Old Great Bulgaria” to the Danube Khanate
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHAPTER THREE BULGARIA’S NORTHERN NEIGHBOURS AND THE BLACK SEA ZONE IN THE SEVENTH TO NINTH CENTURIES 3.1 From “Old Great Bulgaria” to the Danube Khanate. The Historical Background to Asparuch’s Migration to the Balkans It is generally believed that a number of Oğuro-Bulgar tribes were already present in the Pontic steppe zone when the Huns arrived on the scene in the second half of the fourth century. In the aftermath of Atilla’s death, his third son Ernach (Irnik in the “Namelist of the Bulgarian Princes”) seems to have formed his own tribal union in southern Ukraine which contained numerous remnants of the Hunnic state, including the Kutriğurs, Utiğurs and Onoğurs. The first clear reference to the Bulgars is dated toca . 480, when they fought as allies of Zeno (474–491) against the Ostrogoths, though on occasion they launched their own predatory raids on the empire.1 For a brief period in the mid sixth century, the Kutriğurs became the dominant force in the region (the Bulgars temporarily fading from view), only to be overwhelmed by the formidable Avar confederation, which in the late 550s established its hegemony over Western Eurasia.2 Thereafter, the Avars went on to conquer Pannonia, and the Kök Türks, who propelled them westwards, may have extended their influence over certain Oğuro-Bulgar groupings in the Pontic steppes. In any event, by the early seventh century there is evidence that Avar power had reasserted itself in the region.3 According to Nikephoros, the “Onogundurs” rose against the Avar qaghan under the leadership of Kubrat, 1 John of Antioch, 211.4–5; Beševliev 1981a, 76–77; Beševliev 1981c, 11–12; Golden 1992, 91–92, 98–100; Ziemann 2007, 44–55. However, one must not exclude the possibility that John of Antioch, who was writing in the seventh century, employed an ethnic name which applied to a steppe population of his own time, but which did not exist—or at least was not regularly used—for a specific nomadic group in the late fifth century. The same may well apply to Paul the Deacon writing, in his Historia Romana (215.18–19), about the Bulgars plundering Thrace in 493. Indeed, if we leave aside John of Antioch, the first references to the Bulgars are all from the early sixth century (Ennodius, Marcelinus Comes). I wish to express my gratitude to Dr Florin Curta for these remarks. 2 Ziemann 2007, 95–103. 3 Pohl 1988, 273; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1975, 267–274. 106 chapter three who built up close diplomatic ties with the emperor Heraclius.4 Kubrat’s revolt broke out soon after the unsuccessful Avar assault against Constan- tinople in 626, and, as has been rightly pointed out, it could not have been better timed to serve the political and military interests of the Byzantine empire. Having thrown off Avar rule, Kubrat proceeded to create his own independent polity in the steppes.5 Most scholars locate “Old Great Bulgaria” in the area north of Crimea, on both sides of the Lower Dnieper River—a theory that seems to be confirmed by a number of exceptionally rich burials discovered in western Ukraine, most notably at Malo Pereshchepine (13 km southwest of Poltava), which produced a hoard of gold and silver finds of some 21 kg. The collection included three golden rings with monograms mentioning Kubrat (“Χοβράτου πατρικίου”), as well as Sassanian, Türk and Avar artefacts (especially horse gear and weapons).6 Unfortunately, little else is known about Kubrat’s activities. What seems to be certain is that he benefited from his relationship with the empire by the receipt of the dignitary of patrikios, with associated stipends and pres- tige, and quite possibly tribute payments.7 The archaeological record is quite explicit in this regard. The burial assemblages found in the Lower and Middle Dnieper (Malo Pereshchepine, Novye Senžary-Začepilovka, Kelegei, Makuhivka etc.) included a large number of Byzantine solidi minted for late sixth- and seventh-century emperors. These, along with numerous other 4 ‘Υπὸ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν ἐπανέστη Κούβρατος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Ὀργανᾶ ὁ τῶν Οὐνογουνδούρων κύριος τῷ τῶν Ἀβάρων χαγάνῳ, καὶ ὃν εἶχε παρ’ αὐτοῦ λαὸν περιυβρίσας ἐξεδίωξε τῆς οἰκείας γῆς. διαπρεσβεύεται δὲ πρὸς Ἡράκλειον καὶ σπένδεται εἰρήνην μετ’ αὐτοῦ, ἥνπερ ἐφύλαξαν μέχρι τέλους τῆς ἑαυτῶν ζωῆς· δῶρά τε γὰρ αὐτῷ ἔπεμψε καὶ τῇ τοῦ πατρικίου ἀξίᾳ ἐτίμησεν; Nikeph., c. 22.1–7; Theoph. 357.8–11. Curta 2006b, 6, believes that earlier Kubrat may have been appointed by the Avars to govern a subject tribal union in the Black Sea steppes. Other scholars, among them Pletneva 1976, 21 and Pohl 1988, 273 with n. 43, maintain that the Onoğurs separated themselves from the Türks rather than the Avars. 5 The chronicle of the emir Gazi-Baradj, written in the thirteenth century, places the foun- dation of “Great Bulgaria” in the year 629/30. However, the reliability of this work is still under scrutiny; see L’vova 2003, 134–141. 6 Werner 1984, 31–36, 35–44, fig. 32, 1,2; Werner 1992, 430–436; L’vova 1995, 257–270; Róna-Tas 1999, 215–220; Róna-Tas 2000; Zalesskaja et al. 1997; Ziemann 2007, 144–148. Curta 2006a, 78–79, remarks on the similarities between the Ukrainian assemblages and the exceptionally rich qaghanal burials of the late Early and Middle Avar periods in Hungary. But this interpretation is by no means uncontested: Aibabin 2006, 47–60, claims that the assemblages in the Lower and Middle Dnieper belonged to the Khazars, even though their content may have been collected, at least partly, by the Bulgars. On the other hand, Komar 2006, 158–166, 230–239, rejects any connection with the Bulgars (he locates Kubrat’s state to the east of the Taman peninsula, in the Kuban steppes), and attributes them instead to early Khazar elites. Ambroz 1981, 20–22, interprets the assemblages of the Pereshchepine culture as commemorative monuments of noble Türks. 7 Nikeph., c. 22.1–7 (see n. 4 above)..