Gmyrya L.

- HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

L.Gmyrya
HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE
Caspian Dagestan during the epoch of the Great Movement of Peoples
Dagestan Publishing, Makhachkala 1995, ISВN 5-297-01099-3
© Гмыря Л.Б. Gmyrya L.B.1995
Chapters 1-2
ANCIENT 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 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.

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.
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 the Turkic-speaking world: Maskuts (Gr. Massagets) , Alans, Hailandurks (Haidaks
~ Kayi + dag < Mountain Kayi) , Huns, Basils, Ugors, Saragurs, Onogurs (Hunogurs), Savirs, Khazars, Turks, 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 empire of
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 the local 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 decline and desolation of significant territories (see, for example, works of
S.A.Pletneva). On the contrary, the cultural layers of the 5th-7th centuries demonstrate a 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 treatises and atlases, chronographs and annals, and also in the diplomatic documents and poetic compositions.. We
attempted to recreate an objective picture of the historical development of the Caspian. Dagestan tribes during the early Middle
Ages: a political history, social-economic, ethno-cultural development and ideology.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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).
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 refer to 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 about Caspian tribes are written in Latin, Greek, ancient Armenian and Georgian languages. About Caspian tribes
is plenty of data in Arabic and Persian literature, 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 about Caspian 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 a poetic 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 Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (160-180).

Dionysius Periegetes Ptolemy's Huns

Map ( 124 AD?) E 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 and continuation 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, in 394 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 limits of 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. Turkic-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 other authors. 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).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 not reach 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 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 Turko-Germanic state, where ethnically Turkic Atilla is as much a Turkic leader as a Germanic leader,
where Germanic subjects partake in the most Turkic Tengrian rituals, partake in the affairs of the state, and the
Germanic language is an equal language alongside with the Turkic language. 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 Turkisms 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 -
kul/kol, coney - kuyan, dawn - tang , etc. point to much deeper connections; and the uneventful Germanization of
such Turkic tribes as Turing and Burgund also points to the presence of much deeper Turko-Germanic links.
Demonization of the Germans during WWI as Huns, and likewise episodic demonization during WWII reflected
vestigial memories of the Turko-Germanic union of the 4th-6th cc. and beyond, of the Germanic tribes 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 4 books. 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 Huns Attila, 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 the second 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 Europe from
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. Turkic-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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

preserved a Latin paraphrase of 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, who lived 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, secondly a 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 an opportunity to witness all wars fought during Justinian I (527 -
565). He accompanied Velisarius twice in the campaigns against Persians: 527-531 and 541. 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 are justly 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 by researchers as very significant (Udaltsova Z.V. 1984, p. 159.)
15

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 the Procopius
information about the level of the Caspian Hun tribes socio-economic development, military-political alliances of the Caspian Huns,
the descriptions 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, born ca. 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, he received 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 writing his 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 he was 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, and translators.
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 he names 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. Menander sources were original of historical materials: official diplomatic and military
// 17 // documents, historical writings, eyewitness accounts, and personal observations (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, it remained 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 reports on 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 582 to 602. In his historical treatise Theophylact Simokatta used earlier works of
Byzantine authors, documentary materials and stories of contemporaries. In his “History” Savirs are mentioned in connection with
their defeat by Pseudo-Avars who invaded the Caspian steppes.
18

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 rich Byzantine official. Theophanes Confessor began as a clerk, but later devoted himself to monastic life, and
founded several monasteries, their ruins survived to 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 through the 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 the Hun tribal leaders, and the size of the Caspian Hunnic
union at the beginning of the 6th c. The Theophanes “Chronography” contains some of information about 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 the Persian 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 (Pigulevskaya N.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 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 of predecessors (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 the Byzantine 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 the opinion of N.V. Pigulevskaya is of outstanding interest (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941,
p. 80). This part of the Pseudo-Zacharias “Chronicles” was prepared, as suggested by N. Pigulevskaya, in 555 (Pigulevskaya N.V.
1941, p. 81). For our theme of fundamental importance Pseudo-Zacharias statement // 21 // that the 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 Kardos to 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-four years. 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 the population'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 decade of the 4th centuries (which drastically contradict with the popularly accepted notion about Huns crossing
Itil ca. the 370 AD - Translators note) .
22

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Agafangel (writing in the beginning of 5th c.) in his “History of Trdat and conversion of Armenians to Christianity”, which
covers a period // 22 // from 226 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 Sassanid dynasty (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 Huns were 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 Caucasian mountaineers, were the Huns...

The Armenian text of Favst Buzand named not Huns, but Hons ... Outlining the legendary story of the Maskut king
Sanesan invasion of Armenia, 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 history and 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 connection with 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 years old (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 of which
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. 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 for ethnic 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 that the local pastoralists of
Sakastan/Sistan, known as As-kishi from the Assyrian records, were deported or fled to their kins in Hunnia, becoming one 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 support of 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 the faight 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 the Armenians 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

the tribes of the Caspian 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, the writer 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 Armenian mathematician 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 Sebeos authorship (See: Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990, p. 30). The Sebeos history presents the ancient history of
Armenians, but the most original part of it is the section 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 the Caspian 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's description of the Hunno-Khazar relations. Ghevond's information about the Arabs raid
of 716 - 717 into the “Land of Huns” is also recited by Stepanos Taronetsi (Stepanos Asoghik) (born ca. 928, died in 1040s.)
(112 years?) In the “Universal History” he also repeats the story of Agafangel and Moisei Khorenatsi 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 city Varachan 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” (Patmut?iwn Aluanic?, where l is variously
transliterated as l and 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 not contain 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 l/l/g/gh ambiguity, to get rid of the obviously Turkic “Kagan”
and “Katuk”, a form of “Katun, Hatun”; the name is likely derived from the compound “Kagan-Hatun”, which stands for the
traditional Hunnic and Turkic 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 points to the Turkic presence in the Uti province predating the birth of little Movses. The unsung part of
the controversy is the brazen falsification of the 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 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) was added 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, as well as epistolary sources, lives of the Saints.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 the Caspian 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 times by 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 (chapters 9 - 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 the base 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 Turks) (Akopian A.A. 1987. pp. 195 - 196) (i.e. to
the Bulan Shad, Crown Prince (Shad) of Tun-Yabgu Kagan, aka Bulu 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 be compared with the descriptions of the Byzantine embassies of Prisk Pannonian to the Attila court (448)
and of Menander Byzantine to the country of Turks (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 about cities, 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 Albania and 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 rightly notes that the source does not provide clear information about Khazars, who are difficult to
distinguish from among the North Caucasus nomads kindred with 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 report about 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), who has 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 reference books 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 Syrian authors, 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 people living in the North-East Caucasus foothills, they name
Alans, Khazars, and Turks. The ethnic name of the Khazars, the inhabitants of the powerful Khazar state, as it usually happens,
absorbed the names of other nations subject to Khazaria. However, a careful examination of information on Caspian Dagestan in
the Arab geographical literature allows to trace historical fate of the “Country of Huns” and its cities in the period of the Khazarian
might.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Among the extant works of descriptive geography, the work of Ibn Khordadbeh “Book of Roads and Kingdoms” is the earliest
composition. It mostly consists of travel guides with varying degrees of details, // 31 // and gives a variety of information of official
nature, also are included reports on geographical curiosities.
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 Tabaristan governor, 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). Postmasters of 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 Ibn Khordadbeh 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 other materials (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. The writing 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 (Minorsky V.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-day Dagestan. Its name is derived from the Arabic word for “throne” and refers to a golden throne which
was viewed as a symbol of royal authority.”

Sarir was bordering Hunnia in the east, it occupied a mountain range along Kazikumuh Koisu river (in Turkic
Kazikumuh Sheep River) in the foothills, separated from the Hunnic plain by mountain ridges and connected with it
by inhospitable mountain passes, with the 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 inaccessible mountain enclave long before our era.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 historical source 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 eastern countries, he also visited South Caspian littoral. Al-Masoudi was a great
scholar, a connoisseur of ancient authors (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 13). He left several 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 a description 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: from translation 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 tribes living 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 Haidah Principality 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 tribe with snake ongon. Like in English with its originated from two sources double terms
of “snake” and “serpent”, the Turkic had interchangeable“kayi” and “djilan”. This is one more confirmation that the
names Kayi and Djilan were interchangeable. The Guilan (????? ) 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 Modern Iran Gilan Province (top)

440 BC      
Al Masoudi Djidan ca 1000 AD Provinces Mazandaran and Golestan
(reconstructed map, Yirks = Tr. (Djilan ~ Kaidag ~ Kayi) east of Gilan were the land of
“nomads”) generic Yirks (Tr. “nomads”)

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Historical Hyrcania
 

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 acquainted with 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 Es?aq Ebrahim b. Mo?ammad Faresi Kar?i, d. 957. In 1957 Russia, it was
still imprudent to to be honest, 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 he included 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 work the 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 gives information on the land between Derbent and the capital of the “Land of Khazars”
Itil, he names city Semender and its lands, which are the Khazar dependencies. // 35 // He indicates the position of Semender
relative to Derbent, Itil, and country Serir, providess ethnographic information about religion in the 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 the 940 - 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 the Caspian Sea, was in Jurjan (Djurdjan, Gorgan, Gurgan, Hyrcania, Yirkania) . At about
340/911 - 952 he met al-Istahri. His work “Book of ways of states” (“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 little attention 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 crushing blow inflicted by the Ruses upon Khazars and of their centers, including Semender
(Novoseltsev A.P. 1990, p. 16). However, his information on the timing of 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Bulgarian annals provide background information on the Rus campaign, depicting it as a Bulgar liberation war of
joint Bulgar-Rus alliance, 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 tribute equal in size to the tribute from Djir (Bulgar-Rus Treaty of
964). In the campaign participated Turkmens (Oguzes), recently defeated in the lengthy Bulgar-Turkmenian war
(ca. 947-ca. 960), and Bajanaks, whose territory the Rus army had to cross, as Rus allies in the campaign. 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 his death 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 of Muslim 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 of conquests of countries”,which narrated on the Arab conquests. Later, during the second half of the 9th c.
formed another genre - “Stories” - the works containing 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 the al-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 Prince Abdullah, 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. 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 military history, but a book packed with historical and cultural details (Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 156). The al-
Baladhuri book gives a concise overview of the Arab conquests from Muhammad to the Caliphs Al-Mutawakkil (847-861), Al-
Musta'in (862-866) and Al-Mu'tamid (870-894) (Dates may differ in different sorces). The sources of al-Baladhuri were not extant
writings and documents, as well as information he gathered from scholars of historical science 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 Caspian Dagestan 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  ???   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 drafting some 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 Caliphate from 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 a contemporary 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 an Arabic 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 sufficient detail the story of the conquest of the Caspian littoral and Dagestan mountainous regions during the 8th c.
Chronology of events important to our theme ends 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 the parties 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 also contains some ethnographic information. Unlike al-Baladhuri, who in his book named besides Derbent
only two settlements, Belenjer and Khamzin, al-Kufi also knows in the Caspian Dagestan other cities. The “Book of conquests” of
al-Kufi is not a dispassionate description of the scenes with Arab military operations, it is a very lively story with a place for
individuals (rather clearly are delineated the prominent Arab and Khazar generals), it proved by examples 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 visible how
changed with time the aggressive tactics of the Arabs in the politics of conquest in the Caucasus, which despite some successful
operations was still ineffective, 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 special privileges to those who helped the Arab army.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 the creation 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 several versions of the same event. However, the veracity of the at-Tabari contents is corroborated
by another Arab historian Ibn al-Athir (1160 - 1234), who used 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. The book 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 the Caspian Dagestan or recollections of their relatives. Al-Tabari included in his
“History of the Prophets and Kings” information on the Khazar largest campaign 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 was born in Baghdad, he lived in Armenia, Khorasan, and Egypt, visited India and Palestine. Al-Yakubi
grandfather and father were major officials of the Post Office. 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 in popular science style
(Krachkovsky I.Yu. 1957, p. 154).

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 about the 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 Arab raids into the Caspian seaboard in the 640's. In the al-Yakubi narration the individual military operations and
important battles are chronologically separated, 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 works of 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 that for 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 total dominance 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 Azerbaijan and 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Among them is the ancient Georgian Chronicle of 11th-12th cc. “The Life of Kartli Kings” by Leonti Mroveli, geographical treatise
“Limits of the world” of an anonymous Persian author written in 372/982-983, some documents of Jewish-Khazar correspondence
of the 10th c., and Dagestani chronicles - the “History of Shirvan and al-Bab (In Arabic Bab  ???   is akin to “country”,here:
Derbent)“, composed in Derbent at about 500/1106, the “Book of Derbent” by Mohammed Avabi 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 the political history, shed light on the socio-economic development and ethnic
tribes, characterize ideological beliefs of the population. They allow to identify both the common interests of Dagestan neighboring
states with the Caspian “strategically” important region, and the local goals driven by tactical and strategic 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, the territory 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 the Caspian Sea), and to the south of them were Caspians and Albanians (Greeks knew Huns as a branch of
Scythians, i.e. Turkic-speaking horse pastoralists).
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' tribes apparently 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 the Rashidun 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. During Parthian rule, Albania was a Parthian client-state, ruled by Arsacid branches, together with
Iberia (East Georgia), as a pan-Arsacid family 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 in 628 from Albania to submit
to the Turks, transfer over the cities and fortresses, and allow free trade. In his letter to the Armenian Catholicos
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 clear geographical reference points. The localization issue // 46 // of Dionysus Huns (Uns) is still controversial (see:
Jafarov Yu.R. 1985. pp. 12-14). Given that in the 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. 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 2nd c. AD (Claudius Ptolemy, p. 465). Information of the ancient geographer is general in nature, so a
consensus on the location of the “Huns” has not developed.

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 evidence suggests that they not only became stronger in the newly acquired territories of the Caspian
littoral, but also were actively interfering in the political and military 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.Caucasus region in the 230s and the 310s. So,
Agafangel reports on participation of the Huns in a joint military campaign with Armenians and some Caucasian peoples 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 // of the 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 calls the “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 the Caspian littoral was stable. However, it also can't be excluded that to
indicate Hun areas in the Caspian littoral in the 4th., Movses Khorenatsi uses definitions 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 as mercenaries by some
mountain tribes - Leks (branch of Nakhs, also Laks; there also belong Lezgies, intentionally misidentified) , Didoys (branch of
Nakhs, 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. Their homeland 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 its colonial expansion, nearly all 200+ indigenous peoples in the captured
lands were called Tatars. In America, nearly all indigenous peoples were called Indians. In this case, nearly all
Turkic-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 idea that 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 were preserved by some Latin writers, the contemporaries of that event. Eusebius Hieronymus tells about it in
two letters written at the beginning of 396, and in 399. 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 Caspian pass. 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 Turkic-speaking Huns. Latins knew Huns as generic Scythians,
i.e. Turkic-speaking horse pastoralists. The “for some 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 contemporaries somewhat 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 awareness of 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 new territories; the Huns periodically changed their coaching routes, in the
Caspian littoral were pouring new waves of nomadic tribes. The Caspian Huns boundaries in that period have not yet settled. At
least the sources lack any information. The only specific geographical reference point associated with the Caspian 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 the 5th 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 the Caspian 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 and their 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 the South Russian steppes (in the poisoned terminology of the state
policy of Russian chauvinism, N.Pontic steppe after their occupation by Russia become “southern Russian steppes”,now divided
into the “Russian Steppe” and “Ukrainian steppes”.Thus, Kalmyks and Oguzes live not in the Kalmyk and Oguz steppes, but in the
“southern Russian steppes”) (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941. pp. 85, 108). M.I. Artamonov places Huns Between sea and mountains
(Artamonov M.I. 1962, p. 189). He subdivided the chronological stages of the Hunnic period in the North Caucasus. Thus, the
period from 395 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 1/6th territory 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 population Gadlo A.V. 1979 p. 26).
The coastal territory of Dagestan (near Caucasus mountains to Derbent) is also associated with the early Turkic tribes from the
first centuries AD by S.B.Ashurbeili (Ashurbeili S.B. 1983 p. 55). The settlement of the Hunnic tribes in the North Caucasus,

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

particularly in Northern Dagestan, 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 steppes of 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 with the origin of the last name: Russian,
Turkic, other. In the Stalin's Russia all scientific opinions were strictly uniform. The truth is not in-between by triangulation, it is
generally opposite of what the Russian “scientific standing” is, much like in the case of proverbial “Gypsy horse”.In this case, how
would “small groups” of pastoralists displace the existing groups of pastoralists, where the displaced people and their herds would
be displaced 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 herds requiring 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 indigenous pastoralists? 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 cited and 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 the Hunnish possessions, and quite possibly, by the subjectivism of the modern researchers of the Hunnish problem
(a very gentle formulation of the statement 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. Klyashtorny dated the Huns migration to the Caspian steppes by the 2nd c. AD (Klyashtorny S.G. 1983. pp. 175 - 176).
The “History of the North Caucasus peoples” 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 by the 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 of the 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 repeatedly rewrote her chapters in the newly minted official, aka
academic, “Histories” of the newly minted “Soviet Republics”;a single reference to her opinion may show only one-time stand,
leaving out her steady views, but classing the Latin “Uns” and the Armenian “Hons” as Caucasian tribes, 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 complexity is 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 is naked!” and “Fucken fakers!”) .
52

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

Country of Huns

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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. Egishe Vardapet. 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 ?), and correspondingly 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 the Mongolian language, but among Mongols they were
known as Turks, and they themselves held themselves to be Turkic, and did not even suspect that their dialect was
heavily Mongolized. Other parts of the Kayi people escaped Mongolization, and they were in the Kimak 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 Turkic name, Gilan/Djilan (in Ogur pronunciation) as Gelons, and they lived around Caucasus and in the
N.Pontic long before Herodotus. So, when they returned to the Caucasus with the Huns, they were coming back to
their own people and their old territories, but their kins, who never left the Caspian area, must have spoken a
significantly different dialect. Thus, the newcomer Kayis stayed with their Eastern Hunnic federation, and did not
rejoined the Caspian Djilans, as they are known from the Arabic books. That is how the Arabs know separate
people Kayidag in the north, 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. The tribe Kayi was an “old” maternal dynastic tribe
Huyan ?? of the Eastern Huns, replaced before 200 BC by the “new” maternal dynastic tribe of Uigurs, aka Sui-
Luanti, S>uibu ?? pin. Xubu.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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

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 Huns from 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 pinned to 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 records about 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 the Caucasus
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 military confrontations, the Hunnish armies assisted sometimes one, sometimes another side. The compositions of the 6th c.
Byzantine historians abound with data about 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 economic development, military-political orientation, arms and military technique, he describes in sufficient detail
the Caucasian overpass roads, which Huns-Savirs used 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 Caspian Gates (Derbent pass) and
// 55 // Teur pass (Darial) (Procopius Cesarean Ia .p. 112; II, p. 881, 407). The Huns, as informs Procopius Cesarean, occupied flat
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 Empire conquered and annexed Albania, Iberia. and Armenia. Albania became a vassal of the Sassanid
Empire. The control of the Darial Pass switched to the Western Turkic Kaganate in 628, when Tong Yabgu Kagan
(Djebukagan of Armenian annals) signed a treaty with Albania, transferring over to the Kaganate the control of all
its cities and fortresses, and establishing free trade. Control of Darial Pass switched to the Arab Rashidun Caliphate
in 644. From 890 to 929 it belonged to the Sajid Dynasty of Azerbaijan. Afterwards, it was controlled by Tzanaria,
Alania, Seljuks, Atabegs of Azerbaijan, Qara Qoyunlu and Aq Qoyunlu (Koyunlu is a Kayi tribe), Shirvanshah vassal
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 Caspian possessions (Agathias p. 88).

The earliest account about Huns-Savirs belongs to a Byzantine chronographer Theophanes Confessor, who wrote between 810-
814.One of the military campaigns of the Huns-Savirs in S.Caucasia and Asia Minor he dated by 516/517 (Theophanes Confessor
p. 49). Locating the source of this Theophanes' message was impossible. One more message about Savirs is in the Theophanes
“Chronography”, under the years 527 - 528. It is connected with the defeat by the Huns-Savirs Queen Boariks of the armies of
“two other Hunnish tribes” (Theophanes Confessor p. 50). This story Theophanes gleaned from the Syrian chronographer John
Malala. Like Malala, Theophanes connects the Caspian Gates with the location of the Huns-Savirs. But deviating from the primary
source, he discriminates between territories occupied by the “internal Huns”, and the lands on the way from the Eastern
N.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 on their 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 designate it, Yeshu Stylite uses word combinations: “their lands” and “borders of their land” (Yeshu
Stylite, p. 131). This information is supported by a contemporary of Yeshu Stylite Pseudo-Zacharius (aka Zacharias Rhetor -

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Translator's Note) . He noted that the lands subject to the Huns were on the seacoast, and within the Huns' limits were the
Caspian Gates (Pseudo-Zacharius p. 165). Pseudo-Zacharius also points that the “Bazgun land” adjoined the “limits of Huns” 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 western neighbors 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 of Justinian, 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 by A.Alemani, aka Sistan = Saka land in S.Caucasus, MPers. Sagastan, Gr. ?????????, NPers. Sistan, originally
Saka = Scythians (cf. Gr. ??'???), who came to this region, between Arachosia and Drangiana, in the 2nd c. BC) and
Bazgun (corrupted to 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). Beyond Darband, 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

??????? Huns, East of Maeotis, 5th-
1. 'wngwr Onogurs Actually, “Eastern Ulus”
?? 6th c.
Itil and Caucasus area,
2. 'wgr ??????? Ogurs  
5th-6th c.
Huns, near Caucasus, 5th-
3. sbr ??????? Sabirs aka Huns-Savirs
6th c.
???????
4. bwrgr Bulgars Bulgars, 6th-7th c.  
??
5. kwrtrgr ??????? Kutrigurs Huns, near Maeotis, 6th c. Actually, “Western Ulus”, i.e. in Danube area
?????
6. 'br “?????? Avars Avars, 5th-9th c.  
??????? Actually, Hun's allies Turkic Agathyrsi described by
7. ksr Acatziri Huns, 5th c.
?? (?) Ptolemy 3.5, ethnically very different from the Huns
8. dyrmr ??????? Itimari near Danube, 4th-5th c.  
? (?)
9. srwrgwr ??????? Saragurs
aka Sary/Shary/Kumans/Kipchaks (all synonymous
near Caucasus, 5th c.
??? terms)
??????? aka Barsils = Bars + Il = country of Bars (leopard)
10. b'grsyq Barselt Huns, 6th c.
(?) people, from which split the Khazars
11. kwls ??????? Choliatae Turks, 6th c.  
? (?)
Kushans/White Huns, so called “Imenkov Culture”
12. 'bdl ???с??? Abdelae = Hephthalites
along Itil
??????? Kushans/White Huns, so called “Imenkov Culture”
13. 'ptlyt Hephthalites = Hephthalites
?? 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 tribe Charaboi 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 and reaches 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 frontier boundary between the “Bazgun land”
(Masguts) and Hunnish limits, the author locates position of Bazgun south from the Caspian Gates, and the “Hunnish limits” north

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 were beyond 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 where Huns live”, but designates them with a word-combination “country at the foothills of the mountains”
(Sebeos, p. 164). In another place of his composition Sebeos 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 peoples in the 7th century, surprisingly shows very poor and vague knowledge of the location of the “Country of
Huns”repeatedly mentioned by him. In the sections of 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, like the “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 specific geographical 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 Huns were crossing into S.Caucasia, usually calling them “Huns Gate” (Movses Kalankatuatsi 2, p. 69, 90, 99, 101,
103). However, the “History of Alvan Country” has indirect pointers that allow to determine location of the “Hun country”. For
example, the author of the “History of Alvan Country” notes that the road from the capital of the Caucasian Albania Partav to the
capital of the “Hun country” Varachan was “long”, which testifies to a significant distance between the two cities (Movses
Kalankatuatsi 2, p. 123). From the Movses Kalankatuatsi description it appears that the duration of the travel was 51 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 conditions in 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, that this 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 snow storm did not allow the embassy to continue,
because the passes were closed. And only when the blizzard stopped, the travelers “passed over the top of the enormous
mountain”. But probably soon the weather deteriorated again, because the source noted that “...still for many days afterwards the
stars were not 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. Gritoris was martyred” (Movses Kalankatuatsi, I, p. 191). Some authors are
explaining the long duration of the travel precisely by the forced change of the Albanian 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 the new translation is: “. .. Tired and exhausted, they walked for many days, until arrived at the ancient
royal residence, the one where the Aluank Catholicos Saint 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 and those who have had to accompany him on the long journey” (Movses

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 Christian mission of the Armenian bishop Kardost, which approximately in 530 set out from Armenia to the “Hun
limits” also got there by the mountain road. “They have 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 mountain areas 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 source described 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 at the ancient royal residence, and
having left it in some days, reached Derbent. To the Varachan, the oject of the embassy travel, Israil was guided by Derbentians,
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 without proper 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 northern borders of the Caucasian Albania, and the boundary between the two countries were the Derbent
fortifications. The Hun Prince Alp-Ilitver in his message to 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 to Armenia” (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 the lower 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 also foothill areas (Fig 1) (Gmyrya L., 1980, p. 156-158; 1993, p. 286-
287).
64

Caspian Hun Country

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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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. The notions of the researchers are most general, the “Hun country” // 64 // was
located north of Derbent (Bartold W.W. 1963, p. 670), in the Northern or Northeastern 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 analysis of written sources of information, with parsing of
information from the ancient authors in chronological order, but their views do not agree. One has it as open 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 of the 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

From that time begins a long period of the Arabs military campaigns in the Dagestan plains and mountains, which lasted for
almost a hundred years (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. pp. 173-190). The main force leading the struggle of the Northeast Caucasus
peoples against the aggressive policies of the Arab Caliphate became the Khazar state. The main impact of the 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
continuous devastations, many economic centers ceased to exist, bloody battles claimed tens of thousands of lives, and the
women and children, along with material loot, became war spoils for the Arab fighters. In the Arab army was a special post of the
“Custodian of Spoils” (“mukasim/mukhasim”,a Persian for ca. “adversary (spoils)”).
66

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 abandoned by the population were re-populated again. Only by the beginning of the
10th c. the Khazar-Arab relations stabilized, Derbent became a demarcation dividing 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”- “Possession Samandar”,“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 source located south of the “Land of Huns”,and Derbent pass (Ghevond, p. 72). The Khazar territory is denoted by
the author with a vague term - “Northern Countries” (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, and through 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 not only 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 the
immediate 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 Turkic horse pastoralists inside and in
the neighborhood. In the Armenian form of the name Paitakaran can be readily seen a Turkic composite title Bai-
Tarkhan, i.e. autonomous ruler not subject to taxation. Bai and Bek are 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)

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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”)

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Ghevond does not specifically describe the location of the “Country of Huns”, but the content of the text reveals that its
southern borders started with Derbent 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 at the “thickly” wooded outer spurs of the Caucasus
mountains. To the “Cocos” (Tr. Kuu Kas) mountains fled the Arab commander Maslama fleeing from the defeat after a failed
// 68 // seige of the city (Targu) in 713/714. (Ghevond, p. 28). In 737, another Arab leader Marwan (Marwan) captured an
unnamed 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 Armenian historian 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 other opinions 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 contrast with 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 Caspian
littoral the “Land of Huns”,and its cities (I.e. long after the Caspian Huns accepted supremacy of Khazaria, and the appointment
by Khazaria as a Hun'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 them the 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 not mention the “Hun country”.However, under the staggering layers of information about major milestones
of the Arab-Khazar wars is still traceable the fate of 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-Turkic sedentary
population, the rest had to participate in the governance of the country and in the wars. A better term would be
“allies”. But notably, while Belenjer was allied with the Bulgars, or was in the Bulgar sphere, the Caspian Huns
never allied with the Bulgars, and in the Bulgar-Khazar conflicts remained allied with the Khazars.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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

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 of the 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 general abstract - “Khazar land”,denoting areas generally controlled by Khazars (al-Kufi,
p. 41). In some instances in the al-Kufi book can be “discerned” the names 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 information attests that these
“godless countries” had to participate in particularly important military operations, but upon their consent, which indicates their
great political independence (al Kufi p. 22). To the “godless countries” // 70 // apparently belonged the “Country of Huns”of the
Armenian sources, with its new capital Semender.

The confederated structure of the Turkic states has a lengthy literary tradition, starting from the Zhou state in
1600 BC, highlighted by Herodotus for the Scythians in the 600 BC, and by al Kufi for the Khazar Kaganate in the
700 AD. This fundamental phenomenon is predicated by the mobility of the constituents, organizationally it is more
akin to the pre-Civil War United States than to the post-Civil War United States. The confederated structure of the
Turkic 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 with their feet,
and therefore predicates their enfeoffment and a rule of ruthless absolutism. Accordingly, the accounts of the
mentally sedentary historians need to be rectified with a reverse prism, where the dispersed color spectrum is
reconstituted into its original brilliant form.

70

Al-Kufi mentions Semender repeatedly in describing military Timeline of Khazar Kagans

operations in the Caspian littoral (al-Kufi, p. 19-20, 41, 49). But Invasion of Khazars, Greeks and Georgians of Aguania
he is not stating about Arabs taking this city by storm. In 722 (Agvania) is repelled by Persians. The term “Khazars”
The Arab commander Jarrah was planning a campaign against 589
is apparent backward projection, a misnomer for
Samandar (Semender) , after first conquering the lands Hunno-Savirs
subordinated to Khazars - the “Balanjar Country” and “territory
Vabandar”,but having received a warning from the “possessor of Kara Churin Turk Boke Khan of Gokturk Kaganate dies,
Balanjar”,who became an Arab ally, of the impending upon him Kaganate split into West and East. Tuli (Jangar)
huge Khazar army, Jarrah quickly led his troops to beyond 604 becomes Kagan of Eastern Gokturk Kaganate, Taman
Derbent. becomes Kagan of Western Gokturk Kaganate (604-
610).
During a campaign against the Khazars in the 727/728, the Taman Yabgu dies, Buri Shad (Shad=prince) Yabgu
Arab commander Maslama entered several cities, abandoned 610 becomes Kagan of Western Gokturk Kaganate (610-
without a fight by the Khazars, among them also was Samandar 618)
(This Scythian tactics survived to Modernity, it was used by the Buri Shad Yabgu dies, Tung Yabgu becomes Kagan of
Turkic scion Kutuzov in the Franco-Russian War of 1812) . 618
Western Gokturk Kaganate (618-630)
Avar Kaganate looses control of its eastern half to
The Arabs had to flee Samandar after learning of the Western Turkic Kaganate. Caspian Huns, Bulgars,
enormous forces gathered against them by the Khazars (And the 626
Barsils, Sabirs, Khazars fall under control of Western
same happened to Darius in 512 BC and Napoleon who fled from Turkic Kaganate under Tung Yabgu of Ashina dynasty.
Moscow in 1812) .
Khazars and Bulgars under Khan Kurbat confederated
In the years 737/738 the Arab leader Marwan, with the (voluntarily, not conquered) into W. Gokturk Kaganate.
campaign objective to capture the capital of the “Khazar Khazars supply military contingents and participate in
626
Kingdom” al-Baida (Itil) on the Volga, first had to reach division of captured wealth. Bulgars man western
Samandar. He came there by crossing the land of Alans, ravaging border with Avars and don't benefit from captured
them. The author is silent on the storm of Samandar or its wealth
willingness to surrender to the Arabs. We only know that in the Khazars (Western Turkic Kaganate) capture Tbilisi and
vicinity of Samandar Marwan thoroughly prepared troops to 628 conquer Albania. “Khazars” is apparent backward
march on al-Baida. The troops were reorganized, re-equipped projection, a misnomer
with new spears, re-dressed, apparently into special white robes, Tong Yabgu Kagan (Djebukagan of Armenian annals,
including everybody - the military commanders, // 71// Western Turkic Kaganate) signed treaty with Albania,
subordinates and servants (al-Kufi, p. 49). The Marwan 150 628
transferring over to the Kaganate control of all its
thousand army set out from Samandar to al-Baida. The author cities and fortresses, and establishing free trade
does not say another word about Semender. Family feud within and disintegration of Western
71
Turkic Kaganate. Sibir-khan becomes Kagan of a split
In general, al-Kufi's Semender remains in the shade, 630 Western Turkic Kaganate. Sibir-khan accedes to

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

compared for example with another city Balanjar. According to Bulgarian independence under Khan Kurbat of Dulo
al-Kufi, the Arab major military operations in the Caspian littoral dynasty. Caucasus Huns remain loyal to Sibir-khan
fell on the “Land of Balanjar”.And if Balanjar serves at al-Kufi as Arab campaigns against Huns and Khazars: Salman
“Land” or “Ruler of the Balanjar Country”,as a main city of the ibn Rabiah al-Bahili (648?), Abd Al Rahman (642-
political entity, as will be discusses in detail below, the al-Kufi 642 652), Jarrah (721/722), Maslama (727/728), Marwan
Samandar (Samandar) - is just another “one of the Khazar cities” (737/738), and al-Fadl Ibn Yahya al-Barmaki
(al-Kufi, p. 49). But we know from other, earlier Armenian (791/792)
sources, that in the 7th c. the city Samandar was one of the
largest cities in the “Country of Huns”, which was in alliance with 642 First Khazar - Arab war (642-652) against Abd Al
Rahman
Khazars. Al-Kufi has no information about the “Country of Huns”. Arab commander Salman ibn Rabiah al-Bahili enters
However, some al-Kufi writings indirect evidence suggests that in Derbent abandoned by more than 300-thousand
the first half of the 8th c. Samandar was the principal city in the 648 troops “Khazar” army, reached city Yargu (Bar'uza)
“Country of Huns”, after the demise of its former capital (i.e. Targu/Semender)... and then headed on to
Varachan. The residence of the Hun Prince was transferred to Balanjar, where he was killed and his army destroyed
Samandar, located in the inner, northern part of the “Country of
Huns”bordering on Khazaria. and according to al-Kufi in the first First Kagan of Khazars Kaganate, a splinter from
half of the 8th c. Samandar appears to be more an ally of the Western Turkic Kaganate, Irbis (650?-657?), from
Khazar King and the “Ruler of the Balanjar Country”,and not a 650?-… Ashina dynasty. See A.S.Pletneva for Khazarian
territory totally in the Khazar power. To the Samandar “flees” the domain. See Djagfar Tarihi for sequence of Khazarian
Ruler of Balanjar after the capture of his residence by the Arab Kagans.
// 72 // commander Jarrah; Khazar King usually assembled a large 651 Defeat of Khazar-Alan army by Abd Al Rahman Arabs
force if Semender was threatened by the Arabs with capture. in Euphrates battle
652 Arab attack Balandjar, Khazar Kagan Irbis mobilized
72
for defence 300,000-strong army
On one of the very large battle, probably in the realm of the
“Country of Huns”, is relayed in one of the al-Kufi stories. In the 653 653-654 Arab first campaign against Hunno-Savir
state, defeat of Arab army
722/723 the Arab commander Jarrah, pursuing Khazar forces
retreating under pressure of the Arabs and Azerbaijani troops, 657 Khazar Kagan Irbis (650?-657?) died, Kalga of Ashina
reached abandoned by the Khazars Derbent. 6 farsakhs ( aka dynasty became Khazarian Khakan
parasang = 5 3/4 km, about 42 km) north of the river Al-Ran 662 Arabs fight Khazars for Derbent
broke the first battle between the Arab and Khazar forces, which Khazar Kagan Kalga died, Kaban from one clan of
ended in defeat for the Khazars (al-Kufi, p. 17-18). In the same black Khazars clans became Khazarian Khakan.
campaign Jarrah took al-Hasin (probably a fortress) and a city 663 Khazarian Kagan Kaban subjugates Eastern Bulgaria
Bar'ufa, besieged by the Arabs for 6 days. Apparently, the named (Ak Bulgar Yorty), extending Khazarian borders from
fortified settlements also were located in the “Land of Dniepr to Itil
Huns”,because only after destruction of its possessions the Arabs
passed to the “Balanjar lands”. 664 Hun treaty alliance with the contiguous Albania and
the terms of the peace treaty.
A recital of these events is also in the composition of the Arab 670 Khazars under Alp-Ilitver defeat Bulgars
historian of the 13th c. Ibn al-Athir. But the names of some 683-685 Khazar raid to Armenia. Khazars invaded
settlements occupied by Jarrah during the 722/723 campaign are 683 S.Caucasia, inflicted much damage and took much
transmitted by Ibn al-Athir somewhat differently than by al-Kufi booty. Khazar invaders killed rulers of Armenia and
(Ibn al-Athir, p.24). Georgia
Khazar Kagan Kaban died, son of Kalga Aibat (690-
At-Tabari ( also at-Tabari , 839 - 923) has some information 690
693?) of Ashina dynasty became Khazarian Khakan
about Samandar in the first half of the 8th c. During the Arab Khazar Kagan Aibat died, Kuk-Kuyan (693?-745) of
commander Marwan campaign of 737, organized to capture the 693?
Ashina dynasty became Khazarian Khakan
capital of the Khazar Kings on the river Volga (r. Siklab), the Arab
commander first leads his troops to Samandar (In this paragraph 703 Khazar royal princess .... marries Byzantine emperor
the most interesting is the Arab name of Itil, different from the Justinian II to become Empress Theodora.
Turkic Itil and from the Slavic Volga. Siklab is a rendition of the 713 Capture of Derbent by Arab commander Maslama and
form sing. Saklab pl. Sakaliba, lit. Sakaliba are Kipchaks, intrusion of his armies into depth of Khazaria
the word Saklab/Sakaliba is a loan translation of the Turkic Khazars invade Azerbaijan, which belongs to Arabs
ethnonym Kipchak/Kipchaks ~ Kipchak/Kipchaklar ~ White/Pale 718 after S.Caucasian countries submitted to Arab
Saka. The word Saklab/Sakaliba applied to Bulgars and to Bulgar Caliphate's dominance in 652
King/Malik Almasi-Khan (895-925), and to Sakaliba military titles Arab campaigns against Huns and Khazars: Jarrah
of Suji Mlk ~ ~ Head (Mlk) of Army and Subanj - 721 (721/722), Maslama (727/728), Marwan (737/738),
) ~ Subash ~ Army Commander, lit Head of Army. In and al-Fadl Ibn Yahya al-Barmaki (791/792)
Arabic, the river Itil was called Saklab river ~ Kipchak river. The Arab commander Jerrah campaign against Huns
ethnonym Saka was a part of the names Saklan and Saksin, two (“Khazaria”); Belendjer (aka Varachan, “Old” Belenjer,
Bulgarian provinces, and of the Bulgar city Saksin-Bulgar on the capital of Kayis and later of Suvars, aka future
Itil/Saklab river. In the Russian phony phonologism, Saklab was 721
Khamzin) surrendered to Jarrah and promised to pay
routinely translated as Slav, endowing the Slavs with Turkic an annual tribute to the Arabs; capture of Ulug
ethnology ad history even when such translation screams of the Bender/Vabandar
fake, like Slav King Almush, Slav Subashi ~ Army Commander, or 723 723-944 Massive Jewish emigration to Khazaria
Slav Suji ~ Tr. Sweet Water) .
73 Arab campaign against Huns and Khazars: Maslama
727
(727/728), and Marwan (737/738)

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

About it also wrote Al-Kufi. But al-Kufi also did not explain Khazars invade Azerbaijan. Muslam's raid against
727
why the Arabs set a goal to reach Samandar and why they did Khazars
not take it. Al-Tabari in addition says that in the Samandar Khazar commander Barjik led 300K Khazar troops
“...was living Hakan, the king of the Khazars, who hurried to through Darial Pass to invade Azerbaijan. At Battle of
leave town”,so Marwan went further, leaving Samandar in the Ardabil, Khazars defeated entire Arab army. Battle of
rear, and sat a camp on the river Siklab and attacked the camp 730 Ardabil lasted for three days, and resulted in death of
of the infidels...”.(at-Tabari. I p. 87). As can be seen from the major Arab general Jarrah. Khazars then conquered
quotation, city Samandar is defined as not only as ostensibly a Azerbaijan and Armenia and for a brief time northern
Khazar city, but also as a capital, where was located a Iraq
headquarters of the Khazar King. However, the depiction of the
subsequent events in at-Tabari suggests that the capital city of 730 Khazarian Kagan Bulan of Ashina dynasty accepts
the Khazars was a city on the river Siklab, because at-Tabari Judaism
calls it “my (Khazar Khakan) city”.As a gratitude for accepting Leo III Isaur's son prince Constantine Copronim's
Islam, Marwan left the Hakan of Khazar a ruler in “his (Constantine V, 741-775) dynastic marriage to sister
732
city”,despite the “brutal defeat inflicted on the Khazars” (at- of Khazarian Kagan Chichak (Flower) (Empress Irina)
Tabari. I, p. 87). The lodging on the Khazar King in the from Ashina clan
Samandar was probably temporary, and connected with Arab campaign against Huns and Khazars: Marwan
737
overseeing military operations in the Caspian littoral against the (737/738)
Arab expansion. Khazar Kagan Kuk-Kuyan looses war to Arab
737 commander Marwan, and agreed to accept Islam in
Thus, only of the Armenian historians, and mostly Ghevond, exchange for Arab consent for him retaining his power
provide most lucid evidence on the fate of the “Country of
Huns”in the Caspian littoral during Arab expansion in the Varachan (“Khamzin”)mounted a stubborn resistance
Caucasus. This is understandable, for he wrote his work about to Marwan's Arabs, fortress fell after month-long
60 years after the described events. According to him, it was the 739 siege, and was destroyed, Arabs captured 500 people
“Country of Huns” that first fell to the devastation brought over into slavery, and imposed annual tribute of 30,000
to the Caspian littoral by the Arab forces. mudds ("?? ")x(1 mudd  = 8.7 l ~ 2 gal) of grain
74 Khazar Kagan Kuk-Kuyan died, and Bardjil (745-760),
son of Aibat from Ashina dynasty and adopted son of
The “Land of Huns” in the fight against the Arabs serves // 74 // 745 Kuk-Kuyan of Ashina dynasty became Khazar Kagan
as an ally of the Khazars, as one of the major forces in the (“Khakan”). Bardjil declared his acceptance of the
Caspian littoral, able to withstand the onslaught of Arab Jewish faith
expansion. At al-Kufi and at-Tabari, who wrote about 150 years
Khazar Kagan Bardjil’s son Bulan (760-805) deposed
after the events, details about Caspian Dagestan in the 8th c.
Bardjil and became Khazar Kagan (“Khakan”). Bulan
are vague, their conveyance was apparently superimposed by 760
patronized conversion of multi-ethnic Khazar
the notions of the region from the following centuries. But they
population to Judaism
still have traceable fate of the of the “Country of Huns”.
Khazars defeated Arab occupant army of Musa ibn
As demonstrates the comparative analysis of the Armenian 762 Ka'b, and liberated Varachan (“Khamzin”), Lakz and
and Arab sources, the “Country of Huns” of the Armenian Alan
authors and the Samandar of the Arab authors are identical Arab campaign against Huns and Khazars: al-Fadl Ibn
 
concepts in the first half of the 8th c., they delineate the Caspian Yahya al-Barmaki (791/792)
littoral area between cities Derbent and Samandar. On the Khazars repulsed attack by al-Fadl Ibn Yahya al-
northwest the “Country of Huns” bordered on “Balanjar country”, 791 Barmaki on Varachan (“Khamzin”)and forced him to
in all probability carved up from the possessions of the “Country flee
of Huns”, addressed below. Its northern neighbor were the
805 Khazar Kagan Bulan died, his son Ben-Amin of Ashina
Khazar lands.
dynasty became new Khakan
As noted A.V. Gadlo, the kingdom of Huns was the first to Ben-Amins brother Karak strangles Khazar Khakan
810
take on took blow of the Arab forces. In his view, the clash with Ben-Amin and became Khazarian Khakan
the Arabs weakened the the Hunnic confederation, and Khazars Khazar Kagan Karak fled after a defeat in Tengrian
took advantage of it (Gadlo A.V. 1979 p. 126) (Since the left revolt, and Urus, a pagan son of Asankul who was a
wing of the European Hunnic state joined the Turkic Kaganate in 822 grandson of Kuk-Kuyan of Ashina dynasty became
560s, and remained in the Kaganate till the dismemberment of Khazarian Khakan. Khazarian ruling elite professed
the Western Turkic Kaganate in 660s, and subsequently Tengrianism
remained in the Khazar splinter of the Western Turkic Kaganate Khazar Kagan Urus fights his rising Bulgarian subjects
with a status of constituent tribal union ruled by an appointed and is defeated, encouraging Khazarian Jews for a
viceroy Elteber. Khazars had nothing to take advantage of, and revolt with help of Bek Burtas which sacked Urus and
the A.V. Gadlo concept is hanging in thin air without any 840
installed Manas as Khazarian Khakan. Manas acceded
foundation. The Huns, responsible for securing southern border to split of Khazaria and separation of Bulgaria. Aidar
of the states they belonged to since 560s, suffered a debacle, from Dulo dynasty was Khakan of Bulgars at that time
their Elteber lost his position and probably his life, and his Beks become heads of Khazarian Kaganate, with
functions were assumed by the central government, and for local Kagans holding nominal titular supremacy. Khazarian
matters delegated to a new Elteber. The Caspian Huns received 840
Khakans mostly disappear from chronicles. Khazarian
their first Elteber appointed by the newly formed Khazar ruling elite professed Judaism
Kaganate in 660s, and the sequence of Eltebers ruled Huns till
the debacle of 737) . Inclusion of the “Country of Huns” territory 855 After death of Kagan Aidar, Bulgaria is split between
into the forming Khazar state's sphere of influence occurred, as his sons Djilki and Lachyn
rightly believes A.V. Gadlo, on the background of the Arab- Bek Ilyas orders killing of Khakan Manas, and installed

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Khazar war for the Caucasus (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p. 153). In his 858 Ishak, son of Manas, with alias Aksak Timer, as
study, A.V. Gadlo repeatedly emphasizes, and we concur with Khakan
the author, that the Huns of the “Country of Huns” led by Alp 870 Bek Ilyas died, next Bek Arslan
Ilitver can not be identified with the Khazars // 75 // and Khazaria, Bek Arslan provoked Khazarian Khakan Iskhak killing,
because it is inconsistent with the evidence of the sources (Gadlo 895
and raised Ishak’s son Bakchuar as Khakan
A.V. 1979, p. 139, Note 194, p. 141). M.I. Artamonov noted that
Khazaria evolved as a federation of tribes that even under Khazarias Burtasian and Kumanian army revolted,
supreme authority of the Khazar Kagan have preserved their 921 overthrew Bek Arslan, and installed Modjar, son of
independence (Artamonov M.I. 1962, p. 184, 189). Gumilev also Arslan as Bek,
noted that the Dagestan foothill and steppe areas were 922 Conversion of Itil Bulgaria to Islamic state.
populated by non-Khazars (Gumilev, L.N. 1992 p. 48). Independence of Itil Bulgaria from Khazaria
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 = Turks, 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/Asagel/Askel/Askil/Sekler/Szek(ler)/Ch. Asitsze/Pin. Asijie,
Sijie/Hermihions), the Sirs left 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's Tokuz-Oguz “Nine tribes” confederation, and
these Khazars, Yaglakars, Tokuz-Oguzes, and Uigurs after 600 AD have their own history.

The period leading to the 600 AD, and shortly thereafter saw major jolts in the Turkic populace. The Turkic
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 with Sogdiana, Byzantine, and China. In 605 the Tele
tribes Seyanto and Kibir seceded from the Western Turkic Kaganate into an independent Kibir Kaganate (605-610
AD). After temporarily dissolving their Kaganate, in 628 it was resurrected as a Seyanto Kaganate, which for 631 -
646 took over the remains of the Eastern Turkic Kaganate, but crushed with innumerable consequences for the
innumerable Turkic tribes. In 630 Bulgaria, including Caspian Huns and Khazars, seceded from the Western Turkic
Kaganate. In 647 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 the revolt of the Bedi Bersil and Kadyr Kasar, who split from the
Nushibi and conquered the Ak-Bulgar and the Caspian Huns to form in 660 their own Khazar Kaganate. Contrary to
the stipulations of the Tes inscription, Bersils and Kasars not only did not perish, but flourished. 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 Kolo (Kuls = subordinated allies, sometimes interpreted as
“slaves”) of the two eminent, it became weak and perished... Bedi Bersil and Kadyr Kasar perished then. That
people of mine started much civil strife and quarrel”.

Tes inscription reflects the stable division of the Oguz people into two wings, two tribal unions - Buzuks and
Uchuks. The Buzuks, the left eastern wing, had the seniority in the Oguz structure. Only of their number could be
chosen the great Khan (Kagan). The position of the 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 Turkic Oguz tribes. If
Uchuk is Uch Ok “Three tribes”, according to the accepted Turkic naming convention, then Buzuk 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 the Khazars 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 the Kurbat'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 of the 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-

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 Khazar army (al-Kufi. pp. 10-11). After the Arab commander Jarrah took Balanjar in 722, the Khazar King mobilized
“a huge number of Khazars”,and Jarrah had 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 entire Khazar 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 Arabs were 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 and destroyed 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 a successful 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 of his 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 by dense 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 “own country of Turks” and “land of Turks” with a city Balanjar, which sometimes is simply called Balanjar (at-Tabari.
II, p. 74). It is interesting to note that the 652/653 military operations in the Caspian Dagestan years are called by at-Tabari
“Balanjar campaign”,the Caliph was personally appointing persons responsible 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 of the location of the city (or country) Balanjar is impossible, although available indirect evidence in the at-
Tabari book gives some idea about it. Some political 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 was appointed to control the Balanjar passes (at-Tabari. II p. 75). Apparently the subject are passes on which
paths stood the city Balanjar (More logical to control 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 some interesting details. On their retreat, the Arabs split into two groups, one of them went in the direction of
al-Bab (In Arabic Bab  ???   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 and Hyrcania/Gorgan respectively) (at-Tabari, II. C . 76-77). The first fraction
was advancing to Derbent, apparently by the Caspian seashore road that ran through the non-Khazar-controlled territories, and
therefore was more secure. As stresses the author, the choice of the road saved the Arab troop. The author has not disclosed the
fate of the other Arab group, but perhaps considerable number of them perished, because the author contrasts these two
decisions 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-controlled territories. The Balanjar of at-Tabari, in all probability, was located aside from the
Caspian coastal route, in the foothills on the way to the Caucasus passes.

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  ???  
is akin to “country”) al-Lan, suggesting that “the Country of Turks” 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 in most 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 in the 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). He identified some geographic landmarks in the “Land of the Khazars”.These are the river
Balanjar and the location of the grave of the legendary Arab commander Salman - Balanjar (al-Baladhuri, p. 14). Balanjar in the
second case may be a battle-field or a valley where Salman died. The land belonging to 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 the river Itil.

Al-Yakubi, who wrote his historical work shortly before the death of al-Baladhuri (891), in describing the Arab military
operations in the Caucasus describes about the same milestones of the conquest of the  mountain and Caspian littoral Dagestan as
al-Baladhuri. But unlike him, al-Yakubi calls the territories where took place battles // 80 // of the first third of the 8th c. “Turks'
country” (al-Yakubi, p. 6-7), and only once it denotes a “country belonging to the Khazars” (al-Yakubi, p. 7). Like al-Baladhuri, al-
Yakubi also does not give clear toponymic description  for the “Country of Turks” and cites the same geographical landmarks that

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

are mentioned by al-Baladhuri: Balanjar river and so-called Balanjar (city and possibly country or region), which is comquered 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 sources are 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 political map 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 Bulgarian population that coagulated into a geographically distinct sub-ethnos. Later, migrated Balanjars
are traced as settled along Itil and distinct communities 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 nobility respectively, makes it clear
that the community of Balanjar Bulgars was historically straddling between their kins Bulgars in the west and their
distant kins in the east. Before their escape from the Arab carnage, for centuries they remained the allies and
subjects of the power to 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 “Possession Belenjer” 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 in the 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).
82

M.G. Magomedov suggested to identify with Belenjer the largest fortress in the region of
the Terek-Sulak interfluvial Upper Chur Yurt fortress, located on the right bank of the Sulak
River at its exit from the foothills to 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 population and 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 the Caspian littoral in 722/723 headed by Jarrah. The author writes “After the capture of Balanjar, al-Jarrah
led Muslim troops from the Balanjar lands and came 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 Turkic houses (families), and concluded a
peace treaty on terms of them paying a certain amount 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 Joseph letter, written in Hebrew alphabet). The sources do not have other
information on the Vabandar. Judging from the “number of families” in the “Vabandar territory”,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.
Gadlo thought 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 Turkic Kumyk settlement Elderi and Hunnic/Bulgarian
Balkh see the Sidekick annals History of Elderi Settlement ( In Russian ). V.G. Kotovich offers his alternative
identification for all locations, in On location of early medieval towns Varachan, Balanjar and Targu //Collection
Antiquities of Dagestan , Makhachkala, 1974.
3.4 “HAIDAK LAND”

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Kayi is one of the most ancient known Turkic 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 is mentioned in its Arabic form Djidan and Djilan, synonymous with
Haidak: Djidan ~ Djilan = Haidak. Kayis played ruling roles in histories of many Turkic nations. Some Kayis at some
periods were a part of Kipchaks, and as consequence they were erroneously identified with Kipchaks.

Another appellation of the Kipchaks is Kayi/Kayis, analyzed for 10th-12th cc. by A.S.Pletneva in her book
“Kipchaks”. From al-Kufi records, we learn that Kipchak Kayis had an established foothold in the Eastern Caucasus
long before they reportedly crossed from Irtysh to N.Pontic and became known to Byzantine and Eastern European
chroniclers, running ahead of the chronicle records by at least 300 years, and showing their late migration to be
only in the eyes of the particular observers. The ethnonym Kyiy Dak is etymologically “Pale Dacae”, 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 in the Caspian littoral in 722/723. Jarrah decided to cunningly lure the Khazar troops, hunkered down in their
country and apparently avoiding an open encounter 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 main forces 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 to join 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 a
convenient place. Apparently, Haidak had allied relations with the Khazars, because on receiving the news of the devastation
produced by the Arabs in the Haidak, the Khazar // 83 // troops immediately came to the river al-Ran (Darbak) , where a 25-
thousand Arab army was already waiting for them. And despite 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 at the 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, Turkic “chai” = river is
allophonically identical to the Chinese “shui” = river, one of the two Chinese words for the river, and a good candidate for a
Chinese borrowing from the Zhou language) or Ortozen (Novoseltsev, A.P. 1990. p 189) ( 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) entered the 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-Athir p. 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). The details of the narrative are different - the annals exaggerated the size of the Arab forces ravaging Kaitak, and
the size of the booty captured there.
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 the Marwan attack on Kaitak in 737/738. The Arab sources do not mention // 84 // Haidak among political entities in
Dagestan conquered by the Arabs in military campaigns of the 733/738. The Rumyantsev manuscript of the source describes the
results of the 733/734 campaign as follows: “Then (Abu Muslama) went into Possession Kaitak. In battles and fights he had killed
the brave Kaitak ruler. He captured Kaitak, converted to Islam most of the population, and assigned them an annual kharaj. Abu
Muslim appointed as a ruler (of Kaitak) a man named Hamza (Hence, the name Hanzin) from among 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 most pliable ethnicity, the Mountain Kayis Kayidags/Kayitags/Kayitaus ( dag, tag, tau are dialectal
forms for Turkic “mountain”) ended politically attached to the Darginians, and their language gained a political-
linguistic classification as belonging to the Darginian linguistic family, a branch of Nakh linguistic family. That
classification is (or was) disputed by dissenting linguists. The influence of the Armenian annalistic school brought
about some spotty acknowledgement that in the first centuries of our era the terms Haidak/Kayitak and “Hun
Kingdom” were synonymous. In the Russian-lingual scholarship, that news was first introduced by K.P.Patkanov
From New Geographic 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 works indicates that the “Hun Kingdom” still did not sink in the mainstream of the Russian
politohistorians, who prefer to take literally the later nomenclature of the Arabic sources. V.F.Minorsky History of
Shirvan and Derbent, pp. 126-129, stipulated that Kayitag sounds Altaic, and that was a pinnacle of perception.
Even the direct synonymy of the Al-Masoudi Djidan did not click a thinking muscle of the loyal scientific subjects
who were inoculated in 1944 to stay away from the Turkic subjects (References http://

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 Mountain Kayitag (Shabah-Haidak) was called Kayitag, it consisted of 4 subdivisions: Utsari, Shurakat,
Kayitagan and Irdjamul. The lower, or flat part was known as Kar-Haidak (Ubah-Haidak) (V. Gadjiyev Works of
Gerber, p. 118). The leading Soviet anthropologist Alekseev V.P. Origin of the Caucasian peoples , pp. 203-204)
morphologically classed Kayitags with Turkic Kumyks and Lezgins, to the typical Caspian type, in contrast with the
Nakh Avars, Nakh Laks, and the Nakh Dargins of the central Dagestani highlands who belong to the Caucasian
(Iberian ) type. The historical reasons for contrasting anthropological constitution versus linguistic attribution did
not gain traction 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 “Khazar lands” 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 case the 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 the Khazar King with its capital at al-Baida. Al-Kufi calls it non-uniformly, but semantically always distinctly
- “Country of Khazars”,“Khazaria”,“his (the Khazar 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 is used 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 in most 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 the Arabs devastating campaigns in the region weakened the “Country of Huns”, which took upon the first attack
// 86 // of the Arab aggression. L.N. Gumilev believed 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 centuries Khazars 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 its borders. 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 they reached 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 the researchers “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, depicted on the coin: . The little off-branch on
the left indicates an individual family modification from the base tamga of the clan or tribe, the tamga has a
nickname “bird paw” or “chicken paw”,or “bird foot” or “chicken foot”,all of them, naturally, in Turkic. This tamga
has a patriarchal pedigree, at first it marked Cimmerian arrowheads undug in the Cimmerian kurgan burials, and
then it was documented on Sarmatian artifacts, and on Sarmatian bridle cheekpiece from Pokrovka 2 kurgan burials
(Malashev, Yablonsky, 2008), and on artifacts from 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 examining the 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 necessitates winter and summer pastures,
pasturing routs, winter kishlaks, summer auls, and anything in between. And the extent of the pastures defines the
domain territory. Second, the state is the people, not the territory, it is the people with all their mobile and
unmovable property that constitute the state, plus the hard-working tributary sedentary population. Thirdly, the
state is a confederation of independent constituents with their own kyshtyms (tributary allies) coordinated by
elected leaders selected from a dynastic line. These premises are universal for all nomadic state of all times, form
antiquity to modernity.

The Western Huns, or the Western Hunnic confederation, was headed by the line Dulo. After the Turkic Kaganate

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

extended their control to the Eastern Europe (550s), Dulo had to submit to the Ashina dynasty, or to their rival Avar
dynasty. No demographical changes have 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 retaining their tribal integrity and hierarchy.
The eastern part of the Hunnic confederation received a Turkic Ashina Shad (Prince) as a viceroy, first appointed by
the Turkic Kaganate, and then by the Western Turkic Kaganate (600s). While the Khazar tribe of the Bulgars and
their allies 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 Turkic Kaganate (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 the Ashina line. The Khazar expansion
theories are nonsensical, all neighboring tribes had to utilize their traditional available pastures, except that the
pastures lost to the Arab control had to be replaced by the pastures outside of the Arab reach, and the whole center
of gravity shifted north, putting more pressure on the northern pastures, and probably initiating a chain reaction of
displacements that radially reverberated from the southern borders of the state. Neither the location, nor the
tributary relations were affected by the loss of some kyshtyms 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 Khazar city before gaining
independence.

A rudimentary demographical assessment illustrates the scope of the demographical picture. Within their
immediate surroundings, the Khazars 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 of his and closest allies tribes that together
constitute the orta “center”, from which came the name ordu for Horde = “center”. At 35 heads of 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 km 2 , to assemble that
cavalry force, allowing a virtual 0.1 km 2 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 not an 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 km 2 , or twice the size of the modern France.
These roughshod estimates agree well with the outlines of Khazaria on historical 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).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 Khazar colonies were located in the Crimea and the Don basin. According to the researcher, “The Khazars in their
state did not have a compact territory, and were “like islands in a world of cosmopolitan south-east Europe” (Novoseltsev, A.P.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

1990, p. 112) (Very deep and timeless thought that applies to practically every ethnic group in practically every multi-ethnic
country: Russia, China, USA, you name it. Apparently, the Novoseltsev's 1990 idea is to belittle the Turkic 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

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 the Khazar possessions, and at the north-western frontiers of “Hunia” in the foothills was the “Balanjar Country”,in
the west the “Balanjar Country” probably adjoined possession of Alania and “Vabandar Territory”.The Caspian political entities
were in various relations with the Khazar state, as will be discussed below.

Rough graphical scheme depicting results of L.Gmyrya's analysis

Hunnic cities:

Bulun 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 Kaya Kent , 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 - Bulun 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 then propagated by Minorsky and Artamonov. In view of
the Huns' use of the word “bender” as a synonym of “sarai”, this
name for the “Palace tribe” appear to be a figment of
Theophylact imagination and a victim of his bombastic style,
reaped from the title of the city. Semender is localized at the
Makhachkala 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 clearly distinguished from the neighboring territories. The Hun tribes lived in the Caspian littoral from the mouth of Itil to
the northern borders of the Caucasian Albania. Although the Derbent pass was at that time the southern boundary between the
nomadic world of the Huns and the agricultural states of S.Caucasia, this boundary was completely permeable for the Hun troops,
and at certain stages Huns also occupied the Caspian littoral space located south of 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 an undifferentiated global ethnonym, the first detailed record belongs to the 330 AD, the Albania  King is the
king of the nomadic Masguts and Huns, and naturally he is also the king of sedentary Albanians, so there was no
border whatsoever between the sedentary agriculturalists and nomadic pastoralists. The Huns and Masguts in the
Caspian Albania are not differentiated, there is no reason to preclude 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 western Caspian
littoral, and the Masgut belt extended from Makhachkala down to Gilans along the same western Caspian littoral.
Why Makhachkala? Because next we find Alans, “former Masguts”,in the foothills west of Makhachkala,
undoubtedly driven off from the luxurious coastal pastures by energetic Savir newcomers. Masguts disappear from
the Hunnic alliance, and instead appear the Savir Huns.

In their own borders, the “Country of Huns” took shape as early as the 5th - 7th cc. The Caspian lowlands bound on the west

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

by forward spurs of the Caucasus mountains (from Derbent to the modern Makhachkala), and the Derbent Pass - Caspian gate on
the southern fringe of their possessions in this period 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 in the south, culminating with the rise of the aggressive Arabs, and capture of Derbent by the
Sassanids and the Arabs split the continuity of the Turkic belt along the western Caspian littoral, pushed the Turkic
tribes north, and contracted the Turkic tribes in the south. The rise of 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 to the Caspian littoral
that completely changed the tribal hierarchy, putting Savirs at the helm of the Hunnic confederation, and bringing
numerous Kazakhstan tribes in the neighborhood of the Caspian Huns, to be played out in the following centuries.
The rise of the Turkic Kaganate brought about another change of the guard in the Hunnic confederation, and
another realignment of its tribes. By the end of the period even the politonym Huns faded, completely obscured by
the new politonym Khazars. The state terrain and footprint did not change, the demographical and political
landscape changed dramatically. The first Huns apparently were a Hun Kayi tribe and their 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 of Tele
confederation that statutorily was a member of the Eastern Hunnic state, and belonged to the same linguistic
branch, but was outside of 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. the Caspian Savirs are supplanted by Khazars, another offshoot of Tele
confederation from the same linguistic branch outside of the 24 core Hun tribes, who led the Kayis, and Savirs,
and other confederated tribes till the disintegration of the Khazar state (ca 730s AD - ca 960s AD).

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 several separate holdings. That is the actual “Country of Huns” with the new capital Samandar; its possessions
stretched at that time from Derbent to the modern Makhachkala. 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 the southern border shifting northward. In the 10th c. the “Country of Huns” was completely absorbed
by the adjacent polity, the “Haidak Kingdom” which possessions 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 northern coastal 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya01En.htm[05/06/2014 19:41:31]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

L.Gmyrya
HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE
Caspian Dagestan during epoch of the Great Movement of Peoples
Dagestan Publishing, Makhachkala 1995, ISВN 5-297-01099-3
Chapters 3-5
CASPIAN HUN PEOPLES, ECONOMY, CITIES

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 shown in (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 of any ethnic group is complex and multifaceted interaction between components contributing to the
development and reproduction of ethnicity, such as: the presence of 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 and differences 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 territories distinguish alien ethnicities among others: “Alans ... are fragmented into many tribes, to list them is not
necessary. While they are coaching like nomads in the vast space 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, wild lifestyle, and uniformity of arms” (Ammianus
Marcellinus. I, p. 241). Such approach to distinguishing other nations was typical for the ancient authors. We will try summarize the
ethnic names of the Caspian littoral tribes during the era of Great Migration (2th - 8th cc.), provide their self-name, address language
and appearance, 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 Bulgars Djurash Masgut Bulgaria
460 AD 460-500 AD

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

3.1. POPULATION OF “HUN'S COUNTRY” 2nd-9th centuries

91

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), the Roman 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 on the 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 Khorenatsi calls 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 the paternal 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 Turkic takeover 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 Turkic 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 Tugers (also spelled Duver and
Duger, Toker or Tuker, 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 also includes No 1
K?n?ks “Today they are kagans”, these are Kangar dynastic tribe , No 16 Tut?rkas (Dondurgas) and No 7 Begtilis (Begdilis or
Beydilis) [M. Kashgari, Divanu Lugat-it-Turk, 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

the 11th c., though they were recorded 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 a presence among the first Greek colonists of a sailor with a patently Turkic 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!) Maskut and 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. that contradicts 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, “Sources on 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 of Turkic and Horesmian, with no
mention of 10th c. Middle Persian whatsoever. To call the ethnologically Turkic nomadic pastoralists of Turkic and Horesmian creole to
be “of Iranian circle”, without quotation marks and ignoring their belonging to the “Turkic 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 Maskuts living 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, and described 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, a sequence of 6 authors separated by 3 centuries deliver their unprejudiced testimony, but
some modern scientists use their own logical constructions 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 in exchange 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 generations later, at around 100 BC Masguts accepted the first
wave of the Hunnic refugees, probably of not very high status. The Huns fled to their subjects, first, and to their kins,
second. They did not flee to non-Turkic aliens like Persians or Indians, because the refugees fled a military conflict, 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 higher status 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 in the 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 the eastern fringes of the empire were evacuated. Huns retained their supremacy among the Turkic
pastoral tribes, and expanded their control to new 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 cemeteries and
castles. The terminology used for the local tribes, like Masguts or Massagets, is somewhat conditional, because every
author who described Masguts, later called Alans, noted that they consist of numerous tribes, each with their own
individual name, there are too many names 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 26 generations, 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 the opinion 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 lived north 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 the Maskuts and Huns, “testifies about certain
integration of the Iranian-speaking (Sic!) Massaget descendants with the Turkic-speaking Huns” (Gadlo A.V., 1979, p. 36) (As it turns
out, this is an integration of Turkic-lingual Masguts with Turkic-lingual Huns, where both ethnic terms are fuzzy phenomena: e.g. Kayis
are 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 or Horezmianized Turkic-speaking per Biruni “half-Horezmian half-Bajanak”, where Horezmian/Sogian is peculiar non-
Iranian “Sprachbund” or areal grouping of languages per A.Dybo and W.B.Henning) ..
94

6th Century.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

In the 6th c. in the written sources appear indications testifying about heterogeneity of the Caspian Hunnic tribes. Procopius Cesarean
(ca 536 AD) knows Huns 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 Procopius records 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), he informed 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 among other 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 territory controlled 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 in the 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 of Pseudo-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
Turks Sinjibu, are mentioned by the author later, in the description of events in the beginning of The Persian-Turkic 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 a few 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 the second 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 the prevailing 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 the Alvan 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 also distinguished 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 is called “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 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; Stepanos Taronetsi 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 a rule 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 of godless”, whose soldiers constituted the Khazar army (al-Kufi, p. 21).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

At-Tabari, a contemporary of al- Kufi, to designate the main, opposing the Arabs of force in the Caucasus, applies two terms:
“Khazars” and “Turks”, and mostly “Turks” (at-Tabari, II, p. 74, 76 - 80). For the time of the first Arabo-Khazar wars (640 - 650s) at-
Tabari made distinction between the Turks and inhabitants of Balandjar (at-Tabari, II, p. 76). And for the period of Persian domination
in S.Caucasia among the peoples campaigning in Armenia, the author names “Abhaz, Bandzhar, Alan” (at-Tabari, II, С. 69). For time of
the Turkco-Iranian confrontation the author names Turks and Khazars (at-Tabari, II, p. 70).

Ibn al-Athir (13th century) used the works at-Tabari, and contrasts the inhabitants of Balandjar with Turks and Khazars. The
inhabitants of Balandjar , according to the author, were subordinated to the Turks, 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 Turks. They lead active military operations against 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 (Ibn al-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 beyond Balanjar” (Ibn al-Athir, p. 29).

In the majority of cases the author uses ethnonyms “Khazars” and “Turks” as generalized terms for the main military forces opposing
the Arabs in the Caucasus military operations. More often the author calls “Turks”, in some military operations the “Turks” 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 “Turks” as synonyms (al-Yakubi, p. 7-9).

Al-Yakubi calls the residents who stubbornly resisted the Arabs in what he called the “country of Turks” with ethnonyms “Turks” and
“Khazars”,and in one case “the Khazar people” (al-Yakubi. pp. 7-9). Possibly, under al-Yakubi “Turks” 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 where the 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-Ilitver relayed 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 and Armenia 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 Turkic 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 Turkic tribes. It is based on oral tradition,
but, probably, also on some written sources. To confirm 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 his information, “I have it written down.”
(Joseph, II, p. 92).

The letter of Kagan Joseph gives a list of ten Turkic 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-
Khazar Correspondence 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
Turks]. I have found in the genealogical books of my ancestors that Togarmah had ten sons. These are their names: the
eldest was Ujur [Aviyor/Авийор] (Uiur < Uigur < Uigur), the second Tauris [Turis/Турис] (Taur < Tagur < Tagur =
Tokhar) , the third Avar [Avaz/Аваз] (Uar = Avar = Abdaly/Ephtilite) , the fourth Uauz [Uguz/Угуз] (Uauz < Uguz < Oguz
= Oguz) , the fifth Bizal [Biz-l/Биз-л] (Biz-l < Becen < 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?
) , the ninth 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 g Uiur < Uigur = Uigur, Tagur = Tagur = Tokhar, and Uauz < Uguz < Oguz =
Oguz can be seen that the Khazar dialect is similar to Kazakh and Oguz dialects, which do not articulate the common
Turkic g.

In his list the Turkic tribes Khazars and Suvars are called relatives, but nevertheless different peoples. Kagan Joseph especially
emphasizes that Khazars of the Joseph 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 Turkic tribes. However, possibly Kagan Joseph means here not the Khazars as

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

a whole, but just his clan. Then only the ruling royal clan had the Khazar origin, the other clans, 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 Turk clan and Bulgar-Suvar-Khazar parliament of nobility, by
the 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. Even by the time of composing the letter, information about the ancient history of the Khazars has almost
legendary character. Kagan Joseph noted: ”.... My ancestors were few in number...” (Joseph, I, p. 76). Apparently, the Khazars were not
too distinguished among other Turkic tribes migrating to the Caspian areas at the time of 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 Huns were refugees and a splinter, headed by chieftain Kadyr sometime around 600 AD. Their
allies were Bersils headed by a chieftain Bedi, they likely were connected with the Khazars by matrimonial ties, were not
necessarily of the Turkic 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 King Joseph 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 Turkic Kaganate, and established his own dynastic line. His Hatun (Queen, First Wife) was from the Bersil
tribe. With time, and under political pressures, 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 the ruling house sherjere
would have been limited to the Ashina dynastic line, within the framework of the Ashina tribe and Ashina state. In that
case, his genealogy would be closer to the version recorded by Rashid-ad-Din and Abulgazi. Alternatively, if King Joseph
was a Bek (Prime Minister), which is probably more likely, he was either ethnically Jewish, or a converted ethnic Khazar.
As a Jewish noble, he would not be privy to the Khazar or Ashina sherjere, taught to each member of the clan and tribe
throughout their adolescence, and would only know, likely in broad strokes, what he can absorb from interviewing his
underlings, because Jews did not have a tradition of learning their genealogy form childhood. 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 Turkic Kaganate, their classification changed from the
Eastern Wing of the European Hunnic Empire to the Western Wing of the First Turkic Kaganate, and remained the same
Western Wing, or Nushibi, in the successor Western Turkic Kaganate. The list of the King Joseph enumerates the tribes
of their Tele confederation in the Western Wing: Ujur/Uigur, Turis/Tagur = Tokhar, Avar/Uar = Avar, Uguz/Oguz,
Bizal/Becen, 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 the events of  410s, that place Basils/Barsils in the Western Turkic 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 Turkic 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 a result 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) or 520 (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 ideological influence 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 had to 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 Aluank Catholicos Elizar and Aluank Prince Varaz-Трдаt, another one is addressed to the Armenian Catholicos Sakhak
and Armenia Prince Grigor. The letters requested an 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 all author'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, in the Alp-Ilitver country were translators who knew the languages of the countries with which Huns maintained mutual
relations (Aluania, Armenia, Georgia, Persia, Byzantium).
104

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 alphabet is more puzzling. The newly developed Armenian and Albanian alphabets are unlikely
candidates for diplomatical correspondence, and the number 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 the letter to read it. The spread of the Turkic
runiform script of the western Central Asian variety is possible because the abundance of the inscriptions demonstrates the
widespread literacy of the lay population, and both western and eastern sources of population had a tradition of written
diplomatic communications. 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 they taught 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 the arrival 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 of the language and translation took another seven years, and then
about 544 “the Scripture was publicized”. In respect to the translation language it is clear that it was the Hunnic
language, but the used script can only be surmised. In 568 the (Karmichion = Red Huns) Turks brought a Kagan's
letter to Constantinople, which was ?? ?????? ?? ???????? (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 populated by 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 any case, 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 for record-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 the Middle 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 “Turkified” 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, Turkic,
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 Turkic 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 also testifies 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 Turkic script (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941, p. 86), N.A.Baskakov classified the Hunnic language
as western Turkic branch of the Turkic languages (Baskakov N.A., 1960, p. 106-107). А.Н. Bershtam suggested that Hunnic language

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 their works) .
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 Turkic presence in the country, history, and
culture; and the loose attribution of linguistic traces to the Persian 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 brain container 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 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 are distinguished 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 the outside 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, of a 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 show the 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 Turkic
Kaganate, 618–628, i.e. this is the image of the member of the ruling Ashina tribe, who was a Turkic 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 huge pumpkin 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 the same conclusion came earlier A.R. Zilfeldt-Simumyagi (Zilfeldt-Simumyagi A.R. 1988, p. 83).
109

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

The armies of the Huns, Turks, 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 their heads 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 the
city) 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 Turkuts (“Turkut” is synonymous with Turk, it is either an archaic Turkic plural form, or Mongolian
form, Artamonov must be using the Russian-concocted term for Ashina Turks of the Turkic Kaganate, first suggested by L.Gumilev to
designate the multi-ethnic population of the First Turkic Kaganate, i.e. as a politonym) , though “Turkuts” 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 “Turkut” soldiers. It is known that the Avars
subjected to the Turks wore braids, while the Bolgars (Bulgars) and Khazars shaved their 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
the hairdo of the Turks and Avars, not combed, free-flowing or unattractively braided” (Agathias, p. 14). It is very probable that
Agathias under the Turks 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
Turks; they are dark-haired (which means that the Turks 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 views do 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 Turks
are not brunettes, their hair is light, which in turn conflicts with pronounced Mongoloidness)

Al-Ystahri definition, “Every slave that comes to us from the Khazars”, apparently, shows that al-Istahri judgments about Khazars are
based on personal observations 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 of Khazars. 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 the European Huns nearly identically.

“Their clothing is most simple ...”,  notes Claudius Claudian (Claudius Claudian, p. 196). Ammianus Marcellinus gives a more detailed
description of the Huns clothing: “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 walking with 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 and controversial 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 cultural interaction between the nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes of the Irano-lingual (Sic!)
and Turco-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 Turkisms in many
modern languages of the Dagestan peoples (Djidalyaev N.S. 1990. pp. 55-232; Turkic-Dagestani linguistic contacts . 1982).
114

In Russian science after the 1944 decree of the Communist Party against ancientization of the Turkic history,

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

expression of such direct statements 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 called in 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+ Turkic 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-Turkic, 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 Turkic words, the word kumiss , which he calls “ camos “, a Turkic fermented mare's
milk used form Scythians to 70+  modern Turkic people, with the word for buza beer. In the description of the Turkic
nomads the word kumiss has fossilized into a a form of a Scythian triad: “horse-riding, flesh-eating, and kumiss -
drinking”,applied to the horse pastoralists from Scythians to latter-day Turkic people of New Time.

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 as predicted 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 be
traced 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 this estimate 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 Turks, 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 barbarian peoplesin 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

Huns on that occasion were wheat, wine, oil , flax, and fruits (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 of the 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 Turkut troops (First Turkic Kaganate) ,
who in 628 invaded Albania; Huns troops participated in 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 Turkic
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, and grape, 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 of the 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 the end 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
would provide 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 a
distinctive trait of the Hun economy).
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 animal husbandry (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 Turkic nomadic
tribes had to engage in agriculture also, but agriculture was viewed 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 Turkic word
“kenevir” > kenebir >  cannabis for hemp demonstrates, hemp was known as a traditional raw material in the 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) .

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 were either 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
Turkic boots are abound, and well explored). The burduks (bladders) for storage of liquids also were produced from leather. Is known a
fact that when the army of Turks 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 protective arms // 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, called Sabirs” 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 km 2 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 cottage industry 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 husbandry surpluses 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 of gold 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 Century 2002, 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 relentless wars, by the 8th c. a horse went for 60 solidi, or 3 lb of gold. At such prices, no
wonder that the Scythians, Huns, Turks, 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 1-11 - Palaca-syrt burials: 6th-5th cc. 1 -13 - Palaca-syrt burial 4th-5th cc.
cc. (4th-5th cc. ?) 1-3 - belt clips,  4 - belt tip
1- fragment of millstone, 2-3 - whorls, 1-11 - ceramics 5-7 - buckles, 8-10 - fibulae, 11-12 earrings,
4- adze, 5-6-awls, 7-14-needles 13 - diadem pendants,
1- 3 - stone, 4-14 bone 1, 2, 5, 10-13 - bronze, 3, 4, 7 - silver, 6 - lignite
jet, silver, 8 - silver, iron, 9-iron, bronze.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

The Huns had developed bone carving craft, mostly (popularized by) the manufacture of arrowheads. Ammianus Marcellinus, noting
the high skill level of the Hun 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, Procopius Cesarean. 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).
122
123
124

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.Caucasian countries (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 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, and included 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

Arabs a first unstated phase of the “Arabo-Khazar” wars that first diminished the Hunnia to the North Caucasus, and
then dismembered it, allowing the Khazar 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 identical Hunnic 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 metalworking criteria 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 of commodity 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 Savir example, 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, Turks, Uigurs, etc. Only the Turkic 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 Turks 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 Turks, 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 to
trade 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 of 330s
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).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 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 7 thousand 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 Byzantium promised 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, and Syrian 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 mercenary
troops 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 Uigur mother 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 patented nonsense) 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 make
them, 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 Hunnic warriors, 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 is no 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).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 peace treaty 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 were recognized as “helpers and protectors of power” of the Albanian leaders.

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 Turks (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 the subordinated 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 the Ptolemy 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 throughout with 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 Turkic 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 epithet meaning “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 at all. 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 Turkic Sarkel ~ White Fort, located not on Itil, as the Khazar capitl, but on Don 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 Movses Kalankatuatsi 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 (?) , 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 Bulun 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 Bulun 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 the
mountains at a distance from Derbent. The later Bulgarian annals refer to the second Bulun 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  Bulun 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/Yeni Yorty 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 (" ?? ")x(1 mudd  = 8.7 l ~ 2 gal) of grain. In 762/3, Khazars defeated the Arab army of Musa ibn Ka'b,
and liberated Varachan (Khamzin), Lakz and Alan. In 791, Khazars repulsed an attack by al-Fadl Ibn Yahya al-Barmaki
(Orig.: al-Fadl ibn Yahya 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 out eleven “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 Turks) .

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 the delivery 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 to Semender...”.(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, 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 the 150-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 the scourged 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 named among 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 Hawqal repeats 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 two Semenders 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 two days' 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 from the 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 the location 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 ????? ?? ????? ????????, 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 of China 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 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 books he 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

to correlate the reference to it with a noted city in the Caspian 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 somewhat different 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 a capital 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 a lengthy 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 planned account 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 of the 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 it was 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 Derbent Chronicle 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. I think 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/Iltabar”, and in the
Kayidag principality he was an alien from a 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 nickname Kenan/Kahtan used to denote his residence town.

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 // is so, 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 “Khazar Country”.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 the original 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 Turkic 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 wholesale deportations) .

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 the semantics of its name in the Dargwa language, Mahiyachkala = Adobe Fortress, which in Turkic is Saman Kala, with the
base of its original name. Targu, accordingly, is the Turk city located at the Turkic 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 cities of 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). At that 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 ... Salman stayed 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 their castle 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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, their accounts 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-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 of Balanjar 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).

Citation from Oleg Ivic, Vladimir Kluchnikov, “Khazars” Publisher “Lomonosov”, Moscow, 2013

About Balanjar's powerful fortifications, in particular the one of the towers, which caused bad trouble for the
besiegers, wrote al-Tabari. 177 He tells of two Arab campaigns against the Khazars' (i.e. Huns') capital in 650s - 700s.
During one of them Muslims captured Balanjar, and then advanced another 400 km, reaching the city al-Beida in the Itil
estuary (in that place probably was later built a new capital Itil of the Khazar Kaganate). The invaders did not hold on to
these lands, and returned to Derbent (converting to Islam the residents of the conquered cities)178 .

The second campaign was much less successful. The Balanjarians, with the aid of the Turks that came to their help,
attacked the Arabs and killed 4,000 soldiers, including their leader Abd al-Rahman. Abd al-Rahman was particularly
unlucky, because Khazars (i.e. Huns) preserved his body (probably embalmed) //66// and placed in a large jar, to secure
victories in the coming war with its help. Thus, the Arab commander had to serve his enemies in a magical way in
battles with his own people. He also had, at the request of his victors, bring rain or drought. 179 However, the Khazars'
(i.e. Huns') bet on Abd al-Rahman did not materialize. The authors of the present book do not known how after his
killing went on with rain for the Khazars (i.e. Huns), but in regard to the victories over the Arabs, the wars were fought
with varying success, and in 723 Balanjar was taken and plundered. Its defenders had been slaughtered, prisoners
drowned, and each of the 30,000 enemy soldiers received a booty of 300 dinars180 (i.e. 720 g of gold).

Ibn al-Athir described in detail taking Balanjar. However, somehow he downplayed the role of the city's famous walls
and towers, described by other authors, and did not report executions of prisoners. The historian writes about the Arab
commander, the governor of Armenia called al-Jarrah: "Then he moved to Balanjar, one of their (Khazars) (i.e. Huns)
famous “castles” and besieged it. The population of the “castle” gathered 300 wagons, tied them together and staged
them around the “castle” to defend themselves and prevent Muslims from reaching the castle. These wagons were the
strongest (obstacle) in the fight against the Muslim enemy. Realizing what harm these carts cause to the Muslim troops,
he (al-Jarrah) summoned some soldiers numbering thirty. Vowing to die, they broke sheaths of their swords and as one
man approached the wagons. The infidels also (earnestly) fought with them and shot many arrows that covered the sun,
but those thirty (people) advanced till they reached the wagons. They grabbed some of them, cut the connecting ropes,
and drew them, and they fell down and pulled the rest, as they were all tied up. After that all Khazars (i.e. Huns) came
down to the Muslims and they fought severe fight so hard for all that the “hearts rose to throats”. Yet the Khazars (i.e.
Huns) fled, and the Muslims //67// by force captured the castle and took... everything that was in it, so that each rider
got three hundred dinars, and their number was over thirty thousand. And al-Jarrah took (in captivity) the children of
the Balanjar's ruler and his family, and then sent for him, returned to him all his property, family, and the castle, and
made him a spy for the Muslims, he informed them of everything that the infidels were doing”. 181

177 Artamonov 2002, p. 196.

178 Artamonov 2002, p. 195-198.
179 Artamonov 2002, p. 196.
180 Novosel 1990, p. 124-125.
181 Ibn al-Athir 1940, p. 24-25

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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

their fortifications (al-Kufi, p. 19, Ibn al-Athir. pp. 24-25) (The Russian colonial administration specifically instructed relocated Russian
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 prevent Muslims 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 an elevated 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 for security, 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. Movses Kalankatuatsi, 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 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 with clay. 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 “spacious banquet halls and very nicely arranged
porticos” (Prisk Pannonian, p. 693). Some buildings were decorated with carvings (Prisk Pannonian, p. 687).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

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 Turkic families lived in their traditional yurts, noted by the writers, the stationary Turkic 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 the wives, 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 modern village 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 ruins of 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” in the 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 obvious
that the name
Kayakent is a
form of Kayikent
(42.38°N
47.9°E, 45 km
north of
Derbent) , which

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

not only reflects

the original Kayi
owners of the
city, but still is
populated by the
Turkic
“Kumyks”,at
least some
fraction of whom
can draw their
descent from the
original founders
of the city, the
Kayi Huns, and
the site should
be a first
contender 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 в 3 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 of Ammianus 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. By the 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 be naive 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 of Napoleon (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:
fortress Shahsenger - 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya l. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - Chapter 3 - TurkicWorld

yet to state more or less precise location of Varachan.

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; Gadlo A.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 (43.13°N 46.15°) (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 fortress Thorpakh 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. 1990 S. 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).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya02En.htm[05/06/2014 19:42:35]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

L.Gmyrya
HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE
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, SUBJECTS

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 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 North
Caucasus 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

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 rarely
perceived, 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 it
should 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 any case 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 for Rex = 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 Savir tribes 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 only opinion 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 fairly large 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, called Stiraks
(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
king of 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
without employing nomadic mercenaries, but Boariks was able to do it) .
165

The period immediately after 520 AD was tumultuous for the Dulo dynasty. Details are
murky, 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 widow
Boyarkyz (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 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 (Koturgur) and Savirs asserted 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?).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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
the case 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 do not 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 geopolitical treaties, 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-ethnic
group 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-Turkic
ancient lexicon.

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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 Turkic 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 Turkic Kaganate, nor the Khazar Kagan. We have an example of 610,
when the separatist Kibir Kagan had to renounce his title in submission to the Western Turkic
Kagan. In the 7th c. the Western Turkic 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 unnamed
tribes, 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
“Armenian geography”. Savirs could retain the title till they had to submit to the Western
Turkic 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 of the “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” (Movses
Kalankatuatsi. 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). 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 the
power 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 Turkic languages 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

competitions as a winner of the Greek Olympics, 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
subjects also 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/Iltabar, 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 Turkic Kaganate, 618–628, of the
Ashina 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.
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, and
two 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 Turkic
Kaganate, and led a Dulu revolt. In 651 Khallyg captured control of Western Turkic Kaganate,
personally killed Kagan Irbis Sheguy Khan, and proclaimed himself Kagan Yshbara Khan. In
659 Western Turkic Kagan Yshbara Khan died, and Western Turkic 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 or changing

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 was to raise the question, and allow people to decide. Any use of force that threatens the
individual afterlife is vigorously resisted, and in Turkic 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 Turkic societies is well known. The power
structure 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 Turkic 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 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 issues
sought 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 those
suspected 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 Turkic 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
former democracy” 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
require church 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.

The “History of the Alvan country” does not have evidence that the person of the Huns' Great Prince
was deified. For example, among the Turks, the supreme ruler Djebu-Hakan (Yagbu-Kagan) was identified
with the 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's
coterie (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 Turkic

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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).

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 Turkic 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 664 against 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
diplomatic emissaries of the head of the state, both in Hunnic and Turkic 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 to
Byzantines (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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

7. 1. The Huns army

173

As was shown above, military raids into the agricultural countries of S.Caucasia, taking population into
captivity, seizure of cattle and luxury goods were one of the major income sources: in the 4th-7th cc.
economy of the Hun society.

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 its
population 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
taxed at 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. were
exclusively 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 Turkic history he is an expert. 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 deformation they

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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; Movses
Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 185).

The decimal system of organization of the Hunnic and Turkic armies, their division onto 3
wings, and Turkic 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 Turkic Kagan,
Western Turkic 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 to manufacture 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 the army was miniscule, numbering in hundreds and not exceeding a few
thousands. Similar standing 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 sedentary population can only be produced by specialized and highly valued
hereditary artisans. The perennial explanation of the sedentary-grown historians that the
nomadic armies were equipped 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 ordinary cattlemen 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 uniform
and 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 their
weaponry 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 for their own consumption.

It is well-known that various centralized states over millenniums emulated the military
organization 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
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 often
headed 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, “famous
for power, wealth, and bravery in the wars ... reputed amongst all as mighty, and inherited splendid,

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

valiant glory, performing // 175 // many deeds of courage in the Turkestan (Turkestan at the time included
Caucasus 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
campaign of the Turks 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
guarded during 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 to
Yeshu 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 of
the Hun commander was above the success in battle. Even the dead body of a Hun military leader was not
left 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 of
official 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, or Ruses 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
place into 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 (Eusebius
Hieronymus, 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
and skill. 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 the
dependent 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. That applies 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 chains, armed with pitch-forks, etc.

Their military camps the Huns fenced with temporary wooden fortifications, they also used a favorable
terrain for the defense (Agathias, p. 117).

On the ability of the troops on military campaigns in the South Caucasus testifies one of the passages in
the “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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

In the Hun army were translators, who knew the languages of states neighboring with the “country of
Huns” (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 62).
7. 2. Armament and equipment of the warrior
177
Fig. 5. Weapon   
Armaments of the Hunnic warrior included 1-3 - Palaca-syrt burial 4th-5th cc.,  
protective armor, long range weapons, short 4-13 - Palaca-syrt settlement 4-6 cc.
range weapons, and also siege machinery (Fig. 1 - Sword, 2-3 - knives,
5).  
4-12 - arrowheads,
13 - bow laminate;
About armor- protected Hunnic horsemen first
1-3 - iron, 4-13 - bone
mentioned ancient authors - Publius Flavius
Vegetius Renatus and Apollinaris Sidonius and
Renat (Flavius Vegetius Renatus, p. 1080;
Apollinaris Sidonius, p. 420). Agathias reports
that two thousand of heavily armed Savir soldiers
participated in the defense of the Byzantine city
Archeopol (555) (Agathias, p. 88). Procopius of
Caesarea also indicates that the Hun warriors
serving the siege engines wore armor and
helmets (Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 408).
Movses Kalankatuatsi gives a detailed weapons
description of a Hun warrior: “The Hun armed his
high and wide torso in braided 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
against Albania, consisted of “armored archers
and armed horsemen, covered with chain mail
and helmets...”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p.
184-185). The Hunnic warriors had good
defensive armament - the body was covered with
armor or chain mail, helmets protected the head,
sometimes helmets were equipped with visors.
Some authors cite a story of a Hun warrior who
was protected by felt armor, impenetrable by
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 sources inform that the Huns used maces,
swords, spears, and lasso (Favstos Buzand, 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 of
Caesarea 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 strong
impression on the Derbent inhabitants made the storming Hunnic and Turkic archers: “shudder seized the
inhabitants, especially seeing precise and strong shooters who rained on them like a strong hail” (Movses
Kalankatuatsi. 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).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

180

As a projectile weapon in the 4th c. Huns used javelins. Apollinaris Sidonius noted a high skill of the
Hun warriors 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
deserve recognition 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 the report 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.
Huns participated 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.
181

This discourse shows the perils of uncritical compiling of the testimonies: the objectives of
the 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 to inflict 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 preparations are required, no extra efforts need to be spent to drag the machinery
along, the punitive raid may 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 diplomacy takes 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, its
objective 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 much
more 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
the treaty. 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-
moving auxiliaries 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
logistics involved, 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, and
defense 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 the
nomadic armies and population serves to benefit them both in attack and in defense, making
the 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
not dumb 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
eventually capitulating 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 the
dominance 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 conquered

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

territory, 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,
averaging a 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 nomadic hierarchy in the territories, replacing the leadership, but retaining the
existing population and existing 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, and Kushan 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 life and religious etiology.

In the above classification, the Hunnic campaign of 532 was a punitive raid, while the
Turkic campaign of 627 and the Khazar campaign of 683 in Azerbaijan were reactive
defensive 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
anyone since 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 the fortifications. And they made this construction lo light ... forty people, who were lifting up the
log to swing it and 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 the Huns-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 poles with 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,
the storm engines of the same design were used by forces of Byzantines, Huns, and Turks during storming
of Tbilisi (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 is how 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, were pushing 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, these machines were covered by plaited twig fences with skins and hides protecting
from other missiles, and from incendiary 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, and with 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, so that 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).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Prisk Pannonian reports that the Huns were crossing rivers on rafts, which they carried along on the
wagons (Prisk Pannonian, p. 684).
7. 3. Battle tactics
 184

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 of the 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 were everywhere, and his unexpected swiftness preventing rumours” (Eusebius Hieronymus, p. 369).
Attacking the 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
Turkic is called “uran”, and along with the tribal tamga and tribal mascot animal, is distinct for
each Turkic tribe; in Europe, it cheered all sides in the WWI and WWII, and the Brits took it
around the globe to the places where never stepped a Turkic foot before. “Uran” means
“strike”, and the tribal uran is transferred from generation to generation as a most precious
possession of the family. In Turkic “Hurray!” means “Strike!”

To botch the enemy lines, to lure them from strategically disadvantageous the Huns position, Huns used
the 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 different
places 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
Ephtalite Huns used the same tactics of luring the enemy with a small force (Procopius of Caesarea. 1a.
pp. 26-28, 38-42). In 629 Turks successfully used this tactic to defeat Persian troops in Armenia. Here it is
in the description 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 ... And he without hurry started behind, after furnishing with everything needed the multitude of
his troops. Upon arriving 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 Turkic vanguard a detachment of ten thousand soldiers. “But
the enemy - writes Movses Kalankatuatsi, - heard about this even before their arrival, /divided his forces
into two parts/, one of which stayed in ambush by the road, while the other stood waiting for them, and as
soon 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 sedentary
peoples, 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
not numerous mounted Zhou handedly defeated the proto-Chinese before they learned about
pictograph writing. In the literate period, the mobile warfare of the Huns, Turks, and Mongols
dominated 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 ethnically
Turkic Kutuzov used the proven Scythian/Hunnic/Turkic 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 troops
were 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 is barely 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 it for two millennia, the Turkic 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 the
contemporary 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 medieval
period.
7. 4. Military campaigns and military assistance
186

Most information about the North-East Caucasus Huns refers to political history, filled with active
military operations 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 a
subject 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 their
almost 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
Armenia mostly 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
Caucasus passes, which they used. Byzantine was paying to Persia a regular reward for guarding the
Caucasian passes from 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 // in the 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 the
Huns' 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 land of 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
aforementioned door (Caspian Gates - L.G.), they set out with fresh horses, without any detours, and
without encountering any other steep places to the borders of Iberia, except for those that stretch for 50
stadies. 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Most of the Huns' campaigns in the S.Caucasus were due to certain allied commitments, tying the Huns
once 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
tasty morsel, torn by them to pieces.

Byzantine, realizing the importance of the Hunnic tribes on the north-eastern borders of Persia, did her
best 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 political
domination, the religion and its messengers. The Arabs were not the first geniuses to come up with
religious conquests).

Persia, in turn, understood the dangers posed to her by conducting military operations simultaneously
on two 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 her ally, 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
the Byzantine 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 the
testimony 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 move
with 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 Attila
camp in 488), the Hun horde crossed deserted country (steppe) and the lake (Azov Sea), in
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 the
Great, 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 their
customers? 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 a
contemporary and almost witnessed the invasion. During his pilgrimage to the East, “broke
out a 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 preparing
in 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”

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

collected a lot of booty 41 . According to Prisk Pannonian, the Huns were forced to retreat
becqause the Persians have gathered a large force against them. Fearing pursuit, they went
by a 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 temple of 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. Prisk Pannonian 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 the
S.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 record
belonged 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,
Armenians and Albanians called in the Caspian Savirs as their allies (Egishe, p. 79-80; Movses
Kalankatuatsi. 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 the
feats 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 neighbors
for 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 with
Armenia. Egishe reports that the Huns did not accede to persuasion of the marzpan (viceroy) Vasak Suny
(aka Suny, after a tribe Sunik, N-E of lake Sevan, i.e. geographical location and homophony with the
ethnonym Hun point to the Hunnic ancestry of the tribe Suni) to betray rebels, and “continually harassed
the 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 did not 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 to the 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).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 her possessions, 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, as thought 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 by
the 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 name Anbalan as
“not attested, but sounding very Ossetic” name, and positively not Turkic. In Turkic, “Bazik” is stout,
powerful, and Ambazuk ~ “Embazyk” is most stout, powerful; accordingly, “bulun” is warrior, and Anbalan
~ “Embulun” is the most warrior, no wonder it is not attested in Ossetic) , 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 of
502-506. In the hostilities during August-September // 192 // of 502 the Huns fought on the side of the
Persians. They besieged and plundered a city Fedosiopol in Armenia, together with the Persians, Kudishaye
(?) , 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 the
Harranits 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”
(Yeshu Stylite, p. 155). The Hun troops, together with the Persians and Arabs, took part in the repeat and
unsuccessful attempt to take Edessa (Yeshu Stylite, p. 157). Apparently, the Byzantine Empire made
several efforts 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 long war with the Unns.” (Procopius of Caesarea. 1a, p. 101). The Persians drove the Huns from
Derbent, and concluded 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
Hunnic dependency 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 the Hunnic
campaigns starting with the show of force in 395. The Hunnic Persian tactics exactly parallels the Hunnic
Chinese and the Hunnic Roman tactics. The model of the objective was the heqin treaty with the Han
China, the treaty known under a 2nd c. BC Chinese name, but the oldest records 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. To conclude 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 who
scattered, 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 revenge
for the treachery.

In 515 is known a Huns-Savirs attack on Armenia and Asia Minor (M.I. Artamonov, 1962, p. 70).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Apparently, the same campaign is described by Theophanes Confessor for the year 516: “This year, the
Huns, called Savirs crossed the Caspian Gates, raided Armenia, sacking Cappadocia, Pontus, and Galatia,
and almost reached Euhaita (modern Turkish village Beyozu)” (Theophanes Confessor, p. 49) (“In this year
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 of Baltavar (Elteber,
Iltabar, Yiltawar, Yiltavar, Yiltever) Tatras reign in Altynoba, 505-545) .

 Under 522 (520/1) Theophanes Confessor says that Byzantine, restarting a war against Persia, was
seeking an alliance with the Huns by bribing their king Ziligd (Zilgbi) with rich gifts. Ziligd (Zilgbi), without
breaking 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) and
crushed 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] to
him and Zilgbi made a pact with him, too. When Justin learned of this, he was exceedingly
displeased. Zilgbi went over to the Persians with twenty thousand men to make war on the
Romans. In making peace overtures Justin revealed to Kouades, emperor of the Persians, in a
letter purportedly devoted to some other matter, that Zilgbi had sworn oaths of alliance with
the Romans, had received many gifts, and intended to betray the Persians. It is necessary, he
added, 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 receiving
gifts from the Romans. He replied, Yes. So Kouades killed him in anger and during the night
sent 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 Pontic
provinces and Cappadocia (cf. AM 6008 = 515.The Sabiri had settled north of the Caucasian
range between the Euxine and the Caspian. The guarding of the Caspian Gates (= Darial
Gorge) 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 and
Persians 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 both
Persians 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
weakening both their tributors. In the power struggle within their triangle, the foes Persians
and Byzantines were 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 not
disappear, 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 Huns
reverted 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 that time
(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
side two 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 and sending Stiraks in chains to the king in Constantinople...”. (Theophanes Confessor, p.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

137).

To the end of hostilities the Huns remained in alliance with the Persians. In 531, the Persians sent to
the Byzantine Armenia an army of allied Persamens (?) , Sunites (Residents of Sunik? Considering the
veriety of 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
the Persians: cold, rain and mud made conducting siege works impossible. In addition, the king Kavad
died, and Persians were quick to conclude a truce with Byzantines. At that time “came the Huns, a large
number of people 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 and did not cause any harm” ( Pseudo-Zacharias. pp. 163-164). Having plundered and
destroyed unfortified settlements and temples, they reached Antioch. Only on the return way a Dux of
Maiferkat Bes attacked one 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 active
military 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 King
Gubaz 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 Persians
would 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 of
Savirs with three leaders (Procopius of Caesarea. II, p. 407). Applied by the Byzantines on steep slopes of
Petra 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 Persian
army came 12,000 Savirs, but the Persian general Mermerois, fearing a betrayal of the Huns, left four
thousand at the city Archeopol, the others, “richly rewarding with money, let go home” (Procopius of
Caesarea. II, p. 417).
196

On the // 196 // order of the Persians Savirs built many lightweight battering rams, because Archeopol
was located in the mountainous terrain.

By the end of the 552-553 winter, Persians concluded with Byzantines a brief truce, and immediately
began preparing to attack Lazika. Enlisting a large number of Huns-Savirs, in 553 Persians moved against
Lazika, 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 during
pursuit of the retreating Persians, the Romans killed a “chief of Sabirs”, for whom broke out a strong fight
that lasted until dusk (If befitting burial is necessary for a successful afterlife of a deceased, and
comrades-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
the city has loged a two thousand-strong Savirs detachment allied with Byzantine, led by “Baimah, Kutilzis
and Alager, their most famous people”, Persians sent a detachment of three thousand Dolimnits (?) to
destroy Savirs (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 of Savirs (Agathias, p. 116). Agathias guesses that these were troops of different Savir tribes.
Agathias also has a story on how Byzantines destroyed a half-thousand Savir unit that loged in a fortified

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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
Huns and Alans through the passages (Menander Byzantine, p. 342).

Having concluded peace, Persia could now battle their eastern and northern enemies (Ephtalites and
Savirs). In 563-567 Persians run successful military actions against Ephtalites, to about the same time
belongs 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 for
help, 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 among them,
“...when they left, Savirs immediately freed themselves from the Roman domination. The Roman generals
(Kurs and Theodor) came back to Albania, and forced Savirs and Alvans to move to this side of the 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, the
messengers, hesitated, so that the emperor had to resort to threats. He told them that to those who
would join him voluntarily he would be benevolent, and those who would not join him will be subordinated
to his power” (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
debated how 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
of the 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,
is irrelevant. In their foreign policy the Savir rulers always were considering complexity of the international
situation and in particular, the internal status and international state of two main rivals in the Caucasus,
Persia and 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.
becomes the Western Turkic Kaganate. In the first quarter of the 7th c. the sources record almost annual
Turkic raids to Albania and Iberia (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I. pp. 103-104, 121). In the Turkic campaigns,
according to some researchers, also took part dependent tribes of Onogurs, Ugros (Gadlo A.V. 1979, p.
135). Apparently, the ethnonym “Turk” overlapped in the sources a number of other dependent tribes,
including the Huns-Savirs.

Peculiarly, the Huns' transition from significant and widely referred to enemy and friend to
inglorious non-entity hidden under an umbrella term Turk did not find place in this study,
leaving a gaping hole in the continuity of the subject. We have a Western Hunnic Era lasting
from about 160 AD to about 560 AD, and a Turkic Era lasting from about 552 AD to about
740 AD, and a void in-between.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 (Movses
Kalankatuatsi. 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 of
cattle. The Hun ruler offered peace to the Prince of Albania Djuansher (636-669), which was concluded
after brief negotiations. The peace was sealed by marriage of Djuansher with the daughter of “King of
Huns”, to confirm the friendship the Huns ruler returned to Albanians the loot and captives (Movses
Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 154).
200

Standard terms of vassalage between the Turkic nomads and others:

1. Direct military participation in the suzerain's campaigns with a right for booty for the
participant, or a monetary compensation for non-participation;
2. Nominal tribute, depending on the wealth or occupation of the population, like a pelt and
two-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 Turkic 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
annual military 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
Djuansher served as one of the reasons for the Hun campaign, but apparently the main reason was the
desire of Alp Ilitver to remind the new ruler of Albania of their rights to her, received during Djuansher
(This comment is outrageous, the killing of the son-in-law, the husband of his daughter, and the father of
his grandkids is 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 writes that Varaz-Trdat “was very distressed and did not know what to do”. Catholicos Ilizar,
initiating talks with the 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” of the Albanian ruler apparently suited the Huns, and they agreed to peace. The new
situation had put Albania in dependence of the Huns. But apparently, the Huns' forays into Albania
continued // 201 // in the subsequent years.
201

Relations between the Caucasian Huns and their neighboring principalities develop in the
local theater, and are much a reflection of the global events as seen by the local observers.
The 6th c. started with a rise of the Western Turkic Kaganate, which asserted its control over
Turkic-populated areas in the Eastern Europe and Caucasus, including the states of Azeristan
and Albania. Its rise culminated with confrontation with the semi-independent Persian proxies
in the war of 626. However, the central power of the Western Turkic Kaganate collapsed
immediately after that, leaving a power vacuum in the Eastern Europe and Caucasus, and
leading to the rise of the independent Bulgaria, and 25 years later to independent Khazaria.
After the collapse of the Western Turkic Kaganate in 630, the Persia temporarily reasserted it

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

control over its old client states in the S.Caucasia, but that too was short-lived. The Arab
conquest 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 their
control over the Persian old client states in the S.Caucasia. Both the Byzantine and the
Western Turkic Kaganate retreated from the Caucasus theater, leaving two major powers, the
Arab 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 its
reflection in the historical works, leaving much to deduce to correlate the local events with the
underlying 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 of
the Huns. A failure to render payment, after some diplomatic squabble, stirred a collection
campaign perceived as a sequestration raid, to fill in the arrears. The Huns, and other
pastoral tribes within Albania, were not assessed any taxes, and likely were receiving their
portion of collections 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 double obligations were draining the country, and the compact of 664 was to re-
ally with the Huns to protect Albania from the Arabs, as it was during the reign of the King
Sanesan, when Masguts and 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 in
the Caucasus, and for a long while become faceless Khazars, only to reappear in the Slavic
annals under the name Severyans, and in the Bulgarian history as a component of the Bulgars
under the names Suvar and Saban.

Discussing with the Princes and Catholicos Ilizar the need for a new alliance with the Huns, the ruler of
Albania 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 was
reinforcement of the family ties between the rulers, and adoption of Christianity by the Huns. To achieve
the latter 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. Long
before Alp-Ilitver, and long after him, the dynastic alliances were religion-free, i.e. the wives
were taken from numerous peoples irrespective of religion. Even with the later era of religious
intolerance, accommodations, if any, were made within a family and on a personal basis.
Moreover, with the Turkic traditional religious tolerance, any religion was greeted with
respect. Obviously, Albanians were in a bind and needed a treaty to improve their condition,
the Huns had an upper hand and did not have to yield to any demands, and especially to
such an outrageous demand as the intrusion on the sacred freedom of religion and innate
personal 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, and does 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
number of areas, seizing booty and captives, Khazars returned to the Caspian Sea area. In battles with the
Khazars were killed the ruler of Armenia Gregory Mamikonian, Albanian and Georgian Princes (Ghevond, p.
10). It is not known whether Alp Ilitver's Huns were taking part in this campaign, two years earlier they
were receiving 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
after adoption of Christianity: “he showed to the Khazar Khan many feats of bravery in Turkestan. He
gained his love and had to give him his daughter in marriage...”. (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 199).
202

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

In the modern translation of the source the meaning of this // 202 // extract for some reason is translated
differently: “...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
was awarded 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 numerous
dynastic marriages, rather than using his arms, a method amply demonstrated in its efficiency
by 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 Khazar
Kagan, another sister was a wife of the Alan King Djevanshir, and his daughter would be a
natural dynastic match for the new generations of the Khazar Kagans from the rival Ashina
clan. A reciprocal marriage to the daughter of the Khazar Kagan from a blood-unrelated line is
also quite possible.

The tight and intricate dynastic bonds in the Caucasus and elsewhere, frequently neglected
by the historians conditioned to disregard family bonds in favor of personal and imperial
ambitions emblematic for the modern states, played a far greater role in shaping history than
was 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 a
position, Alp is Alp is “Great”, Ilitver is a distortion of “Elteber”, and Alp Ilitver is a rendition of
Great Elteber, so the title Great Prince is its direct translation to Armenian. In the Oguz and
Eastern Hun languages the “Great” is expressed with Ulu/Ulug/Ulu?, known from many titles
like 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 evidence
corroborates the circum-Mediterranian route of Celtic pastoralists, who brought the word
along 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 Eastern
Europe were populated by the Turkic-speaking tribes before the spread of the IE languages in
Europe.

It is generally assumed that the religious reform in the “land of Huns”, conducted with the consent of
the Great 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. The
Khazar campaign in S.Caucasia in 684 was an act that demonstrated the right of Khazaria in the
S.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 death
sentence. Refusal of the Russian Far Eastern Military District to participate in the war against Japan? What
a strange idea. Fortunately, it has nothing to do with the analysis) . The reform of 682 was not interrupted
by the Khazar campaign of 684, Movses Kalankatuatsi as one of the Huns' Great Prince virtues 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 of Huns”, 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 of
Israil, notes as his achievement that he converted “many of the Khazir and Hun provinces to Christianity”
(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II, p. 148).
203

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

In the 680's. the “country of Huns” conducted an independent internal and foreign policy, and its ruler
Alp Ilitver was glorified in Armenia, Albania, and Iberia by the adoption of Christianity and ceased the raids
on the countries of the S.Caucasus, as was promised in his letters to the upper spiritual and secular rulers
of Armenia “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 to
the established tradition or for political purposes (so did the rulers of Persia, Albania, Arab Caliphate, and
of the 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, concluding
description 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 a
misnomer, 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 the
conditional Arab nomenclature.

The main // 204 // blow of the Arab army power bore the people of the “country of Huns”. Their territory
from the beginning of the 8th c. to the 740's. was subjected to almost ceaseless devastation, loss of
economic centers were ruined, economy was being destroyed, women and children were massacred or
taken 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
an ally of the Khazars, as one of the major forces in the Caspian area capable to resist the onslaught of the
Arab expansion.

The following is a listing of milestones in the Arab-Khazar wars. .Researchers attribute the first
appearance of Arab troops in Derbent by 642/643. In 652/653 Arabs tried to take Balanjar, their forces
were 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 time
control of Derbent passed to Persians; the Persians controlled it for 120 years during the
reigns of Kavad (r. 488–531), Khosrow I (r. 531-579), Hormizd IV (579-590), and Khosrow II
(590-628). The Turkic-Persian war of 626 (aka Third Perso-Turkic War) drove Persians out
with taking of Derbent by the Turkic 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 654
Derbent 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 by
the Persians for about 120 years, and held by the Huns for 70 years, and they continued
holding 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 take
Derbent from the Huns in 713. Finally, on the fifth attempt, in 727 the Arabs took abandoned
by the Huns Derbent. By that time, Turks manned and controlled the Caliphate army, and
were 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 leader
Marwan (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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 laid
siege to the Hun's city Targu” (713/714 ).
205

Only Ghevond gives the name // 205 // of this city, although Movses Kalankatuatsi also tells about
consequences 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
Khazar Kaganate, which played an important role in the Arab-Byzantine rivalry in the Caucasus. The
ethnonym “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 Turkic-speaking and
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 and
people 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 of
Huns”.

Very little information was provided about social status of the free population. Movses Kalankatuatsi
cites a number of facts showing that free inhabitants in the cities of the “country of Huns” participated in
important 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
the adoption 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 glad to have him and paid their respects”... (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 124). “ To listen to the
Bishop sermons 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 all
residents; according to Movses Kalankatuatsi - “in front of numerous assembly of people” (Movses
Kalankatuatsi. 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
of religion.

The “change of religion” is totally out of context, the state religion can't be changed where

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

none exist, and everyone is free to pursue any religion or none at all. The issue was to
convert from a free society to a society bound to a state-mandated, single alien religion, a
concept totally unknown and foreign to Turkic society.

Some part of the ordinary people spoke against the religious reform of the “Great Prince”, and
supported the ministers of the pagan cults (Instead of “ministers”, a more appropriate term in the narrative
would probably 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 and priests, with the common people, came to the Prince of the Huns and chiefs of the country,
howling and beating their breasts, and shouted with loud voice: “What do you think, how dare you, how
can you do what our 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 and would secretly sacrifice to the idols, I will destroy and deliver to the sword ”
(Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. C 132).
208

The main duty of the ordinary male population was participation in military campaigns, which were
organized about once a year, sometimes more. It is no accident that the author of “History of Alvan
country”, describing the events that took place in Varachan (Belenjer) in connection with the religious
reform, 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 about
Hunnic 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. The
picture drawn by the chronicler, and the interpretations given by the author are obviously
saturated with misguided internal contraventions. A little background and understanding
gleaned from other sources would be helpful in reading the facts.

The chronicler describes a democratic society akin to the Greek city-states and King Arthur
social order. The post of Elteber has little in common with the status of the Armenian King,
which serves as a model for the chronicler's perception, and with the organization of the
modern Soviet society that existed at the time of the author's work. The post of Elteber is an
appointment 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 by
Congress or Parliament. In today's language, the jurisdiction of the Elteber is of a chair in a
local Parliament, with dictatorial powers limited by the consent of the ruled. The supreme
head of the state carries symbolic religious functions, leading public prayers to the God
Almighty in daily 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, also without any religious hierarchical powers. The heads of local
communities, tribes, pasturing routes, villages, etc., down to the individual family, lead
prayers in their locales. The function of the 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 of the higher power to the subject folks,
representing Almighty or Communist ideas, being a medium between the masses and
Almighty or Communist ideas, and being law-givers on behalf of the Almighty or Communist
ideas, the Tengrian prayer leaders of all ranks were ordinary laymen 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 all humans are on the folk side
of the fence, and only the Almighty alone is on the Almighty side of the fence.

Understanding the social and religious organization of the Hunnic society allows to fit the
pieces 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 a

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

state Buddhism, and the popular reaction for any religious imposition in the Hunnia is not at
all different from the reaction the Quebecois would have on imposition of a state Buddhism.
The idea 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, the Elteber, like the Kagan, were gavel-holders serving at the pleasure of the
people, and could be stripped 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 into
complete conformance with the Trinity concept. It originated by syncretization of the
monotheistic Tengriism with the monotheistic Christianity of the Early Jerusalem Church,
before the amendments of the Constantine's Nicaea (325), Chalcedon (451), and Third
Constantinople (681) Councils. By tradition, the Armenian Church still carries the Tengriist
practices, with lay people involved in the council discussions and service at the altar, gender
equality 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 other
Christian hierarchies, the earliest was Paulinist after the 269 Synod of Antioch, and
Monophysite by the Roman and Greek Orthodox Churches. Etiologically, the Armenian Church
was closer to Tengriism than to Trinitarian Churches, and that was the teaching the Bishop
Israil tried to impose on the Tengriist Huns. In the Bishop Israil's eyes, Tengriism was just
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 an
important source of income for the “country of Huns”. We rate the population of the dependent territories
to a 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
category of semi-dependent can be attributed populations of the dependent or temporarily occupied by the
Huns countries of Albania and Armenia, which were subject to various taxes and levies. Turks claimed
some countries 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 and
economic subordination (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 102-103, 120-121). To 629 belongs the message
that Turks 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 the
fisheries 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
heavy tribute, and new forays had to prove the right to these countries.

Leaving aside the unspecified customs duties and VAT tax, the number provided gives an
objective means to assess the general taxation. A tetradrachm was 16 g, or about one half
an ounce of silver, or about $4/year from a household in 2000 currency. Accounted in gold, it
is 0.6 g, or 1/50th ounce of gold, or $8/year per year per household in 2000 currency. That
was the census of the Persian taxation during 120 years of the Persian domination, and the
Western Turkic Kaganate took over the Persian taxes. It is unlikely that Persians could assess
the nomadic 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 taxes
were miniscule both in absolute and in relative terms.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

8. 3. Slaves
210

The sources contain little information on the slave population in the Hun society. It is known that during
the raids 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 // by
the 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 known
that the entire population was not taken prisoner. Into slavery were taken people with professional skills,
and children 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 was
replenished not only by the captives, they were also acquired on the slave markets. Pseudo-Zacharias,
citing facts 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 the Huns. 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 of slavery in the “Hunnia” and its natural growth (Pigulevskaya N.V. 1941, p. 86),
is not convincing, since the sources 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 individual families. Movses Kalankatuatsi, describing the events of 669, when Albania was
conquered by the Turks, reported that despite // 211 // an order of the Turkic Prince to release prisoners,
the soldiers hid them, not scared of “severe punishment”. Only after an intervention of the dignitaries who
“started to check the canvas and 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
and around China. The Hunnic society in particular, and the Turkic 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
around any would be slaves, and families isolated during greater portion of the year least of
all need internal enemies. Only when the Turks came into power over sedentary peoples, like
China, India, Persia, and Caliphates, with long-established tradition of slavery, had the Turks
adjust their traditions to the local conditions.

The subject of captives can't be confused with the subject of forced labor. The captives were
a part of the booty, they had monetary value, first of all as ransom, and were subject to fair
division 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 Turkic states, or were let go. The general attitude to the
human captives was the same as to the animal captives, they were chattel that needed
tendering and care, 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 participating
tribes, apparently the division was as a rule consensual, but in few cases we know of the
supreme commander losing his position and life because of excessive greed that offended his
troops.

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 the
records through the following millennia. The rules of engagement and division of the booty

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

were well-established, marauding was proscribed and severely punished.

At no point in history the Turkic societies had a law enforcement apparatus. In the steppes,
the prisons were non-existent. Chinese chroniclers reported that in contrast with China, at
any time the Huns or the Turks had no more than few prisoners under guard. The justice was
meted quickly, and resolved on the spot. It is given that without a state-enforced system, and
a set of laws related to slavery, the system of slavery can't exist. The Turkic societies
completely lacked such a system.

The subject of captives can't be confused with the subject of dependent tribes. History knows
numerous examples when dependent people, including Turkic people, were forcefully
relocated in mass. Such cases clearly demonstrate that some dependents were handled as
chattel, with all care appropriate for chattel relocation. Not only Chinese and Persians were
moving 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 also
moved a similar multitude of Slavic people into northern Greece and Peloponnese. To the
same category belongs the resettlement of the runaway Chinese and Romans, strategically
resettled in the Hunnic and Turkic 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 and
marriage 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 data
of the written sources, ethnography, and archeology, came to a conclusion that small family dominated
among the nomads of the Eurasian steppes (Khazanov A.M. 1975, p. 76). Theophanes Confessor said that
the 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. This
results that under the rule of Boariks were approximately 16, 700 families (Another averaged factor is 5.1
person/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 levirate
custom, when a widow could marry a brother or a son of her late husband, born of another woman. It
seems to us that M.I. Artamonov is erroneous in his belief that at the Huns was widespread polygamy and
polyandry (M.I. Artamonov, 1962, p. 189).

The Huns had monogamy with a custom of levirate. The levirate custom was practiced widely in many
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 as
continuation of the line of the deceased (Khazanov, A.M. 1975, p. 82). But these factors can be reduced to
one, 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
situation in such cases by marrying the widow and adopting her children.
213

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Movses Kalankatuatsi draws attention to the levirate as an unusual phenomenon and then reports like
on a commonplace monogamy of Savirs: “... and also take different wives”. The custom of the levirate
survived in 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, take
stepmothers in wives, after death of the elder or younger brother they marry their wives...”. (Klyashtorny
S.G. 1983, p. 171). Possibly, the polygamy was practiced in the Huns' royal family. Attila, for example, had
many 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
of the 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 Hunnic
society. Sexual freedom is inseparable from the subject of the status of women, sexual
oppression is one of the main tools in the arsenal of enforcing gender inequality, and a
hallmark that distinguished Turkic societies from the male-dominated IE culture. The
traditional Turkic culture allowed complete sexual gender equality, it allowed both sexes
unrestricted sex before marriage, and precluded extra-marital sex after marriage. We have
numerous ethnological descriptions of the sexual freedom for the Turkic period, spotty
references for the Hunnic period, and largely anecdotal and distorted descriptions for the
Scythians written by the authors conditioned to gender oppression , which separately and
together produce a fairly accurate picture of the Turkic pre-Islamic and pre-Christian gender
equality. Ironically, the best 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 religious
campaign 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
of the males only.

Ethnologically, the sexual equality in the Turkic society is just one symptom of the
traditional gender 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 system predominates, 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 “...
barbarian named Boariks, a widow, under whose authority were hundred thousand Huns, she ruled them
in the Huns' countries after the death of her husband, Valakh (Bolakh, Wallach, etc) ” (Theophanes
Confessor. 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 were ruled 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 of
candidates following a lateral succession order. The lateral succession order must be well
familiar to the author, because that was the succession system in the early Rus. Under that
system, there is generally an oversupply of candidates. The Queen (Hatun) takes control in
her hands 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
formally raised to the throne.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

M.I. Artamonov suggests that the name of the commander Tormach, whom Parsbit sent to a campaign
in Armenia, 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
Theophanes Confessor and Ghevond, for these authors the rule of women is not uncommon, both explain
that by the natural causes - a death of her husband or son. Whatever the cause, to talk about high
position of women in the 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 Movses Kalankatuatsi 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
Turkic 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
Khazars by the name Ta'atur, people who asked for his daughter for Yazid. She was called Hatun. Khazar
King agreed. Yazid ibn Usaid married her, paying for her 100,000 dirhams (ca 300 kg of silver). Hatun
solemnly left from the Khazar country to the country of Islam. With her followed 10 thousand from among
her Khazar relatives, 4,000 excellent mares, a thousand mules, a thousand slaves, 10 thousand small-
height camels of Khazaria breed, a thousand camels of Turks breed, each of them was two-humped,
// 215 // 20 thousand heads of sheep, 10 covered wagons with doors, inlaid with gold and silver plates,
paved inside with sable and 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 the
country 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 from her a sword and dagger, and Yazid ibn Usayd realized that she had allowed him to enter to
her. He came to her 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 convoy consisting of the bride relatives, the dowry consisting of slaves, cattle and
utensils, and the echoes of some 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 personal
theological ignorance. None of the experts understands the dual etiology of Tengriism that
can be summarized as follows.

The Heavenly World, which is called Heavens (Tengri in Turkic), consists of a Creator
(Tengri) and his eternal (or immortal) helpers (Alps in Turkic), called angels in Christianity
and Islam, and alluded to in Judaism. All Alp angels are a product of Creation, and like the
Saints in Catholicism, have their departments: Department of Visible World (Yer-Su),
Department of Underworld (Erlik), Department of Benevolent Deities and Spirits (Umai, with
traces of attributes of the Great Goddess), Department of Earth (Yer), Department of Water
(Su), Department of Fire (Ut-Ana, Mother Fire), Department of Sun (Koyash), Department of
Moon (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 angels
were on the Earth, associated with some prominent landmarks, and their abode was in
Heaven. Like Tengri, they exist only in spiritual form, and can't be depicted in any material
appearance.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

The Earthly World, called Yer-Su, is populated by the material earthly beings equipped with
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 are immortal, they
recycle in a cycle of reincarnation. The normal course of events is with the Kut returning to
the Tengri upon death, to be sent back to the Earth in a new embodiment. The practical
outcome of the eternity of the Kut is the absence of fear of the death, which is only a brief
intermission before reincarnation. Kut resides in the body, and under special circumstances
may temporarily leave and return to the body. Under very rare special circumstances the Kut
may get lost on the way, and the body remains dead. The abnormal course of events is for
evil people who, instead of returning to the Heaven, fall into the Erlik's Underworld, to remain
there forever. there is no appreciable difference between the Greek Hades 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. And such 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, the
Kam rituals resemble the rituals of their religions, and they interpret Kams as priestly
operatives. 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.
Kams are 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 call anybody's religion “cult”, use the loaded with attitudes term “pagan”,
equate the magic of Kams with religion, or to concentrate on the outward appearance of
rituals and call it religion is unprofessional. Reciting opinions of Christian missionaries and
Islamic observers as experts on the Turkic 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 at

the bottom, behind all other distractions. In the analysis of Christianity, the equivalent would
be to place the Christ after addressing church construction, listing of patron saints, incense
and torch processions, and folk traditions absorbed by the Christian Church. However, that
could also be a tactical move, to annoy and blunt the attention of the censors

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya03En.htm[05/06/2014 19:44:17]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

L.Gmyrya
HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE
Caspian Dagestan during epoch of the Great Movement of Peoples
Dagestan Publishing, Makhachkala 1995, ISВN 5-297-01099-3
Chapters 9-11
RELIGION, CONVERSIONS, BURIALS

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 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 Turks 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 Turkic-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-Turkic ethnic entities in the Hunnic confederation, including the local population (Lazarev Ya., 1859.
pp. 2-10. 17 Gadlo A.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 of various autochthonous tribes, and thus historically totally different from the
traditions that the Eastern Huns brought to the Caucasus. The religious tolerance innate to all
Turkic 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 Movses
Kalankatuatsi, 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
the religious 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 preserved
in 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 are
important 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 in
fate, 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 natural
forces 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 of
nature, 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). The entire
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. Khalilov X.M.
1984, p. 69; Alimova, B.M. 1992. pp. 72-73) (This historical reconstruction projects backwards 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 people
remained 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 of destruction, 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 following millennium. 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 other significant 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, Persian Gurchesh, Roman Mars, all point to cultural borrowings, even though the
Sumerian Ishkur was recorded as early as 26th c. BC. The Turkic god is reconstructed as Kur, in Chinese

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

transcription Ching Lu; Kur falls into the same phonetical group as Hor, Ishkur, and Gurchesh. Possibly, it
is too presumptuous to suggest that Turkic Kur was a model for the following gods of war, but in Sumer
the word “kur“means “foreign hostile country“, hinting of invaders. The Turkic proper name Kur/Chur
describes a military leader, with slight dialectal variations it was geographically widely spread and
temporally, first mentioned for the leaders, and later as a popular appellative. Among Turkic names and
titles are Gur-Khan, Gur as part of tribal names, Gurchi and Kuarchi for royal bodyguards for Chingizids
and Safavids, Charik for Khan's guard regiment, Jenichars for Ottoman swordsmen, 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 mounted and ceremonies held. We have records describing
this service ritual for Scythians, Eastern and Western Huns, and Caucasian Turks. 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 Turkic 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 until
recent 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 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. Turkic tradition was to greet the sunrise, pray at the sunrise,
bury their dead oriented to the sunrise, the home entrances faced sunrise, and so on. 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 Turkic, but its application is purely colonial Russian. In Turkic, “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-
Turks as a derogatory appellation for the Turkic people, as any other good neighbor in this
word 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 colonial
possessions. Thus, Turkic 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 tribal
divisions 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
basis by 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,

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Mountain Ases), and mountain Turkic people from the Caucasus foothills, in other words all
North Caucasus Turkic 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 Caucasus
Turkic 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 that
V, 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 Turkic clans. This
background, naturally, is totally absent from the Soviet and Russian materials.

The Dagestani “Kumyks” consist of three discrete Turkic groups, with 5 “dialects” that
betray 5 separate nations, of them 3 “dialects” are major “dialects”. The groups are called
South 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.

South Kumyks (Khaikent) in their mass are Oguz Turks, they came to the Caucasus a
millennia before the Northern Kumyks, they are Turkic Albanians, residents of the Caucasian
Albania. 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 Turkic 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 the
Masguts/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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

The original substrate mix of the autochthonous sedentary and ancient Turkic 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 7 to J2a* 2 to J1e* 1 to T
R1b1b22
14 to J1* 6 to J2a2* 2 to J2b*  
10 to R1a1* 2 to R2 1 to R1a1f  
2 to
10 to G2a 1 to O  
E1b1b1a

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), reflected
vestiges 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
nomadic Bulgars. 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 Turkic 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 Sumerian cuneiform, 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 be
specifically 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 the

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Earth 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

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 that the
“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 Eastern Europe 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 Groves
were 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 retained
vestiges 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

symbol of the nature's fruitful powers in agricultural and wedding ceremonies of some Dagestani peoples
(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 deified
Earth, 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
worshipped and 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 Turkic 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, “feodalizing nobility” 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 Turkic 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 the population. 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 Ibn
Rustah, 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
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 of Antiquity.
1989, p. 66).

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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:
“Then the 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
sending down 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 Turkic 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 Turkic as Head Oracle/Main Oracle, agglutinated from Argi = 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. The
source 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 of life. 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 Turks And Mongols

Naberejnye Chelny, 2000, p. 80 (synopsis):

The ancient Turks 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 Turks had 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 Turks called Otuken homeland. Yer-Sub Deity patronized
Homeland (Land and Water) where lived Turks and Mongols. Except for the Man, the nature and
all alive on the Earth and in the Water subordinated to her. Turks esteemed Yer-Sub Deity as a
highest deity after Tengri. Yer-Sub with Tengri In the Orkhon inscriptions Yer-Sub is mentioned
under a name of Yduk (Sacred Earth and Water).
Yer-Sub was a kind Goddess, she patronized and defended Turks. 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 Turkic 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 and wellbeing. Widespread were sacrifices of white rams, their hide was not burnt, but hung

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 Turks (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 22). In the ancient
Turkic 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 Turkic-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 Turkic 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 Turkic 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 Turkic pantheon the image of the Goddess // 228 // Umai is dual. She not only approves the birth
of 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 the Mother Goddess in charge of offsprings, thinks S.Y. Neklyudov (See: Sagalaev A.M. 1991, p. 61).
The mythology of the Urals and southern Siberia Turkic 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 Turkic epic in Ural-Altai region Umai is represented by an image of usually a young woman with
golden 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 Turkic-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 Turkic-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 Turkic-speaking Dagestani peoples the name Umai, that
symbolizes 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 Turkic Umai,

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

but the names (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 Turkic
peoples of most different origin and times, from the first massive migration wave across
Caucasus 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
the Herodotus times to the late historical times is a real historical and ethnological miracle.

Closest to the ancient Turkic 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 with blood”
(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 Turkic Umai, can also be attributed “Albasly K'atyn”, a figure
preserved 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 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 the village 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 Turkic?) , 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 of
the 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
toe hair 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 spirit in 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 by some Dagestani peoples, have their analogue in the image of the Goddess Umai,
preserved in the Turkic epos of the Ural-Altai region.

The abode of the Female Goddesses - counterparts of the Goddess Umai at the Dagestani peoples as a
rule 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 the
Mekegians 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 the

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

existence of a clan, although analogous to the ancient Turkic Goddess of Fertility and Babies Umai, but
their status is much lower in comparison with Umai's position in the pantheon of ancient Turks. 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 ethnic
differences. The Caucasus people were exceptionally lucky in that respect, they survived the
Moslem propaganda, the Christian propaganda, Moslem again, Christian again, and then the
state 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
uneducated notions 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 depicted ona stone
found in Kudyrge burials in the Altai, in the depiction of a woman with tri-horn hat and rich attire
(Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 19) (Horned hats were recorded for Yetha-Hephtalites married women 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 in our 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 as
pendant 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 the
pendant is somewhat different.
233

The center of the pendant composition isa figure in the form of eight-pointed cross, placed in a
concentric frame (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 Fig. 6. Pendant

letter “X” and “P” (Bank A. 1966, p. 13. Fig. 18-19); Upper Chir Yurt subterranean burial No 1. Bronze
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 decorated with a
spruce ornament frame, within which is placed a solar
symbol in our opinion is a stylistic depiction of a branch
of the sacred tree, the so-called “Tree of Life”, which
symbolizes fertility and abundance. The filigreed or

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 nomadic
antiquities 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 ornamentation of ceramic vessel and toreutics (Mammayev M. 1967, p. 149,
152). The spherical projections at the center of 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 not
extend 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 the pendant's graphic plot, salient in its laconism and voluminosity of expressive means.

It seems that the pendant from the catacomb burial of the Upper Chir Yurt burials with image of a
women 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
the Sun (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). The
Great Goddess is also present in the ancient Turkic 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 a
woman 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 acquires
features 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 is
profound, mixing up and confusing the means, like the altar-tree, with the subject of
discourse. Replacing the Turkic 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. In the 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 who outside 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

trait of Christianity and Tengriism, but who outside of the Soviet scientology ever confused
sacrificial Christian 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
Christian pantheon of Gods; the Yol-tengri (Yol is road in Turkic) of Tengriism is no different.
The competence 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 that
phenomenon, 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 contemporaneous
Tonyukuk inscription, which argued against attempts of another Kagan to introduce a world
religion (Buddhism) and its appurtenances: “building of temples will destroy the ancient
Turkic custom “not to be bounded by anything”, otherwise the Tang dynasty would destroy
us”. The unbridled 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 Turkic is the same as
God in English, Allah in Arabic, etc. In English the phrase reads: “The God God-Khan in the Caspian Huns'
vision was the Supreme God”). In the “History of the Alvan country”, He is bestowed with 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 the realm 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 Turks (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 Turkic
people 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 of the 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 of sacrificed 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
Tengri Khan cult (Klyashtorny S.G. 1984, p. 21).

Concluding description of the pantheon of the North Caucasian Huns, is necessary to dwell on one more
aspect. 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 Turkic deity
“Yol-Tengri”, ensuring contact of the Heavenly God Tengri (Deity of the Upper World) with the Deities of
the 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 of
protecting from any mishaps during seasonal migrational coachings.
238

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

4. Amulets and fetishes

We can only guess what definition of Paganism was used by the author, but it is unlikely
that 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 an
axiom 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 have
conventional derogatory terms for the other religions:
“ Paganism, in broad sense includes all religions other than the “true one revealed by God”,
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.
 
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 well
could ornament themselves with the image of the snake (dragon) loaded with innumerable
unspecified 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 long
past 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
misguided reading 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 fanciful concept, turning symbology into genetical, anthropological, racial, and linguistic
attribute that conflicts with every scientific discipline.
239
 
Figure 7. Cult objects and mold
1, 2. 5-7 - Palasa-Syrt settlement 4th-6th cc.
Some Huns' objects were fetishes and were used in the 3-4 - Palasa-Syrt burial 4th-5th cc.
pagan rituals (Fig. 7). To that class can be attributed 1, 2 - two-sided form for casting mirrors
mentioned in the source pagan amulets - “golden and 3, 4 - mirrors
silver images of dragon”, and also the dice (Movses 5, 6 - dices
Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 198, 205). 3 - amulet
1, 2 - stone
Although the geography of the dragon-snake cult is
3, 4 - bronze
quite wide, at almost all peoples the image of a dragon-
5-7 - bone
serpent is associated with the abundance of water
(Reshetov A.M. 1981, p. 87 - 90), and in the mythology of
the Altaians the dragon served as a master of 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 apparently

were not only fetishes, but the distinguishing signs of the
cult clergy, whose main activity was performing rituals
associated with the success in the productive activities of
the “country of Huns” population. The insights obtained
from the analysis of some ancient Turkic terms suggest
that the ritual garb of the clergy differed // 240 // from the
clothing of the general population (N.I. Djidalaev p. 1984.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 the prohibition 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 Turkic areas
should know it as a primary course of education. The knucklebone, or astragal gaming dice is endemic to
the Turkic 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 (Movses
Kalankatuatsi. 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 the scholarly author also
believe in that, and propagate the Early Middle Age prejudices without expressing 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 phantom property 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 spiced with 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 Ilitver
encountered stubborn resistance of the priesthood during Christianization of the Huns (682). Drastic
violence against 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 Israel
are 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
the priesthood over the masses of the Hunnic population, which the Hun prince (actually, an Ashina viceroy
of the Turkic Kaganate, a breed alien to the Savirs) set out to weaken, but the ruthlessness of the killings
was 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 devastation
and plunder of the pagan temples, which apparently were places of wealth concentration of the temple

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

demesnes (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 200). A.P. Novoseltsev said that the major cause of Christianization
of 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
was the 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
Alvan country” 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
reinforcing authority and economic power of the supreme ruler. Religious reform was essentially an act of
redistribution of 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 existence
among 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 any
different 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, they
parse them at some definite time with some sort of mysterious spells, and get very specific portents about
what is predicted” (Ammianus Marcellinus. II, p. 243).

From political point of view the described religious events make little sense. A choice
between political alignment with the Arab expansion, Byzantine, and incipient Khazaria is no
brainer, the feeble Christian Byzantine and the Caucasian dependencies that Byzantine just
lost to the Arabs is an obvious losing ticket; aligning with the Arab expansion is the same
economical 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
of secession 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.
The only 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
unifying his possessions; that scenario would provide consistency with references to temples
and sanctuaries 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 and
ideological 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
and Byzantine 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 in their 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 achieving their 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 ordained
to a high clerical rank at 15 years old. He began his missionary activities in Iberia and Aluank (Movses
Kalankatuatsi. 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 to
adoption 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. The

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Armenian 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 author
states: “The king changed his mind and heed the words of his army” (Favstos Buzand, p. 14). The king
was forced 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
Grigoris to 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

Although the first attempt at Christianization of the Hun circle's tribes was not successful, the pursuit of
the 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 of
Chor, 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 tribes
did 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 likewise
impoverished and powerless. Funny, the dumb enserfed peasantry, deprived of liberty and personal rights,
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 embassy
missionary 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 credited with
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 its
siege, was headed by the “Suniks man, a former Hun commander, who was baptized after finding refuge
with 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.Caucasus
countries, 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,
but in 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
from the 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 implementing

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

into 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 of the Hun society (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I, p. 198 - 199). For a long time priesthood resisted the
new religion, 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, Alp Ilitver isolated “high priests and main sorcerers” from the society. However, only after a
long imprisonment of 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, and turned 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 translated the 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 the
sacred 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, the
temples of pagan gods destroyed and ruined, pagan amulets destroyed. And the “Royal Tombs” must be
burned, 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 the modern
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. Movses
Kalankatuatsi 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
and enchanters 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 not accept 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 capital treatment was described for other Turkic states, minus very Christian burning of live
people. For innately 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 funeral was
breaking off the cycle of immortality, the most terrible consequence for an eternal soul. The Turkic
punishment of rulers and augurs was to send them back to Tengri for repairs, not to infringe on their
Tengri-given immortality. Cremation and inhumation were both practiced among Huns and pre-Islam
Turkic 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 and
torture-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 and Masguts. Quite the
opposite, Masguts were a component of the Eastern European Hunnic and Turkic peoples, they followed
the same Tengrian religion, buried according to the Kurgan tradition, and can't be blamed for introducing
burning of live people at the stake into Turkic practice).

On Christianization of the general population in the “country of Huns” exists no data. There is no

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

accurate records if a church was built in Varachan (Belenjer). Movses Kalankatuatsi in one place of his
narrative says 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 the author 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
bring them 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 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 // 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 a Tengrian symbol of God called “adji” long before Christianity, and it was
introduced into Christian symbology 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 on forehead, 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” borrowings
by 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 that
aside 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 informal
adoption. 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 Arianism
by the Christian Church, in a short run is a viable proposition. In a long run, the cross as a
religious 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 of
Christianity 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 to
give 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, a
process 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 the
Union of Hunnic tribes formed by the 7th c., to elevate the powers to be and to increase the might of the
Hun Prince, and also to consolidate processes of social differentiation in the Hun society affecting the
feudalizing nobility and the masses. It was a logical culmination of the socio-economic development of the
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 their herds 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 familiar devil 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
the Caucasus, the defeat of Armenia and Albania, the long Arab-Khazar war interrupted for a long time the
progressive processes of socio-economic development, thereby slowing down the growth of the state in the

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

“country of Huns”, and the religious policy of the Arabs, enforcing // 251 // Islam, undercut the process of
settling 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 and
credibility) .
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 in
the 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 Albania and 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 first campaigns 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 and Jews (Ibn Hawqal, p. 114; al-Mukkadasi, p. 5). Ibn Hawqal also reported that in
Samandar were Christian churches. 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, the
nature of ideological concepts dominating there, indicate a beginning of the formation in the North-East
Caucasus of an early class state (Gmyrya L.B. 1988, p. 31). The fledgling state was in need of an ideology
that 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 economic
power of the supreme ruler (in his hands the Hun ruler has concentrated all power, which covered virtually
all areas of the inner and outer life of the Hunnic society). Religious reform was essentially an act of
redistribution 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 by
particularly persistent and systematic advance of the Arabs in the Caspian region (708-733). The Arab
historians 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 Arab
army (al-Kufi. pp. 9, 41, 53), relocation to other areas if the residents who asked for peace initially resisted
their troops (al-Kufi, p. 18, 41), payment of annual tribute (al-aman) if population asked for mercy without
resistance and provided lounging for the Arab forces (al-Kufi, p. 9), in some cases, in addition to the
money tribute 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 Arab
alternative: eradication, relocation, tribute, prisoners (young men and maidens), cattle, and
provisions. 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. was
subjected 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 a single
attitude - they were to accept Islam. But judging from the data of the sources, in the first decade of the

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

8th c. Christians were only the inhabitants of the “country of Huns”, in mountain areas were worshiped
pagan gods. But having captured a number of of Dagestan (738) mountainous areas, the Arabs demanded
from the population tribute; sources do not mention acceptance of Islam.

It was a standard diplomatic maneuver of the Turkic leadership to recognize somebody's

else 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 the case of slow-moving sedentary powers that was the least of all threats. For a sedentary
army to catch up with the nomads is next to impossible, and the effort to do it is
bankrupting. The Turks taught that lesson to the generations of adventurers, from the Persian
King Darius to the Han 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 period
from 708 to 737. Thus, al-Kufi and other Arab authors report that a Khazar warrior defending Derbent
besieged in 713/714 by the Arab commander Maslama expressed a willingness to convert to Islam on
standard Arab conditions - paying him to support his family. // 254 // Having adopted Islam, the soldier
came up 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 to
Samandar, his wife, children, servants, and property were purchased by Jarrah. The Arabs decided to
pardon the ruler of Balanjar and return him his power, property, family, and servants (al-Kufi, p. 19). But
what were the the terms it was done the author does not state. Was it only with a duty to secretly inform
the Arabs 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 a
defined 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
the Arab leader sacked the “country of Khazars”, having defeated the 40,000strong army of the King. The
King 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
people converted to Islam”. The power remained in the hands of the Khazar King, but 40 thousand
Khazars were resettled 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 cavalry
would be a reasonable assumption, leading to an estimate of pastoral population about
500,000. 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
infusion of nomadic population into the countries of S.Caucasus must be readily detectable
archeologically and ethnologically.

 A.P. Novoseltsev doubted whether the Khazar King in fact converted to Islam, or only promised to do
so (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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

there were mosques (Ibn Hawqal, p. 114; al-Muqaddasi, p. 5). Who were these Muslims, local residents or
immigrants, the sources did not answer. A.R. Shikhsaidov believes that in Samandar at this time could live
Arab 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
areas adjacent 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 Caspian
population 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-Garnati
about acceptance of Islam in most areas // 256 // of Dagestan by the 12th c. “reflected that short-term
phase which ended with complete independence of the overwhelming majority of Dagestan's possessions,
and return 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 Russian Orthodox
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 Turkic people. By the 9th
c. Eastern Europe had numerous lines of hereditary mullahs, and a number of cities had
mature communities of Turkic 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
literate class created numerous literary compositions, written in Arabic script and in Turkic
language, some of which are known from literary references, and some survived to the
Modern Age. Kul Gali is the best-known example. The Turkic 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 Turkic
people turned to Christianity, a part turned to to Islam, and the remainder remained with
unadulterated Tengriism. Religious confrontations convulsed communities, leading to the splits
like the Kabar revolt and the Djilka migration. Except for isolated islands, the ethnic
homogeneity has crushed.

Judaism buttressed in Khazaria, according to the Arab geographer al-Masoudi, during the reign of
Caliph 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 circumstances it
happened. A.P. Novoseltsev believes the Khazar King converted to Judaism in about the last quarter of the
8th c. (Novoseltsev A.P. 1990. pp. 150 - 151). In his view, the bulk of the population professed Islam and
Christianity, or worshiped pagan gods, and only the King and his entourage were Judeans (Novoseltsev
A.P. A, p. 1990, p. 53).

A different view holds Gumilev. He believes that in 718, a leader of Persian Jewish migrants that lived in
Khazaria in the area between the rivers Terek, Sulak, and who bore the Turkic name Bulan (Bulan < Bulun
= 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 a
state religion of Khazaria” (Gumilev L.N. 1992, p. 135).
257

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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.
But as soon as someone touched the interests of overseas Jewish communities, the Khazar King answered
with repressions” (Gumilev L.N. 1992, p. 145).

Khazaria was only a particular case of Turkic religious tolerance, it is one side of being
open 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 of
Islam and Christianity changed that attitude, and even then it was fanned up by political
adventurists who tried to use religious divisions to advance their ambitions, changing little the
innate tolerant attitudes of the population.
11. BURIALS
1. Burial ritual
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
ritual acts of the Huns associated with burial of the deceased reflected this duality. To prevent harmful
effect of death on the living, the gathered relatives with cries and loud weeping, roll of drums and clanking
created noise, 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 was even expressed an opinion that the laceration ritual upon the deceased reflected vestiges of
more archaic actions: a member of the community who has grown old and weak was once killed to
prevent its subverting effect 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 them
dies, they put him on a stretcher and carry him to an open space (maidan” pleschad? “), where he is left
for three 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) on the 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 for 300 years (from about 600 AD). Such remark by al-Masoudi indicates that the described funeral
rite was common to local tribes.

The burial ritual of the Huns was probably accompanied by ritual music, perceived by the eyewitness as
noise 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 rite
participants: infliction of cuts on the face and body (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 124, 128). Agathias
describes 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
human sacrifices to the gods. Self-tormenting rituals in the funeral rites of the ancient Turks are noted in
the Chinese chronicles. According to the Chinese author of the 6th - first half of the 7th c., a noble Turk

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

was buried as follows: “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 the tent on the horses, then before entering the tent cut their faces with knife and cry
weeping, blood and tears pour down together. In such fashion, do it seven times and conclude. Then on
an appointed day take the horse which the deceased rode, and things that he used, and cremate them
along with the deceased; the ashes 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
by Movses 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 would sooner make Khazars and Huns the Iranians than make the Scythians Turks. Born to
crawl can not fly. A Chinese princess was given for the Uighur Kagan. When Kagan died, she was supposed
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
and the inhabitants of the “country of Huns” can be seen, it may be connected with the overall continuity
of the Great 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
round his 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 of this Hun custom, associates it with specific actions that prevent growth of male facial
hair. He wrote that the Huns 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
mourning for 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 the Mekegins
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 silk
To 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 the 8th - 9th cc. (Fig. 8) (Darkevitch V.P. 1974. Fig. I.; 1976. Table. 54 (5). V.P.Darkevitch
believes that the ladle is a product of the Khazaria metalworkers, and the image at the bottom is the scene
of the collective Kam ritual of the ancient Turks, as described by Moses Kalankatuatsi (Darkevitch V.P.
1974. Note 4). The ritual may have reflected a phallic cult, known among many nations. Phallus, as a

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

symbol of productive forces of nature, symbol of continuation of life, among many nations was transformed
into an antipode symbol of death, and in daily sense it became a symbol of resistance to various diseases
(Ksenofontova R.A. 1981, p. 74.) Echoes of phallic worship were recorded among some Dagestani peoples
in rituals associated 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 Fig. 8. Ladle. “Kot town” (lower course of r. Ob)
and ritual songs (Movses Kalankatuatsi. II. pp. 8-9 cc. (Per V.P. Darkevitch). Silver
124). The main function of the dance
performances in the Gentile ideas is to establish
a mutual relationship between // 264 // ancestors
and descendants, 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 of

the Hun funeral ritual as “raging outcry” also
was done to facilitate the the entry of the
deceased to the host of ancestors. The
lamenting songs in the funeral rites of some
Dagestani peoples were praising qualities of the
deceased, listed all ancestors, and contained the
idea of the deceased'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
between the 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 of
women in the Hunnic society. Sexual freedom is inseparable
from the subject of the status of women, in turn glossed over
in 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 with
forces of nature, with erotic actions solicited from the ancestor leaving to the “other world” fertility in the
broadest 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 the
magical 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
belief in 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 healing tools 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

deceased who had many children, and walking around old cemetery (Gadjiyeva, G.A. 1980. pp. 33 - 36).

An attribute of the Huns' funeral rituals also were equestrian events. Horse racing, as part of the ritual
remembrance of the deceased were noted at ancient Turks (Bichurin N.Ya. 1950, p. 124; Klyashtorny S.G.
1984, p. 22), as well as a vestige of pagan beliefs among some Turko-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 the
Huns' idea of the soul and afterlife, the cult was most visible in the burial ritual and the wake over the
deceased. “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 shrines
destroyed 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” (Movses
Kalankatuatsi, 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 hanged
on the poles thrust into the ground around the tumulus, with hides, heads, legs, and tails
stretched to depict running animals. These hides are what Movses Kalankatuatsi described,
and not the excavated “mummies of particularly revered ancestors”. Most of the Turkic
Kurgan burial rituals had a variation of this displays. In Gothic rendition, the name for the
funeral feast was “ strava ”, it is a rendition of the Turkic word ystrau, still today meaning
“funeral feast” in Turkic, the noun comes from the verb ystyr , “cleanse”, an euphemism for
“depart, die, fly away”, a permanent formula on the Turkic Tengrian gravestones (Example is
given in Karaim pronunciation). The archeologist L.Gmyrya undoubtedly is well familiar with
the Kurgan tradition, has excavated horse skulls from around the mounds, and noted in her
reports 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 fallen
warriors. The coffin with his body was placed in a temple, and during drought, city residents would take
the coffin 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 their revered ancestors (Movses Kalankatuatsi. I. C 200) (That supposition is a nonsense, and one can
write a dissertation on why. It can't e ascribed to the Huns or Savirs, it conflicts with the body of material
on 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 architecture
of the commemorative structures, and much of the funeral cults coincide in detail with the ritualism
described in Chinese sources about funerary rituals of the Central Asian Turks. In our view, this testifies
that the funeral rites of the migrant Turkic-speaking population practically did not absorb the ideological
influence of the local farming population. The Turkic tribes of the North-Eastern Caucasus almost
completely preserved the ancient traditions of the funeral rituals established in their vast Central Asian
homeland, and apparently by the end of the 7th c. AD the typical for the Hunno-Bulgars burial rituals
became dominant among the population of the Dagestan “country of Huns”.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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), and Huns-
Haidaks (Mountain Kayis), on top of the Huns proper, plus an Ashina Turk who also goes in
the records under a politonym Hun. Each of these tribal names has its own history, a distinct
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 the
archeological remains, but with the hindsight of accumulated knowledge, the traits can be
catalogued, attributed, and separated, like did S.A.Pletneva for the N.Pontic Turkic pastoralists
of the Middle Ages. Conceptually, we know that Savirs are very local in the S.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 noticeably different from the Savir
dialect; Masguts occupied Aral steppes, which starting from about 1000 BC were re-populated
by the Kurgan Timber Grave western pastoralists from the N.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 tribes spread from Laoshan to Takla-
Makan, their dialect was of Ogur-type, but probably very distinct from the Savir and Bulgar
dialects; and the Ashina tribe was a Saka tribe that did not retreat 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, potentially enabling 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 Moisei
Khorenatsi / 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 the
beginning of 10th c. 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 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 //Materials
on 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 Arab writers
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 //Information
Arab 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 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 Arab
writers 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.
Baku, 1981.
Leonti Mroveli. - Mroveli Leontius. Life Kartli kings. Extracting information about Abkhazia, the nations of
the 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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 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 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 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 (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 //Byzantine
historians. SPb., 1860.
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 Iron
Age. 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, 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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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, 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 the
peoples 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.
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 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.
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. Turkizms 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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Eremian, 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 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.
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 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 S.G. 1983. Hun power in the East (3. BC - 4th c. AD.) //The history of the ancient world. The
decline of ancient societies. M
Klyashtorny 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 of
Dagestan. 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 of
History 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 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.
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 (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.V. 194]. Syrian sources on the history of the USSR. Moscow, Leningrad
Pletnev, S. 1986. The Khazars. M.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

Pokrovsky, LV 1983. Agricultural rites //calendar customs in the countries of Europe overseas. Historical
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 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 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. 1
Udaltsova 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 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: “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 Literature
MAD - Materials on the Archaeology of Dagestan.
Makhachkala. - Makhachkala
Novosnb. - Novosibirsk
Ordj. - Ordjonikidze
282
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.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]
Gmyrya L. - HUN COUNTRY AT THE CASPIAN GATE - TurkicWorld

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

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Huns_Gmyrya/Huns_Gmyrya04En.htm[05/06/2014 19:46:00]