Gadlo A.V., 1979 p. 148-149; Klyashtorny S.G., 1984, p. 21; Djafarov Yu.R., 1985, p. 79). The analysis of the gods in the Hunish pantheon alsotestifies about their Turkic and Persian attribution (Gadlo A.V., 1979 p. 146-147; Klyashtorny S.G., 1984, p. 21; Novoseltsev A.P., 1990, p. 80).105

These facts illustrate the deep ethnic integration in the Hunnic society.

N.V.Pigulevskaya identified the Hunnic and Türkic script (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941, p. 86), N.A.Baskakov classified the Hunnic language as western Türkic

branch of the Türkic languages (Baskakov N.A., 1960, p. 106-107). А.Н. Bershtam suggested that Hunnic language was the elite language in the Hunnic society(Bernshtam A.N. 1951, p. 167), however the discussed facts allow to stipulate that the Hunnic language was a language of all Hunnic society (A.N.Bernshtam's

position is somewhat tarnished, he participated in the Stalinist repression which killed an uncountable number of Turkologists, Orientalists, and theirworks).106

The exception must be taken to the references to Persian in Russian scientific literature, on two reasons: the state Stalinist chauvinist policy

dictated denigration and diminishing of the Türkic presence in the country, history, and culture; and the loose attribution of linguistic traces to thePersian language, without appropriate etymological analysis. Both tendencies keep lingering in the post-USSR Russian science, but after 1990s

their constructs are being dismantled daily, and now resemble more tulle than Swiss cheese.

3.4. APPEARANCE OF THE CASPIAN HUNS

106

Sources practically do not have records on the appearance of the Huns in the Caspian littoral. But first review the descriptions of the European Huns

appearance preserved in the writings of the Latin authors. Bishop of Clermont Apollinaris Sidonius, who lived during about 430 - 480, in one of his poems

describes the appearance of Hun: above the round body rises a narrow head, under a forehead in the slots is vision, but no eyes; penetrating into the braincontainer light barely reaches his sunken eyeballs, that however are not closed;... for the two tubes of the nose not to protrude over the cheeks, a tied around tape

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 7/22

squeezes the gentle nostrils, so that they can fit under the helmets... the distended area of the cheeks becomes wider if the nose does not rise in the middle. The

remaining parts of the bodies at the men are distinguished in beauty; //106// broad chest, powerful shoulders, stomach astringed under intestines. The standing height is average...”.(Apollinaris Sidonius, p. 1090).106

Ammianus Marcellinus complets the exterior of the Huns with such typical features: “they grow old beardless and devoid of all beauty ... all of them aredistinguished by stout and strong extremities, stocky scruffs...”.(Ammianus Marcellinus. I, p. 1021).

Claudius Claudian agree in his impressions on the appearance of the Huns with other authors. He wrote: “They have ugly appearance and shameful on theoutside bodies...”.(Claudius Claudian. II, p. 1055). But all these descriptions are generalized descriptions of the appearance of the Huns. Here how looked a real

representative of the Hun tribe, the King of the European Huns Attila in the description of Jordanes: “In appearance, Attila was short in stature, with broad chest,large head, and small eyes, with thin beard, touched by gray, with flat nose, with hideous complexion (of skin),he was displaying all signs of his origin.” (Quoted

from Zasetskaya I.P. 1994, p. 154).

Prisk Pannonian, who visited the court of Attila in 448, depicted his experience in a detailed description, but however, does not express any negative feelings

about the appearance of Attila himself, his entourage, or the Hun women. On the contrary, all of whom had to meet the members of the Byzantine embassy had to

meet at a court of the Hun King, were distinguished by elegance of manners, kindness, and strict adherence to tradition (Prisk Pannonian. pp. 681-682, 684-691,693).107

We have a few descriptions of the Caspian Dagestan population, as a rule, of the soldiers participating in military operations in the S.Caucasia during the Hunnic

period. Movses Kalankatuatsi included in his composition a story about combat on the eve of a battle between the leader of the Hun army and a Persian soldier

during the rule of the shah Shapur II (309 - 379). The Hunnic leader is described: “At that stepped out a Hun from the Huns called Honagur... The Hun was tall, ofa giant height, and dressed in chain amour, on a huge head he had a riveted helmet. A copper plate protected his forehead three spans (handbreadth) in width. The

staff of a huge spear was from a strong cedar wood. His sword shined with flame and incited horror just by its looks” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 66). To showthe power of an enemy and by that to reinforce the importance of a victory, the author could somewhat exaggerate the image of the Hun. One aspect is beyond

doubts: the Hunnic leader made an extraordinary impression (We should note that the “name” of the strongman bogatyr is generic: Hongur is “Hun tribe”with an Armenian accent, an unreal name for any individual, although the story might still be true, a leader offered a contest between a Hungur and a

Persgur, to save the lives of his troops. Surely the “leader” was not a leader, was put up the best warrior, who could ethnically be anything: Hun,

Masgut, Alan, Alban, Sabir, Bulgar, Khazar, etc., including the local Caucasian tribes).

We have a satirical description of the appearance of the Hun's Kagan (i.e. Tun-Yabgu Kagan, the Kagan of the Western Türkic Kaganate, 618–628, i.e.

this is the image of the member of the ruling Ashina tribe, who was a Türkic Ashina king of his Hunnic subjects; Ashina was a member tribe of Se/Sek �~ Saka tribes, so we have a caricature description of a Saka tribesman, supposedly Iranian-lingial), who was leading, together with the Byzantine emperor

Hieraclius, the siege of the Tbilisi citadel in the 627. The besieged made an image of the Djebu-Khakan from a huge squash. And: ”... They brought a hugepumpkin one kangun (~ meter) in width and a kangun in length. And they draw on its face of Hunnic Kagan: instead of eyelashes have made invisible lines, a beard

place left disgustingly naked, made nostrils a span in width, rare moustache, so it was easy to recognize him” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 80).108

Though the typical features are intentionally exaggerated, the authors of the portrait noted the main features: large round head not elongated; bold skull,

probably a derision of a custom to shave off the head hair; wide nostrils; weak facial hairiness.

The common typical features of the Huns, according to the authors, were first of all large head, narrow shape of the eyes, wide face, flat nose, and weak facial

hairiness.”

I.P. Zasetskaya believes that European Huns, from the descriptions of their appearance, belonged to the tribes of the Mongoloid race (Zasetskaya I.P. 1994.

pp. 154-155). AP A.P.Novoseltsev also believes that Djebu-Khakan was a Mongoloid, judging from his caricature (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 113). To thesame conclusion came earlier A.R. Zilfeldt-Simumyagi (Zilfeldt-Simumyagi A.R. 1988, p. 83).109

The armies of the Huns, Türks, Khazars, etc., who were involved in the military campaigns in S.Caucasia, consisted of ethnically diverse tribes. Therefore a

description of the appearances of a leader or their individual unusual representatives cannot be taken as their typical appearance. For example, under the rule of

Djebu-Khakan authority were “all tribes and clans living in the mountains or in the valleys, //109// on the land or on the islands, settled or coaching, who shave theirheads or braid their hair” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 78). He mobilized members of all these peoples for war with Persia, it was them who were besieging the

citadel of Tbilisi in 627, and stormed Derbent a little earlier. Here is how the eyes of eyewitnesses saw the taking of Derbent: “... when (the soldiers guarding thecity) have seen terrible crowd of ugly and high-cheekboned people, without eyelashes, with long women-like flying hair, storming mounted on the horses...”

(Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 78). That is a typical portrait of the Mongoloids.

Whether this is a description of the Türkuts (“Türküt” is synonymous with Türk, it is either an archaic Türkic plural form, or Mongolian form,

Artamonov must be using the Russian-concocted term for Ashina Türks of the Türkic Kaganate, first suggested by L.Gumilev to designate the multi-ethnic population of the First Türkic Kaganate, i.e. as a politonym), though “Türkuts” storming Derbent in 627 were few and the main forces consisted from

representatives of their subject tribes, on the contemporaries this army made an impression as people “with free-flowing hair”, possible only in case of

overwhelming majority of the “Türkut” soldiers. It is known that the Avars subjected to the Türks wore braids, while the Bolgars (Bulgars) and Khazars shavedtheir heads (Artamonov M.I. 1962, p. 155-156), and the Savirs (aka Suvars, Sibirs), apparently, had their hair free-flowing, like women. Agathias, describing the

events from 552 to 558, noted that the rulers of Francs “wear their hair beautifully falling behind on the shoulders, and divided in front in the middle, instead of thehairdo of the Türks and Avars, not combed, free-flowing or unattractively braided” (Agathias, p. 14). It is very probable that Agathias under the Türks

nevertheless meant Huns-Savirs, who lived in the Northern Caucasus and were well-known to the Byzantine writers of that time ().110

Some Arabic geographers preserved a description of the Khazars. Al-Ystahri, for example, notes that the Khazars are not like the Türks; they are dark-haired

(which means that the Türks commonly were not dark-haired), and they are also divided into two classes: they are called “Kara - Khazars”; they are swarthy,even almost black, liker Indians; another class is white, marked by beauty and outward qualities. Every slave that comes to us from the Khazars, belongs to the

pagans, who allow the sale of the children and subjugation of each other, but living among them Jews and Christians, like the Moslems, due to their religious viewsdo not allow a slavery of each other” (al-Istahri, p. 49). This statement confirms Ibn Hawqal (Ibn Hawqal, p. 115). (This seems to imply that the Türks are not

brunettes, their hair is light, which in turn conflicts with pronounced Mongoloidness)

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 8/22

Al-Ystahri definition, “Every slave that comes to us from the Khazars”, apparently, shows that al-Istahri judgments about Khazars are based on personalobservations of the people coming to the eastern slave markets from the country of Khazars. Zilfeldt-Simumyagi noted that “a variety of travelers and writers took

for “Khazars” every ethnic group coming from the Khazar state, or formerly part of the huge territory //111// federation, headed by the Khazars proper” (Zilfeldt-

Simumyagi A.R. 1988, p. 84).111

Possibly, al-Istakri did not discriminate between the Khazars and their subject population of the Caspian “Huns country”, and therefore he saw two classes ofKhazars. Probably, the second type without marked attributes of the Mongoloid type, the “white, very beautiful and externally appealing”, can be attributed to the

local population of the Caspian. It is this type of the young men and girls that was taken from the Dagestan areas conquered by the Arabs to the the markets in

Derbent (al-Kufi, p, 19, 49, 51, 58, 55-56).

The external appearance of the Caspian Huns is complemented by the description of the dress. Al-Ystahri, and later Ibn Hawqal noted that the basic clothing of

“Khazars and their neighboring peoples are jackets and man's tunics” (Al-Ystahri, p. 51; Ibn Hawqal, p. 115). The anciet writers also describe the dress of theEuropean Huns nearly identically.

“Their clothing is most simple ...”, notes Claudius Claudian (Claudius Claudian, p. 196). Ammianus Marcellinus gives a more detailed description of the Hunsclothing: “They are dressed in linen garments or sewn from skins of wood mice, once put on tunic of weathered color is not changed or removed not before from

long-term wearing shreds in tatters. They cover their heads with crooked hats ... protect feet with goat skins, the shoes not fitted on any shoetree prevent walkingwith unhampered steps” (Ammianus Marcellinus. I, p. 338). It is seen from the description //112// that the Hun clothing was a linen tunic, probably complemented

by fur clothing for the cold season.113

The appearance of the Caspian Huns could be complemented by the descriptions of their psychological constitution, but the written sources mostly have reports

about Hunnic behavior in the fighting situation, and their life habits are almost unknown. Al-Mukaddasi (middle of the 10th century) left a very laconic andcontroversial characteristic of the Semender inhabitants: “Most of its inhabitants are Christians, people mild and loving foreigners, but engaged in robbery” (al-

Mukaddasi, p. 5).

Analysis of the written sources shows that in the period from the 4th to the 7th cc., in the N.-E. territories of the N.Caucasia was forming a new ethnic

community, which contrasted itself from the adjacent ethnic entities by a self-name “Huns”. In the process of ethnogenetic blending, characterized by culturalinteraction between the nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes of the Irano-lingual (Sic!) and Türco-lingual circles, with a part of the agricultural population, by the end

of the 7th c. coagulated common particular features of material and spiritual culture of the N.-E. N.Caucasia population, known in the sources under the name“Hun”.

In fact the Huns, and peoples of the Hun confederation, played a role in the ethnogenesis of some modern Dagestani peoples (Gadjieva. S.Sh. 1961. pp. 16-27). Researchers studying ancient layers of the modern Dagestan languages, find there traces of Hunno-Bulgarian influence (Djidalyaev N.S. 1990. pp. 11-54).

Turkic influence can also be traced in the Dagestan onomastics (Genko A.N. 1941. pp. 104-105, I. Abdullaev, I.Kh. 1976, p. 25; Mikailov K.Sh. 1976, p. 192),

researchers found a significant amount of Türkisms in many modern languages of the Dagestan peoples (Djidalyaev N.S. 1990. pp. 55-232; Turkic-Dagestanilinguistic contacts. 1982).114

In Russian science after the 1944 decree of the Communist Party against ancientization of the Türkic history, expression of such directstatements would be suicidal even without their publication, no puns and quotation marks intended. To admit that some people of the Former

USSR carry ethnogenetic inheritance of the 2nd c. AD Huns was still a breakthrough even in the 1995, testifying of the honesty, integrity, and

fearlessness of the author, and presage the upcoming crescendo of unrestrained science.

4. ECONOMY OF THE HUN COUNTRY

4.1. PASTORALISM, OCCUPATIONS, AGRICULTURE

114

Revelations of the written sources about economic state of the Hun society are quite incomplete. In the initial period in the Caspian Dagestan (end of the 4th -beginning of the 5th c. AD) the Huns are known to the ancient writers as people who are ignorant of agriculture, their main occupation was nomadic herding and

hunting (Ammianus Marcellinus, I, p. 1021-1022; II. p . 237, 239; Claudius Claudian, p. 1055) (Huns are given an incredible initial period lasting 250 years,from ca 160 to ca 430, longer than the whole history of the United States). However, it seems that at that time Huns used agricultural products from trade or

predatory raids on sedentary countries. While Claudius Claudian writes that the Huns do not engage in farming and even “...avoid the gifts of Ceres ...”,another

ancient author Sidonius Apollinaris notes that “...they often are short on Ceres (i.e. bread) and constantly short on Lieya (wine) (Lieya i.e. Liber i.e. Liber Pater,alt. fem. Libera, Roman deity of wine and a companion in the pair Ceres and Liber, i.e. nread and wine)...”.(Claudius Claudian, p. 1055, Apollinaris

Sidonius, p. 1092). However, Prisk Pannonian noted that European Huns instead of wheat used millet, and instead of wine used barley drink “Camos” - “so calledin the native language //115// honey” (Prisk Pannonian, p. 684). Apparently, was meant buza. At the reception at the Hun King Attila, as evidenced by Prisk

Pannonian, the guests were served luxurious meals, but Attila ate meat and bread (Prisk Pannonian, p. 690).115

The word buza, in a number of dialectal variations, is shared by all 35+ Türkic languages from Danube to Kamchatka, by both the Oguz and

Ogur branches, while its cognate IE beer is shared only by a regional part of the IE languages, pointing to a cultural borrowing from the Pra-Türkic, either directly or indirectly. See E.N.Shipova 2000 Turkisms in Russian. Buza is a fermented barley drink, nowadays called beer in

English.

Prisk Pannonian confused two Türkic words, the word kumiss, which he calls “camos“, a Türkic fermented mare's milk used form Scythians

to 70+ modern Türkic people, with the word for buza beer. In the description of the Türkic nomads the word kumiss has fossilized into a aform of a Scythian triad: “horse-riding, flesh-eating, and kumiss-drinking”,applied to the horse pastoralists from Scythians to latter-day Türkic

people of New Time.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 9/22

Apparently, animal husbandry at that time was the economic backbone of the Hun society. The herd composition of the 4th c. Huns is mostly horses, but

perhaps in small quantities also goats. Ammianus Marcellinus states that the Huns sewed boots from goat hides (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 1021). Horses were

a special breed, the same Ammianus Marcellinus observed that the European Huns' horses “were enduring, but ugly in appearance” (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p.1022).

Equine Genetic Support

Bjornstad et al. (2003) set out to test the theory that the native Norwegian Nordland/Lyngen and Fjord horse breeds would show a genetic

similarity to the native Mongolian horse due to the accompaniment of horses in a proposed migration of humans from Central Asia to Norway.

They used 26 STR microsatellites in collected blood and hair samples, and showed the close genetic relationship between the breeds aspredicted and not between these horses and, for example, Standardbred trotters. In addition, “The presence of primitive phenotypes in the

Fjord horse, such as a dark eel stripe along the back and occasionally transverse stripes on the legs, suggests that the breed is old and could betraced directly back to the Asiatic wild horse”. (p. 56) They estimated that there is the about the same distance between the Fjord horse and its

descendant the Icelandic horse as there is between the Fjord horse and the Mongolian horse – therefore about 875 years. Assuming that thisestimate is roughly accurate then the people who brought the horse left Mongolia about 150 BC - which is in agreement with the historical

evidence...

On today's scale, the Hunnic horse demography is truly astronomical. The Eastern Hun population at the turn of the eras is estimated at 3

mln, or 600,000 families; their combined herd numbered around 20 mln horses; if only 5 to 10% of them reached Europe on their migration,150-300,000 Hun people brought along 1-2 mln horses. An order of magnitude larger number of nomads already lived in Eastern Europe or

migrated to the Eastern Europe with the Huns, nearly each tribe with their distinct horses. On the Huns' breed of horses wrote N. Egami, The

k'ua-t'i, the tao-yu, and the tan-hsi, the strange domestic animals of the Huns, Memoires of the Research department of Toyo Bunko, vol.13, 1951. According to the 8th-10th c. Tanghuyao, Huns, Khazars, and Türks, and also tribes Sygir, Bokli, Kibir, Aidyr, and Dulat bred the

same breed of the peculiar superbly deft horses.

Little has changed in the Hun economy in the next century (5th-6th cc.). The Huns themselves define their economic situation at the beginning of the 6th c. thus:

“We live by weapons, by bow and sword, and snack on different meat food” (Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 150). Pseudo-Zacharias (mid-6th c.), listing thirteen barbarianpeoplesin the North Caucasus, including the Sabirs, noted that they “exist by the meat of livestock and fish, wild beasts, and weapons” (Pseudo-Zacharius, p.

165). During that period the animal husbandry remains the Huns main economic sector, where hunting and fishing probably are ancillary lines.116

Pseudo-Zacharias, describing the events of the beginning of the 6th c. related to the successful mission to the Huns of the Christian preacher //116// Kardost

who Christianized some part of the Hun tribes, notes that among the Byzantine emperor gifts sent to the Huns on that occasion were wheat, wine, oil , flax, andfruits (Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 166), the agricultural products apparently highly valued by the Huns. Huns were presented 30 mules, a type of the draft animals not

usable in the Huns' economy. To the same period (529) belongs a report that another preacher Bishop Makar “planted plants, sowed various seeds” in the land ofthe Huns (Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 167). Apparently, reference is to fruit trees and some crops that were unknown among the Huns. Procopius Cesarean's account of

the first half of the 600s also testifies that the North-Eastern Caucasus Huns engaged in horse husbandry (Procopius Cesarean. 1, p. 112).

In the first third of the 700s. are observable some changes in the economy of the Hun circle tribes in the North-Western Caspian littoral. Movses Kalankatuatsi

in the “History of Alvan country” describes a meal in the camp of Türkut troops (First Türkic Kaganate), who in 628 invaded Albania; Huns troops participatedin the campaign. Among the products used by the Huns the author names meat of “unclean” animals (camels, horses), camel and horse milk, wine, and also “thin

bread, fried in a pan” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 88-89) (It is funny, the lavash, which Movses Kalankatuatsi found odd and did not know a name of,

now is a prized national Armenian dish). We see that the Hun and Turk diet at that time included not only the livestock products, //117// but also of agriculture(rye, wheat), and viticulture (“Wine” could be kumiss and buza beer, but all grown produce and products, including wine, most likely were provisioned by

local subjects, obligated in advance by the Logistics department. The only exception are plants that once planted do not require maintenance: apples,grapes, melons, etc).117

Chinese annals describe Huns as the most advanced and cultured society of all aliens. Because of the peculiarity of the Russian Turkology,the Russian 20th c. science retreated by 300+ years back, and started pretending that the Türkic people, including Huns, were primitive loose

bands, illiterate and savage, randomly roaming to rob their good sedentary neighbors. Hence the reflexive recitation of these concepts by

numerous scholars, in this case that the Huns were blessed in the 7th c. by learning the advances of high western civilization: rye, wheat, andgrape, as though they left the Noah kindergarten in pristine ignorance just 2 weeks ago. Any comprehension of the Russian reflexive historical

chauvinism was utterly exterminated from the national consciousness by the mid 20th c.

However, sources give no direct data on the development of agriculture at the Huns in this period. Movses Kalankatuatsi, the principal author on the history ofthe Hun society at the end of the 7th c., describing in detail some aspects of the Hun life (ideology, social development), says nothing about the level of productive

economy among the Huns. He only notes that the “Country of Huns” is distinguished by abundance. Analysis of the thoughts that prevailed in the Hun society at theend of of the 7th c. described by Movses Kalankatuatsi indicates that along with horse-breeding, the agriculture also played at that time a leading role in the Hun

economy, it is also manifested in the Hun description of their land as “earth-born homeland” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, I, p. 199) (Reading of coffee suds wouldprovide as many arguments. In a country so little suitable for agriculture, where historical harvest is about 7:1, with chronic draughts and crop failures,

the idee fixe notion that tilling is blessing and animal husbandry is primitive is beyond comprehension).

The sources do not have information on the Hun economy in the 8th c., because main place in the reports by the authors on the North-East Caucasus at that

time is occupied by the events of the Arab-Khazar wars.

The Arab authors of the 9th-10th cc. as the most important sector in the economy of the population of the Caspian littoral Dagestan name viticulture and

horticulture. The sources reported on the vineyards around Semender that impressed witnesses with their size. Al-Balkhi and al-Istahri cite four thousand grape

vines, Ibn Hawqal cites forty thousand. Al-Muqaddasi writes that Semender has “many orchards, grape vines, and trees...”.(Al-Balkhi, p. 62, 118; al-Istahri, p.47; Ibn Hawqal, p. 114; al-Muqaddasi, p. 5). //118// Who owned these extensive plantations, who tended to them, this source does not contain information (But if

that was an ordinary observation, typical for other people in the Caucasus, the authors would not emphasize it, which allows to infer that that was adistinctive trait of the Hun economy).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 10/22

118

The analysis of the written sources show that if in the 4th to 6th cc. the main branch of the North-East Caucasus Hun Society economy was nomadic animalhusbandry (horses, goats) and the associated processing of dairy products, and also hunting and some fishing, in the 7th c. besides cattle husbandry (horses,

camels) were also developed viticulture and associated wine production, gardening, and apparently cultivation of grains.

Chinese annals describe that as early as the 2nd c. BC the Huns welcomed and patronized Chinese (not necessarily ethnically Chinese)peasants to grow cereals and their other traditional cultures. In areas without Chinese peasants, local tribes with traditional subsistence

performed the same task. Out of necessity, the Huns and other Türkic nomadic tribes had to engage in agriculture also, but agriculture wasviewed as the lowest occupation, and was abandoned as soon as an alternative could be developed. Unlike the cereal agriculture, which all

nomadic pastoralists abhorred and disparaged, the non-work-intensive viniculture and fruit-growing were accepted and widespread.

4.2. CRAFT AND TRADE

118

The first information about crafts at the Hun-circle tribes comes from the ancient authors. Ammianus Marcellinus mentioned that Hun woman is weaving(Ammianus Marcellinus, I, p. 1022). Ammianus Marcellinus observed that the Huns have clothes sewn from linen or pelts of wood mice (Ammianus Marcellinus.

II, p. 236). The author may be reffering to different types of seasonal clothing. The clothing at the Huns was very precious and was worn out to the limit,apparently, Huns were receiving flax in trade exchange or robberies. About linen available to the Huns also mentions Movses Kalankatuatsi //119// (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. II., P. 63) (As the Türkic word “kenevir” > kenebir > cannabis for hemp demonstrates, hemp was known as a traditional raw material inthe pre-Herodotus Scythian time, and likely much earlier in the Sredny Stog time, before the first wave of the horse husbandry Kurgans set out on

circum-Mediterranian anabasis that took them, with elements of their culture and language, to Iberia and Brittania, and on a shortcut route to Balkans

and Apennines. The Hunnic hemp textile must be as much old).119

Sidonius Apollinaris speaks also of the band the Huns used in for artificial cranial deformation of their children (Sidonius Apollinaris, p. 1090). The bands wereeither braided or weaved. Huns also knew to make ropes for arkans (lassos), apparently of wool (Ammianus Marcellinus.11, p. 238; Movses Khorenatsi, p. 131;

Stepanos Taronetsi, p. 41).

The Huns had developed processing of leather, wool and their products. Huns sewed fur clothing, Ammianus Marcellinus describes a type of the Huns' leather

footwear: “the shoes not fitted on any shoetree prevent walking with unhampered steps” (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238). Probably they are rawhide sharp-

nosed shoes that makes it difficult to walk (Depictions of Scythian, Hunnic, and Türkic boots are abound, and well explored). The burduks (bladders) forstorage of liquids also were produced from leather. Is known a fact that when the army of Türks and Huns used burduks filled with sand and stones to build a

dam to block the river (Kura) and cause flooding in the besieged Tbilisi (627) (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 107). The Hun skills for tanning hides were quite high,they produced leathers impenetrable by arrows (Procopius Cesarean. 11, p. 408). Of wool, besides the above mentioned ropes, also was produced felt. By the

first decades of the 4th c. are dated reports of the sources that some tribes of the Hun circle in the North-Eastern Caucasus used felt to manufacture protectivearms //120// (armor) (Movses Khorenatsi, p. 149; Stepanos Taronetsi, p. 45; Vartan the Great, p. 57) .120

This review of the written sources serves more to demonstrate the inadequacy of the sources than illuminate the Hunnic economy. As it

happened, the main line of the Hunnic economy was horse husbandry, and N.V. Pigulevskaya cited at least one number, that the “Huns, calledSabirs” numbered about one hundred thousand people. That should allow a researcher to establish the Sabir portion of the Hun army at

maximum 20,000 cavalry equipped with 80-100,000 horse train, and the 20,000 of total households, 600,000 herd of horses belonging to the

tribe, and 60,000 km2 of pasturing ranges needed to sustain the herds. At 20% annual crop, the Sabirs harvested 120,000 heads of horses per

year, most of which not only was available for trade, but needed to be traded off, to preserve the pastures for the tribal horses. A sizable

number of the crop was traded as raw materials, like hides, hooves, and meat preserves (sausage, meat jerky, stockfish). Another cottageindustry was manufacture of composition bow and arrows, since the quality of the nomadic bows, with proven technology retained for millennia

in each family, far exceeded that of the sedentary nations, and the demand for them was huge and sustained. The trade in the horse husbandrysurpluses was the main fare of the Hunnic economy, although in the historical books it is not as glamorous as the war booty.

At 20 solidi a head, the GDP of the Sabir horse husbandry in the 4th c. reaches 2,400,000 solidi on the Byzantine market, or 120,000 lb ofgold at 20 solidi/lb, or 48,000 kg of gold. We can guesstimate that the local market would provide only 10% of that, or 4,800 kg of gold

annually (Angeliki E. Laiou, Editor-in-Chief, The Economic History of Byzantine: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century2002, Dumbarton Oaks, http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/byzantium.pdf).

Each tribe was responsible for its own trade, and the Sabir horses competed against the Kayi ( , , ), Hun ( ),

Bulgar, Khazar, etc. horses for the market share. In spite of the competition, and maybe as a result of devastations caused by the relentlesswars, by the 8th c. a horse went for 60 solidi, or 3 lb of gold. At such prices, no wonder that the Scythians, Huns, Türks, and their subdivisions

not only had plenty of gold to go around and to supply the kurgans of their deceased with amounts of gold that supported millennia of grave-dogging treasure hunters, but also lived in abundance.

121

Fig. 2. Tools of Trade Fig. 3. Vessels Fig. 4. Apparel accessories

1 - 15 - Palaca-syrt settlement 4th - 7th cc.

1 - fragment of millstone, 2-3 - whorls,4 - adze, 5-6-awls, 7-14-needles

1 - 3 - stone, 4-14 bone

1-11 - Palaca-syrt burials: 6th-5th cc. (4th-5th cc. ?)

1-11 - ceramics

1 -13 - Palaca-syrt burial 4th-5th cc.

1-3 - belt clips, 4 - belt tip5-7 - buckles, 8-10 - fibulae, 11-12 earrings,

13 - diadem pendants,

1, 2, 5, 10-13 - bronze, 3, 4, 7 - silver, 6 - lignite jet,silver, 8 - silver, iron, 9-iron, bronze.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 11/22

The Huns had developed bone carving craft, mostly (popularized by) the manufacture of arrowheads. Ammianus Marcellinus, noting the high skill level of theHun bone carvers, wrote that the Huns fight in ranged combat “... with arrows fitted with skillfully made tips of bone...”.(Ammianus Marcellinus. II, pp. 238)

(Confusing Savirs and Huns is improper, and ethnological understanding of the Savirs is insufficient, but the Huns at large are credited with invention

and use of whistling arrowheads, an antique precursor of the tracer bullets; of arrowheads with hook notches, an antique precursor of the

fragmentation bullet that stays in the target, and poisoned arrowheads. Savirs are credited with invention and use of armor-piercing arrowheads. The

carved-bone artifacts of the nomadic culture are at the museums across Eurasia).

The Hunnic woodcraft also was at the highest level. Of wood were manufactured some types of weapons: clubs, bows, arrow shafts, spears, poles with iron

hooks at the end for expanding wall cracks (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238; Favstos Buzand, p. 15; Yeshu Stylite, p. 157; Zosimus, p. 800, ProcopiusCesarean. II, p. 408; Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 82). Of wood were produced some utensils (ladles, dishes). The Huns have mastered a skill of wood carving

art. Movses Kalankatuatsi gives a detailed description of the “roundish” wooden cross made by Varachan “skillful carpenters” during Christianization of the Huns

by the Israil mission (682): “ ...decorated it (cross - L.G.) with various pictures and glued to it pictures of animals copied with careful accuracy, and painted it from

top to bottom with paint. Also on the right side he attached with strong nails beautiful light crosses. At the bottom was a hole carved on all four sides like a lily. In it

stood a silver cross with a relict from the cross of the Lord” //122// (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 203). 122123124

From the above description it is clear that to produce the cross were necessary high enough carver skills. The cross was decorated with various pictures,

probably made by one of the Israil embassy participants, whose name the “History of Alvan country” gives as “skilled artist” Moses (Movses Kalankatuatsi I, p.

206).

The listed above Hunnic crafts were traditional home crafts, with the objects manufactured in each family (Fig. 2, 3, 5).

Sources contain records on high mastery of the Hun warriors' metal offensive and defensive weapons: swords, spears, lances, armor, helmets, and visors.

Metalworking crafts of the Huns were highly developed (Fig. 4, 5, 6), but in the iron industry, and in nonferrous metal production (copper, silver, gold) was used

labor of artisans from Albania, Georgia, and Armenia, captured during invasions or supplied as taxes by subjected to the Huns territories of the S.Caucasiancountries (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 131). Among the jewels popular among the Huns were golden or silver “dragon images” - decorations associated with

pagan symbols (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 198).125

If not for the metalwork we would never have learned that the analysis of the Hun's territory was only partial, that the Hun state included

Albania, Georgia, and Armenia as dependencies, taxed in favor of the Huns. Even within the scope of this study, aside from the larger picture of

the European Huns as a whole, the footprint of the Caucasian Hunnia was far greater than that presented in the section on the Hun state and

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 12/22

depicted on the map Fig.1.

For some period between the 160 AD and 558 AD, the Caucasian Hunnia came into possession of the Albania, Georgia, and Armenia, andincluded Masguts/Alans. The events leading to the Hunnic supremacy, the process of achieving their supremacy, the adversaries they faced in

achieving supremacy, and the administrative system of retaining supremacy appear to be left out from this study and possibly from the sources.

The downward slide is also left unclear, relations with Persia and Byzantine remain in the shadows: were the Arabs chipping off the Albania,

Georgia, and Armenia provinces from the Persia or from the Hunnia, was the loss of the Albania, Georgia, and Armenia to the Arabs a first

unstated phase of the “Arabo-Khazar” wars that first diminished the Hunnia to the North Caucasus, and then dismembered it, allowing theKhazar rise to power? What was the territorial dynamics during the Hunnic hegemony, how long it lasted between the 160 AD and 558 AD?

The Hunnic Caucasian expansion should be viewed in the context of the “Hionite” expansion into the Khorasan and Northern Parthia.

Another aspect is the taxation of the dependent states and population, the viceroyal apparatus resident in the dependent countries, and the

cultural and linguistic impact of being a member of the Hunnic confederation. It is clear that the dependency went beyond a military alliance with

nominal submission, which is limited to mandatory participation in the suzerain's wars and paying a periodical homage. The taxing system implies

assessment and collection, and related enforcement. That would explain the Hunnic punitive expeditions organized to enforce the submission of

the contractual tribute, and capture of the slices of population as an enforcement tool. In better detail the objectives and execution of identicalHunnic punitive expeditions are described for the Eastern Huns in the histories of the “Eastern Han Dynasty” (155-220 AD), and “Later Zhao”

(319–351). The economic side of the dependency is the extension of the military conquest, which is a Caucasian theater of the Hunnic Eastern

Europe expansion. The Hun's income in gold has increased by the same amount that was lost by the previous patrons of the Albania, Georgia,

and Armenia, which are known, albeit imprecise, amounts.

On the use of dependent labor, in the modern analogy with the Nazi's use of slave labor, no credit is given to the masses of Slavic, Jewish,

and other prisoners for the production of the Fau ballistic missiles, what they were producing were Nazi Germany weaponry. The metalworkingcriteria must be if and what was produced in Albania, Georgia, and Armenia outside of the Hunnic-organized production.

To Ammianus Marcellinus belongs a testimony that in the Hun society in 4th c. was developed trade. He wrote, //125// that the Huns “... are engaged in buying

and selling...”.(Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238). Apparently, during that period of the Hun society development, the trade had primarily domestic nature ofcommodity exchange between the various tribes of the Hun circle (I.e. one horse-selling nomad sells to another horse-selling nomad horse hoofs and hides, a

superbly delighted idea). But in the middle of the 5th c. the European Huns, for example, demanded of the Romans: “Fairs should have equal rights and safe both

for the Romans and the Huns” (Prisk Pannonian. II, p. 676). Apparently, the subject is the trading in the border areas (Repressive trade policies of the sedentary

dictatorships caused more military conflicts with the nomads than any other cause. Having 120,000 heads of surplus product annually, in our Savirexample, created a powerful impetus to advocate free trade, best described for the Huns, but also recorded for the Alans in the pre-Hunnic period, For

Northern and Southern Huns in and around China, Türks, Uigurs, etc. Only the Türkic empires patronized and supported unlimited free trade regime).

We noted above that certain agricultural products (cereals, wine, flax) the Caspian Huns traded from the neighboring sedentary nations. But apparently by the

early 7th c. the trade occupied prominent place in the economy of the Hun society. Among the conditions submitted in 628 to Albania by Djebukagan (Tun-Yabgu

Kagan), was not only a consent of Albania submission to the Türks and transfer of towns and fortresses, but also to allow ”...the trade to my troops...”.(Movses

Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 121). M.I.Artamonov made a (dumb) explanation to this point in the conditions of the Türks, he believed that the subject was the “income

from trade” (M. Artamonov, I. 1962, p. 150). However, the content of the text can be interpreted as a requirement to give the Hun warriors a predominant right totrade within Albania (Another galimatia, they did not need favoritism, they needed to sell their horses, and do it again and again, which is possible only

with fair trade without forced advantages or preferential treatment). An anonymous Persian author of “Hudud al-Alem” at the end of the 10th c. (982/983)

described the Hun city Semender as a major trading center, with many markets and merchants. (Hudud, p. 32).

4.3. WAR AS A MEANS OF ENRICHING

126

Since the author does not offer even a rudimentary quantitative economical analysis correlated with with demographic base and compared

with the economic and taxing profiles of the surrounding sedentary polities, the qualitative assessment is utterly unsubstantiated, and the analysis

boils down to the emotions of the victims of the Hunnic ambitions, enforcements, and retaliations. On the background of the Persian, Bysantine,

Arabic, and Viking depredations, the Hunnic raids appear mild and pale. There is much of a caricature element in the premises, quotations, and

in the assessments.

Not a small income source of the Hun society were annual raids of the Hunnic troops on the S.Caucasian countries. The Hun society was at the level of

development when, according to the characteristics of (Friedrich) Engels: “The war ... is now run only for the purpose of plunder, it becomes a perpetual trade”

(Engels F. 1982. pp. 189-190). In practice all adult males in the Hun society were soldiers. Claudius Claudian noted that the among Huns is considered great “to

swear by killed parents” (Claudius Claudian, p. 1055), i.e. the fathers killed in battle were a pride of the children. During the 4th-6th cc. predatory raids were a

main occupation of the male population of the Hun circle tribes in the Caspian Dagestan, their main source of income. Favstos Buzand, describing the events of330s associated with the unsuccessful Christianization attempt of the Maskut and Hun tribes, emphasizing these peoples' barbaric way of life, noted that they do

not visualize other occupations except for robbery and embezzlement. “How can we subsist with such multitude of troops? How can we live, if not by our innate

custom not to mount the horses?” (Favstos Buzand, p. 14) - so objected the barbarian tribes in response to the Albanian Catholicos Grigoris preaching the

Christian virtues. The Huns held unworthy engagement any other occupation but the war (Apparently, after their horse husbandry occupation, without which

are no horses, cavalrymen, and the war).127

Ammianus Marcellinus noted that housework among the Huns //127// was done by female population and children - “all that by the age and sex is not suitable

for the war...” (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 241). Pseudo-Zacharias names military campaigns as the main occupation of the Huns in the first third of the 6th c.

(Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 150). Also in the Addition to Ptolemy relating to 555, among Savir occupations in the last place after animal pastoralism, fishing, and hunting

lists plundering raids: “... thirteen people live in tents, suvsist on meat of livestock and fish, wild beasts, and weapons” (Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 165).

Possibly, even in that period begins a transition process by some part of the “Country of Huns” population to a semi-settled lifestyle, which is reflected in the

sources.

The military raids for plundering, as was noted above, were almost annual events, their duration could be shor, but Huns could also remain in the occupied

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 13/22

territories for a year (Favstos Buzand, p. 15).

Huns drove away into slavery population of the captured cities and villages. Precise data on the number of captives is absent, the ancient authors mainly report

outline information (Egishe, p. 116, Yeshu Stylite, p. 131; Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 166, Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 186). Movses Kalankatuatsi recalls numbers of

one predaceous campaign (664) - 1,200 captives (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 153-154).128

The predaceous expeditions were capturing flocks of sheep and herds of horses. Movses Kalankatuatsi reports on 120 thousand heads //128// of cattle and 7thousand horses, captured by the Huns in 664 in Albania. Were especially prized war trophies, and also luxury objects and weapons - “horse and spear

ornaments, inlaid with gold swords, shields, excellent clothes produced by the art of Greeks...”,“silver goblets and carved drinking vessels entirely (finished) with

gold .. “ (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 125-126, 133).

All captured wealth the Hun soldiers divided among themselves, but the division principles are unknown, although some evidence suggests that by the middle of

the 7th c. the best part of the booty was becoming a property of higher commanders and chiefs of tribal alliances (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I. p. 120, 133).

Starting from the 6th c. in the sources appear information that Persia and Byzantium, which led grueling wars for dominance in the Caucasus, conclude treaties

with Hunnic leaders for protection of their subjugated territories from invasions of the enemy (Procopius Cesarean. 1b. pp. 230-231; II, p. 407; Menander

Byzantian, p. 415). The Huns, as allies of one side, were robbing only the territory subject to the other side (Procopius Cesarean. 1b, p. 231). The allied relations

were paid for very generously by the Persia and Byzantium. One of the reasons for the Hun campaign in 513 in the land dominated by Persians was that Byzantiumpromised Huns great gifts if they sever their alliance with Persia. The Huns demanded from Persians to raise their payment: “Either give us what (give) Rameis, and

we will confirm the treaty with you, or //129// if you do not give us, accept the war” (Pseudo-Zacharius. p. 150).129

The size of the reward is stated by Procopius Cesarean. He tells that Alans and Savirs, having concluded an alliance with Byzantium, “undertook for three

kentariuses (300 lb of gold) not only to protect the land of Lazes from any depredation, but also so devastate Iberia that the Persians would not be able to enter it”(Procopius Cesarean. 1b. p. 231). The report relates to the events of the Perso-Byzantine war over Lazika (550-555).

Persia and Byzantium also used paid military assistance of the Huns in the military operations during the “battle” for the Caucasus. Byzantine, Armenian, andSyrian writers of the 5th - 6th cc. repeatedly point to the Hun warriors, “selling their mercenary help once to these, another to those” (Agathias, p. 88, 116,

Procopius Cesarean. II, p. 407, Theophanes Byzantian. pp. 130-131; Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 163). The Hun military assistance stipulated terms of the agreement

defining the duration of its validity, the size of the Hun mercenary troops, and the size of the payment. The time of the military assistance agreement was conditional

on the duration of the military operations, at the end of which the Hun army was returning to their territory (Agathias, p. 117). The size of the Hun mercenarytroops was quite large. Thus, in 521 AD the Hun King Ziligd (Zilgbi) (In 521 the “Hun King” was Bulyak-Bolgar Djilki, “Bolokh”(aka “Bolah”, “Valakh”)

r. 520-522, and “Zilgbi” is a slight distortion of Djilki/Jilki, pointing to the earlier origin of this nickname, given after the month of his birth, Djilki =

“Horse”.Attila also was Attila Djilki. The part -bi of the compound stands for “Master, Lord” in dialectal forms Bi, Bai, and Bek, fem. Bika. The name

Bulyak-Bolgar points to his mom, who was from the Bilyar Bulgarian tribe from the Oka-Kama confluence; naming sons after the tribe of mothers was

an established royal naming convention, first detectable in Chinese records about the Shanuys of the Eastern Huns, with Yui part standing for Uigurmother from the maternal dynastic tribe Yui/Hui/Sui/Suibu. The distorted Russian transcription “Ziligd” make the name barely recognizable) sent to the

aid of the Persians 20-thousand army, in the 527 the same number of Huns led by the leaders Stirax and Glonis tried to break through lands //130// of the Byzantium

ally, the ruler of the Huns Boariks (Boyarkyz) (Theophanes Confessor. pp. 130-136).130

In 531, a 3000-strong Hun troop (Actually, Savirs. Confusing Savirs with the Huns would make the Huns taking over Bactria in 130 BC, a patentednonsense) fought in Byzantine Armenia as an ally of Persia (Procopius Cesarean. 1a, p. 180). In 551 12,000 Huns joined the Persian army preparing a siege of the

city Archaeopolis, however, according to a source only 4000 were retained (Procopius Cesarean. II, p. 416). In the repeat siege of the Archaeopolis in 555 only a

small detachment of the Huns (500 men) was attached to the Persian army, at the same time on the Byzantine Empire side fought a 2000-strong detachment

(Agathias pp. 88, 117) (Near Archaeopolis, Persian established a base Onoguris, apparently manned by the Onogurs [Agathias 2.22.3]. The Byzantines

send Sabir Hun mercenaries to Archaeopolis to delay the approaching Persians [3.17.5]. Agathias calls Savirs the Savir Huns, but that does not makethem, and likewise the Onogurs, the Huns any more than Innuits are French Canadians). The fees paid for military assistance were apparently determined in

advance. Agathias indicates that the Huns received the “agreed upon pay” (Agathias. p. 117). Yeghishe reports that the Persian king Peroz (459-484) sent the

Huns payment for military assistance (taking the Alanian Gates, military operations for a year in Albania) “huge treasures” (Yeghishe, p. 370). The King of the Huns

Ziligd (Zilgbi) was bribed by Byzantines with rich gifts to ensure support of the Hun troops (Theophanes Confessor, p. 130). Eight thousand of the Hunnicwarriors, released by the Persians during the siege of Archaeopolis (551), were “richly gratified with money” (Procopius Cesarean. II, p. 417).

Military assistance was greatly enriching a certain part of the “Country of Huns” population - prominent commanders, a part of the Hun army soldiers (There isno reason nor justification for this unjust and derogatory jibe. Unlike the Russin draftees serving under a threat of death, or Persian solders chained in

groups to their posts, the nomadic population was a population of free people, they were volunteering for dangerous mercenary service to benefit of

their families, and were as much dangerous to their unfair commanders as they were for the enemies. Division of the pays and spoils was a communal

affair, the first principles of which was fairness and conformance to tradition. To some, though lesser degrees, these principles also covered dependent

foot soldiers).131

The main income source in the 7th c. Hun society was becoming not the military //131// spoils, but taxes and impositions levied on the population of the occupied

territories. The predatory campaigns, which were “permanent vocation” of the Huns, grew into the war for political dominance (They must have lost their touch,

the Huns unlearned centuries of their experience with sedentary people in China, and Savirs unlearned their Bactrian experience, just to fit into the

Russian perversion of the classical Marxism).

M.I. Artamonov defined the 664 campaign of the Hun Prince Alp Ilitver against Albania not a regular raid, but as a war “to force Albania into some form of

connection, most probably dependent on the Huns” (Artamonov M.I., 1962 pp. 182-183). The sources do not contain precise information on the terms of peacetreaty between Albania and the “Kingdom of Huns”.Movses Kalankatuatsi names only one condition, a “marriage. of Djuanshar, Prince of Albania, to the daughter

of Alp Ilitver”.However, describing the events of the new negotiations with the Huns undertaken after the murder of Djuanshar (669), Movses Kalankatuatsi notes

that the new ruler of Albania Varaz Tiridat through his messenger Catholicos Eleazar expressed to the Huns his “true humility and love” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I.

p. 186), apparently fully confirming the terms of the 664 treaty. The new peace treaty placed Albania in the political dependency on the Huns, who wererecognized as “helpers and protectors of power” of the Albanian leaders.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 14/22

The population of the Huns' dependent territories was imposed with various kinds of levies and taxes. Movses Kalankatuatsi notes that in the Albania occupied

by the Türks (629) the entire population was levied a poll tax at the rate of didrahma (8.8 g of silver) “in accordance with the regular census of Persia” //132//

(Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 131), additional fees paid fishermen and artisans in precious metals and iron. Particularly heavy burden for the population of thesubordinated territories was a forced relocation of captured artisans, which led to a weakening of the Albania economy.

5. CITIES in the country of Huns

5.1. CITIES

133

The earliest information on the cities in the territory of the Hun tribes circle date to the beginning of the 6th c. Pseudo-Zacharias in his Supplement to thePtolemy geography writes: “Bazgun is a land with its own language, which is adjacent and extends to the Caspian gates and the sea located within the Hun limits.

Outside the gates live Burgars with their own language, people pagan and barbaric, they have cities, and Alans, they have five towns” (Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 165)

It is difficult to imagine what were the cities in the “land of Huns” in the Caspian littoral in the 6th c.

Ammianus Marcellinus (4th c.) called the Hun encampment a city: “Having reached a grass-rich area, they draw their wagons in a circle and feed like beasts,

and when the pastures are sapped, they load their city on the wagons and move on” (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 241). Prisk Pannonian (mid-5th c.) gives a

description of the capital of the Attila's Hunnic state nothing like the Hun “city” of Ammianus Marcellinus. He writes: “From there, we soon reached a village where

dwelt the King Attila; I say village //134// resembling a very expansive city...”.(Prisk Pannonian, p. 693).134

Than the author describes magnificent architectural buildings of Attila court that astonished by its elegance the high Byzantine official. Prisk Pannonian noted that

his settlement-city Attila preferred to the captured European cities (Prisk Pannonian, p. 693). Apparently, the city of Attila differed by something from the

European cities, perhaps, by the traditional structure and architecture of the houses, making it more habitual to the Huns. Perhaps, in the 6th. the cities in the

Caspian littoral “country of the Huns” also looked like large villages (A typical Tatar village, with spaced far apart wooden houses decorated throughoutwith brightly painted carved friezes, closely matches Ammianus description. In Russia, this style decoration is called with Tatar word “terem”;that style

also closely matches descriptions and archeological remains of the royal courts of the Türkic and Hunnic rulers in the east).

Beginning from the 7th c., the authors not only point to the existence of cities at the Huns of the Caspian littoral, but also call out their names.

Varachan

The brief edition of the 7th c. “Armenian geography” for the first time indicates that the Huns north of Derbent have a “city Varachan and other cities”

(Armenian geography. I, p. 38). The expanded edition not only named “the city of the Huns Varadjan”,but also named the two others - Chungars and Msndr(Armenian geography. II, p. 30) (Chungars is phonetically allophonic to Hungar/Hongar and Hunoguria/Honoguria ~ Phanagoria, and Msndr appear to

be Semender with transposed sm-. Phanagoria at that time was a prominent city, and may very well be known to Armenian traders and historians. It

appears that the Armenian geographer names three Hunnic capitals he is aware of, the capital of Kayis Varachan and the capital of Savirs Semender on

the Caspian littoral, and the capital of Onogurs on the Black Sea littoral). Varachan in the source stands out particularly, as the capital of the country - the“city of the Huns”.Movses Kalankatuatsi has related to the 682 information of only one city in the “Country of Huns” - Varachan, which the author awards with the

epithet “magnificent” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 192). Why Movses Kalankatuatsi calls Varachan magnificent is difficult to assess, because the text has no

description of the city, any interesting buildings, or residential //135// structures.135

Apparently, Varachan was at the time a city known in the countries neighboring with the Huns. The epithet “magnificent” may be replaced by another epithetmeaning “famous, celebrated” (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 123) (Novoseltsev - another deep thought to cite). It more accurately reflects the status of the city

as the capital of the “Country of Huns” (Novoseltsev - another deep thought to cite). The Great Prince of the Huns, Alp Ilitver calls Varachan “our city”

(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 132), this can also serve as proof that Varachan was a recognized among the Huns capital city. To the Varachan, after a long

dangerous journey arrived the mission of the Albanian bishop Israil (682). There was located the residence of Alp Ilitver, in the vicinity of the city were located the

sacred at the Huns places of serving the pagan cults (In the Russian lingo of Soviet times, all religions were cults, while the cult of Stalin was not a cult atall. Heresies and paganism are Christian terms , adopted into the Soviet lexicon: Catholicism is a Christian cult, and Tengriism is a Pagan cult). In

Varachan and its vicinities occurred important to the Hun community events related to religious reform of 682.

The Armenian historian of the 8th c. Ghevond in his book does not mention city Varachan, though he knows the “Hun” city Targu. Describing a joint campaign

in 737 of the Arab commander Marwan and the Armenian prince Ashot, without specifying the name of the city Ghevond writes: “After defeating the city troops,

he captured the city. After the city was taken, when people saw that the enemy has prevailed against them, many of them threw their property into the sea, while

others threw also themselves into the sea, and perished in its depths” (Ghevond, p. 80).136

Why Ghevond dropped the name of the city in question? Maybe he meant there //136// the “Hun city Targu”,which he spoke about earlier, and therefore

deemed unnecessary to name it again. It is likely that here he speaks of the Hun capital city known to everybody, and it is not necessary to specify its name. So did

a Russian chronicler in the story of Svyatoslav Igorevich campaign against Khazars (965). He wrote that Svyatoslav took the city, i.e. Khazar capital Itil: “... beat

Svyatoslav Kozars and their city and Belo Veja (Belo Veja is a Slavic calque of Türkic Sarkel ~ White Fort, located not on Itil, as the Khazar capitl, but onDon river) took” (PVL (Tale of Bygone Years), p. 47). Is Ghevond talking about the same “magnificent Varachan city”,which was so admired by Movses

Kalakatuatsi only 55 years before the events described by Ghevond? Apparently not by chance the Armenian writer of the 13th c. Vartan the Great, no doubt

familiar with writings of his predecessors, describing the same raid of Marwan, calls the city seized by the Arabs Varachan: “Marwan went to a campaign against

Varachan - the city of the Huns, and came back a winner” (Vartan the Great, p. 95). A.P. Novoseltsev believes that Ghevond meant not Varachan, but Samandar

(Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 122). (Novoseltsev - sic!)137

Location Varachan is defined only in the expanded version of the “Armenian geography”,which indicates that it is located west of Derbent at the foot of the

Caucasus Mountains, i.e. in the foothills (Armenian geography. II, p. 30) (At the foot and in the foothills is not the same, at the foot may be in a lowland on

the coast). Movses Kalankatuatsi thoroughly describes the route of the Albanian embassy to the Hun capital Varachan (682), dwells extensively on the difficulties

and hardships experienced by the travelers, names many //137// en route settlements. But all details stop at the city Choga (Chor ~ Prince's ?), then MovsesKalankatuatsi hurriedly says: “Finally, before the forty day fast, they arrived at the magnificent city Varachan” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 124). According to

Movses Kalankatuatsi, the journey from the capital of Caucasian Albania city Partav to Varachan took 51 days of travel (Eremian S.T. 1939. pp. 133-134). The

road ran through the Caucasus Mountains across the Main Caucasus Ridge (Darial Pass 42.75°N. 44.6°E), then by the Caspian Littoral Plain to the city Choga

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 15/22

(?), and thence to Varachan. The above analysis of the route from the city Partav to Varachan led to a conclusion that the route to Varachan described by Movses

Kalankatuatsi was known in the 7th c. and was traditionally used by the diplomatic embassies of Albania and likewise of the “Country of Huns”.

Presumably, Varachan existed as a capital of the “Country of Huns” up to 737 (i.e. ca 650-737). After Varachan was devastated, the city Semender became a

capital of the “Land of Huns”.

It appears that at one time coexisted two locations of the Central Command Bülün Jar, one in the Kayi territory right on the Caspian coast in

a narrow pass between the mountain spurs and the Caspian Sea at 42.6°N 47.9°E (42.8°N 47.1°E) 40 mi or 65 km (alternatively 78 mi or 125

km) north of Derbend 42.1°N. 48.3°E, that passes on in the earlier Armenian records as Varachan, and the other evacuated Bülün Jar in the

river gorge in the mountains, in the later Kayi territory, that passes on in the later Arabic records as Balanjar. Both cities (or fortresses, as in

those times a city was a fortified settlement) are associated with the Haidak country, one earlier immediately north of Derbent, the other in themountains at a distance from Derbent. The later Bulgarian annals refer to the second Bülün Jar using Arabic form of the name, and although they

call the northern Haidak inhabitants Bulgars, they imply that they were different Bulgars, but leave their ethnicity obscure. Confusion between

two Bülün Jars may explain the seemingly contradictory references to Varachan. The habit of referring to the new city location with the name of

the evacuated original city ubiquitous nomadic trait with numerous examples, like the Taman Bandja/Phanagoria reincarnated as Bandja on the

Samara Bend, and many “Eske” ~ “Old” vs. “Yeni” ~ “New” toponyms: Iske Archa/Yeni Archa, Echke-Kazan/Yeni-Kazan, Iske Yorty/YeniYorty etc.

Guznain

“Guznain” consisting of two cities (at-Tabari) indicates that Guznain is not a city, but a derogative designation for the tribes, a la “Tribal Land,Tribal Area”,like the modern Waziristan in Afganistan/Pakistan. In the Maslama days it was the twin city Semender/Targu. At at-Tabari, the

route of Maslama raid was Shirvan-Khazar's Derbent - Semender/Targu - Belenjer. Prior to the Varachan (“Old” Belenjer) evacuation to the

river Sulak, Guznain must have included Semender/Targu and Varachan, and in the period between the Aguan-Savir treaty and Arab capture of

Derbent () may also included Derbent. Naturally, this conjecture is only based on the phonetical allophone of the names Varachan and Belenjer.

Guznain is mentioned below in the context of Semender, but it is clear that Guznain ~ country (city as a stand-in for country) of Guzes, and

Varachan is that stand-in city. Varachan/Khamzin/Khasin/Khashin/Khaizan/Djidan/Jendan/Guznain are the versions of the name for the country,city, principality, and the kingdom of Suvar, after the name of the Huns-Savirs. The conjecture of M.I. Artamonov who perceived Guznain as a

name of a specific city and even located it at the site of the modern village Kaya-Kent (Kayakent) 42.4°N 47.9°E, 30 mi NE of Derbent (M.I.

Artamonov) conflicts with the semantic of the name and references in the sources. Khamzin is the most powerful kingdom in these territories,

with a capital Varachan (Masoudi). After devastation inflicted by the Arabs, “Khamzin” split into two parts, a Bulgar tribe of Savirs-Suvars and

a tribe Barsils-Bersuls (spousal tribe of the Kai tribe). The southern Savir part was later called after the main city Khamzin (Varachan, “Old”Belenjer, capital of Kayis and then of Suvars), apparently after the Arab-appointed local ruler Khamza (Hamza). In 721/2 Varachan, or the

future Khamzin, surrendered to Jarrah and promised to pay an annual tribute to the Arabs. In 732/3 Maslama found Khamzin (Varachan,

Guznain), Belenjer (“New” Belenjer on the river Sulak), and Semender abandoned. In 739/40, Khamzin mounted a stubborn resistance to the

Marwan's Arabs, the fortress fell after a month-long siege, and was destroyed, the Arabs captured 500 people into slavery, and imposed an

annual tribute of 30,000 mudds (”مد“)x(1 mudd = 8.7 l ~ 2 gal) of grain. In 762/3, Khazars defeated the Arab army of Musa ibn Ka'b, andliberated Varachan (Khamzin), Lakz and Alan. In 791, Khazars repulsed an attack by al-Fadl Ibn Yahya al-Barmaki (Orig.: al-Fadl ibnYahya ibn Khalid al-Barmaki) on Khamzin and forced him to flee.

Arab writers counted 72 tribes in the mountainous Caucasus, with their own languages. In the eastern part of the Caucasus, they point outeleven “Kings of the Kabh (or Kabkh? Or Kabch?) Mountain” who possess principalities Serir, Mascat, Filan, Lakz, Shabiran, Khamzin,

Miran, Tabarsaran, Tuman, Zirikirin, and Sindan or Mazdan. Serir was the most northern, in the northern mountains of Dagestan, occupying

part of today's Avaria. South of Serir were located Tuman, Zirikirin, Khamzin, and Sindan. They were all located north of Derbent on in the

territories of the later possessions Dargaw, Kara Kaitag and Derbent. From the Serir capital to Humradj to the Khamzin (Haizan) run a road

across the mountains and gorges with 12 rest stops along the way.

The Savir King professed simultaneously three religions: on Friday he prayed with the Muslims, on Saturday the Jews, and on Sunday with

the Christians. 10 farsakhs (57 km) from Khamzin in the city Ranhaz was a huge tree; people gathered there every Wednesday, hang fruits,worshiped and offered sacrifices.Bishop Israel encountered this Tengrian ritual in 7th c. in the country of Huns (This is a best highlight of the

syncretic nature of Tengriism and religious tolerance of the Hunnic Türks).

That Savirs committed to supply the Arabs 300 m3 of grain annually sounds peculiar. Pastoralists do not produce grain, and that Savirs were

horsemen and cavalrymen is documented very thoroughly. Savirs could not produce their own grain, but may very well delivered the grain

produced by others. Either Savirs levied a grain tax on their subject agricultural population, and Arabs demanded that they passed on to them

the collected tax, or the Arabs demanded that Savirs levied a grain tax on their agricultural subjects, or the Savirs' obligation was only thedelivery of the grain, but not its collection. The only alternative is that Savirs yielded to gain time to mobilize forces and restore their

independence.

Semender

It is believed that city Semender is first mentioned in the expanded version of the 7th c. “Armenian geography” under the name Msndr (Armenian geography. II,

p. 30). However, this source has no information about it.

Majority of Arab writers not only mention Semender, but also give description of the city, its neighborhoods, describe topographic features, and its

geographical position.138

At-Tabari first mentions this city under rather strange circumstances. Reporting on the Maslama raid against Belenjer in 732/733, at-Tabari describes the road

to the city via Bab-el-Abwab (Derbent), and Guznain (Varachan). And just below he notes that “'Meanwhile Maslama was advancing to Derbent and then toSemender...”.(at-Tabari. I, p. 82). What is that? A lapsus of the author, or the Belenjer and Semender are a single city possibly divided into two parts by a river,

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 16/22

with each having its own name, like the later Khazar capital Itil. Describing the Arab raid against Semender in 737 headed by Marwan, at-Tabari reports that the150-thousand strong Arab army split into two parts: 120-thousand strong army led by Marwan apparently passed through the mountain, reaching the “valley of

Bab-Allan” and thence Marwan “went to Semender, the Khazar town” at-Tabari, (I. p. 86). Also there, but in all likelihood by the seaside route came a 30,000-

strong force headed by the ruler of Derbent Oziid bin Sallam (at-Tabari. I, p. 87). Leaving Semender in the rear, as the Khazars abandoned the city, Marwan

moved on and defeated Khazars. At-Tabari no longer touches on the fate of Semender.

Al-Kufi mentions Semender in connection with the campaigns of the Arab generals Jarrah (721/722), Maslama (727/728), and Marwan (737/738), described

in detail above. Per al-Kufi, the Arab armies were reaching Semender first coming to Balanjar, and sometimes through the lands of Alans (Al-Kufi. pp. 19-20, 41,49).139

That the Arabs had to drag their troops and supply trains through the torturous mountain roads to Alans and Balanjar even after they

devastated the country, instead of the luxurious coastal route with a short mountain hop, shows that they were not welcome there, and thescourged land still remained a perilous enemy territory

The Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbeh, with information belonging to the second half of the 9th c., wrote in his geographical treatise that “the city Samandar is

located beyond Bab (Derbent). Everything beyond it /city/ is in the hands of Khazars” (Ibn Khordadbeh, p. 109). We can conclude that city Semender was a kind

of Khazar border fortress in the south.The same Ibn Khordadbeh geographical treatise lists the names of major Khazar cities - Hamlidj, Belenjer, Beida, and then

describes what kingdoms are north of Derbent, and among them unexpectedly names the city Semender (Ibn Khordadbeh, p. 109). Why Semender is not namedamong the other Khazar cities, but was distinguished by the author? The same information regarding Semender repeats Ibn al-Faqih, who wrote in the early 10th c.

(Ibn al-Faqih, p. 41).

Al-Balkhi (10th c.) tells that Semender is located between Derbent and Itil 2 farsahs (13 km) from the border of the Serir kingdom (al-Balkhi, p. 62).

Al-Ystahri adds that the road from Derbent to Semender was 4 days of travel and then to Itil further 7 days of desert travel (al-Istahri, p. 39). Ibn Hawqalrepeats al-Istahri, increasing the distance between Itil and Semender to 8 days' journey (Ibn Hawqal, p. 118), and Al-Masoudi places Semender somewhere

halfway between Derbent and Itil, with the road from Derbent to Semender measured in 8 days of travel (al-Masoudi. II, p. 191).140

The evidence of al-Istahri and Ibn Hawqal at a first glance contradicts the earlier //140// information of Al-Masoudi about Semender location. If al-Masoudi

talks about eight days' journey from Derbent to Samandar, the above other authors point to 4 days. This apparent contradiction led to a suggestion of twoSemenders existing at different times in different places (Magomedov, M.G. 1983. pp. 58-60.) But let us turn to the sources.

Al-Ystahri, writing at the end of al-Masoudi (950) life, cites such information about the route from Derbent to Itil: “...when you pass Mukan, then to Bab-ul-Abwab (Derbent), two days' journey across the Sharvanshah country; then you cross that country to Semender in 4 days' journey and from Semender to Itil

seven-days journey by a desert” (al-Istahri, p. 39). From the al-Istahri text is not clear what country laid between Derbent and Samandar.

In the south-north direction, the sequence is Mukan (Mugan, 39.8°N 48.1°E) - Sharvanshah - Derbent - Semender - Itil. The Sharvan or

Sharvanshah was not far from the sea south-east of the present Kuba, it is a modern village called Sharvanshahi (41.4°N 48.5°E). Accordingly,

Mugan - Sharvanshah distance is 112 mi or 180 km, traversed in 6 days travelling 30 km/day)

Ibn Hawqal speaks more clearly. Here's how he presents this information: “... and when you cross Mukan to the border of Bab-ul-Abwab (Derbent) in twodays' journey from the Sharvanshah land, you'll travel to the Semender land for 4 days, and it is also inhabited area, and from the Semender to Itil 7 days journey

by the steppe” (Ibn Hawqal, p. 107).

Ibn al-Hawqal and Ystahri talk about Semender lands, not the city Semender as does Masoudi. And the four days' journey from Derbent, defined by them, are

to the southern border of “Semender land”,and the Semender city apparently was deep in this land.141

Both authors leave unclear the extent of the Semender possessions and //141// the location of the city. Based on the Masoudi evidence about 8 days' journey to

the Semender city and Ibn Hawqal and al-Istahri evidence about 4 days' journey to the. “Semender land”,we can conclude that the city was 4-days' journey fromthe southern border of their possessions. Thus the contradiction between the Masoudi information and information of two other Arab authors is removed. The total

distance from Derbent to Itil remains the same for all three authors - 15 days of travel.

Al-Mukkadasi and anonymous Persian author (both authors wrote in 980's) report that Semender is a seaside city (al-Mukkadasi, p. 4; Hadud, p. 32).

Кing Joseph wrote that the border “of the Khazar country” turns from the city Semender to Bab al-Abwab (Derbent) (Joseph. II, p. 100), indicating that thelocation of Semender is in northern coastal plane.

In the literature settled an opinion that city Semender at one time was a capital of the “'Khazar Country”.The source of this notion is the report of the 10th c.Arab geographer Al-Masoudi, who wrote: “The people of Bab al-Abwab (Derbent) suffer from the neighboring kingdom called Djidan, which belongs to the

Khazars, with the capital city called Semender located at a distance of eight days' journey from the Bab (Derbent). Now it is still inhabited by the Khazar tribe, but

since in the early days of Islam it has been conquered by Salman ibn Rabiah al-Bahili (Arabic سلمان بن ربیعة الباھلي, died 650) (Orig.: Suleiman ibn Rabiah al

bagali), the throne of the kingdom was moved to Itil, further away by seven days of travel. The Khazar kings now live in Itil” (al-Masoudi. I, p. 43).142

It is believed that //142// in that part of his composition al-Masoudi talks about Semender as a metropolitan city of Haidak (Djidan), as it was at the time of al-

Masoudi, and about Semender as transferred to Itil former capital of the “Khazar Country”.In our opinion however, is possible a different understanding of the Al-

Masoudi content in the story about Haidak (Djidan) and its capital.

The author points out that Semender is in his time (943) is a capital city of Haidak (Djidan), and Itil is the capital of the “Khazar Country” (Considering that

Gelon/Djidan first figure in the middle of the 5th c. BC in Herodotus, and then in the 2nd c. BC pops out as the “old” dynastic maternal clan Huyan �

���� of the Eastern Huns in Shiji, ans then separates from the Eastern Huns to play a prominent independent and still dynastic role in the history ofChina and surrounding nations, and then pops out in 943 AD at al-Masoudi, the longevity of the cohesive Kayi tribe is one of the longest in the recorded

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 17/22

history). In the past, namely when the Semender city was destroyed by the Arabs, the capital of the Khazars was moved to the river Itil to the Itil city. Where was

the capital of the Khazars before that, and the name as it was known the author of this work does not state. In another book, written in the year of his death,

“Book of Notification and Review”,al-Masoudi clearly indicates that the first capital of the Khazar kingdom was the city Belenjer. He writes “Khazar's river that

runs through the city of Itil, the present capital of the Khazar kingdom. Prior to that time the capital was the city of Belenjer” (al-Masoudi. III, p. 33).

In our opinion, in his first book quoted above, the author referred to Semender in connection with Itil city and then about the Khazar country for two reasons.

First, al-Masoudi had to name the exact date of the transfer of the Khazar kings' throne, necessitated by such event as the destruction of Semender*.

* B.N. Zakhoder believed that transfer of the Khazar capital to the Itil river happened after 722/723s. (Zakhoder B.N. 1962, p. 177), V.F. Minorsky also

defined that date as 723 (Minorsky V.F. 1963, p. 143). Gumilev states 721 (Gumilev L.N. 1992, p. 60). Al-Masoudi named different dates: in one of the bookshe wrote that it happened during the Arab Caliph Uthman (644-656), in another he states 735 (Minorsky V.F. 1963. Note 95, p. 143). A.V. Gadlo agrees with

the first date of al-Masoudi (i.e. 644-656?) (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 152).).143

Secondly, al-Masoudi had to define the exact location between the new Khazar capital and Semender, well known at the al-Masoudi time. The Belendjar, from

which the Khazar kings apparently counted their ancestry, in the 10th c. no longer existed, and it was needed to correlate the reference to it with a noted city in theCaspian region, in particular with Semender, which was destructed later, in 969 (al-Masoudi died in 956).

In the 1963 edition of al-Masoudi book “Nuggets of gold” (translation by V.F. Minorsky) the story about Haidak (Djidan) and its capital has somewhatdifferent content. Here is the passage in full. “The people of al-Bab (Derbent) suffers great losses from the Haidak (Djidan) kingdom, whose people is a part of the

Khazar Kings' land. The capital /of the last/ was Samandar, a city lying at a distance of eight days' journey from al-Bab (Derbent). Now it is inhabited by the

people from Khazars, but since in the early days of Islam it was conquered by Salman ibn Rabiah al-Bahili (Orig.: Suleiman ben Rabi'a al-Bahili), the

governorship was transferred from there to the city of Atil, at a distance of seven days from /Samandar/” (al-Masoudi. II, p. 192). As we see, V.F. Minorsky

removed the contradiction in the second part of the quote //144// by introducing in the text the words “of the last”,which explain that Semender was formerly acapital of the Khazar kings. However, this does not resolve another conflict in the writing of al-Masoudi. It follows (from the emendation) that al-Masoudi in his

first book names the early Khazar Kings' capital Semender, and in the book written 13 years later he names Beledjer as their original capital.144

Al-Masoudi gives account about Semender and the Haidak (Djidan) Principality in Chapter 17, which gives description of Derbent and “adjacent to these

places kings and tribes”.After describing the Caucasus, the kingdom Tabarsaran, and having barely started the story about Haidak (Djidan), he interrupts it with alengthy digression, rich with information about the present Khazar capital Itil and the Khazar state (al-Masoudi. II. pp. 192-201). Having finished the story about

the present Khazars, Masoudi continues description of the land near Derbent with a phrase: “Let us now return to the description of Bab ul-Abwab (Derbent),

tribes living in the vicinity of the wall, and to the description of the Kabh” (Caucasus) (al- Masoudi. II, p. 202). And then follows new information about Haidak

(Djidan) and its nearest neighbors (al-Masoudi, II. pp. 202-205). It appears that the end of the quote with information about Itil was a departure from the plannedaccount and was not directly related with Semender.

A.V. Gadlo in his book repeatedly emphasizes, and we stand in solidarity with him, that Semender was never a Khazar town, let alone its capital. It was one ofthe major cities of the “Country of the Huns”,and after destruction of its capital Varachan it became //145// the capital city of the “Country of the Huns”.Khazars

used Semender during military campaigns of the Arab-Khazar wars as a base for organizing moves against the Arabs (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 152 on).145

The history of the Semender city is interrupted in the second half of the 10th c. In the 969, Semender was crushed by the Ruses (Vikings), Ibn Hawqal tells

about it. He nearly repeats the al-Istahri story about Semender, up to the phrase: “I do not know of any populous place in the Khazar lands besides Semender”(al-Istahri, p. 49), compare Ibn Hawqal: “I do not know that in the Khazar lands was another gathering place besides Semender” (Ibn Hawqal, p. 115). However,

this phrase was just a tribute to the traditions of Arab writers, who were placing information about the famous Semender, Ibn Hawqal could not report anything

new on Semender. When the Ibn Hawqal's book was being written (approximately 977), Semender already laid in ruins for 8 years after the destruction inflicted

by the Ruses (Vikings) in 969. Here's how this tragic event is described by the author: “Khazars also have a city called Semender, it is located between the

Khazars and Bab-ul-Abwab (Derbent). There are many gardens, and they say that they contain about 40,000 vines. All this perished along with the country, and itwas very full of vines and grapes. It was inhabited by Muslims and others, and the city had mosques, Christians had churches, synagogues and the Jews had

synagogues. Then came Ruses (Vikings), destroyed it all, and crushed everything that belonged to the Khazar, Bulgar, and Burtas people on the river Itil” (Ibn

Hawqal, p. 114).146

It is possible that in 1064 Semender was rebuilt and re-populated. In our opinion, two sources allow this to be asserted. Under 1064 the author of the DerbentChronicle reports that “the remnants of the Khazars numbering three thousand families arrived to the city Kahtan of the Khazar country (or: to Kahtan in the

(former) Khazar territory). They rebuilt it and settled in it” (Tarikh al-Bab, p. 75).

Information about city Kahtan in the literature received various interpretations. V.F. Minorsky believed that Khazars returned to Barshalia (Bashly), which he

equated with the early capital of the “Country of Huns” city Varachan (Minorsky V.F. 1963. pp. 128-129), A.P. Novoseltsev believes that it is impossible to

identify Kahtan with known cities (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990 p. 231). We believe that Kahtan possibly is differently transcribed by the author of the chronicle name

of Semender.

Kahtan is mentioned as a name of an Arab tribe in al-Masoudi. He wrote that the king of the Haidak (Djidan ) Principality... “asserts that he is an Arab of the

/tribe/ Kahtan. At the present time, namely in 332/943, he is known as Salifan (i.e. Sylifa), and in his State are no other Muslims but him, son, and his family. Ithink that all kings of that country are called with that designation” (al-Masoudi. II, p. 202).147

The ruler of the principality Kayidag > Haidak (Djidan/Jidan) in 943 was a Moslem (> Arab [religion]) (Khazarian) viceroy titled with

Chinese designation for viceroy “Sylifa” ���?/���? (> Salifan), Turkic “Elteber/İltäbär”, and in the Kayidag principality he was an alien froma Khazar ruling administration (and likely with family ties to the Khazar Kagan, like a brother, brother-in-law, and the like), likely from the tribe

recorded in the Chinese annals as Puku - Bugu people, who phonetically resemble the ethnonym Bulgar (> Bu(l)gu ��/��/��), whose leader

was also an Elteber recorded with Chinese equivalent title as Sulifa Kenan Bain (Sulifa Khan Bayan?). Along the same speculation, Kenan

could be a tribal/clan name, and it is also is phonetically resembling the tribe (Kenan ~ Kahtan). Too many resemblances between 2 sets of

three words for a random coincidence. These resemblances argue against equating Semender and Kahtan, unless viceroy had a nicknameKenan/Kahtan used to denote his residence town.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 18/22

It is possible that in the Derbent chronicle the capital city of the country king Salifan, by origin from the Arab tribe Kashtan, was called Kahtan. If that //147// isso, the subject may be the Haidak capital city Semender, according to Ibn Hawqal devastated in 969, i.e. 25 years after al-Masoudi reported on it. After 95 years,

the remnants of the Khazars (in our opinion, a reference to descendants of the Semender inhabitants) returned to Samander, rebuilting it from scratch. It is possible

that the author of the Derbent chronicle placed under 1064 a last reference on the Semender city in the written sources - the late capital of the “Country of the

Huns”,and one of the most important cities in the land ruled by Khazars.

The location and affiliation of Kahtan the Derbent chronicle defined as a territory somehow related to the Khazars - “Kahtan of the Khazar country”,or may be

possible another translation as “Kahtan of the (former) Khazar territory” (Tarikh al-Bab, p. 75). The second option in our opinion is more precise, because the

“Semender Possession” was a dependency of the Khazar Kaganate, but with an independent governance, consequently nominally it was not a part of the “KhazarCountry”.Apparently, after Semender was devastated by the Ruses (Vikings), the city and its possessions laid in ruins until 1064, and the return of three thousand

families of its residents to Kahtan-Semender was a significant event, worthy of being noted in the annals among most important events in the history of Shirvan and

Derbent. One circumstance remains unclear, where the “remnants of the Khazars” came from, where they lived until 1064. Perhaps they waited out the Rus

(Vikings) raids somewhere in the mountains, like for example in Serir, whose //148// ally they often were in the first decades the 9th c.148

A.P. Novoseltsev suggests an alternate translation of the Derbent Chronicle passage for year 1064 on Khazars: “In the same year, the remnants of the Khazars

numbering 3,000 families (homes) arrived to the Kahtan city from the country of Khazars, rebuilt it and settled there” (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 231). According

to the author, his translation is more accurate than the translation of V.F. Minorsky, although grammatically V.F. Minorsky has done it correctly (Novoseltsev, A.P.

1990. Note 680). Allowing a supposition that the Turkish author Munadjim-bashi, a copyist of the “History of Shirvan and al-Bab (Derbent)“, could transpose theoriginal phrase, A.P. Novoseltsev offers his understanding of the content in the phrase. Per A.P. Novoseltsev, it comes out that in 1064 Khazars arrived to Kahtan

from the Khazar country, much of which was seized by Alans (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. pp. 193-194). We believe that the source does not allow this

interpretation of its contents (Novoseltsev - sic! It appears that Novoseltsev has an agenda - to minimize the Türkic content of the events, and advance the

false stereotype of IE content, following the Stalinist-time tracks, and holding the Alans as Scytho-Sarmato-Alano-Iranians somehow akin to the Slavic

Russians. That allowed Stalinist scientists to portray indigenous peoples as invading aliens destined for authorized genocide and wholesaledeportations).

Targu

Ghevond defined Targu as a Hun city (Ghevond, p. 28). The author tells that Targu was besieged by the Arab troops during the raid of the Arab commander

Maslama (713/714) into the “Land of Huns”.Ghevond locates the “city of the Huns” Targu somewhere north of Derbent. Describing the raid of the Arab troops,Ghevond indicates that the route to Targu passed through the Chor Pass and some part of the “Country of Huns” (Ghevond. p. 28). Apparently, the city was in the

foothills, //149// because the Arab commander besieging Targu fled, abandoning the supply train and harem, and “headed to the Kokaz mountain, cut down a path

through the forest, and thus breaking through, barely escaped the enemy...”.(Ghevond, p. 28) (Modern Makhachkala territory covers two Hunnic cities,

Semender and Targu, with Targu located against the mountain Tarki-tau, and Semender located on the Dagestan Corridor, a narrow strip of land

between the Caspian Sea and the spurs of the Great Caucasus Range. The etymology of both names is quite transparent, Semender preserved thesemantics of its name in the Dargwa language, Mahiyachkala = Adobe Fortress, which in Türkic is Saman Kala, with the base of its original name.

Targu, accordingly, is the Türk city located at the Türkic mountain, in the local Dargwa dialect form).149

Belenjer (Balanjar)

This city is named only by the Arab authors - al-Kufi, at-Tabari, al-Baladhuri, al-Yakubi, Ibn Khordadbeh, Ibn al-Faqih, al-Masoudi, Ibn al-Athir, and the

Persian Anonymous. At-Tabari describes the Maslama route to Belenjer so: “Then Maslama went further to the Bab-el-Abwab (Derbent) (having ruined the citiesof Shirvan - L.G.) ... At that time in the city (Derbent) were a thousand warriors posted there there by Hakan. Maslama did not touch them, and went further to

Guznain, which consists of two cities. There he did not find anybody, he went further and came to Belenjer, which also was empty” (at-Tabari. I, p. 82)

(“Guznain” consisting of two cities indicates that Guznain is not a city, but a derogative designation for the tribes, a la “Tribal Land, Tribal Area”,like

the modern Waziristan in Afganistan/Pakistan. The twin city is Semender/Targu. Maslama route was Shirvan-Khazar's Derbent - Semender/Targu -

Belenjer). The story of al-Kufi on the location of Belenjer is slightly more detailed: “Then (ca 648) he (Salman - L.G.) moved to the city of Al-Bab (Derbent). Atthat time there stayed Hakan, the Khazar ruler, heading more than 300-thousand troops of infidels.

When Hakan heard about the arrival of Arabs to the city, he left from it .... Salman ibn Rabiah approached the city, and Muslim entered Al-Bab ... Salmanstayed in city for three days. Then he left the city to pursue Hakan and his troops. He reached one of the Khazar cities, called Yargu (Bar'uza) (i.e.

Targu/Semender)... and then headed on, intending to reach Balanjar, which also was one of the Khazar cities ...150

And Salman ibn Rabiah approached in those parts to a dense forest on the banks of the fast river, where was a group of Khazars from among the Hakan

soldiers” (al-Kufi, p. 10). And Ibn al-Athir, a third Arab writer who used at-Tabari data, describes in sequence the Jarrah's route from Derbent to Belenjer: “... he(Jarrah - L.G.) headed out and moved so fast, until he reached the city al-Bab al-abu aba (Derbent? The author does not comment), without meeting any

Khazars. And he entered the city and sent out his mounted forces against the neighboring tribes to rob and attack... And set out against him (Jarrah - L.G.)

Khazars, led by the son of their king, and running into the Muslims by the river Al-Ran, joined the battle ... The Muslims overpowered Khazars, put them to flight

and chased them, killing and capturing prisoners... The Muslims captured everything they had with them, and then moved on, until stopped at the castle known as

Husain, whose population surrendered according to aman. He then went to the city named Yargua (i.e. Targu/Semender) and besieged it for six days ... took theircastle and expelled them from it. Then he moved to Balanjar, one of their (Khazar) famous “castles” and besieged it” (Ibn al-Athir, p. 24).151

From the above three Arab writers only al-Kufi gives toponymic markers for Belenjer. From the description he provided it is clear that Belenjer was located

north of Derbent, past a number of settlements after it, on the bank of a large river. About the river Balanjar also state other Arab authors, reporting //151// on the

sacred for the Arabs grave of the Arabian commander who was killed in Balanjar (al-Belazuri, p. 14; al-Yakubi, p. 5; Ibn al-Faqih, pp. 13, 29). However, theiraccounts in comparison with that of al-Kufi already have a legendary character. Al-Baladhuri reports about a battlefield or gorge near Belenjer (al-Baladhuri, p.

14). According to Ibn al-Athir, in the vicinity had Belenjer was a forest from which the “Khazars” came out, apparently into an open field, where started the battle

(Ibn al-Athir, p. 15). Only Ibn al-Athir names the distance between Belenjer and the Khazar capital city al-Baida (Itil), which was 200 farsahs (20 daily marches)

(1150 km) (Ibn al-Athir, p. 14). For comparison, the distance from Sarir borders to the Itil on river Itil ttook 12 daily marches (12/20 X 1150 ≈ 700 km) (Ibn-

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 19/22

Ruste, p. 45).

The Arab geographers of the 9t-10th cc. reported on Belenjer only literary knowledge, listing it among the known Khazar cities (Ibn Khordadbeh, p. 109; al-

Muqaddasi, p. 3; Ibn al-Faqih, p. 19). Such is also the information in the Persian Anonymous (Hadud, p. 32).

Belenjer in the first third of the 8th c. was a capital of the “Balanjar Country”,which was located, as was shown above, in the foothills on the way. to the

mountain passes. For example, at-Tabari points to the location of some political centers “beyond the Balanjar mountains” (at-Tabari. II, p. 79). According to

sources, the city Belenjer was situated on the plain, on the left side of the great river of the same name (the 653 battle between //152// the Arabs and inhabitants ofBalanjar happed “over the river,” i.e. on the opposite bank, covered with thick forest, in respect to the advance of the Arab army) (Same-type ambush staged

the Bulgar army against Subedei Mongols 500 years later, in 1123 AD, wiping out the Subedei army).152

B.N. Zakhoder believes that Balanjar was known to the Arab writers and geographers only for the time of Arab conquests in the Caucasus. After its capture in

722/723 and the subsequent transfer of the Khazar capital to the Itil river, information about it breaks off (Zakhoder B.N. 1962, p. 177). According to A.V.Gadlo, the inhabitants of the “Balanjar Country” after the defeat of their country by the Arabs moved away to the north of the Itil mouth (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p.

121).

Almost no author reporting on the Huns and Khazars cities has direct evidence of their fortifications, inner structure, etc. Only Persian Anonymous, naming a

number of the Khazar cities including Belenjer, indicates that all of them are “rich with strong walls” (Hudud. p. 32). From the messages of the Byzantine and Arab

authors can be extracted only indirect evidence about fortifications of the cities. Agathias, a contemporary of the events, reported about ability of the Savir soldiers

to solidly fortify even a temporary military camp (Agathias, pp. 90, 117). The Arab authors is call “castles” several cities of Khazaria, without going into detail

describing the merits of their fortifications (al-Kufi, p. 19, Ibn al-Athir. pp. 24-25) (The Russian colonial administration specifically instructed relocatedRussian settlers to dismantle ancient cities, buildings, and fortresses for construction materials, a common practice in recently seized territories, leaving

little for the modern archeologists).153

Ibn al-Athir, describing the Arab siege of the Khazar city Balanjar in the 721/722, talks once about a “Balanjar tower”,then of the wagons //153// used to defend

the city: “The population of the castle gathered 300 wagons, tied them together, and placed around their “castle” in order to defend with them and to preventMuslims from reaching the castle. These wagons were the strongest obstacle in the Muslims' fight with the enemy. They (Arabs) have grabbed some of them

(wagons), cut the tie rope, and pulled them, and they fell down and drew the rest of them, as they were all tied to each other. After that all Khazars descended to

the Muslims, and a strong battle ensued between them...” (Ibn al-Athir. pp. 21, 24). From this passage it is clear that Balanjar in the early 8th c. was not a fortified

city, so that its defenders had to use an old and well tried. nomadic method of circular defense with the use of the wagons. Apparently, the city was situated on anelevated place (Ibn al-Athir writes that the wagons “fell down” Khazars “down”,Khazars descended to the Arab army), but not on a steep river bank or a

mountain slope (wagons placed around the castle), and probably occupied one of the dominant natural hills in the terrain.

The authors of the 10th c. concur that Semender is a rich, populous city with bazaars, mosques, and vineyards, but none of them even mention the Semender

fortifications (al-Balkhi, p. 62; al-Istahri, p. 47; Ibn Hawqal, p. 114, al-Muqaddasi, p. 5; Hudud, p. 32).154

Thus, based on the written sources, can //154// be concluded that the population of the Caspian littoral Dagestan up to the middle of the 8th c. for better

protection of the cities used the natural terrain - hills, valleys, steep river banks, etc. A military camp was surrounded with a wooden palisade.

The cities of the European Huns also were non-walled, Prisk Pannonian noted that in the capital of the Hun king Attila a wooden fence surrounded the royal

court and houses of his cortiers (Prisk Pannonian, pp. 685, 686, 693) And notably, Prisk Pannonian stressed that wooden walls surrounded structures “not forsecurity, but for beauty” (Prisk Pannonian, pp. 685). The fence of the royal court was decorated with towers and skillfully executed.

Were the cities in the Caspian littoral “Land of Huns” designed with any particular layout in the placing of dwellings, or it was chaotic is hard to tell. MovsesKalankatuatsi, describing theHun Grand Prince Alp Ilitver carnage over the opponents of the Christianization of the Huns, reports that “he had ordered some of

them be burnt at the stake on the roads or at the street entrances and exits” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 205). What the author understands under the word

streets? Perhaps he is referring to the central and reserve city gates used not only by the Varachan residents, but also by the people from other towns and villages

of the “Country of Huns”.Further on Movses Kalankatuatsi reported that the trial over conjurers was held at a gathering of residents in the town square

(Movses.Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 131).155

The Persian Anonymous reported that in Semender were bazaars (Hudud, p. 32).

5. 2. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING

155

Reports of ancient authors related to the 6 th c. have very ittle information on the nomadic tribes dwellings of the period in the Caspian littoral steppes.

According to Pseudo-Zacharias,they were “tents” (Pseudo-Zacharius, p. 165). Describing a Savir military camp, Agathias noted that their houses were built of“stakes and hides” (Agathias, p. 89). Judging from the descriptions, the authors describe housing of wattle construction. It can't be excluded that Agathias gave a

description of a portable dwelling used in military campaigns and coaching migrations (Nechayeva, L.G. 1975. pp. 16-17).

What were the urban and settlement houses in the “Country of Huns?” The Semender houses are sufficiently known. The Arab geographers of the 10th c. are

unanimous in their descriptions of the Semender homes. The shape of the Semender homes resembled yurts, because their roofs were pointed, convex (al-Balkhi,

p. 62; al-Istahri, p. 47; Ibn Hawqal, p. 114; al-Muqaddasi, p. 5). Housing was of wooden structures, wattled with reeds (al-Istahri, p. 47; Ibn Hawqal, p. 114; al-

Muqaddasi, p. 5.). Only al-Balkhi indicates that the Semender buildings were of wooden boards (al-Balkhi, p. 62).156

Judging from the written sources, the Huns' dwelling in Dagestan were of wattle construction, the dwelling frame was of wooden stakes, with one end in the

floor around the perimeter of the house, the upper ends of the stakes were fastened over the center of the house. If the dwelling was temporary, its frame was

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 20/22

covered with animal hides (or common for the yurts felt), and at the Dagestanian houses the frame of stakes was braided with reeds, and probably daubed withclay. This type of dwellings the sources called a tent, a round top, or Turkic home, so described the houses in Olubandar (Ulug Bender - Vabandar) the Arab

historian of the 13th c. Ibn al-Athir (Ibn al-Athir, p.25).

It is interesting to note that the building design with wattle conical roof have survived to the ethnographic reality among some Dagestani peoples, although they

are used for storing hay (Gadjiyeva C. Sh.1960. pp. 56, 1961. pp. 204-205). However, C. Sh. Gadjiyeva provides conclusive evidence about the past dwelling

use of this type buildings (Gadjiyeva C. Sh.1960. pp. 56, 1961, p. 205).

How the nobility homes looked like in the “Country of Huns” cities is unknown. Movses Kalankatuatsi mentions a “royal palace” in Varachan (Movses

Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 130), but does not describe it. For example, the palace of Attila was built of wood, but differed in height from other buildings, and was sitting

on higher ground (Prisk Pannonian, p. 685). Prisk Pannonian notes that no one was allowed to have a dwelling higher than the palace of the Hun king, even //157// a

temporary balagan (the shed, not the chaos in the bazaar) of the Byzantine emperor's envoys. The author notes among the Royal Court buildings “spaciousbanquet halls and very nicely arranged porticos” (Prisk Pannonian, p. 693). Some buildings were decorated with carvings (Prisk Pannonian, p. 687).157

The Arab geographer al-Istahri (Previously this Jewish merchant was described as Persian) describing residential buildings of the Khazar capital Itil noted

that felt tents serve in the city as dwellings, and saman (adobe) houses are exceptions (al-Istahri, p. 41). As a the special building in the city, al-Istahri points to the

Khazar King palace, built of fired brick, while noting that the king “does not allow anyone to build of brick” (al-Istahri. p. 41).

As can be seen, the houses in the cities of the Caspian littoral Dagestan differed from the analogous buildings of the European Huns and residents of the Khazar

capital.

In light of multi-ethic population of the Itil, the historical descriptions of the buildings do not match that of the population. First, the active

trade required caravanserais to accommodate traders, animals, and guards, and a sturdy perimeter wall. Secondly, the three judicial courts for

three confessions required their own structures for proceedings, documentation, and recordkeeping. Thirdly, the same is applicable to the

mosques, synagogues, and churches. The Jewish and Christian confessions also needed structures for funeral rites. Fourthly, the stationary

trading class needed stationary bazaars with stationary stalls, stationary storage, stationary taxation stalls and offices, and stationary housing.Fifthly, each ethnic population had its own housing traditions, and they were as diverse as was the population. The pastoral Türkic families lived

in their traditional yurts, noted by the writers, the stationary Türkic families lived in non-mobile housing, and the other ethnic groups were

sedentary and needed stationary housing. Finally, the palace complex needed various buildings for all its residents, armory, treasury, storage,

kitchen, different forms for harem residency, ambassadorial residencies, guard residencies, and all palace employee residencies. Each of thewives, as opposing the concubines, traditionally had her own estate, that included all services appropriate for the autonomous royal household.

These details escaped the historical records, and so far eluded archeologists, or vice-versa.

How the dwellings looked like inside was not addressed. For example, the floor in the house where lived one of the Attila's wives was covered with felt carpets,

there was a soft couch (Prisk Pannonian, p. 687). And this is how Priscus Pannonian describes the inner view of the room, where Attila was receiving guests: “In

the middle on the couch sat Attila, and behind it stood another couch, behind it were few steps leading to his bed, covered with canvases and colorful curtains for

decoration...”.(Prisk Pannonian. pp. 689-690).158

The Hun cities of the Caspian littoral also had temples. So, Movses Kalankatuatsi noted that the cross for the prayer service in Varachan was //158// installed

east of the Alp Ilitver palace (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 130), the Grand Prince of the Huns was erecting churches, but where they were located the author does

not state (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 128).

The Semender of the 10th c. had several mosques (al-Balkhi, p. 62; al-Istahri, p. 47 ibn Hawqal, p. 114,. al-Muqaddasi, p. 5). Ibn Hawqal states that in

Semender aside from the mosques also were Christian churches and synagogues (Ibn. Hawqal, p. 114).

Where were located the cities of the “Country of Huns”? The localization of the “Hun” and “Khazar” cities in the historical literature already abode under

discussion for over a century, remaining problematic to this day. Despite the variety of interpretations, the disputes basically boil down to one topic: were in the

North-East Caucasia a number of “Hun” and “Khazar” cities, or the nams of one or two real cities the sources convey in different ways?

Most of the modern scholars consider mentioned in the sources cities to be a historical reality, the Semender, Belenjer, Varachan, Chungars, Targu,

Olugbender (M.I. Artamonov, B.A. Rybakov, S.A. Pletneva, A.V. Gadlo, V.G. Kotovich, M.G. Magomedov, L.N..Gumilev, Ya.A. Fedorov, G.S. Fedorov).However, in respect to the specific localization for each city they did not come to a consensus.159

Varachan, according to M.I. Artamonov, was situated near the modern city Buinaksk (Artamonov, MI, 1962, p. 186) (modern Shura, Russian Buinaksk,

aka Temir-Khan Shura, 42.8°N 47.1°E, 125 km N. of Derbent ), //159// most researchers identify it with the fortress Urtseki, located north-west of the modernvillage Izberbash (42.6°N 47.9°E, 65 km N. of Derbent) (Kotovich V.G. 1974a. pp. 182-196; Fedorov, Ya.A. Fedorov, G.S. 1978, p. 191; Magomedov,

M.G. 1983, p. 57). A.P. Novoseltsev equates the names of the two cities - Varachan and Belenjer, locating the latter at the “lower course of the river Ulluchai

(42.3°N 47.5°E), (70 km) north of Derbent (42.1°N. 48.3°E) (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. pp. 123-124). Gadjiyev M. S. believes that the capital of the “Country

of the Huns” was on the spot of the fortress Shahsenger settlement, east of a Bashlykent (42.2°N 47.8° E, 43 km N. of Derbent) (Gadjiyev M. S. 1990, p. 78)

(Both fortresses are located within 20km area, i.e. practically location is determined +/- 20 km. It is notable that in a relatively small area lay the ruinsof three fortresses of the same period, indicating that the life was more vivid than the alien literary sources reported).

As can be seen, the written sources about Varachan allow modern scholars to interpret them in various ways, and locate the capital of the “Country of Huns” inthe whole Caspian: Dagestan. It is generally understandable, since the sources do not convey specific information about location of the city. The direction of the

“Armenian geography” of the Varachan location - west of Derbent, by the Caucasus mountains can be interpreted quite broadly.

Map ca. 1900, red dots show tentative locations of Varachan

It is obviousthat the name

Kayakent is a

form of Kayikent

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 21/22

(42.38°N 47.9°E,

45 km north of

Derbent) , which

not only reflects

the original Kayiowners of the city,

but still is

populated by the

Türkic“Kumyks”,at least

some fraction of

whom can draw

their descent from

the originalfounders of the

city, the Kayi

Huns, and the site

should be a firstcontender for the

location of the

Kayi city

Varachan

M. Magomedov believes in the Caspian Dagestan Khazars had four metropolitan cities: Belenjer, Semender-I, Semender-II, and Varachan, with the Varachan,

in his opinion, being a summer residence of the Khazar kings (Magomedov, M.G. 1983. pp. 50-59). Above we argued that Varachan was a capital of the“Country of Huns” until its ruin by the Arabs (in 739/40 Marwan's raid). The King Joseph information about the so-called summer residence //160// of the Khazar

kings belong to the second half of the 10th c., when Varachan did not exist for more than 200 years.160

M.S. Gadjiyev expressed a new viewpoint connecting Varachan with the fortress Shahsenger (Ruins of Early Medieval city, 3 km west of the village

Friendship in Kaiakent district, area 12 hectares, with a citadel 30 by 40 m,. 42.25°N 48°E, 30 km N. of Derbent Руины раннесредневекового города в3 км к западу от деревни Дружба Kаякентскоgo районa, площадь 12 га, с цитаделью 30 х 40 м,. 42,25° с.ш. 48° в.д., 30 км к северу от

Дербента). Premise in the reasoning of the researcher is that according to written sources Varachan is the court of the Grand Prince of the Huns, where was

located the “royal camp or court”.Therefore, the city architecture must bear traditions of the nomadic royal court, a fortress like a Scythian fortress described by

ancient authors. But the population of the Caspian “Country of Huns” at the end of the 7th c. are not the Huns at the beginning of the Great Migration. The socio-

economic development of the South-Eastern European peoples, including nomads, went on in the early Middle Ages at a rapid pace. Is known a report ofAmmianus Marcellinus from the beginning of the Hun movement (370 AD), that the Huns' houses are their wagons, that they generally are fearful to be within the

buildings. And by the middle of the 5th c., about 80 years later, the Huns already had cities in Europe, and the court of the Hun king Attila was an unfortified

settlements with wooden houses (Prisk Pannonian). In our eyes, M.S. Gadjiyev in his arguments does not account for at least two factors, progress in economic

development of the “Country of Huns” and the extent of the influence of the local sedentary agricultural traditions upon the culture of the nomadic newcomers. Bythe way, the wooden architecture //162// of the Attila court can be explained by the fact that its location lacked stone, and even for the construction of baths it had

to be imported from Pannonia, and likewise the wood too (Prisk Pannonian, p. 685).161

There may be other arguments against M.S. Gadjiyev suggestion, but not the myopic and prejudiced objections offered above. It would benaive to suggest that the multitude of the multi-ethnic rancheros would abandon their herds and settle down within the city blocks to become

socio-economically developed paupers engaged in labor-intensive city professions with no perspectives for wellbeing, or socio-economically

developed subsistent tillers doomed for life of hard labor. The Russian scientific thought is not alone in this amentia, it has a long prior history of

sedentary prejudiced historiography. The Hunnic circle tribes carried their mobile and prosperous lifestyle down to the Modern Age, and all the

political gains of the weakly sedentary states were made using nomadic armies down to the conquest of Siberia (by Cossacks) and the defeat ofNapoleon (by Bashkirs). Only disastrous pauperization could bring the nomads to the cities, attach them to a tiny plot of land, and reduce them

from free to subservient. To any sane rancher “the extent of the influence of the local sedentary agricultural traditions upon the culture of the

nomadic newcomers” would have exactly the opposite effect, rancheros would either scream and run away, like they did with Chinese, or they

would subjugate the tillers as they did with Chinese, Indians, Persians, Arabs, Greeks, Romans, Illyrians, Slavs, etc. The bottom line is: fortressShahsenger - Varachan equation can be resolved by the kurgan mounds in the vicinity, by the archeological artifacts, by biological analysis, by

instrumented dating, but not by biased dogmatism a la S. Yatsenko “Iranian tamga” verbiage.

The ancestors of the Huns knew to erect beautiful fortified cities still in the 2nd - 1st cc. BC (Ivolgin fortress), and the capital of the late Scythians in the Crimea,the Scythian Naples, for example, was protected by thick stone walls and towers (Vysotsky, T.N. 1979. pp. 36-55).

Unfortunately, the state of written sources and level of archaeological investigation of the of Caspian littoral settlements do not allow yet to state more or less

precise location of Varachan.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm 22/22

Semender is localized in in the site of Tarki (42.95°N 47.5°E) near Makhachkala (M.I. Artamonov, 1936, p. 96; Kotovich V.G. 1974b. pp. 237-255; GadloA.V. 1979, p. 152, M. Magomedov M.G. 1983. pp. 54-56), on the ancient shore of the Caspian Sea, not far from Makhachkala (Rybakov, B.A. 1952, p. 85); it

is identified with Shchelkovo fortress on the river. Terek (Gumilev L.N. 1966, p. 169); it is placed in the valley of the rivers Aktant and Terek (Fedorov Ya.A.,Fedorov G.S. 1978. pp. 124, 160-161). M.G. Magomedov locates it at the Shchelkovo fortress Semender-II (second in time capital of the Khazars,Magomedov, M.G. 1983, p. 59). Novoseltsev A.P. equates Semender and al-Baida, supposing their location on the Caspian Sea coast in the Lower Terek area -

the modern Makhachkala or to the north of it - in the basin of Aktash or Terek (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, pp. 128).162

We agree with localization of Semender at the site of the village Tarki (42.95°N 47.5°E).

Belenjer is associated with Upper Chir Yurt fortress on the river Sulak (Magomedov, M.G. 1983, p. 50; Fedorov Ya.A., Fedorov G.S. 1978. pp. 123-124;Pletneva S.A. 1986, p. 25); it is localized in the valley of Terek (Rybakov B.A. 1952, p. 85). V.G. Kotovich places Belenjer south of Derbent (Belidjin fortressThorpakh Kala) (Kotovich V.G. 1974a. pp. 210-213).

City Targu V.G. Kotovich places at the site of the fortress Targu in the valley of the river Gamri-ozen (42.4°N 48°E) (Kotovich V.G. 1974a. pp. 220-228).Several researchers identify this city with the village Tarki (42.95°N 47.5°E) (Eremian S.T. 1939, p. 145; Lavrov L.I. 1958. pp. 13-15; Novoseltsev A.P. 1990S. 133).

City Chungars S.T. Yeremyan linked with Andreyaul fortress (43.2°N 46.65°E) (Eremian S.T. 1939. pp. 220-228), with the same monument M.G.

Magomedov associates the city Olubender (Ulug Bender) (Atayev D.M., Magomedov, M.G. 1974, p. 138).

Book Contents Chapters 1-2 Chapters 3-5 Chapters 6-8 Chapters 9-11

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - Contents

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

Besenyo DatelineBulgar DatelineHuns DatelineKarluk Dateline

Khazar DatelineKimak DatelineKipchak DatelineKyrgyz DatelineSabir Dateline

Seyanto Dateline

7/23/2006; 11/2/2011

“” ~ –&ndash;

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 1/39

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - ContentsLiterature Index

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

BesenyoDatelineBulgarDateline

Huns DatelineKarlukDateline

KhazarDatelineKimakDatelineKipchakDatelineKyrgyzDateline

Sabir DatelineSeyantoDateline

L.Gmyrya

HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIANGATE

Caspian Dagestan during epoch of the Great Movement of Peoples

Dagestan Publishing, Makhachkala 1995, ISВN 5-297-01099-3

Chapters 6-8

GRAND PRINCE, ARMY, SUBJECTSBook Contents Chapters 1-2 Chapters 3-5 Chapters 6-8 Chapters 9-11

Posting Foreword

Posting introduction see the contents page.

Poor print quality hurts the accuracy of this posting, but fortunately the contents are not impacted. Page

numbers of the original are shown at the beginning of the page in blue. Page breaks in continuous text are

indicated by //. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are

shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers.

6. GRAND PRINCE OF HUNS

6. 1. Forming the Hunnic Union

163

It is interesting that, even knowing the pre-history, the author follows a general trend of the

Russian historiography to pretend that there was no pre-history before the Russians emerged,and the narrative starts with a blank sheet.

Comparative analysis of the 4th-5th cc. written sources shows that the written tradition at this period has

not yet distinguished the polyethnicity of the Hun's circle nomads in Eastern Caucasus. Only from the mid 5th

c. on the sources in that region record various tribes of the Hun circle - (Hailandurks, Huns, Ugors,

Saragurs, Onogurs, and from the early 6th c. - Huns-Savirs.

However, in the context of interaction with their neighbors, the inner divisions of the Huns in

the 4th-5th cc., and great shocks that reverberated across Hunnic state and counterposed

some divisions of Huns against the others are fairly well described, and allow to restore many

details.

Byzantine and Syrian writers of the mid-6th c. know Huns-Savirs as numerous people, divided into many

tribes. Pseudo-Zacharias, reporting on the ministrant activities of the Bishop Makar among the NorthCaucasus Huns (529), writes: “... when the rulers of these nations saw something new, they were surprised

and delighted with the men, revered them, and each one called them to their side to their tribe and asked to

be their teachers” (p. 167 Pseudo-Zacharias.).164

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 2/39

The rule is that the less we know, the less we want to know. Curiosity displayed by the

Huns indicates their openness to knowledge, and in contrast with the depictions of their

sedentary contemporaries, some of whom not only were closed to the new thoughts and

concepts, but were actively killing the thoughts and their carriers, the Huns encountered

innumerous people in the course of their mobility, and gained knowledge from all their

interlocutors of all shades and levels. Respect for unknown knowledge, contrary to the

assertions of the closed-minded observers, demonstrates the intellectual capacity rarelyperceived, and even rarer appreciated by both contemporaries and modern historians,

although in the historical aspect it was a factor many orders of magnitude greater than the

mobility, surplus product, and military mastery.

As early as the 7th BC Abaris, a Scythian (“Hyperborean”) sage, was introducing

theological thoughts to the ancient Greeks, Pythagoras was among his disciples. It was the

mobility that allowed Abaris to reach Greeks, and before he could pass his knowledge to the

Greeks, he had to first absorb it with his curiosity and inquisitiveness.

Procopius of Caesarea also notes that the tribe of the Huns- Sabirs “is very numerous, divided as itshould be into many //164// independent tribes” (Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 407). Pointing to the instability

of Savirs in military alliances, Agathias doubts whether it is a single nation: “... the same or others, but in anycase from that people, sent as allied troops” (Agathias, p. 117).

Already mentioned episode with the Queen Boariks (Hunnic Hatun Boyarkyz. Apparently, the

Queen's name was supposed to sound to the Romans as a composite Boa + rex, where -rix stands forRex = King, and some later days enterprising storytellers truncated her name to Boa) quashing

separatist aspirations of the leaders of the Hun tribes (527/528) reflects both the fragmentation of the Savirtribes in the first quarter of the 6th c., and the beginning of forming a union (This is a patented nonsense.Savirs could not have taken over Bactria without strategic and tactical plans, and being united in

their execution. The author's notion that dictatorship is more potent than democracy is the onlyopinion allowed by the dictatorships. The instability of the Savirs brought them a better pay, it was

driven by a marketing strategy). Under Boariks' (aka Boarix) rule were 100 thousand Huns - it is a fairlylarge tribal union. After decisive retribution to her opponents, apparently Boariks subdued their hordes (i.e.

the armies). The author writes: “In the same year to the Romans came a woman of the Huns, called Savirs,a barbarian called Boariks, a widow with a hundred thousand Huns. She started ruling in the Hun lands after

a death of her husband Valakh. This /Boariks/ captured two kings of the other tribe of the inner Huns, calledStiraks (Stirax) and Glon, conjured by Kavad, the emperor of Persia, to give him military assistance against

Romans and crossing her land into /the limits of/ Persia with twenty thousands. She crushed them: one kingof theirs, called Stiraks, she captured and sent to Constantinople to the emperor, and killed Glon in battle.Thus, she became an ally and /was/ in peace with //165// the Emperor Justinian” (Theophanes Confessor, p.

50) (Notably, neither Byzantines, nor Persians were able to crush a 20,000strong cavalry withoutemploying nomadic mercenaries, but Boariks was able to do it). 165

The period immediately after 520 AD was tumultuous for the Dulo dynasty. Details aremurky, but after the death of the Western Huns King “Bolokh” Bulyak-Bolgar Djilki, r. 520-

522 (aka “Bolah”,“Valakh”)are known two regents (Ilchibek m., Ilchibika fem.), the widowBoyarkyz (aka Boarix) 522-535, and “Gostun” (aka “Kushtan”)527-528. Boyarkyz was a

regent for her son As-Terek, who died in 527, after which arose a double-regnum (or triple-regnum), since we have parallel names of the regent Kushtan ~ Gostun (527-528), and rulers

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 3/39

Djambek (527-535), Moger (528), Aiar (Avar, 528-531), Saba-Urgan (Zabergan, Kotrag,531-535), and unknown Suvar ruler (527-535). Fragmentation ended in 535 when Boyan

Chelbir was raised to the throne. Apparently, the Western Wing (Köturgur) and Savirsasserted their independence, and Boyarkyz ~ Boarix commanded Center Wing (Otragur ~

Uturgurs) and Eastern Wing (Utragurs ~ Uturgurs), with a combined strength of 100,000(troops? families? population?).

The Hatun Boyarkyz (Queen Boarix) story involves more than separatist inclinations. The

federalist nature of the Hunnic confederation allows wide autonomy for its members, and in thecase of the Caucasian Huns, to the sub-sub-members of the confederation, including collection

of their debts and the local enforcement of the contracts, i.e. local punitive campaigns that donot infringe on the global system of alliances. The Hunnic alliance at the time of Kavad (488-531) apparently was with the Romans or Byzantines against Persia, and the agreement had to

be observed by all sides and all subdivisions of the sides. The responsibility for observing the

treaty fell on the commanders of the wings, the Caucasian Huns had to follow the geopoliticaltreaties, in this case had to prevent some members of the Savir Union, which belonged to the

Eastern Wing, from mercenary assistance to Persia in violation of the treaty. Nevertheless,

Savir mercenary troops were enlisted in the Persian army invading Armenia

The demographical side of the story is quite informative: 20,000 cavalry army under two

tribal chiefs indicates a 100,000 population of the presumably secessionist Savir tribes, which

in turn implies that the 100,000 Huns at the Boyarkyz command referred not to the size of her

confederation, but to the size of the army of her confederation, with the total population of her“Huns” in the order of 500,000 people in the Theophanous Confessor “Chronography”, or

100,000 people if Boyarkyz ruled 100,000 “Huns” and wielded 20,000 troops.

The coincidence of the Boarix late husbands name ~ Walakh or Valakh with the sub-ethnicgroup called Vlachs ~ Wallakhs ~ Wallachs may be purely incidental, coinciding with the

Germanic for “stranger”, but might also derive from the body of the shared Germanic-Türkic

ancient lexicon.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 4/39

In Movses Kalankatuatsi, we see the Huns-Savirs as already formed tribal union at the end 7th c. At that

time the Huns-Savirs knew the power of a single leader - the “High-throned Prince Alp Ilitver” (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 127). So Movses Kalankatuatsi distinguishes Alp Ilitver among other tribal leaders.

6. 2. Strength and weakness of the Hun king power

166

It is difficult to determine what was called the supreme ruler of Hun society. The “Armenian geography”

quite clearly states that “their King (Savirs - L.G.) was called Hagan, and the Queen, the wife of the Hagan,

Hatun” (Armenian geography. II, p. 30). But this term (Kagan), many authors have called the ruler of the

Khazars.

The dating of the “Armenian geography” is contested as 5th or 7th c. Notwithstanding the

“we don't have a clue” attitude of the author, the entitling of the Savir Khan as Kagan,supported by the entitling of the Savir Queen as Hatun, points to the earlier date, before the

formalization of the Khazar and Western Türkic Kaganate leaders as Kagans. Use of the title

Kagan in the 7th c. by the Savir leader is questionable, since it could not be tolerated by either

Kagan of the Türkic Kaganate, nor the Khazar Kagan. We have an example of 610, when theseparatist Kibir Kagan had to renounce his title in submission to the Western Türkic Kagan. In

the 7th c. the Western Türkic Kaganate fractioned, producing 3 Kaganates - Bulgarian,

Khazarian, and leftover Western, and Savirs were not leaders of either one of them.

In contrast, the 5th c. date is not only non-contradictory, but is illuminating. At around 150

AD Savirs, who at about 130 BC captured Bactria, occupied some significant, though

undefined territory west of the Caspian. The conglomeration consisted of numerous tribes,

among them Savirs, Kayis, Masguts/Alans, Bulgars, and probably a number of unnamedtribes, headed by a supreme leader entitled Kagan. Probably, the Kagan was not a Savir, or

their name would have been known long before the 6th c. Good candidates for the dynastic

line would be Kayis and Ases, the two perennially dynastic tribes recognized as Tengri-approved dynasties by the general nomadic population. Already by 330, the original dynastic

tribe lost their leadership, and was replaced by a Masgut dynasty. The Masgut dynasty, in turn,

lost their dynastic position (but not the dynastic pedigree) to the Savir tribal union, and that is

how in the 5th c.the titles of the Kagan and Hatun came to the attention of the “Armeniangeography”. Savirs could retain the title till they had to submit to the Western Türkic Kaganate

sometime in 580's. That would be the time when the Savir Kagan, grasping to cling to the

power, became an Elteber. However, fairly soon the Savir dynasty was relegated to the

position of the tribal chief, and an Ashina, the Shad Bulan, became the Elteber. The record ofthe “Armenian geography”, brazenly discounted by the author, stands as an echo of the past

events.

By the 6th c. the devaluation of the title Kagan already set in, there were Great Kagans and

Lesser Kagans, but only in the structure of the unified empire, and probably not everywhere.

The sequence of events in the Hunnic expansion from their center near Aral Sea would prelude

that the Savir Kagan was a Lesser Kagan of the 4th c. Hunnic state.

Theophanes Confessor calls the ruler of the Huns a King (Theophanes Confessor, p. 50). Movses

Kalankatuatsi used a wide variety of terms: “King of Huns”, “army commander and the Huns' Great Prince

Alp Ilitver”, the “Huns' Great Prince”, “Prince”, “High-throned Prince Alp Ilitver”, “Hun's Prince” (MovsesKalankatuatsi. II, p. 102, 120-121, 124-125, 127, 129-131, 133). Huns installed a carved wooden cross

by the Alp Ilitver house, which Movses Kalankatuatsi calls Royal Palace (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. C130).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 5/39

Al-Masoudi calls the ruler of the //166// Haidak (Djidan) country a King (al-Masoudi. II, p. 202). Al-Ystahri also calls the ruler of Semender (later a Hun capital) a King (al-Istahri, p. 47).166

Apparently, the differences in the terms used by the authors is chronological. For the times of 5th-7th cc.,when the “country of Huns” was an independent tribal union, the authors call the ruler of the Huns a King,

and in the late 7th c., when the Huns came to the Khazar political dependence, the Great Prince (This

obsevation contradicts the initial assertion of the author about her ignorance of the titles, and her

dismissing of the historical record on Kagan and Hatun). And the Arab authors of the 10th c., when thepower of the Khazars over the subject peoples weakened, also called him a King. Whatever the case, it is

clear that power over the Hunnic tribal union in the 7th c. rested in the hands of one man - a representative

of the aristocratic family. In the name of the Huns' ruler - Alp Ilitver - have preserved the remnants of the old

tribal customs, when a most experienced and respected person was becoming a leader (“Alp” in Türkiclanguages has the following meanings: “hero”, “strongman”, “colossus, giant” (Sevortian E . B. 1974, p.

139). Possibly, Alp Ilitver reached a high position due to his merits. Movses Kalankatuatsi notes that Alp

Ilitver. “excelling by his strength and valor, he became famous during competitions as a winner of the GreekOlympics, distinguishing himself by his strength among all the others...”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 127).

The author of the “History of the Agvans's country” attributes of the the Huns' Great Prince a variety of

epithets: caring, benevolent, noble, pious, virtuous //167// (Movses Kalankatuatsi . II. pp. 124 127, 130).167

Movses Kalankatuatsi demonstrated that he is a partial reporter, and his superlatives can't

be trusted. First of all Bulan-shad was a son of a Kagan and a member of the ruling family, that

alone practically qualified him for nearly any post in the state.The confirmation by the subjectsalso mattered, but as in any democracy, some methods are more democratic than the others,

and the athletic and moral qualities of the candidate could be extolled retrospectively.

Possibly, such high valuation the author awarded the Prince of the Huns was for a major deed in his life -

adoption of Christianity and Christianization of the population in the “country of Huns”. The translation of K.

Patkanian indicates another advantage of the Great Prince - wealth (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 199).

Judging from the translation of Sh.V. Smbatian, the title Ilitver the Prince received from the Khazar

Hakan “having accomplished many feats of bravery in Turkestan (Khazaria) during (or beside) Khazir

Hakan” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 127 - 128). The translation of K. Patkanian does not contain such

information.

Genealogy of Alp-Ilitver

Alp-Ilitver became known from the work of Movses Kagankatvatsi (Kalankatuatsi), his

contemporary from the village Kagankatvat (Kalankatuat), who is credited with writing two

volumes of the 3-volume “History of Agvans”. Alp-Ilitvers title was Elteber/İltäbär, in

Armenian rendition Ilitver, and that's how he is known in history. Elteber = Tr. El + Teber =land/country + ruler, it stands for viceroy, and is also known as “Sylifa”, pin. Xielifa � � ��

�?/���?/���? (> Salifan) = viceroy. It is a title, not a proper name.

Father - Tun-Yabgu Kagan, the Kagan of the Western Türkic Kaganate, 618–628, of theAshina tribe, aka Orkhan, killed in 631

Son - Bulan Shad, Crown Prince (Shad) of Tun-Yabgu Kagan, aka Bulu Shad, and aka Alp-

Ilitver, his position in the Khazar province. In 631 Bulan Shad lost his status of Crown Prince.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 6/39

The rival Ashina prince, name unknown, assumed a title Kagan over the tribes under his rule

north of river Sulak, and became known as Khazar Kagan, his possession between Itil and

Sulak is known as Barsilia/Bersilia.Alp-Ilitver retains position at the Caucasian Huns, proclaims his independence, but soon has to

submit to the rival Khazar Kagan, and remains known under his position title, Elteber/Ilitver,

i.e. Alp-Ilitver, retaining his Hun “kingdom”, and described in the “History of Agvans”.

Grandchildren - Bulan Shad/Alp-Ilitver had two sons, Khallyg (Heli) and Bahadyr Chebe, andtwo daughters, which were married out in dynastic marriages, one for the Khazar Kagan, and

another for the Alan king Djevanshir. Accordingly, his daughters were Hatuns (Queens) of

Khazaria and Alania respectively.

In 646 Ashina prince Khallyg was the Easten Wing Yabgu of the reunited Western Türkic

Kaganate, and led a Dulu revolt. In 651 Khallyg captured control of Western Türkic

Kaganate, personally killed Kagan Irbis Sheguy Khan, and proclaimed himself Kagan YshbaraKhan. In 659 Western Türkic Kagan Yshbara Khan died, and Western Türkic Kaganate

disintegrated.

Power of the Huns' ruler (Elteber/Sylifa) included all areas of the internal and external life of the Hun

society (Gmyrya L.B. 1979. pp. 12-13, 1980. pp. 30-31, 1988, p. 114). The King of the Huns initiated

wars and often led the troops, held talks with rulers of other states, and concluded alliances with them

(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 102 - 103, 120). He also tackled important issues such as choosing orchanging religions (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 127-134).

In Christian terms, which are not very far from Tengriism, religion is individual salvation as a

reward for following certain norms and principles, and the key word in this is “individual”,

everyone is responsible for their own actions, independently of the rulers, church hierarchy etc.

The Elteber of the Huns had as much power to select your religion as a major of your town or

a governor of your province. The events clearly demonstrate that all the Elteber could do wasto raise the question, and allow people to decide. Any use of force that threatens the individual

afterlife is vigorously resisted, and in Türkic societies was perilous for the offender.

Alp Ilitver concentrated in his hands the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Movses Kalankatuatsi

describes in detail how was held the trial of senior priests and main sorcerers who refused to accept

Christianity and urged people to resist. By an order of Alp Ilitver were summoned residents of the city where

the trial was held. The author writes that the court was held with “numerous assembly of people”. Both//168// parties (the Bishop Israil and priests) had an opportunity to speak. First was the Bishop, who in his

sermon “severely reprimanded and censured them”. In response speeches, the senior servers of the cult

“began reproaching themselves, acknowledging their sins ... and converted to the true faith” (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 131).168

The traditional operation of the justice system in Türkic societies is well known. The powerstructure is based on dual exogamy, where the land and people belong to the maternal tribe,

and a head of the state is selected from the paternal tribe (in Türkic Kaganate, Ashide and

Ashina respectively). A head of the maternal tribe is a Prime Minister (Counsillor) and

Supreme Judge, he leads the Counsil of Tribal Chiefs. On affairs of justice, he is a leading

authority, the local tribal heads and state appontees (like Elteber) operate as his

representatives. He also personally conducts annual visits to localities, to represent the highest

level of justice (ambulatory court in British jurisprudence). Local courts are a miniature mirror

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 7/39

of the State Court, thus Elteber could call a court meeting, with him serving as Presiding Judge.

Movses Kalankatuatsi seems to ascribe to his favorite ruler more authority than he actually

wielded. The descendent organization of justice survived to this day in places where the power

of absolutism has been checked, like the institute of the jury, roving judges, and tribal counsils

in the USA, Germanic countries including Britain and Australia, and, of all places, in Afganistan

and Vaziristan.

The Great Prince concentrated in his hands the punitive function. The author writes: “The Prince

commanded by his high authority to seize sorcerers and witches, together with the high priests, worshipping

the Satan and the devils...”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi “. II, p. 130). With the consent of the Great Prince,

Bishop Israil commanded to burn some of the clergy at a stake, and throw the principal priests and sorcerers

in chains into dungeon, where they remained for about a month until their trial.

As we see, in the hands of the Huns' Great Prince were concentrated all functions of governance.

However, the Hun ruler had to follow the former democracy of the tribal society, and for critical issuessought consent of the aristocracy and tribal leaders. Before turning to the Bishop of Israil, who was

ministering for the Huns, with a request to stay as a head of Christianity in the “country of Huns”, he had to

win approval of his decision from “all the nobles of his kingdom and naharars” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p.

131). The author stresses that the decision to ask the Israil was taken by the the “Huns' Great Prince, and all

the lords”.169

Ammianus Marcellinus (4th c.) pointed out that the Huns discuss together important things (Ammianus

Marcellinus. II, p. 238). Favstos Buzand reports that the Maskut King Sanesan, heading the Hunnish troops,

having decided to conduct Christianization, canceled it - “The King changed his mind and listened to the

words of his troops”, - emphasizes the author (Favstos Buzand, p. 14). Sanesan could not overcome

resistance of significant portion of the tribes in the tribal confederacy.

The work of L. Gmyrya carries clear signs of the “old days”, when in the 1960s in Russia

was tried a new system of “dictatorship of the proletariat”, the physical destruction of thosesuspected in “dissent” was generally stopped, and revolvers were replaced with batons

dressed in suede. It was OK to think and write, but printing was strictly controlled by the

Department of Inner Thought. Thus, we find precious quotations of the famous Türkic scholar

Friedrich Engels (from the company of Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels), and disapproving

description of the democratic foundations of society which conflict with the genius ideas of the

then supreme leadership about the life in this and afterlife worlds. In the latter case, the viceroy

Elteber did not follow the traditional constitution of the society, but “had to follow the formerdemocracy” etc. Quite possibly, this phraseology was written in the department of censorship,

and the author had to put up with such “corrections”.

In the 7th c. the Caucasian churches were monotheistic, i.e. dissident, and in the eyes of the

Roman and Greek Orthodox churches heretical and “Arian” or monophysitic in their lingo. In

this regard, the Caucasian church was closer to the monotheistic Tengriizm than to the Roman

and Greek Orthodox Churches. But Tengriizm is a religion of individual that does not requirechurch hierarchy, and the Caucasian church was organized in a hierarchical fashion, as a

successor to the Church of Jerusalem, the Israil's tough task was invention and destruction of

the non-existing hierarchy, and its replacement with “Christian” hierarchy, using the favorite

Christian tools of torture, murder, and intimidation.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 8/39

The “History of the Alvan country” does not have evidence that the person of the Huns' Great Prince was

deified. For example, among the Türks, the supreme ruler Djebu-Hakan (Yagbu-Kagan) was identified withthe God of Sun. His son, Shat (i.e. Shad), who was leading the armies, swore by the name of his father,

saying, “I swear by the Sun of my father Djebu-Hakan” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 89). His own subjects

called hin God “Shat” (i.e. Shad) (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 89). The Huns also had deification of the the

king Attila's person. Prisk Pannonian reports that the leader of one of the tribes, Akatsirs, subordinated to

the Huns' King, his refusal to come to Attila explained by that “it is difficult for a man to appear before the

face of the God: for even the solar disk can't be looked at closely, how can someone see the greatest of the

gods without harm” (Prisk Pannonian, p. 684).

In Tengriizm the idea of deification is not applicable, and speculation by chroniclers like

Movses Kalankatuatsi describe their own mentality, and not the surrounding reality. In the case

of the recently conquered Akatsir leader, Akatsirs were independent and self-governing at

least for a millennium before the arrival of the Huns, and when summoned to the court of Attila

to be executed, his flattery to save his life has nothing to do with the deification. Attila, and

Yabgu- Kagan, and Alp Ilitver were officials elected to the office, and could be dismissed in a

completely undeified form by their voters. See Zhou Theophoric Names

6. 3. Closest circle of the King

170

The “History of the Aghvan country” is replete with evidence to support the that Hun society of the 7th c.

existed evolved crust of tribal and serving aristocracy. Movses Kalankatuatsi calls nobility Alp Ilitver'scoterie (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 127). He attributes to them the nobles - Azats (Trk., Arm. Freemen,

with their own troops), Naharars (Arm. Firstborn, used for heads of nobility, heads of territories, and

court posts), and Princes (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 124-125, 127-134). The author cites names for

some members of the aristocracy class, “noble Prince Avchi (Trk. Hunter), who had a title Tarhan”, Alp

Ilitver's chambermaid Chatkasar (Chat-Khazar) (Тюрк. chat = groin, inguinal), lord Itgin (fr Trk. it =

dog) from Khursan, whom Movses Kalankatuatsi also calls Princes (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 132 -

134). Quite possiby is to assume that in this case we are talking about members of the tribal aristocracy,with whom the the Huns' Great Prince confers in addressing major issues, among whom he finds support for

his desired policy, they perform the Great Prince's important assignments in foreign relations of the Huns with

other states: so, the Huns' Great Prince sent to the Bishop Israil prince Avchi and Alp Ilitver's chambermaid

Chatkasar with his and “country of Huns” nobles' request to stay as a minister at the Huns. The nobleman

Itgin and Chatkasar were sent by Alp Ilitver as his emissaries to Armenia and Albania. Avchi in Türkic

means “hunter” //171// (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 148).171

The Tarkhans, according to the researchers, were a military caste composed of nobles (Gadlo A.V.

1979, p. 148; Novoseltsev A.P. 1990. pp. 118-119). Azats (Trk. Freemen) and Naharar could be

Tarkhans (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 118). Compared with Tarkhans, Princes occupied higher position,

they were heads of the tribes (Novoseltsev. A.P. 1990, p. 118). The chambermaid Chat Hazr (Chatkasar),

according to A.V. Gadlo, was probably a housekeeper of the Great Prince (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 148), and

the nobleman Itgin from Khursan was a member of the local highland aristocracy, dependent on the Prince

of the Huns (Gadlo A.V. 1979. pp. 149-150).

In some unofficial situations, the Grand Prince used for diplomatic missions his closest relatives. So, after

yet another military campaign in the Caucasus Albania in 664, “Alp Ilitver sent to Djuansher (aka

Javanshir) his brothers with a request for a meeting” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, II, p. 102).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 9/39

This brief note is supremely loaded. First, in 664 “another military campaign in the

Caucasus Albania” could not be aimed at Albania, it was aimed at Arabs, who shortly before,in 651, under Abd Al Rahman defeated the Hunno-Alan army in the battle at Euthrates, and

shortly thereafter, say in 652, subjugated Albania, imposing their tribute. In 652 the Arabs

already campaigned in the Hunnic territory, attacking Balandjar, and were repulsed by the

Hunnic army under newly baked Khazar Kagan Irbis of the newly baked Khazar Kaganate

formed in the western provinces of the Western Türkic Kaganate) with a 300,000strong army.

In 654 the Arabs again campaigned in the Hunnic territory, and were beaten off again. Albania

reverted back to the Huns, but its position was precarious. In 662 in a new assault the Arabs

tried to take Derbent from the Huns, forcing the Huns to conduct a liberation war of 664against the Arab domination. From the sequence of events, it is clear that in the interim period

of 652-664, the Arabs were in control of Albania.

Secondly, we know of only one brother of Bulan-Shad, and knowing his antics in the east,

it is unlikely that he belonged to the entourage of the Elteber Alp Ilitver. At the same time, the

brothers of Alp Ilitver's Hatun traditionally headed and served in the Office of Peime Minister

(Ulu Bek, or Ulug Bek, in Hunnic Gulu Bek), and again traditionally they served as diplomaticemissaries of the head of the state, both in Hunnic and Türkic perods. They are likely

candidates to be the emissaries to the court of Djuansher (aka Javanshir).

Thirdly, the mission had to propose to establish or renew a dynastic union between Hunnia

and Albania. Again, for that purpose were usually sent the highest officials of the state, lending

support to the supposition that was sent the Ulu Bek with his second-in command brother. The

ethnic affiliation of the maternal clan in unknown, but can be positively stipulated that they

belonged to the dynastic Savirs, or Huns-Savirs in the Armenian nomenclature.

Several other authors point to the presence in the 6th c. at the Huns of service nobility. The Syrian source

gives the name of the Hun commander as Suniks (Sunix) (Considering the variety of spelling of the name

Hun, Suniks is fairly transparent generic exonym “Hun”), who converted to Christianity and fled toByzantines (Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 162). Byzantine authors give names of the Hun tribal leaders that took

part as mercenaries in the operations during the Persian-Byzantine wars over Lazika.172

Procopius of Caesarea mentions an episode during siege of the Archeopol by the Persians, when fierce

fighting broke out over the body of the Sabir chief (Procopius of Caesarea, II, p. 432). Agathias names

Baimah, Kutilzis, Ilager as Savir commanders, under whose leadership in the army of the Byzantines fought a

two thousand-strong detachment , and Theophanes Confessor tells of the Hun tribal leaders and Stiraks(Stirax) and Glonis, whose separatist acts were strongly foiled by the Huns-Savirs ruler Boariks

(Theophanes Confessor, p. 136).

7. ARMY AND WAR

7. 1. The Huns army

173

As was shown above, military raids into the agricultural countries of S.Caucasia, taking population intocaptivity, seizure of cattle and luxury goods were one of the major income sources: in the 4th-7th cc.

economy of the Hun society.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 10/39

L. Gmyrya repeats the banner wording of the Russian political machine since the days when

Peter I was organizing empire and its historiography. The predaceous annexationist actions of

the Russian state are declared legitimate self-defense, and the defensive measures of the

pastoralists for compliance with treaties and protection of their rights, territories, and

population are declared to be aggressive militancy. The results speak for themselves - the

hapless and peaceful Russia captured a sixth of the world from the nomadic pastoralists, and

destroyed most of their people, their livestock, their independence, while losing much of itspopulation not because of the “enemy” in the wars of conquest, but in their own internal

genocides.

The producing economy of the nomads was an order of magnitude more productive than

the primitive agriculture of Russia and its subjugated principalities and peoples, and therefore

marketable surplus product, which determines the income of the population, was many times

higher than the agricultural productivity of the economy. Generally, the nomads were not taxedat all. By the standards of the pre-imperial, imperial, and post-imperial Russia, the taxation of

the sedentary population by the nomads was purely nominal, and the time required for payment

of taxes was negligible (approximately 1 day per year) compared to 2-3 days a week typical

for the Russian population from the 15th to the 20th centuries.

Histories of Rome, Byzantine, Russia, etc. are filled with constant and continual internal and

external wars, often drawing into the pastoralist population as their mercenary force, and often

as the only battle-ready force. The wars of Rome, Byzantine, Russia, China, etc. wereexclusively plundering, to seize other people's property, territory and population. By contrast,

the mercenaries earned their living by risking life and property. The history-forming

propaganda makes a caricature of history and of the propagandists.

The war and organization for the war at the Huns of the North-East Caucasus were “... regular functions

of national life” (Engels 1982, p. 189) (Nobody would cite F. Engels on aviation functions, potato

farming functions, or kindergarten operation functions, but somehow on Türkic history he is anexpert. That tells you something on the credibility of the Russian scholars). Participation in military

campaigns was a main duty of the male population of the “country of Huns”. Death on the battlefield was

considered to be the only decent way of the man's death. Ammianus Marcellinus noted that the Huns “who

survive to an old age and die by natural death are pursued by cruel ridicule as geeks and cowards”. The

parents felled in action were the pride of the children (Ammianus Marcellinus. II p. 242) (Is it any different

from any other people? Dying fighting for a cause, family pride, and universal military mobilization?

Especially in Russia, with its inescapable draft and a cult of war).

Preparation of future soldiers began at the Huns from early childhood. As evidenced by Ammianus

Marcellinus, children “learn from the cradle to tolerate cold, hunger, thirst, young people are taught the art of

horseback riding” (Ammianus Marcellinus. II. pp. 237-241) (An isolated family in an open steppe is

vulnerable, and the ability to defend is a matter of survival. That is aside from taking Ammianus

Marcellinus as a credible ethnological analyst).174

The Huns deformed faces of their children //174//, squeezing noses with bandages, as a result of the head

was becoming narrow, the face flat, wide, and easily fitting under a helmet. “Thus a mother's love disfigures

children born for battle ...”, wrote Sidonius Apollinaris (Sidonius Apollinaris, p. 1090) (Not only

Apollinaris Sidonius wrote this nonsense, it was repeated many times over by ignorant chroniclers,

and repeated by many more supposedly literate scholars unfamiliar with the subject of cranial

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 11/39

deformation they are describing).

Precise data on the army organization among the Huns is absent. Favstos Buzand, describing the

consisting of the Huns army of the Maskut (Masgut) king Sanesan, indicates that the army was huge and

divided into regiments and units (Favstos Buzand, p. 15). Describing the same structure, Movses

Kalankatuatsi writes about the Hun army King Alp Ilitver: “... taking his numerous troops ... armed warriors

in armor with their commanders, banners, regiments, armored archers, and armed horsemen covered with

chain mail and helmets...” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 185). The Huns had military gear in the form of

banners, which likely belonged to each subdivision of the troops (Favstos Buzand, p. 15; MovsesKalankatuatsi. I, p. 185).

The decimal system of organization of the Hunnic and Türkic armies, their division onto 3

wings, and Türkic terminology for the organization of the army is fairly well known. The army

of Elteber was a local militia drafted and controlled by the head of the state, which was the

Western Hunnic state, and in the period of 6th-10th cc. its successors the Türkic Kagan,

Western Türkic Kagan, and Khazar Kagan respectively. With the re-formulation of the states,accordingly were re-formulated their wings, as the center of the state moved westward, its

Western Wing at some point was becoming the Eastern Wing.

L.Gmyrya, like many of her predecessors, skips on the analysis of the phenomena she

describes: the origin of the armaments reported by the historians. In the militia army, where

each warrior brings what he has, each family has to equip its soldier with the armor, weaponry,and munitions. Each family was its own artisan, smith, weapon maker, munition maker, had to

procure the proper materials for the armor and munition, and have the technology tomanufacture chain mail armor, helmets, weapons, and monitions. The standing, or home army

of the state, likely had an armory that supplied its troops with equipment, but that portion of thearmy was miniscule, numbering in hundreds and not exceeding a few thousands. Similarstanding units were likely at the disposal of the local rulers, the Eltebers and tribal heads

(Erkins), equipped by a combination of the home-produced arms and master-supplied arms.The bulk of the army was totally self-sufficient. Completely lost in the description is the ability

of the lay nomadic cattlemen population to manufacture products that in the sedentarypopulation can only be produced by specialized and highly valued hereditary artisans. The

perennial explanation of the sedentary-grown historians that the nomadic armies wereequipped by the sedentary artisans is a patented nonsense and does not fit the bill at all: these

sedentary artisans were not even able to equip their own sedentary armies. The ordinarycattlemen in the nomadic societies had to produce on a daily basis what in the “civilized”societies was a state of the art, organized and orchestrated by a centralized state.

The ubiquitous observation that the weaponry of mounted nomads is typologically uniformand uniquely distinct on a continental scale and across millenniums did not sink in to elicit a

conclusion that they were home-made; the nomads are routinely accused in getting theirweaponry from sedentary artisans. That allusion puts the artisans as far-flung as Greece, China,Caucasus, and India into a kind of super-dupers, able to produce for millenniums the uniform

equipment of the same makes and models for the nomads that they are not able to make fortheir own consumption.

It is well-known that various centralized states over millenniums emulated the militaryorganization of the nomadic armies, but they were never able to emulate the autonomy, self-

sufficiency, and independence of the nomadic folks. This miracle of the past millenniums still

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 12/39

awaits its Homer and Milton Friedman.

The army of the “country of Huns” in the 7th c. was commanded by the king. The king himself oftenheaded the troops in military campaigns, however, he apparently led the most crucial operations. Movses

Kalankatuatsi indicates that the the Huns' Great Prince Alp Ilitver, whom he also calls commander, “famousfor power, wealth, and bravery in the wars ... reputed amongst all as mighty, and inherited splendid, valiant

glory, performing //175// many deeds of courage in the Turkestan (Turkestan at the time includedCaucasus and Eastern Europe)..”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi, I, p. 199).175

The king perhaps not only headed military operations, but was himself taking part in the battles.

Sometimes the command of the troops was given to the heir to the throne, as was during military campaignof the Türks in the years 629/630 in the Caucasus, where the conquest of Albania was delegated to Crown

Prince (I.e. to Bulan Shad, the future Elteber Alp Ilitver). The field camp of the King was heavily guardedduring military operations (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 121, 125-126).

Regiments and squadrons in the Hun army were led by military commanders. The Syrian and Byzantine

authors of the 6th c. listed some of their names: Suniks, Baimah, Kutilzis, Ilager, Stiraks, Glonis (Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 162; Agathias, p. 88).

During a storm of the city Harran (502) the besieged captured a leader of the Huns, who, according toYeshu Stylite, “was a famous man and was highly respected by the Persian king...”. (Yeshu Stylite. p 155).

To rescue the Hun commander, Persians withdrew the siege of the city. Apparently, the personal honor ofthe Hun commander was above the success in battle. Even the dead body of a Hun military leader was notleft to the enemy. Procopius of Caesarea wrote that during the storm of the city Archeopol (553) for a dead

body of the “Sabirs' Chief” broke a strong fight that lasted until dusk” (Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 432).

According to Favstosa Buzand, the Huns periodically conducted inspections of the troops, apparently in

pre-determined locations. The aim of the parades was to count //176// the number of soldiers, apparently,conducted before the next invasion (Choice of lexical semantic is definitely carrying ideological load ofofficial propaganda. “Invasion” campaign is used to describe the enemy, and in the context of this

work is not used in the descriptions of raids and conquests of the Arabs, Persians, Byzantines, orRuses who broke into the Caucasus, but is used to describe the Hunnic army defending their country.)176

Favstos Buzand describes one of the parades: “... every person carried a stone and threw it in one placeinto a pile, so that by the number of stones was possible to determine the number of people ... And

wherever they went, they left such marks at the crossroads and on the way” (Favstos Buzand, p. 15).

The authors of the 4th c. note that the Hun army at this period consisted mainly of cavalry (EusebiusHieronymus, p. 369), and the Huns did not have sufficiently developed foot-fighting skills (Ammianus

Marcellinus. II, p. 238, Zosimus, p. 800). The mounted troops were distinguished by excellent schooling andskill. And the data of Movses Kalankatuatsi suggest that in the late 7th c. the Hun army consisted of well-

armed, protected by armor infantry and cavalry (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 184-185).

Nomadic armies are cavalry armies, the infantry is auxiliaries drafted or recruited from thedependent sedentary population. In contrast, even the most powerful empires had very limited

and inept cavalry other than nomadic mercenaries, numbering at best in low thousands. Thatapplies to the Chinese, Romans, Persians, Byzantines, and so on. And in contrast, the

sedentary militias were notoriously ill-equipped, disorganized, ill-spirited, held in ranks by

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 13/39

Fig. 5. Weapon

1-3 - Palaca-syrt burial 4th-5th cc.,

4-13 - Palaca-syrt settlement 4-6 cc.1 - Sword, 2-3 - knives,

4-12 - arrowheads, 13 - bow laminate;1-3 - iron, 4-13 - bone

chains, armed with pitch-forks, etc.

Their military camps the Huns fenced with temporary wooden fortifications, they also used a favorableterrain for the defense (Agathias, p. 117).

On the ability of the troops on military campaigns in the South Caucasus testifies one of the passages inthe “History of Alvan country”: “And could not hinder the invasion of an enemy the rocky mountains and

stony gorges of unassailable gavars (districts) of Arzak. But our sins made for them light the difficult /route/,and their horses moved along the tops of the mountains without stumbling” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p.

87).177

In the Hun army were translators, who knew the languages of states neighboring with the “country ofHuns” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 62).

7. 2. Armament and equipment of the warrior

177

Armaments of the Hunnic warriorincluded protective armor, long range

weapons, short range weapons, andalso siege machinery (Fig. 5).

About armor- protected Hunnichorsemen first mentioned ancient

authors - Publius Flavius VegetiusRenatus and Apollinaris Sidonius andRenat (Flavius Vegetius Renatus, p.

1080; Apollinaris Sidonius, p. 420).Agathias reports that two thousand of

heavily armed Savir soldiersparticipated in the defense of the

Byzantine city Archeopol (555)(Agathias, p. 88). Procopius ofCaesarea also indicates that the Hun

warriors serving the siege engines worearmor and helmets (Procopius of

Caesarea. II, p. 408). MovsesKalankatuatsi gives a detailed weapons

description of a Hun warrior: “The Hunarmed his high and wide torso inbraided armor, covered his huge head

with nails fixed to helmet, and his three-inch forehead covered with brass

board” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p.82). The army of the Hun King, who

led a military campaign in 664 againstAlbania, consisted of “armored archersand armed horsemen, covered with

chain mail and helmets...”. (Movses

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 14/39

Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 184-185). TheHunnic warriors had good defensive

armament - the body was covered witharmor or chain mail, helmets protected

the head, sometimes helmets wereequipped with visors. Some authorscite a story of a Hun warrior who was

protected by felt armor, impenetrableby arrows //179// (Movses Khorenatsi,

p. 149; Stepanos Taronetsi, p. 45;Vardan the Great, p. 57).179

The Hun warrior had melee

weaponry of several types. The sourcesinform that the Huns used maces,

swords, spears, and lasso (FavstosBuzand, p. 15; Yeshu Stylite, p. 157, Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238, Pseudo-Zacharias. C 150; Movses

Kalankatuatsi . I, p. 82, 119, 134, Procopius of Caesarea, II, p. 420; Movses Khorenatsi, p. 131;Stepanos Taronetsi, p. 41).

The main type of long range weapons of the Hun warriors was a bow. Apollinaris Sidonius says that the

bow of the Hun warrior had a special form - “rounded bows” (Sidonius Apollinaris, p. 1090). Procopius ofCaesarea tells us that the storm of Archeopol “The Persians and Sabins (Savirs, Subars, Saban is a

Bulgarian form of pronunciation), shooting at those standing on the walls a cloud of arrows and spears ...almost achieved that under their pressure the Romans were ready to leave the top of the fortifications”

(Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 420). Information on the use of the battle bow also provides Pseudo-Zacharias (Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 150), and Movses Kalankatuatsi. The latter tells us about a strongimpression on the Derbent inhabitants made the storming Hunnic and Türkic archers: “shudder seized the

inhabitants, especially seeing precise and strong shooters who rained on them like a strong hail” (MovsesKalankatuatsi. I, p. 105, 123). report On the use of bows and arrows by the Huns also report al-Kufi, Ibn

al-Athir, Vardan the Great //180// (Vardan the Great, p. 46; al-Kufi, p. 10; Ibn al-Athir, p. 15).180

As a projectile weapon in the 4th c. Huns used javelins. Apollinaris Sidonius noted a high skill of the Hunwarriors in this type of weapon: “... they have terrible and true hands, inflicting with well-aimed spears

(meaning javelins - L.G.) imminent death...”. (Sidonius Apollinaris, p. 4091).

The tactical methods of warfare employed by the Hun army were praised by the contemporaries. Huns

had equally good skills in long range and melee range fighting. Ammianus Marcellinus noted: “They deserverecognition as excellent warriors, because they are fighting from a distance with arrows ... and closing on the

enemy hand to hand, fight with selfless courage with swords, ducking from strikes, they throw arkan (lasso)on the enemy...”. (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238).

Judging from the data by Ammianus Marcellinus, the Huns did not have skills to siege and storm fortified

settlements and towns (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238). The same also tells Pseudo-Zacharias in thereport about the Huns raid to Mesopotamia in 532, “they clobbered those found outside the cities” (Pseudo-

Zacharias, p. 160, 164). However, information from other sources indicate that early in the 6th c. Hunsparticipated in siege of well-fortified cities, even located in the hilly terrain, using siege equipment and various

//181// technical methods facilitating the storm of fortifications.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 15/39

181

This discourse shows the perils of uncritical compiling of the testimonies: the objectives ofthe campaign predicate and define the encountered methods. A punitive raid is a demonstration

of force, intended to bring the opponent to observe the terms of the contract. Its purpose is toinflict enough damage to make it economically harmful to breach the treaty. At the same time

the booty must be sufficient to pay the participants of the punitive raid. No special preparationsare required, no extra efforts need to be spent to drag the machinery along, the punitive raidmay be conducted by the local forces nearest to the perpetrator. No losses are planned, in

case of excessive resistance the campaign is called off, the troops retreat, and the diplomacytakes over. A couple of valuable hostages may be sufficient to force the resumption of the

contract terms.

A campaign to establish political hierarchy is qualitatively different from a punitive raid, itsobjective is to obtain a degree of submission and formalize it in a treaty. Accordingly, the plan

of the campaign, the forces required, and the preparations involved are different and muchmore substantial. The opponents' forces must be decimated, main military bases must be

destroyed, and control over access routs must be secured to facilitate later enforcement of thetreaty. Hence, the campaign requires supply train, machinery, temporary bases, and encircling

strategy. The booty must be great enough to pay the participants, and the slow-movingauxiliaries may be required to man the sieges and storms. Unlike the raids, the war theater is

limited to keep the bases and the frontline within defensible space. Due to the logisticsinvolved, such campaigns are rare, and are planned well in advance.

A defence campaign is a reaction to a sudden assault. It involves immediate mobilization of

short- and long-term forces, tactical evacuations, creation of the defensible front zone, anddefense depth. The prime defense objective is to wear out the assailant, keep them cold,

hungry, sleepless, alert at all times, and continuously loosing. The superior mobility of thenomadic armies and population serves to benefit them both in attack and in defense, makingthe task of attacking nomads enormously expensive for any opponent, as was amply

demonstrated by the campaign of Darius and later ambitions. Any sedentary state that was notdumb figured out that the only way to defeat the nomads is to enlist the nomads in their force.

But that also always backfired, bringing the nomads inside the sedentary state, and eventuallycapitulating to the nomadic culture, as happened with the Zhou and Han China, Persia, and the

Rus and its transformations.

The last type of campaigns is that of conquest. It could be seen as a variation of thedominance campaign, but significant differences make it distinct, the major one is that a

compromise treaty is not an objective, the objective is a total control of the conqueredterritory, and total replacement of the power structure. Given that the nomadic people moved

from the Eastern Europe east, west, and south, such campaigns were extremely rare, averaginga few per millennia. The examples of Hungary, Western Huns, and Danube Bulgaria would be

excluded, because in such cases one nomadic group supplemented the existing nomadichierarchy in the territories, replacing the leadership, but retaining the existing population andexisting traditions. The greatest example of such campaigns are the population replacement in

the Central and Western Europe in the course of the 3rd millennia BC, Zhou China, andKushan Huns takeover of the India, which brought about cardinal changes in the power

structure, economy, social norms and traditions, and complete changeover of the material lifeand religious etiology.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 16/39

In the above classification, the Hunnic campaign of 532 was a punitive raid, while the

Türkic campaign of 627 and the Khazar campaign of 683 in Azerbaijan were reactivedefensive wars.

Procopius of Caesarea appraised the qualitative properties of the siege engines, invented by the Huns: “..

they came up with such a device, which did not occur neither to the Romans, or Persians, nor to anyonesince the creation of the world, although in this and the other state have always been, and now is a large

number of engineers” (Procopius of Caesarea. II. C 407-408).

In 551 during storming of Petra, the Huns-Savirs for the first time used siege engines of original design.Procopius of Caesarea gives a detailed description of the design features of this kind of siege equipment: “...

they braided thick branches, attached them everywhere instead of the logs, covered the machine with hides,they retained the shape of a battering ram, suspending it in the middle on freely moving ropes, as usual, only

one beam, pointed and covered with iron like an arrowhead, to rapidly batter them into the walls of thefortifications. And they made this construction lo light ... forty people, who were lifting up the log to swing itand strike the wall, from the inside of the machine, covered with hides, could without difficulty carry this ram

on their shoulders” (Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 408). Main distinction of the battering ram invented by theHuns-Savirs lay in its light weight, which made it portable and was advantageous over other similar types of

equipment used in mountainous terrain. The warriors who served the siege engines, //182// had wooden poleswith iron hooks on the end, with which were expanded cracks in the fortification walls.182

The Hun's siege engines were used during the Persian siege of the Archeopol (551, 553). Apparently, thestorm engines of the same design were used by forces of Byzantines, Huns, and Türks during storming ofTbilisi (627) (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 107). The presence of such storming technology at the Attila Huns

also reports Prisk Pannonian. It was used by the Huns in storming a well fortified city Naisse in 441. This ishow they were built: “... the logs were lying on wheels for the convenience of their transportation; standing

on them people were shooting at the defenders on the parapets, and the people, standing at both ends, werepushing the wheels with their legs and hauled the machine where it was needed, to enable to shoot aiming

through windows made in the covers; for in order that standing on the logs men could safely fight, thesemachines were covered by plaited twig fences with skins and hides protecting from other missiles, and fromincendiary missiles, which the enemies were throwing ... also started bringing over the so-called rams. It is

also a very large machine: it was a log freely hanging on chains between inclined one to another timbers, andwith a sharp tip and covers fixed in the described manner, for safety of the workers. The people pulled the

ropes from its rear end in the opposite direction from the object //183// that was to get hit, and then let go, sothat the force of impact destroyed the whole impacted part of the wall”. (Prisk Pannonian, p. 677).183

Huns could build dams on the rivers to cause flooding in the besieged city. For this purpose, they used

“huge inflated burdiuks (bladders), filled with stone and sand...”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 80. The“Chronicle” of Pseudo-Zacharias also contains information about the Huns and Persians, in preparation for a

siege of the city Maiferkat, “made about it ditches, embankment, and many pits...”. (Pseudo-Zacharias, p.163).

Prisk Pannonian reports that the Huns were crossing rivers on rafts, which they carried along on thewagons (Prisk Pannonian, p. 684).

7. 3. Battle tactics

184

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 17/39

For their time, Huns had the best warfare tactics. In the mounted battle the Huns accounted both for the

advantages and the limitations of their army, with special attention paid not only on the military capability ofthe enemy, but also on the psychological condition of their soldiers. To sow panic among the enemy troops,

Huns were always taking advantage of surprise attack. Eusebius Hieronymus noted that “they wereeverywhere, and his unexpected swiftness preventing rumours” (Eusebius Hieronymus, p. 369). Attackingthe enemy, the Hun army formed //184// a wedge, hollering a “terrible howling cry”, whose purpose was to

stun and frighten enemy soldiers (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238).184

The war cry “Hurray!”, “Urra!”, etc., presently on the on arms of many different nations, in

Türkic is called “uran”, and along with the tribal tamga and tribal mascot animal, is distinct foreach Türkic tribe; in Europe, it cheered all sides in the WWI and WWII, and the Brits took itaround the globe to the places where never stepped a Türkic foot before. “Uran” means

“strike”, and the tribal uran is transferred from generation to generation as a most preciouspossession of the family. In Türkic “Hurray!” means “Strike!”

To botch the enemy lines, to lure them from strategically disadvantageous the Huns position, Huns usedthe following tactics: the Hun army imitated a disorderly retreat, provoking the troops into a hot pursuit(Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238; Agathias, p. 33). Then the Hun cavalry scattered and with separate

detachments, without forming a line of battle, attacked the enemy troops, attacking incesantly in differentplaces until they win (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 238, Claudius Claudian, p. 1055). This tactics of the Hun

cavalry battles, as noted Agathias, was also adopted by the Europeans (Agathias, p. 33). The EphtaliteHuns used the same tactics of luring the enemy with a small force (Procopius of Caesarea. 1a. pp. 26-28,

38-42). In 629 Türks successfully used this tactic to defeat Persian troops in Armenia. Here it is in thedescription of Movses Kalankatuatsi: “Having selected in his army about three thousand strong warriors and

appointing the Prince Chorpan-Tarhan to head them... he sent him ahaed to punch him safe passage ... Andhe without hurry started behind, after furnishing with everything needed the multitude of his troops. Uponarriving in Armenia, the Prince /Head/ of vanguard found out against him is coming the Persian commander,

he holed up on the way, curling //185// like a snake, and started to wait for him in ambush”.185

The Persian commander threw against the Türkic vanguard a detachment of ten thousand soldiers. “But

the enemy - writes Movses Kalankatuatsi, - heard about this even before their arrival, /divided his forcesinto two parts/, one of which stayed in ambush by the road, while the other stood waiting for them, and assoon as the troops collided, they immediately started fleeing, drawing them into pursuit. Then those /hiding in

ambush/ with cries attacked them from all sides, and surrounded them like a flame covering the reeds.../annihilated all of them/ and did not leave anybody who would bring the sad news on the death of so many

men” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 92).

The tactics of mobile warfare, impossible for the snail-paced mentality of sedentarypeoples, was developed long before the Scythians used it against Darius in the 6th c. BC, and

the reason that Chinese did not leave early records of the 16th c. BC Zhou tactics was that notnumerous mounted Zhou handedly defeated the proto-Chinese before they learned about

pictograph writing. In the literate period, the mobile warfare of the Huns, Türks, and Mongolsdominated the Eurasian history until the Modern Age, and in the Modern Age the mobile

warfare of Bashkirs decimated Napoleon army during their invasion of Russia. The ethnicallyTürkic Kutuzov used the proven Scythian/Hunnic/Türkic tactics and Bashkir mercenaries to

save the Russian Empire from the world-renown commander's armies. Even in the 20-th c.during the Russian Civil war, the Cossacks fighting on the side of the Bolsheviks against their

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 18/39

Imperial oppressors were instrumental in winning the war against Czarist leftovers and forces

of Antanta alliance.

With their skills of the distance and close cavalry battles, using advantageous tactics, the Hun troopswere achieving considerable success on the battle fields.

With all their millennium-proven tactics, and a long string of victories, the Huns successfully

lost the hundred years war. The other side of the tactics, its shortcomings, unfortunately isbarely addressed by the author, and thus we know only the positive side of the Hunnic tactics,

but are left ignorant of the rest. Unlike the weakly Chinese, who gradually developed a long-term strategy against militarily superior mounted armies, and were consistently implementing itfor two millennia, the Türkic leaders, content with their tactical supremacy, have not developed

a strategic concept for sustainability until the 20th century.

The weaponry of the Hun warriors was quite progressive for its time. The tactic used by the Huns in the

battles in open terrain and in storming of fortified settlements also was up to the requirements of thecontemporary art of war. All that established for the Hun warriors a reputation of excellent warriors. The

Hunnic fighting techniques, certain types of weapons were adopted by many nations in the early medievalperiod.

7. 4. Military campaigns and military assistance

186

Most information about the North-East Caucasus Huns refers to political history, filled with active militaryoperations in the Persian-Byzantine war (6-th c.), Arab-Khazar wars (2 nd half of 7th - 8th cc.), and

complicated relationships with Albania, Armenia, and Khazar Kaganate.

The Huns, who occupied lands on the northern borders of the territory dominated by Persia, became asubject of perpetual concern of the Persia, and her opponent in the Caucasus, the Byzantine Empire, not to

mention the peoples of Albania, Georgia, and Armenia, on whose shoulders lay a heavy burden of theiralmost annual raiding campaigns. Depending on the state of the political situation in these countries, were

undertaken response robberies in the Hun lands, but the rulers of Persia, Byzantine, and Alania and Armeniamostly preferred to establish alliance with the Huns, using their assistance in the actions of their foreign

policy. Several authors repeatedly mentioned the efforts it took Persians to contain the Huns in the Caucasuspasses, which they used. Byzantine was paying to Persia a regular reward for guarding the Caucasian passesfrom the Huns (Prisk Pannonian, p. 696, Yeshu Stylite, p. 131; Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 154). What

significance Byzantine gave to the Hunic invasions is demonstrated by the fact that the first clause //187// inthe peace treaty concluded in 562 between Byzantine and Persia stated: “... for the Persians not to allow any

Unns, nor Alans nor other barbarians to cross into Roman possessions through the gorge called Horutson(Darial Pass), and the Caspian gates” (Menander Byzantine, p. 342).187

Huns, depending on the political situation, used Derbent Pass for raids, or if it was inaccessible, the

mountains passes less convenient for the riders. Procopius of Caesarea describes in detail the routs of theHuns' raids to the South Caucasus: “The spurs of the Caucasus mountains facing north-west reach Illyria and

Thrace, and facing south-east reach the very passes by which living there tribes of the Huns come to the landof the Persians and Romans, one of these passages is called Tzur (Djor, Chor, pessibly from Chur = Trk.

Prince, i.e. it was a fortress of the Prince), and the other has the ancient name of Caspian Gates”(Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 381). “When these Unns attack lands of Persia or Rome through the

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 19/39

aforementioned door (Caspian Gates - L.G.), they set out with fresh horses, without any detours, andwithout encountering any other steep places to the borders of Iberia, except for those that stretch for 50stadies. But when they turn to other passes, they have to overcome great difficulties and can not use the

same horses, because they have to go around by many steep places” (Procopius of Caesarea. Ia: p. 111).Therefore is understandable a Huns' desire to seize the Derbent pass, and the Persian desire to keep it in

their hands.188

Most of the Huns' campaigns in the S.Caucasus were due to certain allied commitments, tying the Hunsonce with Byzantine, and another with Persia. Both of these world powers led a long, grueling war for the

world domination and related with that struggle for lucrative trade routes, which made the Caucasus a tastymorsel, torn by them to pieces.

Byzantine, realizing the importance of the Hunnic tribes on the north-eastern borders of Persia, did herbest to win them over to her side. For this purpose were used bribery, threats, or habitual for Byzantine tool

of paid military assistance (L.Gmyraya does not mention the prime tool of Byzantine politicaldomination, the religion and its messengers. The Arabs were not the first geniuses to come up withreligious conquests).

Persia, in turn, understood the dangers posed to her by conducting military operations simultaneously ontwo fronts, against the Huns and against the Byzantine, so she also used all means to attract the Huns in her

camp. For this purpose were used mercenaries of the Huns, murder of unacceptable leaders, betrayal of herally, etc.

The Huns, and then Savars, were on the side, then the other, taking advantage of the political situation

within the two powers, and the situation developing on the battlefields. Therefore the characterization of theByzantine historian given to Savirs seems somewhat subjective: “This people... is very greedy to the wars

and to the plunder, likes to live away from home in an alien land, always looking for someone else' property,only for the profit hope for booty //189// joining as a participant in war and dangers now to one, then to

another, and turning from friend to foe” (Agathias. pp. 116-117).189

By the middle of the 4th c., the time of the reign of the Armenian king Arshak II (345-368), belongs thetestimony of Favstos Buzand. that during the renewed war between Persia and Byzantine in Mesopotamia

and Armenia, the Huns and Alans were on the side of Armenians against the Persians (Favstos Buzand, p.113). In the 330s, Huns together with Alans fought on the side of Persia against Armenians.

In 395 the Huns made a grand military campaign to the countries of S.Caucasus and Asia Minor(Eusebius Hieronymus, p. 1030; Yeshu Stylite, p. 131).

Quote from the M. Artamonov book (M.I. Artamonov, 1962, p. 53) about the Huns

in the Middle East:...second record about the Huns in Favst Buzand: he named them together with Alans in the

army of the Armenian king Arshak II (345-368), which was directed against the Persians ... 36

...the first undoubted appearance of the Huns in the Caucasus should be related only to

395, when having taken over the southern half of Eastern Europe, they did not risk to movewith all their forces further west. That year, according to the information of Prisk Pannonian,

which he received from Romulus, the Roman ambassador (with whom he met in the Attilacamp in 488), the Hun horde crossed deserted country (steppe) and the lake (Azov Sea), in

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 20/39

15 days crossed the mountains (Caucasus) and entered Media, i.e., the Persian possessions in

the S.Caucasus, 37 from which it spread almost all over the Asia Minor. Information about that

expedition are preserved in other sources. 38 Thus, the early 6th c. Syrian chronicle of Yeshu

Stylite says that in the days of Honorius and Arcadius (395-408), sons of the Theodosius theGreat, the whole Syria was in the hands of the Huns. They not only were ruining and

plundering the cities, but led away masses of population into slavery 39 (And who were theircustomers? Persians? Byzantines? Romans?). Late author Bar Gebre (1226-1286), who

lived in the 13th c., but used earlier Syrian sources, under reported year 397 that Huns so

devastated Syria and Cappadocia that they became deserted 40. Latin writer Jerome was acontemporary and almost witnessed the invasion. During his pilgrimage to the East, “broke outa horde of Huns from the distant Meotis, the land of icy Tanais”. A number of cities in

Mesopotamia were subjected to siege, including Antioch. Jerusalem and Tyre were preparingin anticipation of the enemy. “Arabia, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt were captured by fear”.

Huns seized a huge number of captives, and because of their “uncontrollable lust for gold”

collected a lot of booty 41. According to Prisk Pannonian, the Huns were forced to retreatbecqause the Persians have gathered a large force against them. Fearing pursuit, they went bya different road from that they came to S.Caucasia. They passed //53// by the flames rising from

underwater cliff, i.e., apparently by the Apsheron peninsula with its oil fountains and the templeof eternal flame, and then on along the western shore of the Caspian Sea. They returned to

their country with modest booty, because most of it was taken away by the Medes. PriskPannonian also says that the Huns' raid was caused by famine raging in Scythia (Black Sea

area), which is quite natural after the devastation caused to that country by the Hunnic invasion,and that the leaders of the numerous Hun army in this campaign were Vasih and Kursih,

members of the royal Scythian (Hunnic) clan 42.

37 В.В. Латышев. СК, 1, стр. 830—831.

38 Филосторгий. Церковная история, XI, 8 (В.В. Латышев. СК, I, стр. 742);Сократ Церковная история, VIII, 1; Созомен. Церковная история, VI, 1. (Pg.67, 1861).

39 Н.В. Пигулевская Сирийские источники, стр. 39—40.40 Там же, стр. 39.

41 Там же, стр. 40.42 В.В. Латышев. СК, I, стр. 830—831.

37 V.V. Latyshev. SK, I, pp. 830-831.38 Philostorgius the Arian. Ecclesiastical History, XI, 8 (V.V. Latyshev. SK, I, p.742), Socrates Ecclesiastical History, VIII, 1; Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History, VI,

1. (Pg. 67, 1861).39 N.V. Pigulevskaya Syrian sources, p. 39-40.

40 Ibid, p. 39.41 Ibid, p. 40.

42 V.V. Latyshev. SK, I, pp. 830-831.

Up until the middle of the 5th c. the sources do not have information about the Huns' campaigns in theS.Caucasus. Nevertheless, some records of Egishe (aka Yeghishe, Elishe, Eliseus) (5th c.) allow to believe

that Huns-Hailandurs periodically harassed Persians with plundering raids (Egishe, p. 31). Egishe recordbelonged to the reign of the Persian shah Iezdigerd II (439-457).

In 450, when in the Persian Armenia rose an anti-Persian popular uprising, led by Prince Vardan,

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 21/39

Armenians and Albanians called in the Caspian Savirs as their allies (Egishe, p. 79-80; MovsesKalankatuatsi. I, p. 88). Apparently, Savirs hesitated, sorting out the situation. Upon learning of the capture

of Derbent by the rebels “Unns ... came to the place of battle and //190// affirming with their own eyes thefeats performed by the Christian army of Vartan, did not hesitate to swear an alliance...”. (Egishe. pp. 79-

80).190

The Persians, who took the strategically important Derbent pass (510-627), were undesirable neighborsfor the Savirs. Seeing the success of the rebels, Savirs took their side. Apparently, during the whole time

when Armenia was gripped by a guerrilla war against the Persians, Savirs were true to the agreement withArmenia. Egishe reports that the Huns did not accede to persuasion of the marzpan (viceroy) Vasak Suny

(aka Süny, after a tribe Sünik, N-E of lake Sevan, i.e. geographical location and homophony with theethnonym Hun point to the Hunnic ancestry of the tribe Süni) to betray rebels, and “continually harassedthe king of Persia” (Egishe, p. 92). To make the fight with the army of Vardan more successful, Vasak Suny

had to shut the Djor pass, having called for help upon many mountain tribes (Egishe, p. 92). Huns-Savirs didnot participate in the decisive Avarai battle (451) between the Armenian rebels and the Persian troops

(Egishe, p. 116; Sebeos. pp. 54-55), although the Armenians “were sending messenger after a messenger tothe Huns, agitated them, were inflaming their troops, reminded them of the union they have vowed to the

Armenians...”. (Egishe, p. 116). Some researchers believe that Savirs either were late to the battle (M.I.Artamonov, 1962, p. 58), or were not able to pass through the Derbent pass captured by Vasak Suny(Kudryavtsev A.A. 1976, p. 78; 1979, p. 38). We believe that this is far from the truth. The same Egishe

notes that “most of the Huns listened with pleasure to the peaceful appeals of Armenians” (Egishe, p. 116).191

Seeing that the situation in the Caucasus has changed //191// in favor of the Persians (Albania, Iberia, and

several other lands defected Armenians), Savirs chose neutrality in such crucial for Armenia time. However,some part of the Huns supported the Persians. Egishe, listing the auxiliary troops of the Persians, recruited

from among the Caucasian peoples, also names among them the Huns. After the defeat of the Armenians,seeing that Persia was weakened by fight against Kidarites in the east and Armenians in the north of herpossessions, Savirs invaded Persian possessions without hindrance, returning “with rich booty and many

captives”. It is unlikely that the campaign was staged as a proof of Savir's alliance with the Armenians, asthought Erishe (And whose account is challenged by a modern palm-reading scholar).

Using the power struggle that erupted in the Persian kingdom after the death of Yezdigerd II (457)between his sons (Dyakonov M. 1961, p. 276), the Albanian people have rose against Persians (460-462).

Savirs, bribed by Peroz (459-484), broke alliance with the Trans-Caucasian peoples, and, as indicated bythe sources, fought the rebels for a year (461) (Egishe, p. 170; Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 11).

In the early 6th c. Huns are found as Byzantine allies. Procopius of Caesarea mentions a Hun Amvazuk

(aka Ambazuk, which V.I.Abaev in his interpretation of the Zelenchuk Inscription classed nameAnbalan as “not attested, but sounding very Ossetic” name, and positively not Türkic. In Türkic,

“Bazik” is stout, powerful, and Ambazuk ~ “Embazyk” is most stout, powerful; accordingly,“bülün” is warrior, and Anbalan ~ “Embülün” is the most warrior, no wonder it is not attested inOssetic), who controlled Derbent, as a friend Emperor Anastasius ( 491-518) (Procopius of Caesarea, 1a,p. 112-113).192

In the 502 the relations between Byzantine and Persia were strained again, which grew into a war of502-506. In the hostilities during August-September //192// of 502 the Huns fought on the side of thePersians. They besieged and plundered a city Fedosiopol in Armenia, together with the Persians, Kudishaye

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 22/39

(?), and Armenians tried to take cities Apadna, Edessa, and Harran (Yeshu Stylite, p. 148, 153, 155).During storm of Harran, the besieged captured a Huns' leader. The Persian king Kavad promised theHarranits to lift the siege of the city for the release of the noble Hun. The residents bought off the Persians

not only with the prisoner, to him were added “a herd of hundred and fifty sheep, and other things” (YeshuStylite, p. 155). The Hun troops, together with the Persians and Arabs, took part in the repeat andunsuccessful attempt to take Edessa (Yeshu Stylite, p. 157). Apparently, the Byzantine Empire made severalefforts to bring Huns to their side. Procopius of Caesarea under 504 reported that the “hostile Unns invaded

Persia. Kavad returned to his land with his whole army, and fought in the northern regions of his state a longwar with the Unns.” (Procopius of Caesarea. 1a, p. 101). The Persians drove the Huns from Derbent, andconcluded an alliance with them, pledging to pay a tax (Procopius of Caesarea. 1a, p. 116) (Apparently,the strategic goal of the Huns, vigorously resisted by the Persians, was to make Persia a Hunnicdependency and establish regular tribute, a la China, Roman Empire and Byzantine. This objective,

obscured by detailed accounts of the contemporaries about tactical events, puts in perspective theHunnic campaigns starting with the show of force in 395. The Hunnic Persian tactics exactlyparallels the Hunnic Chinese and the Hunnic Roman tactics. The model of the objective was theheqin treaty with the Han China, the treaty known under a 2nd c. BC Chinese name, but the oldestrecords of which belong to the Zhou of the 16th c. BC). Emperor Anastasius, seeking to dismantle the

unfavorable to the Byzantine alliance between Persians and Huns, promised Huns to pay a greater tax.Bargaining with Persians for better condition of the alliance, in 513 Huns undertook a raid in their lands(Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 150). The Persians promised to meet the Huns's requirements to increase taxes. Toconclude a new agreement “400 men of the Hun's //193// leaders” remained in the camp of the Persians,

while the Huns relinquished their army.193

The Persians treacherously violated the agreement and “prepared for a war against the Huns whoscattered, and against those four hundred that remained, and against those that were with them” (Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 150). The Huns succeeded to withstand a battle, and they raided the Persian land in revengefor the treachery.

In 515 is known a Huns-Savirs attack on Armenia and Asia Minor (M.I. Artamonov, 1962, p. 70).Apparently, the same campaign is described by Theophanes Confessor for the year 516: “This year, theHuns, called Savirs crossed the Caspian Gates, raided Armenia, sacking Cappadocia, Pontus, and Galatia,and almost reached Euhaita (modern Turkish village Beyözü)” (Theophanes Confessor, p. 49) (“In thisyear the Huns known as Saber passed through the Caspian Gates and overran Armenia, plundering

Cappadocia, Galatia, and Pontos, so that they almost reached Euchaita”; this falls on the time ofBaltavar (Elteber, İltäbär, Yiltawar, Yiltavar, Yiltever) Tatras reign in Altynoba, 505-545).

Under 522 (520/1) Theophanes Confessor says that Byzantine, restarting a war against Persia, wasseeking an alliance with the Huns by bribing their king Ziligd (Zilgbi) with rich gifts. Ziligd (Zilgbi), withoutbreaking alliance with the Byzantines, sent to aid the Persians 20 thousand-strong Hun force (Theophanes

Confessor, p. 50) The Byzantine emperor Justin (518-527), using a long-proven policy of “divide and rule”,delated to the Persians about the Hun-Byzantine alliance. Kavad cracked down on Ziligd (Zilgbi) andcrushed a detachment of the Hun warriors.

Quote from Theophanes Confessor about this episode:“ln this year, one when a war broke out between Romans and Persians, Justin dispatched

envoys and gifts to Zilgbi, king of the Huns, 2 who made a pact of alliance with the emperor

against the Persians, [swearing] by his ancestral oaths. Kouades likewise sent [emissaries] tohim and Zilgbi made a pact with him, too. When Justin learned of this, he was exceedingly

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 23/39

displeased. Zilgbi went over to the Persians with twenty thousand men to make war on theRomans. In making peace overtures Justin revealed to Kouades, emperor of the Persians, in aletter purportedly devoted to some other matter, that Zilgbi had sworn oaths of alliance withthe Romans, had received many gifts, and intended to betray the Persians. It is necessary, headded, that we, as brothers, become friends and are not made the sport of these dogs.

Kouades asked Zilgbi in private whether he had been set against the Persians after receivinggifts from the Romans. He replied, Yes. So Kouades killed him in anger and during the nightsent a body of Persians which destroyed his host, since he suspected that they had come to

him treacherously.3 As many as were able to escape returned to their homeland.”

“2 Zilgbi was probably a Sabir Hun. In 515 the Sabiri had invaded and devastated the Ponticprovinces and Cappadocia (cf. AM 6008 = 515.The Sabiri had settled north of the Caucasianrange between the Euxine and the Caspian. The guarding of the Caspian Gates (= DarialGorge) necessarily played an important part in Byzantine, Persian, Lazic, and Iberian relations.

See Vasiliev, Justin I, 316, Prok. BP i. 10. Hence the importance to both Byzantines andPersians of winning over tribes in this region.”

The episode demonstrates that the fight for supremacy in the Middle East was not two-sided, as the conventional Westarn historiography is depicting, but three-sided, and bothPersians and Byzantines were mindful of the Hunnic dominance. Both sides were paying annual

tribute to the Huns, and the Huns had their own “divide and rule” policy aimed at weakeningboth their tributors. In the power struggle within their triangle, the foes Persians and Byzantineswere in a virtual alliance against the Huns, united by a common danger.

The episode demonstrates that with the death of Attla, the Huns as a world power did notdisappear, as the conventional Western historiography is depicting, but the orientation of their

political activity shifted from the Central European theater, which was spearheaded by Attila,to the Middle Eastern theater, and in place of the Germanic tribes in their politics the Hunsreverted to the alliance with their Ephtalite kins, coordinating their efforts against Persia.

Under 527/528 Theophanes Confessor reported about Byzantine ally the Savir ruler Boariks. At thattime (527-532) the military activities of Byzantine and Persia in the S.Caucasus were renewed.194

The Persians skillfully //194// used infighting among the Hun nobility. Kavad managed to bring to his sidetwo kings of other Hunnic tribes located further into the inner lands, by the names of Stiraks and Glonis. But

more powerful ruler Boariks defeated in a battle a 20,000strong force of the Persian allies, killing Glonis andsending Stiraks in chains to the king in Constantinople...”. (Theophanes Confessor, p. 137).

To the end of hostilities the Huns remained in alliance with the Persians. In 531, the Persians sent to theByzantine Armenia an army of allied Persamens (?), Sunites (Residents of Sunik? Considering the verietyof spelling of the name Hun, Suniks is fairly transparent generic exonym “Hun”), among them was

also the 3,000strong unit of the Huns-Savirs (Procopius of Caesarea. 1a, p. 180). The following year, 532,in preparation for a siege of the Maiferkat, Persians recruited Huns. Circumstances were unfortunate for thePersians: cold, rain and mud made conducting siege works impossible. In addition, the king Kavad died, andPersians were quick to conclude a truce with Byzantines. At that time “came the Huns, a large number ofpeople recruited by the Persians” (Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 163). Using favorable conditions - rise of political

in-fighting in the Byzantine Empire that ended up with the Nika riots (History of the Byzantine Empire. 1967,p. 284), Savirs unimpeded moved to Mesopotamia, a dominion of Byzantine, “and no one resisted them anddid not cause any harm” ( Pseudo-Zacharias. pp. 163-164). Having plundered and destroyed unfortified

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 24/39

settlements and temples, they reached Antioch. Only on the return way a Dux of Maiferkat Bes attackedone of //195// Savir units, “captured about 500 horses and a lot of booty”, and a Dux of the castle Kitariz

“routed about four hundred of their men and seized their pack animals” (Pseudo-Zacharias. pp. 163-164).195

Up to the 550 the Huns-Savirs are not heard of, although in those years (540-545) went on activemilitary actions between Persia and Byzantine (History of the Byzantine Empire. 1967. pp. 331-333).

In the middle of the 6th. c broke a new Persian-Byzantine war over Lazika (550-555). The Laz KingGubaz concluded an alliance with the Alans and Savirs “who committed for three kentenars (kentenarion =

100 lbs. of gold) not only to protect the Laz land from the any ruin, but to empty Iberia so that Persianswould not be able to come there” (Procopius of Caesarea. 16, p. 231).

In 551 Byzantines undertook a decisive storming of the city Petra, with participation of a small group ofSavirs with three leaders (Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 407). Applied by the Byzantines on steep slopes ofPetra light storm engines invented by Savirs played a decisive role in storming of the fortress. It was taken,

its fortifications were razed.

In the same year (551) the Persians, having lost Petra, stormed Archeopol. To the aid of the Persianarmy came 12,000 Savirs, but the Persian general Mermerois, fearing a betrayal of the Huns, left fourthousand at the city Archeopol, the others, “richly rewarding with money, let go home” (Procopius ofCaesarea. II, p. 417).196

On the //196// order of the Persians Savirs built many lightweight battering rams, because Archeopol waslocated in the mountainous terrain.

By the end of the 552-553 winter, Persians concluded with Byzantines a brief truce, and immediatelybegan preparing to attack Lazika. Enlisting a large number of Huns-Savirs, in 553 Persians moved againstLazika, bringing along elephants (Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 432). The Persian army, led by Mermerois,

tried to storm the city Archeopol again, but failed once again. Procopius of Caesarea reports that duringpursuit of the retreating Persians, the Romans killed a “chief of Sabirs”, for whom broke out a strong fightthat lasted until dusk (If befitting burial is necessary for a successful afterlife of a deceased, andcomrades-in-arms risk their lives to ensure peace beyond the grave for the fallen, what would be the

reaction when the whole people is forced to abandon the future reincarnation).

In 555 Persians again were about to storm the city Archeopol. When he learned that near the walls of thecity has loged a two thousand-strong Savirs detachment allied with Byzantine, led by “Baimah, Kutilzis andAlager, their most famous people”, Persians sent a detachment of three thousand Dolimnits (?) to destroySavirs (Agathias, p. 88). Although the attack on the fortified with palisade camp of the Huns-Savirs was

unexpected, Huns managed to win, using a tactics of ambush. The Persian army also had detachments ofSavirs (Agathias, p. 116). Agathias guesses that these were troops of different Savir tribes. Agathias alsohas a story on how Byzantines destroyed a half-thousand Savir unit that loged in a fortified camp (Agathias,p. 117).197

After a defeat at Phasis, //197// Persians concluded a truce (with Byzantine) that by 562 grew into a

peace treaty for 50 years. Byzantine pledged to pay to the Persians each year more than 400 Libre(pounds, approx. 400 g/lb) of gold to protect Caucasus passages, and Persia had a duty not to let the Hunsand Alans through the passages (Menander Byzantine, p. 342).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 25/39

Having concluded peace, Persia could now battle their eastern and northern enemies (Ephtalites andSavirs). In 563-567 Persians run successful military actions against Ephtalites, to about the same timebelongs the defeat of Savir tribes who residing in the S.Caucasus by Khosrow Anushirvan (M.I. Artamonov,1962, p. 126). Reinforcing fortifications of Derbent, Khosrow impeded penetration by Savirs in the land of

Persian dominions.

In 571 in Armenia broke out a rebellion against Sassanid rule. The rebels asked Byzantine Empire forhelp, the latter did not hesitate to intervene, which initiated yet another Byzantine-Persaud war of 572-591.Menander Byzantines informs that Savirs sided in these events (572) against Armenians, while Kolkhs,Avasgs (Abkhazia), and Alans helped the Armenians (Menander Byzantine, p. 494). Having entered

Albania in 575, Byzantines, intending to subdue residing there Savirs and Albans, took hostages from amongthem, “...when they left, Savirs immediately freed themselves from the Roman domination. The Romangenerals (Kurs and Theodor) came back to Albania, and forced Savirs and Alvans to move to this side ofthe river Cyrus (Kura) and henceforth remain in Roman //198// country” (Menander Byzantine, p. 411-412).198

In 576 in Byzantine arrived embassy of Caucasian Savirs and Alans. Emperor Tiberius (578-582)

promised Savirs and Alans more favorable terms of alliance than the Persian terms. Apparently, themessengers, hesitated, so that the emperor had to resort to threats. He told them that to those who wouldjoin him voluntarily he would be benevolent, and those who would not join him will be subordinated to hispower” (Menander Byzantine, p. 416).

In 578, Savirs were in the army of the Byzantine emperor, baffled by the appearing of the Persian twenty

thousand-strong cavalry, “... Sarakins (Saracens?) and Savirs ... together with the Roman generals debatedhow to cross the mountainous country...”. (Menander Byzantine, p. 437).

Apparently, to the events of the 572-591 war belongs the Sebeos message about a strong detachment ofthe Huns being in 20,000strong Persian army marching to Armenia soon after uprising of 571-572. (Sebeos,

p. 31).

Thus, the debate about what foreign policy orientation, Persian or Byzantine, was preferable to Savirs, isirrelevant. In their foreign policy the Savir rulers always were considering complexity of the internationalsituation and in particular, the internal status and international state of two main rivals in the Caucasus, Persiaand Byzantine.199

Up to 664, the sources do not contain any data about foreign policy acts of the North Caucasus Huns.The main //199// danger from the north threatening S.Caucasus countries in the first half of the 7th c. becomesthe Western Türkic Kaganate. In the first quarter of the 7th c. the sources record almost annual Türkic raidsto Albania and Iberia (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I. pp. 103-104, 121). In the Türkic campaigns, according tosome researchers, also took part dependent tribes of Onogurs, Ugros (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 135).

Apparently, the ethnonym “Türk” overlapped in the sources a number of other dependent tribes, includingthe Huns-Savirs.

Peculiarly, the Huns' transition from significant and widely referred to enemy and friend toinglorious non-entity hidden under an umbrella term Türk did not find place in this study,leaving a gaping hole in the continuity of the subject. We have a Western Hunnic Era lastingfrom about 160 AD to about 560 AD, and a Türkic Era lasting from about 552 AD to about740 AD, and a void in-between.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 26/39

Under 662 is known unsuccessful invasion of Khazars through Derbent in Albania. About participation of

the Huns in it is not known.

Under 664 Movses Kalankatuatsi tells of invasion into Albania of the “King of Huns” troops (MovsesKalankatuatsi. I, p. 153). Movses Kalankatuatsi also calls the “King of Huns” a “King of Turkestan”.Maybe the subject is the Huns' Great Prince Alp Ilitver, since later, describing the virtues of Alp Iletver (i.e.Ilitver), Movses Kalankatuatsi particularly mentions that he “has shown many feats of bravery in Turkestan”

(Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 199). The Huns' numerous troops led away captured population and herds ofcattle. The Hun ruler offered peace to the Prince of Albania Djuansher (636-669), which was concludedafter brief negotiations. The peace was sealed by marriage of Djuansher with the daughter of “King ofHuns”, to confirm the friendship the Huns ruler returned to Albanians the loot and captives (MovsesKalankatuatsi. I, p. 154).200

Standard terms of vassalage between the Türkic nomads and others:

1. Direct military participation in the suzerain's campaigns with a right for booty for theparticipant, or a monetary compensation for non-participation;2. Nominal tribute, depending on the wealth or occupation of the population, like a pelt andtwo-pence from a household based on approved census for forest-dwelling Rus subjects;3. A marriage of a vassal or his son to a daughter of the suzerain, which gave him a status of a

head of the family as the vassal's father-in-law, a very special position in Türkic societies,which also included a right of the father-in-law to raise his male grandkids.

The Huns were interested in good neighborly relations with //200// neighboring countries, because levying

tribute from the dependent population is more a stable and more profitable stream of income than annualmilitary campaigns that consume efforts, time and lives.

Five years later Djuansher was killed, Albanian throne was taken by his brother Varaz-Trdat (669-699).Armenian historians tend to associate the foray of 669 by the ruler of the HunsAlp-Ilitver to Albania with an

act of revenge for the murder of his ally, and probably a relative. It is possible that the murder of Djuansherserved as one of the reasons for the Hun campaign, but apparently the main reason was the desire of AlpIlitver to remind the new ruler of Albania of their rights to her, received during Djuansher (This comment isoutrageous, the killing of the son-in-law, the husband of his daughter, and the father of his grandkidsis slighted, and instead sinister greed and ambitions are suggested). “Having gathered a large number of

people and livestock from the country, and taking the loot (Alp Ilitver - L.G.) drove all that to captivity”(Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 186). Having robbed Albania, Alp Ilitver “stopped in the fields of Lbinia (?)”,apparently waiting to see what effect his action will bear upon the new ruler. Movses Kalankatuatsi writesthat Varaz-Trdat “was very distressed and did not know what to do”. Catholicos Ilizar, initiating talks withthe Huns, expressed to Alp-Ilitver “faithful obedience and love that felt toward him as for a beloved brother”

Varaz-Trdat (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 186). The role of “helpers and protectors of powers that be” ofthe Albanian ruler apparently suited the Huns, and they agreed to peace. The new situation had put Albaniain dependence of the Huns. But apparently, the Huns' forays into Albania continued //201// in the subsequentyears.201

Relations between the Caucasian Huns and their neighboring principalities develop in thelocal theater, and are much a reflection of the global events as seen by the local observers. The6th c. started with a rise of the Western Türkic Kaganate, which asserted its control over

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 27/39

Türkic-populated areas in the Eastern Europe and Caucasus, including the states of Azeristanand Albania. Its rise culminated with confrontation with the semi-independent Persian proxiesin the war of 626. However, the central power of the Western Türkic Kaganate collapsed

immediately after that, leaving a power vacuum in the Eastern Europe and Caucasus, andleading to the rise of the independent Bulgaria, and 25 years later to independent Khazaria.After the collapse of the Western Türkic Kaganate in 630, the Persia temporarily reasserted itcontrol over its old client states in the S.Caucasia, but that too was short-lived. The Arabconquest of Persia led to the end of the Sassanid Empire in 644, allowing independent local

relations in the Caucasus to come to the front, but soon the Arabs started asserting theircontrol over the Persian old client states in the S.Caucasia. Both the Byzantine and theWestern Türkic Kaganate retreated from the Caucasus theater, leaving two major powers, theArab Caliphate and the (now Khazarian) Kaganate fighting for the control of the Caucasus.That confrontation oscillated back and forth for more then a century, severely changing

demographical and political map of the Caucasus. Not much of the local interplay received itsreflection in the historical works, leaving much to deduce to correlate the local events with theunderlying developments.

In 664, Huns lived within and outside of Albania, and sedentary Albanians, through the

administration of their King Djuansher were paying taxes (or annual tribute) to the Elteber ofthe Huns. A failure to render payment, after some diplomatic squabble, stirred a collectioncampaign perceived as a sequestration raid, to fill in the arrears. The Huns, and other pastoraltribes within Albania, were not assessed any taxes, and likely were receiving their portion ofcollections as a party to the contract and for participation in its enforcement . At the same time,

Albania was paying, or was supposed to be paying, their assessment to the Arabs. The doubleobligations were draining the country, and the compact of 664 was to re-ally with the Huns toprotect Albania from the Arabs, as it was during the reign of the King Sanesan, when Masgutsand Huns were united.

The turning point for the Savir Huns was the loss of Varachan in 737 to the Caliphate

forces under command of Marwan. After that, the dispersed Savir Huns lost their identity inthe Caucasus, and for a long while become faceless Khazars, only to reappear in the Slavicannals under the name Severyans, and in the Bulgarian history as a component of the Bulgarsunder the names Suvar and Saban.

Discussing with the Princes and Catholicos Ilizar the need for a new alliance with the Huns, the ruler ofAlbania pointed to the difficult situation the country was in: on the one hand, it was taxed with tribute by the“Tajiks” (Arabs), and on the other hand it was suffering annual raids by the Huns. Therefore, in 682 Albania

was forced to reaffirm its alliance with the Huns with a new peace treaty, one of its condition wasreinforcement of the family ties between the rulers, and adoption of Christianity by the Huns. To achieve thelatter condition, in 682 to the Huns was sent an embassy headed by Bishop Israil.

The author leaves out connection between religion, alliance, and dynastic marriage. Longbefore Alp-Ilitver, and long after him, the dynastic alliances were religion-free, i.e. the wiveswere taken from numerous peoples irrespective of religion. Even with the later era of religiousintolerance, accommodations, if any, were made within a family and on a personal basis.

Moreover, with the Türkic traditional religious tolerance, any religion was greeted with respect.Obviously, Albanians were in a bind and needed a treaty to improve their condition, the Hunshad an upper hand and did not have to yield to any demands, and especially to such anoutrageous demand as the intrusion on the sacred freedom of religion and innate personal

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 28/39

convictions of every person in their country. The further studies may not resolve the problem

for shortage of written accounts, but that does not make sensible a senseless account, anddoes not warrant to turn a blind eye to the historical puzzle.

In 684, the Khazars conducted one of grandest campaigns in the Caucasus. Having devastated a numberof areas, seizing booty and captives, Khazars returned to the Caspian Sea area. In battles with the Khazarswere killed the ruler of Armenia Gregory Mamikonian, Albanian and Georgian Princes (Ghevond, p. 10). Itis not known whether Alp Ilitver's Huns were taking part in this campaign, two years earlier they werereceiving with honors the mission of Israil. Movses Kalankatuatsi does not mention this campaign, however,

the author of the “History of the Alvan country” hurriedly reports on the Prince of the Huns fate afteradoption of Christianity: “he showed to the Khazar Khan many feats of bravery in Turkestan. He gained hislove and had to give him his daughter in marriage...”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 199).202

In the modern translation of the source the meaning of this //202// extract for some reason is translateddifferently: “...He has earned a gallant great name, accomplished many feats of bravery in Turkestan during

Hakan of Khazars, he earned a love of Hakan, who gave him his daughter in marriage. And he also wasawarded the rank of Ilituership (Eltebership) and glorified in all three countries...”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi.II. pp. 127-128).

It is known that the newly minted Khazar Kagan was assembling his realm using numerousdynastic marriages, rather than using his arms, a method amply demonstrated in its efficiencyby the Saudi dynasty in the 18th c. On his death, his harem was inherited by his successor.Bahadyr Chebe, the son of Elteber Bulan Shad and grandson of Tun-Yabgu Kagan, is a likely

candidate for the position of the Elteber in 682, one of his sisters was a wife of the KhazarKagan, another sister was a wife of the Alan King Djevanshir, and his daughter would be anatural dynastic match for the new generations of the Khazar Kagans from the rival Ashinaclan. A reciprocal marriage to the daughter of the Khazar Kagan from a blood-unrelated line isalso quite possible.

The tight and intricate dynastic bonds in the Caucasus and elsewhere, frequently neglectedby the historians conditioned to disregard family bonds in favor of personal and imperialambitions emblematic for the modern states, played a far greater role in shaping history thanwas accounted for in the later historical reconstructions full of anachronic supposals.

The last citation of M.Kagankatvatsi is a positive testimony that Alp Ilitver is a title of aposition, Alp is Alp is “Great”, Ilitver is a distortion of “Elteber”, and Alp Ilitver is a renditionof Great Elteber, so the title Great Prince is its direct translation to Armenian. In the Oguz andEastern Hun languages the “Great” is expressed with Ulu/Ulug/Uluγ, known from many titleslike the Timurid Ulug Bek, and Eastern Hunnic in Chinese transcription �� Yuli in Yuli Yui =

Great Yui. The word Alp with the meaning Great is also documented in the Celtic language;according to Servius the European mountain range Alps carries a Celtic name of pre-IE root,Alp was used to denote “any high, snow-capped mountain”. This little spec of evidencecorroborates the circum-Mediterranian route of Celtic pastoralists, who brought the wordalong from the N.Pontic to Spain in the 4th millennium BC.. The word Alp with the meaning

Great also provides another speck of corroborating evidence that the Central and EasternEurope were populated by the Türkic-speaking tribes before the spread of the IE languages inEurope.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 29/39

It is generally assumed that the religious reform in the “land of Huns”, conducted with the consent of theGreat Prince Alp Ilitver, displeased the Khazar Kagan. Alp Ilitver, as a vassal of the Khazar Hakan,amending for his guilt, had to give his daughter in marriage to the Hakan and participate in some joint military

operations, demonstrating his loyalty.

We visualize a somewhat different version of the events after adoption of Christianity by the Huns. TheKhazar campaign in S.Caucasia in 684 was an act that demonstrated the right of Khazaria in theS.Caucasus. To the “country of Huns” it had no direct connection, the Caspian Huns could not participate in

the campaign (This premise is completely unacceptable, this is equivalent to an immediate deathsentence. Refusal of the Russian Far Eastern Military District to participate in the war againstJapan? What a strange idea. Fortunately, it has nothing to do with the analysis). The reform of 682was not interrupted by the Khazar campaign of 684, Movses Kalankatuatsi as one of the Huns' Great Princevirtues notes that “in many places, he was erecting churches and multiplied honors of the God's priests”

(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 128). Apparently, the Alp-Ilitver spread Christianity throughout the “land ofHuns”, and thus was “glorified in all three countries”, - emphasizes the author of “History of Alvan country”.The Christian missionary in the “country of Huns”, Bishop Israil probably touched with Christianization //203//some Khazar areas also, because in the third book Mavses Kashankatuatsi, telling about the tragic fate ofIsrail, notes as his achievement that he converted “many of the Khazir and Hun provinces to Christianity”

(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 148).203

In the 680's. the “country of Huns” conducted an independent internal and foreign policy, and its rulerAlp Ilitver was glorified in Armenia, Albania, and Iberia by the adoption of Christianity and ceased the raidson the countries of the S.Caucasus, as was promised in his letters to the upper spiritual and secular rulers ofArmenia “Because if he (Israil - LB) would be among us, and we would all have one faith, then the raids of

the troops of /our/ savage peoples into your country will cease” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 133).

As for the marriage of the Hun princess to the Khazar Kagan, that was an ordinary event, according tothe established tradition or for political purposes (so did the rulers of Persia, Albania, Arab Caliphate, and ofthe Khazaria).

7. 5. Caspian Huns and the Arab-Khazar wars

204

Above, we addressed key stages of the Arab-Khazar wars in the Caspian region. Here, concludingdescription of the “country of Huns” political history, shall be emphasized that the Arab expansion to the

Caspian Dagestan was a tragic milestone in the history of the Caspian Dagestan peoples.204

Reference to Arab-Khazar wars before the time of Khazar Kaganate (est. 650) is amisnomer, a backward projection by the Arab later historians. The war was Arab-Savir, or

Arab-Hunnic in terms of this work, its theater was limited to the lands of the Caspian Huns-Savirs, and the resisting army was Hun-Savir army. The author uncritically follows theconditional Arab nomenclature.

The main //204// blow of the Arab army power bore the people of the “country of Huns”. Their territoryfrom the beginning of the 8th c. to the 740's. was subjected to almost ceaseless devastation, loss ofeconomic centers were ruined, economy was being destroyed, women and children were massacred ortaken away as slaves, were taken away valuables. In all likelihood, the “country of Huns” fell into the

political dependence of Khazars after the Arab raids. The “land of Huns” in the fight against Arabs acted as

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 30/39

an ally of the Khazars, as one of the major forces in the Caspian area capable to resist the onslaught of theArab expansion.

The following is a listing of milestones in the Arab-Khazar wars. .Researchers attribute the firstappearance of Arab troops in Derbent by 642/643. In 652/653 Arabs tried to take Balanjar, their forceswere defeated, one of the campaign leaders was killed. In 692-693 the Arab ruler of Armenia Mahmet II,

who invaded Albania, occupied Derbent, but could not hold it (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 259; Ghevond,p. 12). What forces opposed the Arabs at the walls of Derbent is not stated.

At about 510 Derbent was controlled by a Hun called Anbazuk. At about the same timecontrol of Derbent passed to Persians; the Persians controlled it for 120 years during the reignsof Kavad (r. 488–531), Khosrow I (r. 531-579), Hormizd IV (579-590), and Khosrow II(590-628). The Türkic-Persian war of 626 (aka Third Perso-Türkic War) drove Persians outwith taking of Derbent by the Türkic Kaganate in 627, likely restoring the Hunnic control. In

the interim period of 630-644, Persians were not in a position to challenge Huns, and in 654Derbent was captured but unlikely retained by the Arabs, who had to re-take it again in 693.This allows to conclude that in two centuries between 510 and 692 Derbent was controlled bythe Persians for about 120 years, and held by the Huns for 70 years, and they continuedholding it after 693. Thus, Mahmet II had to take Derbent from the Huns, and then again

Marwan had to capture it from the Huns in 708, and then again Maslama failed to takeDerbent from the Huns in 713. Finally, on the fifth attempt, in 727 the Arabs took abandonedby the Huns Derbent. By that time, Türks manned and controlled the Caliphate army, andwere on the way to taking over the Arab Caliphate.

In the 8th c. followed a number of Arab raids into the Caspian Dagestan. In 708/709 the Arab leaderMarwan (Marwan ibn Muhammad, later Caliph Marwan II) captured Derbent. After a year (710/711)Khazars marched through Derbent (naturally, held by their Huns) into northern Albania (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 260). In the 713/714 the Arabs, led by Maslama, besieged Derbent for three months.The city was guarded by the Hun troops, the Arabs defeated them invaded the “country of Huns”, and laidsiege to the Hun's city Targu” (713/714 ).205

Only Ghevond gives the name //205// of this city, although Movses Kalankatuatsi also tells aboutconsequences of this campaign for the Arabs (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 261). Huns turned for help to the

Khazars, whose intervention was decisive. The Arabs lifted the siege of the city, fearing a total disaster.Maslama had to flee, leaving behind his train and harem (Ghevond, p. 28).

In 722/723 took place a battle of the Arab forces led by Jarrah with the Khazars on the river Ar-Rana,where they defeated Khazars, at that time Arabs took Balanjar and Vabandar, and Haidak was ransacked.

In 727/728 the Arab commander Maslama entered into abandoned by their residents cities Derbent,

Balanjar, and Semandar (Semender).

In 733/734 Maslama captured Haidak. In 735 he took Balanjar.

In 737/738 the Arab leader Marwan, jointly with the Armenian Prince Ashot, captured the capital of the“country of Huns” Varachan (Belenjer), the Khazar capital Al-Baida (Itil), probably was also taken

Samandar (Semender). At the same time, Marwan conducted a military operation in Haidak.

All subsequent events of the Arab-Khazar wars in the 8th c. are associated with the foreign policy of the

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 31/39

Khazar Kaganate, which played an important role in the Arab-Byzantine rivalry in the Caucasus. Theethnonym “Khazars”, as was shown above, covers all ethnic diversity of the North-Eastern Caucasus.

Under the name of Khazar in the eastern and Byzantine authors are apparently hiding many Türkic-speakingand local tribes, including the Huns of the Dagestan.

8. Subjects of the “Great Prince” of the Huns

8. 1. Commoners

206

It was was noted above that the inner circle of the the “Huns' Great Prince”, consisted of nobility andpeople in service. The “History of Alvan country” also contains some information about the rest of the

population, the commoners. They included ordinary citizens and residents of the villages in the “country ofHuns”.

Very little information was provided about social status of the free population. Movses Kalankatuatsicites a number of facts showing that free inhabitants in the cities of the “country of Huns” participated inimportant events inside the community, in particular, in such crucial events as religious reform of 682.

Movses Kalankatuatsi, describing the events at the end of the 7th c. in the “country of Huns” that led to theadoption of Christianity, talks three times about the townspeople of Varachan (Belenjer), the Hun capital.Bishop Israil in the days of (Lenten ?) fasting “was received by the citizens with great love, they were gladto have him and paid their respects”... (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 124). “ To listen to the Bishopsermons gathered nobles, Azats (Trk., Arm. Freemen, with their own troops) and Ramiks (Cavalrymen,

Footmen, infantry)” //207// (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 125). The author designates Ramiks as “crowd”.207

The trial, staged over the priests and main sorcerers, went on at the town square in presence of allresidents; according to Movses Kalankatuatsi - “in front of numerous assembly of people” (MovsesKalankatuatsi. II, p. 131).

These citations, of course, can't be sufficient to illuminate the status of the ordinary free people, but we

can see that people were not ignored by the “Prince of Huns” in deciding important issues such as change ofreligion.

The “change of religion” is totally out of context, the state religion can't be changed wherenone exist, and everyone is free to pursue any religion or none at all. The issue was to convertfrom a free society to a society bound to a state-mandated, single alien religion, a concepttotally unknown and foreign to Türkic society.

Some part of the ordinary people spoke against the religious reform of the “Great Prince”, and supportedthe ministers of the pagan cults (Instead of “ministers”, a more appropriate term in the narrative wouldprobably be “advocates”). Movses Kalankatuatsi reports that when it was decided to destroy one of the

main symbols of the old religion of the Huns, the sacred oak, the “... witches and sorcerers, the witches andpriests, with the common people, came to the Prince of the Huns and chiefs of the country, howling andbeating their breasts, and shouted with loud voice: “What do you think, how dare you, how can you do whatour enemy is telling you, the enemy of our gods - to cut down that tree” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 128).According to the description, the commoners expressed to the “Great Prince” a strong protest. And

apparently, to them related the threat of Alp Ilitver: “And anyone in my country will stick to paganism andwould secretly sacrifice to the idols, I will destroy and deliver to the sword ” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. C132).208

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 32/39

The main duty of the ordinary male population was participation in military campaigns, which wereorganized about once a year, sometimes more. It is no accident that the author of “History of Alvancountry”, describing the events that took place in Varachan (Belenjer) in connection with the religiousreform, sometimes equates the concept of “people” and “numerous warriors” or the “numerous royal army”

(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 127, 130 .)

The spin and misunderstanding do serious damage to the valuable observations aboutHunnic social life. The distortions introduced by primitive serf mentality of the ancient

chronicler are overlaid by doctrinal vision and imposed biases of the modern analyst. Thepicture drawn by the chronicler, and the interpretations given by the author are obviouslysaturated with misguided internal contraventions. A little background and understandinggleaned from other sources would be helpful in reading the facts.

The chronicler describes a democratic society akin to the Greek city-states and KingArthur social order. The post of Elteber has little in common with the status of the ArmenianKing, which serves as a model for the chronicler's perception, and with the organization of themodern Soviet society that existed at the time of the author's work. The post of Elteber is anappointment by the head of the state conditioned on the approval and acceptance by the

citizen population, much like the modern presidential appointment subject to the approval byCongress or Parliament. In today's language, the jurisdiction of the Elteber is of a chair in alocal Parliament, with dictatorial powers limited by the consent of the ruled. The supreme headof the state carries symbolic religious functions, leading public prayers to the God Almighty indaily and calendar rituals, and without being endowed with any religious hierarchical powers.

The local head of the province, Elteber, performs the same function within his jurisdiction, alsowithout any religious hierarchical powers. The heads of local communities, tribes, pasturingroutes, villages, etc., down to the individual family, lead prayers in their locales. The function ofthe prayer leader has little in common with the function of the clergy in Christian Church, or

with the ideological leaders in the former Soviet Union, who undertook to be representatives ofthe higher power to the subject folks, representing Almighty or Communist ideas, being amedium between the masses and Almighty or Communist ideas, and being law-givers on behalfof the Almighty or Communist ideas, the Tengrian prayer leaders of all ranks were ordinarylaymen in respect to the Almighty; while in the organized Christianity the clergy sits on the

God's side of the fence, and the laymen lay on the folk side of the fence; in Tengriism allhumans are on the folk side of the fence, and only the Almighty alone is on the Almighty side ofthe fence.

Understanding the social and religious organization of the Hunnic society allows to fit thepieces of the chronicler's mosaic into a wholesome picture. The Elteber of the Huns had as

much authority to impose state religion as the today's Governor of Quebec has to mandate astate Buddhism, and the popular reaction for any religious imposition in the Hunnia is not at alldifferent from the reaction the Quebecois would have on imposition of a state Buddhism. Theidea that Elteber could conduct mass execution of Tengriists in the fashion of the Christian

clergy could only exist in the inflamed imagination of a missionary cleric. Quite the opposite, theElteber, like the Kagan, were gavel-holders serving at the pleasure of the people, and could bestripped of their position, together with their life, upon the decision of the tribal representatives.

The Early Armenian Church was a Monophysite Church, and it was never beaten intocomplete conformance with the Trinity concept. It originated by syncretization of the

monotheistic Tengriism with the monotheistic Christianity of the Early Jerusalem Church, before

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 33/39

the amendments of the Constantine's Nicaea (325), Chalcedon (451), and Third

Constantinople (681) Councils. By tradition, the Armenian Church still carries the Tengriistpractices, with lay people involved in the council discussions and service at the altar, genderequality expressed as ordination of women as deaconesses and admitting girls to the altar.During its history, the Armenian Church was awarded with many derogatory epithets by otherChristian hierarchies, the earliest was Paulinist after the 269 Synod of Antioch, and

Monophysite by the Roman and Greek Orthodox Churches. Etiologically, the ArmenianChurch was closer to Tengriism than to Trinitarian Churches, and that was the teaching theBishop Israil tried to impose on the Tengriist Huns. In the Bishop Israil's eyes, Tengriism wasjust another hierarchical institution, hence the oft repeated language of “wizards and sorcerers,witches, and priests”, which only existed in his exalted imagination.

8. 2. Population of the controlled territories

209

Tax collection from population of neighboring countries which fell in dependency to Huns was animportant source of income for the “country of Huns”. We rate the population of the dependent territories toa category of semi-dependent, as opposed to the ordinary free people of the “country of Huns”. The

sources do not have clear data on the status of semi-dependent population. We believe that to the categoryof semi-dependent can be attributed populations of the dependent or temporarily occupied by the Hunscountries of Albania and Armenia, which were subject to various taxes and levies. Türks claimed somecountries of South Caucasus. Djebu-Hakan's (Yagbu-Kagan) son Crown Prince Shat (Shad = Prince)

said that “... My father received in possession these three countries - Aluank, Lpink, and Chor for forever”(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 89).209

The “Great Prince” Alp Ilitver also demanded //209// from the Albanian rulers a complete political andeconomic subordination (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 102-103, 120-121). To 629 belongs the messagethat Türks levied population of Albania with heavy exactions - “appointed inspector over artisans who

possessed the skills of mining gold, smelting silver, iron and copper, and also the trade routes and thefisheries of the great rivers Kura and Araks (Arax). The whole tribute he demanded from everybody/demanded/ a tetradrachm according to the census of the Persian Empire” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p.91). The whole subject population was taxed a tetradrachm, and the artisans of precious metals and iron,and also the merchants paid an additional tax. Withholding tax from subordinated territories was preferable

to organization of military campaigns, but apparently the countries of S.Caucasus tried to get rid of the heavytribute, and new forays had to prove the right to these countries.

Leaving aside the unspecified customs duties and VAT tax, the number provided gives anobjective means to assess the general taxation. A tetradrachm was 16 g, or about one half anounce of silver, or about $4/year from a household in 2000 currency. Accounted in gold, it is0.6 g, or 1/50th ounce of gold, or $8/year per year per household in 2000 currency. That wasthe census of the Persian taxation during 120 years of the Persian domination, and the Western

Türkic Kaganate took over the Persian taxes. It is unlikely that Persians could assess thenomadic cattlemen, so the taxing position of the pastoral tribes likely did not change.Comparing with the levels of taxation elsewhere during the last millennium, the Hunnic taxeswere miniscule both in absolute and in relative terms.

8. 3. Slaves

210

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 34/39

The sources contain little information on the slave population in the Hun society. It is known that during theraids on the S.Caucasus the Huns carried off local population into captivity (Egishe, p. 116; Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 166; Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 102-103, 120-121). The “King of Huns”, having concluded

a peace treaty with the Armenian Prince Djuansher, returned to the last 1200 prisoners captured //210// bythe Huns only in a course of one raid to Armenia.210

The sources do not provide an answer as to how the captives were used in the Hunic economy, is knownthat the entire population was not taken prisoner. Into slavery were taken people with professional skills, andchildren and women (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 86, 90, al-Kufi, p. 32, 35). Movses Kalankatuatsi notes

that boys older than 15 years were not taken into captivity, they were killed. Slave population wasreplenished not only by the captives, they were also acquired on the slave markets. Pseudo-Zacharias, citingfacts from the life of the Huns in the beginning of the 6th c. refers to the testimony of Iskhanan Reishain,apparently a priest, and Thomas the tanner, who initially were captured by the Persians, and then sold to theHuns. The captives have lived amongst the Huns for 34 years. What kind of work they did is unknown. But

apparently, the position of slaves was not very bad, because they “took in wives, produced children there”(Pseudo-Zacharias. pp. 165-166).The pinion of N.V. Pigulevskaya that this fact testifies to the high use ofslavery in the “Hunnia” and its natural growth (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941, p. 86), is not convincing, since thesources do not allow to judge that with certainty. Perhaps, a part of the slave population was becoming a

property of the Hun warriors, participants in military campaigns, and was used for chores in individualfamilies. Movses Kalankatuatsi, describing the events of 669, when Albania was conquered by the Türks,reported that despite //211// an order of the Türkic Prince to release prisoners, the soldiers hid them, notscared of “severe punishment”. Only after an intervention of the dignitaries who “started to check the canvasand tents”, pulling young people “hidden under belongings or among livestock”, the prisoners were released

(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 90-91).

Situation in the Caucasus is consistent with the descriptions of slavery in Europe and within andaround China. The Hunnic society in particular, and the Türkic societies in general did not

practice slavery. Societies based on pastoralism do not lend themselves to a forced labor,since little manpower is required to tender huge herds, mobile transport is in abundance aroundany would be slaves, and families isolated during greater portion of the year least of all needinternal enemies. Only when the Türks came into power over sedentary peoples, like China,

India, Persia, and Caliphates, with long-established tradition of slavery, had the Türks adjusttheir traditions to the local conditions.

The subject of captives can't be confused with the subject of forced labor. The captives were apart of the booty, they had monetary value, first of all as ransom, and were subject to fairdivision between the participants of the campaigns. Those captives who could not be

ransomed or sold to the sedentary consumers as slaves were given means for subsistence,offered resettlement within the Türkic states, or were let go. The general attitude to the humancaptives was the same as to the animal captives, they were chattel that needed tendering andcare, and the best disposition was to convert chattel into money before returning home.

The division of the booty was always under keen observation, and deviations from fair division

were perilous for the leaders. We do not have reports on inner conflict between participatingtribes, apparently the division was as a rule consensual, but in few cases we know of thesupreme commander losing his position and life because of excessive greed that offended histroops.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 35/39

Traditionally, every warrior had a right to keep the booty he gained personally, that tradition

was consistently recorded starting from Herodotus for the Scythians, and continued in therecords through the following millennia. The rules of engagement and division of the bootywere well-established, marauding was proscribed and severely punished.

At no point in history the Türkic societies had a law enforcement apparatus. In the steppes, the

prisons were non-existent. Chinese chroniclers reported that in contrast with China, at any timethe Huns or the Türks had no more than few prisoners under guard. The justice was metedquickly, and resolved on the spot. It is given that without a state-enforced system, and a set oflaws related to slavery, the system of slavery can't exist. The Türkic societies completelylacked such a system.

The subject of captives can't be confused with the subject of dependent tribes. History knowsnumerous examples when dependent people, including Türkic people, were forcefullyrelocated in mass. Such cases clearly demonstrate that some dependents were handled aschattel, with all care appropriate for chattel relocation. Not only Chinese and Persians weremoving huge masses of people into designated areas, Bulgars, for example, moved 200,000

Slavs to the Dnieper belt, to serve a border belt to separate Bulgars from Avars. Avars alsomoved a similar multitude of Slavic people into northern Greece and Peloponnese. To thesame category belongs the resettlement of the runaway Chinese and Romans, strategicallyresettled in the Hunnic and Türkic possessions. These settlements tended to be sedentary

islands within the nomadic states.

8. 4. Family and marriage

212

Family and marriage are an important indicator of social development. Information about family andmarriage in the Hunnic society is meager, but still it gives some idea about this important aspect of the Huns'life.

Written sources do not have information on the Huns' size and number of families. However, drawing

analogies and indirect evidence, we can come to some conclusions. A.M. Khazanov, having analyzed dataof the written sources, ethnography, and archeology, came to a conclusion that small family dominatedamong the nomads of the Eurasian steppes (Khazanov A.M. 1975, p. 76). Theophanes Confessor said thatthe ruler Boariks at the beginning of the 6th c. under her authority had 100 000 Huns-Savirs. Based on the

A.M. Khazanov's data on the nomad family size from 2 to 11 people, the average figure is 6 people. Thisresults that under the rule of Boariks were approximately 16, 700 families (Another averaged factor is 5.1person/family).212

Records on the form of the Savir marriage we find in Movses Kalankatuatsi. He writes: “They (Savirs -L.G.) took in marriage the father's wife; they have two brothers with one wife, and they also took different

wives” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 194).

Judging from the words of Movses Kalankatuatsi, we observe at the Huns a well-expressed leviratecustom, when a widow could marry a brother or a son of her late husband, born of another woman. Itseems to us that M.I. Artamonov is erroneous in his belief that at the Huns was widespread polygamy andpolyandry (M.I. Artamonov, 1962, p. 189).

The Huns had monogamy with a custom of levirate. The levirate custom was practiced widely in many

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 36/39

nomadic societies (Khazanov. A.M. 1975, p. 81), in Dagestan it survived to ethnographic modernity(Gadjiyeva C. Sh.1959, p. 250; Ihilov M. 1961, p. 222 ; Kurbanov K.E.1974, p. 133; Alimova B.M.1977, p. 9).

A.M. Khazanov describes three possible reasons that contributed to sustainability of the levirate:inheritance of the wife as a part of property of the deceased; the need to support and educate children ascontinuation of the line of the deceased (Khazanov, A.M. 1975, p. 82). But these factors can be reduced toone, economic. The levirate custom went into effect under precarious economic situation of the deceased's

family. The relatives (children, brothers) without their own family saw it as their duty to improve the situationin such cases by marrying the widow and adopting her children.213

Movses Kalankatuatsi draws attention to the levirate as an unusual phenomenon and then reports like ona commonplace monogamy of Savirs: “... and also take different wives”. The custom of the levirate survivedin the Northeast Caucasus Hun society as a relict phenomenon (In human non-Homo Soveticus language

that means that it has deep roots). The Chinese historian Sima Qian (145-87 BC), the author of“Historical notes”, recorded this custom in the State of the Hun Shanyu: “... after death of the father, takestepmothers in wives, after death of the elder or younger brother they marry their wives...”. (KlyashtornyS.G. 1983, p. 171). Possibly, the polygamy was practiced in the Huns' royal family. Attila, for example, hadmany wives, but permanently lived with only one (Prisk Pannonian, p. 684).

The position of women in the Hun society also can not be clearly described because of a small number ofthe written records.

The subject of sexual freedom, glossed over by the author totally out of context in the

Section 11.2, Chapter 11, p.264 , belongs to the section on status of women in the Hunnicsociety. Sexual freedom is inseparable from the subject of the status of women, sexualoppression is one of the main tools in the arsenal of enforcing gender inequality, and a hallmarkthat distinguished Türkic societies from the male-dominated IE culture. The traditional Türkic

culture allowed complete sexual gender equality, it allowed both sexes unrestricted sex beforemarriage, and precluded extra-marital sex after marriage. We have numerous ethnologicaldescriptions of the sexual freedom for the Türkic period, spotty references for the Hunnicperiod, and largely anecdotal and distorted descriptions for the Scythians written by theauthors conditioned to gender oppression , which separately and together produce a fairly

accurate picture of the Türkic pre-Islamic and pre-Christian gender equality. Ironically, thebest and most detailed descriptions that reached us came from the authors with male-dominating mentality, they were describing what shocked them the most.

The traces of gender equality are still with us, in spite of the millennia-long religiouscampaign against it the Europe is meridionally divided into North-Western part where pre-

martial sex is accepted norm, and South-Eastern half where pre-martial sex is a prerogative ofthe males only.

Ethnologically, the sexual equality in the Türkic society is just one symptom of the traditionalgender equality, where the maternal clan is a legal owner of the state, territory, and its people,

and the equality is resting on the economic hierarchy where traditional socio-economic systempredominates, and the politics and war are subordinated to it.

Based on the records of Theophanes Confessor, who said that the Huns-Savirs were ruled by a “...

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 37/39

barbarian named Boariks, a widow, under whose authority were hundred thousand Huns, she ruled them inthe Huns' countries after the death of her husband, Valakh (Bolakh, Wallach, etc)” (TheophanesConfessor. C . 50), we can assume that such high position Boariks achieved by extraordinary circumstances- the absence of direct male line offsprings or minor age of her son. Is known a fact, when the Khazars wereruled by Parsbit, the mother of the deceased Kagan (Provably, Pars-Bika, an ethnically Persian wife)

(Ghevond, p. 71). Apparently, there also a decisive role played //214// an absence of direct heirs to Kagan.214

The author follows in the footsteps of other uninformed writers from male-dominated IE

culture, confusing the issue. Kagan is an elected position, elected from a qualified class ofcandidates following a lateral succession order. The lateral succession order must be wellfamiliar to the author, because that was the succession system in the early Rus. Under thatsystem, there is generally an oversupply of candidates. The Queen (Hatun) takes control in herhands during interim period before the elections, which she can extend until forced to call the

elections, or as an Ichibek (fem. Ichibika), an appointed Regent for a minor until he is formallyraised to the throne.

M.I. Artamonov suggests that the name of the commander Tormach, whom Parsbit sent to a campaign inArmenia, should be understood a son of the Kagan (M.I. Artamonov, 1962. pp. 211-212). However, there

are no direct or indirect indications of the author about that. Judging from the accounts of TheophanesConfessor and Ghevond, for these authors the rule of women is not uncommon, both explain that by thenatural causes - a death of her husband or son. Whatever the cause, to talk about high position of women inthe Savir society is no reasons. The mere fact that a woman is inherited as an integral part of the deceased's

estate speaks for itself. And in the detailed description of the Bishop Isrzil mission to “Hunnia” of MovsesKalankatuatsi we do not find a report that women participated in any major public affairs.

A deeper look into sources would readily substantiate a really high position of women in the

Türkic pre-Islamic and pre-Christian societies.

Al-Kufi left a detailed description of the Khazar wedding custom. This is how the author describes a

marriage of the Arab commander to the daughter of Khazar King: “... he sent to Hakan, the king of Khazarsby the name Ta'atur, people who asked for his daughter for Yazid. She was called Hatun. Khazar Kingagreed. Yazid ibn Usaid married her, paying for her 100,000 dirhams (ca 300 kg of silver). Hatun solemnlyleft from the Khazar country to the country of Islam. With her followed 10 thousand from among her Khazarrelatives, 4,000 excellent mares, a thousand mules, a thousand slaves, 10 thousand small-height camels of

Khazaria breed, a thousand camels of Türks breed, each of them was two-humped, //215// 20 thousandheads of sheep, 10 covered wagons with doors, inlaid with gold and silver plates, paved inside with sableand adorned in silks, 20 wagons loaded with gold and silver things and utensils, and more”.215

The author continues: “After arrival of the Khazar King daughter and multitude of her goods in thecountry of Islam, she lodged near the gate of Barda (aka Partav)... and then sent to Yazid a man to tell him:

“Send me Muslim women, who would explain to me the essence of Islam and would read me the Koran.And when learn it, I'll be yours”. When Hatun has learned Islam and studied the Koran, they brought fromher a sword and dagger, and Yazid ibn Usayd realized that she had allowed him to enter to her. He came toher at her permission, and she was at that time nicely made-up and generously decorated with jewels” (Al-

Kufi. pp. 62-63). Here we see the custom of paying dowry for the bride, custom of a bride wedding convoyconsisting of the bride relatives, the dowry consisting of slaves, cattle and utensils, and the echoes of some

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 38/39

ancient custom of the bride handing arms to the groom.

The Attila Huns in the mid-5th c. had a custom to offer guests “beautiful women for a company in

accordance with Scythian custom of honor” (Prisk Pannonian, p. 684).

Unfortunately, the following discourse on religion compiles an eclectic mix of prejudices,remnants of state official Russian Orthodox propaganda, Soviet official atheistic, anti-religious,

and anti-clerical propaganda, biased perceptions of the ancient sources, and personaltheological ignorance. None of the experts understands the dual etiology of Tengriism that canbe summarized as follows.

The Heavenly World, which is called Heavens (Tengri in Türkic), consists of a Creator

(Tengri) and his eternal (or immortal) helpers (Alps in Türkic), called angels in Christianity andIslam, and alluded to in Judaism. All Alp angels are a product of Creation, and like the Saintsin Catholicism, have their departments: Department of Visible World (Yer-Su), Department ofUnderworld (Erlik), Department of Benevolent Deities and Spirits (Umai, with traces ofattributes of the Great Goddess), Department of Earth (Yer), Department of Water (Su),

Department of Fire (Ut-Ana, Mother Fire), Department of Sun (Koyash), Department ofMoon (Ai), Department of Thunder and Lightning (responsible for punishment of earthlings),Department of Wind, and a few others. The offices of the Heavenly Department Head angelswere on the Earth, associated with some prominent landmarks, and their abode was inHeaven. Like Tengri, they exist only in spiritual form, and can't be depicted in any material

appearance.

The Earthly World, called Yer-Su, is populated by the material earthly beings equippedwith immaterial Soul (Kut). Everything has its Kut, and the Kut can be paid reverence,mollified, or made a deal with. On departure of the humans to the other world it is the Kut that

goes on a travel, while the material body remains in the Earthly World. Human Kuts areimmortal, they recycle in a cycle of reincarnation. The normal course of events is with the Kutreturning to the Tengri upon death, to be sent back to the Earth in a new embodiment. Thepractical outcome of the eternity of the Kut is the absence of fear of the death, which is only abrief intermission before reincarnation. Kut resides in the body, and under special

circumstances may temporarily leave and return to the body. Under very rare specialcircumstances the Kut may get lost on the way, and the body remains dead. The abnormalcourse of events is for evil people who, instead of returning to the Heaven, fall into the Erlik'sUnderworld, to remain there forever. there is no appreciable difference between the GreekHades and Tengriist Erlik. In the Earthly World, all humans are equal, in respect to Tengri

nobody has an advantage, everybody is rank and file independently of their social status. Andsuch phenomena as clergy, in whatever shape and form, does not exist.

Some people master the mystery of spiritual travel, they can send their Kut on a mission,and safely regain their Kut on its return. These people are called Kam, in the recent past a

circulation gained the term Shaman. For an observer like Bishop Israil or M.Kagankatvatsi, theKam rituals resemble the rituals of their religions, and they interpret Kams as priestlyoperatives. Nothing can be further from the truth. The art of the Kams is entirely earthly affair,they are held as rule-breakers and some kind of very needed, but unholy professionals. Kamsare explicitly excluded from the Tengriis religious services as unclean people. But when you

want to get the latest news from your departed uncle, Kams are the vehicle of communications.Their Kut can fly away to meet the Kut of your uncle, and bring a message from him. But to

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm 39/39

call anybody's religion “cult”, use the loaded with attitudes term “pagan”, equate the magic ofKams with religion, or to concentrate on the outward appearance of rituals and call it religion isunprofessional. Reciting opinions of Christian missionaries and Islamic observers as experts onthe Türkic religion may be suitable for historiography, but for history it is laughable.

The degree of disfigurement is manifested by the sequence of narration, Tengri is placed atthe bottom, behind all other distractions. In the analysis of Christianity, the equivalent would beto place the Christ after addressing church construction, listing of patron saints, incense andtorch processions, and folk traditions absorbed by the Christian Church. However, that couldalso be a tactical move, to annoy and blunt the attention of the censors

Book Contents Chapters 1-2 Chapters 3-5 Chapters 6-8 Chapters 9-11

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - ContentsLiterature Index

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

BesenyoDatelineBulgarDateline

Huns DatelineKarlukDateline

KhazarDatelineKimakDatelineKipchakDatelineKyrgyzDateline

Sabir DatelineSeyantoDateline

11/2/2010

“” ~ –&ndash; Türkic

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 1/37

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - ContentsLiterature Index

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

BesenyoDateline

BulgarDateline

Huns DatelineKarluk

Dateline

KhazarDateline

KimakDatelineKipchakDatelineKyrgyz

DatelineSabir Dateline

SeyantoDateline

L.Gmyrya

HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIANGATE

Caspian Dagestan during epoch of the Great Movement of Peoples

Dagestan Publishing, Makhachkala 1995, ISВN 5-297-01099-3

Chapters 9-11

RELIGION, CONVERSIONS, BURIALSBook Contents Chapters 1-2 Chapters 3-5 Chapters 6-8 Chapters 9-11

Posting Foreword

Posting introduction see the contents page.

Poor print quality hurts the accuracy of this posting, but fortunately the contents are not impacted. Page

numbers of the original are shown at the beginning of the page in blue. Page breaks in continuous text are

indicated by //. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are

shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers.

9. GODS AND CULTS

216

The question of the religious etiology of the North-East Caucasus Huns was repeatedly raised in literature

in relation to various aspects of the Khazar history, as well as the ethnic history of the Northern Caucasus

(M.I. Artamonov, 1962. pp. 186-189; Pletneva, S.A. 1986. C . 33-34; Fedorov, Ya.A. 1972. pp. 23-24;Gadlo A.V. 1979. pp. 144-149).

The pantheon of the North Caucasian Huns is the subject of special works, which traced its connection

with the mythology of the ancient Central Asian Türks and religious beliefs of the Iranian-speaking

population (Klyashtorny S.G. 1981, p. 64, 1984. pp. 18-22; Gmyrya L.B. 1980. pp. 42-44, 1986. pp. 90-

108).

Researchers noted that the first and most powerful political union of the Caucasus nomads, the “kingdom

of Huns”, formed on multi-ethnic basis, which included, in addition to the Türkic-speaking tribes, also the

Iranian-speaking and autochthonous populations. As was shown above, covering various aspects of socio-

economic and political history of the Dagestan tribes in the 4th - 7th cc. AD, the ancient writers often called

with a common ethnonym “Huns” not only politically dominating tribe, but also other //217// non-Türkic ethnic

entities in the Hunnic confederation, including the local population (Lazarev Ya., 1859. pp. 2-10. 17 GadloA.V. 1980, p. 41; Gmyrya L.B. 1988, p. 111).217

The premise of polyethnicity invalidates most of the following review and conclusions. The

author can never discern what ethnicities the listed traits belong to, and even the Hunnic kins

that preceded them in the Caucasus may have developed traditions syncretic with the traditions

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 2/37

of various autochthonous tribes, and thus historically totally different from the traditions that theEastern Huns brought to the Caucasus. The religious tolerance innate to all Türkic societies

signals that any local traditions the Huns encountered in the 2nd c. AD continued unhindered in

all their diversity, and in some aspects they possibly syncretized with Tengriism, but in other

aspects they could not have been adopted as conflicting with the Hunnic cannons. The ritual of

soaking ground and waters with blood appears to be an example of such conflict, that ritual

entered and survived to the present in the Armenian Christianity, but it would egregiously

conflict with the Tengrian reverence to the land and water, indicating that this fertility ritual

belongs to the local religions of the sedentary agriculturists. The uncritical reliance on the

notions of M. Kagankatvatsi ought to lead to misplaced conclusions. Other cited patently non-

nomadic traits, like the First Furrow, also appear to be totally out of place.

In this regard, the data of the written sources on religious conceptions of the North-East Caucasus Huns

is important for understanding complex formation processes of ideological vision of this region population

during early medieval period.

Most complete written testimony on this subject is in the “History of Alvan country” by MovsesKalankatuatsi, which contains valuable and succinct information about pagan beliefs of the “country of Huns”

population, about a complex political struggle by members of spiritual and secular elite, which led to thereligious reform in the Hunnic society (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 124-131).

Some fragmentary evidence about the Huns beliefs is in the works of Ammianus Marcellinus, Pseudo-

Zacharias, Agathias (Ammianus Marcellinus. II. pp. 242-243; Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 150; Agathias, p. 158).

M.I. Artamonov noted that the Huns religion “finds many matches in cult traditions, residually preservedin the Caucasus” (M.I. Artamonov, 1962, p. 188). The rudiments of pagan rituals in the calendar

celebrations, funeral ceremonies, and folklore of the Dagestan peoples recorded by researchers areimportant additional sources contributing to understanding of the complex forming processes of the

Northeast Caucasus population ideological worldviews //218// in the early medieval period.218

In the Hunnic society of the 4 - 7 cc. AD the dominant were pagan cults: veneration of elemental forces

of nature, Fertility cult, and ancestor cult; they were joined by some other beliefs and cult rituals (belief infate, fortune telling, sorcery, etc.).

1. Deities of Nature

218

One of the main Hunnic gods is thought to be the thunder god Kuar (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. C 124).Living beings and objects struck by lightning at the Huns were becoming sacred, they were revered and

were offered sacrifices. Sun, moon, fire and water were regarded as deities (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp.124, 126 - 127).

The sources do not inform on the role assigned in the Huns' worldview to the deified forces of nature,

however, many similarities in the pagan beliefs of many peoples suggest that the veneration of the naturalforces was primarily because of the dependence from the raw forces of nature. Folklore and ethnographic

modernity of the Dagestani peoples preserved relic echoes from the pagan worship of elemental forces ofnature, including celestial bodies. The Sun and Moon were regarded as protectors of human life (Gadjiyeva

S. Sh. and others 1980, p.63; Gadjiyeva, G.A. 1991. pp. 157 - 159; Alimova, B.M. 1992, p. 229). Theentire well-being was associated with the influence of the Sun //219// (Gadjiyeva S. Sh, p. 1991, p. 329;

Bulatova A.1971, p. 170, M. Khalilov X.M. 1984, p. 77), were common oaths by the Sun and Moon (M.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 3/37

Khalilov X.M. 1984, p. 69; Alimova, B.M. 1992. pp. 72-73) (This historical reconstruction projectsbackwards non-specific folk traits of 20th c. to specific people of 2nd c. With that kind of

reconstruction, all Picts wearing Scythian hats in Caledonia were Anglicans and resented Pope).219

S.G. Klyashtorny rightly believes that the worship of Kuar God was taken by Huns in the Caucasus,

from the local Iranian-speaking population (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 21). Some of the Dagestani peopleremained worship of thunder and lightning, as well as items damaged by lightning (Gadjiyeva, G.A. 1991.

pp. 159 - 160) (Considering the commanding post S.G Klyashtorny occupied in Soviet and post-Soviet time, his opinion is as holy as that of another commanding Turkologist, F.Engels. But... a

better description of Kuar in Tengriism would be an Alp, or a patron, instead of god, and not ofdestruction, but of military success, his symbol was a sword. The Scythian ceremonies described by

Herodotus are nearly identical to those depicted for the Eastern and Western Huns of the followingmillennium. For the Western Huns, the name of the God of war was recorded as Kuar, and the

Chinese rendition was Ching Lu, which kind of excludes the S.G Klyashtorny's insinuation.Moreover, except for the Ossetians, who have about 10% of the distorted Iranisms, no othersignificant group in the Caucasus has any relation to the Iranian languages, defying Klyashtorny's

figment. The parallels described for god Hor in Egyptian mythology, Sumerian Ishkur, PersianGurchesh, Roman Mars, all point to cultural borrowings, even though the Sumerian Ishkur was

recorded as early as 26th c. BC. The Türkic god is reconstructed as Kur, in Chinese transcriptionChing Lu; Kur falls into the same phonetical group as Hor, Ishkur, and Gurchesh. Possibly, it is too

presumptuous to suggest that Türkic Kur was a model for the following gods of war, but in Sumerthe word “kur“means “foreign hostile country“, hinting of invaders. The Türkic proper name

Kur/Chur describes a military leader, with slight dialectal variations it was geographically widelyspread and temporally, first mentioned for the leaders, and later as a popular appellative. Among

Türkic names and titles are Gur-Khan, Gur as part of tribal names, Gurchi and Kuarchi for royalbodyguards for Chingizids and Safavids, Charik for Khan's guard regiment, Jenichars for Ottomanswordsmen, Gorgud and Korkut for prophets. The sources elaborate that “pile of firewood“ is

actually a kurgan, or a natural hill, on top of which is set up a platform, where a sword is mountedand ceremonies held. We have records describing this service ritual for Scythians, Eastern andWestern Huns, and Caucasian Türks. Ref. Z.Gasanov “Royal Scythians“, p. 233 on. In the Caucasus

lays another Kur - the Chor passage without etymological tracing. If in 160 AD the strategic point

was a seat of a Masgut/Alanian/Hunnic Prince entitled Kur/Chur/Chor, that passage would be

naturally called Chor Pass, suggesting a version for etymology. If the phonetics can be trusted,literally Kuar in Türkic means White Warrior, synonymous with the Noble Warrior, since White

means Noble, Upper, Supreme. Under Iranian-speaking population in the Caucasus S.G Klyashtorny

means Masguts/Alans, who are Iranian-speaking only in the V.I.Abaev's creative mythology-making).

An integral part of the solar cult at the Dagestan peoples was a veneration of fire, which played a large

role in the of spring and summer rituals of the calendar cycle (Gadjiyeva S. Sh.1961, pp. 323-325; Bulatova

A. 1971. pp. 176-177). Water also was one of the elements with rudiments of reverence surviving untilrecent in the rituals associated with spring and summer festivals. In the ancient pagan pantheon of Kumyks

the Goddess of water was Zemirah (Gadjiyeva S. Sh, p. 1961, p. 323), whose function included providing

moisture for everything alive, and also the Goddess Suvanasy - a helper of the Goddess of the water, a

guardian of water sources (Gadjiyeva S. Sh, p. 1961. pp. 324-325) (Suvanasy = Su/Suv ~ Water + Ana~ Mother + -sy ~ affix, i.e. Mother Water, a Tengrian Patron Angel in charge of the Department of

Water (Su) listed in the boxed comment above. The nomads of the arid steppes probably appreciated

water more than many other occupations, and had in fact many do's and don'ts connected with water

and water sources unknown to other peoples. The “Solar Cult” is mentioned unspecifically, and not

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 4/37

without a reason: there likely is no people in the world who did not notice the Sun, and who did not

celebrate some calendar event timed by the Sun procession. Türkic tradition was to greet the sunrise,

pray at the sunrise, bury their dead oriented to the sunrise, the home entrances faced sunrise, and soon. The Sun was assigned its own Patron Angel, and he or she could be mollified by praying for

favors. Ironically, the traditional Tengrian reverence to the Sun never reached the height it reached

in Christianity, which made the Sun day a holy day of the week, see for example E. J. Waggoner,1891, Sunday: The Origin Of Its Observance In The Christian Church.).

The following discourse in a number of instances mentions Kumyks for comparison. The

term “kumyk” is Türkic, but its application is purely colonial Russian. In Türkic, “kumyk”means shitass (lit. horse manure) a derogatory supra-ethnic term used for poor people,

something like a “bum” ~ disreputable vagrant in English. This word was used by the non-

Türks as a derogatory appellation for the Türkic people, as any other good neighbor in thisword has degrading terms for their neighbors. Kumyks were mentioned in the chronicles in the

2nd c. AD (James Minahan, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: D-K, Greenwood

Publishing Group, 2002, p.1043). The ethnic term “Kumyk” was created in the 19th c. by the

Russian imperial government, in process of consolidation and re-allocation of their colonialpossessions. Thus, Türkic people of various unconnected ethnicities were bundled together

into “Kumyk” nation. With the introduction of the Stalinist passport system, the term gained a

status of official classification, and eventually fossilized, but as late as 1970 some groups

identified themselves by their village instead of accepting the term “Kumyk”. The tribaldivisions of the “Kumyk” people remain, petrified in their languages, which now officially are

called “dialects” of the “Kumyk” language, in their cultural traditions, in their myths, and in their

religious terminology, among other traits. The notion “Kumyk” was introduced on ad hoc basisby the czarist administrators and politicians, without participation of any scientists or local

representatives.

Initially, in Russian lingo “Kumyks” included Karachai people, Balkars, Tavlya (Tau-as,Mountain Ases), and mountain Türkic people from the Caucasus foothills, in other words all

North Caucasus Türkic people except Nogies. Later, in the processes of the Soviet

administrative equilibristic, Karachais and Balkars regained their ethic appellations, while

others remained “Kumyks”. At the same time, about one third of the Northern CaucasusTürkic people remained with their host nations, and now they officially are Chechens,

Ossetians, Ingushes and Kabardins. They all have strong memories of their Turkic past, and

remember their native language. So, for example, the ancient Tokhars became Digors of

Ossetians and Digors of Balkaria. It was predominantly the Tokhar/Digor/Dger language thatV, I. Abaev used in creating Scytho - Iranian theory. The ethnic divide within the host nations

is helping to maintain a Russian colonial rule in the North Caucasus, like the puppet regime in

the Ichkeria “Chechnya”, manned by the ethnically predominantly Türkic clans. Thisbackground, naturally, is totally absent from the Soviet and Russian materials.

The Dagestani “Kumyks” consist of three discrete Türkic groups, with 5 “dialects” that

betray 5 separate nations, of them 3 “dialects” are major “dialects”. The groups are calledSouth Kumyks, Western Kumyks, and Northern Kumyks. The boundary between South

Kumyks and Northern Kumyks runs along the river Sula, which fourteen hundred years ago

was the border between Albania and Caucasus Khazaria. The Central Kumyks are a part of

Northern Kumyks that sided with Russia during the last colonial war.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 5/37

South Kumyks (Khaikent) in their mass are Oguz Türks, they came to the Caucasus a

millennia before the Northern Kumyks, they are Türkic Albanians, residents of the CaucasianAlbania. The South Kumyks are distinguished by their intellectual capacity and moderation in

all things, they are cultured people. The Caucasian Albania had the autochthonous Laz

population, mountaineers, and in the valleys Türkic nomadic population of Kayi Huns and

Masguts, later Alans, and in the late 5th -early 6th c. they were supplanted by the Savir“Huns”. Southern Kumyks were a part of the Kayitag utsmiate (principality), they lived in

Kayistan, the land of Kayis, they are a group that can be positively identified with the Hun

migration of the 2nd c. The Kayis, Masguts, and Savirs are thought to initially speak dialects of

the Ogur linguistic group.

Western Kumyks (Buinak; Buinaksk) are “mothballed” Albanians, they live in the

mountains, mountain life made them conservative and cautious. They are not numerous (only

tens of thousands), but with a keen sense of pride. They may be descendents of theMasguts/Alans, who were noted for their pride by the Classical authors.

Northern Kumyks (Khasav-Yurt) are descendents of the Bulgarian circle of tribes -Bulgars, Khazars, Savirs, and Barsils. Apparently, to the same circle belong the Karachais and

Balkars. The Northern Kumyks go are descendants of the Khazars; like all military men, they

tend to enjoy partying and take decisive actions, up to robberies, which they perceive as prey

or a trophy. These tribes are also thought to initially speak dialects of the Ogur linguistic group.

The original substrate mix of the autochthonous sedentary and ancient Türkic nomadic

populations are overlaid with Middle Age Oguz and Kipchak migrations. The genetic profile of

the yet undifferentiated Kumyks has a kaleidoscopic appearance: 73 Kumyk men were studied for their Y-DNA haplogroup, they belong to:

15 to

R1b1b227 to J2a* 2 to J1e*

1 to

T

14 to J1* 6 to J2a2* 2 to J2b*

10 to R1a1* 2 to R21 to

R1a1f

10 to G2a2 to

E1b1b1a1 to O

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 6/37

The undifferentiated ethnological profile must be as much motleyed, which devalues the

comparisons cited by the author.

In the religious ceremonies of the Dagestani peoples in a transformed form appear concepts on the need

to sacrifice to the elements of nature. During rituals associated with the call for rain, blood of animal was

shed into a lake, into a water source was lowered a skull a horse, were thrown down river boulders //220//

(Bulatova, A. 1980, p. 100, 102, 104, Khalilov X. M , 1984. (p. 76).220

Some of the Dagestani people were throwing into water one of the ritual personalities (an imitation of

human sacrifice), the water deity Suvanasy was seen as an evil creature, craving for human sacrifice

(Khalilov X. M. 1984. C 76, Bulatova, A. 1980, p. 103; Mythology. 1984, p. 162). Perhaps the events of

self-immolation by the maidens, noted by S.Sh. Gadjiyeva (Gadjiyeva S. Sh, p. 1961, p. 322), reflectedvestiges of ritual human sacrifice to the Sun deity, transformed later into a ritual of jumping over the fire

during the “Meeting of Spring” festival ( Gadjiyeva S. Sh. 1961, p. 322; Khalilov, X.M. 1984, p. 69,

Bulatova A. 1971, p. 177).

The Hunno-Bulgar/Hunno-Savir folklore perpetuated tradition of jumping over fire to the

present. The folklore clearly distinguishes between Bulgars and Savir, crediting Savirs with

introduction of a plow, called “saban” after the Savirs, into the economy of the purely nomadicBulgars. The cultural descendents of the Hunno-Savirs, today's Chuvashes, historically had

little inclination to mobile nomadic lifestyle, and display a durable tradition of sedentary-type

agriculture. Written references on Savirs extend millenniums deeper than on Bulgars, dating to

the time of Sumer, in a company of a number of horse husbandry tribes. The word Sumer may

be linked with the ethnonym Savir, via m/b alternation, peculiar not only to the Türkic tribes,

but to a number of their neighbors: Sumer => Suber => Suvar => Savir, not necessarily in that

order. The first written reference to Savirs, in the form Subartu, dates to the Sumeriancuneiform, but the geography of the oldest written references extends across Central Asia, and

ethnologically they are much closer to the farmers of the early Minusinsk and Baraba than to

Mesopotamia.

2. Fertility cult

Fertility cult is a Middle Eastern, probably Semitic phenomenon, probably dispersed with

the expansion of agriculture. To fall under concept of the fertility cult, religious rituals must bespecifically targeted for fecundity, vs. generic and amorphous wellbeing rituals universal for all

religious traditions. For Hunnic etiology, the following is a hapax, targeted fecundity rituals have

not been recorded for any branch of the historical Huns, neither in Tengriism, nor in its

syncretic forms with Buddhism, Manichaeism, Islam, Christianity, and their numerous forms.

220

Among main elements associated with the Fertility cult, Huns held the Sun, fire, water, vegetation, the

Earth held a central place. The Huns considered Earth a progenitor of all living things, to the forces of theEarth prayed magicians in their incantations (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 197, 199). Movses Kalankatuatsi

has a definition of the “country of Huns” as “Native land motherland” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 199).

Apparently, the Deity of Fertility in the Hun pantheon appears in the form of Mother Earth, who grants

anything connected with fertility. Huns sacrificed to the Earth by pouring on the ground blood of sacrificial

animals (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 199).221

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 7/37

The echoes of the ritual sacrificial offerings of blood to the Earth survived in the funeral folklore of

Kumyks (Gadjiyeva S. Sh. et al. 1980, p. 64), a relic of the past sacrifices is preserved in the ritual burial of

the people during a First Furrow celebration (imitation of human sacrifice) (Bulatova, A. 1984, p. 87),

presenting the plowed land with agricultural produce (Bulatova, A. 1971, p. 169, 1984, p. 87). As an evil

spirit of the Earth, hungry for human sacrifices, can be seen the image of a mythical creature “K'an tuluk”

(wineskin filled with blood) (Mythology. 1984, p. 174), a belief in which held the southern Kumyks (With

the Russian blindness to the indigenous population, a la “Indians” of the New World, it is likely thatthe “Northern Kumyks ” and “Southern Kumyks” are completely unrelated by their origin, and

traditions ascribed to them belong to somebody else). With the deity of Earth can be identified the image

of Mother Earth, preserved in the folklore of several Dagestani peoples, where the Earth stands out among

the other forces of nature, and is revered as a main Deity (Mythology. 1984. pp. 161-163) (Tentatively,

the Kumyk tradition may be traced to the Kimak Kaganate, where agriculture was a mainstay of

economy. Kimak Kaganate united local agricultural and foot hunter populations with nomadic

refugees from the Mongolian steppes, under a leadership of the dynastic clan of the

Saka/Se/Se(yanto)/�, called Shad in their origination legend. Kumans migrated to the EasternEurope with the first wave of the Kimak Kaganate migrants, Kimaks migrated with the later waves,

but in either case their traditions came from much more northern area then the Hunnic traditions,

and they reached Caucasus almost a millennia later. Kumyks and Huns may have had similar

dialects, and the same religion, but in no case their traditions can be equated, especially when

transmitted via a late Soviet chauvinistic publication “Mythology”, 1984).

One of the attributes of the Fertility cult were sacred trees (oaks) and sacred groves. The Sacred Groveswere public sanctuaries. The oldest and tall oak - the “Elder, the mother of high trees” in the Hun beliefs was

seen as endowed with powerful forces, it was considered a “savior of gods, life-giving and giver all

blessings”, a guardian and defender of the country (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 199, 201). The sacred trees

were worshipped, they were sacrificed to, they were particularly guarded. The religious beliefs of the Huns

had a ban, under a threat of terrible punishment and even death, to use the fruits, fallen branches, and stumps

//222// of the revered trees (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 201). It is interesting to note that among some of the

Dagestani peoples the “sacred” trees also were considered inviolable (Alimova, B.M. 1992, p. 230).222

The concept is very simple: tree serves as an altar. Every attribute associated with altar, be

it Christian, Baal, or Astrate, applies to the sacral tree of the Tengriism. As the altar can be

“Savior of the gods, and life-giver granting all the best” only in a caricature description, so can

be caricatured the sacral tree. As the Christian altar can be “endowed with powerful forces”,

so can be caricatured the sacral tree. As the chips from the Christian altar can't be used for

kindling stoves, so can't be used the branches of the sacral tree. As the Christian altar is“untouchable”, so is the sacral tree. And, as one would not confuse an altar with Christianity,

so should not be confused the sacral tree with Tengriism. One can pray at the altar, sacrifice at

the altar, kneel at the altar, burn candles at the altar, and still the altar is neither a God Tengri,

nor the Christ. Neither is the altar a Christian cult, nor the Tengrian cult.

The historiography of the issue related to the tree cult in pagan persuasions is very extensive, and no

consensus yet evolved on the origins of the phenomenon. In the views of many peoples, who retainedvestiges of pagan beliefs, the tree is the counterpart of a man, sharing his fate; the tree is a seat of a spirit, the

tree is a fetish, the tree is a carrier of the fruitful force, casting the harvest, a carrier of erotic potency

(Alekseev, N.A. 1980. C . 76-77; Kurotkin A.V. 1982, p. 156, 158, Tokarev, S.A. et al. 1983, p. 157,

Pokrovskaya, L.V. 1983. pp. 68-69). The holiday tree, decorated eggs, nuts, pastry, and sweets is a

symbol of the nature's fruitful powers in agricultural and wedding ceremonies of some Dagestani peoples

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 8/37

(Modern Culture. 1971, p. 219; Bulatova A. 1984. pp. 85-86, 94; Alimova B.M. 1992. pp. 176-177).

Mighty trees and groves of old trees, apparently were perceived by the Huns as fruits of their deifiedEarth, which absorbed the strength of the Earth and its ability to bring anything connected with fertility. The

cult clergy associated abundance in the country with actions of mighty forces of the sacred trees.223

The “History of the Alvan country” allows to think that with the beginning of social differentiation within

the Hun society, //223// the sacred trees as symbols of power become relics of the evolved upper crust of the

feudalizing nobility led by Alp Ilitver. Movses Kalankatuatsi indicates that this prince and nobility worshippedand brought sacrifice to the oldest, most powerful and revered tree (Movses Kalankatuatsi, p. 199, 201).

Separate Hunnic families and tribal groups also had their own sacred trees. The priests, listing troubles that

may befall to a person who despoiled revered trees, in addition to various tortures, craze, and death, also

pointed to destruction of home, and the whole clan that violated prohibition (Movses Kalankatuatsi, I, p.

201). Such phenomena, when separate clans and evolved upper crust of nobility had a patron sacred tree,

are found at some Türkic peoples of Siberia (Alekseev, N.A. 1980, p. 69, 76-77) (Mixing perverted

Marxism with flummoxed missionary Christianity leads to weird concoctions: “beginning of social

differentiation” applied to people who entered history well differentiated socially, “feodalizingnobility” in egalitarian democratic society, “priests” in a priestless society; stringing one nonsense

citation to another almost completely obscures few facts recorded by disoriented eyewitness).

The process of ethnogenetical integration also affected population's spiritual culture, like religious

percepts that are noted for conservatism and long-term stability. The etiological perceptions of the Dagestani

Huns reflected mutual ideological interaction with the local agricultural population, and the worldview of the

nomadic pastoralists transitioning to a sedentary lifestyle (of the Türkic and Iranian-speaking circles)(Gmyrya L.B. 1986, p. 94).224

Sacred trees in the perceptions of the Northeast Caucasus ancient population were symbols not just of

the fertile force, but first of all the attributes of the vegetational fertility. A.V. Gadlo //224// noted that in the

“country of Huns” the priests mentioned their particular function - bringing about rain, without mentioning the

livestock (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 145), and pointed to the connection of their cults with agricultural activities

of the population. The presence of a Fertility cult at the Huns was caused by productive activities of thepopulation. The cult of vegetational fertility undoubtedly reflects etiological views of the local people with

deep agricultural tradition. The forged etiological syncretism of the population was manifested not only in the

pantheon of the Dagestani Huns, but also in the religious rituals (sacrifices), where main sacrificial animals

were horses. It is known that horse played a leading role in the nomadic economy, and Huns sacrificed

horses to the gods of vegetational fertility.

In connection with the Huns' worship of sacred trees is interesting a message of the Arabian author IbnRustah, who wrote in the early 10th c. He tells of a custom of the city Rnhs residents, somewhere 10 farsahs

from Haidan (V.F. Minorsky believes that it was Haidak), to worship a huge tree that does not bear fruit.

He writes: “On Wednesdays, the inhabitants of the city are gathering /around/ a tree, hang on it different

fruits, they bow in front of it, and offer sacrifices” (Ibn Rustah, p. 220). Is the subject of Ibn Rustah some

city in the “country of Huns”, where residents in the 10th c. continued worshipping mighty trees? (Yes,

thanks to Ibn Rustah we know that in the 10th c., Tengriism was alive and kicking in the N.

Caucasus, centuries after a promulgated adoption of Islam and Christianity)225

In connection with the Fertility cult, which dominated in the beliefs of the Caspian Huns (sic!), should be

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 9/37

addressed the image of the Goddess, mentioned in passing in the “History of Alvan country”. The author

transmitted her name as Aphrodite. Possibly, the author denoted the Hunnic Goddess with the name of the

ancient Greek Goddess of Love and Beauty Aphrodite because of identity of their functions. The Aphrodite

of the ancient Greeks absorbed traits of Goddesses of the Middle Eastern cults - Semitic Goddess of

Fertility, Goddess of Love and Heaven Astarte, and the Great Mother of Asia Minor (Dictionary ofAntiquity. 1989, p. 66).

The Hun Goddess of Love is mentioned by Movses Kalankatuatsi once, as somewhat indirectly. The

Great Prince of the Huns Alp Ilitver offered to settle dispute between the Christian preacher Bishop Israil

and Hun ministers of the pagan cults by demonstration by the ministers of the verity of the ancient beliefs.

The ministers had, with magical spells and incantations, to cause a death or punishment to Israi, who

commanded to destroy the pagan sanctities. The author describes the actions of the cult ministers so: “Thenthe magicians, sorcerers and enchanters /of the Goddess/ Aphrodite began their violent witchcraft, began to

appeal to the Earth with false calls, uttering absurd and meaningless exclamations...”. (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 129).226

In this laconic account about Hunnic Aphrodite attention is drawn to two things: 1) the cult of the

Goddess Aphrodite was attended by magicians, sorcerers and enchanters, that is, the circle of the Goddess

of Love clergy was //226// clearly defined, and 2) magicians, sorcerers and enchanters appealed for sendingdown punishment not to the Goddess (Aphrodite), but to the Earth (Apparently, to the Angel-Protector

Yer-Su, who was in charge of the earthly affairs. With Aphrodite Yer-Su can be connected by the part

Su = Water, and Yer is Earth mentioned by M. Kagankatvatsi. On more elaborate mythological

parallels, Aphrodite is older then Zeus, and Yer-Su is closer to Tengri, making Aphrodite and Yer-Su

acceptable counterparts in status, providing that M. Kagankatvatsi sufficiently knew different

Heavenly hierarchies, which is inconsistent with his other appellations. Also apparently, M.

Kagankatvatsi knew enough Türkic to catch Yer as Earth and Su as Water.

On a more interesting level, Herodotus equated the Greek Aphrodite Urania with the Scythian

Argimpasa, whose name reads in Türkic as Head Oracle/Main Oracle, agglutinated from Arği =

prophesy and mas/pas/bash = head, i.e. the Scythian Aphrodite was an oracle, or fortuneteller, or a

prophet, an earthling without executive power, while Yer-Su was an Angel-Protector with executive

powers).

The available concise information may help to identify main functions of the Huns' Goddess of Love. Thesource makes it possible to assume that the Goddess of Love and Mother Earth in the pantheon of the

Caspian Huns are identical or interchangeable notions. Attending to the cult of Hunnic Aphrodite ministers,

i.e. mediators between the Goddess and people seeking help, were appealing to the Earth, as the author

points out. Thus, the Huns' Goddess of Love, was embodied in the image of the sacred Earth. As mentioned

above, the Earth was central to the Huns' cult of the Fertility, the “country of Huns” was defined as “Earth-

born native land”. Based on the concept of equating the Huns' “Goddess of Love” with the “Mother Earth”,

the ancestor of all living things was precisely the Goddess “Aphrodite”, i.e. her main function was a gift oflife. Because of this, the Hunnic Goddess of Love can be defined as a Goddess of Fertility.

Yer-Sub in description of R Bezertinov Tengriizm – Religion Of Türks And Mongols

Naberejnye Chelny, 2000, p. 80 (synopsis):

The ancient Türks called the visible world occupied by people Yer-Sub (Land-Water) or the place

of Middle Earth, emphasizing its focal, central location. The word Yer-Sub for ancient Türks had

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 10/37

two meanings. One is a Great Deity. Another is the visible world, an image of the native Land. The

Great Deity Yer-Sub existed in the middle section of the Universe, Her residence was on Khangan

Plato (more exactly, on a Lanshan mountain at the upper course of Orkhon river, in modern

Mongolia); this place the ancient Türks called Otüken homeland. Yer-Sub Deity patronized

Homeland (Land and Water) where lived Türks and Mongols. Except for the Man, the nature and

all alive on the Earth and in the Water subordinated to her. Türks esteemed Yer-Sub Deity as a

highest deity after Tengri. Yer-Sub with Tengri In the Orkhon inscriptions Yer-Sub is mentionedunder a name of Yduk (Sacred Earth and Water).

Yer-Sub was a kind Goddess, she patronized and defended Türks. Sometimes on an order from

Tengri Yer-Sub punished people for their sins. To appease Yer-Sub, every spring were made

sacrifices in preparation for cattle breeding, and before the beginning of the fieldwork. Sacrifices

were also conducted in autumn, after completion of agricultural work. In Türkic Kaganates sacrifices

to Yer-Sub were nation-wide, conducted at the upper course of the rivers and rivulets, on the banks

of a lakes. A reddish hue horse was sacrificed with appeals for fertility of the cattle, crop, health andwellbeing. Widespread were sacrifices of white rams, their hide was not burnt, but hung out (with

head and legs intact) on a tree, under which a prayer was conducted. After the sacrifice ritual went

on feasts, mass celebrations, gift exchange.

In each territory was its own Yer-Sub. The Yer-Sub was the not just a settled space, but a copy of

the world as a whole. For each clan their land is a center of the world, center of the Earth, a focus of

the order and harmony.

The image of the Goddess of Fertility is twofold. She is not only a giver of life Goddess, she also

possesses a punitive beginning. What punishment could send the holy Earth - the Goddess of Fertility? The

source identified the following: intimidation, serious illness, death (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 129). The

same penalties fell upon those who dared to pick up fallen branches and leaves from the “sacred oak”,

which was the “guardian and protector” of the “country of Huns”, but in //227// that case the violators of the

ban could also undergo destruction of the house and of the clan (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 128-129).227

Apparently, the worst punishment was not even the death of the individual who violated traditional

prohibitions, but a destruction of the house and family, which the Fertility Goddess - the “sacred” Earth

could inflict.

S.G. Klyashtorny was first to point out the undoubted connection between the Fertility Goddess of the

Caspian Huns and the Goddess Umai of the Ancient Türks (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 22). In the ancient

Türkic pantheon the Goddess Umai was a Goddess of Fertility and births (Klyashtorny. S.G. 1984, p. 19),although she has other functions, seemingly unrelated to her core area of creation, the protection of soldiers,

hunters and shepherds.

A.M. Sagalaev, from the analysis of mythological storylines of the Türkic-speaking population in the

Ural-Altai region, gives a detailed description of the Mother Goddess Umai image. The primary meaning of

the name Umai is “bosom”, “womb”, “umbilical” (Sagalaev A.M. 1991, p. 61). The name of the Goddess

depicts her main function, to give birth to every living thing, give life. In the ancient Türkic pantheon, the

Goddess Umai was held very high. She was a wife of the God of Heaven Tengri (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p.19). And if Tengri in the Türkic mythology rules the fate of the people, Umai is in charge of the births of the

people (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 19), and also gives life to beasts and birds (Sagalaev A.M. 1991, p.

61).228

In the Türkic pantheon the image of the Goddess //228// Umai is dual. She not only approves the birth of

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 11/37

the living, gives birth to all living, but in her power also was to deprive of descendants (she was kidnapping

and devouring infants) (Sagalaev A.M. 1991, p. 61). Such opposing transformations are natural for theMother Goddess in charge of offsprings, thinks S.Y. Neklyudov (See: Sagalaev A.M. 1991, p. 61). The

mythology of the Urals and southern Siberia Türkic speaking. peoples is full of examples of the Goddess

Umai opposite actions: She helps the giving birth, she protects baby from evil spirits, and she could strangle

a child in the womb, she could forgo the child, and evil spirits were devouring an infant (Sagalaev A. M .

1991, p. 67; Potapov, L.P. 1991, p. 288, 291).

In the Türkic epic in Ural-Altai region Umai is represented by an image of usually a young woman withgolden or red hair, let loose or braided into two plaits (Sagalaev A.M. 1991. pp. 55-58). Some peoples

saw her as an old woman with white loose hair. The symbols of the Goddess Umai among the Türkic-

speaking peoples were tawdry yarn (gold, silver, white and green), cowrie shells, small bows and arrows,

small cribs (Sagalaev A.M. 1991. pp. 55-56). The Goddess dwelled, in the beliefs of the Türkic-speaking

peoples, on a mountain, in a cave, in a a narrow crevice, i.e., within the objects associated with the Earth.229

In the religious conceptions of the modern Türkic-speaking Dagestani peoples the name Umai, thatsymbolizes the image of the Fertility Goddess, has not been preserved, although the veneration of the

“sacred” land exists, as was mentioned above. However, with the image of the Goddess Umai can be

compared some female mythical creatures that survived as vestiges of the so-called folk beliefs of the

population. Before turning to the characterization of these mythical images, should be noted that they have

about the same function, and to a some extent identical to the functions of the ancient Türkic Umai, but thenames (appellations) of mythical images sometimes vary even within the same ethnic group, although they

may be similar at ethnically different groups.

This is a most significant observation. The Caucasus was a gathering place of many Türkic

peoples of most different origin and times, from the first massive migration wave acrossCaucasus from the N.Pontic in the 4th mill. BC (circum-Mediterranean wave) to the cross-Caucasus migrations of the Cimmerians and Scythians in the 1st mill. BC, Masgut and Alan

migrations in the 1st c. BC, to the Hunnic migrations in the 2nd c. AD, Bulgar circle migrations,Kangar and Kipchak migrations, and uncountable other migrations, each with their own

compliment of satellite tribes and ethnoses. The fact that a name like Kuar survived from theHerodotus times to the late historical times is a real historical and ethnological miracle.

Closest to the ancient Türkic Umai by her main function is a female deity “Kyune” (with a glottal stop),the mythical stories of which were recorded in Darg's village Mekegi (Alikhanova A.A. 1978. pp. 156 -161). Submissions Mekegin “Kyune” - is the protectress of babies, but at the same time, the deity can steal

the baby from the womb of the mother, or deprive a person of childbearing potential (Alikhanova A.A.1978. pp. 157-158), which ultimately reduces the destruction of nature. In Kumyks with. Bashlykent

preserved representation of the mythical image of the “Kan-tuluk” which translates as “wineskin filled withblood” (Mythology. 1984, p. 174). This is also a female spirit, but a good start it has already met its primary

function - a thirst for human sacrifice.230

To the female deities, in a role similar to Türkic Umai, can also be attributed “Albasly K'atyn”, a figurepreserved in the Kumyk beliefs of the village Bashlykent. But it is again a malevolent creature that strangles

her victims, especially ruthless Albasly is to pregnant women, which she can kill by eating their lungs and liver(Gadjiyeva S. Sh. 1961, p. 325). She also can deprive a person of child-bearing ability. (Mythology. 1984,

p. 167). The Laks of the village Vachi have a mythical image of “Mantuli” that also had an ability to destroy

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 12/37

a clan (Mythology. 1984, p. 172). In another Lak village Ahar in the views of people existed a female image

“Suhalutu” who in a rage could strangle a child in a cradle (Mythology. 1984, p. 172). The Laks of thevillage Vihli have a male spirit “Avdal” who, like the mythical creature “Kyune” at Mekegians, could take

away a child from the womb of a mother (Mythology. 1984, p. 163).

Lezgins of the village Kasumkent have a female spirit “Alpab” (Red Alp, in Türkic?), evil and ruthless in

her quest to destroy the human race (Vagabova F.I., Alikhanova A.A. 1978, p. 159).

Thus, we see that all above mythical images relate to pregnant women, infants, child-bearing abilities ofthe people and ultimately to preservation of the human race. But only the Darg's “Kyune” has a dual

character (good and evil beginnings), all the rest are creatures with strong, harmful to humans ability.231

As was noted above, the divine being in whose power rests the existence of the human kind are female

deities. People visualized these creatures as females, usually of extraordinary beauty, with long, reaching toehair or braids (“Kyune”. “Albasly”, “Mantuli”, “Alpab”). The hair is usually red (“Kyune”, “Alpab”), reddish(“Mantuli”) or wheat color (“Albasly”). The childbearing properties of these mythical figures is expressed

clearly - they have large breasts, cast over the shoulder (“Kyune”, “Albasly K'atyn”), sometimes it is a spiritin the form of a wineskin in a shape of a breast (“K'an-tuluk”). As is seen, by the external characteristics

(young beautiful woman with long red (red) or gold (wheat) hair) the female mythical deities, preserved bysome Dagestani peoples, have their analogue in the image of the Goddess Umai, preserved in the Türkic

epos of the Ural-Altai region.

The abode of the Female Goddesses - counterparts of the Goddess Umai at the Dagestani peoples as arule was nature - a dense forest (“Albasly”, “Alpab”), a cave (“Albasly K'atyn”), sometimes it is a tomb of a

mean woman (“K'an-tuluk”) or a space somewhere outside a home (“Mantuli”, “Suhalutu”). Only at theMekegians was documented a notion that “Kyune” lives in the house, in the ceiling.232

It should be noted that all the denoted above //232// female mythical creatures with influence on theexistence of a clan, although analogous to the ancient Türkic Goddess of Fertility and Babies Umai, but theirstatus is much lower in comparison with Umai's position in the pantheon of ancient Türks. They are usually

not a deities, but only spirits, and in addition are single-function (inflicting punishment to humans). L.P.Potapov noted the similar reduced status of Umai in the pantheon of the Altai-Sayan shamans (Potapov,

L.P. 1991, p. 291). Apparently, this is due to the time effect in transformation of the “sacred” image.

Time effect is not an explanation, the anti-religious propaganda, of either competing

religions, or atheistic state apparatus is a real unstated factor. They successfully kill ethnoses,ethnic histories, ethnic traditions, traditional religion, and generally obliterate the ethnicdifferences. The Caucasus people were exceptionally lucky in that respect, they survived the

Moslem propaganda, the Christian propaganda, Moslem again, Christian again, and then thestate atheistic propaganda. Adding to that the cultural shocks of switching their scripts with

every religious onslaught, i.e. considerable loss of native literacy and native literary inheritance,culminated with cycling through 3 alphabets during period of Stalinist colonization, and physical

wipe-out of any literate population, no wonder that only the most basic and uneducatednotions have survived to the present.

So far, the iconographic embodiment of the Goddess Umai is not clear (No wonder, it does not exist.

The iconography is a Christian idea, and iconoclasm was an influence of the Tengriist tradition,that's why Christianity fought it so furiously). S.G. Klyashtorny suggests that the Goddess Umai is

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 13/37

Fig. 6. Pendant

Upper Chir Yurt subterranean burial No 1. Bronze

depicted ona stone found in Kudyrge burials in the Altai, in the depiction of a woman with tri-horn hat andrich attire (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 19) (Horned hats were recorded for Yetha-Hephtalites marriedwomen by Sung Yun and Xuanzang/Huen Tsiang, reportedly women wore horns on their hats to

indicate the number of polyandrous husbands). However, L.P. Potapov in his book gives compelling inour view arguments against identification of the image on the Kudyrge rock with the image of Goddess Umai

(Potapov, L.P. 1991, p. 293-298).

In this regard, a particular interest presents the semantics of the depiction on a bronze pendant from a

catacomb burial in the Upper Chir Yurt burials dated by early medieval time, known in the publications aspendant in a form of image of woman with baby (Putintseva N.D. 1961, p. 252. Fig. 11 (8). M.M.Mammayev interpreted the as an amulet //233// with image of the Christian Mother of God (Mammayev M.

M. 1976. pp. 97-102). But there are reasons to believe that the semantic meaning in the design of thependant is somewhat different.233

The center of the pendant composition isa figure in the form of eight-pointed cross, placed in a concentricframe (Fig. 6). M.M. Mammayev sees this part of the pendant as a monogrammatic //234// cross-chrism.234

It is known that cross-chrism was a monogram of the

letter “X” and “P” (Bank A. 1966, p. 13. Fig. 18-19);inset in a circle of the cross-chrism took a form of a

“wheel with six spokes” (Rybakov B.A. 1981, p. 300) -six-pointed cross. The figure of eight-point cross in the

base of the pendant can be regarded as a solar symbol -an image of the Sun in motion (Gmyrya L.B. 1986. pp.101-102). With an inscribed A circle with inset of four-,

six-, or eight-pointed cross is an ancient Sun symbol,known at many peoples (Rybakov, B.A. 1981. pp.

297-298; Darkevitch V.P. 1960, p. 59). The decoratedwith a spruce ornament frame, within which is placed a

solar symbol in our opinion is a stylistic depiction of abranch of the sacred tree, the so-called “Tree of Life”,which symbolizes fertility and abundance. The filigreed

or stamped belts in the form of “braid”, “rope”, “hem”,“spruce” are one of the features in the design of

armaments, horse harnesses and decorations in nomadicantiquities of the Eastern. Europe and Central Asia in the 5th-8th cc. AD. The subject of the “tree of life”

was one of the main subjects in the Dagestan art in the Middle Ages. It was recorded in the ornamentationof ceramic vessel and toreutics (Mammayev M. 1967, p. 149, 152). The spherical projections at the centerof the composition, and the branches of the “sacred tree” can be regarded as symbols of its fruit.235

At the top of the pendant is placed a bust picture of a woman with child, depicted conditionally-schematical, with barely indicate facial features. The image of the woman abruptly rises above the main

composition of the pendant, at the same time the image of the lying on the mother hands child does notextend beyond the frame, making its upper part culminating branches of the “tree of life”. The long braids of

the women gently slope towards the frame, clasping and thereby uniting into a whole the composition of thependant's graphic plot, salient in its laconism and voluminosity of expressive means.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 14/37

It seems that the pendant from the catacomb burial of the Upper Chir Yurt burials with image of awomen depicted the pagan Fertility Goddess, Mother Earth of the “country of Huns” - the Goddess Umai,

the giver of all every abundance and fertility (tree of life with fruits), born under the life-giving warmth of theSun (central composition of the solar symbol enveloped by branches of the sacred tree). In this story, the

child perhaps represents an idea of eternity and rebirth of life (Gmyrya L.B. 1986, p. 102).

Cult of the Great Female Deity is known at many nations of antiquity (Grach A.D. 1980, p. 68). TheGreat Goddess is also present in the ancient Türkic pantheon under a name of the Goddess Umai (Grach

A.D. 1980, p. 69; Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 19). In the ancient art the Great Goddess was depicted as awoman with figure decorated with //236// agricultural symbols (tree branches, multi-rayed crosses).236

There are also images of the Great Goddess depicted as a mother, breast-feeding a child (See: Gmyrya

L.B. 1986. Note.133-134). B.A. Rybakov said that the “cult of the Great Goddess gradually acquiresfeatures of the cult of the Earth, earth fertility, and in that form lives for thousands of years ... as a folk

agricultural complex of beliefs and magical rituals” (Rybakov, B.A. 1981, p. 366).

3. God Tengri Khan

236

Like the previous sections, the ineptitude of research in the following paragraphs isprofound, mixing up and confusing the means, like the altar-tree, with the subject of discourse.Replacing the Türkic designation for the Creator, Tengri, with the Judeo-Christian Yahweh or

Sabaoth, with the Islamic Allah would highlight the ridiculous nature of these saucy opinions. Inthe Judeo-Christian tradition, Yahweh is associated with a Storm God, his thunder and fire

were as intimidating to the Christians as the thunder of Tengri was for the Tengriists, but whooutside of the Soviet scientology ever confused the thunder with Creator? Eating symbolic

chunks of God and eating sacrificial horses as a symbolic tribute to God is a shared trait ofChristianity and Tengriism, but who outside of the Soviet scientology ever confused sacrificialChristian consecrated bread and the Tengrian cooked horses with the Creator? Christianity

has a host of Patrons of the travelers, Saint Christopher, and St. Anthony of Padua, and St.Brigid of Ireland, and Coptic Saint Menas, and so on, a total 23 Patron Saints of safe travel

are recognized by just the Catholic Church, and the Christian Church is of the sedentary, non-mobile populations, vs. the ever mobile nomadic populations. Nobody outside of the Soviet

scientology ever calls all these Patrons of the travelers Gods, or lists them in the Christianpantheon of Gods; the Yol-tengri (Yol is road in Türkic) of Tengriism is no different. Thecompetence of this scholarship, with its accent on the Early Middle Age erudition, is quite

compatible with the competence of the Middle Age religious scholars of all kinds and flavors.

The arrogant sour attitude to the use of the trees as sacred symbols, which explicitly

denigrates people and their religion, appear to be ignorant of the cardinal reason for thatphenomenon, the ability to communicate with the Almighty at any place and at any time. The

practical justification of that need was formalized in the approximately contemporaneousTonyukuk inscription, which argued against attempts of another Kagan to introduce a worldreligion (Buddhism) and its appurtenances: “building of temples will destroy the ancient Türkic

custom “not to be bounded by anything”, otherwise the Tang dynasty would destroy us”. Theunbridled freedom of religious communion with the Almighty, so needed for the pastoral

people, is derogated by the primitive notions of the indoctrinated scholars.

The God Tengri-Khan in the Caspian Huns' vision was the Supreme God (Tengri in Türkic is the sameas God in English, Allah in Arabic, etc. In English the phrase reads: “The God God-Khan in the

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 15/37

Caspian Huns' vision was the Supreme God”). In the “History of the Alvan country”, He is bestowedwith laudatory epithets: “mighty Hero”, “unbridled giant”, “brave and gigantic Spandiat” (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 197, 201). “The Cult of Tengri-Khan - says S.G. Klyashtorny, was a central cult in therealm of Alp Ilishver” (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984. C 21) (Elteber => Ilitver => Ilishver. Not bad...).

Several researchers identified Tengri-Khan of the Dagestani Huns with the Heaven God Tengri of the Türks(M.I. Artamonov, 1962, p. 187; Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 21; Gadlo A.V. 1979. C 146) (These giants

of thought identified Tengri with Tengri, what a feat!). The Supreme God of the Pra-Bulgars (i.e.Bulgars in the lingo of Slavic chauvinists and Soviet double-talk) also bore the name Tangra(Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 18) (Tengri => Tangra. Not bad...).

Analysis of the “History of Alvan country” indicates that the Heavenly God Tengri of the ancient Türkicpeople in the conditions of the mounting social //237// differentiation of the Hun society was transformed into

a God-Ancestor, God-Hero, endowed with strength, courage, veneration of Him was bringing to the“country of Huns” success and abundance..237

The noted above accreditation of the most revered trees with protectant function, guarding, and ability to

produce benefits to the evolved upper crust of the Hunnic society is reflected in the religious conceptions ofthe Huns, where a correlation between the image of the Supreme Deity Tengri Khan, and the revered trees

(sacrifices to the “sacred” tree were offered in veneration of the God Tengri-Khan, heads and skins ofsacrificed horses were hung on the branches of the tree). Perhaps the Huns believed that it was the main

Deity who bestowed power and prosperity to the Prince of the Huns and his servants.

S.G. Klyashtorny believes that not only tall trees, but the Sun, moon, thunder were symbols of the TengriKhan cult (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 21).

Concluding description of the pantheon of the North Caucasian Huns, is necessary to dwell on one moreaspect. Movses Kalankatuatsi indicates that the Huns honored some gods of roads (Movses Kalankatuatsi.

I, p. 193). S.G. Klyashtorny notes similarity of the gods of ways of the Huns with the ancient Türkic deity“Yol-Tengri”, ensuring contact of the Heavenly God Tengri (Deity of the Upper World) with the Deities ofthe Middle World (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 22). Probably, the especially noted in the pantheon of the

North Caucasus //238// Huns the Gods of Travel were Patrons of the nomads as Deities with a function ofprotecting from any mishaps during seasonal migrational coachings.238

4. Amulets and fetishes

We can only guess what definition of Paganism was used by the author, but it is unlikelythat it deviated much from the standard definition cited below. In applying it, the author acts as

a prejudiced advocate of a particular religious traditions, unbecoming to a scholar. It is anaxiom that in the eyes of any adherent of any religion, his own religion is the “true one revealed

by God”, and all others are not. This is evidenced by the fact that all religions haveconventional derogatory terms for the other religions:

“Paganism, in broad sense includes all religions other than the “true one revealed byGod”, and, in a narrow sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Islam”

In a simpler form, the same definition is this:

“Paganism is a religion that does not acknowledge your (brand of) god”

In either case, the author taciturnly a priory supports one version of religion over the others.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 16/37

Figure 7. Cult objects and mold

1, 2. 5-7 - Palasa-Syrt settlement 4th-6th cc.

3-4 - Palasa-Syrt burial 4th-5th cc.1, 2 - two-sided form for casting mirrors3, 4 - mirrors

5, 6 - dices3 - amulet

1, 2 - stone3, 4 - bronze

5-7 - bone

A part of the Caspian Huns belonged to the Kayi tribe, termed in the chronicles as Kayi

Mountain(eer) ~ Hai Dag(dur). The Kayis were people of the snake (dragon), and very wellcould ornament themselves with the image of the snake (dragon) loaded with innumerableunspecified symbology much like today's people boast school rings, crosses, shaped word

pendants, etc. The scholars who undertakes explaining semantics of the artifacts of the longpast people should at least demonstrate their ability to read the semantics of today's tattoos,

jewelry, and car ornaments that can be verified, shouldn't they? A good example of misguidedreading is that of M.Gimbutas, who applied studies of non-Kurgan people to Kurgan people,

assuming identical context of symbology (i.e. circle. star, etc.) and came up with fancifulconcept, turning symbology into genetical, anthropological, racial, and linguistic attribute thatconflicts with every scientific discipline.

239

Some Huns' objects were fetishes and were used in

the pagan rituals (Fig. 7). To that class can be attributedmentioned in the source pagan amulets - “golden andsilver images of dragon”, and also the dice (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 198, 205).

Although the geography of the dragon-snake cult is

quite wide, at almost all peoples the image of a dragon-serpent is associated with the abundance of water

(Reshetov A.M. 1981, p. 87 - 90), and in themythology of the Altaians the dragon served as a masterof clouds (Sychev L. P . 1972, p. 146). At the peoples

of Dagestan the snake is not only a spirit of precipitation(Bulatova, A. 1971, p. 184; 1980, p. 101), but also a

good spirit of home, guarding the welfare of the family(M. Khalilov, Kh.M 1984, p. 71; Khalidov M.R. 1984,

p. 105).

Pagan amulets with an image of a dragon apparentlywere not only fetishes, but the distinguishing signs of the

cult clergy, whose main activity was performing ritualsassociated with the success in the productive activities

of the “country of Huns” population. The insightsobtained from the analysis of some ancient Türkic terms

suggest that the ritual garb of the clergy differed //240//from the clothing of the general population (N.I.Djidalaev p. 1984. pp. 153-156, 159) and the amulets, apparently, were a necessary complement to the

garb.240

The dice, which during the fight against the Huns' pagan beliefs were burned down, perhaps originally

were attributes of magical rituals connected with worship of the Sun god. Indirect evidence of that is theprohibition of games of dice during droughts, that existed among some Dagestani peoples (Bulatova, A.1971, p. 177). (Dice is found in the oldest Kurgan burials, especially of children, together with their

other toys. Any archeologist digging in the Türkic areas should know it as a primary course of

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 17/37

education. The knucklebone, or astragal gaming dice is endemic to the Türkic culture across Eurasia,

and it is a known trait of the Germanic culture)

5. Priests and cult ministers

240

In the Hun society stood out an estate of clergy, whose functions were performing pagan rituals. Among

the clergy was a cult hierarchy, a higher position occupied priests and main magicians (MovsesKalankatuatsi. I, p. 205). Apparently, existed a kind of the clergy specialization, as the author of “History of

Alvan country” mentions priest-enchanters, magicians, sorcerers, servants of sanctuaries and sacred groves(Movses Kalankatuatsi. KS. 185, 205) (If the ancient author of history believes in organized religion

where is none, in miracles, in priests-charmers, magicians, conjurers and the like, should thescholarly author also believe in that, and propagate the Early Middle Age prejudices withoutexpressing any doubts on the credibility of the source? The missionary's desultoriness is rambling

about phantom temples, sanctuaries, phantom might and reaches of the priestly class, the phantomproperty of that phantom class apparently to justify the violence done to the people where religion is

a fiber of the family, taught in the family, and exercised solely in the family, and that fiction is spicedwith no less desultory phantom class categories of the primitive Marxism).

By the end of 7th c. the priestly caste was a very influential force in the Hun society, . Alp Ilitverencountered stubborn resistance of the priesthood during Christianization of the Huns (682). Drastic violenceagainst the opponents of Christianity (Actually, not of Christianity, to which the Huns were open, but of

forced Christianization. In today's Christianity the violence and murders instigated by Bishop Israelare condemned as barbaric and not Christian) (imprisonment and trial of upper ministers of the priestly

caste, execution of some of them), undertaken by Alp Ilitver shows not //241// only the great influence of thepriesthood over the masses of the Hunnic population, which the Hun prince (actually, an Ashina viceroy of

the Türkic Kaganate, a breed alien to the Savirs) set out to weaken, but the ruthlessness of the killingswas to undermine the economic power of the priestly caste.241

Reproaching the Hun Prince for the blasphemy against the pagan gods and holy places (sanctuaries

burned, destruction of sacred trees and groves), the priesthood expressed their outrage at the devastationand plunder of the pagan temples, which apparently were places of wealth concentration of the temple

demesnes (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 200). A.P. Novoseltsev said that the major cause of Christianizationof the S.Caucasian countries was excessively grown material wealth of the pagan temples (Novoseltsev A.P.1980, p. 246) (Aparently, Novoseltsev refers to the aboriginal temples, since the Huns had none). The

imperial power (sic!) sought to limit the power and authority of the priestly caste, the finale of this policy wasthe adoption of Christianity in the Caucasus (Novoseltsev A.P. 1980. C 136). Written sources do not

contain direct evidence about the nature of the Hunnic priesthood's property, but still in the “History of Alvancountry” the priestly caste appears powerful and influential force of the Hunnic society, fighting to the last for

their privileges. The religious reform, attempted by the Hun Prince, was aimed not only at reinforcingauthority and economic power of the supreme ruler. Religious reform was essentially an act of redistributionof economic and political power within the tribal elite feudalizing nobility.242

The presence among the cult officials of the witches, sorcerers, and magicians testifies to the existenceamong the population of the Northeast Caucasus in the Early Medieval Period of the beliefs connected, like

among many pagan nations, with the needs of daily life (medical, domestic, wedding magic) (Was it anydifferent in the heart of Rome, Constantinople, or Jerusalem in 682?). Ammianus Marcellinus described

some of the Hun actions connected with a belief in fate. “By tying into a bundle straight willow twigs, theyparse them at some definite time with some sort of mysterious spells, and get very specific portents about

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 18/37

what is predicted” (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 243).

From political point of view the described religious events make little sense. A choicebetween political alignment with the Arab expansion, Byzantine, and incipient Khazaria is no

brainer, the feeble Christian Byzantine and the Caucasian dependencies that Byzantine just lostto the Arabs is an obvious losing ticket; aligning with the Arab expansion is the sameeconomical disaster that just fell on Armenia and Albania; the only viable alternative is to stay

with their kins in Khazaria; but switching religion to Christianity is an opposite move, a signal ofsecession to Khazaria, wrought with predictable personal and political repercussions. No sane

ruler would at the same time alienate his political enemies and allies and his own people. Theonly politically reasonable explanation may be that the Elteber Alp Ilitver tried to convert his

autochthonous sedentary subjects, multi-ethnic and multi-religious, with an objective of unifyinghis possessions; that scenario would provide consistency with references to temples andsanctuaries and priests, but still leave all other details of the story totally unreal.

10. ON THE ROAD TO WORLD RELIGIONS

1. Christianity

243

The population of the Northeast Caucasus constantly experienced a strong political, economic andideological influence of the developed agricultural countries in the S.Caucasia (Armenia, Albania), and

through them the influence of Byzantine. The Dagestan Huns were drawn in the fighting between Persia andByzantine for the Caucasus. The “Country of Huns”, occupying a strategic position, and with substantial

material and human resources, was a significant political force, which the world powers could not ignore intheir fight. The S.Caucasian states sought to subject population of the Northeast Caucasus to their influence

since the time the Huns settled in the Caspian steppes. And one of the most important means for achievingtheir goal was to impose Christianity among the Dagestani Huns.

Christianization of the Hun circle tribes has its own history. In the 330's a successfully initiated campaign

of the Christian preacher Grigoris among the Hunno-Masgut tribes ended with his tragic death.244

The history of Christianization of the Hunnic tribes in the 330's was first described by Favstos Buzand

(5th c.), then with various details it was recounted by Movses Kalankatuatsi. Bishop Grigoris was ordainedto a high clerical rank at 15 years old. He began his missionary activities in Iberia and Aluank (MovsesKalankatuatsi. II, p. 37). After that he went to the “country of Mazkuts”, taking along his students. Bishop

Grigoris first succeeded in persuading the Mazkut (Maskut) King Sanesan and his subject Hun troops toadoption of Christianity, but when the Huns realized that with the adoption of Christianity they would be

deprived of the opportunities for plundering raids in the Caucasus, the Sanesan's troops rebelled. TheArmenian historian relays the arguments of the opponents of Christianization thus, “How can we live, if not

mount our horses in accordance with our eternal custom?” (Favstos Buzand, p. 14). And then the authorstates: “The king changed his mind and heed the words of his army” (Favstos Buzand, p. 14). The king wasforced to heed the will of his troops, that apparently constituted most of the people in the “country of

Mazkuts”. Bishop Grigoris received a martyr's death: “Then they caught a wild horse, tied the young Grigoristo its tail, and released it in the field along the shore of the great Northern Sea, outside of their camp, in the

Vatnean (?) field” (Favstos Buzand, p. 14). It is believed that the field was on the Caspian Sea shore,somewhere south of Derbent. The disciples brought the slain Bishop to the city Amaras and buried him in the

church (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 38).245

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 19/37

Although the first attempt at Christianization of the Hun circle's tribes was not successful, the pursuit ofthe objective did not wane. Movses Kalanlatuatsi reports that St. Mashtots, who created alphabets for“Armenians, Aluans, and Ivers”, was preaching Christianity “in the gavar (district) Uti, in Aluank, in Lpink,

in Caspi, to the gates of Chor” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 60). Probably, the Mazkut tribes living south ofChor, were repeatedly Christianized. But the disunity of the Hun tribes, the nomadic nature of the Hun

economy made these attempts failures. The level of socio-economic development of the Hun circle's tribesdid not favor to form conditions for the adoption of a monotheistic religion (I.e. while people were rich in

horses, they did not need to switch to subjugated subsistence hoeing, until they became likewiseimpoverished and powerless. Funny, the dumb enserfed peasantry, deprived of liberty and personalrights, bound to a plot of land, that constituted 90%+ of the sedentary populations is being sold as a

height of intellectual development worthy of tri-partite tri-monotheistic Christianity).

In the first third of the 6th c. AD (ca. 515) to the Caspian Huns arrived Armenian Bishop Kardost with

five priests, “baptized many and taught (some) of the Huns” (Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 166). His embassymissionary work lasted for 14 years, and “produced there (520) a Scripture in the Hunnic language”.

Pseudo-Zacharias writes, “came out a Scripture in their language about how it is arranged by the Lord”(Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 165). Kardost was replaced by another Armenian Bishop Makar, who is creditedwith construction of a brick church (Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 167). Apparently, the missionary activities of the

Bishops Kardost and Makar affected only some part of the Hun tribes.246

The “Chronicle” of Pseudo-Zacharias reported that a Byzantine detachment that was repulsing Persians

from the fortress Dary, //246// located in Mesopotamia on the border of Byzantine and Persia, during itssiege, was headed by the “Suniks man, a former Hun commander, who was baptized after finding refugewith Romans...” (Pseudo-Zacharias, p. 162). The message is dated by 530's. A change of religion caused

serious consequences, prompting Suniks to leave his home and go into the Byzantine service.

By the 6th c. belongs a reference of Movses Kalankatuatsi “Hun's Bishop Iunana”, who also, like its

predecessors Grigoris and Mashtots, was preaching to Mazkuts (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 45).

Some separate units of the Hun army, who participated in military campaigns in the S.Caucasuscountries, also adopted Christianity (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 45).

In the 6th., divided into separate tribes Hun society did not yet have ripe conditions for Christianity.Albanian Bishop Israil in the late 7th c. found “Hunnia” still pagan. Although one comment of Movses

Kalankatuatsi indicates that some part of the population of the “country of Huns” adhered to Christianity, butin a distorted form. The author writes that Bishop Israil “was disappointed and saddened to see much evil

and split faith, because there were people who called themselves God-followers, but renounced the power(of God) and were alien to it” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 124). But probably by the end of the 7th c.from Christianization of the first third of the 6th c. in Hunnia was left no trace. Alp Ilitver in a letter to the

Catholicos of Armenia Sahak and Prince Grigor //247// writes that Huns of the Christ “knew only a little fromthe rumours, from the time of our attacks on your country and Aluank...” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p.

133).247

In 682, to the Alp Ilitver's “land of Huns” arrived a mission of Bishop Israil, with a goal of implementinginto reality one of the main clauses of the treaty between Albania and the “land of Huns” - adoption by the

Huns of the Christian faith.

In the “country of Huns” Christianity first of all adopted the Huns' Great Prince the Alp-Ilitver and nobility

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 20/37

of the Hun society (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 198 - 199). For a long time priesthood resisted the newreligion, but was forced to resign and to also accept the new creed. As was noted above, the priesthood

was a powerful force in the Hun society. To subdue the resistance of the Christianization opponents, AlpIlitver isolated “high priests and main sorcerers” from the society. However, only after a long imprisonmentof the top ministers of pagan cults in “heavy shackles”, massacre of some of them (burning at the stake), and

after the trial of most persistent of then, the priests “accused themselves, acknowledging their sins, andturned to the true faith” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 205) (Before the arrival of Christianity, Huns did

not know such marvelous invention of Christian civilization as burning at the stake. Never before,but but very many times after). Communion of the ministers of the pagan cults to the Christian doctrine

was completed with an act of burning main attributes of the pagan cult of ancestors. K. Patkanov translatedthe name of this object as “Royal tombs” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 206).248

Sh.V. Smbatian translated it differently - “thunderous cemetery of chop called Darkunand” (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 131). The translator notes (162 and 163) explain that Darkunand is the name of thesacred grove of Huns, where were conducted sacrifices of horses. But by the time of the senior priests trial

the sacred groves of oak and the most revered among the Huns old oak tree were already destroyed, thetemples of pagan gods destroyed and ruined, pagan amulets destroyed. And the “Royal Tombs” must beburned, as notes Moses Kalankatuatsi, “by the hands of the faithful priests” (Kurgan can't be burnt,

apparently the idea is to burn the wooden memorial at the top of the kurgan, the equivalent to themodern gravestones and Christian crosses, where people were coming to for commemorations). The

day of burning temples and baptism of the priesthood among the Huns became a socially important date,“holiday of holidays and cathedral of cathedrals”. Perhaps, after adoption of the Christianity by the

priesthood, this religious doctrine was also adopted by the townspeople of Varachan (Belenjer).

In our opinion, attention should be given to the methods of execution clergy at the Huns. MovsesKalankatuatsi writes that Israil ordered “some of them burnt at the stake” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. 130).

The same way also threatened to crush the recalcitrant cult ministers the Huns' Great Prince - “sorcerers andenchanters who would not want to accept the new faith, I will burn with fire...”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II,

p. 132). Other Huns, probably commoners, Alp Ilitver threatened to “put to the sword” if they do notaccept the new faith. Still Herodotus (484 - 425 BC) among the customs of the Black Sea Scythians noted

burning of the augurs, if //249// their prophecies turned out to be false (Herodotus, p. 270) (The capitaltreatment was described for other Türkic states, minus very Christian burning of live people. Forinnately immortal Tengrians the idea of burning alive must have been most terrifying, because

proper send-off funeral was a necessary condition for arriving back to Tengri, and improper funeralwas breaking off the cycle of immortality, the most terrible consequence for an eternal soul. The

Türkic punishment of rulers and augurs was to send them back to Tengri for repairs, not to infringeon their Tengri-given immortality. Cremation and inhumation were both practiced among Huns and

pre-Islam Türkic peoples).249

We believe that the existence of such a custom at the Caspian Huns at the end of the of the 7th c.indicates, as noted above some other facts, about mixed nature of the population culture in the “country of

Huns”, encompassing the components of culture and the Iranian tribes (Is that an allusion that killing andtorture-killing of dissidents is a linguistic, and not a religious trait? Or to the Persian persecution of

unsanctioned religions? This appears to be a logical disconnect. The only tribe that is classed“Iranian” in the Russian official doctrine is the tribe of Masguts/Alans, and nowhere in this work or

any other work were ever shown any ethnological or linguistic differences between the Huns andMasguts. Quite the opposite, Masguts were a component of the Eastern European Hunnic and Türkicpeoples, they followed the same Tengrian religion, buried according to the Kurgan tradition, and

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 21/37

can't be blamed for introducing burning of live people at the stake into Türkic practice).

On Christianization of the general population in the “country of Huns” exists no data. There is no accurate

records if a church was built in Varachan (Belenjer). Movses Kalankatuatsi in one place of his narrativesays that made of sacred oak and decorated cross was installed “east of the Royal Palace” (Movses

Kalankatuatsi. II. 130). Probably, the church was built later, since in praising the work of Alp Ilitver theauthor notes that in many places he erected churches...” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p.128).

Erected near the Royal Palace cross, described by the author of “History of Alvan country”, was

extraordinarily beautiful. It was made from trees felled in the sacred grove. Bishop Israil “...ordered to bringthem into the city Varachan (Belenjer), mobilised skilled carpenters of the city, and ordered them to make a

beautiful, roundish cross; decorated it with various pictures and glued to it pictures of animals copied withcareful accuracy, and painted it from top to bottom with paint. Also on the right side he attached with strongnails beautiful light crosses. At the bottom was a hole carved on all four sides like a lily. In it //250// stood a

silver cross with a relict from the cross of the Lord” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 203 - 204).250

Sh B. Smbatian objects to the description of the shape of the cross erected at the Huns in Varachan

(Belenjer) as “roundish”, in the belief that roundish were the logs of which the cross was made of. However,it is known that in the S.Caucasus at that time gained wide distribution the Maltese cross shape with rounded

ends of branches; apparently, such a cross was erected in a Varachan at the Huns (Equilateral cross was aTengrian symbol of God called “adji” long before Christianity, and it was introduced into Christiansymbology synchronously with the arrival of the Huns to the Caucasus in the 2nd c. AD. The sign of

Tengri was embroidered on battle banners, worn on the chest, hung on a chain, tattooed onforehead, weaved into ornaments. See Murad Adji, “Kipchaks”, Saint George Publishing, ISBN 5-

88149-044-4).

Neither Christian theology, nor Western religious studies, analyzing the “pagan” borrowingsby early Christianity, do not discern the “pagan” religions themselves, and accordingly do not

trace particular chain of adoptions to their first known origins. It is generally recognized thataside from the inheritance of the Jerusalem Church, all Christian modifications were adopted in

course of syncretization with the ingrained traditions at the time of the formal or informaladoption. The cross, in particular, was one of such adoptions, and its derivation from the

monotheistic Celtic and Germanic tradition, which are varieties of Tengriism, labeled Arianismby the Christian Church, in a short run is a viable proposition. In a long run, the cross as areligious symbol predates Christianity by many millennia, and who borrowed from whom is an

irresolvable mute subject. The contemporaneity of the cross adoption as a symbol ofChristianity with the flood by the monotheistic “barbarians” of the incipient Christianized

territory, and the role of the individual “barbarians” in shaping the early Christianity tends togive credence to that view. The cross was a Tengrian symbol long before the time of the

Bishop Israil, all he had to do was associate the traditional symbol with his brand of religion, aprocess repeated over and over again over the past millenniums, and documented in some

instances.

Christianity was a profitable ideological cover, containing idea of one God, who gives unlimited power to

the supreme ruler of a society. The adoption of Christianity in the “country of Huns” was to strengthen theUnion of Hunnic tribes formed by the 7th c., to elevate the powers to be and to increase the might of theHun Prince, and also to consolidate processes of social differentiation in the Hun society affecting thefeudalizing nobility and the masses. It was a logical culmination of the socio-economic development of the

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 22/37

new society (The author does not spell out what was new in 682 vs., say, 582; the fact is,economically nothing was new; the Huns controlled their territory, their sedentary subjects, had theirherds and army intact, had all the wealth they needed; the changes came in political re-alignment,

political restructuring, and in coming threat of the Arabs, a new devil that replaced the old familiardevil The “new” Hunnic union was already 400 years old, not exactly a newborn baby).

Christianity found a fertile soil among the Caspian Huns, but it did not spread. The Arab expansion in theCaucasus, the defeat of Armenia and Albania, the long Arab-Khazar war interrupted for a long time theprogressive processes of socio-economic development, thereby slowing down the growth of the state in the

“country of Huns”, and the religious policy of the Arabs, enforcing //251// Islam, undercut the process ofsettling the Christianization of the North-East Caucasus population (Dagestan History. 1967. pp. 150 - 159)(History of Dagestan ca 1967 was concocted in Moscow, it tells about its contents, objectives andcredibility).251

A.R. Shikhsaidov noted that from the late 7th c. and until the 10th c. Dagestan did not have conditions

for “accelerating the speed of Christianity's penetration”. Moreover, the “political influence of the Arabs inthe Derbent region was the beginning of penetration of Islam and slow displacement of Christianity”(Shikhsaidov A.R. 1957, p. 65).

Movses Kalankatuatsi very concisely reports on the further fate of Christianity in the “land of Huns”. He

writes that the Great Prince Alp Ilitver lived to an honorable old age, he was erecting churches in his country,and Bishop Israil at the same time headed the Christian cathedras in his gavar (district) in Caucasian Albaniaand in the “country of Huns”. But his fate was tragic, a new Catholicos of Albania Bakur exiled Bishop Israil(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 148). Christianity in the “country of Huns” apparently lasted to the firstcampaigns of the Arabs in the Caspian in the early 8th c. (I.e. 20-30 years) Only in the 980's in Samandar,

which became a new capital of the “country of Huns”, the Christians lived together along with Muslims andJews (Ibn Hawqal, p. 114; al-Mukkadasi, p. 5). Ibn Hawqal also reported that in Samandar were Christianchurches. But what Christians were they, the descendants of the inhabitants of the “country of Huns”,baptized in 682, or those who accepted Christianity later by other means, the sources do not report.252

Concluding this section, it should be noted that for the “country of Huns” of the late 7th c. the change in

ideology was a natural phenomenon. The level of socio-economic development of the Hun society, thenature of ideological concepts dominating there, indicate a beginning of the formation in the North-EastCaucasus of an early class state (Gmyrya L.B. 1988, p. 31). The fledgling state was in need of an ideologythat would lead to the further development of the classes, strengthen and enhance the authority of the

supreme ruler. The religious reform of 682 was not only aimed at enhancing the authority and economicpower of the supreme ruler (in his hands the Hun ruler has concentrated all power, which covered virtuallyall areas of the inner and outer life of the Hunnic society). Religious reform was essentially an act ofredistribution of economic and political power within the tribal elite of the feudalizing nobility.

2. Islam and Judaism

252

Islam began to take root in Dagestan during the following Arab-Khazar wars, characterized byparticularly persistent and systematic advance of the Arabs in the Caspian region (708-733). The Arabhistorians writings of the 9th-10th cc. retained numerous records about Arab policy principles among the

population of //253// the conquered countries - it is destruction of those who showed hostility to the Arabarmy (al-Kufi. pp. 9, 41, 53), relocation to other areas if the residents who asked for peace initially resisted

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 23/37

their troops (al-Kufi, p. 18, 41), payment of annual tribute (al-aman) if population asked for mercy withoutresistance and provided lounging for the Arab forces (al-Kufi, p. 9), in some cases, in addition to the moneytribute were captives (young men and maidens), cattle, and produce (al-Kufi, p. 55 - 56).253

In respect to political options in deciding alliance issue, the above reviews the Arabalternative: eradication, relocation, tribute, prisoners (young men and maidens), cattle, andprovisions. And that perspective was facing the people who were innately free, unencumbered,and used to rule others.

No evidence is recorded that the population of the Dagestan conquered territories in the 8th c. wassubjected to forced Islamization. It is known that Arabs practiced religious tolerance to Christians, Jews,and Zoroastrians (Novoseltsev. A.P. 1990, p. 148) (Religious tolerance on the Soviet scale: If you are

not killed, I am tolerant; tolerance to Zoroastrism is Novoseltsev's dscovery), but to the Gentiles was asingle attitude - they were to accept Islam. But judging from the data of the sources, in the first decade of the8th c. Christians were only the inhabitants of the “country of Huns”, in mountain areas were worshipedpagan gods. But having captured a number of of Dagestan (738) mountainous areas, the Arabs demandedfrom the population tribute; sources do not mention acceptance of Islam.

It was a standard diplomatic maneuver of the Türkic leadership to recognize somebody'selse supremacy in lieu of fighting it. History knows a plethora of examples. The reason is that to

be relevant, the dominant power has to be able to do something to their dependents, and in thecase of slow-moving sedentary powers that was the least of all threats. For a sedentary armyto catch up with the nomads is next to impossible, and the effort to do it is bankrupting. TheTürks taught that lesson to the generations of adventurers, from the Persian King Darius to theHan dynasty and beyond. The cost of imposition was great, but it was nothing compared with

the cost of collection. The situation only changed with the advance of the Industrial Epoch.Before that, the only strategy was divide and conquer.

From the sources are known single cases of the Caspian Dagestan people embracing Islam in the periodfrom 708 to 737. Thus, al-Kufi and other Arab authors report that a Khazar warrior defending Derbentbesieged in 713/714 by the Arab commander Maslama expressed a willingness to convert to Islam onstandard Arab conditions - paying him to support his family. //254// Having adopted Islam, the soldier cameup with a way to capture an impregnable fortress (al-Kufi, p. 14).254

In 722/723 the Arab commander Jarrah captured Balanjar. The ruler of Balanjar with 50 soldiers fled toSamandar, his wife, children, servants, and property were purchased by Jarrah. The Arabs decided topardon the ruler of Balanjar and return him his power, property, family, and servants (al-Kufi, p. 19). Butwhat were the the terms it was done the author does not state. Was it only with a duty to secretly inform theArabs on the movements of the Khazar troops (al-Kufi, p. 20)? At least, the author did not report on the

acceptance of Islam by the ruler of Balanjar.

In the same year (722/723) the residents of the “Vabandar territory”, besieged by the troops of Jarrah,recognized the authority of the Arab Caliph and concluded a peace “under the terms of a payment of adefined amount each year” (Ibn al-Athir, p. 25). Al-Kufi talks about a large monetary tribute (al-Kufi, p.20). Were the residents of Vabandar forced to convert to Islam is unknown.

The Khazar King, according to the sources, converted to Islam in 737 (al-Kufi, p. 52). It happened after

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 24/37

the Arab leader sacked the “country of Khazars”, having defeated the 40,000strong army of the King. TheKing sued for peace, one of the peace conditions was his acceptance of Islam. Al-Kufi reported, “The

Khazar King converted to Islam, and with him from among his relatives and fellow tribesmen a lot of peopleconverted to Islam”. The power remained in the hands of the Khazar King, but 40 thousand Khazars wereresettled in the S.Caucasus.255

Reportedly, given enough time for mobilization, Khazar Kagan could master 300,000 army,which likely numerically consisted largely of foot soldier auxiliaries. But 100,000strong cavalrywould be a reasonable assumption, leading to an estimate of pastoral population about500,000. Thus, 40,000 relocated people, most likely a couple of whole tribes, would amount

to about 10% loss of nomadic population, provided that relocated were nomads. Such infusionof nomadic population into the countries of S.Caucasus must be readily detectablearcheologically and ethnologically.

A.P. Novoseltsev doubted whether the Khazar King in fact converted to Islam, or only promised to doso (Novoseltsev A.P. L.P. 1990, p. 148).

The Khazar Princess married to the Arab ruler of Arran (752/753) adopted Islam. (Al-Kufi. pp. 62 -63).

The sources preserved information about religion of the Semender residents in the 10th c. Almost all

Arab geographers state that the in the city lived many Muslims (al-Balkhi, p. 62; al-Istahri, p. 47) and therewere mosques (Ibn Hawqal, p. 114; al-Muqaddasi, p. 5). Who were these Muslims, local residents orimmigrants, the sources did not answer. A.R. Shikhsaidov believes that in Samandar at this time could liveArab settlers (Shikhsaidov A.R. 1969, p. 94). In the mid-10th c. (943 ) the king of Haidak, according to al-

Masoudi, was a Muslim (al-Masoudi. I, p. 202).

In the early 12th c., according to the Arab traveler al-Garnati, the inhabitants of Derbent and many areasadjacent to Derbent, including residents of Haidak, were Muslims, (al-Garnati. I, p. 26 - 27; II. C . 49).Infidels, i.e. non-Muslims, were only the people of Zidihgaran (al-Garnati. II, p. 50) and the Caspianpopulation north of Derbent (al-Garnati. I, p. 24). According to Al-Garnati, by the beginning of the 12th c.

70 Dagestani peoples converted to Islam (al-Garnati. II, p. 49).256

A.R. Shikhsaidov concluded that information of the local historical sources, and the data of al-Garnatiabout acceptance of Islam in most areas //256// of Dagestan by the 12th c. “reflected that short-term phasewhich ended with complete independence of the overwhelming majority of Dagestan's possessions, andreturn to pre-monotheistic (Pre-monotheistic is a nice way to phrase a praise to Islam in the Soviet

publication, where Islam was routinely demonized in favor of slightly less demonized RussianOrthodox Church) beliefs in those areas where Islam was perhaps adopted” (Shikhsaidov A.R. 1969, p.102). But that was not the time of end of the intensive Islamization in Dagestan, but still only its beginning(Shikhsaidov A.R. 1969, p. 103).

We have a better barometer to gage the spread of Islam among Türkic people. By the 9thc. Eastern Europe had numerous lines of hereditary mullahs, and a number of cities had maturecommunities of Türkic Muslims. By the time the Muslim Caliphate recognized Bulgaria as a

Muslim state in 922, the Muslims in Bulgaria were a long-standing ruling majority. The literateclass created numerous literary compositions, written in Arabic script and in Türkic language,

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 25/37

some of which are known from literary references, and some survived to the Modern Age. KulGali is the best-known example. The Türkic Islamic-period literature started in the 8th c. Kyiv,before Kyiv became a Kyiv.

The divisions, brought over by proselytizing religions, turned out to be stronger than the

force of unity held by the common culture, language, and traditions. A part of the Türkicpeople turned to Christianity, a part turned to to Islam, and the remainder remained withunadulterated Tengriism. Religious confrontations convulsed communities, leading to the splitslike the Kabar revolt and the Djilka migration. Except for isolated islands, the ethnichomogeneity has crushed.

Judaism buttressed in Khazaria, according to the Arab geographer al-Masoudi, during the reign ofCaliph Harun al-Rashnd (786-809) (al-Masoudi. II, p. 193). Mostly, the Judeans were members of the

royal family and the King himself. There is a wide debate about exactly when and under what circumstancesit happened. A.P. Novoseltsev believes the Khazar King converted to Judaism in about the last quarter ofthe 8th c. (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990. pp. 150 - 151). In his view, the bulk of the population professed Islamand Christianity, or worshiped pagan gods, and only the King and his entourage were Judeans (NovoseltsevA.P. A, p. 1990, p. 53).

A different view holds Gumilev. He believes that in 718, a leader of Persian Jewish migrants that lived inKhazaria in the area between the rivers Terek, Sulak, and who bore the Türkic name Bulan (Bulan < Bülün= army soldier, apparently Ogur word), “restored the Jewish rites for his people” (Gumilev L.N. 1992, p.121). Gumilev stresses that Jewish rites were restored only for the Jewish settlers: “conversion of Khazars”to Judaism did not happen, and //257// could not happen, because “in the Middle Ages ... to the service of

the cult were admitted only members of the clan, even if the clan grew up into ethnicity” (Gumilev, L.N.1992, p. 122). According to Gumilev, in 802/803 an influential Jew Obadiah took power (in Khazaria -L.G.) in his hands, turned the Khan from the Ashina dynasty into a puppet, and made the rabbinic Judaism astate religion of Khazaria” (Gumilev L.N. 1992, p. 135).257

The Arab geographers of the 10th c. state that the King of Semender was a Judean, and they emphasize

that he was a relative of the Khazar King (perhaps only because of that circumstance he professed Judaism)(al-Balkhi, p. 62; al-Istahri, p. 47; Ibn Hawqal, : p. 144). Only Ibn Hawqal reports that in the Samandar,along with Christian churches and Muslim mosques, were synagogues (Ibn Hiukal, p. 114).

In science, the position about religious tolerance of th Khazar Kings is firmly established. However,

Gumilev believes that the tolerance was compelled, “because it covered expenses from the transit trade. Butas soon as someone touched the interests of overseas Jewish communities, the Khazar King answered withrepressions” (Gumilev L.N. 1992, p. 145).

Khazaria was only a particular case of Türkic religious tolerance, it is one side of beingopen to new ideas, inherent and honed in constant dealing with numerous various peoples.That tradition continued into the Mongol Epoch, and is well documented. Only the advent ofIslam and Christianity changed that attitude, and even then it was fanned up by politicaladventurists who tried to use religious divisions to advance their ambitions, changing little the

innate tolerant attitudes of the population.

11. BURIALS

1. Burial ritual

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 26/37

258

The Huns held burial of the deceased a social event, people were gathering for it, apparently, next of kin.The Huns had a dual attitude toward the death. On the one hand, they had a fear of harmful effect of the

death on the well-being of living, on the other hand they believed in the afterlife of the deceased. All ritualacts of the Huns associated with burial of the deceased reflected this duality. To prevent harmful effect ofdeath on the living, the gathered relatives with cries and loud weeping, roll of drums and clanking creatednoise, apparently believing that that would scare off the evil forces of death. The burial ritual also included

inflicting cuts to the corpse with knives and swords (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 193). In the literature waseven expressed an opinion that the laceration ritual upon the deceased reflected vestiges of more archaicactions: a member of the community who has grown old and weak was once killed to prevent its subvertingeffect on //259// the well-being of the group (Veletskaya N.N. 1978 . pp. 47, 59; Gadjiyeva S. Sh. 1985, p.292).259

Such practice, according to al-Masoudi, had the inhabitants of as-Sarir. He wrote: “When one of themdies, they put him on a stretcher and carry him to an open space (maidan” pleschad? “), where he is left forthree days on the stretcher. Then residents of the city mount their horses and put on armor and chain mail.They go to the edge (of that) place (and from there) prance with their spears onto the dead body (lying) onthe stretcher. They circle around the stretcher, directing spears onto the body, but not piercing it” (al-

Masoudi. II, p. 219 - 220).The author claims that this custom existed among the inhabitants of that city for300 years (from about 600 AD). Such remark by al-Masoudi indicates that the described funeral rite wascommon to local tribes.

The burial ritual of the Huns was probably accompanied by ritual music, perceived by the eyewitness asnoise and ringing. According to researchers, the music was seen by the Gentiles as a mediator between two

worlds, a means of communication with the ancestors and gods (Veletskaya. N.N. 1978. pp. 151).

Associated with the burial of the deceased rituals also included self-tormenting of the funeral riteparticipants: infliction of cuts on the face and body (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 124, 128). Agathiasdescribes an episode, where in a moment of mortal danger, the Hun warriors “... cut with knives their cheeks

to express //260// their grief by their custom” (p. 158 Agathias.).260

Infliction of cuts, resulting in shedding blood, was apparently a vestige of more archaic acts, with humansacrifices to the gods. Self-tormenting rituals in the funeral rites of the ancient Türks are noted in the Chinesechronicles. According to the Chinese author of the 6th - first half of the 7th c., a noble Türk was buried asfollows: “The body of the deceased is laid in a tent. The sons, grandsons and relatives of both sexes

slaughter horses and sheep and laying them in front of the tent, offer sacrifice; seven times ride around thetent on the horses, then before entering the tent cut their faces with knife and cry weeping, blood and tearspour down together. In such fashion, do it seven times and conclude. Then on an appointed day take thehorse which the deceased rode, and things that he used, and cremate them along with the deceased; theashes are collected and buried at a certain season in the grave ... On the day of the funeral, like on the day of

the death, they offer sacrifice, gallop on horses and cut their faces...”. (Bichurin N.Ya. 1950, p. 230).

A.P. Novoseltsev believes that the ritual of cutting face and body as an expression of grief, described byMovses Kalankatuatsi, to some extent is similar to the burial custom of the Scythians, which in his opinion,“proves the continuity between the ancient Iranian nomads and Khazars of the 7th c”. (Novoseltsev. A.P.1990, p. 145) (Novoseltsev demonstrates that for the convinced Iranianist nothing is impossible: even

looking at the obvious ethnological connection between the Khazars, or Huns, and the Scythians, he

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 27/37

Fig. 8. Ladle. “Kot town” (lower course of r. Ob)

would sooner make Khazars and Huns the Iranians than make the Scythians Türks. Born to crawlcan not fly. A Chinese princess was given for the Uighur Kagan. When Kagan died, she wassupposed to be buried with him as a concubine. But she got off with cutting her face and crying

hysterically . So who here the Scythians, the Uighur Kagan or Chinese princess , dear Mr.Novoseltsev? Such examples are plethora.).261

It seems that //261// it is not quite true, although some common base in the customs of the Scythians andthe inhabitants of the “country of Huns” can be seen, it may be connected with the overall continuity of theGreat Steppe population in Antiquity and Early Middle Ages. Herodotus writes: “Those to whom the

deceased is brought... every man chops off a piece of his ear, crops his hair close, and makes a cut all roundhis arm, lacerates his forehead and his nose, and thrusts an arrow through his left hand” (Herodotus, p. 271,4.71). As can be seen, at Scythians the face was not lacerated. Ammianus Marcellinus, apparently aware ofthis Hun custom, associates it with specific actions that prevent growth of male facial hair. He wrote that theHuns lacerate cheeks of their kids so that hair would not grow (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 1021).

A.P. Novoseltsev takes Movses Kalankatuatsi description of their funeral rites with some mistrust,believing that the author “sometimes distorts them to depict “Hons” as savages...”. (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990,p. 145). Meanwhile, traces of the ritual accompanied by laceration of the face as an expression of mourningfor a deceased family member was recorded by ethnographers among some Dagestani peoples(Prjetslavsky p. 1860, p. 297; Gadjiyeva S. Sh, p. 1961, p. 281, 1985, p. 294 , 298; Agashirinova p.

1978, p. 249; Gadjiyeva S. Sh. et al. 1980, p. 49, 51, Gadjiyeva, G.A. 1980. pp. 39 - 40, 1991, p. 143;Alimova B.M. 1992, p. 169, 17). In a poetic form of this ritual is recorded in a mythological story of theMekegins about “Kyune”. Telling a traveler a sad news, “Kyune” instructs him //262// him:

“Fingers like red grapes,

To tremble she ordered, say, Hair like red silkTo tear off ordered, say.Cheeks, like barley-grape, To lacerate ordered, say... “

Alikhanova A.A., 1978, p. 157.

2. Funeral rituals

262

In a of the Huns had a ritual with peculiar competition of men, held near the cemetery: battle with swords

and fighting in the nude. As illustration of this ritual may serve the image on the bottom of a silver ladle of the8th - 9th cc. (Fig. 8) (Darkevitch V.P. 1974. Fig. I.; 1976. Table. 54 (5). V.P.Darkevitch believes that theladle is a product of the Khazaria metalworkers, and the image at the bottom is the scene of the collectiveKam ritual of the ancient Türks, as described by Moses Kalankatuatsi (Darkevitch V.P. 1974. Note 4). Theritual may have reflected a phallic cult, known among many nations. Phallus, as a symbol of productive

forces of nature, symbol of continuation of life, among many nations was transformed into an antipodesymbol of death, and in daily sense it became a symbol of resistance to various diseases (KsenofontovaR.A. 1981, p. 74.) Echoes of phallic worship were recorded among some Dagestani peoples in ritualsassociated with festivals of meeting the spring, and of the first //263// furrow (Bulatova, A. 1980, p. 96,

1984, p. 91; Khalilov Kh.M. 1984. C 69).263

The Huns' funeral ritual also included dances

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 28/37

8-9 cc. (Per V.P. Darkevitch). Silverand ritual songs (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp.

124). The main function of the danceperformances in the Gentile ideas is to establish amutual relationship between //264// ancestors anddescendants, facilitating the entry of the deceased's

soul to the host of ancestors (Veletskaya N. 1978.C 151).264

The ritual chant, perceived by the witness ofthe Hun funeral ritual as “raging outcry” also wasdone to facilitate the the entry of the deceased to

the host of ancestors. The lamenting songs in thefuneral rites of some Dagestani peoples werepraising qualities of the deceased, listed allancestors, and contained the idea of thedeceased's initiation to the world of ancestors

(Gadjiyeva S. Sh, p. 1961. 281, 1985, p. 299;Gadjiyeva S. Sh. et al 1980, p. 50, 63; Djidalaev N.I. 1984. pp. 156 - 159; Gadjiyeva, G.A. 1991, p.142).

The Hun funeral ritual included a number of orgiastic acts with erotic tinge, showing connection betweenthe cult of Ancestors with Fertility cult. These include the noted by the source ritual games, and sexual

freedom (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 124).

The subject of sexual freedom, glossed over by the author

totally out of context, belongs to the section on status ofwomen in the Hunnic society. Sexual freedom is inseparablefrom the subject of the status of women, in turn glossed overin the Section 8.4, Chapter 8, see above

S.A. Tokarev, determining the place of erotic rituals in the agricultural activities of the heathen nations,

noted that in the agricultural communities they served the purpose of material well-being (Tokarev, S.A.1983, p. 104). Apparently, the Huns, attributing the ancestor with mighty powers, associating him withforces of nature, with erotic actions solicited from the ancestor leaving to the “other world” fertility in thebroadest sense - life fertility.265

Vestiges of pagan funeral dance can be traced in the funeral ceremony “shag'alay” of Kumyks, described

by S. Sh. Gadjiyeva (Gadjiyeva S. Sh. et al. 1980, p. 51; Gadjiyeva S. Sh, p. 1985, p. 303).

In the beliefs of many pagan nations are known ceremonial role of the agricultural nudity, belief in themagical power of the naked body, which can serve as a factor in fertility (Tokarev, S.A. 1983, p. 104.)Fairly clear this phenomenon is manifested in the burial rituals of the Dagestan peoples, can be traced beliefin the fecund strength of their ancestors. Among Kumyks was recorded uncovering by women of their upper

body during the mourning for the deceased ritual (Prjetslavsky p. 1860, p. 297). Among Lezgins healingtools for childless women were considered water left after washing deceased who had many children,crossing road in front of the funeral procession, or under a stretcher where was carried a deceased who hadmany children, and walking around old cemetery (Gadjiyeva, G.A. 1980. pp. 33 - 36).

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 29/37

An attribute of the Huns' funeral rituals also were equestrian events. Horse racing, as part of the ritualremembrance of the deceased were noted at ancient Türks (Bichurin N.Ya. 1950, p. 124; Klyashtorny S.G.1984, p. 22), as well as a vestige of pagan beliefs among some Türko-Mongolian peoples (Lipetz R.S.

1982, p. 232), and among Dagestani peoples (Dibirov M.A. 1986, p. 210).

3. Cult of ancestors

237

The Huns' Fertility cult was closely associated with the Ancestor cult. The Ancestor cult displayed theHuns' idea of the soul and afterlife, the cult was most visible in the burial ritual and the wake over thedeceased. “Hitory of the Alvan country” suggest that the tombs of the noble ancestors (tribal chiefs,commanders, priests) were becoming places of worship. Movses Kalankatuatsi among the pagan shrinesdestroyed during Christianization of the Huns also listed “Royal tombs” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 206).

In the fire of the burned “Royal Tombs” were incinerated “vile hides of the sacrificed effigies” (MovsesKalankatuatsi, p. 206). It is possible that the objects are the mummies of particularly revered ancestors.

Any ethnological description of the Kurgan burial ritual includes a funeral feast,

imperceptibly touched in the previous section, and disposition of the leftovers after the feast.The leftovers include ceramic dishes and hides of the cooked animals. The hides were hangedon the poles thrust into the ground around the tumulus, with hides, heads, legs, and tailsstretched to depict running animals. These hides are what Movses Kalankatuatsi described,

and not the excavated “mummies of particularly revered ancestors”. Most of the TürkicKurgan burial rituals had a variation of this displays. In Gothic rendition, the name for thefuneral feast was “strava”, it is a rendition of the Türkic word ystrau, still today meaning“funeral feast” in Türkic, the noun comes from the verb ystyr, “cleanse”, an euphemism for“depart, die, fly away”, a permanent formula on the Türkic Tengrian gravestones (Example is

given in Karaim pronunciation). The archeologist L.Gmyrya undoubtedly is well familiar withthe Kurgan tradition, has excavated horse skulls from around the mounds, and noted in herreports the remains of the funeral feasts.

The Arab poets and historians of the 9th - 13th cc. tell that the famous Arabic commander Salman(Salman ibn Rabiah al-Bahili), killed in the battle for the city of Belenjer, was not buried, as all fallenwarriors. The coffin with his body was placed in a temple, and during drought, city residents would take thecoffin out, remove its lid, and pray the gods for the rain. People of Belenjer attributed to the fallen famous

enemy magical power, helping the living in earthly affairs. Apparently, the people of Varachan (Belenjer)also prayed to the gods for prosperity and wealth of their country with the help of the mummies of theirrevered ancestors (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I. C 200) (That supposition is a nonsense, and one can writea dissertation on why. It can't e ascribed to the Huns or Savirs, it conflicts with the body of materialon Tenriism and its rituals; but it is consistent with the Christian cult of relicts).267

Echoes of the Ancestor cult worship are recorded in the ethnographic modernity of many peoples.Revered ancestors, Many Dagestani peoples attributed function of rainmaking to the revered ancestors(Bulatova, A. 1980. pp. 97, 101 - 103; Gadjiyeva, G.A. 1980, p. 43, 1991, p. 78, 80, Alimova, B.M.1992. C . 78), help at the time of disasters, healing people and animals from the diseases, childbearing ability

of women (Gadjiyeva S. Sh, p. 1961, p. 332).

The funeral ritualism of the Dagestani Huns, recorded in the “History of Alvan country”, the architectureof the commemorative structures, and much of the funeral cults coincide in detail with the ritualism describedin Chinese sources about funerary rituals of the Central Asian Türks. In our view, this testifies that the funeral

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 30/37

rites of the migrant Türkic-speaking population practically did not absorb the ideological influence of thelocal farming population. The Türkic tribes of the North-Eastern Caucasus almost completely preserved theancient traditions of the funeral rituals established in their vast Central Asian homeland, and apparently by theend of the 7th c. AD the typical for the Hunno-Bulgars burial rituals became dominant among the populationof the Dagestan “country of Huns”.

Epilogue

From the descriptions in this work is clearly visible that the name Hun was a politonym for

the entire duration of its existence in the Caucasus. We encounter Huns-Savirs, Huns-Bulgars,Huns-Masguts (or Huns-Alans, since Alans was a later name of the same Masguts), andHuns-Haidaks (Mountain Kayis), on top of the Huns proper, plus an Ashina Türk who alsogoes in the records under a politonym Hun. Each of these tribal names has its own history, adistinct dialect and lexicon, a distinct complex of ethnological traits, and a distinct genetic

profile. It is only natural that unprepared archeologists and historians at first can't discern thearcheological remains, but with the hindsight of accumulated knowledge, the traits can becatalogued, attributed, and separated, like did S.A.Pletneva for the N.Pontic Türkicpastoralists of the Middle Ages. Conceptually, we know that Savirs are very local in theS.Caucasia and N. Mesopotamia, and they participated in the conquest of Bactria at about

130 BC; Bulgars came from Khorosan, from around Balkh, and their dialect was noticeablydifferent from the Savir dialect; Masguts occupied Aral steppes, which starting from about1000 BC were re-populated by the Kurgan Timber Grave western pastoralists from theN.Pontic and the Kurgan Timber Grave eastern pastoralists from the direction of Altai; the

Kayis or Djilans (Gelons) were local tribes spaced around Caspian Sea from Don to Hyrcania(Yiyrcania), with branches reaching Mongolia; the Huns proper were a conglomerate of tribesspread from Laoshan to Takla-Makan, their dialect was of Ogur-type, but probably verydistinct from the Savir and Bulgar dialects; and the Ashina tribe was a Saka tribe that did notretreat westward from the Jeti-su, but instead joined the Eastern Huns. Each of these tribes

retained their integrity, their archeological footprint, and their distinct genetic code, potentiallyenabling modern science to fill in some gaps left in the dark by the contemporaneous historians.

LITERATURE

Sources (not properly edited)

268 Agafangel. - Patkanian K. Attempt on history of Sassanid dynasty according to reports of Armenian writers/ Works of BOI RAO. SPb., 1869. Ch 14.

Agathias. - Agathias. On reign of Justinian / Translated by M.V. Levchenko. Moscow, Leningrad, 1953.Ammianus Marcellinus. I. - Ammianus Marcellinus. Book 23 / Transl. V.V.Latyshev. //VDI. 1949. № 3.Ammianus Marcellinus. II. Ammianus Marcellinus. History / Transl. Yu.A. Kulakovsky. Kiev, 1908, Apollinaris Sidonius. - Apollinaris Sidonius. Poems. II. Panegric to Antemius Augustus, secondly a consul /Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1949. № 4.

Armenian geography. I. - Armenian geography of the 7th c. (Attributed to Moisei Khorenatsi) / Transl. K.P.Patkanov. SPb., 1877.Armenian geography. AP - K.P. Patkanov. From the new manuscript of geography, attributed to MoiseiKhorenatsi / JMNP. 1883. March.al-Balkhi. - Abu Zayd al-Balkhi / Transl. D.A.Chvolson //News on the Khazars, Burtas, Bulgarians,

Hungarians, Slavs and Ruses by Abu Ali Ahmed Ben Omar Ibn Dust, hitherto unknown Arabic writer of thebeginning of 10th c. SPb., 1869.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 31/37

al-Baladhuri. - From Opus of Baladzori “The Book of the conquest of countries” / Transl, p.C. Jouseph//Materials on the history of Azerbaijan. Baku, 1927. Vol. 3.

269 Vardan the Great. - World History of Vardan the Great / Transl. N. Amin. M., 1861. al-Garnati. I. - Murib an bad adjaib al-Maghrib (Clear account of some miracles of Maghreb) / Transl. O.G.Bolshakov //Journey of Abu Khalid al-Garnati to Eastern and Central Europe (1131 - 1153). M., 1971.al-Garnati. I. - Tuhfat al-wa albab va nuhbat al-adjab (Gift to minds and example of rarities) / Transl. O.G.

Bolshakov //Journey of Abu Khalid al-Garnati to Eastern and Central Europe (1131 - 1153). M., 1971.Ghevond. - History of Caliphs by Vardapet Ghevond, 8th c. writer / Transl. K. Patkanyan. SPb., 1862.Herodotus. - Herodotus. “History” / Transl. E.A. Bessmertny //VDI. 1947. № 2. Derbent-name. I. - Said M.S., Shikhsaidov A.R. “Derbent-name” (to the question of the study) / Transl. AR

Shihsaidova //Oriental sources on the history of Dagestan. Makhachkala., 1980.Derbent-name. II. - Aktas Mohammed Avabn. Derbent-name / Transl. MR G. Orazaeva. . Makhachkala.,1992.Derbent-name. III. - Schihsaidov AR, Aytberov TM, G. Orazaev M.-R. Dagestani historical writings /Transl. MR G. Orazaeva. M., 1993.

Dionysius. - Dionysius. Description populated land / Transl. IP Tsvetkova //VDI. 1948. № 1.Yeghishe. - Yeghishe. About Vardan and the Armenian War / Transl. IA Orbeln. Yerevan, 1971.Eusebius Hieronymus. - Eusebius Hieronymus. Letter 77. To the ocean. On the death of Fabiola, Letter 60.By Gelnodoru / Transl. V.V.Latyshev / 7VDI. 1949. № 4.Zosimus - Zosimus. New History / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1948. № 4.

270 Ibn al-Athir. - From the Tarikh al-Kamil (the full set of stories), Ibn al-Athir / Transl. PK Joseph //Materialson the history of Azerbaijan. Baku, 1940.Ibn Rustah. - Ibn Rustah. Al-Alaq Al-Nafis / Transl. V.F. Minorsky //In Minorsky, F. History of Shirvan

and Darband 10 - 11 centuries. Appendix IV. Ibn Rustah of Dagestan. M. 1963.Ibn al-Faqih. - Ibn al-Faqih. From the “Book of Countries” / Transl. NA Karaulov //Information Arabwriters of the Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1902. Vol. XXXI.UPS Hawqal. - Ibn Hawqal. From “The Book of ways and kingdoms” / Transl. NA, Karaulov //InformationArab geographers 9 - 10 centuries of Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1908. Vol.

XXXVIII.Ibn Khordadbeh. - Ibn Khordadbeh. The book of ways and / Transl., Comments, research, guides andmaps of N. Velihanovoy. Baku. 1986.Yeshu Styles. - Chronicle of Yeshu Stylitea. Chronicles the tale of the misfortunes that were in Edessa,

Amida and throughout Mesopotamia / Transl. N. Pigulevskaya //Pigulevskaya N. Mesopotamia at the turnof the 5 - 6 cc. BC The Syrian news of Yeshu Stylite as a historical source. Moscow, Leningrad, 1940.Joseph I. - Response letter of the Khazar King Joseph (short version) / Transl. P.K. Kokovtsev//Kokovtsoff P.K. Hebrew-Khazar Correspondence in the 10th c. Leningrad, 1932.Joseph. II. - Response letter to the Khazar King Joseph (the longer version) / Transl. PK Kokovtsev

//Kokovtsoff P.K. Hebrew-Khazar Correspondence in the 10th century:Leningrad, 1932.al-Istahri. - Al-Ystahri. From “The Book of ways kingdoms” / Per .. H, A. Karaulov //Information Arabwriters of the Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1901. Vol. XXIX.271 al-Yakubi. - Yakub. History. / Transl. PK Joseph /. / Materials on the history of Azerbaijan. Baku, 1927.

Vol. IV.Claudius Claudian. - Claudius Claudian. To Rufina. Book I, N II / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDN. 1949. №4.Claudius Ptolemy. - Claudius Ptolemy. Geographical guide / Transl. IP Tsvetkova //VDI. 1948. № 2.

al-Kufi. - Al-Kufi. Book gains (Excerpts from the history of Azerbaijan 7 - 9 cc.) / Transl. 3. M. Bunyatova.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 32/37

Baku, 1981.Leonti Mroveli. - Mroveli Leontius. Life Kartli kings. Extracting information about Abkhazia, the nations ofthe North Caucasus, Dagestan and / Transl. GV Tsulaia. , 1979.Al-Masoudi I - Masoudi. From the book “Meadows of gold mines and precious stones” / Transl. NA

Karaulov //Information Arab geographers 9 - 10 centuries of Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1908. Vol. XXXVIII.Al-Masoudi II. - Masoudi. Murudj al-Dzahab (Gold Placers) (Chapter XVII) / Transl. V.F.Minorsky//History of Shirvan and Darband 10 - 11 centuries. Annex III, Masoudi the Caucasus. M., 1963.Al-Masoudi III - Masoudi, from the “Book of communications and knowledge” / Transl. NA Karaulov

//Information Arab geographers 9 - 10 centuries of Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. SMOMPK. Tiflis,1908. Vol. HHHUSH.Menander Byzantine. (Protiktor). - Menander Byzantines continued stories Agafievoy / Transl. S. Destunisa//Byzantine historians, St. Petersburg., 1860:

Movses Kalankatuatsi. I. - History Aghvan Kagankatvatsi Moses, the writer of the 10th c. / Transl. K.Patkanyan. SPb., 1861.272 Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. - Movses Kalankatuatsi. The country's history Aluank / Transl. S. V. Smbatian.Yerevan, 1984.

Moses Horenskny. - Armenian History of Movses Khorenatsi / Transl. N. A. Emin. M., 1893.al-Muqaddasi. - Al-Muqaddasi. From the book “Best of the divisions for knowledge of climates” / Transl.NA Karaulov //Information Arab geographers 9 - 10 centuries of Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.SMOMPK. Tiflis, 1908. Vol. XXXVIII.P. L., - The Tale of Bygone Years. Moscow, Leningrad, 1950. Vol. I.

Prisk Pannonian. - Prisk Pannonian. Gothic History / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1948. № 4.Prnstsian. - Prnstsian. Zemleopisanie / Transl. IP Tsvetkova //VDI. 1949. № 4.Procopius of Caesarea. Ia - Procopius of Caesarea The history of wars with the Romans by the Persians inthe two books / Transl. S. Destunisa. Book. I. SPb., 1876.

Procopius of Caesarea. 1b. - Procopius of Caesarea The history of wars with the Romans by the Persians /Transl. S. Destunisa. Book. 2. SPb., 1880.Procopius of Caesarea. II, - Procopius of Caesarea. The war with the Goths / Transl. SP Kondratiev.Moscow, 1950.Pseudo-Zacharias. - Chronicle of Zachariah of the rhetorician (Mitilenskogo) / Transl. N. Pigulevskaya

//Syrian sources on the history of the USSR. Moscow, Leningrad, 1941.Rufy Avien Fest. - Rufy Avien Fest. Description of the Earth circle / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1949. №4.Sebeos - History of the Emperor Heraclius. Bishop Sebeos essay, the writer of the 7th c. / Transl. K.

Patkanyai St. Petersburg., 1862.Stepanos Taronetsi. - World History Stepanos Taronetsi (Asoghik) / Transl. N. Amin. M., 1864. at-Tabari.I. - Dorn. Proceedings of the Khazars Oriental historian Tabarn, with excerpts from Gafis-Abru, Ibn AlzemEl Kufi, etc. / Transl, p. Tyajelova //ZhMNP. 1944, August.

at-Tabari. II. - Shikhsaidov AR Book of at-Tabari, “History of Messengers and Kings” on the peoples ofthe North Caucasus / Transl. AR Shihsaidova //Monuments of History and Literature of the East. M., 1986.Tarikh al-Bab (Derbent). - History of Shirvan and al-Baba (Derbent) / Transl. V.F. Minorsky //Minorsky,Vladimir F. History of Shirvan and Darband 10 - 11 centuries. M., 1963.Favstos Buzand. - History of Armenia Favstosa Buzand / Transl. MA Gevorgian //Ancient Monuments of

Armenian literature. Yerevan, 1953.Theophanes Byzantine. - Excerpts from the history of Theophanes / Transl. S. Destunisa //Byzantinehistorians. SPb., 1860.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 33/37

Theophanes Confessor. - Theophanes Confessor. Chronography / Transl. and commentary by JS

Chichurova //Chichurov Byzantine historical works. , 1980.Theophylact Simokatta. - Theophylact Simokatta. History / Transl. SP Kondratiev. M. 1957.Flavius Vegeta Renat. - Flavius Vegeta Renat. A brief sketch of military / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI.1949. № 4.Hudud . - Hudud al Alem. Manuscript Tumanskii with the introduction and index Bartol'd. L., 1930.

Julius Honorius. - Julius Honorius. Description of the world / Transl. V.V.Latyshev //VDI. 1949. № 4.

Works of researchers (not properly edited)

273

Abduldaev I. X. 1976. Derivational model oikonyms Dagestan //Onomastics Caucasus. Makhachkala.Agashirinova S. 1978. Material culture Lezgins 19th - early 20th centuries. M. 274 Akopian, AA 1987. Albania - Aluank in the Greco-Latin and ancient Armenian sources. Yerevan.Alekseev, NA 1980. Early forms of religion of Turkic peoples of Siberia. Novosibirsk.

Alimov, BM 1977. Marriage and marriage customs Kumykov past and present (late 19th - 20th centuries)..Abstract. Dis. cand. Hist. Science. L.Alimov, BM 1992. Tabasarantsy. 19 - early 20 th c. Makhachkala. Alikhanov AA 1978. Ancient stories in the tradition village Mekegi //Monuments of Bronze and early IronAge. Makhachkala.

Artamonov, MI 1936. Essays on the ancient history of the Khazars. L. Artamonov, MI 1962. History Khazar L. Atayev JM, Magomedov, M.G. 1974. Andreyaulskoe settlement //Antiquities of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Ashurbeili S.B. 1983. State Shirvanshahs (6 - 16 cc.). Baku.

Bank A. 1966. Byzantine art in the collections of the Soviet Union. L., M. Bartold VV, 1963, Place of littoral areas in the history of the Muslim world. Cit. M. II. Part I, Barthold, VV 1973. On the question of the origin of “Derbent-name”.Cit. M. VIII.Baskakov, NA 1960. Turkic languages. M. Bernshtam 1951. Essay on the history of the Huns. L.

Bichurin J. 1950. Collection of information on peoples in Central Asia in ancient times. Moscow, LeningradBromley, YV 1983. Essays on the theory of ethnos. M. Bromley YV, Kozlov, VI 1987. Ethnicity and ethnic processes as a subject of research //Ethnic Processes inthe modern world. M.Bulatov A. Laks 1971. Makhachkala.

275 Bulatov, A. 1980. Some family and public rituals of rural people in mountainous Dagestan 19th - early. 20.Associated with the spring-summer calendar cycle. //Family life of the peoples of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Bulatov, A. 1984. Ideological representation of the Avars, as reflected in the celebration of the first furrow

(19 - early. 20..) //The mythology of the peoples of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Beletskaya, NN, 1978. Slavic Pagan Symbols of the archaic rituals. M. Vernadsky, G. 1992. Ancient Russia. / Transl. and comments A. X. Bekuzarova //Alana and the Caucasus.VladikavkazVysotsky, T.N. 1979. Naples - the capital of the state late Scythians. Kiev.

Gadjiyeva G. A. 1980. Vestiges of ancient ideas of funeral and burial rites Lezgins //Family life of thepeoples of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Gadjiyeva G. A. 1991. Pre-Islamic beliefs and practices of the peoples of Dagestan, Nagorno. M.Gadjiyeva M. 1990. To localize Varachan //XVI “Krupnovskie read” the archeology of the North Caucasus(abstracts of reports). Stavr.

Gadjiyeva C. Sh.1959. Marriage and wedding ceremonies in Kumykov in 19 - early 20 th c. //Uch.zap.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 34/37

IIYAL Doug Branch of the USSR. Makhachkala. Vol. VI.Gadjiyeva C. Sh.1961. Kumyks. M. Gadjiyeva C. Sh.1985. Family and marriage among the peoples of Dagestan in the 19th - early 20th c. M.

Gadjiyeva C. Sh., Adjiev AM 1980. Funeral rites and lamentations Kumykov //Family life of nations.Dagestan. Makhachkala.Gadlo AV 1979. Ethnic history of the North Caucasus 4 - 10 cc. L. Gadlo AV 1980. Religious reform in the “country of the Huns” in the 7th c. as an expression of socialconflict, the formative period of the class of the society //genesis, milestones, and common ways of

feudalism, especially among the peoples of the North Caucasus. Proc. Abstracts. Makhachkala.276 Genko AN 1941. Arabic and Caucasian: Proceedings of the second session of the Association of Arabists.Moscow, LeningradGmyrya L.B. 1979. The social composition of Hun society (6 - 7 cc.) //II Conference of Young Scientists,

Doug. Branch of the USSR. Proc. Abstracts. Makhachkala.Gmyrya L.B. 1980. Some information about the Huns in Dagestan //Ancient and medieval archaeologicalsites in Dagestan. Max.Gmyrya L.B. 1986. The pagan cults in the Huns of the North-East Caucasus //Rites and worship of the

ancient and medieval population of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Gmyrya L.B. 1987. Obsequies Palace syrtskogo cemetery (ethno-social interpretation) //Ethno-culturalprocesses in the ancient Dagestan. Makhachkala.Gmyrya L.B. 1988. Of social relations among the Huns of the North-East Caucasus 6 - 7 cc. //Thedevelopment of feudal relations among the peoples of the North Caucasus. Makhachkala.

Gmyrya L.B. 1993. Caspian Dagestan in the era of the Great Migration. Burials. Makhachkala.Grach A.D. 1980. Ancient nomads in the heart of Asia. M. Gumilev L.N. 1966. The opening of the Khazars (Historical geografnchesky study). M.Gumilev L.N. 1992. Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe. M..

Gumilev L.N. 1993. The ancient Turks. M. Darkevitch VP 1960. The symbols of the heavenly bodies in the ornament of ancient Russia. CA. № 4.Darkevitch VP 1974. Bucket of Khazar and Turkic heroic epic //Xia. M in. 140.277 Darkevitch VP 1976. Art metal East. 8 - 13 cc. M.

Jafarov Yu.R. 1981. Huns and Azerbaijan. Abstract. Dis. . cand. Hist. Science. Baku.Jafarov Yu.R. 1985. Huns and Azerbaijan. Baku. Djidalaev NI S. 1984. Notes on two ancient Bulgar magical terms //mythology of the peoples of Dagestan.Makhachkala.Djndalaev NI S. 1990. Türkizms in the Dagestan languages. Experience the historical and etymological

analysis. M.Dibirov M. A, 1986, Nature and genesis of the funeral games of the Caucasian peoples //Proc. Doc. All-Union session on the field ethnographer, and anthropology. Issled. 1984 - 1985. Yoshkar-Ola.Dyakonov, M., 1961. Essay on the history of ancient Iran. M.

Eremian, S.T. 1939. Moses Kalankatuatsi of the Albanian embassy Prince Varazi-Trdat to Khazar HaqqaniAlp Ilitveru //Proceedings of Institute of Oriental Studies. M., LT VII.Zasetskaya I.P. 1994. Culture of the nomads in the southern Russian steppes Hun era (late 4th - 5th cc.).SPb.Zahodsr B.N. 1962. Caspian collection of information on Eastern Europe. Gorgan and the Volga region in

the 9th - 10th centuries. M.Znlfeldt-Simumyagi. AR 1988. On the question of language, Khazar (1937) //Soviet Turkic Studies. № 6.Byzantine history. 1967. M. I. History of Dagestan. 1967. M. I.

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 35/37

History of the North Caucasus since ancient times to the late 18th c. 1988. M.

Ichilov, MM 1961. Family and household in Tabasarantsev in the late 19th - early. 20th c. //Uch. app.IIYAL Doug Branch of the USSR. Makhachkala. Vol. IX.Klyashtorny S.G. 1981. North Caucasian Huns Pantheon and its relationship with the mythology of theancient Turks of Central Asia //Cultural links the peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus with the outside

world and ancient i.srednevekove. M.278 Klyashtorny S.G. 1983. Hun power in the East (3. BC - 4th c. AD.) //The history of the ancient world. Thedecline of ancient societies. MKlyashtorny S.G. 1984. Prabolgarsky Tangra of ancient Turkic pantheon //Collected in memory of

Professor. Stanchev Vaklikov. Sofia.Kotovnch VG and 1974. On the location of the early medieval town Varachan, Belenjer and Targu//Antiquities of Dagestan. Makhachkala.Kotovich VG 1974 b. Archaeological evidence to a question about the location of Semender //Antiquities ofDagestan. Makhachkala.

Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957. Arabic geographical literature. Huts. cit. M., LT 4. Ksenofontova RA 1981. Folklore and cultural patterns of Japanese pottery production of the early 20th c.//Material culture and mythology. L.Kudryavtsev AA 1976. The city is not dependent ages. Makhachkala.

Kudryavtsev AA 1979, “Long wall” in the Eastern Caucasus //B. I. № 11 Kuznetsov, V.A. 1984. Essays on the history of Alan. Ordj. Kurbanov, KE 1974. Marriage and wedding ceremonies in Tsakhurs in 19 - nach. 20th c. //Questions ofHistory and Ethnography, Dagestan. Makhachkala.Lares R, I. 1958. Tarki until the 18th c. / (Uch. app. IIYAL Dagfiliala Academy of Sciences. Makhachkala.

Vol. IV.Lazarev, J., 1859, about Huns Dagestan. Tiflis. Lipetz RS 1982. Reflection of a funeral ceremony in the Turkic-Mongolian epics //. Rites and ritual folklore.M.

Magomedov, M.G. 1983. Education of the Khazar Kaganate. M. 279 Farid Mammadov. 1977. “The history of Alban” Moses Kalankatutskogo as a source for the social order ofearly medieval Albania. Baku.Mammayev M. 1967. On the origin of one of the Dagestan ornamental motif //Uch. app. IIYAL.

Makhachkala. Vol. 17.Mammayev M. 1976. About Christian symbols and subjects of medieval arts and crafts Dagestan//Dagestan art history. Mack.Mikailov K. S. 1976. Rubas and Samur. //Onomastics Caucasus. Makhachkala. Minorsky V.F. 1963, History of Shirvan and Darband 10 - 11 centuries. M.

Mythology. 1984. - Mythology of the peoples of Dagestan;. Max Miryan, M.M. 1969. Khorenatsi. Yerevan. Nechaev, L.G. 1975. On the southern dwelling nomads in Eastern Europe during the Iron Age (1stmillennium BC - the first floor. 2 thousand BC) //An ancient dwelling peoples of Eastern Europe. M.

Novoseltsev, A.P. 1980. The genesis of feudalism in the Caucasus. M. Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. Khazar state and its role in the history of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. M.Pigulevskaya NV 1940. Mesopotamia at the turn of the 5 - 6 cc. BC The Syrian news of Yeshu Stylite as ahistorical source //Proc. IV. Vol. 31. Moscow, LeningradPigulevskaya N.V. 194]. Syrian sources on the history of the USSR. Moscow, Leningrad

Pletnev, S. 1986. The Khazars. M. Pokrovsky, LV 1983. Agricultural rites //calendar customs in the countries of Europe overseas. Historical

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 36/37

roots and development practices. M.Potapov, LP 1991. Altai shamanism. L. Prjetslavskny P, 1860. Manners and Customs in Dagestan //War collection. № 4.

280 Putintseva ND 1961. Verhnechiryurtovsky Cemetery (preliminary report) //MAD. Makhachkala. Vol. 2.Reshetov AM 1981. Dragon in the cultural tradition of Chinese //Material culture and mythology. L.Rybakov, BA 1952. Russia to Khazaria (A historical geography Khazar) //Academician BD Grekov

semides the day. M.Fishermen B, A. 1981. Paganism of the ancient Slavs. M. Sagalayev AM 1991. Ural-Altaic mythology. Symbol and archetype. Novosnb. Sevortian EV 1974. Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages. M. Sychev, LP 1972. The traditional embodiment of the principle in China's Inya ritual garb //The role of

traditions in the history of Chinese culture. M.Dictionary of antiquity. 1989. M. Modern culture. 1971. - Modern culture and way of life of the peoples of Dagestan. M.Tokarev, S.A. 1983. Sex customs //calendar customs and traditions in countries overseas in Europe.Historical roots and development practices. M.

Tokarev SA, Filimonova TD 1983. Rituals and practices associated with vegetation //calendar customs andtraditions of foreign countries in Europe. Historical roots and development practices. M.Trever K. B. 1959. Essays on the history and culture of Caucasian Albania. 4th c. BC - 7, AD Moscow,Leningrad

Turkic-Dagestan linguistic contacts. 1982. Makhachkala. Udaltsova Z.V. 1967. Sources on the History of Byzantine 4 - the first half of the 7th c. // Byzantine History,M. Vol. 1Udaltsova Z.V. 1984. The development of historical thought // Byzantine Culture, 4th - first half of 7th c. M.281

Fedorov Ya.A. 1972. Khazaria and Dagestan // A short ethnographic collection. M, . 5.

Fedorov Ya.A., Fedorov, G. S. 1978. Early Turks in the North Caucasus. M.Khazanov, A.M. 1975. Social history of Scythians, M.Khalidova, M.R. 1984. Mythological characters in oral prose peoples of Dagestan // Mythology of theDagestan peoples. Makhachkala.Khalilov Kh. M. 1984. Reflection of pagan notions of ritual and folklore Laks // Mythology of the Dagestan

peoples. Makhachkala.Chichurov 1980. Byzantine historical works: “Chronography” Theophanes, “Divine Office” Nicephorus. M.Shihsaidov A.R. 1957. On the penetration of Christianity and Islam in Dagestan // Scolarly Notes. Dag.Branch of the USSR AofS. Makhachkala. Vol. 3. History.

Shihsaidov A.R. 1969. Islam in Medieval Dagestan (7 - 15th centuries).. Makhachkala.Engels, F. 1982. Origin of the Family, Private Property, l state. In connection with investigations of Lewis H.Morgan. M.

ABBREVIATIONS (not properly edited)

281

BAH - Bulletin of the history. M.WI - Questions of history. M.

Vlad. - Vladikavkaz.ZhMNP - Journal of the Ministry of Education. SPb.IIYAL - Institute of History, Language and LiteratureMAD - Materials on the Archaeology of Dagestan.Makhachkala. - Makhachkala

2013.09.23. Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm 37/37

Novosnb. - NovosibirskOrdj. - Ordjonikidze282

PVL - Chronicle Tale of bygone yearsStavr - StavropolSMOMPK - Collection of materials for the description of places and tribes of the Caucasus. Tiflis

Works of VOI RW - Proceedings of the Eastern Branch of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society.SPb.Works of IV - Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Studies. Moscow, Leningrad

Book Contents Chapters 1-2 Chapters 3-5 Chapters 6-8 Chapters 9-11

HomeBackIn RussianHuns - ContentsLiterature Index

Datelines

SourcesRootsTamgasAlphabetWritingLanguage

GeneticsGeographyArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipedia

Ogur and OguzWestern Huns 4th-10th cc.Western Huns Income In GoldBulgarsAlansMasguts

Eastern Hun AnabasisStearns P.N. Zhou SynopsisE. de la Vaissiere Eastern HunsBagley R. Hun archeology in ChinaFaux D. Kurgan Culture in ScandinaviaDybo A. Pra-Altaian World

Alan DatelineAvar Dateline

BesenyoDateline

BulgarDateline

Huns DatelineKarluk

Dateline

KhazarDateline

KimakDatelineKipchakDatelineKyrgyz

DatelineSabir Dateline

SeyantoDateline

11/2/2010

“” ~ –&ndash; Türkic