Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:25, 24 December 2017

Bulgars was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 16, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Demographics & ethnography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bulgaria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Romania This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Misplaced Pages Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Misplaced Pages Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on July 15, 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Template:Findnotice

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bulgars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork

• Closed as unlisted to allow more time to resolve issues. SilkTork 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article has an appropriate reference section. I see that the citation style changed from long to short in May of this year during a single edit. For future editing it's worth noting that changing citation style in an existing article is generally discouraged per WP:CITEVAR. The edit also changed appropriate usage of {{Reflist}} to depreciated usage. See Template:Reflist for current guidance. A number of editors are still not aware of all changes. Just noting here for future editing. I get caught out on changes to guidance as well! SilkTork 00:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Query

• There's been some very recent edit warring, which if it continues would prevent the article being listed. My general approach in such situations is to extend the review rather than close it, to see if common sense can prevail. If someone deliberately disrupts an article during a GAN in order to prevent an article being listed, they can be banned from the article. I would not expect nominators or significant contributors to get involved in edit warring. If there are concerns about an edit other than obvious vandalism, rather than revert, the edit should be discussed on the talk page. SilkTork 00:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I discussed and hope for months for the common sense to prevail, but as can be seen on the Bulgars and some related articles, and recently on Bulgar language, as well noticeboard archive, it seems that the editor does not accept and understand that Misplaced Pages is edited according to NPOV principles. It was proposed a dispute resolution, but currently have no will and time to write an adequate resolution (with all the claims by the editor in question).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:53-manasses-chronicle.jpg is tagged as needing attention. That should be dealt with before the review is completed or another image used in its place. I am uncertain as to why it has been chosen as the lead image to represent Bulgars. I cannot find details about the incident mentioned in the article. Indeed, there isn't much history in the article after the 7th century, which I will mention again when dealing with Broad coverage. SilkTork 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Before I rewrote the article the old revision had a map as the lead image. I was not fond of the image quality and that it only represents a certain date in time, and (with dubious extent) geographical location in their broader migration. I searched for an image wich could properly give, somehow strong, impression of the Bulgars. First used the image of the alleged Kubrat's sword (revision, web), but it was deleted due to copyright. There's not so good selection of images (categories at Wikimedia Commons Bulgars, Medieval architecture in Bulgaria, Monarchs of Bulgaria). I thought about to use an image of their 'capitals' Pliska and Veliki Preslav, or Bolghar, but they are generally not in the original shape, yet reconstructed in the recent two centuries. Thus decided for a medieval drawing, of which, found this most representative of the Bulgars army (seen in their outfit, wearing a Eastern type of helmet, similar to Sarmatian Spangenhelm). The image is part of the Constantine Manasses Chronicle, and needs better licence tag. Will see what can be done. Why the battle is not mentioned in the article will be commented below in "Broad coverage".--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, is it alright?--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The copyright tag is now sorted. SilkTork 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Bulgar subsequent migrations in Europe..jpg has information in Bulgarian. Is there a similar map with information in English? Also, the source for the information is unclear, as all that is given is "TANGRA TanNakRa Publishing". SilkTork 20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is in both Bulgarian and English, but barely legible. There's none. Indeed, it seems they are tangra-bg.org book publisher. It now raises the question of whether it is his own work. The user Jingiby account on Misplaced Pages is blocked since 2014, but hopefully on Wikimedia Commons Jingiby is still active. There will ask him about the image.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There's still no answer from him, but I think that the image copyright is quite suspicious. I can remove it, and when we finish the text, will work on how to make a similar one.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Bulgar warrior.jpg appears to have been taken from a website with unclear copyright status. The file page says the author has been dead for over 70 years, yet the file data says the photograph was taken in 2012. SilkTork 20:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This image was also uploaded by Jingiby, and it looks like no one until now noted this issue, although is fairly used. It is atributed to Ivan Dobrev, Bulgarian academician and linguist. Think it cannot be found anymore on the website of the Bulgarian Military Academy. However, it can be easly replaced by the File:A jug with golden medallions.jpg.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fail

• Broad coverage. There are images in the article which refer to events which are not mentioned in the text. The history mainly stops in the 7th century, though the images reveal that significant events in the Bulgars history occurred after that date. Unless there is a significant reason why the history after the 7th century is not mentioned, this article appears to be incomplete. SilkTork 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but I conceived is so to be historically concise ie. it exclusively mentions the history of the semi-nomadic Bulgars until the time of the 'five brothers' in 7th century ie. migrations with which they finally settled down. What happened with the Bulgars ruled by Batbayan there's no information, probably attended and disappeared somewhere in the historical events of the region. What happened with those led by Kotrag to the river Volga can be further read on the respective articles (Volga Bulgaria). The fate of the Bulgars led by Kuber (Macedonia) and Alcek (Italy) is similar to those ruled by Batbayan. The Bulgars led by Asparukh are the most known as were the founders of the Bulgarian nation. However, at want point of time should be distinguished the history of Bulgars from the history of Bulgarians. I think is - the disappearance of the culture and language, and original ruling elite influence. In the book by F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008, pg. 151 is written "since 1930... the tendency has been to distinguish between Bulgars (before the conversion to Christianity) and Bulgarians (after the conversion)".

When the Bulgars came to the territory of today's Bulgaria they encountered the native population of Slavs and Greeks (roughly to say). Since then we can follow the genesis and development of the Bulgarian nation. The Bulgars from today's ie. medieval Bulgarians differed in language, religious beliefs, traditional customs, social structure, but again who - at least the warrior elite or ruling class. How much they numbered, that's a hard question. According Jean W Sedlar (2011, pg. 424) "The Bulgar ruling class eventually abandoned its Turkic language and adopted Slavic so completely that no trace of Turkic speech patterns can be found in any Old Slavic texts... The 9th and 10th centuries marked an interval of bilingualism, after which the descendants of the original Bulgar conquerors gradually forgot their original Turkic vernacular and became entirely Slavic in speech. By the 12th century the proto-Bulgar language had utterly died out...". Since the Christianisation in 865 is followed gradual disappearance of their original beliefs and customs.

Although the source by Golden (1992) I mostly used for history did further venture into Bulgarians and Volga Bulgaria, I didn't see any point to simply copy the historical facts from other related articles, ie. why not to be included in related articles? The article is already big, and to further expand it in history section with historical facts already mentioned in related articles (like First Bulgarian Empire), with debatable time period until when to follow the term Bulgars... Actually, through the sections "Social structure", "Religion", "Language", "Ethnicity", even "Etymology" - are mentioned few dates, and can be comprehend who they really were, what characterized them, and when no longer. I think this is the most important part of the article.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Britannica covers a longer period. Encyclopedia of European Peoples covers a longer period. This children's encyclopedia covers a longer period. The sources used in the article cover a longer period. I see that the Bulgars divided at the time of the five brothers, but sources continue the history after the split. The distribution of the Bulgars appears to be part of the story, as it is with articles on other such peoples who dispersed, such as Celts and Jews. As this article is about the Bulgars it should cover their entire history. If you wish to write only about the early period of the Bulgars, that could be a separate article, perhaps called Early Bulgars. SilkTork 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for new article. In the "Subsequent migrations" is noted that they merged with the other regional population, in "Society" that accepted their lifestyle, in "Religion" differences in type of burial cemeteries, and in "Language" that gradually slavicized. The ruling elite managed to preserve their identity for about 200 years, and that's around the time of Christianization (865 AD). This time period, of at least 200 years, must be mentioned, and since the scholars usually follow the history of Bulgarians from 865 AD, will name the succeeding section as "Bulgarian Empires", where will be mentioned the history of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire. The short history, few statements, about Volga Bulgars will add to the "Subsequent migrations" respective paragraph.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

After changes, what is your current opinion on the article, what else would like to be done, beside copyedit?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mos - Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork 20:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be fairly easly done, and needs better one. I see that some interesting things, eg. religion and language aren't mentioned.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, but when see the intro of article on Huns believe only partially. Is it too concise or needs better prose?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• The prose is difficult to follow in places with uncertain paragraphing - there are too many short paragraphs which inhibits reading flow, and makes it more difficult to absorb meaning because of the lack of organised structuring. The Turkic migration section is particularly difficult to absorb. Clear, readable prose which allows the general reader to understand the topic without undue effort would be what to aim for. This looks like a collection of facts - notes toward an article. The next step would be to write up those facts in an organised and readable manner. SilkTork 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In which parts found the reading difficult, except "Turkic migration"? The respective section was written so because each paragraph is about different date, event or source, more or less related. I thought the more concise, if can with original quote, the better as more interpretation of such distant events will lead to more confusion. Thing is, if recall right and see in notes, there isn't really any other historical fact, besides (F. Curta, Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar raiders, and Roman Special Ops, 2015) for some raids in 499, 502, 507, 530, 535 AD, and scholar consideration, besides (Uwe Fiedler, Bulgars in the lower Danube region, in F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The language is difficult in most places, and is full of errors, such that it would normally be considered a quick fail. Example: "Golden considered the origin of the Kutrigurs and Utigurs obscure and their relationship to the Onoğurs and Bulgars who lived in the same region, or in its vicinity, as unclear. He noted the assumption of the two tribes being related to the Šarağurs (Oğhur. šara, "White Oğhurs"), and that according Procopius there were two Hunnic tribal unions of Cimmerians descent and common origin. The reason later Byzantine sources frequent linked the names Onoğurs and Bulgars is also unclear." Two of the errors in that I can parse ("according Procopius" should be "according to Procopius"; "sources frequent linked" should be "sources frequently linked" others I can't work out, so the meaning is lost, such as "Cimmerians descent and common origin". The article would benefit from a copyedit by someone with a good command of English, and who knows the topic well - but it would only be worth doing that, when the article's structure and the topic range is better established. SilkTork 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not native English speaker and this minor faults tend not to notice. Agree, when will finish the new section and lead will make you notice to decide. Should the previous copyedit reviewer Folklore1 be called? We could say that at least he got familiar with the article.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a strong and very experienced copyeditor. One I respect highly is User:Eric Corbett. If you could convince him to get involved I would have more confidence that this article could be brought to GA level. If he does take on the task, I would ask that you allow him to work unhindered - he works fast, making many changes, and this can unnerve some people. SilkTork 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Initially Eric Corbett accepted and done several edits, but decided to withdraw.--Crovata (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't know who else to suggest. The article needs more than a simple copy edit, it needs a complete rewrite to make the issues clearer - Eric Corbett could have done that. I can see that you fully understand the topic, and are an appropriate person to bring knowledge to the article; what is needed, however, is someone skilled in communication and with a good command of the English language, who also has an affinity or interest in the topic and is prepared to work with you. Unless you have a solution in mind, I will close this review in the next 24 hours. When the language and clarity issues have been resolved you can nominate again. SilkTork 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for which can guarantee instant work and short period of time. It's alright, I agree with the decision. We went through several issues, will see if there's something more to bring, and will make a new migration image. Thank you for your time and am glad to have worked with you. When they are resolved would like to notice you to see if are satisfactory.--Crovata (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look when you feel the article is ready to be nominated. SilkTork 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On hold

• I'm putting this review on hold. There are a number of issues with this article. There is information here, and some presentation of that information, but the article does not yet meet GA criteria. I haven't finished the review, though I have put enough indicators above to show why I feel this article is not ready, and what work needs to be done. I think this is a very big topic, and deserves to be taken seriously, with time taken to do appropriate deep research, and then organise and present the material. Given the current state of the article I don't see that sufficient improvement for such a big and complex topic can be completed in a reasonable time frame. However, I would rather support positive efforts to improve the article and build toward a GA listing, than simply close this GAN as a fail. I will keep the review open for a while to see what the nominator and significant contributors have to say. SilkTork 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Closed as unlisted to allow time to resolve issue. SilkTork 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Good article"

This could never reach status of a "good article" by being built on blank spaces instead of consistent theories. There are enough sound ideas in the Bulgarian scientific community from late 20th century, with dedicated scholars spending their entire lives putting the pieces together on a basis of direct sources. But no, the Bulgarian historians are way too biased to research their own ancestry! What an argument!--Utar Sigmal (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, change the line " Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes " with " semi-nomadic warrior tribes " . Bulgars were not turkic people, there is many genetic studies and proves about it, here is one of them: (https://en.wikipedia.org/Genetic_studies_on_Bulgarians) The language they have spoken may have belonged to the turkic language family ( again unproved theory), but the background of the tribes is historically and genetically far away from so called turks. Vasil dobrev (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Vasil dobrev (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vasil dobrev:  Not done. I just went through the dozens of times the word "Turkic" appears in this article and the claim that Bulgars were, in fact, Turkic is supported by tons of reliable sources. Misplaced Pages can't be used as a source for itself. Do you have a reliable, third-party source stating that Bulgars were not Turkic? CityOfSilver 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite interesting, how for a such of short period of time, you have managed to check "tons" of "reliable" sources? And what gives you guarantee, that they are reliable, and not serving geopoitical interests? Yes, I can also say, I went through tons of third-party sources, and appears, that the claim that Bulgars are Turkic is groundless. Here is a third-party source, studies, made by scientists: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/bulgarians.html

http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=006d5e3a-ea14-49ff-9b39-f0a042d39185&cKey=bfc88c56-5e93-4ee2-89e6-c3ab1bd25f5c&mKey=%7BDFC2C4B1-FBCD-433D-86DD-B15521A77070%7D

Here is also some quotes from one of the studies:

"In addition, an important consideration arises from the finding that haplogroups C-M217, N-M231 and Q-M242, which are common in Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations , , occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5% in modern Bulgarians. This observation is in agreement with the results of recent linguistic studies which demonstrated that the proto-Bulgarian language does not belong to the Turkic family but it relates to the Indo-European languages of the East Iranian group, whose traces still persist in the modern Bulgarian language, despite its Slavic basis. Thus, taking into account the novel and detailed historical studies indicating that proto-Bulgarians were quite numerous (32% or perhaps even 60% of the population in early Danubian Bulgaria) –, , , it follows that a shared paternal ancestry between proto-Bulgarians and Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking groups either did not exist or was negligible."

"As for the interpopulation analysis, similarly to mtDNA, Bulgarians belong to the cluster of European populations, still being slightly distant from them. 'Bulgarians are distant from Turks' (despite geographical proximity), Arabic and Caucasus populations and Indians."

There is many moore recent studies abuot this. And is not pulled out from Misplaced Pages.

Vasil dobrev (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vasil dobrev: One of the sources is the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you've come here to claim that such a publication is "serving geopolitical interests" and is thus not reliable, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to remove every single one of the many sourced claims that say the Bulgars were or might have been Turkic, especially since the article clearly mentions the recent spate of academic skepticism. Your request is confrontational, and it contains an unacceptable tone of angry nationalism. Avoid this approach if you need me to help any further. CityOfSilver 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The newly regisetred editor above called Vasil dobrev is a Misplaced Pages:SPA, suspected sock of the blocked User:PavelStaykov. Jingiby (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

True Origin of Bulgarians

The origin of the Bulgars and their homeland are still subjects of research generating many hypothesis and violent disputes. Bulgars, also called Bulgarians, were one of the three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs). They were mentioned for the first time in 354 AD by Chronography of 354 as people living north of the Caucasus mountain and west of the Volga River. About 370 AD Bulgars invaded Europe with the Huns, and retreating with the Huns about 460 AD they resettled in the area north and east of the Sea of Azov.

The Huns

About A.D. 370 a nomadic people called Huns invaded Eastern Europe. Coming from the East they quickly built an enormous empire in central Europe which reached its apex under the leadership of Attila (444-453 A.D.). Attila's sudden death followed by internal power struggle among his sons who were defeated at the battle of Nedao (still unidentified Pannonian river) at 455 A.D. put an end to the Hunnic empire. Some time later, as we learn from Jordanes, groups of Huns returned to their "inner" territory on the river Dnieper (Ukraine) where they reorganized on a smaller scale. The Huns continued to be mentioned frequently in the 6th century under different tribal names as Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs, Bulgars, Sabirs and others.

The Huns and their tempestuous onrush over Europe is a story that has often been told. But whence they come and where they went are lost in mystery. Some say they were the Xiongnu, the race that was the terror of China, a hypothesis first proposed by the French sinologist J. Deguignes in 1748; but the Goths, who knew them best, thought otherwise. They told of the wicked sorceresses that king Filimer the Goth banished from his Scythian kingdom, who mingled on their wanderings with the evil spirits of the desert; and from that wild union were born the Huns. We will try to peer into the mysteries that hang over the Steppes to see if we can discover who were these Huns and Bulgars whose final incoming changed so lastingly and profoundly the history of Europe. At the end of this article we will see that both the Gothic legend and the ingenious hypotheses of Deguignes are actually true. The Huns and their awful ancestry have always been the boast of every bellicose nation; Attila is proudly called cousin, if not grandfather by them all; of all these claims, it seems that the Bulgars' is best justified; the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valley of the Balkans, diluted by time and pastoral Slavs.

Bulgars

Bulgar Vund or Utigur (vh'ndur, Vanand) is the name used by historians and geographers like Moses Horenadci, Procopius Caesariensis and later by Agathias of Mirena, Menander Protector, and Theophylact Simocatta in the 6th century to refer the eastern branch of the Hunno-Bulgars who were the successors of the Hunnic empire along the coasts of the Black Sea in Patria Onoguria. The late antique historians use the names of Huns, Bulgars, Kutrigurs and Utigurs as interchangeable terms, thus prompting some modern historians to coin the term Hunno-Bulgars. According to Procopius, Agathias and Menander Utigurs and their relatives Kutrigurs were Huns, they were dressed in the same way and had the same language. Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the Bulgars. Many historians consider Utigurs and Kutrigurs as successors of the Hunnic empire in the east, on the territory of modern-day Ukraine, where the Huns retreated after the death of Attila. Menander Protector mentioned an Utigur leader in the latter 6th century called Sandilch. Later these Bulgars of the Eurasian steppes had come under the control of the Western Turkic Kaghanate and were also known as Unogundur. In the early 7th century, Khan Kubrat of the Dulo clan was "ruler of the Unogundurs" and the founder of Old Great Bulgaria.

The Bulgar ancestors of the Utigurs represented the Pontic-Kuban part of the Hun Empire, and were ruled by descendants of Attila through his son Ernakh, named Irnik in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans.

The Huns - a second look

Roman historians Themistius (317-390), Claudian (370-404), and later Procopius (500-560) called the Huns Massagetae. The Huns were called Massagetae also by Ambrose (340-397), Ausonius (310-394), Synesius (373–414), Zacharias Rhetor (465-535), Belisarius (500-565), Evagrius Scholasticus (6th century) and others. However some historians mentioned Huns and Massagetae as distinct and different people who were cooperating during their raids, for example St Jerome tells us about the Great Hun raid of 395-6 into Armenia and Syria that " swarms of Huns and monstrous Massagetae filled the whole earth with slaughter". Maenchen-Helfen also noted in his monography that despite the fact that Romans called the Huns Massagetae, the Huns and not the Massagetae, attacked the Alans, who threw themselves upon the Goths. According to Edwin G. Pulleyblank European Huns comprised two groups of tribes with different ethnic affinities and the ruling group that bore the name Hun was directly connected with the Xiongnu. But why Massagetae? There were no Massagetae in the 4th century AD. Let's see if we can find out who were they.

Alexander Cunningham, B.S. Dahiya(1980, 23) and Edgar Knobloch(2001, 15) identify Massagetae with the Great Yuezhi: Da Yuezhi -> Ta-Yue-ti(Great Lunar Race) -> Ta-Gweti -> Massa-Getae. Dahiya wrote about the Massagetae and Thyssagetae : "These Guti people had two divisions, the Ta-Yue-Che and Siao-Yue-Che, exactly corresponding to the Massagetae and Thyssagetae of Herodotus ... " (Dahiya 1980, 23). Thyssagetae, who are known as the Lesser Getae, correspond with the Xiao Yuezhi, meaning Lesser Yuezhi. James P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair also supported this identification and wrote in their book :

" Da (Greater) Yuezhi or in the earlier pronunciation d'ad-ngiwat-tieg, has been seen to equate with the Massagetae who occupied the oases and steppelands of West Central Asia in the time of Herodotus; here Massa renders an Iranian word for "Great," hence "Great Getae."... "

Utigurs - etymology and origin

Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev and some modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi. According to Edwin G. Pulleyblank and Yury Zuev the Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti.

Cranial vault modification is a deliberate and permanent altering of head shape during infancy. It is unique, however, among body modifications in that it is an irreversible act performed by adults on children. The head shape cannot be altered in adulthood since adult cranial bones have fused together and are no longer malleable. The practice therefore reflects an investment of time and effort by parents and is a sign of an ascribed identity. Artificial cranial deformation is a valuable cultural artifact for tracing the Huns and Bulgars back in time. According to Otto Maenchen-Helfen the artificially deformed skulls in proto-Bulgarian graves cannot be seperated from those in the graves of the Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians of the post-Attilanic graves in the South Russian steppes. The Huns and proto-Bulgarians practiced artificial cranial deformation and its circular type can be used to trace the route that the Huns took from north China to the Central Asian steppes and subsequently to the southern Russian steppes. Circular modification appeared for the first time in Central Asia in the last centuries BC as an ethnic attribute of the early Huns. The distribution of the skulls parallels the movement of the Huns. The people who practiced annular artificial cranial deformation in Central Asia were Yuezhi/Kushans. The migration of the Yuezhi started from North China during 2BC, it is well documented and their movement parallels the distribution of the artificially deformed skulls. According to Maenchen-Helfen some of their groups migrated far to the west and were present in the steppes north of the Caucasus and on the shores of the Black Sea as early as 1st century BC.

The spread of the custom of cranial deformation from Central Asia to Europe occurred in 6 phases and the distribution of the skulls parallel the movement of the Huns. Modern taxonomic analysis of the artificially deformed crania from 5th–6th Century AD (Hun-Germanic Period) found in Northeastern Hungary showed that none of them have any Mongoloid features and all the skulls belong to the Europid "great race" but further identification was impossible.

The Huns, Bulgars and part of the Yuezhi share some common burial practices as the narrow burial pits, pits with a niche and the northern orientation of the burials.

And last but not least: the recurve bow, the weapon that gave the Huns military advantage over the Romans, was brought to Bactria by Yuezhi around 130 BC

Genetic research of Bulgars

Although many scholars had posited that the Bulgars were Turkic tribes of Central Asia, modern genetic research points to an affiliation with European and western Eurasian populations. The phylogenetic analysis of ancient DNA samples shows that mtDNA haplogroups can be classified as European and Western Eurasian and suggest a Western Eurasian matrilineal origin for proto-Bulgarians as well as a genetic similarity between proto- and modern Bulgarians. The Y-Chromosome genetic tests suggest that a common paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible.

Genetic research: Tarim Basin - Bulgaria

The origins of Tocharians and Tocharian related Yuezhi is controversial topic. Nevertheless, certain facts emerge. Usually they are assumed to have spoken Tocharian language, but Tocharian is first attested in the 8th c. AD, or about 3 thousand years after the earliest appearance of Caucasoids in the region of Tarim Basin and Xinjiang, North China. Positing linguistic continuity is not an appropriate default position when direct evidence is absent. There is evidence that Caucasoid population in Tarim Basin were already mixed with Mongoloids as early as the early Bronze Age (at least in their mtDNA). This reduces our confidence that they spoke an Indo-European language. An attempt to discover the origin of the Tocharians was made by a careful sorting of Y-chromosome lineages in the present-day Uyghur population of Xinjiang that is assumed to have absorbed the pre-Turkic inhabitants of the region. By removing Eurasian lineages that are likely to be associated with the Xiongnu, Mongols, Uyghur, and non-Tocharian sources (such as Iranians, or various Silk Road outliers), the phylogeographic analysis leaves three candidate haplogroups : J2-M172, R1a1a-M17, R1b-M343 (and its main R-M269 clade). About 80% of the total genetic variation in modern Bulgarians falls within haplogroups J-M172, R-M17 and R-M269, E-M35, I-M170. Because the haplogroups E-M35 and I-M170 are indigenous for the Balkan Peninsula prior to the arrival of the Bulgars, this leads to the conclusion that there is an isomorphic correspondence between the haplogroups that can be associated with Tocharian related Yuezhi and the haplogroups that can be associated with the proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars). The conclusion correlates with the historical data that modern Bulgarians have three ethnic ancestors - Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians.

The Yuezhi

Yuezhi were recorded by the Chinese during the period of Warring States (495-221 B. C.) as nomadic people living in the the lands of the Western Region, specifically around Dunhuang and Guazhou. The Yuezhi had occupied Dunhuang district and became very strong nation in the Northwest China. Han Shu further records: " The Great Yuezhi was a nomadic horde. They moved about following their cattle, and had the same customs as those of the Xiongnu. As their soldiers numbered more than hundred thousand, they were strong and despised the Xiongnu. In the past, they lived in the region between Dunhuang and Qilian (south of Hexi Corridor)" The Yuezhi was so powerful that the Xiongnu monarch Touman even sent his eldest son Modu as a hostage to the Yuezhi. The Yuezhi often attacked their neighbour the Wusun to acquire slaves and pasture lands. Wusun originally lived together with the Yuezhi in the region between Dunhuang and Qilian Mountain. The Yuezhi attacked the Wusuns, killed their monarch Nandoumi and took his territory. The son of Nandoumi, Kunmo fled to the Xiongnu and was brought up by the Xiongnu monarch. Gradually the Xiongnu grew stronger and war broke out between them and the Yuezhi. There were at least four wars between the Yuezhi and Xiongnu according to the Chinese accounts. The first war broke out during the reign of the Xiongnu monarch Touman (who died in 209 B.C) who suddenly attacked the Yuezhi. The Yuezhi wanted to kill Modu, the son of Touman kept as a hostage to them, but Modu stole a good horse from them and managed to escape to his country. It appears that the Xiongnu did not defeat the Yuezhi in this first war. The second war took place in the 7th year of Modu era (203 B.C.). From this war, a large area of the territory originally belonging to the Yuezhi was seized by the Xiongnu and the hegemony of the Yuezhi started to shake. The third war probably was at 176 BC (or shortly before that) and the Yuezhi were badly defeated. The forth war was during the the period of Xiongnu monarch Laoshang (174 BC-166 BC) and was a disaster for the Yuezhi, their king was killed and a drinking cup was made out of his skull. Probably around 165 BC the majority of the Yuezhi migrated from the Tarim basin westward to Fergana. They finally settled in Transoxiana and Bactria.

It is hard to say if the Yuezhi (Yue-Chi) should be included in any of the recognized divisions of Turanian tribes such as Turks or Huns. Nothing whatever is known of their original language. Judging by the physical type represented on the Kushan's coins the Yue-Chi type is Turkish rather than Mongol or Ugro-Finnic. Some authorities think that the name Turushka or Turukha sometimes applied to them by Indian writers is another evidence of the connexion with the Turks. But the national existence and name of the Turks seem to date from the 5th century A.D., so that it is an anachronism to speak of the Yue-Chi as a division of them. The Yue-Chi and Turks, however, may both represent parallel developments of similar or even originally identical tribes. Some authors consider that the Yue-Chi are the same as the Getae and that the original form of the name was Ytit or Get, which is also supposed to appear in the Indian Jat.

According to Hyun Jin Kim the nomadic Yuezhi possessed political institutions that closely resemble the Xiongnu and later Hunnic models. The Chinese refer to the five xihou or Lords of the Yuezhi who rule the five tribes of their imperial confederation. According to Pulleyblank the Yuezhi were Indo-Europeans and they spoke a Tocharian type language. The title xihou corresponds in the pronunciation to what would later become the Turkic title yubgu. This originally Yuezhi royal title appears on the coins of their rulers as IAPGU/yavuga and it came to the Xiongnu from the Yuezhi. Among the Turks, the title yabgu gained a new lease of life. In the Turkish inscriptions of Mongolia, it refers to a noble ranking immediately after the qagan. Khagan/gayan was a "common Uechji" symbol for a terrestrial embodiment for the Moon and Milky Way.

Language of Bulgars

Omeljan Pritsak in his notable study "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan" (1982) analyzed the 33 survived Hunnic personal names and concluded that the language of the Bulgars was Hunnic language:

1. Danube-Bulgarian was a Hunnic language page (444)
2. Danube-Bulgarian had the suffix /mA/, with the same meaning as the Middle Turkic suffix /mAt/ 'the greatest among' (page 433)
3. In the Hunno-Bulgarian languages /r/ within a consonantic cluster tends to disappear (page 435)
4. In Hunno-Bulgarian there was also a tendency toward the develop ment of di > ti > ći (page 436)
5. In the Hunno-Bulgarian there was vocalic metathesis bli- < *bil (page 443)
6. There was initially a g- in the Hunno-Bulgarian languages (page 449)
7. One of the typical features of the Hunno-Bulgarian linguistic group is a cluster in the word initial position. (page 460)
8. Hunnic (language) shared rhotacism with Mongolian, Old Bulgarian, and Chuvash. (page 470)

According to Pritsak the language was between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to Turkic.

According to Antoaneta Granberg "the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there. It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure."

Assuming that the connection Yuezhi->Hunno-Bulgars was substantiated enough we can try to find explanation in the preserved data about the language of Yuezhi/Kushans and see if we can find some correspondence. Some scholars have explained the words connecting the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans as coming from the Turkic languages, thus concluding that the language of the Kushans was from the Türkic language branch. this theory is inadequate. In the Zhoushu 周書, ch. 50, it is recorded that: “The ancestors came from the state of Suo 索.”34 It has been suggested that “Suo索” is a transcription of “Sacae.” In other words, it may be possible that the ancestors of the Türks originally were kin of the Sacae. If this is true, it would not be difficult to understand why some words and titles connected with the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans can be explaned by the Türkic languages. In the Rājataraṅgiṇī (I, 170) there is a reference to the fact that the Türkic ruler in Gandhāra claimed his ancestor was Kaniṣka, and maybe this is not merely boasting. Other scholars have judged that the language of the Kushans was the Iranian language. This theory is also inadequate, for the following reasons. First, they were a branch of the Sacae, a tribal union composed of at least four tribes, i.e., Asii, Gasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli. Of these there were some tribes who spoke the Iranian language, but also some who spoke Indo-European languages other than the Iranian language, e.g., the Tochari. Next, the tribes that spoke Tokharian were in close contact with the tribes that spoke the Iranian language, and the words connected to them that can be explained with Iranian possibly originally were Tokharian.

Yury Zuev included the Yuezhi (Uechji) among the tribes of early Turks. He wrote that " in the Northern Caucasus they spoke East - Iranian language, and in the Kangju they spoke in Turkic." His sketches about early Turkic tribes and state type confederations showed that "ideological views coincide in many respects and have a common foundation, which ascends to the last centuries BCE. Such foundation was the pantheon of the ancient confederations of Uechji (Yuezhi) and Kangars that left a trace in the ideological complexes of Ashtak Türks, Oguzes, Kypchaks, Az-kishes, Kimeks, Kangly, etc. Certain features of it still are in the folklore of the modern Türkic peoples. The tradition of the ideological continuity is permeating the history of these peoples from extreme antiquity until the new time." Probably one of the most striking customs was the custom of the population to completely shave their heads. "The seven-tribe Uechji -"Tochars” were “White-headed” i.e. with completely shaven heads. "Bold-headness" was equivalent to Moon-headness." Remember that the word Yuezhi is a Chinese exonym, formed from the characters yuè (月) "moon" and shì (氏) "clan" - hence they shaved their heads to resemble the Moon. We are not surprised to discover the same custom among the rulers of Bulgarian Dulo clan : "These five princes ruled the kingdom over the other side of the Danube for 515 years with shaven heads and after that came to this side of the Danube Asparuh knyaz and until now (rules)."

The Little Yuezhi

The Little Yuezhi remained in North China and were included into Xiongnu confederation under the name Chieh people (AY: Jie people). Chinese chronicles documented them as one of the 19 tribes of Xiongnu. Obviously their number wasn't small at all, as it is usually assumed, because we are told that between 184 AD and 221 AD there was a serious revolt of the Little Yuezhi in Gansu and the Chinese couldn't suppress it for almost 40 years. At the beginning of 4th century under the pressure of Rouran Khaganate the Little Yuezhi started migration toward Kazakhstan and Bactria under the name War-Huns. In 349 AD there was a massacre of Chieh people in North China, Maenchen-Helfen points out that 200 000 of them were slain. Probably we can consider that as the final date of their migration from North China/Tarim basin toward Kazakhstan and Bactria. The Jie/Chieh who remained in north China became known as Buluoji Bulgars.

Kutrigurs Huns

Kutrigurs from the Byzantine sources were identified with Chdar/Kidar Bulgars from Armenian sources whom in turn David Marshall Lang identified with Kidarites. Kidarites appeared in Kazakhstan and Bactria in 4th century and were branch of the Little Yuezhi, they were also called Red Huns and were displayed on Sogdian coins as archers riding on the reverse. The same type military tactic is attested among Bulgars tribes. Some of Little Yuezhi inherited the Kushan Empire and were called little Kushans. Given the historical background of the Little Yuezhi (one of the Xiongnu tribes) it follows that Kutrigurs belonged to the Hunnic group with which Bulgars entered Europe. The Chinese name of Kidarites is Ji-Doulo.

The House of Dulo

The house of Dulo (also known as Dulo clan) was the ruling dynasty of early Bulgars. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin of Dulo clan and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure: ""According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun." Many scholars agree that the dynasty has Hunnic origin, the first two names in the Nominalia of Bulgarian khans are actually Attila and his third son Ernak. According to Steven Runciman, given all the historical circumstances and striking resemblance to the names Irnik and Ernak would be unnecessary hypercritical not trace the Bulgarian royal dynasty to Attila. According to one hypothesis name Dulo is distorted form of the name of Attila. Omeljan Pritsak connects Dulo name with the name of the ruling dynasty Xiongnu Tu-ko (EMC d'uo'klo) by suggesting that the name Vihtun from the List of Bulgarian khans e Xiongnu emperor himself Modun.

The Huns - third look

Maenchen-Helfen in his famous monograph "The world of the Huns" wrote that we know virtually nothing about the Indo-European languages spoken on the west-north borders of China. All we know of the language of the Huns are names. The tribal names appear to be of Turkish origin. The personal names fall into 3 general categories: 1) Turkish 2) Iranian 3) of unknown origin ( we don't count here apparently Germanic names whose origin is obvious) Examples of such names (concerning the Bulgar branch of the Huns) are :

Zabergan - Kutrigur Hun - Ζαβεργάν; Persian

Sandilch - Utigur Hun - Σάνδιλ; Turkic

Asparuch- Utigur ruler, founder of Danube Bulgaria - probably Iranian ( Maenchen-Helfen, page 384)

Careful consideration of the above information shows that there is correspondence between the possible language of the Yuezhi and the possible language of the European Huns. Unfortunately we have to compare one unknown language to another unknown language - a quite formidable task. Anyway certain facts emerge - both languages exhibit features from Turkic and Iranian languages. We shouldn't forget that according to Pritsak many names appear to be Mongolian. The idea that Bulgar/Yuezhi tribes were dragged into Europe by a small Xiongnu fragment migrating to West has a long history behind. Pulleyblank, despite the fact that he concluded for various reasons it was very unlikely that the Xiongnu language was Turkic or Mongolian or any form of Altaic, assumed it as a plausible idea. According to Pulleyblank, who identifies the Utigur Huns with the Yuezhi, European Huns comprised two groups of tribes with different ethnic affinities and the ruling group that bore the name Hun was directly connected with the Northern Xiongnu. Historical data deny this ( and similar to it) idea. It is much more natural to assume that Yuezhi had a lot of Mongolian borrowings into their language from the very beginning ( the Tarim basin population had Mongoloid admixture from the early Bronze age). Recent studies show that the populations of the Tarim Basin used many different languages and writing systems, 17 languages in 24 different scripts are documented and among them are Old Turkic, Mongolian and Persian. According to some researchers in modern Bulgarian language there are many words of Tocharian origin.

The Gothic Legend

At the end of the 4th century the name "Huns and Tochars" (Faunos-Ficarios) surfaces for the last time in the Gothic legend, rooted in annalistic traditions, about an origin of the western Huns: " Filimer, Gothic king and son of Gandaric the Great... learned that among his people are witches, whom he called "Haliarunna" - "diabolic sorcery" in the Gothic language. They were expelled on his orders, and sentenced to range in the steppes, far from the Gothic camp. The forest people Fauns - Fikars ("Huns and Tochars"), upon seeing the witches wandering in the desert, mated with them, and produced these barbarous people - Huns". And in silvestres homines, the "wood people" of the "General history" we see Greek ακατζιροι, Latin Akatziri, Huns - Turkic Agach-eri and Yiysh-teem ("wood people") of the Iranian and Turkic authors. If that so, then according to this version, the Turkic-speaking Huns - Agacheri must be viewed as a western branch of "Huns and Tochars" of the Jetisu.

Conclusions

Absence of information about historical migration of Xiongnu-Huns to the west before the end of the 4th century AD, and existence of the "Hun" population on the eastern fringes of Europe in the 3rd century and earlier, lead to the conclusion that in the composition of the western Huns participated also other tribes, and first of all Yuezhi-Massagetae. Utigur Bulgars were a tribe of the Great Yuezhi/Massagetae while the Hunnic group with which Bulgar tribes entered Europe were group of tribes of the Little Yuezhi. Kutrigurs belonged to the Hunnic group.

Brief history of Bulgars

According to Procopius, there was a nation of Huns living to the east of the Sea of Azov and north of the Caucasus, the king of these Huns had two sons, Kutigur and Utigur. The king referred by Procopius is most probably Ernak, the third son of Attila. After the death of the king, the two sons divided the people into two tribes. Analyzing the chronicles of the antique historians Vasil Zlatarski concludes that the name Bulgar was used for both tribes, but in 6th century the tribal names were preferred by the Eastern Roman Empire due to the different policy it had toward these two tribes. In the middle of 6th century the Emperor Justinian, being attacked by the Kutrigurs under their leader Chinialus, bribed their relatives the Utigurs led by Sandilch to attacked the Kutrigurs in the rear. The resulting internecine war between the two tribes weakened them and made them vulnerable to the Avar attack shortly after that.

By 568CE some Kutrigurs groups came under the control of the Varchonites who were migrating to Pannonia and was also known as Avars. The eastern Bulgar groups along the northern coasts of the Black sea, the Utigurs, were conquered by the Western Turkic Kaghanate (who were violently opposed to the Pannonian Avars). Due to civil war the Western Turks retreated back into Asia no later than 583 CE according to Zlatarski.

Kubrat's Utigurs defeated the Avars in alliance with Byzantium and reunited the Utigurs and Kutrigurs into a single Crimean Bulgar confederation in Patria Onoguria renamed as "Old Great Bulgaria"

After Kubrat's death in 665AD, his empire was divided when his appointed heir Batbayan submitted to the Khazars of Kubrat's second son Kotrag who settled Batbayan's army at the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers where they founded a Khanate known as Volga Bulgaria.

Other sons of Kubrat carried the Utigur name to the Danube and Pannonia Secunda by April 677. Some submitted to a restored Avar Kaghan, while others rebelled moving south to the Pelagonian plain under the leadership of Tervel's Uncle, Kuber in alliance with Khan Asparukh's Utigurs who successfully occupied the southern banks of the Danube following the Battle of Ongal. Kuber's Utigurs displaced some of the populations that had already settled in the region of Macedonia, and intermingled with the populations that remained. Following the Battle of Ongal, Asparukh settled a portion of the Utigur Bulgars in Moesia, to establish the state which would become modern Bulgaria. In the 8th century, the Kuber Bulgars merged with Asparuh's Bulgars who had by the late 7th century already taken both sides of the Danube River.

1. Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, Boris Zhivkov, page 37: "It is generally accepted that the Bulgars came to Europe either slightly earlier or during the Hunnic invasion" https://books.google.bg/books?id=7Du2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=yuezhi+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMI1qLS7L71xwIVBLgaCh0FjwTZ#v=onepage&q=yuezhi%20deformation&f=false
2. http://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
3. http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/history_of_bulgaria.htm#THE%20BULGARIANS
4. http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianHuns.htm
5. The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan, OMELJAN PRITSAK, Harvard Ukrainian Studies (1982)page 429, http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf
6. Runciman, A history of the First Bulgarian Empire Book I: THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS, page 4-5, http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/sr_1_1.htm
7. "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", 2013, Hyun Jin Kim, page 57: "After a period of chaos following Attila's death, dualism again reasserted itself in the succession of Dengitzik and Ernak (west and east respectively). The successor to the Hunnic Empire in the east, or rather probably the coninuation, also featured two wings, the Kutrigurs(west) and the Utigurs(east), ruled presumably by Ernak's descendants.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false
8. Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, Romilly James, page 45 : " The Bulgarians seem to have been in origin Huns, who may well have formed part, and survived as a rump, of the hordes of Attila in the fifth century. ... the so called Onogur Bulgarians are found in large numbers somewhere between the Kuban and the Volga rivers..." https://books.google.hr/books?id=O5JqH_NXQBsC&pg=PA45&dq=onogur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBDgoahUKEwistou42ZPJAhWGWiwKHUbUDxI#v=onepage&q=onogur&f=false
9. "The Empire of the Steppes", René Grousset, page 79: " Other Hun clans survived north of the Black Sea in two hordes : the Kutrigur Huns, who led a nomadic life northwest of the of Azov and the Utigur or Utrigur Huns, whose haunts were by the mouth of the Don."
10. The Cambridge Medieval History, volumes 1-5, " ... Kotrigur and Utigur Huns...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=9lHeh36S8ooC&pg=PT582&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgeahUKEwid_pDUkpbJAhUBCBoKHQ0XB1M#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false
11. Justinian and the Later Roman Empire, John W. Barker, (1966, University of Wisconsin press) page 199: " ...Utigur Huns...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=LiJljEXvwAoC&pg=PA199&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBzgeahUKEwid_pDUkpbJAhUBCBoKHQ0XB1M#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false
12. "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", Hyun Jin Kim, page 256: " Thus in our sources the names Kutrigur, Bulgar and Hun are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false
13. Cafer Saatchi , Early Mediaeval identity of the Bulgarians, page 3 : " The early Byzantine texts use the names of Huns, Bulgarians, Kutrigurs and Utrigurs as interchangeable terms. There the Bulgarians are represented as identical, they are a part of Huns or at least have something common with them. The khans Avtiochol and Irnik, listed in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans today are identified with Attila and Ernach.", http://www.academia.edu/10894065/Early_Mediaeval_identity_of_the_Bulgarians
14. Classification of the Hunno-Bulgarian Loan-Words in Slavic, Antoaneta Granberg, Introduction : " (2) the data are insufficient to clearly distinguish Huns, Avars and Bulgars one from another;" https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic
15. "SOME REMARKS ON THE CHINESE "BULGAR"", 2004, SANPING CHEN: " In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns. At the very least, the Hun-Bulgar connection was much more tangible than the Hun-Xiongnu identification. " http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/Sanping_Chen_SOME_REMARKS_ON_THE_CHINESE_BULGARIAN.pdf
16. "History of the Later Roman Empire", J.B. Bury: " The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia. They were a formidable people and Justinian had long ago taken precautions to keep them in check, in case they should threaten to attack the Empire, though it was probably for the Roman cities of the Crimea, Cherson and Bosporus, that he feared, rather than for the Danubian provinces. As his policy on the Danube was to use the Lombards as a check on the Gepids, so his policy in Scythia was to use another Hunnic people, the Utigurs, as a check on the Kotrigurs. The Utigurs lived beyond the Don, on the east of the Sea of Azov, and Justinian cultivated their friendship by yearly gifts. ", http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/20*.html#ref39
17. Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire, Jennifer Lawler, " Utigurs - Hunnic tribe that lived on the east steppes of Don, related to the Bulgars", стр. 296 https://books.google.hr/books?id=sEWeCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA296&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAjgUahUKEwi427LD25zHAhVEECwKHc3wDFQ#v=onepag e&q=utigurs&f=false
18. "Great Walls and Linear Barriers", Peter Spring, " In 460 the Huns split into the Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs.", стр. 199 https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false
19. "A history of the First Bulgarian Empire", "Book I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS " Steven Runciman, стр. 5, " On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars." http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/sr_1_1.htm
20. The Huns of Justinian: Byzantium, Utigur and Kutrigur, Joseph Ricci (2013) http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/94441061/huns-justinian-byzantium-utigur-kutrigur
21. Pritsak, 1982: pages: 435, 448-449
22. История на българската държава през средните векове, Том I. История на Първото българско царство. Част I. Епоха на хуно-българското надмощие, Васил Н. Златарски
23. O. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, page 378 : " In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language. ", http://www.kroraina.com/huns/mh/mh_1.html
24. "The Hunno-Bulgarian Language, 2008, Antoaneta Granberg, Göteborg University: " The Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other "barbarian" languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there. It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic. The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure.", http://www.centralasien.dk/joomla/images/journal/DSCA2008.pd
25. The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press) page 141: "Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the Bulgars", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false​
26. The Age of Justinian, J. A. S. Evans, (1996) page 91: "... Utigur or Onogur Bulgars", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jjSDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&dq=onogur+utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2uvnJvvbKAhUBWhQKHWHOB-MQ6AEITjAJ#v=onepage&q=onogur%20utigur&f=false
27. Justinian, John Moorhead, 1994, Taylor&Francis, https://books.google.hr/books?id=aacuAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT180&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2tIS7yvbKAhWKPxQKHf-bD7M4ChDoAQhPMAk#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false
28. Byzantium in the Seventh Century, J. F. Haldon, page 47 : "...the Onogur Huns or Bulgars...", https://books.google.co.il/books?id=pSHmT1G_5T0C&pg=PA47&dq=onogur&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hun&f=false
29. Early Medieval Europe, Roger Collins, (1991) page 206: "...Utigur and Kutrigur Bulgars... ", https://books.google.bg/books?id=ZukcBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCDgUahUKEwjDt-3RkZbJAhUBVxoKHW-tBaQ#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false
30. The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Volume 2, Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, Michael Whitby, pages 240,248: " Utigur Bulgars", https://books.google.bg/books?id=4aX-W6AVNv8C&pg=PA606&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCTgeahUKEwid_pDUkpbJAhUBCBoKHQ0XB1M#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false
31. Armies of the Dark Ages, Ian Heath, ( 1979), page 53: " The Onogurs appeared after the disintegration of the Hunnic empire,...The Onogur tribes toghether with the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns, ....Once independent they adopted the name Bulgar...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=qKdkCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&dq=utigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBDhuahUKEwj7-an4lZbJAhUBgBoKHT4fD4M#v=onepage&q=utigur&f=false
32. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4, Edward Gibbon, page 537: " And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kotrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion", https://books.google.bg/books?id=j83oF6YQI68C&dq=utigurs&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false
33. "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", 2013, Hyun Jin Kim, https://books.google.bg/books?id=fX8YAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&source=gbs_toc_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false, page 57, page 138, page 140-141, page 254 : " That the Utigurs and Kutrigurs formed the two main wings of the same steppe confederacy is proved by the foundation legend told by Procopius regarding the ethnogenesis of the two tribal groupings. He states that before the formation of both entities power in the steppe was concentrated in the hands of a single ruler ( presumably he is referring here to Ernak, son of Attila ), who then divided the power/empire between his two sons called Utigur and Kutrigur "
34. Justinian and Theodora, Robert Browning, page 160 : "The Huns of Attila, and their descendants the Bulgars, the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs, were pastoral peoples of the steppe and semi-desert lands of central Asia, who had been driven westwards in search of new pastures by a combination of factors. The progressive desiccation of their ancient home, and in particular of the Tarim Basin, reduced the grazing land available. ", https://books.google.bg/books?id=gOIMSWMtow0C&pg=PA158&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwiRrunKvo7HAhWrF9sKHSH-A6o#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false
35. Menandri Fragmenta. Excerpta de legationibus. - Ed. C. de Boor. Berolini, 1903, p. 170
36. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1971, Volume 3, page 459 : "... Utigur and Unnugari are used as common synonyms for the same tribe. Again, the Unnugari are also called Unugunduri and Unungunduri.", https://books.google.bg/books?id=m_6zAAAAIAAJ&q=utigurs&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
37. Nisephorus Patriarcha. Breviarium. Ed. C. de Boor, p. 24
38. The Early Medieval Balkans, John Van Antwerp Fine, The University of Michigan Press (2000), page 66: " Meanwhile in the Steppes and the region around the sea of Azov dwelled the Onogur Bulgars. They were seminomadic,ethnically mixed people under a Bulgar chief. According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure. In 635 the Onogur chief Kovrat led a revolt against the Avars which succeeded in driving them from his land and putting an end to Avar suzerainty over the Onogurs", https://books.google.hr/books?id=Y0NBxG9Id58C&pg=PA66&dq=onogur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwATgoahUKEwistou42ZPJAhWGWiwKHUbUDxI#v=onepage&q=onogur&f=false
39. Bulgarian Centuries, Volume 1, https://books.google.com/books?id=NeIVAQAAMAAJ&q=kubrat+dulo&dq=kubrat+dulo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGnJab6fnKAhUH6Q4KHfNIBeg4FBDoAQgcMAA
40. Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, стр. 415 : "Ernak has often been identified with Ирникь in the Bulgarian Princes' List." https://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&pg=PA415&dq=Ernak&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Ernak&f=false
41. Runciman (Book I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS) 1930, p. 4: "Attila was proudly called cousin, if not grandfather, by them all. Of all these claims, it seems that the Bulgars’ is the best justified; the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs." http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/
42. "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", 2013, Hyun Jin Kim, page 140 :" The same is likely to have been the case among the Utigurs and Kutrigurs who under Attilid rule had even more justification for claiming the imperial mantle of the Huns of Europe.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false
43. The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, page 4: "But considering that Themistius, Claudian, and later Procopius called the Huns Massagetae,..." p. 4 https://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&q=hun#v=onepage&q=Massagetae&f=false
44. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Denis Sinor, p.182, https://books.google.bg/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&pg=PA182&dq=huns+massagetae&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=huns%20massagetae&f=false
45. The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, page 4: "But considering that Themistius, Claudian, and later Procopius called the Huns Massagetae,..." p. 6
46. THE PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLY CHINESE SOURCES, Edwin G. Pulleyblank, University of British Columbia, (1999), page 37: "... there is almost certainly a lineal connection between the Northern Xiongnu who moved westward out of contact with the Chinese in the second century and the Huns who later appeared in Eastern Europe. Apart from the ruling group that bore the name Hun, however, the European Huns undoubtedly included other tribes with different ethnic affinities...", page 49 : " (1) that for various reasons it was very unlikely that the Xiongnu language was Turkic or Mongolian or any form of Altaic, (2) that there might be validity in the suggestion of Louis Ligeti that the Xiongnu language was related to Ket and other now extinct Yeniseian languages of Siberia, (3) that the Xiongnu language had bequeathed a number of important culture words to the later Turkic and Mongolian steppe empires, including Turkish tängri, Mongolian tenggeri ‘heaven’ and titles such as tarqan and tegin and kaghan"
47. SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 127 October, 2003, page 22-24, http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp127_getes.pdf
48. Mallory, J. P.; Mair, Victor H. (2000), The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West, London: Thames & Hudson. pages 98-99
49. THE STRONGEST TRIBE, Yu. A. Zuev, page 33: "Massagets of the earliest ancient authors... are the Yuezhis of the Chinese sources"
50. Yu. A. Zuev, EARLY TURKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY, p.38 and p.62 : " The Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, associated with Aorses of the Pliny "Natural history" (VI, 39). The word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti (Pulleyblank, 1966, p. 18) "
51. http://www.protobulgarians.com/Kniga%20AtStamatov/Prarodina.htm
52. http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/P_Golijski_Tarim_i_Baktria.pdf
53. Pulleyblank, 1966, p. 18
54. The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, page 443, https://books.google.hr/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&q=dulo#v=onepage&q=dulo&f=false
55. Paleoneurosurgical aspects of Proto-Bulgarian circular type of artificial skull deformations, Journal of Neurosurgery, http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/2010.9.FOCUS10193
56. Tracing Huns from East to West, L.T. Yablonsky, Cranial vault modification and foreign expansion
57. Khodjaiov 1966; Ginzburg & Trofimova 1972; Tur 1996
58. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Denis Sinor, стр. 172: "A striking resemblance may also be noted in the deformed heads of the early Yueh-chih and Hephthalites kings on their coinage",https://books.google.bg/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cranial+deformation+Yueh-Chih&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjApt2UmLrMAhWM8RQKHdvQBr04ChDoAQg9MAc#v=onepage&q=Yueh%20Chih&f=false
59. "The Kushan civilization", Buddha Rashmi Mani, page 5: "A particular intra-cranial investigation relates to an annular artificial head deformation (macrocephalic), evident on the skulls of diverse racial groups being a characteristic feature traceable on several figures of Kushan kings on coins.", https://books.google.bg/books?id=J_YtAAAAMAAJ&q=kushan+deformation&dq=kushan+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
60. The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim,page 33
61. http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dan11.htm
62. http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/benjamin.html
63. The Yüeh-Chih Problem Re-Examined, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 65, No. 2 page 81 http://www.jstor.org/stable/593930?seq=11#page_scan_tab_contents .
64. Artificially Deformed Crania From the Hun-Germanic Period (5th–6th Century AD) in Northeastern Hungary, Mónika Molnár, M.S.; István János, Ph.D.; László Szűcs, M.S.; László Szathmáry, C.Sc., http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/823134_4
65. "Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries", Boris Zhivkov , page 30, https://books.google.bg/books?id=7Du2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=yuezhi+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMI1qLS7L71xwIVBLgaCh0FjwTZ#v=onepage&q=yuezhi%20deformation&f=false
66. Senior, R. Indo-Scythian Coins and History,London, 2001, p.xxvii
67. http://global.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
68. "Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians", D. V. Nesheva, S. Karachanak-Yankova, M. Lari, Y. Yordanov, A. Galabov, D. Caramelli, D. Toncheva, http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=humbiol_preprints
69. "Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry", Sena Karachanak et.al., http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056779
70. http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-15
71. http://dienekes.blogspot.bg/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.html
72. http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=006d5e3a-ea14-49ff-9b39-f0a042d39185&cKey=bfc88c56-5e93-4ee2-89e6-c3ab1bd25f5c&mKey=%7BDFC2C4B1-FBCD-433D-86DD-B15521A77070%7D
73. The Yuezhi and Dunhuang, http://www.eurasianhistory.com/data/articles/l01/2024.html#_ednref5
74. Selections from the Han Narrative Histories, Ta Yue-she (Massagetae), https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hantxt1.html#contents
75. http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/y/yuechi.html
76. THE PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLY CHINESE SOURCES, Edwin G. Pulleyblank, University of British Columbia, (1999), Summary, page 35
77. "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", (2013, Cambridge University Press), Hyun Jin Kim
78. Turks and Iranians: Aspects of Turk and Khazaro-IranianInteraction, Peter B. Golden, page 17, footnote 89, http://www.academia.edu/12349727/Turks_and_Iranians_An_historical_Sketch_in_Turkic-Iranian_Contact_Areas._Historical_and_Linguistic_Aspects_edited_by_Lars_Johanson_and_Christiane_Bulut_Wiesbaden_Harrassowitz_2006_17-38
79. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jabguya
80. Yu. A. Zuev, EARLY TURKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY, page 39
81. http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf
82. The Hunno-Bulgarian Language, Antoaneta Granberg, http://www.centralasien.dk/joomla/images/journal/DSCA2008.pdf
83. https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic
84. Pulleyblank 1963: 239-265
85. Pulleyblank 1963:240
86. http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp212_kushan_guishuang.pdf page 15
87. Zuev, Early Turks, page 153
88. Zuev, Early Turks, page 178
89. Zuev, Early Turks, page 71
90. https://en.wikipedia.org/Nominalia_of_the_Bulgarian_khans
91. Beijing – A Concise History, Stephen G. Haw, стр. 201, https://books.google.bg/books?redir_esc=y&id=J8J8AgAAQBAJ&q=jie#v=snippet&q=jie&f=false
92. The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, стр. 372-375
93. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Denis Sinor, стр. 170
94. SOME REMARKS ON THE CHINESE “BULGAR”, SANPING CHEN, page 7, http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/Sanping_Chen_SOME_REMARKS_ON_THE_CHINESE_BULGARIAN.pdf
95. Multicultural China in the Early Middle Ages, Sanping Chen, page 83: " The Huns and Bulgars: The Chinese Chapter", p. 90: "To summarize, the Buluoji, or the Bulgars of China according to Boodberg, appear to be a group that consisted of the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that were not absorbed by the succeeding Xianbei conglomerate, with conspicuous Europoid admixture. Their cultural and linguistic affinity seems at least partially Altaic." https://books.google.bg/books?id=ugbWH-5OjegC&pg=PA88&dq=Buluoji&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmkpC_xN3OAhUDWxQKHT_cDfIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Buluoji&f=false
96. История на Първото българско Царство. I. Епоха на хуно-българското надмощие, В. Златарски
97. The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest(1976), David Marshall Lang, https://books.google.bg/books/about/The_Bulgarians.html?id=8EppAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
98. A NOTE ON KIDARA AND THE KIDARITES, WILLIAM SAMOLIN, Central Asiatic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1956), pp. 295-297, „The Yueh-chih origin of Kidara is clearly established...“ https://www.jstor.org/stable/41926398?seq=1#fndtn-page_scan_tab_contents
99. Kuṣāṇa Coins and Kuṣāṇa Sculptures from Mathurā, Gritli von Mitterwallner, Frederic Salmon Growse, p. 49, https://books.google.bg/books?id=uufVAAAAMAAJ&q=kidarites+red&dq=kidarites+red&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmgaLvr_PNAhXDOhQKHQnxDxIQ6AEIIjAB
100. History of Civilizations of Central Asia, р. 120: "...the presence of Kidarites in Sogdiana is provided by early Sogdian coins with the image of an archer on the reverse and the word kydr (Kidara) in the obverse legend." https://books.google.bg/books?id=883OZBe2sMYC&pg=PA120&dq=kidarites&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kidarites&f=false
101. COINS OF THE TOCHARI, KUSHÂNS, OR YUE-TI, A. Cunningham, р. 279, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42680025?seq=1#fndtn-page_scan_tab_contents
102. THE KIDARITE KINGDOM IN CENTRAL ASIA, E. V. Zeimal, р. 132: „The Pei-shih (Chapters 7, 13) mentions that the Kidarites, whom it refers to as the Ta Yüeh-chih (Lesser Yüeh-chih), have money made of gold and silver. This information is confirmed by the evidence of their coins. The first comprehensive attempt to categorize and interpret Kidarite coins was undertaken by Cunningham.“ http://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_III%20silk%20road_the%20kidarite%20kingdom%20in%20central%20asia.pdf
103. History of the Later Roman Empire, J. B. Bury, CHAPTER XX, § 2. The Gepids and Lombards; Kotrigurs and Utigurs, „The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs – the descendants of Attila's Huns – who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia.“ http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/20*.html
104. Encyclopedia Britannica, Bulgars, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
105. The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest, David Marshall Lang, р 35: "The following year, Boyan, khaqan of the Avars, sent ten thousand Bulgars and Kutrigurs against the Romans in Dalmatia, where they destroyed forty Roman castles. ... ", https://books.google.bg/books/about/The_Bulgarians.html?id=8EppAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
106. https://archive.org/stream/SasanianPersia/tourajsasanianPersia#page/n39/mode/2up
107. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press(2000), p. 66: "According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure." https://books.google.bg/books?redir_esc=y&id=Y0NBxG9Id58C&q=dulo#v=snippet&q=dulo&f=false
108. Early Mediaeval identity of the Bulgarians, Cafer Saatchi, page 3: "The khans Avtiochol and Irnik, listed in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans today are identified with Attila and Ernach.", http://www.academia.edu/10894065/Early_Mediaeval_identity_of_the_Bulgarians
109. The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, p. 415: "Ernak has often been identified with Ирникь in the Bulgarian Princes' List.", https://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+World+of+the+Huns%22,+Otto+Maenchen-Helfen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI_LSi06LMAhUoS5oKHQn1A0sQ6AEIGzAA#v=snippet&q=bulgarian&f=false
110. The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest, David Marshall Lang, p. 49: "... and was the last of the great house of Dulo to occupy the throne, with him died out the lineage of Attila the Hun" https://books.google.bg/books?id=8EppAAAAMAAJ&dq=The+Bulgarians%3A+from+pagan+times+to+the+Ottoman+conquest+David+Marshall+Lang&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=dulo
111. The Tale of the Prophet Isaiah: The Destiny and Meanings of an Apocryphal Text, Ivan Biliarsky, р. 255: "Among historians, there is almost unanimity they were Attila, the ruler of the Huns, and his son Ernach.", https://books.google.hr/books?id=mbevAAAAQBAJ&q=dulo#v=snippet&q=dulo&f=false
112. A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Steven Runciman, Appendix III, р. 280: "Under these circumstances, especially considering the remarkable similarity of the names, it is surely unnecessarily hypercritical to refuse to identify Irnik with Ernach, and not to trace the Bulgar royal line from Attila.", http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/sr_app3.htm
113. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 11, р. 228, https://books.google.bg/books?id=SO2zAAAAIAAJ&q=dulo+attila&dq=dulo+attila&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
114. The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, р. 59, https://books.google.bg/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=The+Huns,+Rome+and+the+Birth+of+Europe,+Hyun+Jin+Kim&source=bl&ots=aQ-k_oBl-I&sig=bMI_jWIOu7DtwP8VqKox1YEkmEw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkw42I8bPMAhWpQJoKHRDdA3sQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&q=dulo&f=false
115. THE PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLY CHINESE SOURCES, Edwin G. Pulleyblank, University of British Columbia, (1999), page 37: "... there is almost certainly a lineal connection between the Northern Xiongnu who moved westward out of contact with the Chinese in the second century and the Huns who later appeared in Eastern Europe. Apart from the ruling group that bore the name Hun, however, the European Huns undoubtedly included other tribes with different ethnic affinities...", page 49 : " (1) that for various reasons it was very unlikely that the Xiongnu language was Turkic or Mongolian or any form of Altaic, (2) that there might be validity in the suggestion of Louis Ligeti that the Xiongnu language was related to Ket and other now extinct Yeniseian languages of Siberia, (3) that the Xiongnu language had bequeathed a number of important culture words to the later Turkic and Mongolian steppe empires, including Turkish tängri, Mongolian tenggeri ‘heaven’ and titles such as tarqan and tegin and kaghan"
116. The Languages and Writing Systems of the Tarim Basin, Matthew Anderson, SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, 2012, page 5 : http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp228_silk_roads.pdf
117. https://www.academia.edu/4965415/%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%A5%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%9E-%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%98_%D0%95%D0%97%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%92%D0%98_%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98
118. A.N.Bernshtam, Social and economic organization of Orhon-Yenisei Turks, 1946, p. 138
119. Васил Н. Златарски История на Първото българско Царство, page 75
120. The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim,page 142, https://books.google.bg/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&pg=PA132&dq=Utigur+attila&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMIs9-UmKyQxwIVBKJyCh0V0wQM#v=onepage&q=Sandilch%20&f=false
121. Runciman (Book I) 1930, p. 10. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRunciman_(Book_I)1930 (help)
122. Runciman, Book I, The Children of the Huns, page 16-17
123. Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems, Gábor Hosszú, Rovas Foundation, 2012, ISBN 9638843748, p. 287.
124. national Historical and Archeological Reserve Madara, Sofia 2009, Pecham valdex, p.26

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance C-Class Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• C-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
• Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• C-Class Bulgaria articles
• High-importance Bulgaria articles
• WikiProject Bulgaria articles
• C-Class Romania articles
• Unknown-importance Romania articles
• All WikiProject Romania pages
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors