The Ideology Of The Ninth And Tenth Centuries 25
of B. Simeonov,32 or the relation to Pamir and Balkh following the works of
P. Dobrev)33 actually refer to the ethnic group with the name Bulgars, they do
not serve as an argument for the initial stage of the Bulgarian ethnogenesis, but
rather just indicate the presence of Bulgars (in case they actually were Bulgars)
in different parts of Eurasia.34 Therefore, the place and role of the Bulgars in
Asia prior to their resettlement to Europe remain unclear for scholars. This is
why even V. Stoianov believes that “assigning the ancient Bulgars to the com-
munity of the Sakas, Wusuns or Tocharians without taking into account the
ethnic interference processes in the former tribal unions is like simply replac-
ing one unknown in the equation with another, and does not give a definitive
solution to the problem of the Bulgarian genesis”.35
In R. Rashev’s opinion, the Bulgars “appear to be partial” to three ethnic
groups—the Huns, the steppe Iranian-speaking tribes (Scythians, Sarmatians
and Alans) and the Finno-Ugric tribes.36 The acceptance of the Sarmatians as
an important element of the Bulgarian ethnogenesis could largely explain the
32 See for instance Simeonov 1979 and 2008.
33 See for instance Dobrev 1994 and 1998a.
34 Probably the fullest research on this sort of data is made by Stepanov 1999a, 15–62.
35 Stoianov 2004b, 487. According to Stoianov 2006b, 184, during the Early Middle Ages, “the
old North-Iranian and Finno-Ugric tribes in the steppes often became involved or entered
into tribal unions and confederations with the nomadic Turkic-speaking newcomers and
a lot of them went through a linguistic, as well as a partial or even more significant ethnic
Turkicization [.. .] In addition to the linguistic and cultural homogenization, this was a
process of cultural and religious syncretism, especially between Iranian and Turkic tradi-
tions, in which major gods could have both Iranian and Turkic names, and the nobility
in the new nomadic federations included Iranian, Turkic and Ugrian elements, which
co-existed and fought side by side”.
36 Rashev 2001, 13. Rashev 2007a, 32 ties this theory to the migration of the Huns, which
he sees as a cause for the possible “impurities” in the evolution of the Bulgarian ethno-
genesis. “Thus, at the present moment, the question of the archaeological localization
of the Bulgar land of origin remains open. Given the direction in which the Huns moved
towards Europe and the regions through which the two Hunnic columns passed, the
composition of the Proto-Bulgarians until their resettlement in the mid-seventh century
could most likely have included three groups of people: 1. Iranian-speaking groups from
the steppes of Middle Asia and Eastern Europe. 2. Ugrians from the forest-steppe region
of Western Siberia. 3. Huns from Central and Middle Asia, whose ethnic appearance upon
their arrival in Europe seems to have already been considerably mixed [.. .] The presence
of the Eastern European Iranian-speaking Sarmatian and Alanian tribes was significant,
if not predominant. They participated in the second phase of the Proto-Bulgarian ethno-
genesis both through groups in the steppes that had preserved their nomadic lifestyle and
through groups in the forest-steppe region that had shifted to a sedentary way of life”.