26 CHAPTER 1
Bulgar culture between the eighth and the tenth centuries. A significant part
of the Bulgar monuments (both in Danube Bulgaria and in Khazaria and Volga
Bulgaria) show direct parallels with the Late Sarmatian culture. And if the
theories about a Turkic and Ugrian influence sound largely hypothetical, the
Sarmatian connection is reflected directly in the material culture of the Bulgars
(such as pottery and burial rites, i.e. also involving the spiritual culture).37
One of the proponents of the Ugrian influence theory is M. Artamonov. He
assumes that the Huns mingled with Ugrian tribes in the Trans-Ural Region,
which let to the Ugrian physical type predominating over the Mongolian one.
For this reason, the Huns lost many of their own cultural traits and adopted
“the local, Sarmatian (!) culture, spread among the Ugrians”. The Turkic lan-
guage was prevalent among the Ugrian tribes that intermingled with the
Huns, but the Ugrian influence led to the emergence of the Bulgar and Khazar
languages.38 Thus, according to M. Artamonov, the Bulgars were Turkicized
Ugrians who, “by mixing with the remnants of the local Eastern European pop-
ulation (i.e. the Sarmatians—Author’s note), composed this people who [.. .]
began calling themselves Bulgars”.39 The scholar believes that the Bulgars are a
generalizing term for all the ethnic names mentioned in the sources regarding
the Northern Black Sea region and the Caucasian steppes between the fifth and
the seventh centuries. They were the result of ethnic mixing between incomers
and local tribes, which led to the emergence of “the Hunno-Bulgar ethnic array,
where the local Sarmatian traditions in some aspects occupied a dominant
position, probably due to the fact that in the physical sense this array mostly
consisted of descendants of local Europoid tribes, rather than of Mongoloid
incomers”40 and ultimately, ethnic groups like the Sabirs and Khazars were
actually Bulgars.41 The is no other evidence of the Ugrian influence, except the
37 This connection became clear after the discovery of the necropolis near Novi Pazar in
Bulgaria. See Stanchev and Ivanov 1958.
38 Artamonov 1962, 42–43.
39 Artamonov 1962, 98.
40 Artamonov 1962, 102.
41 Artamonov 1962, 127–128. It is important to note that the Ugrian theory is missing from
previous works of M. Artamonov, where the emphasis is instead made on the Sarmatian
influence. In 1935 M. Artamonov wrote that “in addressing the issue of the ethnic com-
position of the Khazar state one must take into account the archaeological data that
attests to a genetic link and cultural continuity between the Sarmatian and the Khazar
age. In light of these facts, the traditional view on the replacement of one nationality
with another and on the way Turkic tribes forced out the Irano-Sarmatian population
that previously occupied these parts should be reviewed” (Artamonov 1935, 65). Twenty
years later, the scientist’s opinion is somewhat different: “The Turko-lingualism (of the