254 CHAPTER 5
Bulgaria was unearthed.133 The burial rite is among the main reasons for
the Bulgars to be associated with the late Sarmatians.134 The conclusions of
G. Afanas’ev have been further developed by O. Bubenok.135 It is quite impos-
sible here to examine every one of the arguments that the two historians bring
forth, but most of them are based on unacceptable and improvable statements.
Thus, according to G. Afanas’ev, the fact that cauldrons with inner ears
were also specific of the Alans is reason enough to reject the presence of the
Bulgars in Eastern Europe.136 But the inner ear cauldrons are not a significant
feature, much less a major sign of Bulgar ethnicity. Usually, this is judged on
the basis of the burial rite, considered in its entirety. In O. Bubenok’s opinion,
the ritual destruction of the skeletons of the dead is typical only for the Alans.137
This ritual, however, can be found among all Bulgar communities, including
those in Danube Bulgaria.138 The same thing is true for the “Hocker” type of
burials. O. Bubenok regards the dolichocrania found in some pit necropoles
in the Don Region as an argument in favor of their Alanian ethnicity (since
the main anthropological type that most scientists ascribe to the Bulgars is
the brachycephalic one).139 This indicator is also not decisive for the ethnic-
ity of the buried.140 Dolichocrania and mesocrania have also been found in
Danube Bulgaria.141 Broadly speaking, following the logic of G. Afanas’ev and
O. Bubenok it seems that Danube Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria were created by
Alans who, for some unknown reason, named their states Bulgaria.
L. Gumilev’s approach to the ethnic interpretation of the monuments is also
unacceptable. Although he traces many similarities among the Bulgars and
the Khazars, L. Gumilev argues that the Bulgars were nomads that populated
the steppes, while the Khazars were farmers who inhabited the river valleys.
Thus, he places a sign of equality between economy and ethnos and defines
the ethnic boundary as dependent on the geographical (landscape) features
133 Stanchev and Ivanov 1958.
134 See in chapter 1.1.
135 Bubenok 1997.
136 Afanas’ev 2001, 46. G. Afanas’ev has other unacceptable theories as well. For instance,
he identifies the Alans from the forest-steppe zone with the Burtas (see Afanas’ev 1984a,
37–40); a similar point of view is also shared by Bubenok 1997, 71–77 and 150–151. See
the criticism by Tortika 2004 and 2006a, 302–346; Romashov 2002–2003, 177–178; Flerov
1993, 38.
137 Bubenok 1997, 65.
138 Flerov 1989 and 1993, 53–60; Aksenov 2002, 12.
139 Bubenok 1997, 65.
140 See for instance Rashev 2003a, 29.
141 See for instance Iordanov 2008, 106.