Great Bulgaria. The heirs of the Huns. Bulgarians on the Danube Who conquered the Danube Bulgaria

LESSON #2

Ancient Turks and early states

Great Bulgaria

During the advancement of the Huns to the west, the Bulgarians came to the Black Sea and Azov steppes along with other Turkic-speaking tribes. Here were the possessions of the Turkic Khaganate. The Bulgarians found themselves in its composition in the position of vassals. Under the leadership of the ruler Kubrat in 632 they achieved independence. arose independent state- Great Bulgaria. (see map )

KUBRAT KHAN RING WITH A PRINT

KUBRAT KHANA

The capital of Great Bulgaria was Phanagoria - an ancient city on the Taman Peninsula.

Crafts and trade were concentrated here. The main occupation of the Bulgarians was nomadic cattle breeding.

The history of Great Bulgaria turned out to be short. The sons of Kubrat violated his covenant not to separate from each other and live in friendship and harmony. After the death of their father, they began a struggle for power and divided the land among themselves. The state collapsed.

Kubrat's son Asparuh was forced to take his subjects to the banks of the Danube. Here the Bulgarians, having conquered the Slavs, in 681 created a new state - Danube Bulgaria.

Most of the Bulgarians, together with Batbay, another son of Kubrat, remained on their indigenous lands. Soon they occupied the Crimean peninsula, the steppes and forest-steppes of the Dnieper region. It was in these steppes, near the village of Pereshchepino in the vicinity of the city of Poltava, that a treasure trove of gold and silver dishes, precious weapons and jewelry was discovered. "Treasures of Kubratkhan" - this is how this treasure is usually called, on which the name of the founder of Great Bulgaria has been preserved.

BULGARIAN SILVER VASE GOLD RINGS ORGAN

WITH THE IMAGE OF KUBRAT KHAN AND KUBRAT KHAN.

Great Bulgaria - the first own state of the Bulgarians, who became one of the ancestors of modern Tatars. It existed for a short time, did not even have time to get stronger and therefore did not have a significant impact on the course of history.

Khan Kubrat is considered the founder of Great Bulgaria, who in the Black Sea steppes, through a combination of peaceful - diplomatic and military operations, evading serious clashes, attempted to "gather the people" (his name from the Turkic is interpreted exactly like this: you must gather the people).

Territory of Great Bulgaria

The main territory of Great Bulgaria was the lands stretching from the Kuban to the Dnieper, inhabited by the Bulgarian tribes of the Onogurs, partly by the Kutrigurs and, apparently, by the ancient Hungarian tribes.

The capital of Great Bulgaria was the ancient ancient city of Phanagoria, restored after the Hunnic defeat, located on the Taman Peninsula.

Khan Kubrat, who grew up at the court of the Byzantine emperor, received an excellent education, knew many languages of the peoples of the Black Sea region, was an adherent of a unifying policy.

Diplomacy of Great Bulgaria

In order to consolidate the Turks, Khan Kubrat maintained allied relations with Byzantium, which, in turn, sought to use the Bulgarians as a military and political counterbalance to the Avars. Therefore, the support of Byzantium in the struggle of the Bulgarians with the Avar Khaganate for their independence was fragile. Probably, this largely explains the fragility of Great Bulgaria. After the death of Khan Kubrat in the early 640s. Great Bulgaria was divided among his sons.

Unfortunately, the Great Bulgarian stage in Russian historiography is often described only as a short-term episode, as an insignificant historical phenomenon. In reality, the culture of Great Bulgaria was not an episode or one of the bright flashes of the transition from ancient to medieval historical time, but a link that ensured the continuity of the evolution of the Turkic civilization, a factor in the preservation and spread of its essential features under the ethnonym "Bulgarians" () in broad geopolitical coordinates.

The collapse of Great Bulgaria

This period is characterized by the strengthening of a new state association - Khazar Khaganate, the core of which is the Turkic-speaking tribe of the Khazars, close to the Bulgarians, who lived after the departure of the Huns and Avars in the western part of the Caspian Sea from the Lower Volga to the Sulak River.

The Khazars tried to subjugate all the Bulgarian tribes to their influence. The eldest son of Kubrat Khan Batbay, who led the Azov group of Bulgarians, suffered in the middle of the 7th century. defeated by the Khazars, became their tributary and was forced to move south to the foothills of the Caucasus. The modern Balkars are considered to be the Turkic descendants of the ancient Bulgarians.

The Western Group of Bulgarians, led by the youngest son of Kubrat Khan Asparuh, went to the lower Danube, where they defeated the troops of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IV Pogonat, who made peace with Asparuh and pledged to pay tribute to the Bulgarians.

So in 681 Khan Asparuh founded the Bulgarian state. His successor, Khan Tervel, received the title of Caesar from the Byzantine emperor Justinian II, and subsequent Bulgarian rulers significantly expanded the boundaries of the kingdom by annexing the former Avar lands on the left bank of the Danube to it.

Over time, this group of Bulgarians was assimilated by the Slavic population, but retained the ethnonym in the name of the state - Bulgaria and left a noticeable mark in the history of Bulgarian statehood, significantly influencing the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarian people.

Creation of Volga Bulgaria

Another significant group of Bulgarian tribes moved north over the next century and, having passed the steppes of the lower Volga, at the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries. created its own state - the Volga Bulgaria. The version spread earlier in the literature that these were Bulgarian tribes headed by the son of Kubrat Kotrag, in Lately is seriously questioned.

In all likelihood, the conglomerate of Bulgarian tribes, consisting of the Bulgarians proper, Savirs, Barsils, Belenjers, and others, dispersed over the vast territory of the Khazar Khaganate before settling in the Volga-Kamie.

There, these tribes, together with the Turkic-speaking Khazars, Iranian-speaking Alans and other local ethnic groups, created a kind of agricultural-nomadic civilizational community, called the Saltov-Mayak archaeological culture.

This culture owns several hundred diverse archaeological sites - the remains of nomad camps, settlements, castles, cities and burial grounds dating back to the 8th - 9th centuries. They are located on a vast territory from the Volga to the Danube, although the main part is concentrated along the banks of the Don and in the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov.

Formed in the zone of intensive civilizational interaction of many Turkic-Ugric and Indo-European peoples, this culture was a combination of nomadic, agricultural and urban traditions of various regions of Eurasia. The well-known archaeologist S.A. Pletneva considers the Saltovo-Mayak culture located on the Slavic-Khazar borderlands to be “one of the brightest and highest cultures of the Middle Ages”.

The decline of the Saltovo-Mayak culture, obviously, can be associated with the departure of part of the tribes that made up it to the west (to the Black Sea region and to the Danube) and to the north (to the Volga region), as well as to the weakening of the Khazar Khaganate as a result of the military strikes of the Arabs, Eastern Slavs and especially the Pechenegs.

The Volga-Bulgarian cross-section of culture, which enriched the world community with lessons of both a peacefully constructive, trade-economic, and military-conquest character, has not sunk into oblivion. He continued to exert his influence on many aspects of the common Turkic civilization.

And even after many centuries, it gave "cultural signals", manifested itself in the form of moral and ethical norms, traditions and customs that entered mythology, everyday practice and the spiritual life of many peoples - the historical heirs and successors of the Bulgarians, including the Tatar people .

How the Turks and Slavs founded the Danube Bulgaria. Part 3

Baptism and Bulgar ambassadors

Latin-speaking European chroniclers generally had little interest in affairs in the Balkans until Frankish influence began to spread into the Balkan Slavs and Pannonia. Of the events connected with the Balkans, they noted only the assistance of the Bulgars to the Romans in 717 and the death of Emperor Nicephorus in the battle with the Bulgars. In the "World Chronicle" it was reported that the Bulgars from the river Istra (Danube) came to the aid of Constantinople, besieged by the Saracens. In the "Acts of the Neapolitan Bishops" it was indicated that the Bulgars living on the Danube struck in the rear of the numerous army of the Saracens who were besieging Constantinople. It was reported that in 811 Nikephoros wanted to take over the country of the Bulgars, and many of them fled to the mountains. But unexpectedly he was attacked, and together with other Romans he died. The "Sitian Chronicle" of 812 mentioned the death of Emperor Nicephorus at the hands of the Bulgars. Einhard in 813 reported that the Bulgars stood at the gates of Constantinople. Krum killed Nicephorus and expelled Michael from Moesia. When Krum was near the walls of Constantinople, it was reported that Michael made an unexpected sortie and Krum was badly wounded. The Bulgars were forced to retreat quickly. In the Fulda Annals, the year 812 is named as the time of the battle between Nicephorus and the Bulgars.

In 824 the emperor made peace with Omurtag. The Vedastin Annals reported that with the help of the Bulgars Tervel, Justinian regained power in 705. In 716, it was reported that the Bulgars hit the rear of the Saracens, who were besieging Constantinople. In 813, it is indicated that Michael attacked the Bulgars, but this campaign was unsuccessful. Agnel reported that the Bulgars helped Justinian become emperor again. Drutmar from Korbi reported about the baptism of the Bulgars. The "Xanten Annals" says that the Bulgars, who previously worshiped idols, converted to Christianity in 868. Andrei Bergamsky dated this event to 867. In the Annals of Bertin, the year 866 is named as the time of baptism. Reginon Pryumsky believed that the baptism took place in 868.

The soldiers of Krum are pursuing the son of Nikephoros I Stavraky. Photo wikipedia.org

Anastasius the Librarian noted that Asparuh was one of the five sons of Krovat (Kubrat). His troops came to the region of Ongle near the Danube. Emperor Constantine came with an army and a fleet. However, the Bulgars defeated the Romans and pursued them to Odyssus. The Bulgars took possession of the lands up to the Avaria. Anastasius the Librarian, together with Theophanes and Nicephorus, reported that Justinian II fought against Slavinia and Bulgaria.

In the “Short Annals of Lorsch” from 814, it was reported about the death of Charlemagne and the great diet, convened by Louis the Pious, to which envoys of the Romans arrived to ask for help against the Danube Bulgars. Einhard reported that the ruler of the Gudoskan Borna, as well as Ludevit (the ruler of the Pannonian Croats) withdrew from the alliance with the Bulgars. This should be understood in such a way that they were allies of the Danube Bulgars against the Avars. In 824 Khan Omurtag sent an embassy to Emperor Louis. At the same time, ambassadors arrived from the Romans and the Predenesti tribe (Danubian Obodrites), who complained about the infringements from the Bulgars. In 825, the Bulgars agreed with the Franks on the delimitation of spheres of influence. In 827, the Bulgars came with troops and ships to Pannonia, ruined the local Slavs and appointed their officials there. In 828, Count Baldrich was stripped of his title due to inaction against the Bulgars.

The Fulda Annals repeated data about the embassy of 824 and the treaty of 825, as well as about the Bulgar invasion of 827. The same plots were described in the Life of Louis. In the Fulda Annals of 828, it was reported that young Louis (the one who would become Ludwig the German) was sent to fight against the Bulgars. In 845 and 852 the Franks sent embassies to the Bulgars, and in 863 the Bulgars helped the Franks against Carloman, who seized power in Carinthia. In 867, Ludwig satisfied the demands of the Bulgars. In 884, the Bulgars, together with the Franks, fought against Great Moravia. Rabban Maurus spoke about the campaign of Emperor Louis against the Bulgars in 828. Valafrid Strabo reported that enemies retreated before Lothar, among whom were named the Bulgars. In the "Bertin Annals" it was said that in 853 the Slavs (Moravans) attracted the Bulgars to their side. However, King Ludwig the German defeated them. In 864, it was reported that Ludwig harbored hostility towards the Bulgars, however, there were rumors that their ruler, by the title of kagan, converted to Christianity. In the "Laubakh Annals" it was reported about the Bulgar ambassadors of 832.

The Bulgars were only sometimes interesting to the Latins. Under the reign of Charles I the Great, both sides tried to maintain the status quo that developed after 804, when the Avar Khaganate ceased to exist as an empire. Pannonia became a stumbling block between the Franks and the Bulgars during the reign of the Frankish Emperor Louis the Pious. The Bulgars, counting on the extension of their power to all the southern Slavs, were faced with the fact that the Croats from Dalmatia and Pannonia actually accepted Frankish citizenship. The Bulgars, in turn, after some time brought their troops and placed their proteges in Pannonia. In the middle of the 9th century, the Bulgars supported Great Moravia, trying to prevent the Franks from advancing further to the east. Somehow foreign policy Danube Bulgaria under the rule of Malamir and Presian was corrected by the invasion of the Hungarians in 837, as a result of which the Bulgars lost the land of Ongl and Muntenia. To the north of the Danube, the power of the Bulgars no longer spread. From the steppes of the Northwestern Black Sea region, the Danube Bulgars were attacked by the Hungarians.

Emperor Krum made a bowl from the skull of Nicephorus. Photo wikipedia.org

From nomadism to sedentism, from paganism to Christianity

The social transformations in Danube Bulgaria are especially visible thanks to archeological data. It should be noted that at the beginning of the existence of the state, the Bulgars were nomads, for whom there were characteristic rich burials. In the burials of the Bulgars, besides the buried man, a horse, medallions, seals, and weapons were found. W. Fidler noted that a special symbol of the power of the Bulgar power was the symbol of Tangra, which combined the Greek epsilon with two more lines on bronze amulets. There were devtashlars, that is, stone statues, which were revered by the Bulgars.

This state did not have a specific capital. For Asparuh it was Pliska, and for Omurtag it was Chartal. There was official propaganda in Danubian Bulgaria, which was expressed in stone inscriptions. The monument in Madara with the text in Bulgarian and Greek is especially monumental. Most of the inscriptions are dated to the time of Krum and Omurtag, that is, the time of the Bulgar great power. During the period of Christianization of the Danube Bulgaria, the number of such inscriptions decreases.

It should also be noted that the Bulgars gradually settled down. The concentration of Bulgar settlements was typical for the regions of Varna and Pliska. The districts of Dobruja and Ongla were less populated. That is, initially the Bulgars settled in a territory that did not look like their steppes, and only part of the population continued to roam.

Bulgarian warriors of the 9th century. Photo wikipedia.org

The Bulgar paganism was derived from the ancient Türkic with features that were recorded by Movses Kagankvatsi during his mission to the kingdom of the Bulgar-Suvars in the North Caucasus. Tengri-Aspendiat was called Tangra by the Danube Bulgars. First of all, the Bulgars worshiped the sky, the symbol of which was Tangra. He was the master of lightning. In the village of Gortalovo, an image of Umai, similar to that of Kudyrgin, was found. Yduk Er-Sub was not mentioned in written sources. Theodore the Studite clearly pointed out the polytheism of the Bulgars and their idols. He refused to participate in the feast at the court of Khan Omurtag. Forest groves were sacred.

The ideology of society was equestrian and militarized. It was announced that power was given to the kagan from Tangra, just as the Kok-Turks, the Yenisei Kyrgyz, the Tokuz-Oguzes referred to the will of heaven and the divine mandate. The Bulgars worshiped the heavenly bodies - the Sun, the Moon and the stars. The veneration of the stars was noted by Theophylact of Ohrid. John the Exarch mentioned sun worship. The sun and the moon were represented as two brothers. Gregory the Theologian said that the Bulgars worshiped the river and the animals in it, and the pagans dedicated worship to it.

Boris, in a letter to Pope Nicholas, spoke about the miraculous properties of stones, and it was customary for the Bulgars to worship stones, for example, devtashlars. In addition, mountains, rocks, trees, lakes and rivers were deified. Theophanes the Confessor said that Krum worshiped the sea. The scriptor incertus reported that the khan sacrificed captured Romans to the sea.

During the reign of Krum, the Bulgar Khan performed the functions of both secular and spiritual leader. The title of high priest was kan boyla colobra. Bokolobr as the chief priest was among the Avars. The Danube Bulgars also had the title bagatur boila kolobras. Simple priests were called colobres. However, it also had its reverse side. Unsuccessful rulers could be killed as one who brings misfortune to his people. Such was the fate of the khans of Taurus and Ditsevg (son of Krum).

The Bulgars had a cult of ancestors, which was recorded in the papal-khan correspondence. Horses, deer, dogs, falcons were revered. From these written sources, we know that the Bulgars swore over the iron and after the oath cut down the dogs to guarantee the oath. This custom was recorded by Theophan's successor and Nicholas the Mystic. Pagan idols were made of wood and stone. In front of them, people knelt down and made sacrifices. The Bulgars also had stone anthropomorphic statues - women.

On the issue of kagans

Inscriptions on stones as a form of state propaganda existed among the Danube Bulgars and Persians. Zoroastrian Persians had several cult centers, the main of which was Naksh-i Rustam. The Kok-Turks and Tokuz-Oguzes used to erect steles, on which they told about the accomplishments of the rulers in several languages. A similar form of propaganda existed among the Scandinavians, for example, a stele in honor of Harold Blue-tooth is known. At the same time, the Danes and Persians had inscriptions in the same language, while the Kok-Turks, Tokuz-Oghuz and Danube Bulgars had several languages. The content of inscriptions in Danubian Bulgaria is known to us only due to the fact that there was a parallel text on Greek. The language of the Danube Bulgars, which used the Turkic runic for writing, remains little known due to the scarcity of data.

The most famous cult center of the Danube Bulgars is Madara, where before the Romans there was a cult center of the Thracians. Ts. Stepanov assumed a connection with Mithraism for the rock carvings of the Bulgars in Madara, and considered the very name of the area to be derived from the Turkic word hero. It should be noted that the Alans and the Volga Bulgars had some customs reminiscent of Mithraic practices. However, it would be more correct to indicate that the Indo-Iranian traditions were reflected among the Bulgars, and not Mithraism as a high religion. The researcher criticized the hypothesis about some influence of Zoroastrianism on the Bulgars. None of the sources mentioned the connection of the Bulgars with Zoroastrianism. The Bulgar temples of fire were only an imitation of the high religion of the Iranians.

The monument in Madara with the text in Bulgarian and Greek is especially monumental. Photo wikipedia.org

It should be noted that Zoroastrianism was not widely spread even among the Alans, not to mention the Turkic nomads. The Bulgars buried their dead instead of exposing their bodies to be eaten by birds in the temple. The Bulgars only adopted the sign of good luck - farn. For the Bulgars, Madara was an analogue of the Turkic Otuken. In the temple under Daul-tash there was an open sanctuary of Tangra. Near the sanctuary was a pool of water for ritual ablutions. Also, within the framework of Madara, there was another pagan temple near the village of Kalugeritsy. Other cult centers existed in the area of the villages of Gortalovo, Plevensko, Kamen Bryag and in the region of the Rhodope Mountains. There were stone amulets in the sanctuaries. It should be noted that there were white and black shamans. Amulets were supposed to protect against black magic. The only competition for Christianity among the Bulgars was the worship of Tangra.

The rulers of the Danube Bulgaria invented a legend about their origin, similar to the Roman and Turkic ones, only instead of the she-wolf Ispera (Asparukh) she was fed by a cow or a deer. A similar plot was found in the legends of Moses, Sargon and Cyrus. In the Bulgarian apocryphal chronicle, it was noted that the Bulgars occupied the Karvun region, which was empty after the Hellenes. In this way, the Bulgars substantiated the legitimacy of the fact that they rule on the Lower Danube.

It should be noted that the legitimacy of the Bulgar rulers was not always recognized. So in the Salerno chronicle it was noted that only the Avar ruler can bear the title of kagan, and the rulers of the Normans, Bulgars and Khazars bear the title of dominus. This is in conflict with data known from other sources. The Annals of Bertin mentions the kagan of the Scandinavians, that is, the khagan of Rus'. Illarion's data on Khagan Vladimir are also known. Next to him coexisted the Slavic title of prince and the Scandinavian title of king. The title of kagan was probably adopted from the Turkic neighbors. Arab sources reported about the kagan and kaganbek of the Khazars. In the end, the data coming from the Bulgars testify to the title of kagan among the Bulgars.

The Bulgars and the Khazars had charismatic clans. So for the Bulgars it was Dulo, for the Khazars it was the Turkic clan of Ashina. After some time, the Vokil and Ugain families took over the power. The fact that the ruling dynasty changed caused clashes between the clans, since they did not have such authority as Dulo. In Jewish sources, the origin of Bulan is not associated with the royal family, it is only said that he was a noble family. The change of the actual ruler from kagan to kaganbek became the reason civil war in the Khazar Khaganate. In Danubian Bulgaria, there was no split into a sacred and secular ruler, and the khan combined both sacred and secular power. When the Danubian Bulgars became Slavicized, instead of the title kagan they used the title tsar. It was worn by both Simeon and comitopulus Samuil.

To be continued

Yaroslav Pilipchuk

Reference

Yaroslav Pilipchuk graduated from the National Pedagogical University them. M.P. Drahomanov in Kyiv in 2006 with a degree in History and Law. In 2010 at the Institute of Oriental Studies. A.Yu. Krymsky National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine defended his dissertation in the specialty " The World History. Mongol conquest of Desht-i-Kipchak in the XIII century.

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

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

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

Historian's testimony:

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

Byzantine chronicler and historian of the ninth century.

Theophan the Confessor

From the document:

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

From the work of Patriarch Nicophorus of Constantinople

(758-829) “Breviary” (“ Short story”) about the Bulgarians.

From the works of historians:

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

S.A. Pletneva

Keywords

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

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

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

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

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

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

N. D. Russev

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

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

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

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

N. D. Russev.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Between civilization and barbarism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Weave of buried traditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably comparable with the burials from under Slobodzeya can be the inlet burial No. 10, discovered in 1990 during excavations located on the banks of the Dniester estuary near the village. Sadovoye (Belgorod-Dnestrovsky district of the Odessa region of Ukraine) of mound No. 1. It has been partially preserved - only the bones of the legs and part of the foot. Judging by the position of the legs, the buried person was laid with his head to the west (Fig. 1). The grave pit, the contours of which were not clearly traced, was a subrectangular shape with rounded corners - 150 ^ 55 cm, the depth did not exceed 60 cm. different levels- from 35 to 60 cm - "fragments of a broken pot (pottery) of the Balkan-Danube culture with a characteristic wavy ornament" were found. They are the basis for classifying the burial among the Bulgarian antiquities. Unfortunately, searches in the funds of the Odessa Archaeological Museum for these rather large ceramic fragments have not yet brought the expected results1.

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

In September of the same 1990, on the territory of the former Turkish fortress Izmail (Odessa region of Ukraine), security archaeological excavations. The excavation stretched from the Danube along the hostel of the local technical school of mechanization and electrification Agriculture, from the side of the diorama "Storm of the Izmail Fortress" located in the building of the former mosque. Here I found traces of an early medieval burial ground, apparently almost completely destroyed by the cultural strata of the Ottoman period.

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

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

Fig.2. Pot-urn from Izmail, 1990

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guzelev V. 1969. Prince Boris I. Sofia.

Guzelev V. 1981. Medieval Bulgaria in Svetlinata

on new izvori. Sofia: Narodna prosveta.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

middle ages. Moscow: Nauka, 62-75.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sofia: BAN publishing house.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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